The New Religion
from the article:
Certainly, that is the tactic of choice at the prestigious, exclusive Hayground School in Bridgehampton, where an astonishing one-third of typically secular, sophisticated, ultra-liberal parents have, it seems, a “genuine” religious objection to vaccination of their children.
To parents who send their kids to local public schools that doesn’t cut it. A long-established local pediatrician, Gail Schonfeld, now refuses to accept patients the children of parents who won’t permit immunization. She believes in vaccines—in fact, considers them just plain good medical practice—and says if “parents don’t trust me with this, we won’t have a good working relationship.”
Certainly, that is the tactic of choice at the prestigious, exclusive Hayground School in Bridgehampton, where an astonishing one-third of typically secular, sophisticated, ultra-liberal parents have, it seems, a “genuine” religious objection to vaccination of their children.
To parents who send their kids to local public schools that doesn’t cut it. A long-established local pediatrician, Gail Schonfeld, now refuses to accept patients the children of parents who won’t permit immunization. She believes in vaccines—in fact, considers them just plain good medical practice—and says if “parents don’t trust me with this, we won’t have a good working relationship.”
I would not put it past those in government, particularly nOw, to use mandatory inoculation recklessly to line the pockets of big-pharma to the detriment of the host.
There simply is no trust. It is up to the individual or the parent to choose what is needed to remain healthy. No tears given, sympathy warranted, or liability granted should a parent choose not to inoculate and illness, or worse, befall their child.
Lets say you catch measles while otherwise sick with the flu, or something worse, like pneumonia. While the measles itself may not kill you, it can certainly play a contributing role in the death of the patient.
This is a very easy disease to treat, its sad that so many accept a risk consciously without necessarily knowing what that risk may be, and it threatens those that can't be immunized because of allergies or whatever. If they unvaccinated are a small number, they are probably safe. If they are part of 10 or 15%, they are probably going to be part of an outbreak.
I'm vaccinated, so is my entire family, so I can ultimately just observe the panic.
when i grew up i experienced all of these illnesses as did almost every one i knew. yes we lived through them but if there was a vaccine I am quite sure my parents would have given it to me and my siblings and i believe all of the other parents would have done the same. i had several friends and cousins that had polio, and unfortunately the vaccine was not available then. I didn't get it until i was in the Army.
Maybe some of the parents will think differently as the are attending to their child who is miserable while having the disease.
so far the history of the vaccine is pretty outstanding with its success.
one more reason to avoid religion.
from the seat . . no kidding;;; I know. . took a week
to get rid of them. -- j
As to measles ever being an epidemic, 4,000,000 cases per year with 500 deaths per year is a death rate of 0.00125% and as a % of approximately 250,000,000 population, that's 0.000002%. That's a vanishingly small # approaching 0%.
Polio was a devastating disease--measles is not. Parasitic diseases such as malaria are devastating and we stopped the fight against those. This push for total vaccination is NOT about fighting disease!
I don't think autism has necessarily increased, when I was little in the 60's / 70's, we had 'weird kids', we didn't know anything about autism. Over time, more and more odd behavior was tossed into the 'autism spectrum'. So you see a rise, because there is more attempt to diagnose it.
We can also make the same observation that depression / bipolar disorder / schizophrenia has increased sharply "since the introduction of vaccinations". One has nothing to do with the other, we have always had a certain level of crazy... about 25% of Americans can actually be diagnosed with some form of mental illness. Vaccinations have nothing to do with it, we just have more treatment and therapeutic options for people that otherwise drank or doped themselves to death in self-medicating activity or went into a manic rampage banging half the neighborhood until the wife or husband shot them for cheating on them (and suddenly -1 less on the bipolar/manic depressive headcount).
Personally, I think the increased numbers have MUCH more to do with people delaying having children until later in life... many women actually enter menopause at about 35 (my wife did actually at like 33). If you are popping out babies at 30+, compared to the human body really being ready to between 18 & 23 or so, there is naturally going to be a higher risk of either immediately-noticed complications, or those that take a while. Is it an automatic cause? Of course not, but there are many more people having children much later in life now than in previous generations.
My dad had polio when he was a kid, it crippled him for life. The doctors broke his 'good leg' 25 times between the age of 2 and 7 with a hammer and a chisel to slow its growth to match the other one. When that didn't work, they put 60 steel staples in it. When he was about 40, the steel staples had shattered into 300 fragments that had to be taken out meticulously by a surgeon from the muscle tissue. He also spent several years of his childhood in a 'iron lung'.
Eradicating a disease is a good thing. I wonder if we had an HIV vaccine, if the same people objecting would rush out and get one of those... after all, compared to the others, HIV is completely avoidable with lifestyle choices. Would the schools insist on an HIV shot? Would the parents object or would they embrace it? Would the objection/embracing headcount match the measles vaccination hysteria?
The number one risk of autism is being a boy. Ever seen an autistic girl? They are actually quite rare... 1 in about 255 compared to 1 in 54 boys.
What does that tell you? The primary cause of autism is most-likley attributed to a mutation in a y chromosome.. and mutations are not caused by vaccinations.
As for the numbers of unvaccinated... it would be an interesting question, since until recently (millennials having kids basically), unvaccinated kids were pretty rare... probably too rare to reliably run a study with. Add to that finding the ones that are both unvaccinated (maybe 1-3% 15 years ago) and 1 out of 100 that were autistic...
Today that kind of study would be pretty easy to do with a medical records database... 15 years ago, practically impossible.
As for the real causes of autism, we may never know, as it is unlikely that parents are completely honest with their medical professionals. Did the mom smoke dope and/or drink during the pregnancy? Was dad on an anti-psychotic drug at the time of conception? Was mom? Is mom willing to admit that she takes lithium to keep from burning her house down in a manic rage or barricading herself in a closet in a paranoid episode? Maybe mom is an attorney, but is also on lithium, is she going to admit it? Is the "dad" really the dad? or is it the milkman's kid? Are we looking at "dad's" medical records for history when we should really be looking at the milkman?
Those are the types of very difficult questions that doing a study to determine the cause of something like autism. But honesty of the subjects in the survey is always an issue with very uncomfortable topics.
Can there be a strain of measles like that?
There was a reason there were immunization programs, and all the kids when I was a kid got lined up and stabbed in the arm - that reason being, people were tired of seeing huge child mortality rates from diseases that were found to be preventable. They knew the risks - and yes, although extremely rare, kids got sick or died from the innoculations - but a lot more survuved because their parents weren't weenie sheeple and saw - and knew - people who died from this stuff.
I personally remember - as a young child - meeting a woman who had been in an iron lung since she was 12. What I remember most - was the huge contraption she was confined to, the smell of the machinery, and having to view the world through a mirror above her head. You think it didnt leave an impression?
On the one hand, some members of this community, in memory of the poliomyelitis scourge and how Jonas Salk's vaccine seems to have put it under strict control, now believe all vaccines strike the same balance of safety v. efficacy as does the Salk vaccine.
On the other hand, Rand never once defined "protecting people from infectious agents" as a proper direct function of government. It might be a matter for a court to decide, and for a legislature to decide whether an individual tort or even criminal harm results when one person transmits a communicable disease to another. But Rand never once supported the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in any quasi-legislative and quasi-judicial character. Nor the Office of the Surgeon General.
The work of one the founders of anti-vaccination - Dr Andrew Wakefield, has been shown to be fraudulent.
Words used include- “dishonest,” “unethical,” and “callous.”
It is appalling that this person has been favorably mentioned on this site.
As to the validity of religious objections, see the article- “You can raise your child however you want until you are endangering your child and those around you. That right, you simply do not have.”
No surprise that the objectors are often part of the green movement
- the natural living, non-GMO eating, and the “nothing artificial” green movement -
to which I include 'anthropomorphic climate change'- a religion more dangerous than Islamism which it supports.
Where I may disagree with the article is in the suggestion that religious belief is being faked. No, this nonsense is religion.
"Iowa asks parents if “immunization conflicts with a genuine and sincere religious belief and that the belief is in fact religious, and not based merely on philosophical, scientific, moral, personal, or medical opposition to immunizations.”
well that was a little chilling. religious beliefs count but "scientific objection" does not?
Jan
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/hea...
I've had my kids vaccinated for MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) and tetanus, but I would adamantly refuse to get them vaccinated for HPV. The flu one I've never been a fan of as the only times I've ever done it I immediately got sick so that one is off my list as well. And I really don't agree with the chicken pox one unless you don't get it naturally as a kid.
If you doubt this gambling method, you should know that I never lose at the racetrack. This will not make you rich but it has a certain satisfaction. It's simple; just bet the favorite to show. You're welcome.
and medicated horses . . . and I never caught one
lying. . they pretend to want to move away from
the barn, but you can tell that it's pretense. . they
act like they will stand still for you to shoe them,
but they won't. . for simple animals, they are
pretty honest, don't you think? -- j
ways -- mine gave me a sense of interpersonal
grace which moderates everything I do. . she was
a genuine southern belle, married to a man whose
lifelong dream was to be a forester. . like an artist
and a mechanic, they made quite a pair! . but I
got only english heritage, so I am white privilege
through-and-through (har-de-har-har). -- j
I had to learn the same -- upside down and backwards.
and I had to learn to write like that, sort-of. . it did
help when tutoring kids in math and science.
genuine home-making moms are about to go
extinct. . it's a pity, because they weld a neighborhood
together and pass on civilization beautifully. -- j
How many adults do you know are regularly vaccinated? You do know they're finding out frequently that vaccines that conveyed "lifetime immunity" actually don't convey lifetime immunity and are then suggesting boosters?
That said, how many "vaccinated" people do you know are not up to date, and therefore a gigantic "threat" to the entire universe?
1) 100 some odd cases nationwide is not an outbreak or an epidemic. We had more than 100 measles cases in one week in one grade school when I was a kid.
2) No one seems to be differentiating between deadly and crippling diseases like smallpox and polio and those like measles that statistically may only be a bit more dangerous than the vaccines. (And that, only because there is insufficient data over other long term negative effects of the vaccines.
I would rather have my next generation of descendants immunized by measles and chicken pox directly than by a vaccine.
Polio and smallpox though would be a definite yes.
Flu vaccine is an urban legend IMO.
Last flu I had was in 1964, the first time I needed every day’s pay just to survive. Went to work with it, suffered through the day with it and then it was gone.
Now, I currently think that you need to educate yourself and not just give into the hype. Get a Dr. that you trust and even then, question him/her, just like you would your financial advisor.
As you say, natural vaccination is better, in the long run and from a species survival perspective. Similarly, these anti-microbial hand soaps for children should not be used. Kids need to be exposed to germs to build up their tolerance. For adults, fine, our immune systems are pretty much set, but for children, banish the anti-microbe soap for the good of the children.
I was trying to point out that if you accept that reasoning, then many medical interventions would not be used.
You would deny your child modern life saving medicine to make his genetic make up stronger for future generations.... ???
did you vote me down?
My son manages it well and is the poster child (adult now) for health. His profession is in physical fitness. :)
Now, I did have a grandfather on my mother's side and an aunt (mother's sister) who both were designated as high-risk for Type II Diabetes and my aunt eventually contracted it because she didn't take care of herself. They say that the _risk factors_ for Type II ARE hereditary, but since Type II is a diet-driven condition (not a disease), you can be screened for the _risk factors_.
Things can develop after the age of 21, ya know. And since you knew you came from faulty stock maybe you shouldn't have gone and made babies.
Type 1 is insulin dependent.... of course it is also best to be active and eat right, but the need for insulins is always there.
I am just pointing out its not a vaccine.
More later; I'm burning daylight.
Inoculations only work against communicable diseases and the focus is generally on those which are air-borne and virulent.
I have a daughter with Type I and a father-in-law with Type I. My daughter has had it since she was two and my father-in-law since 16, but science has not yet found any causal evidence linking Type I Diabetes with genetics. My entire family and my wife's entire family even voluntarily gave blood to be used for establishing a DNA-based link to diabetes, and we were told by the scientists that they could find no correlation at all.
Now there are genetically-linked risk factors for Type II Diabetes, but Type I and Type II are completely different animals. Type II Diabetes can be controlled through diet (unless it gets ignored for too long and turns into Type I). Type II is the result of a lifestyle choice and can be remedied with the same. Type I is a permanent condition until they get things like islet-replacement therapy or stem cell treatments working.
I say that as one who suffers from "hay fever." I worked on my grandparent's dairy farm every summer from about 8 to 15. This deficiency is certainly a detriment to the gene pool of the species homo-sapiens. I'm happy not to have been eliminated prior to my creation, but am realistic enough to understand that passing along such tendencies to my progeny make them and their subsequent progeny less capable of success.
Do you suggest that diabetes is a condition that should be propagated?
You were trying to make something up for affect (unless you really meant it....did you?), these weren't genuine exclamations of exasperation, (like mine were), they were a nasty attempt to make a point...and a poke. FAIL.
This comment was made concerning the continual "poke in the eye" of those of us who have expressed a position of religious faith. We have expressed why we admire AS and still retain that position of faith. Yet some, and in particular LS, continually seek to stick a proverbial finger in the eye.
As you know, I made a mistake, and am likely to suffer the repercussions of same. While not intended as offensive, I recognized that they could be seen as such and sought to remove those sentiments. Unfortunately those sentiments were captured and are being reposted.
2) my kids chide me for being "square" in that I often will "curse" by saying "dag namit". I think that cursing itself shows a lack of capability in expressing oneself more capably. While I will do so on the very rare occasion, and in writing even less, I find it a very low form of communication.
3) It is my belief in having had interchange with you over a course of time, that you use this terminology as a means of antagonizing those who have a perspective of faith. That seems unnecessarily antagonistic. Just my opinion.
2) I find expressing myself therapeutic, and a high form of communication as it doubles as a release and reminder of the general mood of the conversation.
3) I am not antagonisitic. I think you look for reasons to find offense, in particular, where faith is concerned so you can appear to take the "high ground" in some delusional, superior fashion. As if you have the morality market cornered.
In a debate among group members over a point of disagreement, a down vote is the last refuge of a man without an argument.
On Facebook, the "like" button shows agreement and you can see exactly who pushed the button. Maybe if the Gulch's Nero-esque thumb plays showed by name who did it, we could inquire of the individual what their thinking was, in either direction.
As for improving the genetic material of the human race by killing off or letting die the "weaker" members, there's no way to know how the evolutionary roulette wheel will spin. Except for extensive and continual inbreeding, there is enough variety in the species to keep immune systems survivable. We certainly have no way of knowing whom to breed into and out of the gene pool.
And physical fitness is not all there is. Would Robbie kill off physical weaklings who could produce humanity-saving intellectual contributions?
And what if we eliminated those whose ideas are by way of being diseases, like the religious and irrational and psychopathic or anyone we disagree with? Oh, wait, that's already being done, by wars and fanatic murders and legally sanctioned assassinations.
No wonder Facebook has only "likes", no dislikes, to minimize endless feuds and quarrels.
Some people just live to fight, even in groups where all the members allegedly share similar values. Sniff divergence on the smallest issue and the name-calling starts. Sheesh.
The explanation is far simpler than it seems:
Their brains are infected; it's a battle of memes.
You haven't a clue of how to be a good doctor.
You are a perfect example of why medical care costs a fortune, and quality of care is declining.
When one watches his or her child react badly to a vaccine (as I did), and listens to doctors deny what happened, and then watches it again with the next series of vaccines, and again no medical professional will acknowledge the reality of what is happening... I would say it is a choice at that point between blindly listening to the experts' advice and ignoring reason, OR ELSE honoring reason and ignoring the supposed experts. I'm certainly not the only parent who has experienced this, as I've read dozens of similar stories online. There's an unwillingness to trust that a parent (who certainly knows the child better than the doctor) can be an accurate witness to the harm caused by vaccines, and I think that's a huge mistake.
If the medical community would better acknowledge the cases of harm that occur, and try to ascertain WHY they occurred, instead of trying to sweep them under the rug and insist that vaccines are "safe," there wouldn't be such mistrust of those who advocate and administer vaccines.
http://www.healthgrades.com/physician/dr...
(Granted it's a very small sample;^)
Just my experience; has nothing to do with Gail
I assume you mean that you observe the number of patients at your office has not dropped from what you expect.
You don't know if it has "hurt" you until a patient tells you they didn't come to see you because of it. You can't tell the 'real' reviews from the shills, can you?
A person must live with the consequences of their actions. No blaming others allowed unless it truly is another’s fault such as a doctor prescribing the wrong medicine.