Civility and the Vaccine Discussion: Found!

UPDATE: Well, unfortunately, I may have spoken too soon. The course's discussion board has been infiltrated by anti-vaccine folks and followers of Age of Autism and I'm now totally depressed because the open discussion about science and vaccinology has become dominated by dialogue reminiscent of Bigfoot hunters arguing with Loch Ness Monster proponents. Sigh.

I just started taking a free online course on vaccines taught by Paul Offit, through an outfit called Coursera. The site offers a number of free online courses on a large number of topics, all taught by some of the top academics of the world, from Princeton to Stanford to Harvard, and beyond.

The course material for Offit's course is basic, which is great for folks wanting to learn a little about the history of vaccines, how they work, how they are made, and so on (though some people may be put off by Offit's straight-talk--I, of course, am enamored). But what I've found most exhilarating is the depth and breadth--and civility--on the discussion boards. A large percentage of the students come from outside the United States, interested in understanding the efficacy of vaccines so they can pass that information along to communities within their home country. Others are vaccine-hesitant parents, as I once was, who want to know more about vaccines. And there are several parents who have described themselves as living in communities with high vaccine-exemption rates and feeling like "fish out of water."

Of course I waited to post about this until after the course had started and enrollment was closed so we don't get an influx of anti-vaxxers--we have a handful of them in the course already but even they seem muted. The point is, in this vaccines course, even when we disagree, the dialogue is civil and open-minded. The students in the course are honestly curious about vaccines, and questions have been raised about why the pertussis vaccines seems to lose effectiveness so quickly, which is not interpreted as an anti-vax comment; why chiropractors seem, as a group, to be anti-vaccine, which is an honest question not an indictment; whether directly confronting anti-vaccine parents works best or if a softer approach is better, and so on. There are no agendas. I could turn cartwheels right now. Paul Offit's Vaccines Course, where have you been all my life?

Doing Our Part

In Minnesota, the Department of Health is moving forward with its effort to bring Minnesota school immunization law into line with CDC recommendations. I know, it sounds riveting!


In reality, this move is of exceptional importance, because, like many states, our immunization rules are confusing; CDC recommendations don't have to go through the legislative equivalent of the Tough Mudder race to come into play. In Minnesota, and other states, we do.


I bring this up because an important component of any possible new or revised rule requires, by law, a series of public meetings. These are opportunities for members of the public to voice concerns or support for the propose rule. Because this is an immunization rule revision, our friends at the Department of Health are certain to hear from a well-organized cadre of anti-vaccine activists and parents. Alas, on the pro-vaccine side--which can boast the largest membership, upwards of 90% of the parenting population--we are not so well-organized because, well, we have lives that don't revolve around likening pediatricians
to Nazi doctors and trying to push for "Nurenberg-style trials" for pediatricians (Source: International Medical Veritas Association. You want crazy? You got crazy. I refuse to post their website, but give them a Google search).


This being said, because the anti-vax contingent is so vocal and over the top, they tend to make a lot of noise and, like blowfish, appear bigger than they really are. So it's become important that parents who vaccinate their children because they know it's the right thing to do for their own kids, as well as the community at large (see Karen Ernst's fantastic post at Parents Who Protect) show up at these things. If you happen to live in Minnesota, please consider attending the Minnesota Immunization Rule Revision Public Meeting which takes place Thursday, June 14th from 5:30 p.m.-8:00 p.m. at the Orville L. Freeman Building in St. Paul. Detailed information is below. I have also included information about the video/satellite meetings across the state of Minnesota on June 18th. If you live in the greater Twin Cities area or beyond, consider high-footing it to one of the locations below. 


This will provide you an opportunity to speak up, show public officials another side of this debate. In upcoming days, I will also post a sample letter you can send to the Department of Health in support of these rules. The deadline for these letters is June 30, 2012.

Minnesota Immunization Rule Revision
Public Meetings

Interested persons or groups may submit comments or information on these possible rules in writing or orally until 4:30 p.m. on June 30, 2012.

The Department will hold two public meetings on the rules.

• Thursday, June 14, 2012
  5:30 - 8:00 p.m.
  Orville L. Freeman Building
  625 North Robert Street
  St. Paul, Minnesota 55155
  Directions 
  Parking in the Centennial Ramp is free after 4:30. The Green (or lowest) Level is closest to the main entrance. Map (PDF: 427KB/1 page)
  Please allow for extra time because of the construction and road closures around the Freeman Building and in St. Paul. Road closures and detours change often, see the Central Corridor Light Rail Transitsite for the latest. Attention: Non-MDH link
• Monday, June 18, 2012
  11:30 a.m. - 2:00 p.m.
  Video conference at locations listed below
  Registration is not required but is appreciated: Click to Register
  Select "MN Imm Rule Revision Video Conf - [city of attendance]" from the drop-down Event list.

MDH - Bemidji Office 705 5th St NW, Suite A Bemidji, MN	MDH - Marshall Office 1400 East Lyon St Marshall, MN
Crow Wing County Social Services 204 Laurel St Brainerd, MN	MDH - Rochester Office 18 Wood Lake Dr SE Rochester, MN
Polk County Public Health 721 S Minnesota St Crookston, MN	Roseau County Social Services 208 6th St SW Roseau, MN
St. Louis County Government Service Center 320 West Second St, Room 406 Duluth, MN	MDH - St. Cloud  Midtown Square 3333 West Division St, Suite 212 St. Cloud, MN
MDH - Fergus Falls Office 1505 Pebble Lake Rd, Suite 300 Fergus Falls, MN	MDH - Snelling Office ParkMississippi Room 1645 Energy Park Drive St. Paul, MN
Koochiching County 715 4th St, 3rd Floor International Falls, MN	Kandiyohi County Human Services 2200 23rd St NE Willmar, MN
MDH - Mankato Place 12 Civic Center Plaza, Suite 2105 Mankato, MN

Moms Who Vax: Lynn's Story

By Lynn Bozof

I have always been a mom who vaccinated her children. To me, it’s only natural: if you have children, you want to protect them. And vaccines save lives.

Evan Bozof

Unfortunately, my son died of a vaccine-preventable disease because I didn’t know that there was  a vaccine for meningococcal meningitis, when my son was a college junior, fourteen years ago.  Evan was a twenty-year-old junior, an honor student, and a pitcher on his college baseball team.  He was the picture of health.  Then he called one day with what he thought was a migraine, and when he was still very nauseated and sensitive to light a few hours later, I asked him to have his roommate take him to the ER.  The ER doctors told us that Evan had a “little virus,” and so he didn’t have to go back to his dorm, they would keep him overnight.

The next morning, our world fell apart.  At 7:00 AM, we were called and told that Evan had bacterial meningitis, with a five percent chance of survival.  We went from a “little virus” when we went to bed that night to a strong possibility that our son would die. 

Over twenty-six days, in three different hospitals, meningococcal disease ravaged Evan’s body.  Amputations of both arms and legs were not enough to save his life.  He lost kidney and liver function, suffered ten hours of grand mal seizures, and was eventually declared brain dead.  No parent should have to watch his or her child be disconnected from life support, flat-line, and be carried away. 

After Evan died, we found out that the military routinely vaccinated recruits for bacterial meningitis, and that the preceding year the American College Health Association had published reports about links between college students and meningitis.  The bottom line is that our son did not have to die.  There were vaccines available that could have saved his life, but we were not told about them.  Since then, I have made it my life’s mission as an original founder of the National Meningitis Association to raise awareness about meningococcal disease, its symptoms, and prevention.  I believe so strongly in vaccinations because they have saved millions of lives throughout the world.  What I wouldn’t give to go back fourteen years and have known about the meningitis vaccine.  I am confident that vaccines are safe and effective.

I am not scared of vaccines.  I am scared about what happens when parents choose not to immunize.  They may be well-intentioned, but they are wrong.  They are putting their child’s life, and those of countless others, in danger.  If you love your children, and there is no medical reason for them not to be vaccinated, then please vaccinate them.  Don’t let your child be another statistic, as my child was.

Lynn Bozof is an original founder and the President of National Meningitis Association. In addition to her work with NMA, she also spearheaded the blog Parents Who Protect and is a tireless advocate for protecting children from vaccine-preventable disease.

Editor’s Note: The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) recommends the following meningococcal vaccination schedule for adolescents:

•                An initial vaccination at age 11-12

•                A booster dose at age 16

•                For those who receive the first dose at 13 through 15 years of age, a booster is

          recommended at 16 through 18

CDC suggests that adolescents receive the vaccine less than five years before starting college.

"Scare Tactics"

Recently, a mother who immunizes her children tried to post on a blog called "Modern Alternative Mama" in response to a worried mother of a newborn. The new mother had chosen not to vaccinate her baby out of fear, but was living in a community in the midst of a pertussis outbreak. Her pediatrician had called to ask if she might reconsider immunizing her baby at this point. The mother seemed worried--she didn't want to vaccinate, but clearly she didn't want her infant to contract pertussis. After reading responses from other non-vaccinating mothers--telling her to hold strong, to rest assured that breast milk would somehow make her baby immune from pertussis, one of the most devastatingly contagious diseases on the planet--this mother-who-vaccinates felt moved to post a response. 

She asked the mother of the newborn to reconsider getting her child the Dtap, and linked to Everlee's pertussis story here on this blog as an example of how an infant handles pertussis. Not only was the comment not approved by the woman who runs Modern Alternative Mama, but the mother also received an e-mail saying that the blog didn't allow commenters to use "scare tactics" and so the comment would be censored. After reading the e-mail myself, I was somewhat surprised--until I went to the blog's Facebook page and saw the anti-vax posts from the blog author. Typical stuff I encounter on a daily basis from the underbelly of the mercifully sparsely populated anti-vax world, more banal than the truly bizarre "Moms Who Vax Make Up Their Stories" conspiracy theories floating around. 

Still, I found myself stewing over this one.

In many ways, I am not surprised that we live in a world where the true story of a vaccine-preventable disease can be considered a "scare tactic." After all, we are still burdened by climate science skeptics and Creationists who believe the earth is 6,000 years old and that we hung out with our dino friends. But coming as it did in the midst of preparing a story from another mother whose life was changed by a vaccine preventable disease, I found this appellation--"scare tactic"--used to describe Everlee's story particularly distasteful, even for the anti-vax crowd. While serious side effects from vaccines are exceptionally rare, I would never look a parent, whose child had had a bad reaction to a shot, in the eye and say: your story, and your child, are a scare tactic, and therefore you do not deserve to be heard. I'm not certain how you can respond to any parent who is suffering in such a dismissive way and remain human. It doesn't necessarily mean you agree with their theories as to why their child became ill, or that you acknowledge that such reactions are common, but it means you have a basic level of compassion. 

Illness and death from vaccine-preventable disease, which are far, far more common and, unfortunately, on the rise, are not scare tactics. They are the true stories of fellow human beings who want to be heard and, even more important, who want to save other families the heartache they've suffered. More, the science is on their side. The facts are on their side. And I, as a parent, am deeply grateful for the work they do by keeping their wounds wide open in order that they might save lives, something those who criticize them have no interest in doing. 

Dovie, Ivy, and Pansy: Three Sisters, One Disease

By Jessica Acevado-Parker

I’m sure many mothers can relate when I say that family is my world. My extended family tells me where I came from. My parents helped shape who I am today. My sister was my first friend. My husband is my teammate. My children are my legacy. Family is one thing I will never tire of investing in (though I do have my moments of needing a break), and my children are one thing I will always fight to protect.

Jessica with her children Aubrey (4) and Tristan (1)

I recently got the chance to visit my husband’s family in Virginia. I love knowing our roots, so going through old letters and pictures was a must for me as I spent time with his grandma, Virginia. Seeing her eyes go distant as she spoke of memories from her childhood made me realize she was reliving every moment she recounted, from the good to the bad. It was almost like living through them again with her. I walked down memory lane with Grandma as she told stories of her late husband building churches with his bare hands, funny road trips with four daughters, and the whirlwind of moves she made all over the country with those four daughters. She pulled out a big three-ring binder full of photocopied letters, pictures, and every bit of information available on her eleven brothers and sisters. Grandma started down the list, telling about each sibling, who they married, where they went to school, where they lived, where they died, etc.

However, when she got to her sister Dovie Martin, she paused before sharing that Dovie (born January 4, 1902) died at the age of fourteen. Her sister, Ivy Martin (born April 24, 1912), died at the age of four. The sisters died on the same evening, February 29, 1916, in their home, from measles.

The sisters had contracted measles from their pregnant mother, Lillie. Lillie survived, and gave birth to baby Pansy five days later, on March 5, 1916.

Four months and nineteen days later, baby Pansy died from complications from Lillie’s case of measles.

I took a moment to let this sink in. I thought of my own children, and of what it must have been like for Lillie, pregnant, holding her daughters as they died. To know that the baby that you are carrying is probably going to die as well.

This was the reality of measles in 1916. Measles and other (now) preventable diseases were nothing to be messed around with. You didn’t weigh the risks with the benefits, because the risk was that you most likely died if you got the measles. “Natural immunity” was not sought after, and any sort of pox was avoided like the plague, because, well, it was a plague.

Lillie did not have a blog, or Facebook, or even a phone to share what was going on with her family as the nightmare unfolded. But I do. I have a voice to counter the nonsense and the noise of the antivax community. I have science to back up my choice, and I have the story of Dovie, Ivy and Pansy Martin to share. It doesn’t matter if my voice is small. After hearing this story and seeing how it directly affected my family, I will not stay silent.

My daughter Aubrey is four, the age Ivy was when she died. I can’t imagine burying a child, especially today, from a vaccine-preventable disease. Back in 1916, there was no vaccine for measles. When I asked Grandma what she thought of people who didn’t vaccinate their children, she seemed shocked that some would choose that. For her family, the measles equaled death. There is no debate on that fact. To Grandma, a vaccine for measles and other diseases she lived through is a precious commodity. She reminded me how lucky I am to have had children in 2007 and 2010. She reminded me not to take them or their health for granted.

The risk of these diseases is real. It is not to be messed around with or “researched” with the search bar. This is life and death, folks. Dovie, Ivy, and Pansy Martin were robbed of a full life. They missed out on friends, school, marriage, children, and grandchildren. Thanks to science and a tireless effort from vaccine advocates everywhere, measles will not be what robs my children of those joys in life, but that’s because I vaccinate them. Next time you want to weigh the pros and cons, imagine burying your children when you could have saved them, because honest research includes pros and cons from both sides, and this—preventable death of children—is a con of not vaccinating children. To me, it’s an easy choice.

Jessica Acevedo-Parker is a work-at-home mother and wife with a Bachelor of Science in Human and Family Services from Southwestern Christian University. She owns a seasonal snow cone stand in Oklahoma and is the proud mother of two young children.

Editor’s Note: Jessica’s story, in slightly different form, can also be found at Shot of Prevention and Vaccinate Your Baby, two excellent resources for new parents with questions about immunizations.

Mayim Bialik's "Personal Decision"

By Karen Ernst

Normally, I love Science Friday on NPR with Ira Flatow.  The topics are wide-ranging and discussed with real experts who have a real passion for their work. Science Friday on May 4, 2012 was a disappointment for many reasons, but the biggest was the guest and her stance on vaccinations. 

Mayim Bialik, who plays Amy Farrah Fowler on The Big Bang Theory, has a PhD in neuroscience.  She also write books about her parenting style, some of which may be controversial to the mainstream public.  Rarely does she publicly discuss her decision not to vaccinate her children.  Thus, when Science Friday announced that Mayim Bialik would be the guest, numerous people went to Science Friday's Facebook page and commented that they'd like Ira Flatow to ask her about her decision to abandon all good scientific understanding in favor of the pseudoscience of the anti-vaccine movement.

About halfway through the interview, he did ask her about vaccines.

She responded: “Attachment Parenting as defined by Dr. William Sears and Attachment Parenting International has absolutely no opinion on vaccines.  It is a completely separate issue, one that I do not discuss in the book for that reason.  What I do mention in the book is that I give some resources for some kind of pros and cons kind of books. . . What I do say is that we researched every single vaccine, and we spoke about each individual vaccine with our pediatrician.  We went to the CDC sources.  The number of vaccines that we received when you and I were kids is a third or a fourth less than kids get now.  So my feeling is, you can really do whatever you want, just like I get to do whatever I want.  But I don't inherently think that no one should get the flu [vaccine], for example.  That's my personal opinion.  Meaning, to me, the things that people choose to vaccinate against are not necessarily things that were vaccinated against 20 or 30 years ago.  My feeling is that everyone gets to decide and do research based on their family and their needs as to what they want to do, but it's completely separate from Attachment Parenting or from my book.”

What is a parent supposed to think when this sort of information is presented without challenge?  After all, a parent might assume that since Bialik is well educated in the sciences, she knows what she is talking about.  And when a respected science journalist like Ira Flatow does not question any of her ideas, they seem all the more legitimate.

Mayim Bialik has made a mistake by refusing to vaccinate her children, and she has done so based on bad information and erroneous logic.

First, she relies on doctors who are not experts in the field of vaccines, immunology, or epidemiology.  While Attachment Parenting International does not take a position on vaccination, they are not a medical organization like the American Academy of Pediatrics.  As Ira Flatow pointed out when introducing the question, the AAP supports breastfeeding, as well as on-schedule, full vaccination of children.  Bialik also misconstrues the position of Dr. William Sears, who, in The Baby Book, explains that our “present vaccine schedule carries very little risk.  The benefit of preventing these diseases, all of which are potentially fatal, far outweigh the tiny risk of the vaccines.”  This sound risk-benefit analysis clearly promotes vaccination. 

Bialik relies on other M.D.s who have made careers out of catering to wealthy non-vaccinating clientele, and much of the rest of her explanation on Science Friday comes from their books.  She mentions the “pros and cons” of vaccinating.  The pros of vaccinating are preventing disease and its possible accompanying complications of hospitalizations, disability, and death.  The cons are uncomfortable but not dangerous: pain, swelling, and fever.  Very rarely, a serious side effect can occur, such as an anaphylactic allergic reaction.  These reactions occur in one of of every half million or million injections, depending on the vaccine. (http://www.chop.edu/service/vaccine-education-center/vaccine-safety/#Are_vaccines_safe)  When presented with this information, most parents realize that the benefits of vaccinating are indeed worth the potential but unlikely risks.  These are not the cons Bialik is considering.  She is considering cons that have long been discredited by peer-reviewed, replicable studies that have been published in the most prestigious science and medical journals around.  The cons she is considering exist only in the imaginations of people writing books against vaccines and promoting them on their websites.

Bialik next claims that she studied each vaccine and discussed them with her pediatrician.  Her pediatrician may or may not have also discussed the diseases these vaccines prevent.  I do hope that pediatricians discuss with their patients the 222 measles cases in the United State last year, including the third of those patients who were hospitalized due to various complications. (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6115a1.htm)  I also hope they discuss the 27,550 pertussis cases (http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/outbreaks.html ) in 2010 and that they include the stories of Everlee (http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2012/02/everlees-story.html), Kahlia (http://kennethaskorner.weebly.com/1/post/2011/12/first-post.html), and Brady (http://shotofprevention.com/2012/05/03/pertussis-problems-persist/). Sadly, these are no longer isolated cases. Because she is trained as a neuroscientist, one would hope the Mayim Bialik would factor the real risks of disease into her decision not to vaccinate. 

One of Bialik's rationale for skipping her children's vaccines centers on a fear of newer vaccines.  Rather than seeing vaccines that prevent more diseases as a triumphs of science, she fears exposing her children to something she didn't have as a child.  Forget for a moment that she did not have the Internet, cell phones, five-point harness car seats, and various other scientific advances for a moment.  Bialik makes the assumption that because she did not have these vaccines, the diseases which they prevent are not dangerous.  She is dead wrong.

For example, before the vaccine, approximately 20,000 children in the United States suffered Haemophilus influenzae B. Between 2-5% of these cases were fatal, and up to 30% of cases result in permanent disability, including blindness, deafness, and serious neurological damage.  (http://www.vaccineinformation.org/hib/qandadis.asp).  Pneumonia is another disease my children are protected against when I was not. 


In fact, as an infant, I was hospitalized with pneumonia.  I was lucky to escape without permanent damage since pneumonia is the leading cause of death in children under 5 worldwide, killing 1.4 million children every year. (http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs331/en/index.html)  These are only two of the diseases that our children are lucky enough to escape. 

The other part of Bialik's longing for the vaccine schedule of the 1970s and 80s hints at the “too many, too soon” argument popular in the anti-vaccine movement.  Parents should rest assured that the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) reviews the vaccine schedule every year to make sure vaccines are given at times and in combinations that are safe and that offer children the best protection against disease possible.  Parents should also rest assured that the vaccine schedule has been studied (through studies like On-time Vaccine Receipt in the First Year Does Not Adversely Affect Neuropsychological Outcomes http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2010/05/24/peds.2009-2489.abstract) and found to be safe.  The science is clear: today's vaccine schedule prevents dangerous disease as safely and effectively as we can at this time.

Lastly, Bialik asserts that everyone should make his or her own decisions about vaccines.  In a sense, I agree with her.  Parents should understand and agree to the vaccines their children receive.  However, asserting that the average parent can reach a conclusion about vaccines that is different from the ACIP/CDC recommendations, all while believing it is equally valid, is misguided.  The members of ACIP have spent their lives studying disease, epidemiology, virology, microbiology, and the like and have far more expertise on vaccines, disease, and the vaccine schedule than even a mother with a doctorate in neuroscience, and certainly far more than the average parent walking into an office.  It is perfectly reasonable for parents to present their pediatricians with their concerns about vaccines. It is unreasonable to choose not to believe pediatricians, infectious disease specialists, and vaccinologists, choosing instead to "do your own research" to prove them wrong. The suggestion that they should do their own research and reach their own conclusions is unreasonable and unwise, especially coming from a woman who knows what kind of work goes into a Ph.D. in the sciences.

Asking parents to go rogue with the vaccine schedule also puts our community health at risk.  This blog is based on the concept of “living by the social contract and protecting our kids and yours.”  Pockets of vaccine refusal create opportunities for disease to invade our communities.  The aforementioned measles and pertussis outbreaks are examples of the unvaccinated bringing diseases into the community.  Oftentimes, the people who catch those diseases are parents of children who did not want to be exposed to disease and who were relying on other members of the community to maintain herd immunity.  Julieanna Metcalf, who has been featured on Moms Who Vax http://momswhovax.blogspot.com/2011/10/story-by-story.html) did not know that she had a problem with her immune system, and caught Hib meningitis from an unvaccinated child. She almost died--her mother has the pictures of those days in the ICU.  Other people in our communities are too young to receive vaccines or have immune systems compromised by leukemia or chronic conditions, and they depend on us to stay vaccinated and keep disease away.

So the decision about vaccinations is actually not just a personal decision, as Bialik claimed, but a community decision.  As such, it should be made using the best science from the best experts in conjunction with a pediatrician who follows AAP guidelines.  I find it deeply troubling that a woman of science would misuse her education in order to justify her decision not to vaccinate, and I remain terribly disappointed that she was not challenged on that decision.  However, let us not allow her unchallenged fallacies to sway our decisions to protect our children and our community through vaccination.

Request for Comments: Time for Pro-Vax Parents to Step Up

I am writing this email to express my gratitude that there is movement to have the immunization schedule for schools match the CDC recommendations. I am a mother of a 15 month old daughter. I will be enrolling her in day care in the fall. Because of her age she is still too young for some of the vaccines that could prevent diseases. Prior to the anti-vax movement I would have been able to rely on other parents vaccinating their children and therefore protecting my daughter. Of course now there is a much larger risk of my daughter unknowingly contracting a disease that would otherwise be preventable. Anti-vax families are relying on pro-vax families to keep their (anti-vax) children healthy. However, for children that are still to young for some vaccines there is no safety. I stood by science and my conscience when I made the decision to vaccinate. I hope those making this decision will do the same.

The e-mail above was sent to the Minnesota Department of Health this week by a Minnesota mother after she learned that the MDH was considering modifications to the state's "School and Child Care Immunization Law" through the state's rule making process--a legislative process. In order to change any rule, citizens must, by law, be given the opportunity to comment on the proposed changes. In this case, the changes proposed are simply to make Minnesota School Immunization Law line up with the CDC's immunization recommendations. Currently, there are places where they do not match up, leaving children vulnerable.

The Request for Comments period in this process has become critical. That's because the vast majority of individuals who are motivated enough to call, e-mail, or attend meetings on proposed immunization law changes are anti-vaxxers. People who vaccinate their kids, while fantastic public citizens, are often complacent or even unaware that anti-vaxxers pose such a threat to their children and to infants in the community. That's why it's so important this year for parents who vaccinate to take the time, like the mother above, to make their voices heard. Here are the details. 

WHAT: The Minnesota Department of Health (MDH) is considering modifications to the School and Child Care Immunization Law through the Minnesota rulemaking process. The MDH will be accepting comments on these proposed changes until June 30^th at 4:30pm. 

WHERE: You can file your comments by mail, phone, or e-mail. Contact Patricia Segal Freeman, Minnesota Department of Health PO Box 9441, St. Paul, MN 55164-0975, phone (651) 201-5414 or1-877-676-5414; fax (651) 201-5501; TTY users may call (651) 201-5797; email health.immrule@state.mn.us. We would also love to post more letters or comments on this site, so if you do write, please consider dropping us an e-mail at momswhovax AT gmail.com.

MDH will hold two public meetings on the rules.

1.     The first meeting will be on Thursday, June 14, 2012 from 5:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m. at the Orville L. Freeman Building at 625 North Robert Street, St. Paul, Minnesota 55155.

2.     The date and time of the second meeting, which will be a statewide video conference, is Monday, June 18 from 11:30am to 2:00pm. Final details are still being worked out but we expect to have 11 to 13 video conference sites around the state.