Tag: vaccine-exemption

  • Can a Biased Journalist Produce Objective Work?

    In the past three years, Health Freedom Idaho has grown. HFI has successfully pushed back against liberty stealing statutes and rules, particularly those surrounding vaccines, and in the process made their presence known. Due to this, the media is beginning to take notice.

    We have been told that an Idaho Statesman’s investigative reporter, Audrey Dutton, is writing a feature story on Health Freedom Idaho. In addition to requesting information from Health Freedom Idaho leadership directly, she made public records requests to obtain the names and contact information of members and individuals who testified at the recent rules hearings. She has been sending requests for interviews to Health Freedom Idaho members. We want our members to know that Dutton obtained this information through a public records request, NOT from HFI.

    Ms. Dutton has publicly stated her bias against parents who opt out of some or all vaccinations. She has determined that the vaccination debate is settled despite hundreds of published peer-reviewed studies that call the safety and efficacy of vaccines into question and despite the demonstrable lies and distortions uttered by vaccine proponents. Her opinion is that parents opposed to some or all vaccination are unjustifiably fearful and/or misinformed.


    your bias is showing Audrey Dutton
    Public Post from Dutton’s Facebook Page

    They like to say, “The science is settled. Vaccines are safe and effective.” But is science ever settled? Ask some real scientists and I’m sure they will tell you that science is never settled but is always ongoing. It takes a great amount of arrogance to claim you know it all and there is nothing more to the story. 

    Janet Levatin, MD

     It also takes a great amount of ignorance given that federal law recognizes vaccines injure and kill some recipients and research shows that 6% of pediatricians do not follow the CDC guidelines for their own children and 13% do not plan to follow the guidelines in the future. A whopping 21% of pediatric specialists planned to reject at least one vaccine for their future children. But most don’t talk about it because they are threatened with the removal of their licenses and harassed by their state medical boards if they do.

    Yes, some parents opt out of some or all vaccines for their children and recently their voices have grown stronger as parents educate themselves on the matter and realize their right to direct the upbringing of their children is being threatened all across the nation through draconian legislation and more. Bureaucrats in Idaho have already trampled parental rights codified in Idaho statute. 


    vaccine hesitancy unanswered questions

    Why Do Parents Hesitate to Vaccinate?

    Ms. Dutton has been emailing Health Freedom Idaho members asking for an interview about their vaccine choices. But why would anyone want to talk with her when she’s already determined that those who decline vaccines are simply doing so out of fear and ignorance. And isn’t a parent’s desire to protect his or her children the most important reason to decline a medical intervention admitted to cause injury and death?

    “…many parents in Idaho are opting out of measles/mumps/rubella vaccinations for their children…. The reason they balk usually isn’t religious or because of underlying health problems. It’s fear.” 

    Audrey Dutton March 8, 2015: “Idaho Parents Increasingly Gun-Shy Over Getting Shots For Their Children.”

    One is left to wonder the basis of this assumption and why it matters. A parent has the natural right to care for their child as they see fit. They can choose whether to vaccinate or not – for any reason, or for no reason at all. That said, religion, underlying health problems, documented scientific dangers of vaccines, bad experiences of friends and loved ones, and fear are five justifiable reasons to question whether the potential benefits of vaccinating are worth the risks and spiritual objections. – Health Freedom Idaho

    REFUSING VACCINES DUE TO THE TOXIC INGREDIENTS

    Let’s examine the description (in part) of the MMR II, made by Merck & Co, Inc.

    MMR II (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella Virus Vaccine Live) is a live virus vaccine for vaccination against measles (rubeola), mumps, and rubella (German measles). MMR II is a sterile lyophilized preparation of (1) ATTENUVAX (Measles Virus Vaccine Live), a more attenuated line of measles virus, derived from Enders’ attenuated Edmonston strain and propagated in chick embryo cell culture; (2) MUMPSVAX (Mumps Virus Vaccine Live), the Jeryl Lynn (B level) strain of mumps virus propagated in chick embryo cell culture; and (3) MERUVAX II (Rubella Virus Vaccine Live), the Wistar RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus propagated in WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts. {1,2}

    The growth medium for measles and mumps is Medium 199 (a buffered salt solution containing vitamins and amino acids and supplemented with fetal bovine serum) containing SPGA (sucrose, phosphate, glutamate, and recombinant human albumin) as stabilizer and neomycin…. Each dose of the vaccine is calculated to contain sorbitol, sodium phosphate, sucrose, sodium chloride, hydrolyzed gelatin, recombinant human albumin, fetal bovine serum, other buffer and media ingredients, and approximately 25mcg of neomycin….”

    MMR II, made by Merck & Co, Inc.

    Certainly Ms. Dutton cannot fault loving parents for not wanting to inject those ingredients into their healthy children. There is not a single study proving the safety of injecting all those ingredients. Is Dutton unaware of this fact?


    RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO VACCINES TAINTED BY ABORTION

    Many individuals believe vaccines are unclean and defile the temple (their body) because of the injection of modified viruses and bacteria, toxic contaminants and ingredients, and the fact they are cultured on aborted fetal tissues and animal tissues.

    What do all these ingredients mean to someone with possible spiritual objections? There are at least two answers to this question. One is the issue of abortion. The other is the multiple biblical references to introducing foreign substances into the body.

    Wistar RA 27/3 is listed and referenced with WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts. These are scientific terms and labels. Here is the reality of what they represent:

    “The rubella virus clinically named RA273 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus, 3=3rd tissue explant) was then cultivated on the WI-38 aborted fetal cell line. A later research paper by Stanley Plotkin [vaccine developer]  would reveal that 40 more babies were aborted after RA273 was successfully isolated, with virus strains taken from 34 of them.[13A] This means a total of over 80 separate, elective abortions recorded were involved in the research and final production of the present day rubella vaccine: 21 from the original WI-1 through WI-26 fetal cell lines that failed, plus WI-38 itself, plus 67 from the attempts to isolate the rubella virus.” – Children of God for Life, Vaccines and Abortions.

    For patients and parents with strong objections to abortion, this information could weigh heavily on the decision of whether or not to use products that contain aborted fetal tissue such as vaccination. (More information on aborted fetal tissue in vaccines)

    RELIGIOUS OBJECTIONS TO VACCINES TAINTED WITH FOREIGN SUBSTANCES

    The second potential religious or spiritual objection relates to foreign substances being introduced into the body. Many believe the Bible commands we not defile the temple God has created.

    “Know ye not that ye are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you? If any man defile the temple of God, him shall God destroy; for the temple of God is holy, which temple ye are.”

    (I Corinthians 3:16-17)


    Alarming research out of Italy documents not only the dangerous ingredients intended to be contained in vaccines but dozens of other toxic contaminants from lead to glass. The independent studies show there are more toxins in these biologics than the CDC is disclosing: https://childrenshealthdefense.org/wp-content/uploads/02-Gatti-2017-New-Quality-Control-Investigations-on-Vaccines.pdf

    There are many other sources of information on the toxic ingredients contained in vaccines such as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) for information on vaccine ingredients: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/b/excipient-table-2.pdf

    The bottom line is vaccines contain a variety of ingredients, both intended and unintended that may toxic, carcinogenic, mutagenic and even fertility impairing  – from aluminum to formaldehyde to polysorbate 80 to more. It is easy to understand how many parents might view these as a violation of God’s commandment.

    DECLINING FOR HEALTH REASONS

    To address the issues of underlying health problems and fear, let’s look at more information provided by the vaccine maker. 

    MMR II, made by Merck & Co, Inc. (in part): 

    “CONTRAINDICATIONS: 

    • Hypersensitivity to any component of the vaccine….
    • Do not give MMR II to pregnant females…
    • Anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reactions to neomycin…
    • Febrile respiratory illness or other active febrile infection.
    • Patients receiving immunosuppressive therapy.
    • Individuals with blood dyscrasias, leukemia, lymphomas of any type…
    • Primary and acquired immunodeficiency states…
    • Individuals with a family history of congenital or hereditary immunodeficiency….

    PRECAUTIONS:

    • Adequate treatment provisions, including epinephrine injection (1:1000) should be available for immediate use should an anaphylactic or anaphylactoid reaction occur.
    • Excretion of small amounts of the live attenuated rubella virus from the nose or throat has occurred in the majority of susceptible individuals 7 to 28 days after vaccination.
    • As for any vaccine, vaccination with MMR II may not result in protection….
    • The health-care provider should provide the vaccine information required to be given with each vaccination to the patient, parent, or guardian.
    • The health-care provider should inform the patient, parent, or guardian of the benefits and risks associated with vaccination.

    Manufacturers report that there are vaccine reactions that include getting measles from the vaccine…and chronic conditions such as diabetes, arthritis, brain swelling, paralysis (temporary or permanent), seizures, lazy eye and more…

    The vaccine package insert contains a large section on adverse reactions, some of which include: Panniculitis, atypical measles, vasculitis, pancreatitis, diabetes mellitus, thrombocytopenia, anaphylaxis and anaphylactoid reactions, arthritis, arthralgia, myalgia, encephalitis, encephalopathy, subacute sclerosing panencephalitis, Guillian-Barre Syndrome, acute disseminated encephalomyelitis (adem), transverse myelitis, febrile convulsions, afebrile convulsions or seizures, ataxia, polyneuritis, polyneuropathy, ocular palsies, paresthesia.”

    Given all this information, the description, the contraindications, and the precautions, doesn’t some fear seem warranted? And given these risks, does Dutton really think it is her place to declare the science settled, not to mention shame parents for well-placed fear?

    REFUSING ADDITIONAL VACCINES AFTER SEEING A LOVED ONE INJURED

    Ex-Vaxxer NOT Anti-Vaxxer

    This category of people who decline vaccinations, those who were once pro-vaccine only to experience the downside first hand, is likely the largest. Despite the fact that less than one percent of vaccine adverse reactions are reported, there have been over 87,000 reports of adverse reactions to the MMR vaccine to the federal Vaccine Adverse Events Reporting System from the US and it’s territories. And if only 1% of reactions are reported, there could be as many as 8,700,000 reactions.

    Despite official reassurances that vaccine injuries are rare, parents who’ve seen their children hospitalized, stricken with chronic illnesses, paralysis, seizures, or blindness are not going to continue vaccinating. Siblings are spared the potential damage and parents are shamed for being anti-vax when they should receive our sympathy. In reality, they were pro-vaccine until they watched their child suffer and/or die. To add insult to injury, parents are shamed and targeted after vaccination injury by friends, family, and media. Many suffer in silence, raising a child with chronic illness or vaccine-induced physical challenge.

    Yes, parents opt-out for religious and moral reasons as well as previous vaccine injuries. Others, faced with the decision of vaccination, having read the medical literature to truly understand the risks and being left with many unanswered questions as vaccines are not subject to the gold standard of double-blind, placebo-controlled rigor, they utilize the vaccine exemptions available through Idaho statute. 

    Exemptions due to the Unanswered Questions

    Access to information regarding vaccines has become increasingly difficult due to censorship by big tech and the mainstream media who according to Robert F. Kennedy Jr., received a combined $9.6 billion in revenues from pharmaceutical companies in 2016 alone. Information, statistics and basic risk versus benefit analysis of vaccinations are getting harder to research. 

    For example, parents seeking to find out how many children died in the last measles outbreak in 2019 are redirected to the CDC website. However, after scouring page after page there is NO INDICATION how many U.S. children died in the highly contagious measles outbreak. *It was ZERO for those still looking for the answer.* 

    Health officials, doctors, and mainstream media claim that 1 in 1000 children will die from measles but before the introduction of the measles vaccine, the reported number was 1 in 10,000. Thanks to public health measures such as sanitation and clean drinking water as well as access to healthcare and nutrition, the rate declined from 13.3 per 100,000 in 1900 to .2 per 100,000 in 1963, before the measles vaccine was introduced. No children have died from measles in the US in last 2 decades.

    Some of the many unanswered questions: 

    • Why aren’t vaccines tested according to the gold standard with double-blind placebos?
    • Why are they the only product that is one size fits all?
    • If vaccines are so safe, why is there zero manufacturer liability? 
    • Why is the US the only country that gives the Hep B vaccine on the first day of life?
    • Why is it that after vaccine manufacturers received a liability-free pass, the vaccine schedule exploded to more than 70 doses of vaccines?
    • Why does the US give the chickenpox vaccine, when the UK and many other countries don’t, because it’s been proven to cause shingles, which is more dangerous?
    • Many scientists have raised the alarm on the amount of aluminum in vaccines. Why doesn’t the CDC address their concerns?
    • Why did the ACIP committee recently approve the new Hep B adjuvant despite the safety signal of a myocardial infarction?
    • Why are all four major vaccine makers (Merck, Sanofi, GSK and Pfizer), who have all been convicted of fraud, given a free pass when it comes to vaccines? Merck created the deadly drug Vioxx and is currently being sued for fraud relating to the Shingles vaccine, MMR vaccine, and Gardasil vaccine, their products are mandated for school entry?
    • Why do we give 26 vaccines in the first year of life to infants with immature immune systems that cannot even mount an immune response to vaccines?
    • Where are the safety studies on vaccines that were supposed to be conducted and submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services to ensure the vaccine’s safety?
    • Find more questions here.

    While we are flattered that time and resources are being spent trying to figure out how a small grassroots effort could grow into an outspoken voice of freedom and liberty in Idaho – answer, because we speak the truth and it resonates – these above questions deserve a thorough examination. Is Dutton willing to ask them? What’s more, the only group possessing unfettered influence at the state and national level is the pharmaceutical industry, that is where the focus of investigative reporting should be. Dutton must possess a great deal of cognitive dissonance to believe that the same industry that has paid billions in fines for fraud and is the largest lobbyist and contributor to political campaigns in the nation, is trustworthy when it comes to vaccines even though they have no liability for these products.

    Our question is whether an already opinionated journalist like Audrey Dutton is capable of reading the medical literature herself, talking to doctors and scientists with genuine concerns, investigating reported injuries and deaths after vaccines and writing a thought provoking and honest piece of journalism? Or will she simply regurgitate what conflicted officials, doctors, and vaccine stakeholders have fed her? We think educated readers know the answer to those questions.

    Our question is whether an already opinionated journalist like Audrey Dutton is capable of reading the medical literature herself, talking to doctors and scientists with genuine concerns, investigating reported injuries and deaths after vaccines and writing a thought-provoking and honest journalism piece? Or will she simply regurgitate what conflicted officials, doctors, and vaccine stakeholders have fed her?


  • 6 Ways the “Hot Spots” Study is Useless Propaganda

    A scientifically dishonest report co-authored by Dr. Hotez declare certain communities in the United States “hot spots” which means, according to the study authors, those communities are “vulnerable” to having a horrible outbreak at any moment. Many of these declared ‘hotspots’ are centered in Idaho. This is fake news in the name of scientific study.

    Titled, “The state of the antivaccine movement in the United States: A focused examination of nonmedical exemptions in states and counties,” Dr. Hotez’s study purports to show the following (and note that the entire study is bathed in the recommendation of eliminating medical exemptions):

    “Our findings indicate that new foci of antivaccine activities are being established in major metropolitan areas, rendering select cities vulnerable for vaccination-preventable diseases. As noted by the recent experience in Anaheim, California, low vaccination rates resulted in a measles outbreak. In contrast, state closure of NMEs has resulted in an increase of MMR coverage.”

    Let’s get into the details, it’s easiest to just number them, so here’s 6 different ways this “study” is garbage that should be retracted:

    1. Despite representations to the contrary, this study solely considers a single vaccine—MMR. 

    American children, if they are vaccinated to the CDC’s schedule, actually received ELEVEN separate vaccines. Dr. Hotez’s study only considers one of those vaccines—MMR—yet on T.V. he constantly makes it sound like he’s discussing all vaccines. It’s not a flaw of the actual study (like numbers 2-6), it’s a flaw of how Dr. Hotez has misrepresented the study in public.

    2. “Non-medical exemptions” is a flawed and inaccurate way to look at vaccination rates. 

    Dr. Hotez uses reported “non-medical exemptions” in different states, counties, and cities, to be a proxy for a child who is “unvaccinated,” but that’s hardly true. Idaho ‘requires’ 32 doses of 6 vaccines prior to kindergarten registration. 99% of parents utilizing the PBE for their children are selectively vaccinating. The most commonly exempted vaccine? The chickenpox vaccine, which was introduced with the intention of saving time from work rather than protecting a child from a dangerous childhood disease. Parents opting to exempt their child from one or more vaccine have along with their doctor’s recommendations responsibly vaccinated based on the individual needs of each child because one size does not fit all.

    A child missing even 1 shot would fall under the category of “unvaccinated.”

    KINDERGARTNERS in Idaho Receive 32 doses of these vaccines prior to school.
    *Their parents received 3 – 5 vaccines prior to kindergarten. Doses have DOUBLED since 2000.

    (5) Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis (DTaP)2 /
    (2) Measles, Mumps, and Rubella (MMR)
    (4) Polio3
    (3) Hepatitis B
    (2) Varicella (Chickenpox)
    (2)     Hepatitis A

    **click the vaccine name to be linked to the manufacturer vaccine insert.

    3. Public health officials know exactly why vaccine exemptions are on the rise, and it has nothing to do with the “anti-vaccine movement.” The entire premise of Dr. Hotez’s paper is that the “anti-vaccine movement” has caused vaccine exemptions to rise, even stating, “A social movement of public health vaccine opposition has been growing in the United States in recent years.”

    But, public health officials know better. The reason vaccine exemptions have risen is very simple: they rise when you add more vaccines to the required schedule.

    Take a look at this chart, this time from Oregon. Note that this is a chart produced by Oregon Health Authority and the words at the top of the chart are written by them: 

    “When other vaccines have been added as school immunization requirements, non-medical exemption rates have increased for all vaccines.”

    The reasons for this are obvious. More vaccines means more complexity. Some parents just can’t get all the doses done on time for the start of school, so they file an exemption. More doses and new vaccines also make parents wary. There are likely to be more exemptions for the brand new Hepatitis A vaccine rather than the decades-old polio vaccine.

    As Oregon added vaccination requirements time and again to the school schedule between 2000 and 2015, they watched exemptions rise in kind, just as they expected.

    Dr. Hotez’s study NEVER acknowledges this well-known fact and simply blames the rise in exemptions on a social movement, without any facts to support his contention. It’s profoundly dishonest.

    4. Counties with tiny populations were exploited to create headline grabbing numbers.

    Dr. Hotez’s paper wasn’t really written as a serious scientific paper, it was written to give news reporters scary-sounding statistics. Let’s use an example from an article published by NBC News where the reporter, Maggie Fox, focused on a single county in Idaho. She told her readers:

    “More than a quarter of kindergartners in Camas County, Idaho, lack at least some vaccinations because their parents have opted for nonmedical exemptions, researchers said Tuesday.”

    What Ms. Fox failed to mention, because reporters never look at the details, is the county she based here article on has 1,102 residents and only 7 kindergartners in the entire county! How many children are counted in that 25% number? 

    In fact, Idaho really got picked on, largely because they have so many counties with populations that are tiny, making their statistics stand out, despite their insignificance. Idaho had eight of the Top 10 counties in Dr. Hotez’s study for exemption rates. But populations in these counties are so low, we’re talking about 320 combined children!

    click to expand

    https://healthandwelfare.idaho.gov/Health/IdahoImmunizationProgram/DataandStatistics/SchoolRates/tabid/4111/Default.aspx

    5. Counties with larger populations were not exploited using percentages, but rather any county with more than 400 NMEs (non-medical exemptions)—a completely arbitrary figure—was simply declared a “hot spot.”

    To put some of Dr, Hotez’s numbers in perspective, let’s take a look at the “heat map” he provided of “vulnerable counties” in the United States. All you needed to do to make this list was have 400 or more non-medical exemptions amongst kindergarteners in your county, population size had no bearing on Dr. Hotez declaring your county a “Hot Spot”:

    Screen Shot 2018-08-14 at 4.50.22 PM.jpg

    Now, every one of these counties ended up having a news story run about the “hot spots” data and some scary declaration of how that county was “at risk.” In all of these larger counties, Dr. Hotez never mentioned the total population, which is where his analysis really breaks down, just look at this analysis: 

    click to expand

    This table shows every county Dr. Hotez fingered in his “heat map” where he arbitrarily designated any county as “at risk” if had more than 400 NMEs (non-medical exemptions) among kindergartners. This table takes the populations of each county and puts these numbers in context.

    For example, in Oakland County, Michigan, having 686 kindergartners with a non-medical exemption out of a total population of 1.2 million people means roughly 1/10th of 1% of the county has a non-medical exemption. And this is a county Dr. Hotez is trying to say should be in some sort of state of emergency!

    6. A central theme of Dr. Hotez’s paper is that higher NME rates and infectious disease are correlated, but there’s no data that supports this, and the term “hot spots” has no scientific basis whatsoever!

    In the press, Dr. Hotez repeatedly refers to areas with high exemption rates as “hot spots.” In the actual paper, Dr. Hotez uses the term “vulnerable communities.” But, neither of these terms has a scientific basis. There is no data anywhere that shows exemption rates and disease outbreak are correlated, and Dr. Hotez never provides it. In a sense, the entire point of his paper—that these communities are more “at risk”—is simply never supported in any way, because the data to make the correlation he’s trying to make doesn’t exist! Said differently, his paper and its conclusions are unsupported by science. 

    What can be done? JB Handley has an idea.

    First (of many) retractions? Click to read.

    OK, we just looked at six ways that Dr. Hotez’s paper is completely deceptive. Taking a huge step back, Dr. Hotez has created an imaginary world where we should all be scared to death that a disease outbreak is around the next corner. He’s a classic fear-monger, likely getting daily thanks from the vaccine makers who support his entire existence. The best thing that could happen to this paper would be for PLOS Medicine to be forced to retract the entire paper. 

    The only way that will happen is if people with scientific backgrounds challenge the paper in thoughtful letters written directly to the journal (and Dr. Hotez will be asked to respond), which is why I’m going to ramp things up and share with you every page of the actual study, and the notes to go along with it. 

    I hope that this level of detail, and the realization that this entire paper is a hoax, will encourage some of you to take action. Note that one of the counties named by Dr. Hotez already did take action, and he had to “retract” his conclusions for that county.

    Ok, so let’s look at the actual study, page by page, with a number of additional observations about the hoax for the discerning reader:

    First (of many) retractions? Click to read.

    Page 1, click to enlarge

    Page 1, click to enlarge

    Page 2, click to enlarge

    Page 2, click to enlarge

    Page 3, click to enlarge

    Page 3, click to enlarge

    Page 4, click to enlarge

    Page 4, click to enlarge

    Page 5, click to enlarge

    Page 5, click to enlarge

    Page 6, click to enlarge

    Page 6, click to enlarge

    Page 7, click to enlarge

    Page 7, click to enlarge

    Page 8, click to enlarge

    Page 8, click to enlarge

    FINAL page, click to enlarge

    FINAL page, click to enlarge

    Finally, A vaccine-industry insider has created an imaginary world where the next outbreak is imminent if we don’t do something and—Gasp!—his idea dovetails perfectly with the aim of vaccine makers: remove all vaccine exemptions from parents and make vaccination mandatory for school attendance.

    In trying to create this imaginary world, however, Dr. Hotez has exposed himself to the scrutiny he deserves for a sloppy, scientifically unsound hoax of a paper, and we hope people in positions of influence will start making noise to get the paper retracted.

    Every mom and dad, grandparent are people of influence to those around them. Research for yourself and share the truth of why parents opt-out of some or all vaccines.

    Hotspots: Why do parents Opt Out
    Vaccine Safety Questioned

    There is Risk. There must be Choice.

  • IDAHO 2018 School Enrollment: No Shots Mandated. No Form Necessary.

    As you begin to prepare for the new school year, remember that #parentscalltheshots. Contrary to the health and welfare generated school materials presented to parents at registration children CAN enroll in school without vaccines. Idaho has three vaccine exemptions religious, medical or philosophical. Idaho rules changed this year to line up with the statute a HUGE WIN for health freedom. Schools must accept a parent signed statement to invoke religious or philosophical exemptions. We repeat! The “immunization” exemption form is NOT REQUIRED! You can enroll your child in school as ‘exempt’ from the required school vaccines with a parental signed statement per Idaho statue 39-4802 -2.  

    Idaho Statute 39-4802(2) permits a parent/guardian:
     1. The right to choose whether to vaccinate their child
     2. The right to choose to participate or decline participation in the state vaccine registry system (IRIS).
     3. The right to opt out without explanation of objection.  

     OPT OUT OF ANY VACCINE. ANY TIME REASON WITH SIGNED PARENTAL STATEMENT.

    Here’s an example that a parent used for enrolling her elementary student. Printable PDF copy.

    Is you child’s vaccine status in the tri-state database? A child born in Idaho is automatically entered into Iris without written consent. At each doctor’s visit and school enrollment your child’s information is updated for government tracking. Prefer not to have your child’s information stored by the government? OPT OUT.

    What’s wrong with the form? Simply put they are using your child’s private medical information to drive their sales and increase their profit. When you allow your child’s vaccination exemption status to be tracked you are participating in the marketing campaign designed to target your family as ‘public health enemy’ number one.

    Superintendent confirms that vaccine exemption form is NOT REQUIRED for school enrollment

    If vaccines are safe and effective -Why are parents opting out?

    Parents have been empowered with information and truth. Reading vaccine inserts, reviewing ingredient lists and looking at scientific journals that accessible to the public. They are realizing that there are a lack of scientific studies for safety and effectiveness of vaccines. They are waking up to the truth that vaccines permanently damage, injure and cause death to children and adults. Families who suffered intense loss have NOTHING to gain by sharing their stories except the hope that their loss will prevent further destruction of the health and lives of other children.

  • NEW RULES! Health Department Will Have To Follow The Law. WIN FOR HEALTH FREEDOM!

    Health Freedom Idaho has spent the last two years going head to head with Idaho Department of Health and Welfare over their ‘immunization exemption form’.  The form was purportedly ‘required’ by all schools and daycares in accordance with a rule created by IDHW. The problem? This RULE created by a state department directly undermined an existing Idaho STATUTE (law).  Parents, schools and legislators recognized the issue prior to HFI involvement. State Representative Heather Scott brought it up with the Idaho Attorney General, who made it clear that the health department should NOT encourage schools to deny entrance to children whose parents had complied with the statute and submitted a signed statement invoking exemptions (in place of the falsely required form). 1  

    Health Freedom Idaho presented multiple bills, over the course of the last two legislative sessions, addressing this inconsistency. SB 1050  and SB 1227  were each created to clarify that parents submitting written statements, in accordance with Idaho Statute regarding exemptions, was perfectly legal procedure for invoking exemption status for their children, rather than being coerced into using the IDHW exemption form. Neither bill was ever heard. The chairman of the senate health committee drawered them to avoid allowing these bills to be voted on by the entire legislature. This allowed IDHW to continue undermining law and train school staff to (illegally) deny the enrollment of children to schools and daycares whose parents chose to forego THEIR “official” form. The health department even went so far as to suggest that school staff go behind parents’ backs by filling out sections parents intentionally left blank.

    PARENTS STAND UP. CHILD DENIED ACCESS TO SCHOOL OVER AN ILLEGAL FORM.

    Issues surrounding the IDHW immunization form escalated. Sara’s son was denied access to an Idaho kindergarten after she submitted her own signed statement to the school, along with her child’s enrollment package, a month prior to the start date. Just days before school began, she was told her child was denied entry because she used her own signed statement, despite it being in full compliance with Idaho statute, rather than submit the IDHW form. This drew a LOT of media attention to the problem. It went up the chain of command and, rightfully, Sara’s son’s enrollment denial was overturned by the Superintendent of Education.

    GOV’T ATTEMPT TO MAKE THE FORM MORE PLEASING.

    The IDHW immunization exemption form was problematic from the beginning. Senator Anton called out the form’s most significant issues at the SB 1050 Health Committee hearing. The original form from IDHW attempted to coerce parents to ‘admit’ to putting their children at risk by choosing not to vaccinate. It also demanded parents provide the state with their religious convictions for rejecting vaccinations. Throughout the years, the form has been redesigned and presented to the legislators and rule committees, but each draft continued to contain components not required by Idaho statute. 

    In a goodwill attempt, Sara was invited to a meeting to voice her opinion of the most recent ‘revamp’ on the IDHW immunization exemption form. Sara made a point to advise the committee that the form, in itself, is a non-requirement according to the Idaho statute.

    “The state–prescribed form, based on IDAPA 16.02.15,  is in violation of code 39–4802 and 39–4804. The form developed by IDHW still falls far outside the scope of Idaho code 39–1118(2) and 39-4802(2).”

    Now, you may ask, “Have you seen the new form? They have taken the offensive language out of it.”  Idaho Department of Health and Welfare altered the form both in February 2017 and in October 2017. It has changed, yet again, in 2018 with the addition of check boxes to give parents the option to ‘opt-out’ of providing non-required medical information utilized in vaccine tracking. Still, this “new” form implies that parents should provide information which IS NOT required by statute in order to invoke an immunization exemption for school or daycare attendance. 

    Health Freedom Idaho still stands against the form and advises parents to submit their written signed statement for vaccine exemption to schools and daycare. 

    HFI ENCOURAGES PARENTS TO STAND FIRM. SUCCESS!! QUIETLY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED NEW RULES! 

    Guess what folks! CHANGES HAPPENED!  < See the new administrative rules for schools and daycares > 

    This is good news! Now the Department’s rules are in agreement with the LAW. This should not have taken so long and such a large effort to achieve. Idaho’s parents expect the schools and the legislature to be open to the will of the people and clearly and completely follow the law. We should have had a public hearing on this issue long ago. The resistance of the department and the legislative process in regard to the vaccine opt out matter was a perfect example of government being reluctant to follow the law while adopting an attitude of “we know best.” That is not the way things should work under representative government. I am proud to have joined ranks with those standing up for their rights under Idaho law. I was fully prepared to push this issue next legislative session, but thankfully that won’t be necessary. 
    Dan Foreman 
    Senator – District Five

    The schools and day cares will now be required to follow the “letter of the law” allowing vaccine exemptions to children with a written statement provided it has only these 4 pieces of information. 

    A signed statement that must include: (5-18-18)

    • i. The name of child and the child’s date of birth; and (5-18-18)
    • ii. A statement indicating that the child is exempt from immunization as provided in Section 110 of this rule for religious or other objections; and (5-18-18)
    • iii. The signature of the parent, custodian, or legal guardian (5-18-18)

    So there you have it folks!  We stood up together to make sure that our health freedom for vaccine exemptions was protected. Remember we stand stronger, and our voice is louder when we stand together. JOIN US!

     #LibertyForever #HFIdaho

    1 In September 2015, Representative Scott sent a series of questions to the Idaho Attorney General. The first answers received are here (9-9-15-IdahoAGOpinion.pdf). In response to several questions that were not clearly addressed, Representative Scott sent out a series of follow up questions. The answers to these questions are here (10-14-2015-IdahoAGResponse.pdf). Please note the answers to questions 3 and 4. If you are having trouble with your school accepting an exemption letter versus filling out an IDHW exemption form, feel free to download this Idaho AG response and share it with your school. 

    2 Schools are falsely telling parents seeking vaccine exemptions that they must fill out and sign a state prescribed form that is “incriminating” based on IDAPA 16.02.15, an Administrative Rule in conflict with Idaho law. See Administrative Rule 16.02.15 Immunization Requirements for Idaho School Children (page 6)
    http://adminrules.idaho.gov/rules/current/16/index.html

  • Health Dept Advises Schools to Fill Out Vaccine Exemption Form for Parents Who Refuse

    A closer look at S 1227 the Immunization Exemption Form. The contradictory IDAPA rule confuses the schools into believing that the parental right to an immunization exemption is contingent on Health Department’s acceptance of their completed form. The statute is clear a parent’s right to invoke vaccine exemptions for their children is NOT DEPENDENT on a form provided by the Health Department. The schools however, are being told during training from the Health and Welfare Department that not only is the form required, the schools are encouraged to complete the form on the parents behalf. 

    We need to require that the administrative policy adheres with statute. Regardless of your opinion on the efficacy of vaccines it is unacceptable to allow the department of health to mandate a discriminatory form for school and daycare enrollment that violates the intent of the law, invades privacy and is potentially self incriminating.  

    Idaho statute 39–4802(2) permits a parent/guardian: 

    1.  The right to choose whether to vaccinate their child.

    2.  The right to choose to participate or decline participation in the state registry system (IRIS)

    3.  The right to opt out without explanation of objection.

    AND most importantly – the right to opt out of vaccinations with a single  sentence parental statement without completing a form.  

    It is ludicrous to be handed a statement from anyone else, much less a government department, and told that you have to sign your name to it.  If you hand me a statement that YOU have prepared and told me to sign it I would say “NO, this is not MY signed statement!”  

    Once you sign this document is it now legally binding and it’s not even the actual intended statement of the parent.

    The Health Department’s Immunization form forces families to waive the right to privacy, violate their legally protected right to opt out of the state registry and provide the state an explanation for their reasoning to opt out of vaccines.

    The state–prescribed form, based on IDAPA 16.02.15,  is in violation of code 39–4802 and 39–4804. The form developed by IDHW falls far outside the scope of Idaho code 39–1118(2) and 39-4802(2).

    Now, you might say, “Have you seen the new form? They have taken the offensive language out of it.”  The Dept has changed that form on Feb 2017 and again on Oct 2017.  

    Still this form continues to request extraneous information that is not required by statute in order for a parent to invoke their vaccine exemption. The school administrators are being told by the Health Department to fill out this information even after the parents refused to do so. Allowing the Health Department to continue to supersede the statute with the administrative rule gives them a misplaced authority to change the form, demand additional information, and continue to cause confusion and outright discrimination at enrollment.

    On August 17 2017 Idaho Health and Welfare hosted a training seminar for schools regarding vaccine reporting. This is the Idaho Provider Immunization Education lead by Mezzelle Moore is the Immunization Outreach and Assessment Coordinator for the Idaho Immunization Program.  At the 45 minute mark of the presentation, during the question and answer session, Ms Moore is asked what to do if a parent refuses to fill out the form.

    She says and I quote, “I know that has come up recently in some outlets and here’s the deal with that so IDAPA requires the school to have that form on file. You’ve got a parent doesn’t want to sign that… you can try and fill that out as best you can. It’s really IDAPA that’s requiring that form…so the form should be on file whether or not they don’t want to sign it.” <LINK TO QUOTE: https://youtu.be/c1zdRKj3sYU?t=45m2s >

    The schools already have access to the child’s immunization records through the tracking system IRIS, and if the parent has opted out of IRIS disclosures tell me how the school admin can possibly know which vaccines the child has or has not received.   I am appalled that the school is being encouraged to fill out a form that has my signature on it without my consent.  Do you, the parent, feel this falls in line with the definition of forgery?

    Idaho Code 18-3203 . OFFERING FALSE OR FORGED INSTRUMENT FOR RECORD. Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered or recorded in any public office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, or registered, or recorded under any law of this state, or of the United States, is guilty of a felony.

    Contact the Senators and ask them to please pass SB 1227. It is imperative for the protection of parental authority and also the protection of  children’s health information. #S1227 ”

    Chair – Lee Heider- (208) 332-1347 lheider@senate.idaho.gov
    Vice Chair – Mary Souza – (208) 332-1322 msouza@senate.idaho.gov
    Fred S Martin – (208) 332-1407 fmartin@senate.idaho.gov
    Abby Lee – (208) 332-1325 alee@senate.idaho.gov
    Mark Harris – (208) 332-1429 mharris@senate.idaho.gov
    Jeff Agenbroad – (208) 332-1329 jagenbroad@senate.idaho.gov
    Dan Foreman – (208) 332-1405 dforeman@senate.idaho.gov
    Maryanne Jordan – (208) 332-1352 mjordan@senate.idaho.gov
    Antony L. Tony Potts (208) 332-1313 tpotts@senate.idaho.gov

    Email Blasts for Senate Health & Welfare Committee

    lheider@senate.idaho.gov, msouza@senate.idaho.gov, fmartin@senate.idaho.gov, alee@senate.idaho.gov, mharris@senate.idaho.gov,jagenbroad@senate.idaho.gov, dforeman@senate.idaho.gov, mjordan@senate.idaho.gov, tpotts@senate.idaho.gov

  • When the School Won’t Accept Your Exemption – Sign Under Duress – Here’s How

    For starters, there is a difference between a “signature” and an “autograph.” A “signature” represents you legal straw man. An “autograph” represents your flesh-and-blood body.

    In legal matters, autographing/signing one’s name on a document is tantamount to accepting liability. In today’s corrupt legal system, they often REQUIRE you to autograph/sign your name, sometimes going as far as threatening you with jail time for refusing to do so. We must remember: AN AUTOGRAPH OR SIGNATURE UNDER DURESS IS NOT LEGALLY BINDING! But there ARE ways to autograph/sign one’s name to indicate that it was done under duress.

    “Actus me invito factus, non est meus actus.“ – An act done by me against my will, is not my act. [Bouvier’s Law Dictionary]

    1) To attempt to exempt yourself of liability and indicate that you are under duress while autographing/signing your name, you must write it in both upper AND lower case letters.

    We have all heard about the legal straw men that corporate governments set up on our behalves when we are born. The names of these straw men are ALWAYS written in ALL upper case letters. In order to distance yourself from this straw man, it is imperative to AUTOGRAPH/SIGN YOUR NAME DIFFERENTLY. Capitalize your first, middle and last names, as well as any prefixes and suffixes. If they just want your first and last name, autograph your middle name as well. Also add a prefix and suffix if possible.

    EXAMPLE: Instead of autographing/signing “JOHN SMITH,” write:

    “Mr. John Allen Smith, III” [minus the quotation marks].

    2) You must make it known that you were forced to sign your name UNDER DURESS.

    DURESS: “Unlawful pressure exerted upon a person to coerce that person to perform an act that he or she ordinarily would not perform.”

    There are 2 ways to do this. The first is by adding the letters “V. C.“ before your autograph/signature. This stands for “Vis Compulsiva,” a Latin term meaning “a compulsive force exerted by menace or terror to compel another to do an act against their will.”

    EXAMPLE: Instead of autographing/signing “JOHN SMITH,” write:

    “V. C. John Smith” [minus the quotation marks].

    Blacks

    The second method is to use an ellipsis [“. . .”] before your name. An ellipsis is a series of dots [like a periods] which refer to an omission in the text. This makes it known that there were things which you were unable to state, but were forced to autograph anyways.

    EXAMPLE: Instead of autographing/signing “JOHN SMITH,” write:

    “. . . John Smith” [minus the quotation marks].

    3) Adding the words “Under Protest” to your name should appease the UCC [Uniform Commercial Code] gods when it comes to retaining your rights. 

    The terms “With Prejudice,” “Without Acceptance” and “Of Necessity” can convey the same sentiments.

    EXAMPLE: Instead of autographing/signing “JOHN SMITH,” write:

    “John Smith

    (Under Protest / With Prejudice / Without Acceptance / Of Necessity)” [minus the quotation marks].

    4) For best results, combine ALL of these methods.

    EXAMPLE: Instead of autographing/signing “JOHN SMITH,” write:

    “. . . V. C. Mr. John Allen Smith, III

    (Under Duress / With Prejudice / Without Acceptance / Of Necessity)”

    [minus the quotation marks].

    MERIT FREEMAN

    Here is a Google docs shareable link that you can save to your phone internet favorites and share easily. Keep it with you and be prepared to use it if you are forced to sign.  

    If you are forced to sign something illegal, please get the names of those who are disobeying the state law by making you sign a form, and forward their names to:
    IAMEXEMPT@HEALTHFREEDOMIDAHO.ORG

    This article originally appeared at:

    https://consciousawarenessforall.wordpress.com/2015/02/12/duress/comment-page-1/#comment-21919

    keywords: vaccine exemption form, violation of law, Idaho exemption

  • School & Health Dept Bully, Teen Commits Suicide.

    Today Jaden and I attended a funeral.

    Suicide happens when all hope is lost. We’re left to ask how, why, could this have been prevented, Can we learn from this and protect other students?

    As you may know our son was excluded from school for 19 school days due to 3 cases of mumps. Our sons grades have been greatly impacted by this unjust exclusion. It’s caused unnecessary harm to him socially, emotionally and academically.

    Our son had a friend that was a sophomore at his school. He had just turned 16. he too was excluded for 19 school days. I know his grades were suffering the same way my sons grades are suffering. For a high school student that has plans for certain colleges, bad grades are not an option. Now this friend of my son may have had other issues, grades and college might not be the only factor in his decision to take a gun to his head April 19th and end his life. But I do know, it was the final thing that pushed him to a breaking point. 

    Exclusions harm high school students.

    School exclusions hurt high school students more than anyone could have imagined. It causes such overwhelming stress and anxiety to these students. Who’s protecting them? The health department? The schools? I am worried for my own child. My son and every other child that got excluded is just as valuable as every other student that walks through those doors. A risky medical procedure shouldn’t be the defining point. I’ve been fighting this since January 24th. The health department and school districts knew that they were causing harm.

    Every student that’s been excluded deserves special attention and Guidance to get back on track with school today! We don’t want to hear the sob story about teacher contracts. Or the health department and schools pointing the finger at each other anymore. Don’t wait for “policy change” stand up and do what’s right for these kids. This exclusion shouldn’t harm kids futures and goals, yet it is

    The excluded kids who are back in school are now not only dealing with the hassle of trying to put their school careers back together, but facing the grief caused by the loss of one of their friends dying in a tragic manner.

    Here are my public comments to the Spokane Health Board. I cried through the entire 3 mins nobody was laughing last Thursday.

    My original intent in attending the meeting today was to correct the numerous misrepresentations in Dr. Lubers vaccine cheerleading session last month.

    However, something has occurred that is much more important that I want to address with you. On April 19th, one of my son’s friends took a gun and shot himself in the head.

    He explained in a letter why he felt that this was the only way to end his suffering. He said that the pressure of trying to keep his schoolwork up to the grades needed to gain entrance into his target college was too much to bear.

    Teen suicide is disturbingly common, listed as the 2nd or 3rd cause of death, and school pressure is a huge part of that stress. Teens succumb to this pressure all the time.

    He had the additional burden of being part of the useless Mumps exclusion, and was kept out of school for 19 class days. The schools failed him. I will be addressing them, too, but they claim they must follow the Health Department’s recommendations.


    This board heard sincere, honest, direct testimony of the distress the exclusion was causing to exempt students and their families. The board also was informed that due to the nature of this outbreak there was no Public Health benefit to be achieved by excluding exempt students.

    These children were under tremendous pressure with their schoolwork because the exclusion spanned finals week. On return they are expected to pass tests for which they were not fully prepared, on top of catching up assignments. Added to that they’re saddled with the threat that at any time another Mumps case could emerge and put them back out of school for several more weeks.

    I know that my son would have been devastated if the exclusion had prevented him from playing baseball. His friend was a wrestler, the exclusion started during the season and must have been forced off the team, compounding the academic disappointments.

    Make no mistake that the misery this boy experienced is intentional. The professional organizations our Health Officials belong to have written, adopted policy to discourage exemption use by making it as difficult as possible for a family to exercise their legal right to exempt.

    Excluding unvaccinated in an outbreak where the majority of sick are vaccinated

     Exclusion is one of their most offensive tactics. Their strategy is to hold the student’s education hostage. They stigmatize, ostracize, and isolate exempting students, to harass and coerce them to abandon their Personal, Philosophical, or Religious objection and submit to the Health Department’s vaccine agenda.

    It is sadly ironic that in pretending the exclusion was helping stop the spread of a near harmless infection, the Health Department and Education System potentially contributed to a suicide mortality, which is a real and legitimate threat to teens.

     Are School and Health Department personnel so myopically focused on vaccine compliance they overlooked this as a potential risk outcome to a vulnerable student? Where is the study to show that this a safe practice? Spokane Public Health Department is promoting exclusions of students when this is known to increase the risk of teen suicide.

     If this boy had not been excluded for a month it is entirely possible his stress level could have remained manageable, and he could have survived his sophomore year of High School. It would have just been a tough year, one he looked back at during Graduation and said, “It was touch and go there for a while, but I made it”.

     Instead, I will be attending his funeral Saturday. Shame on you for hijacking this outbreak to push your vaccine zealotry.

    Rest in peace young man❤️

    Jaclyn Gallion

  • What Happened To The Immunization Exemption Bill?

    Vaccine Exemption Bill 1050 Summary: The Health Department’s mandated immunization exemption form falls outside the scope of law. The law requires a simple statement from parents advising schools they are taking their legally acceptable religious or philosophical exemption to vaccine mandates. The health department form intends to ‘educate’ parents of the risk of childhood diseases and force parents to explain their religious reasons for taking an exemption, neither of these actions are required by statute. The Senate Health Committee agreed with HFI, but politics kept the bill from being heard and voted upon. Its time to bring it to a court of law and have a judge hold the state departments accountable for their actions. If you family faced discrimination when enrolling a child into school or daycare please contact HFI @ IamExemption@healthfreedomidaho.com

     

    Idaho’s vaccine exemption form for school attendance. The Idaho Health Department would like parents to believe that Idaho has a no shots no school policy. However, Idaho statues allows vaccine exemptions for daycare and schools. A parent who chooses to avoid some or all of the 68 CDC recommended vaccines for their school aged child, is legally allowed to enroll the child in school (or daycare). Currently, parents are forced to sign IDHW’s mandatory form that demands parents state that their child is more likely to contract a “vaccine preventable disease with specific complication” and that it is negligent for willfully denying your son/daughter the life-saving protection that vaccines offer” in order to enroll their children into school.


    A parent choosing to take the legal exemption because of religious reasons is required (by the Health Department’s form) to acknowledge ‘card carrying membership’ to a ‘qualified religious organization’ that opposes vaccines and the parent is then required to list their religious objections.

    The Health Department has stepped significantly outside the law that clearly states a parent need only supply a written statement to the schools that they object vaccines on a religious or philosophical ground without need to clarify or excuse their parental choice.

    Leslie Manookian and executive director Miste Karlfeldt spoke with Chairman Lee Heider several times over the summer about this very issue. He whole heartedly agreed that The Health Department has severely overstepped it bounds. He agreed to carry a bill for us to clarify within the statute that a form provided by the Dept of Health and Welfare did not need to be filled out in order to enroll our children in school.

    Health Freedom Idaho went knocking on Legislator’s doors to discuss this situation and we had much support in the Senate Health and Welfare Committee. Sen. Fred Martin did his homework by calling the schools. They verified that they were in fact requiring this form and Sen Martin agreed that was outside of the statute.

     Our bill, SB 1050, never had a hearing.

     Dick Armstrong (Director of Health and Welfare) spent much time with the legislators explaining why he requires this form. He stated that he uses it to educate the public and feels that it is his duty to do so. Of course, we believe that is up to the parent to educate themselves while using all of the recourses available to them. The shenanigans that took place to keep this bill from being heard were appalling and included Governor Butch Otter telling Sen Lee Heider not to hear the bill. Sen Heider decided to drawer the bill that he had once promised to carry. The people were neither heard nor represented on this issue. Parents are faced with another year of trying to enroll their children in school without incriminating themselves on the form mandated by the Dept of Health and Welfare. Some have decided to homeschool but not everyone has that option. Many are having to sign this form under duress just to allow their child access to their promised education.

    Health Freedom Idaho is determined to PRESS ON and since the legislature refuses to require departments of the State to comply with Idaho code we will ask the courts to do so! If you have submitted your written statement in compliance with the law to the school and been denied CONTACT Health Freedom Idaho at IamExempt@healthfreedomidaho.com Make sure to document your schools denial of your exemption including date, time, individuals contacted and their response (in writing). We will take this information to the courts and ask a judge to review the Health Department’s practice of requiring a mandatory form that falls outside the scope of statute.

  • Support SB 1050

    Support SB 1050


    SB1050 will be heard THURSDAY Feb 23, 2016 
    at the Senate Health Committee.
    JOIN US at 3 p.m. and stand together to protect HEALTH FREEDOM and our right to immunization exemption without intimidation

    IDAHO STATUTES CLEARLY STATE: VACCINES ARE NOT MANDATED FOR DAYCARE or SCHOOLS. LAWS CLEARLY STATE A PARENT’S WRITTEN STATEMENT IS AN ACCEPTABLE FORM OF IMMUNIZATION EXEMPTION.

    The Public Health Department refuses to accept a parents’ written affidavit, which leads many to wonder…
    HOW IS THAT LEGAL?

    Idaho’s Health & Welfare Department created a mandatory immunization form that falls FAR OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF CURRENT STATUTES and is discriminatory to the minority of parents who legally choose to OPT OUT of the full CDC vaccine schedule.

    Parents are forced to sign IDHW’s mandatory form that demands parents state that they are putting their children at risk. No parent should be forced to sign a form that is self-incriminatory in order to enroll their child into a daycare program or public school. Parents with moral conviction religious objections to injecting their children with abortion tainted vaccines are forced to claim membership to a specific denomination that rejects vaccination. The Health Department also requires lengthy explanation for religious and philosophical objections.

    The Public Health department is getting away with creating their own rules and children are being denied access to daycare and schools. 

    Regardless of your opinion on the efficacy of vaccines, it is unacceptable to allow the Department of Health to mandate a discriminatory form for school enrollment that violates privacy and is potentially self-incriminating. 

     This content originally appeared on [YouTube](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOYg5OP-SD8).

  • Privacy Denied. Medical Data Tracking Expanded. HB 91

    Privacy Denied. Medical Data Tracking Expanded. HB 91

    HB 91 will expand an system ALREADY in place that denies a child’s right to privacy, exposes children’s private medical information to State and third parties and violates HIPPA. Now they wish to expand the tracking of private medical information to adults. This system will mandate that adult’s private/personal medical information entered into the State tracking system within 28 days of a doctor’s visit. It is only AFTER your information is uploaded to the system that you have the opportunity to opt-out.  Once that PHI (private health information) is sent out, there is no expunging it from anyone’s record EXCEPT IDHW, meaning your medical information is now out in the open, with no chance of it being private again, and all without your consent.Once you opt out, the burden is on you to ensure that H&W has actually expunged that info (and remember, other 3rd parties do not have to). This is not just any time you go to the doctor for vaccinations. This is every single time you go to a pharmacist, an ER, an urgent care, to get a mammogram, etc. It is hospital policy to ask patients about vaccination status every time they go in, and there is pressure to give you a flu shot and a DTaP/TDaP booster every time you go in for any kind of injury, especially when you don’t remember when you last received them, even if you are sick (many hospitals even require pressure to be put on those who have immune disorders). 

    This is wrong, and dangerous. “Intent” of the law doesn’t matter so much as the possibility for the law to be misused against the people. Not to mention the inherent violations of privacy written into this particular one.
    TELL LEGISLATORS NO ON HB 91.

    Simple option to text, email or send a video message from your phone:

    To download Testifi for your Android device, click this link from your phone or tablet.

    To download Testifi for your Apple device, click this link from your phone or tablet.

    HISTORY:

    -IRIS was originally created to allow parents a centralized place to “store” their children’s vaccination records in case they lost their hard copies, and it would be easily accessible to parents, other legal guardians, child care providers, and health care workers if the parents allowed them access to it.

    -IRIS was also an opt-in program originally, so when a parent went in for a well child check, they could sign a waiver (along with the HIPAA form) that allowed their doctor to put their child’s vaccination information into IRIS (because it is private health information, protected by HIPAA).

    -In 2012, IRIS became an opt-out program because doctors complained that the one extra page of paperwork was “too much work”. Now most parents don’t even know their children’s PHI is in IRIS. They can technically opt out by submitting a written statement to IDHW, but it doesn’t function that seemlessly.

    -In 2015, provisions were made to allow 3rd parties access to our children’s vaccination records by omitting the section that previously required records to be expunged from 3rd parties as well when parents opted out of IRIS.

    DANGERS:

    • Because it is an opt-out program, the majority of parents do not know their children’s information is in IRIS. IDHW sends out a paper shortly after your child is born saying that they are enrolled into IRIS, but you receive that about a month after they are born and in the mix of all the other paperwork you get at the hospital or from 3rd parties after a child is born, it doesn’t stick out as anything important unless you already know what you’re looking at.
    • If H91 goes through, your personal medical records will be on file with IDHW until you opt out (and DHW states that it may take up to 2 weeks for you to opt out officially and your records be expunged from H&W)
      .
    • Your information will be given to third parties that DO NOT have to expunge your information, nor do these 3rd parties have to disclose to you that they HAVE your medical information (now, there are 3rd parties, but they are named in the current statute, whereas 2 years ago they were not in the original bill).
    • You cannot just “opt out” of the program before you are entered into it. What H91 does is take it a step further MANDATING that all providers put that medical information into IRIS. Only afterwards can you “opt” out. Providers have a 28-day window to provide IRIS with this information, and IDHW has a 2 week window to expunge your information IF they have your information by the time your provider sends it over. Within the time frame that your provider sends the information to IRIS and the time that H&W expunges that information, H&W will be sending that PHI to 3rd parties without one’s consent and usually, without their knowledge. Once that PHI is sent out, there is no expunging it from anyone’s record EXCEPT IDHW, meaning your medical information is now out in the open, with no chance of it being private again, and all without your consent.

    Particularly since this is done without one’s consent, or even knowledge, it is a violation of HIPAA. Once you opt out, the burden is on you to ensure that H&W has actually expunged that info (and remember, other 3rd parties do not have to). This is not just any time you go to the doctor for vaccinations. This is every single time you go to a pharmacist, an ER, an urgent care, to get a mammogram, etc. It is hospital policy to ask patients about vaccination status every time they go in, and there is pressure to give you a flu shot and a Dtp booster every time you go in for any kind of injury, especially when you don’t remember when you last received them, even if you are sick (many hospitals even require pressure to be put on those who have immune disorders). This is wrong, and dangerous. “Intent” of the law doesn’t matter so much as the possibility for the law to be misused against the people. Not to mention the inherent violations of privacy written into this particular one.

    Thank you for your time and for being a representative for the people

    UPDATE: 

    WIN FOR HEALTH FREEDOM IDAHO
    Adult Immunizaiton Tracking
    VOTED DOWN

    Health Freedom Idaho members called and emailed their concerns to the representatives. They were heard! And the results was 44 of our state representatives voted down of the privacy invasion. 

    Watch the entire House Debate from the archives:
    http://lso.legislature.idaho.gov/MediaArchive/ShowCommitteeOrMedia.do;jsessionid=92559A4CF43D605E802FDE4D77DC0D5Fchives