The Case for Vaccine Exemptions in Vermont -> Part 1

For decades, Vermont upheld a balanced vaccine policy, allowing families to claim philosophical, religious, and medical exemptions while maintaining high vaccination rates. This approach worked: public health goals were met without infringing on parental rights. Yet in 2015, the philosophical exemption was abruptly removed—a decision driven by alarmist rhetoric and the desire to meet arbitrary compliance goals rather than by actual public health risks. Fast forward to 2022, and Vermont legislators targeted the religious exemption, attempting to eliminate it entirely.

This is not just about exemptions. It’s about the assumptions and flawed logic that drive these decisions. In this three-part series, we’ll explore the math behind herd immunity, the controversial use of replicated fetal cell lines, conflicting school attendance policies, and the real risks of vaccine-preventable diseases compared to tuberculosis. By the end, it will be clear that Vermont’s exemption policies were not the problem they were made out to be—and restoring them may be the key to rebuilding public trust.

The Legislative Push: 2015 and 2022

In 2015, Senator Kevin Mullin led the charge to remove Vermont’s philosophical exemption, citing the need to protect public health and maintain herd immunity. The philosophical exemption had allowed families to opt out of mandatory vaccines for school attendance based on personal beliefs. Critics of the exemption, including the American Academy of Pediatrics Vermont Chapter (AAPVT), argued that its use was increasing and undermining herd immunity thresholds. According to the Vermont Department of Health, approximately 5% of public kindergarten students had exemptions for at least one vaccine, the majority being philosophical exemptions. While this statistic fueled legislative concerns about vaccine-preventable disease outbreaks, Vermont’s vaccination coverage still met the 92–95% threshold required to maintain herd immunity for diseases like measles. However, Vermont’s public health record showed no significant outbreaks tied to exemptions, and the state consistently maintained high vaccination rates overall.

The decision to remove the exemption was not based on evidence of an immediate health crisis. Instead, it was a last-minute legislative maneuver, leaving little room for thoughtful deliberation or public input (mountaintimes.info).

By 2022, the focus shifted to the religious exemption. Senator Michael Sirotkin (D) Chittenden District, alongside Senator Brian Campion of Bennington, co-sponsored legislation to eliminate the final non-medical exemption. The justification mirrored the arguments from 2015, emphasizing speculative risks without addressing Vermont’s successful track record. While the bill ultimately failed, it signaled an ongoing push to further restrict parental rights under the guise of public health (ourherald.com).

A Tradition of Exemptions and High Compliance

For nearly half a century, Vermont’s vaccination framework included philosophical, religious, and medical exemptions. These policies reflected the state’s commitment to balancing individual rights with public health. Vermont consistently achieved vaccination rates of 90–95% for school-age children, well above the thresholds needed for herd immunity for most diseases (healthvermont.gov).

The philosophical exemption, codified in the 1970s, allowed families to make vaccination decisions based on personal beliefs. Religious exemptions offered protections for those with faith-based objections. Together, these exemptions were part of a social contract that respected parental choice while ensuring community health. Even as the use of exemptions increased slightly between 2007 and 2015, they still accounted for only 4–6% of the population. These small numbers posed no measurable threat to public health, as Vermont avoided outbreaks even during periods of national surges.

Despite this success, the philosophical exemption was removed—not in response to any public health crisis, but as part of a broader push to enforce compliance targets (wamc.org).

Vermont’s Outbreak History

The alarmist rhetoric surrounding exemptions often relies on the assumption that unvaccinated individuals will spark dangerous outbreaks. Vermont’s history, however, tells a very different story. Over decades, the state experienced only one notable outbreak of a vaccine-preventable disease: the 1996 pertussis (whooping cough) outbreak, which resulted in 280 cases and no fatalities. Notably:

This outbreak was linked to waning immunity among vaccinated individuals, not unvaccinated populations.
Targeted public health efforts contained the outbreak without the need for drastic measures.

Beyond pertussis, Vermont has remained largely free of significant outbreaks. Even during the 2018–2019 measles outbreaks in New York and other states, Vermont reported zero cases, despite the presence of exemptions. This record underscores the effectiveness of localized immunity and robust public health infrastructure, even with a small number of exempted individuals.

Support FYIVT Today – Choose Your Impact! Name Your Own Price to Help Us Keep Fighting for Truth and Transparency. Every Contribution Makes a Difference!

The National Picture: Outbreaks in Vaccinated Communities

While Vermont avoided significant outbreaks, other states with higher vaccination rates faced challenges. These examples reveal that exemptions are not the sole driver of disease spread:

Measles in New York (2018–2019): Despite high vaccination rates, New York experienced a significant measles outbreak concentrated in specific communities. Vermont, with exemptions in place, saw no comparable impact.
Mumps on College Campuses: Repeated mumps outbreaks occurred in highly vaccinated populations, such as on college campuses where compliance often exceeds 95%. These cases highlight the role of waning immunity, even in highly compliant communities.

These examples challenge the narrative that removing exemptions is essential for preventing outbreaks. Instead, they point to broader issues, such as vaccine efficacy over time and localized health factors.

The Reality Behind High Vaccination Rates

Vermont’s consistently high vaccination rates before and after 2015 demonstrate that exemptions were never a significant barrier to public health. Families claiming exemptions represented a small minority, and their decisions did not significantly impact herd immunity. Even after the philosophical exemption was removed, vaccination rates remained stable, further disproving the notion that exemptions posed a risk.

In reality, Vermont’s approach worked for decades, balancing individual choice with public health goals. The decision to remove the philosophical exemption was a solution in search of a problem, and targeting the religious exemption would be more of the same.

Conclusion

For over 40 years, Vermont balanced high vaccination rates with respect for parental rights through exemptions. The removal of the philosophical exemption in 2015 was not a response to any public health crisis but a reaction to alarmist rhetoric and arbitrary compliance goals. This decision disrupted a system that had worked for decades and set a troubling precedent for further erosion of individual freedoms.

Vermont’s history shows that exemptions have coexisted with strong public health outcomes. As we continue this series, we’ll explore the deeper issues at play: the flaws in herd immunity theory, ethical concerns in vaccine production, and the misalignment of public health priorities. These discussions will make it clear that reinstating exemptions isn’t just about preserving rights—it’s about returning to a policy grounded in evidence and trust.

Dave Soulia | FYIVT

#fyivt #VaccineExemptions #HerdImmunity #PublicHealthDebate

Support Us for as Little as $5 – Get In The Fight!!

Make a Big Impact with $25/month—Become a Premium Supporter!

Join the Top Tier of Supporters with $50/month—Become a SUPER Supporter!