What "Vaccine Hesitancy"? 98.8% Compliance Under 2 Years Old.

"The percentage of children who received no vaccinations by age 24 months remained low (1.2%)." 2024 Report.

If 98.8% of newborns, infants and toddlers have had at least one vaccine, indicating a 98.8% acceptance of the vaccine program, (or coercion into it), why does Public Health constantly clamor about “Vaccine Hesitancy”?

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7338a3.htm

Public Health is always complaining that the “well-funded, highly organized anti-vaccine community is hijacking unsuspecting, gullible parents on their way to pediatric appointments by using mis, dis, and mal information to prevent them from getting their children vaccinated”.

Apparently, all 1.2% of them. How successful are the “antivaxxers” if they are only able to influence 1.2% of families to not start vaccinating?

What is the hue and cry about?

Public Health should be “high fiving” each other, not complaining about the 1.2% who are slipping through the cracks. What other programs have 98.8% acceptance?

Even now the “record” kindergarten national exemption rate is still only 3.3%, (historically it consistently ranged >1.0% to 2.2% pre-Covid).

This ratio shows that two thirds of exemption users have used vaccines.

https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/73/wr/mm7341a3.htm

If vaccinating is only a positive experience, the exemption rate should only be equal to the rate of students with no vaccines, not higher.

Vaccinating families who have no negative experiences or problems with vaccines are “immune” from “antivaccine” information. “We vaccinate and our kids are fine, what are these crazy anti vaxxers talking about?”

An exemption rate higher than the never vaccinated rate indicates there is something going on to move parents away from vaccination.

The never vaccinated should be observing poor health and more sickness in their children, superior health in the vaccinated, and the never vaccinated rate should be going down as they recognize the obvious, unarguable benefits of vaccination and then decide to join in.

If the vaccine paradigm that vaccines are essential for health were true then never vax parents would be saying, “Yeah, we fell for that crap, Billy and Sally were sick all the time, we are lucky they didn’t die, but we are on board now and do the full schedule, on schedule.”

A higher rate of kindergarten exemptions over the never vaccinated rate indicates that parents are leaving the vaccine program based not on “antivaccine” messaging, but their direct experience with vaccinating, or taking the time to evaluate an ever expanding, bloated vaccine schedule.

The higher exemption rates show parents are leaving the vaccine system due to reactions or objecting to specific vaccines they feel are unneeded due to low risk, like chicken pox and Hep A, or low risk of exposure, like Hep B or HPV.

98.8% of parents are initially believing the “provax” side and then only seeking out “antivaccine” messaging after a poor experience or becoming educated about the potential outcomes and performing their own personal risk and benefit analyses.

Parents are first accepting “provaccine” messaging, then after experience with vaccines, they are often being gaslit about the health issues they observed.

Parents are often told these reactions are simply coincidental and unexplainable but are definitely not related to the vaccines.

For many parents it is only after a poor experience, after exhausting all other explanations for the harm, that they seek out “antivaccine” content, thinking “maybe those crazy antivaxxers were right after all”.

In a standard business scenario if you observed a near 300% increase in lowered re-orders of your product after customer use, that would be a red flag to figure out what is the problem that we are losing customers.

Vaccine Hesitancy

I have been defending exemptions to school requirements since 2010, when the first legislation to eliminate nonmedical exemptions was introduced in Washington State.

In the 2010 / 2011 session, the term “Vaccine Hesitancy”, was not yet in use.

I asked Grok for the earliest citation of “vaccine hesitancy”:

“The terms "vaccine hesitant" and "vaccine hesitancy" emerged in the public health lexicon relatively recently…”

“The earliest formalized use of "vaccine hesitancy" in public health discourse can be traced to the World Health Organization’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts on Immunization (SAGE), which established a Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy in 2012. This group defined "vaccine hesitancy" in a 2014 report as "a delay in acceptance or refusal of vaccines despite availability of vaccination services." This definition was published in a paper titled "Addressing Vaccine Hesitancy" by the WHO SAGE Working Group, marking a significant moment where the term was codified for public health purposes.”

Grok then went on with some claptrap I won’t bother with now, trying to justify the term for purposes other than what I know to be true. If I can get time, I will dissect that “information” which was unnecessary to my question and reveals biased Grok programming.

(Please consider a paid subscription or “buy me a coffee donation, below).

“Vaccine Hesitancy” is a Public Health Pharma construct along the lines of the fabled, fictional, “Casual Exemptor”, and used to influence legislators to support exemption restriction or elimination.

The “Hesitant” or “Casual” idea is that some parents are not vaccinating because they are unsure about vaccines, or think exempting is less hassle than complying.

Expectant parents are inundated with pro-vaccine messaging from pre-birth to every interaction with the medical system, educational system, and in the media. No one is ignorant of the represented benefits of vaccination.

Imagine, a parent from San Diego who thinks it is less hassle to drive 8 hours each way from their home in SD to the California State Capitol in Sacramento to testify against exemption ending legislation CA SB277, because it is easier than having their child vaccinated.

When exercising an exemption there is no one doing so “hesitantly”, or “casually”. The pressure to conform and comply is crushing. The path of least resistance is to simply accept the recommendations and let their child be vaccinated.

Anyone who is only “hesitant”, or “casual” will get ground up in the vaccine mill where pediatricians are taught to not ask permission to vaccinate but use what is called in sales the “assumptive close”:

“OK, I see we have some vaccines due today, let’s go ahead and get them taken care of right now.”

Before exemption restriction or elimination legislation is introduced in a state lobbyists have told legislators that anyone rejecting vaccines is a crazy, crunchy, undereducated, irresponsible, free riding medical Luddite who does not understand the sacrament of Vaccination and its principles and is ignorant of the benefits of vaccination.

Legislators are briefed that exemptions have been an indulgence for these nut jobs, and we have to make the adult decision and do the right thing.

This messaging is echoed in the media and many Legislators fall for it.

But after the bills drop, responsible legislators meet with constituents. The legislators learn these parents are fully rational and reasonable, often armed with three ring binders full of printed out and highlighted studies with sticky notes, and who have developed extremely well thought out arguments for their position.

The legislators recognize that these people are not going to resume or begin vaccinating with a change in the law.

That then makes the legislators “hesitant” to pass the bill. They recognize they are driving constituents out of the education system.

Responsible legislators understand they have they both a Federal and State constitutional responsibility to educate all citizens regardless of vaccination status.

This prompted some legislators to begin to explore what alternative education options could be used in lieu of banning these families from in person education and forcing them to forfeit their 14th amendment guaranteed access to a “FAPE”- a Free and Appropriate Public Education. To find the “least restrictive option”.

One possibility is allowing certain schools to offer exemptions so that these students can continue to get in person services.

For example, during an extended national mumps outbreak in 2016 / 2017, in Spokane, WA, MMR exempt students were excluded off campus for up to 90 days and were obviously not involved in transmission.

At that same time exempt teachers were also excluded off campus. The exempt teachers offered to conduct classes for the exempt students in a separate location away from the general student population.

What a compassionate, elegant, logical, and useful idea.

Alternative education environments are something that Public Health Pharma could not permit because to do so would legitimize not vaccinating as an acceptable choice.

This cannot be allowed because the purpose of attacking school exemptions is not to grind out the sales in that last 2% - 3%.

It is to delegitimize exemptions and remove exemptions as a legal principle and precedent prior to rolling out mandates on adults.

That way adults can’t point to the school exemptions and say, “Why don’t we have those?”

“Vaccine Hesitant” and “Casual Exemptors” are just think tank focus group tested ploys used by Public Health Pharma lobbyist to assuage the conscience of legislators who are worried they may be constitutionally abusing their constituents by requiring vaccination and denying them an education.

I have seen this strategy firsthand when accompanying a mother (as moral support) when she was meeting her legislator.

“I am a working single mother, what am I going to do with my daughter if she can’t go to school?”

The legislative aide, who had been briefed that this woman was only “hesitant” or “casual”, leaned back, crossed his arms. and said smugly, “You will get her vaccinated so she can stay in school.”

I had to pull her off of him, (metaphorically), as she was emphatically explaining that the last shots almost killed her daughter, and she will never have any vaccine again.

I saw a true look of shock in his eyes and on his face. He was totally unprepared for this level of commitment. That exchange prompted me to research to understand what exactly was being said to legislators behind closed doors to believe this.

Legislators are told that these families are only “hesitant” or “casual”. They are told that changing the law and eliminating the exemptions will “push them off the fence, and they will go ahead and vaccinate to stay in school”.

This will “increase” vaccination rates so legislators can vote for the bill with a clear conscience.

In reality eliminating vaccine exemptions drives families out of the schools.

The infamous former CA Senator Dr. Richard Pan has been consulting in states with legislation pending.

Here is an interview where Dr. Pan uses the exact “on the fence” phrasing to convince legislators that exemption using families will not leave the schools. https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/facts-alone-wont-convince-people-to-vaccinate-their-kids/

“Most parents are on the fence,” Pan said. “It’s not because they don’t believe in vaccines; they’re nervous about them. And so what happened is that the law pushed them off the fence, and they got their kids immunized.”

Dr. Pan claims there was no impact to school enrollment, which is categorically false. Details below.

Paraphrase: “Remember SB277? All kinds of noise during the session, then when the bill passed, crickets. Just jam it through. Parents will comply”.

Why weren’t there protests in the fall after SB277? Because SB277 was constructed so that no one was immediately kicked out and SB277 had an 8-year phase in. SB277 didn’t implement until June 15, 2016, 1 year after passage in June 2015.

Parents were given 6 months after SB277 passage until December 31, 2015, to obtain new exemptions, exemptions that could last as long as 8 years depending on the age of the student.

All enrolled students were grandfathered until 7th grade. 8th grade and up were grandfathered through graduation. IEP students are outside of SB277, as well as other carve outs for alternative educational environments. (The construction of SB277 is its own potential SB277 post if I have time).

What happened to enrollment? Parents with the wherewithal left immediately, and enrollment dropped each subsequent year.

March 28, 2019

“A total of 34,135 fewer students were enrolled this school year compared to last, more than four times the drop experienced the prior year. Until this year, the biggest single-year decline in the past five years had been 8,783 from the 2014-15 to 2015-16 school year.” The year of SB277 passage.

There are a lot of problems in California, but the vaccine issue is not helping them. I didn’t see any stories of parents moving to CA because of the restrictive law.

SF Gate February 11, 2020. “Hesitant” and Casual” parents don’t uproot their families.

Idaho is currently considering legislation to give it the strongest medical freedom laws in the country. This will enhance their status as a medical freedom destination.

Idaho Legislation

https://x.com/LeslieManookian/status/1900631857273692577

Clearly, there is no one “hesitantly” or “casually” refusing to vaccinate in the pediatrician’s office or using an exemption to attend school.

This is simply another arrow in the quiver of Public Health Pharma to mislead legislators to support constitutionally repugnant legislation to impose their objective of full compliance to the full schedule on everybody, in their own terms, “From cradle to grave.”

If you appreciate my work and would like to see an increase in content, paid subscriptions & coffees will facilitate my ability to post more often.

https://www.buymeacoffee.com/karlkanthak

Strategy to Smear RFK, Jr.

Political Strategy to Smear Opponents