THE NEW NORMAL

It occurred to me today, that...

IF I’M GOING TO CAUCUS OR VOTE IN THE PRIMARIES 

ON NATIONAL LEVEL POLITICS,

WHY WOULD I NOT ALSO PARTICIPATE IN MY STATE GOVERNMENT?

MY GOAL: 

“To sweep across the state, one day at a time, contacting all Representatives & Senators in WA State about my research into the importance of maintaining the Informed Consent Ethic, the reality that Medical Science Evolves, the Dangers inherent in all medical interventions, and the Importance of NOT over-estimating Vaccine Medicine Efficacy or the Infallibility of professionals within the Medical Field.”

I’M GOING WITH GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS, SO I WILL HAVE A SENSE OF WHERE EACH REPRESENTATIVE LIVES AND WHO HE/SHE REPRESENTS. IN EARLY JANUARY, I WILL POST HERE WITH A CHART THAT LISTS THE GENERAL “LEANINGS” OF EACH REPRESENTATIVE/SENATOR THAT I SPEAK WITH.

YOUR GOAL:

Is what?

Why Pro-Vaccine Advocates NEED Vaccine Exemptions

A Community Conversation About Health and Responsibility: Vaccines and Beyond

Informed Consent: Why Fully-Vaccinated Citizens Need Vaccine Exemptions

When you go to the doctor, you may take the right to informed consent for granted. The doctor makes a recommendation, which usually includes information about the risks and benefits of that recommendation. You may choose to follow that recommendation, ask more questions or decide to do more research before making a decision. Perhaps you choose to seek a second opinion. In the end, you may refuse the doctor's recommendation. These are all your rights under informed consent.

Imagine, for a moment, going to a doctor for medical advice regarding a procedure. The doctor gives a recommendation which you listen to respectfully. Before you have a chance to make up your own mind, the doctor casually mentions, "Oh, by the way." "If you don't agree to my recommendation, you will be kicked out of school and/or fired from your job. This medical procedure is mandatory in the state of Washington. But as long as you're willing to give up education and employment, feel free to make your own decision."

Would you be okay with this? Even if you absolutely agreed with the doctor's medical opinion and planned to follow the recommendation, would you be comfortable being subjected to this kind of coercion?

History tells us repeatedly that patient involvement in their own health decisions is vital for safe and effective health care. When coercion becomes part of health care, people get hurt. Even if that coercion is well-intended.

Freedom of speech protects us all, but only if we defend it universally. For instance, we don't get to pick and choose whose speech is acceptable enough to be worth protecting. That freedom is protected for all of us. To protect your own rights, you must protect the rights of others, even if you strongly disagree with them. Even if you think they're dangerous idiots. Rights are rights.

The right of informed consent also protects us all. To retain this right, we must all defend it, in every area of healthcare. Allowing a profit-driven industry with known conflicts of interest to decide which areas of medicine and which patient groups deserve the benefits of informed consent is a naive and dangerous proposition.

In 2015, a very small handful of representatives in Olympia crafted & tried to pass HB 2009. This bill was designed to eliminate our right to file a Philosophical/Personal Vaccine Exemption on behalf of our families and our children. It was designed to coerce parents into compliance by threatening their child's access to childcare and public/private education.

The corporate pharmaceutical companies are using powerful marketing techniques to undermine the right of informed consent. Their messages suggest that informed consent is a public health risk and that only mandates can save us all from the scourge of disease. This is fear-mongering. Such legislation will undermine public health while it increases corporate pharmaceutical corporate profit. Any medication or drug (as vaccines are classified according to the CDC) that can be made universally mandatory guarantees a universal consumer base for the manufacturer and a predictable profit. This is even more so if the manufacturer is protected from liability for any harm that drug may cause.

In 2015, corporate pharmaceutical lobbyists spent more than $2 million on changing California vaccine laws.* Laws were passed that remove the right of informed consent for both children and adults. Vaccination is now required for all school children including homeschoolers who meet in a classroom environment. Children who are missing even one vaccine are only allowed to be educated in isolation at home or in independent study programs that involve no classroom contact. In addition, no adult in California may work in any form of childcare or preschool without proof of vaccination and this includes parent co-ops. If any money is exchanged to pay for a program, vaccines are required for both paid staff and volunteers.  *Source: Sacramento Bee

It is important to note that the California measles outbreak did not spread through schools. It happened because someone who was contagious with measles went to Disneyland where they still have a strict "no-refund, no exchange" policy for any reason...including active, contagious measles. Oddly, no legislation to mandate refund or exchange policies for businesses has been introduced into the CA legislature.

In 2015, we succeeded in defending our right to informed consent in Washington, but in 2016, we expect a much harder fight in Olympia. And so, we are preparing in advance!
Please join us the effort to protect informed consent. Here's how you can help:

1.  Review some of the posts on this blog. Expand your viewpoint and information base. Our legislators need to hear some new information, not repetitions of the same tired themes.

2.  Contact legislators in Olympia. When doing so, think strategically. In Olympia, there are those who are committed to their viewpoint and nothing you say will sway them. So, don't waste your time. Instead, reach out to those voting members of our legislature who may care a great deal but just don't know much or those who appear to be on the fence. Remember that they have the right to ask questions and there are many great viewpoints we can offer them.

3.  Talk to both your legislators and your friends about the complexity of this issue and the importance of informed consent to them and their loved ones. No matter what the news and lobbyists tell you, coercion is bad medicine and poor public health policy. 

“A Community Conversation About Health and Responsibility: Vaccines and Beyond” is an ongoing series written by two close friends with a passion for improving community cohesion and building respectful relationships in a diverse world. This article was co-created by Karen Crisalli Winter and March Twisdale. 

Learn more at our BLOG:  Vaccinesandbeyond.blogspot.com  

Contact us to get more involved:  KarenandMarch@rocketmail.com  

S/D/Q Paradigm is in the mail to WA State legislators!

Hello all!

Karen and I are headed back to Olympia on Wednesday, June 10th (homeschooled kids in tow) for another day of conversations with WA state elected officials. In addition to those we spoke with on St. Patrick's Day, we've mailed the following description of the S/D/Q Paradigm to every member of the House Health Care & Wellness Committee and also the Senate Health Committee.

If you share with us your reason for wanting Washington State to stand up for Informed Consent, we will carry it to Olympia for you! [email: marchpower@yahoo.com]

If your doctor has dismissed your or your child's adverse reaction, despite your clear description of the events, please share your experience. The assumption that the "medical exemption" is sufficient (because all doctors will respond appropriately and protect children at risk) is a dangerous one that puts too high of a burden upon medical professionals who average only 16 minutes per patient in the USA.

Please enjoy, consider, and share the SDQ Paradigm with your friends & family. It invites thought!

The S/D/Q Paradigm:

Simplifier/Delgator/Questioner:  A new paradigm for talking about vaccines

It has always been an unquestioned assumption that people fall on a continuum from “pro-vaccine” to “anti-vaccine”. Until quite recently, it has also been an unquestioned assumption that people could be moved along this continuum through education. However, recent studies are calling these assumptions into question. Multiple studies have found that pro-vaccine messaging has the paradoxical effect of decreasing confidence in vaccines among the so-called “vaccine hesitant” parents. Two such studies are referenced here:

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/early/2014/02/25/peds.2013-2365

http://ebm.bmj.com/content/19/6/219.extract

This has caused some to conclude that the so-called “vaccine hesitant” are stupid, uneducated, or  anti-science.  However, this is not consistent with demographic data, which identifies so-called “vaccine hesitant” parents as having a significantly higher level of education than “vaccine compliant” parents.

We suggest there is a fundamental flaw in all of these studies: vaccine choices do not fall on a single continuum. Instead, we have seen evidence to suggest that how people decide is the crucial issue in need of exploration and understanding. With twenty-five years of observation under our combined belts, we have observed and defined three basic decision-making styles: Simplifier, Delegator, and Questioner. All three are valid, offer value to the community, and deserve our respect.

Simplifiers make decisions by simplifying a complex subject into a few basic rules. These are the folks who will say “All vaccines are safe” or “All vaccines are dangerous.” This is the only group where pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine are accurate labels. There aren’t a lot of these folks, but they are the ones you are most likely to meet at a public meeting when the issue of vaccine medicine is on the table. Simplifiers serve an important purpose in our democracy. At their best, Simplifiers are powerful advocates. Pro-vaccine Simplifiers create an environment that supports everyone’s access to vaccine medicine. As many public health strategies depend upon broad societal use of vaccine medicine, this is great for public health. However, society also benefits from the voices of anti-vaccine Simplifiers who publicize problems with vaccine medicine. This helps to guarantee the safety of the vaccine supply.  For example, our first drug safety law, the Biologics Act of 1902, was passed after Anti-vaccine Simplifiers raised awareness about a contaminated vaccine batch that killed a number of children.

Delegators are quite different. They make decisions by selecting an expert they find trustworthy and following their instructions. Delegators may do a great deal of research on selecting that expert, or none at all. While many Delegators choose to trust government-sanctioned entities, such as the CDC, or accept the advice of their chosen family doctor; others choose a friend, relative, book, celebrity, or religious leader as their expert. Either way, their vaccine choices reflect the opinion of their chosen expert. Since most government and medical experts align themselves with the CDC, most Delegators follow the CDC schedule.

Questioners tend to feel solely responsible for their final decision. Therefore, they focus on data collection, analysis, and all possible options. This research introduces them to the variety of information that science offers on the subject of vaccine medicine. Questioners develop a high level of comfort with ambiguity and the complexity of both vaccine science and the human immune system. Yes, Questioners often seek out experts as sources of information, but they shoulder the burden of making the final decision willingly, as a necessary cost of medical freedom. Their final decisions vary dramatically, with some Questioners seeking out vaccines that are not yet on the schedule, some Questioners choosing the CDC schedule, some Questioners choosing a custom vaccine schedule, and a few rare Questioners declining all vaccine medicine entirely.

Contrary to popular media hype, we would like to suggest that there is not a huge surge in “anti-vaxxers.”  Anti-vaccine Simplifiers are a tiny percentage of the population, as are pro-vaccine Simplifiers. These percentages have remained steady for more than a hundred years, and they’re not likely to change anytime soon. While they are a powerful force politically, Simplifiers can and should be disregarded for the purposes of public health messaging. There aren’t enough of them to alter the patterns of disease transmission and they are not going to change their passionate beliefs because of any public health campaign.

There is, however, a huge generational shift from Delegators to Questioners. Sixty years ago, patients rarely questioned doctors. Delegation was expected and made sense when the average citizen was lucky to have a high school diploma. Questioners were found mostly within professional scientific circles. With Questioners nearly as rare as Simplifiers, public health messaging was aimed exclusively at Delegators.  Appeals to authority were extremely effective, especially if paired with scare tactics about the hazards of disease and the danger of not trusting your doctor. Vaccines mandates were seen as just another form of expert advice.

These strategies still work very well for Delegators. However, these days up to 40% of parents are Questioners, especially in highly educated areas. The strategies that worked through the 1970’s don’t work now.

When you present Delegator-oriented messaging to Questioners, they are offended by the idea of simply obeying a doctor (even if they like the doctor) and suspicious of scare tactics. Unlike Delegators, Questioners want to be given lots of information. They are reassured by data, not frightened by it, and they accept ambiguity as normal in a field of medical science. They prefer honest uncertainty to oversimplification. We also find that Questioners reject the legitimacy of medical mandates, which is why heavy-handed legislation consistently meets with strong, morally-rooted objections. Even if a Questioner would have voluntarily chosen the behavior that is being mandated, they will stand up for their right to make that decision without coercion in any form.

In short, there is not an increase in anti-vaccine sentiment. There is a shift in how people make decisions about health care. Current public health messaging has failed to take this shift into account, creating (in some areas) alarmingly low vaccination rates. Old strategies of scare tactics, appeals to authority, and mandates will not succeed. These tactics are outdated and counterproductive.

So, what do we do? Rather than fearing independent thinking and a highly-educated population, we need to capitalize on it! It is time to develop new communication strategies that will meet the needs of both Questioners and Delegators. The main difficulty comes from the fact that Delegators become more confident when urged to trust an expert, but less confident when given lots of data. Questioners, meanwhile, become distrustful when urged to follow expert advice, but more confident when given lots of data. On the plus side, both Questioners and Delegators readily self-select messages that work for them. Given that advertisers routinely target niche markets with great success, it shouldn’t be too difficult to gently steer people towards the kind of messaging that will enable us to talk about the evolving subject of vaccine medicine in a rational and productive way.

To do this, however, we will need strong leadership from Olympia and - to gain the respect of Questioners - this means our state must make an absolute commitment to the medical ethic of Informed Consent.

The S/D/Q paradigm warrants further study as a valuable tool for public health.

For more information on the S/D/Q paradigm, please email us at karenandmarch@rocketmail.com or visit our blog: vaccinesandbeyond.blogspot.com.  

Our first article on the S/D/Q paradigm can be found at http://vaccinesandbeyond.blogspot.com/2013_03_01_archive.html

Assumptions VS Reality

When it comes to Vaccine Medicine, people tend to think that their perspective is the "reality" and that those who disagree with them are making "erroneous assumptions." What if everyone is both right and wrong about this?

The issue of "science-ism" (which we'll talk about more later) is important to understand. In a nutshell, "science-ism" is what happens with a person begins to relate to "science" as people often relate to religion. Blind faith, trust in authority figures, belief that concrete & unquestionable answers have been attainted...all of which is the EXACT OPPOSITE of what science really is. Right?

So, in the spirit of "always questioning everything" and "making observations," here is a list of thoughts that challenge the status quo. Which is what science excels at...

Opening Minds in Olympia & Around WA State

Taking Our Voices to Olympia - Cover Page

When we reach out to our government, do we feel heard?

If we have signed a petition or sent an email, likely not.

If we have called and spoken to a person, maybe.

If we have visited the seat of government, yes?

But, what good is it to be heard, if one's gift of thought are not remembered or acted upon?

On Tuesday, March 17th, Karen and I spent the entire day in Olympia and, 

we actually felt pretty well heard. Which, of course, means that 

much work lies ahead...for us...AND FOR YOU.

Imagine a huge ocean filled with people who have thoughts.

 On that ocean, there floats a large cruise ship.

Inside, there are many different levels.

Ranging from large to small.

This is how one can view our society, and in our view...all of those people have a role to play.

Karen and I have taken a trip to the cruise ship. We hung around for a day,

we chatted with folks in a couple of levels, and we departed.

But, we left behind our thought. Ideas. Proposals.

Now, we would like to share with you, the ocean, our thoughts as well.

Because, we are all the source of our society.

Over the next two months, we will share the handouts we offered to those in the seats of government.

We invite your responses, ideas, curiosity & additional comments.

In May, we will revisit the issue of "what shall we do to improve public health in WA state?"

We will call upon our government employees and partake in the conversations

 necessary to seek our ultimate goal: A Proposal That Captures Near Consensus

Sound impossible?

So did flight.

And flying a rocket to the moon.

And landing on Mars.

And...

-------------------------------------------------------------------

HERE IS THE COVER SHEET ON OUR PACKET OF INFORMATION

(we already posted page #1 on March 11th)

We, Karen Crisalli Winter & March Twisdale, believe 
that HB 2009 failed for valid and important reasons.

This packet covers the issues which relate to:

(1) why HB 2009 was inherently flawed, 

(2) why we need to continue the conversation,  

(3) the counter-intuitive ways in which increased freedom can improve public health, and

(4) how the state can improve the effectiveness of its public health messaging by soliciting feedback from the residents of WA state.

Handouts Included:

Handout Title	Pages
Informed Consent Benefits Public Health - Here’s How	1
Current Problems That May Be Reducing Vaccination Levels	2-3
Assumptions VS Reality	4
A letter from a WA state resident	5-7
The Philosophical/Personal Exemption Protects Our Right To Vaccinate	8
Vaccine Exemption Survey	9-13
“Safe & Effective”	14
FDA Press Release	15-16
Mumps Vaccine Fraud	17

Informed Consent = Much Better Healthcare For All

I spoke with a wise journalist who's been around the block for awhile and he said to me, "People have a short attention span. It's just that way. So, make sure you can express your idea succinctly, in five paragraphs or less...even better, focus on talking points."

I thought for a moment and replied, "It's the hook. We'll still reel the fish in with a long fishing line, but we have to set the hook. So, a talking point is just the beginning of the conversation. It's meant to catch their attention and, if it works, they'll begin to ask you for more information. And that’s where we’ll find the good solutions...in the conversation.”

Tuesday, March 17th - Karen & March (and their children) head to Olympia to share ideas & proposals with Representatives, Senators, Advisors to the Governor and Officials at the WA State Dept. of Public Health in Tumwater. 

We have several goals, but one is to insert the concept and guarantee of "Informed Consent" into our state law. Why? Because, for the following reasons...this alone will immediately improve public health from the ground up, one patient at a time.

Ten Ways Informed Consent Benefits Us All

1.  With no consent, there is no reason to get informed. Public health benefits from an informed citizenry.

2.  Patient feedback is vitally important for the continual improvement of our medical knowledge. Patients are more inclined to give feedback about adverse reactions to drugs or interventions if they know they have alternative options. 

3.  Without informed consent, patients are less involved in their care and pay less attention to details. Doctors make mistakes in vaccine identification, timing and records. Involved patients are more likely to catch these errors before a harm occurs. 

4.  Consent creates a natural control group for scientific study. No human ethics board will approve a placebo study in which patients are given a placebo instead of an existing approved vaccine. However, it is perfectly ethical to study people who have voluntarily chosen to exempt themselves. This creates opportunities that can increase our understanding and benefit public health.

5.  Every serious vaccine injury scares many patients away from vaccines and traumatizes doctors. Minimizing these injuries is in everyone’s best interest. Informed consent leads to patients who are more likely to share pre-existing conditions & history before consenting to vaccination.  

6.  Doctors are being forced to spend less and less time with patients. Informed consent creates a legal mandate that pushes back against this trend, increases the time that doctors can spend with patients, and improves public health.

7.  Informed consent tends to allow people who are nervous about vaccines to become more confident about vaccines. Coercion, on the other hand, tends to increase anxiety and result in a backlash effect that reduces overall confidence in vaccines.

8.  Informed patients demand that vaccines meet their minimum standards. By doing so, patient choices create a market that supports higher quality vaccines.

9.  Informed patients are more likely to recognize early symptoms and seek diagnosis and testing which leads to earlier treatment and this is good for all.

10.  Informed patients have a better understanding of how vaccines work and don’t work. Over-confidence in vaccine efficacy can lead to carelessness in vaccinated individuals which is bad for public health. 

11.  And now it's your turn. Share with us a story of how Informed Consent improved your medical experience. If you've given birth, had any surgery (minor or major), if you've been prescribed a medication or have utilized any medical testing...your doctor was required to make sure you understood the options, the possible side effects, and other available alternatives...and your doctor waited while you decided whether or not to "consent" to one option or the other or wait and research it further before making your decision. Please consider sharing your experience!