Superstition, Pseudoscience and Threat to Children Grow in California

The number of parents getting their kids vaccinated has been declining, particularly in affluent communities, like Marin, in the San Francisco Bay Area. The Bay Citizen has just published vaccination rates for kindergartners in the Bay Area. However, it is not just Marin with lower than normal vaccination rates. Many affluent communities had vaccination rates well below the state average, like Atherton and Burlingame in San Mateo County.

For the complete Bay Citizen article, please click here. For data on specific cities, districts or schools please use the following links: View all Cities | View all School Districts | View all Schools

Children are required by law to have proof of vaccinations before being admitted to schools in California. However, parents can still get their unvaccinated kids into school by using the “personal belief” exemption. 21 states have “personal belief” exemptions, according to VaccineEthics.org.

The “personal belief” exemption rate for private schools was 3.56% compared with 2.16% for public schools. However, Marin County had a “personal belief” exemption rate of 7.06% for its public schools, triple the state average and more than double the average of all other Bay Area counties except Sonoma, which had an exemption rate of 5.98%.

Marin County had the highest per capita income in the state, with a 2009 median household income of $86,658. According to the 2000 census, it was also the highest ranked in the nation. San Mateo, San Francisco, Santa Clara and Contra Costa Counties were the 2^nd-5^th wealthiest counties, while Sonoma County came in at number 12, with a median household income of $53,076, which was slightly above the state norm. In 2009, however, the median household income was $61,985, with 9.5% of residents living below the federal poverty level, significantly lower than the 14.2% statewide average. (Data is from the government census)

However, wealth is not the only factor influencing vaccination rates. San Francisco and Santa Clara Counties each had exemption rates below 2%, while San Mateo and Contra Costa Counties were just over 2%, despite the fact that they are among the wealthiest counties in the state. On the other hand, the Sonoma towns of Sebastopol and Occidental (both with median household incomes around $60,000, just above the state median), had whopping “personal belief” exemption rates of 28.53% and 33.33%, respectively, helping to skew the data for this small county with a population barely half the size of San Francisco. Other Sonoma towns also had higher than average exemption rates (e.g., Geyserville, 9.38%; Cloverdale, 5.13%; Guerneville, 5.56%; Petaluma, 6.10%).

The “personal belief” exemption allows parents to opt out of vaccinations for almost any reason as long as it is “against their beliefs,” including the mistaken belief that vaccines are risky or dangerous for their children. This belief has been growing recently, despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary, due to a well-funded and politically well-connected snake oil machine, particularly among many white, middle class, anti-establishment and anti-“Western” medicine types (many of whom live in Marin, Sonoma and other Bay Area communities).

The notion that vaccines cause autism has been thoroughly discredited (see here, here and here). The main proponent of this fraud, Andrew Wakefield, has been barred from practicing medicine and had his paper retracted from The Lancet when it became clear that he fabricated data and collected $674,000 from lawyers suing vaccine manufacturers, a serious conflict of interest he failed to disclose to the journal.

Other pseudoscientific paranoias include the notion that vaccines overwhelm a child’s immune system. However, there is no science to back this claim. Some parents also believe that vaccines increase the risk of diabetes, but this is based on the flawed research of a single discredited scientist. The overwhelming scientific consensus is that there is no connection.

In fact, the chances of a serious vaccine-related side effect are far lower than the chances of the disease itself causing serious side effects or death, which is the main reason why children should get vaccinated. There are some minor side effects associated with some vaccines, like muscle pain or fever, but they are usually mild and relatively uncommon.

For any given vaccine, there is also a small chance that it will not give the patient immunity. For most vaccines, this rate varies from 5-25%. However, this is absolutely NOT a reason to forgo vaccines because the more people who are vaccinated, the greater the herd immunity, which gives the greatest protection of all. For example, an unvaccinated person in a highly vaccinated community has greater protection than a vaccinated person does in a community with a low vaccination rate. This is because once the herd immunity threshold has been reached (generally around an 80% vaccination rate) there is little opportunity for the infection to take hold in the community and hence no way for it to spread.

Many parents who forgo vaccines do so under the belief that the “herd” immunity of their community will protect their children. The problem with this belief is that their community may never attain herd immunity because so many are forgoing their vaccinations. It is also a terribly selfish and callous mentality that essentially expects everyone else to do what they fear and refuse to do. “I won’t let my child be damaged by those terrible vaccine manufacturers, but I’m counting on everyone else to get vaccinated so my precious won’t catch something nasty.

Not surprisingly, seven of the 12 California counties with the highest rates of whooping cough last year (including Marin) also had above average rates of “personal belief” exemptions, according to an article by California Watch. The others were rural Central Valley counties with high rates of migrant laborers who it is presumed have lower vaccination rates due to poverty and immigration status. Numerous studies have found that states with easy to obtain “personal belief” exemptions, like California, had higher vaccination exemption rates and higher rates of pertussis (whooping cough) and measles—see here and here.

California’s whooping cough rate has approached levels not seen since the 1950s. The disease can be deadly for infants (10 died of the disease in 2010), a risk that increases dramatically when there are higher than normal rates of infections among older children. However, even older children suffer, with some requiring hospitalization, while extended absences from school can jeopardize their academic success. I had one student who missed two weeks due to whooping cough. He never did catch up and had to retake a semester of biology.

One might wonder why there is even such a thing as a “Personal Belief” exemption, as it implies that one person’s beliefs trump public safety, even when their beliefs are superstitious, selfish or wrong. We do not allow a “personal belief” exemption for bullying—kids cannot get permission to bully others based on race, gender, sexual orientation, even if that’s the belief of their families. Yet many schools do allow students to be excused from studying evolution because of their religious beliefs and exemptions from sex education are relatively common.

All of these exemptions have potentially serious consequences for society. Unvaccinated children decrease the chances of herd mentality being achieved, thus increasing the risks for everyone. Children who are ignorant about sexuality, birth control and STDS are at risk of unwanted pregnancies or STDS and spreading them to other people’s children.

Until recently, however, it was relatively difficult to get an exemption from vaccinations. Parents had to show that they held religious beliefs that prevented vaccinating their children. And there is a movement to tighten these rules in order to increase vaccination rates. The National Association of County and City Health Officials, for example, supports the elimination of “personal belief” exemptions, while leaving religious and medical exemptions intact.

Starving in the Land of Plenty

Recent data from the Food Research and Action Center (FRAC) shows that 25% of California households with children are experiencing food hardship (from New America Media).

Latinos and rural residents were most affected. In agricultural Fresno County, for example, 68.6% of public school students were receiving free or reduced lunches, which means their families were suffering from material (and likely food) insecurity. The county is also 59% Latino. In Los Angeles County, which is over 63% Latino, 65.6% of students were receiving free or reduced lunches.

California also has four of the nation’s 20 metropolitan areas with the worst food hardship.  Fresno was fifth in the nation, with 32.6% of its residents facing food insecurity. The Riverside-San Bernadino-Ontario area ranked eighth (30.4%), the Bakersfield area ranked 11th (29.5%) and the Los Angeles-Long Beach-Santa Ana area ranked 18th (28.3%).

Starving In Front of Gratuitous Wealth

With over 15 million people, at a rate of 28.3% the LA area alone has over 4,300,000 residents suffering food insecurity. This statistic is particularly stark when juxtaposed with the phenomenal wealth found in Los Angeles. Here is a list of just its billionaires (all 34 of them), from the Forbes list of 400 wealthiest people on the planet:

19. Kirk Kerkorian, $10 billion

25. Sumner Redstone, $8.4 billion

38. Donald Bren, $5.7 billion

39. Eli Broad, $5.5 billion

45. David Geffen, $4.5 billion

52. Barbara Davis, and Family, $4 billion

52. David Murdock, $4 billion

70. Bradley Wayne Hughes, $3.2 billion

78. Haim Saban, $2.8 billion

83. Stephen Spielberg, $2.7 billion

89. Jerold Perenchio, $2.6 billion

112. Ronald Burkle, $2.3 billion

116. Patrick Soon-Shiong, $2.2 billion

125. Alfred Mann, $2.1 billion

125. Steven Udvar-Hazy, $2.1 billion

133. Michael Milken, $2 billion

153. David Hearst, $1.9 billion

153. George Hearst, $1.9 billion

181. Franklin Booth, $1.7 billion

181. Louis Gonda, $1.7 billion

181. Anthony Pritzker, $1.7 billion

181. Tom Gores, $1.7 billion

198. Ming Hsieh, $1.6 billion

235. John Anderson, $1.4 billion

235. Charles Munger, $1.4 billion

258. Gary Michelson, $1.3 billion

283. Alan Casden, $1.2 billion

283. Robert Day, $1.2 billion

283. Roy Disney, $1.2 billion

283. Leslie Gonda, $1.2 billion

283. Alec Gores, $1.2 billion

283. George Joseph, $1.2 billion

320. Edward Roski, $1.1 billion

346. William Hilton, $1 billion

Insult to Injury
As terrible as it is to have so many hungry children, the problem is exacerbated by the draconian eligibility requirements for CalFresh, the California version of the federal food program. Many are no doubt discouraged from participating because of the finger-imaging requirement, particularly those concerned about being deported.

The New America Media article also suggested that the new federal Super Committee that is set to propose solutions to the federal deficit will slash federal food programs. Considering that state governments have been gutting programs for children, seniors and the poor in order to close their deficits, this fear is not at all unrealistic. In fact, it could be argued that the Super Committee’s mandate is precisely to impose austerity on the most vulnerable and politically least powerful members of society so that the wealthiest can continue to enjoy their privilege and luxury.

Health and Education Implications
Under- and malnourished mothers are much more likely to have babies born prematurely, with low birth weights or with significant health problems. Children who are not receiving adequate nutrition can suffer from iron deficiency anemia and are at risk for a host of developmental and cognitive impairments. Any of these can have a large impact on school-readiness and academic achievement.

However, it is not just hunger and lack of calories that places children at risk. Families that cannot afford to eat nutritious foods will often compensate with food that is cheaper but less nutritious, particularly junk foods, increasing the risks for obesity and diabetes. Such diets tend to be rich in sweets, particularly sugary drinks, and increase the risk of cavities and dental problems. This, too, can hinder academic achievement as students without insurance may be missing class and have trouble concentrating due to pain.

CA Teachers to Inject Students Rectally

Teacher's new tool (image by Zaldyimg)

SB 161 (Huff), a bill that allows non-medical personnel to administer Diastat rectally to students having epileptic seizures, has passed the California Senate and is now in the Assembly. It also has the support of the Obama administration.

On first glance, the legislation is so absurd it sounds like a sick joke. Teachers will pull down a student’s pants in front of classmates and jab a syringe into his or her ass? In any other circumstance, we’d call such behavior molestation or abuse or practicing medicine without a license.

Here are the problems. All students are allowed equal access to educational services, regardless of disability, including epileptics and diabetics (the legislature also wants teachers to inject diabetic students, just not necessary in their rectums). Diabetics and epileptics sometimes have seizures in class, during which they are unable to inject themselves. Thus, there is a need for someone to be on hand to provide this potentially life-saving service. The only people at schools trained to do this safely, legally and with dignity are nurses, but we have stripped away so much funding from public education that schools can no longer afford full-time nurses. Many schools do not have nurses at all.

The solution, however, is not to put sharp, potentially dangerous needles (or plastic syringes without needles, in the case of diastat) into the hands of untrained non-medical personnel, who are at the same time responsible for the safety and learning of 20-35 other children. It is madness and stupidity, conceivable only because teachers are already so beaten down professionally and their unions so weak that politicians believe they can continue to defund schools and simply pile more and more work onto the teachers, regardless of how dangerous, irresponsible or stupid it is to do so.

Furthermore, ALL students, even those without disabilities, should have access to licensed and appropriately trained medical staff to ensure proper care. Legislation like SB 161 legitimizes and normalizes a world without school nurses, thus placing all students at risk of complications or death from illnesses and injuries that a trained school nurse would normally identify, treat or refer to a doctor. School nurses also have the potential to increase the amount of time students are in class by helping low income students manage minor injuries, disease, hunger or malnutrition that might otherwise keep them home or escalate into an emergency room visit.

Giving injections is not a trivial matter. There are obvious risks, like the spread of HIV and other blood-borne diseases, either through poor training or carelessness, or because teachers may be distracted by their other students, running round, screaming, rough housing or having their own medical emergency. However, the administration of Diastat (which does not use a needle) requires that the provider correctly identify the type of seizure the student is having, administer the drug properly in the rectum and at the correct dosage. It is only used for “cluster” seizures, yet there are many types of seizures, and distinguishing between them is no easy task, especially for a teacher who may never have seen a seizure before and who is likely scared.  If done incorrectly, the injection could cause death from respiratory failure. Furthermore, SB 161 does not provide funding to train teachers, nor does it provide liability protection.

Recommendations by the CTA for its Members and Supporters

• Contact your lawmaker using CTA’s Legislative Action Center.
• Read CTA's official letter of opposition to SB 161.
• Read the opposition letter from the California School Nurses Association.

Recommendations by Modern School for the CTA

• Stop wasting so much time and money buying politicians
• Stop running scared and making compromises with abusive politicians in the desperate hope that the abuse will end (it doesn’t in domestic abuse, why should we believe it would here?)
• Start investing the majority of union resources on organizing members and educating the public
• Prepare for a wave of strike actions, including a general strike, not just to oppose SB 161, but all the attacks on the teaching profession (e.g., pension reform, ending seniority, weakening tenure, increasing class sizes, testing, charter schools) AND for massively increased funding so all schools are adequately staffed with nurses, librarians, counselors and support staff

Force Teachers to Inject Students or Hire More Nurses?

The following is an expanded version of the letter I sent to the San Francisco Chronicle on Monday:

The San Francisco Chronicle published an article today by Bob Egelko, “Obama Administration steps into insulin shot fight,” about whether California can force teachers to inject the state’s 14,000 diabetic students. Egelko got the got the basics right: teachers are unqualified to provide injections, while nurses, who are qualified, have been so significantly downsized that half of California’s school districts no longer have them. However, the Justice Department’s assertion that non-nurses should be allowed to give shots is absurd and shows great disregard for the safety of students.

Furthermore, Egelko’s claim that educators support non-nurses giving injections is simply not true. As a teacher and a union organizer I know my colleagues are opposed. Teachers lack the experience and skill of nurses, as well as the time and environment to safely give injections. While giving shots, teachers are still responsible for 30-40 other students, in contrast to nurses, who can give injections in their offices, without other students present. Needles are potentially dangerous instruments. Distractions can lead to accidents or compromise the safety of other students, including the transmission of HIV or hepatitis.

Allowing non-nurses to give injections discourages school districts from hiring more nurses. This can undermine student achievement, as nurses provide routine healthcare that helps keep uninsured children in class. Lack of insurance can increase absences by up to 40%, according to education researcher Richard Rothstein, exacerbating the risk of failure. In a study of Baltimore school children, high school drop-outs averaged 27.6 absences per year, while graduates averaged only 11.8.

The solution is obvious: restore K-12 funding. With $18 billion cut over the last three years in California, it is not surprising that schools have cut nurses (as well as librarians, counselors, teachers and services). Unfortunately, this option is off the table, as the ruling elite would rather risk the safety of other people’s children than accept even a modest tax increase. With over 600,000 millionaires and 80 billionaires, a 1-2% income tax increase just on California’s rich, (and another 1-2% increase on their capital gains), could bring in billions of much needed revenue.

Diabetes, Obesity May Impair Cognitive Function

“Fat Head,” used to be considered an insult, yet fat is essential for the growth of healthy, smart brains. Fat contributes to the development nerve cells (neurons) and synapses, the connections between neurons responsible for thought, communication, emotion, movement and memory. Myelin insulates the axons of neurons and facilitates rapid transmission of nerve impulses. Several types of fats are critical for proper brain development, including cholesterol, which is essential for myelination of axons and for the production of the vesicles that carry neurotransmitters across the synapse. The brain is the most cholesterol rich organ in the body. Therefore, anything that reduces the amount of cholesterol in the brain may in fact impair cognitive function.

Recent research suggests that drugs that lower cholesterol, like statins, may impair cognitive function, while a new study suggests that diabetes, which affects cholesterol production, may reduce cholesterol production in the brain. In the study, researchers found that diabetic mice had reduced levels of cholesterol in the membranes of their neurons near the synapses. If the same holds true for people, this could have profound implications for diabetics, particularly the growing number of diabetic children who may find their disease impairing their academic success.