Mandate exemptions doctors’ guide
Two unusual minorities united in pain
Merogenomics’ YouTube channel has gained a lot of popularity with its the content dedicated to discussions on mRNA vaccines. Consequently, Merogenomics has been exposed to two surprising minority groups, one stemming from the world of unvaccinated individuals and the other from the vaccinated side. Both of these minorities have uniting similarities in that both groups are afflicted by medical conditions that are debilitating to their health (especially with a disability that affects a person's movements, senses, or activities). Another uniting similarity is that those in the unvaccinated group afflicted with previous diverse health problems were then compared to a minority of the vaccinated individuals who developed startlingly similar adverse events. As a consequence, this small minority of unvaccinated individuals - who has nothing against vaccinations - is afraid of taking vaccines because of the chance that they could exacerbate their existing problems. For some of this group, if this risk became realized, it would be incredibly detrimental by further reducing their capacity to effectively function and participate in everyday life.
However, here in Alberta, for some still as yet unexplained reason, health services will only accept exemptions if someone can prove being allergic to one of the exotic components of the COVID-19 vaccines, which basically precludes anyone from being able to receive an exemption without trial and error, irrespective of how dire their existing health situation might be. The reasonable catch-22 is, how do you prove you are allergic without risking suffering severe adverse/side-effects first?
This has been one of the strangest rulings of health authorities worldwide, by completely disallowing anyone to be excluded from imposed vaccination mandates in many societies, irrespective of how risky the vaccines might be to some individuals.
The strangeness of this approach was further underscored by the fact that for many of those who genuinely wanted to seek exemptions on account of their health, their concerns were never included in clinical trials for vaccination safety, and therefore there is absolutely no information available to them to demonstrate whether a particular vaccine is indeed safe for them or not. It seems that society, and more specifically, our health authorities, decided to extrapolate the safety profile observed in a very limited, group setting in clinical trials to the entire population, without giving time or consideration to the effects on sub-populations with health concerns. In fact, the very limited clinical trials that were rushed in order to deliver vaccines as fast as possible to the world in the moment of a health crisis were predominantly done on healthier individuals, and more representative of younger demographics. That has left many population subgroups obviously without representation in the clinical trials. We covered these limitations of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines clinical trials before. They included the some of the following: no studies of effectiveness and safety beyond a 2-month period, no studies of previously SARS-CoV-2 infected individuals, no studies in individuals who were asymptomatic post-infection, no studies on whether vaccines could even limit viral transmission or prevent death. But more importantly, in the context of this topic, the clinical trials on vaccines had no studies in children, no studies in pregnant women, and no studies in immunocompromised individuals, or individuals afflicted with specific diseases. As a consequence, none of any such affected individuals should ever be included in mandates or be forced to take a vaccine if no data has ever been made available as to the vaccine’s safety.
In essence, the small unvaccinated minority we are talking about are people who already have to contend with certain added health difficulties on account of their existing health problems. They were always around prior to this pandemic, trying to live as engaging lives as possible with those health issues. These people reached out to Merogenomics expressing their understandable fear of the risks of accidentally worsening their health concerns.
Thus, here we propose some exemption criteria that should be strongly considered in the following situations when expressed to doctors by patients guided by such legitimate concerns. Taking account of any disability and how it could be exacerbated is an absolutely valid consideration to make. These fears are very valid. The aspects below that are labelled as “controversial” refer to groups that have not been included in clinical trials and therefore are only included in mandates based on the very limited available data or by unquantifiable assumptions of expected safety.
Proposed exemptions for COVID-19 vaccines
- Patient experienced side effects after a first dose – any side effect considered serious by a patient (currently only either an anaphylactic reaction is accepted for exemption or an immediate allergic reaction within 4 hrs by CDC)
- Previous infection thus having natural immunity
- If experiencing moderate or severe acute illness, vaccination should be delayed until the illness improves to a mild status (already used as a standard by CDC for all previous vaccines)
- Patient previously experienced any side effects that are associated with any vaccines (currently CDC leaves this at a doctor’s discretion – see above link)
- Family history of previously experienced side effects commonly associated with vaccines
- Patient suffers from any condition where symptoms mimic or could be seen as predisposing to any side effects that are associated with any vaccines
- Patient has suffered previously an adverse event affecting their immune system from medications
- Patient is pregnant – controversial (risk of infection compromising fetus development vs vaccine impacting fetus development) – patient decision
- COVID-19 symptoms that patient worries could significantly compromise their health due to their own underlying health history if the same symptoms were to be experienced post-vaccination – controversial (risk of infection disability vs vaccine side effect disability) – patient decision
- Cancer – controversial (risk of infection with compromised immune system vs vaccine side effects compromising the immune system further) – patient decision
- Immunocompromised (autoimmune diseases, immunosuppressors, weakened/deficient immune system) – controversial (risk of infection with compromised immune system vs vaccine side effects compromising the immune system further) – patient decision
- Patient already in significantly health compromised situation where vaccine side effects could be detrimental – controversial (risk of infection disability vs vaccine side effect disability) – patient decision
It is difficult to understand why doctors have not challenged the draconian nature of restrictive measures for vaccine exemptions in such circumstances as mentioned above. Surely there are procedures in place allowing doctors to properly document their opinions if they do not agree with measures that might be compromising the well being of their patients, even if they were to turn out to be inaccurate. Surely doctors could exercise these channels to state their opinions to the authorities. There is always a benefit of leaving a well documented trail of professional assessment. Sometimes authorities also need to get feedback on what works and what does not. This is normally the exchange of wisdom and experience in both directions. Health authorities can also use such documentation to do additional research, and thus bring forth additional guidance points. Health guidance is constantly updated thanks to the constant analysis of data or feedback by our health authorities. We have seen this many times during this pandemic, and after all, everyone should be just trying to minimize the negative health outcomes of the pandemic.
But suddenly we are uncovering many surprises that we have to deal with along the way. Like the example of these two minorities in the unvaccinated and vaccinated communities. The unvaccinated people with existing disabilities that are seeking help to avoid any vaccination risks, only because certain adverse events could be too detrimental to their continued existence. That even one adverse event for them might potentially be catastrophic.
For the vaccinated minority with adverse events, on the other hand, they are awkwardly mired in a strangely unrecognized no-man’s land, with not enough help and not enough expertise begin made available. This especially concerns us at Merogenomics as it is not unlike what some patients with genetic rare diseases or undiagnosed conditions are faced with; people that Merogenomics is very familiar with while trying to help them with access and education to DNA testing. These minorities are obviously suffering due to lack of the appropriate support, which is especially exacerbated during the pandemic. These minorities desperately need more recognition, advice, and support. Both groups share valid concerns about their conditions being exacerbated, aggravated, or intensified and that is why they are simply seeking reassurance and help from medical professionals.
And it just makes sense because we all would want to be given that support in that very same situation.
This article has been produced by Merogenomics Inc. and edited by Jason Chouinard, B.Sc. Reproduction and reuse of any portion of this content requires Merogenomics Inc. permission and source acknowledgment. It is your responsibility to obtain additional permissions from the third party owners that might be cited by Merogenomics Inc. Merogenomics Inc. disclaims any responsibility for any use you make of content owned by third parties without their permission.
Products and Services Promoted by Merogenomics Inc.
Select target group for DNA testing
Or select popular DNA test
Pharmaco-genetic gene panel
Non-invasive prenatal screening
Cancer predisposition gene panel