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.”
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
from the seat . . no kidding;;; I know. . took a week
to get rid of them. -- j
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/hea...
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.
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.
Load more comments...