April 2006, Vol. 16, No. 2

Table of Contents

CCE Recognition by USDE Set to Expire • CCE Response Spurs Follow-up Complaint • Differentiating Neuromuscular from Musculoligamentous Subluxation • Chiropractic Pioneer Passes Away • Early Life Infections Improve the Function of the Immune System • European Spine Journal Publishes PosturePrint® Study • ICA Defending Chiropractic from PT's • Immunization • Letters to the Editor • Life University Teaches CBP® as an Elective • The Ineffectiveness of Over Accommodating • Parker College and Seminars Begin Celebration Preparations • PosturePrint® Used to Determine Stability of Upright Posture • CBP® Hits 91 Publications • Thanks for Helping Your Local HMO Grow! • The Perfect Chiropractic Storm • Three Keys to Practice Success • Building Wealth Securely: Maintenance, Not Pain Relief •

back to front page

Immunization

by Dwight DeGeorge, MS, DC

Dr. DeGeorge graduated from Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport, Iowa.  He has been in for 13 years. He was past president of the Pettibon Biomechanics Club at Palmer College and he has taught spinal biomechanics/biophysics throughout the country for the last nine years. He is responsible for the first research papers ever published in JMPT by Palmer College students.  He practices CBP® technique and is CBP® certified instructor.  Presently, Dr. DeGeorge is the inventor of the Compression Extension Traction Table as well as the Spine Aligner adjusting table. Three studies have been published (one at SPINE and two at JMPT) from studies done at his office.  Dr. DeGeorge has now implemented program to help other doctors gain more from their own practices.

           Most Chiropractic students and doctors in Chiropractic College have been educated on the pros and cons of Immunization. In fact, many, after much reading and exposure to the research on this topic choose to forgo immunization of their children, or at the very least, be selective of the immunizations they choose to give their children. In addition, we are also privy to information that allows us exemptions to state mandates of immunization, and depending on the state in which you reside, there are philosophical, religious and/or medical exemptions to state mandates of the immunization schedule.

           My wife and I had made our decision, long before we even had our children, that we would not expose them to immunizations and use the exemption that we were entitled to, under our state law, to submit the appropriate forms required by schools. When we actually had our children (all six of them), we made choices. We chose to breastfeed. We chose to not give any kind of drugs or over the counter medication for childhood illness or infection. We also chose not to give our children any immunization, our choice, and our right under state laws. No problem. Not really.

           Our twins, were sent to the elementary school with all the proper forms. Of course, they had no issues: no allergies, no medical histories, and no problems the school nurse should be aware of. This form was accompanied by the required letter of exemption claiming our philosophical belief of non-immunization. We only had to resubmit these forms two or three times before they were actually received by the school nurse for them to be recognized and placed in our children’s “file.” No big deal, a minor inconvenience.

           Not until we sent our five year old to kindergarten did we actually have our belief system challenged. And this was because, unaware to us, that lobby systems in our state had empowered the department of public health to set some requirements of immunizations that previously were not required in our state. And of all immunizations, our controversy surrounded the varicella vaccination, otherwise known as chicken pox vaccine. In addition, our state had done away with the philosophical exemption, requiring us to write a new letter claiming exemption under one of the remaining.

           As of February of this year, in our state, lobbyists created a nomenclature flip-flop. Now it appears that the non-immunized child is the threat to the immunized child and therefore new regulations regarding immunization and susceptibility have been instated. The new regulation applies to the varicella vaccine only.  According to the MA Dept of Health, any child not immunized from chicken pox, (whether by natural immunization or by vaccination) is considered “susceptible” and must be excluded from school from the 10th to the 21st day after the last exposure. This exclusion was instated under the belief that the non-immunized child is a threat to all other children (even if they have received the immunization). While there was significant opposition to the passage of this new regulation, the regulation was passed. One of the more interesting supportive statements of the passing of this regulation was the fact that administration of this vaccine would benefit the working parent, as there would be less work days missed due to childhood illness from chicken pox!

           My wife received a phone call from the school nurse one afternoon. The nurse essentially stated that she was required under state law to exclude my child from school for the next 10 days, because a child in his class had come down with chicken pox, and as a result of a new department of health regulation, my son was considered a “susceptible candidate” and therefore fell under the exclusion rule. Never mind that the child who had come down with chicken pox had actually received the varicella vaccination. Never mind that, according to the school nurse, that those children that had received the immunization were at risk because the immunization was not 100 percent effective, yet they could single out my son as a susceptible individual in the classroom, despite the fact that my son did not exhibit any symptoms (nor did he ever come down with an actual case of chicken pox-darn!), nor that there was more than that one case of chicken pox reported-hardly an epidemic! The irony of the immunization philosophy, as we all know, is that the immunized individual should have the greater immunity to the particular disease than that of the non-immunized child.

           Varicella is a benign disease for the most part, it isn’t worth the trouble and expense of preventing. Almost all of the three to four million cases that occur each year have an uncomplicated course; for any one person who gets chickenpox, the odds against having serious disease are very long. According to a recent market survey by Merck, the manufacturer of Varivax, one third of pediatricians still do not recommend the vaccine to parents. A flurry of letters in the December 1996 issue of Pediatrics syndicated considerable opposition to routine varicella immunization, and readers quoted in the January 1997 Pediatric News gave the vaccine decidedly mixed reviews. More precise information on use will be available when the American Academy of Pediatrics publishes the results of a survey currently under way, but clearly problems exist with acceptance of this vaccine. Before evaluating them, it’s important to understand the nature of the varicella virus, the disease it produces, and the vaccine that can hold it in check.

           Immunization was supposedly developed to artificially strengthen the immune system of an individual. It was always viewed that the individual who was not immunized was at the greatest risk of disease or assumed the greater risk of contracting that particular disease of which he was not immunized against.  This has been the ongoing debate between health care practitioners.

           A kindergartner excluded from school for ten days hardly appears to be a bump in the road although the ramifications are significant. First, a 10-day exclusion occurring more than one or two times a year can result in a significant loss of time from school. No arrangements for alternative schooling is made during this time because the 10-day period falls below the state requirement requiring alternative education after a 14-day period. Second, the exclusion requirement itself, according to our belief, is arbitrary in itself. There is not definition of actual exposure and therefore assumes exposure and illness before an actual case is defined. Lastly, state law (and in some case federal) allows us rights for choices that we make regarding the health care of ourselves and the decisions we make regarding our children. It appears to us that if a public agency formulates a regulation that potentially contradicts or conflicts with rights that are afforded us by state law, this creates a problem for the agency and those involved.

           We chose not to allow our son to be excluded from school. This caused quite a problem for the system; the DPH principal, superintendent and board of health officials. We were informed that one of three things could occur from this action. The department of public health would: 1. Do nothing. 2. Remove our son from school with police escort (now remember, he is a five-year old-kindergartner) or 3. Shut down the elementary school.(Read the headlines, (“School shut down because Healthy child has not received the Chicken Pox Vaccine).

           Our “fight” had begun. Despite my wife’s involvement in the school system, key people were not willing to go to bat for us. Yet, because of our persistence and unwillingness for their ignorance to stand in our way, key people did go to bat for us. I am talking about the same people. “Waffling” is a term I would use to describe our school system personnel. From the principal to the superintendent, we were dismissed and then, publicly supported. Our methods and means were typical of our personality and our nature. We would not allow others to mandate our means of providing care and health decisions for our children. We involved not only our local school system, but our senator, our representative and other state organizations on vaccine choice. As a result of the conflict of this issue, we were informed that someone had resigned from their position on the board of health.

           While our present situation appears to be moot for this occurrence because the school system and the department of public health failed to act at the time of “exposure,” we do have three more children who will be attending the public school system in the next couple of years. We feel it is more than likely that we will confront similar issues with them. (What about the flu vaccine-not as unreasonable as you think, who ever would have thought the chicken pox vaccine would have been mandated!) 

           We plan to be more proactive than reactive in the future. We plan to be more involved in our school committee meetings. We plan to be more involved in our town meetings. We plan to be more aware of our state legislation and health care laws. We plan to be more supportive of “grass roots” organizations in our state that commit their own time and their own belief systems to support yours and mine’ freedom of health care choices.