Historical Origins of the Personal Belief Exemption to Vaccination Mandates: The View from California.

A number of states, starting with California, have recently removed all non-medical exemptions from their laws requiring vaccinations for schoolchildren. California was also one of the earliest states to include a broad non-medical, or personal, belief exemption in its modern immunization law, which it did with a 1961 law mandating polio vaccination for school enrollment, Assembly Bill 1940 (AB 1940). This paper examines the history of AB 1940's exemption clause as a case study for shedding light on the little-examined history of the personal belief exemption to vaccination in the United States. This history shows that secular belief exemptions date back further than scholars have allowed. It demonstrates that such exemptions resulted from political negotiation critical to ensuring compulsory vaccination's political success. It challenges a historiography in which antivaccination groups and their allies led late-nineteenth and early-twentieth century opposition to vaccination mandates while religious groups drove mid-twentieth century opposition. It also complicates the historiographic idea of a return to compulsion in the late 1960s, instead dating this return a decade earlier, to a time when belief exemptions in polio vaccination mandates helped reconcile the goal of a widely vaccinated population with the sacrosanct idea of health as a personal responsibility.

Vaccines, Pesticides, and Narratives of Exposure and Evidence.

This essay considers the cultural work performed by two public health narratives - the DDT narrative and the vaccine narrative - as they appeared in popular and professional discourse concerning two recent media events: controversy over an antivaccination film, and the emergence of a Zika global public health emergency. Like all narratives in the history of medicine, the stories historians and others tell about DDT and about vaccines organize a shared past to explain the present. They also point to a hoped-for future. The DDT and vaccine narratives share several themes: public health, expertise, evidence, exposure, and power. Their inclusions and exclusions, however, convey distinct messages about these themes, particularly regarding the right conduct of health citizens in the pursuit of public health. These narratives are analyzed to compare their agendas, and to propose a case study of how historical work can shed light on contemporary public health norms, practice, and challenges.

Measles, Media and Memory: Journalism's Role in Framing Collective Memory of Disease.

Language used to describe measles in the press has altered significantly over the last sixty years, a shift that reflects changing perceptions of the disease within the medical community as well as broader changes in public health discourse. California, one of the most populous U.S. states and seat of the 2015 measles outbreak originating at Disneyland, presents an opportunity for observing these changes. This article offers a longitudinal case study of five decades of measles news coverage by the Los Angeles Times and the San Francisco Chronicle, which represented two of the largest news markets in California when the measles vaccine was released, in 1963, and during the 2015 outbreak. Measles reporting during this period displays patterns pointing to an active role for journalists in shaping public understanding of health and medical matters, especially as they recede from public memory, through the employment of available and circulating political and cultural frames. Moreover, journalistic frames in this period of reporting incorporated presentist descriptions of the disease, which imposed present values on the medical past, and which were constructed of decontextualized historical references that supported prevailing contemporary notions of the disease. Framing and the tendency toward presentism, in the context of shifting public health discourse, had the effect of communicating an increasingly severe sounding disease over time, and of shifting blame for that disease's spread from nature to government to individuals. Journalistic framing and causal stories have much power to shape public understanding of medical matters as they recede from public memory.

Drugs, sex, money and power: an HPV vaccine case study.

In this paper we compare the experiences of seven industrialized countries in considering approval and introduction of the world's first cervical cancer-preventing vaccine. Based on case studies, articles from public agencies, professional journals and newspapers we analyse the public debate about the vaccine, examine positions of stakeholder groups and their influence on the course and outcome of this policy process. The analysis shows that the countries considered here approved the vaccine and established related immunization programs exceptionally quickly even though there still exist many uncertainties as to the vaccine's long-term effectiveness, cost-effectiveness and safety. Some countries even bypassed established decision-making processes. The voice of special interest groups has been prominent in all countries, drawing on societal values and fears of the public. Even though positions differed among countries, all seven decided to publicly fund the vaccine, illustrating a widespread convergence of interests. It is important that decision-makers adhere to transparent and robust guidelines in making funding decisions in the future to avoid capture by vested interests and potentially negative effects on access and equity.

Measles and the Modern History of Vaccination.

The modern era of vaccination was heralded with the licensure of the first 2 measles vaccines in 1963. This new era was distinct from the preceding era of vaccination for 4 main reasons. First, federal leadership in support of immunization at the local level grew. Second, immunization proponents championed the required vaccination of children as the best means of ensuring a protected population. Third, immunization proponents championed the idea that mass vaccination would not only help manage infectious diseases but also eradicate them. Fourth, the focus of local and federally supported immunization initiatives began to extend to the "mild" and "moderate" diseases of childhood (eg, measles), so-called because they were seen as less severe than previous targets of mass vaccination, such as smallpox, polio, and diphtheria. This article follows the history of measles to explore immunization successes and challenges in this modern era, because measles was the first of the mild and moderate diseases to become the target of a federally supported eradication-through-vaccination campaign, one that relied heavily on the preemptive, required vaccination of children. Its story thus epitomizes the range of political, epidemiological, cultural, and communications challenges to mass immunization in the modern era of vaccination.

A mother's responsibility: women, medicine, and the rise of contemporary vaccine skepticism in the United States.

Federal efforts to expand childhood immunization coverage in the United States in the 1970s relied heavily on the cooperation of mothers and were concurrent with a major social movement of the past century: the women's movement. This article examines popular and scientific immunization rhetoric of the 1970s and 1980s through a feminist lens, to demonstrate how changing ideas about the social and economic roles of women in this period shaped, on the one hand, official vaccination recommendations and, on the other, women's acceptance of vaccines recommended for their children. Notably, the feminist and women's health movements changed the way women related to and perceived doctors, medical advice, and scientific expertise, with important implications for how some women perceived vaccines and their attendant risks. The influence of feminist ideas on the vaccine doubts that took shape in this period reveal the complexity of the ideologies informing the rise of contemporary vaccine skepticism.

"Do we really need hepatitis B on the second day of life?" vaccination mandates and shifting representations of hepatitis B.

In the decade following hepatitis B vaccine's 1981 approval, U.S. health officials issued evolving guidelines on who should receive the vaccine: first, gay men, injection drug users, and healthcare workers; later, hepatitis B-positive women's children; and later still, all newborns. States laws that mandated the vaccine for all children were quietly accepted in the 1990s; in the 2000s, however, popular anti-vaccine sentiment targeted the shot as an emblem of immunization policy excesses. Shifting attitudes toward the vaccine in this period were informed by hepatitis B's changing popular image, legible in textual and visual representations of the infection from the 1980s through the 1990s. Notably, the outbreak of AIDS, the advent of genetically engineered pharmaceuticals, and a Democratic push for health reform shaped and reshaped hepatitis B's public image. Hepatitis B thus became, in turn, an AIDS-like scourge; proof of a new era of pharmaceuticals; a threat from which all American children had a right to be protected; and a cancer-causing infection spread by teenage lifestyles. The metamorphosis of the infection's image was reflected in evolving policy recommendations regarding who should receive the vaccine in the 1980s, and was key to securing broad uptake of the vaccine in the 1990s.