Drlee wrote:IF she was a physician you would not be acting as ignorantly as you are.
I'm sorry, did I say she was a proctologist looking for your head?...My bad, she is actually a gynecologist which also makes her perfectly qualified to deal with you. I suppose the only medical professional I can think of that would not be qualified would be a neurologist for obvious reasons, but no worries.
Drlee wrote:I'm through messing with the children.
Look, just because the senior center closes in the evening after they serve you the applesauce at which point you need to busy yourself with your recollections of the black plague, that gives you no right to call us all children. I am a legal adult sir and I resent such a characterization of my youth!
Now to the Biz (i'm going to handle the legal-moral perspective of this, while my wife handles the medical-historical end of things).
I. First, Some Qualifiers.
1. I am not a Libertarian, so I am not going to argue merely from individual rights, yet, at the same time, I am not going to argue from a purely collectivist slant. As one who subscribes to the legal concept of the pater familias and for the belief in global Empire, I desire a balance between the rights of the family head with the collective need of a strong imperial cause rooted deeply at the societal level.
2. I am open minded, My first child was fully vaccinated and developed what were obviously, and even diagnosed as, complications from a vaccine. Even after this, we still followed a partial schedule with our second child and after extensive research, we no longer vaccinate.
3. My arguments are going to proceed along several lines as far as parental rights and exemptions: 1. The philosophical objection is legitimate, 2. the religious objection is legitimate, and 3. the physical exemption is legitimate, but is legally stifled, and 4. compulsory vaccinations should not be the case unless the clear cronyism of the system is addressed.
II. The Case For A Philosophical Exemption.
The Philosophical objection is that vaccines, on the whole, are unnecessary and that the end of most of the epidemics that faced the west in the early-to-mid twentieth century are easily explained by public nutrition, sanitation, and sterilization.
Now, the objection to this argument, is that after the vaccines were introduced, there were drops in mortality. This is a fallacy: Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc.
Just because something occurs after an event, does not mean the preceding event has any causal relationship to it in sequence. Indeed, given the charts that my wife posted above, it appears that the vaccines contributed nominally, if at all, to the declining rates of mortality for these diseases that had been occurring at a drastic levels before their introduction.
Thus, the ball is in the court of the Pro-Vaxxer to prove that the vaccines did actually save lives sufficient to warrant compulsory vaccination for children against the rights of the parents who voice legitimate concerns over their contents.
To Sum: Philosophical exemptions are valid, because the decline in mortality from all of these said diseases occurred most drastically prior to the introduction of the vaccines that allegedly stopped them, did not affect the trends of decline once introduced, and in many cases such diseases ended following the same trends without ever having a vaccination. In light of these facts, parents ought to have the right to decline for their children that which is medically unnecessary, as vaccines certainly are, unless a pro-Vaxxer can prove, against the graphs above, to the contrary.
III. The Case For A Religious Exemption.
It is already a precedent now, in U.S. Law, that religious business ought not to pay for procedures that violate their conscience on religious grounds (Hobby Lobby among others). Indeed, how much more so if such a procedure involved having to ingest, in some manner, the product of that conscience-violating activity in its worst manifestation?
Indeed, the most common and widespread vaccines in the United States are made, in part, and/or may contain either aborted fetal cells or aborted fetal tissues.
If Christians are not obligated to pay for procedures against conscience, then they are not obligated to both pay for such and have such injected into their children by compulsion, that which most defines this objection is seen in the following list:
U.S. approved vaccines from aborted cell lines by Disease, Vaccine Name, Manufacturer, and Cell line:
Barr Labs., Inc
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38
3. Diphtheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Polio, HIB
4. Hepatitis A
5. Hepatitis A
Merck & Co.
6. Hepatitis A-B
7. Measles, Mumps, Rubella
Merck & Co.
8. Measles, Mumps, Rubella, Chickenpox
Merck & Co.
MRC-5 & WI-38
Merck & Co.
To Sum: If the rights for the religious hold as upheld in the Supreme Court, parents should not be compelled to force the injection of such into their children.
IV. The Problems With The Invoking of The Medical Exemption.
The vaccine companies themselves have argued that the affect on a given person, including the effectiveness of the vaccine itself, varies from person to person. This is due to factors that could only be called epi-genetic, as both environmental and genetic factors seem to relate to why persons vary in their reactions to vaccines. Children and the elderly are both the most targeted for vaccinations and, ironically, the most likely to have adverse reactions to them, both for typically immunological reasons.
This is all well and good, but the problem is that a medical exemption is not usually granted until damage has been done already by a vaccine and even then the doctor is the final authority as to whether he will count that prior damage, in spite of correlation, as related to the administration of the vaccine itself. Further, there is no validated and widespread system to pre-screen children or seniors as to whether a vaccine would possibly have an adverse reaction in the patient. This essentially making the medical exemption a load of bull-shit.
To Sum: My position, which given my first two points and the data at hand, is this: If something that is already unnecessary and immoral is being prescribed, and it may have adverse effects, and more likely so in children than any other group other than seniors, deferring on vaccinations for this age group is not only reasonable, but the only legitimate and sane choice. To be honest, parents who vaccinate their babies with Hepatitis vaccines immediately following birth, are child abusers in my opinion.
V. The Crony-Capitalist Bullshit Exemption (my personal favorite).
If a parent does not have direct legal recourse against the manufacturer of vaccines in an impartial court of Law for damage claims resulting from that product, then a parent should not be forced to consume the product. PERIOD.
That is, if it were illegal for you to sue an automotive manufacturer for demonstrable damages in a court of law due to, lets say, faulty brakes, you should not be required by law to purchase that automobile against your will.
42 U.S. Code § 300aa–22 - Standards of responsibility, provides that vaccine companies cannot be sued directly for damages by U.S. citizens in a court of law. Why? Because the vaccine manufacturer lobbied for this protection due to the fact that volume of justifiable suits for damages would have bankrupted them.
So here is a question for you, if the evidence of vaccine damages could not be demonstrated in a court of law, why would the vaccine manufacturers need to be protected from said litigation?
Here is the actual U.S. Code:
(a) General rule
Except as provided in subsections (b), (c), and (e) of this section State law shall apply to a civil action brought for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death.
(b) Unavoidable adverse side effects; warnings
(1) No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, if the injury or death resulted from side effects that were unavoidable even though the vaccine was properly prepared and was accompanied by proper directions and warnings.
(2) For purposes of paragraph (1), a vaccine shall be presumed to be accompanied by proper directions and warnings if the vaccine manufacturer shows that it complied in all material respects with all requirements under the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act [21 U.S.C. 301 et seq.] and section 262 of this title (including regulations issued under such provisions) applicable to the vaccine and related to vaccine-related injury or death for which the civil action was brought unless the plaintiff shows—
(A) that the manufacturer engaged in the conduct set forth in subparagraph (A) or (B) of section 300aa–23 (d)(2) of this title, or
(B) by clear and convincing evidence that the manufacturer failed to exercise due care notwithstanding its compliance with such Act and section (and regulations issued under such provisions).
(c) Direct warnings
No vaccine manufacturer shall be liable in a civil action for damages arising from a vaccine-related injury or death associated with the administration of a vaccine after October 1, 1988, solely due to the manufacturer’s failure to provide direct warnings to the injured party (or the injured party’s legal representative) of the potential dangers resulting from the administration of the vaccine manufactured by the manufacturer.
The standards of responsibility prescribed by this section are not to be construed as authorizing a person who brought a civil action for damages against a vaccine manufacturer for a vaccine-related injury or death in which damages were denied or which was dismissed with prejudice to bring a new civil action against such manufacturer for such injury or death.
No State may establish or enforce a law which prohibits an individual from bringing a civil action against a vaccine manufacturer for damages for a vaccine-related injury or death if such civil action is not barred by this part.
PLEASE NOTE: the graphs provided from my wife in support of the philosophical objection and all evidence as provided for all said objections.....and we're just getting started, this does not even scratch the surface.
A man is no less a slave because he is allowed to choose a new master once in a term of years (Spooner)
Esse Est Percipi Aut Percipere (Berkeley)