Split from religious exemption for not vaxing

amother

Thu, Aug 22 2013, 4:43 pm

GreenEyes26 wrote:

amother wrote:

Ruchel wrote:

Vax or not is a big topic (we vax partially and delayed etc).

Now, religious exemption sits bad with me. It is not halacha to not vax, and if they know other Jews they will know that. We also suffered enough of the nasty Jews spreading diseases stereotypes Crying

A person is allowed a personal religious belief. His belief is based on his scriptures, in this case the Bible. I am entitled to my own private and personal interpretation of the Bible; it does not need to be a part of an organized and recognized religion (such as Judaism). Claiming a religious exemption has got nothing to do with being Jewish or with halacha.

The difference is, Seventh Day Adventist's or Jehova's Witnesses or whoever it is that refuse all medical treatment, that is *part* of their religion. Refusing life-saving vaccines is *not* in any way, shape or form part of the Bible - no matter how you interpret it. Your reasoning is, "I don't want to vax my kids because blah blah blah..." and then you use the "Bible" to justify it. Not seeing in the Bible that it's forbidden and going from that. Your starting point is your "informed" decision not to vax, and then perverting the Bible, or using any means necessary, to get an exemption.

I will repeat: Legally one is allowed a personal religious belief.

I am entitled to be a crazy lunatic who decided that based on V'nishmartem me'od l'nafshoseichem, my own made-up religion (called the Loonies) dictates to refuse life-saving vaccines. I am author of a rabbinic responsa written by a Loonie-annointed rabbi who declared vaccines to be against the Loonie interpretation of the Bible's commandments. How dare you tell me that the Loonie version of the Bible is perversion?!

Again, Jewish law does not come into play.

amother

Fri, Aug 23 2013, 2:51 am

For those who really want to educate themselves about this topic please read :

http://www.amazon.com/Vaccinat.....P8OW6

This book explains the vaccination/immunization theory which le'haqtchela, scientifically is flawed. The book provides straight forward evidence. I am not making this up. In medical school we learned this from a practicing nurse who was our teacher as well. How can a disease taken from a cow or pig, protect a human? Keep in mind there are many strains of a particular disease that would be impossible to vaccinate for them all. Even more so, the way our bodies are designed is to become exposed to a disease though external contact, though mucous membranes. Vaccines actually skip the normal immune responses and inject said pathogen DIRECTLY into the blood stream. Further, just because someone has antibodies in there system doesn't make them immune, they can still and do get sick.
If you really believed that vaccination was immunization than you wouldn't be so mad at people who dont vax, you'd be immune, right?
Do any of you have family members that are doctors who give immunizations? This is aside from the main point, but just know that they get paid per administration. Yes doctors have to get paid, but I am pointing out they are also blinded by incentives and status quo. Doctors are not always informed about the best methods for true health they take orders from higher ups. I understand that it is very uncomfortable for people to think that the higher ups, or general policy or status quo would be against what is best for people. There are many many cases where we see just this. Do you believe the additives (high fructose corn syrup, aspartame) in foods are healthy? Are you aware of why water is fluoridated? People please dont assume that there is no personal interest behind vaccinations or these other inventions. Please read the book.

amother

Fri, Aug 23 2013, 2:59 am

Dr. Robert Mendelsohn:

"The greatest threat of childhood diseases lies in the dangerous and ineffectual efforts made to prevent them through mass immunization. Much of what you have been led to believe about immunization simply isn't true. If I were to follow my deeper convictions, I would urge you to reject all inoculations for your child."
He goes on to say:

"There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease. If immunizations were responsible for the disappearance of these diseases in the U.S., one must ask why they disappeared simultaneously in Europe, where mass immunizations did not take place."

amother

Fri, Aug 23 2013, 3:07 am

The vaccine manufacturers, who are behind virtually everything you have ever been told about the safety of vaccines? Dr. Samuel Katz, developer of the measles vaccine states, "Government doesn't fund clinical studies of vaccines. Industry does."

"Vaccination Is Not Immunization is the most well documented analysis of the vaccination cult of modern medicine. Be informed of the dangers, lack of scientific proof of immunity, and other concerns of vaccines. As the best source for the public and professionals, I highly recommend Vaccination Is Not Immunization."

- William Deagle, MD
GCN syndicated radio, Centennial, CO

"I finished your book this morning. Simply the best and most accessible deconstruction on vaccines I've read, and I've read quite a few. You should be proud, as I am of you, your courage, and your work!"
- Anthony J. Maniotis PhD
Dept. of Pathology, University of Illinois

"This book dispels the myths and blatant lies that the public is told by their pediatricians and community leaders, as well as the propaganda, politics and money in U.S. vaccine policy - an absolute must for any parent."
- Dr. Mark Cymerint
Mission Viejo, CA

ally

Fri, Aug 23 2013, 8:50 am

5*Mom wrote:

ally wrote:

5*Mom wrote:

ally wrote:

If I think tyou are increasing MY probability of disease and the probability of vulnerable populations based on junk science, why shouldn't I be angry.

Ah, here we agree. I don't support junk science either. You might be surprised to learn, though, that real science is not black and white.

I am quite aware of that. In fact, science can never be black and white because according to modern theory we can only ever calculate the probability that an event will occur.

Quote:

ally wrote:

To say that we should decide based on the facts on the ground today is short sighted and shows a lack of understanding of how vaccines work.

Actually, this is exactly how public health policy decisions are made by the medical establishment all the time, including with respect to vaccines. Take polio vaccine (as my pediatrician explained it to me): From 1960 to about 2000, everyone received OPV (live virus); it was the standard. In about 2000, *the facts on the ground* showed that polio was essentially eradicated in the US and a new cost-benefit analysis was conducted, weighing the risks of OPV (which include contracting polio from the vaccine itself) against the risks of a polio outbreak. The conclusion was that the risks from OPV outweighed the risks of contracting polio and the OPV was discontinued in favor of the IPV (inactive) which confers immunity but does not prevent against infection and transmission to others. This was a decision made by the medical establishment based on the facts on the ground and shows exactly how public vaccination policy works.

So what you are saying is that the powers that be don't just give out vaccinations ad hoc and for no reason.
And that when the risk of the OPV was seen to outweigh the risk of polio, they stopped, reconsidered and changed vaccination protocol.
All this despite Big Pharma and their money interests.

Finally, please let us not pretend that the research methods used to develop public policy is equivalent to looking up random websites on google.

If you're having a discussion with me, then have a discussion with me. I have said nothing about pharm companies and their money interests. Neither do I get my information from random websites. You can't lump everyone who takes a position that is different than your own all in one category, assume they are all the same and interchange their arguments; this issue is far more nuanced than that. Well, actually you can, but then it's not a rational, intelligent discussion.

I'm not lumping everyone in one category, but it is quite obvious to me that the majority (not all) of anti-vax posters on this site have absolutely no understanding of scientific theory or methodology in general, let alone the specifics of immunology.
So when you post a post that portrays the research and decision making process of the WHO and the people who are reading "realfarmacy.com" as equivalent, you are playing with fire. And I felt it was relevant to preempt the conspiracy theories that accompany 90% of the vaccine posts on this site.

If you are not trying to say that all decision making processes are equal, I don't really understand the point of your post at all. It seems to support the idea of vaccination by showing that the decision to vaccinate is continuously revised and changes in risk vs benefit are considered...even resulting in changes in policy.

5*Mom

Fri, Aug 23 2013, 9:42 am

ally wrote:

5*Mom wrote:

Darling, I don't equate the two and I challenge you to show me where I ever posted any such thing. I think you need to work a bit harder at keeping track of individual posters. We don't all speak for each other and there are more than just 2 positions in this discussion.

ally wrote:

If you are not trying to say that all decision making processes are equal, I don't really understand the point of your post at all. It seems to support the idea of vaccination by showing that the decision to vaccinate is continuously revised and changes in risk vs benefit are considered...even resulting in changes in policy.

Now you've gotten to the heart of the issue: Process.

No, not all processes are equal. Process is also separate from conclusion. I am supporting scientific process, not realwhatever.com--never even heard of it, nor Jenny McCarthey before I read her name in Barbara's post, but here's the part I think too many people have difficult with:

2 people can conduct the same process and reach 2 different conclusions. There is more than one right answer because the process, when done properly, involves taking individual factors into consideration and reaching a conclusion that is based on the specific person in a specific place at a specific time. It's like psak halacha in that way. This is not to say that there is no wrong answer; of course there is but there is not only 1 right answer for all people in all situations at all times.

Said another way, not everyone who has made a decision not to vaccinate a particular child against a particular disease at a particular time is relying on junk science. In fact, I haven't met a single person like this irl, amother above notwithstanding. You really need to stop lumping people together; people are far more nuanced than you make them out to be.

Barbara

Fri, Aug 23 2013, 10:14 am

ally wrote:

amother wrote:

I can see why your saying that, its about credibility, but the facts speak for themselves. If someone wants to look, and learn they can. Has nothing to do with me, I am merely a messenger. I am not trying to change anyone's mind, I am trying to show information so people can make informed decisions. I posted anon because I didnt want it to be about me as a person also because of the tone of many of the posts I think its better to be anonymous. I really dont feel like writing back to or hearing personal affronts. Of course someone could do that anyway, even if its anon... thanks for sharing.

Which facts exactly?

That vaccines don't prevent disease, of course. Smallpox no longer exists because of something OTHER than vaccines. Polio has been virtually eradicated in the US because of something OTHER than vaccines.

That we should reject every scientific study ever done by the pharmaceutical industry simply because it was done by the pharmaceutical industry. Peer reviewed, replicable, doesn't matter. Phama did it, its a lie.

And, based upon her touting of that book, that without any scientific studies whatsoever, one can assume that causal connection exist because of concurrences. The book, for example, claims that obesity among today's kids is caused by vaccination. How? Why should THAT matter. Kids are heavier. Kids are vaccinated. All you need to know.

And, of course, doctors get paid, and therefore whatever they do is WRONG. Apparently, only people who don't get paid for what they do can be believed.

PinkFridge

Fri, Aug 23 2013, 11:38 am

esteec wrote:

Just FYI:

About 7 years ago for my degree, I learned this religious exemption case in depth in an Educational Law class. It involved the parents of Jewish twins who said it was their personal understanding of their religion that their bodies were "good and whole" without vaccinations and it went against their religion as they understood it.

This was the first time people could skip vaccinations and still be allowed in school.

I will confess to not having followed this whole thread but by that logic, people would avoid all sorts of medical intervention - fillings, glasses, braces, replacements, anyone with half a science brain could probably go on and on.

JollyMommy

Fri, Aug 23 2013, 1:14 pm

Pink Fridge- right, it would seem like that-- however some things are deemed neglectful, like not filling a mouth full of cavities (dentists are mandated reporters on this, if a kid has a bunch of cavities and the parent does not take care of them they can be reported- 2 dentists in my immediate family and this has happened) or putting a baby on a vegan diet, or not seeking medical intervention when the kid needs it-- like the recent cases of "faith healing". vaccinations were not in the same category.

I'm big on vaccinating, with a spaced out schedule, but by 6 they are caught up. My doctor offers 2 schedules- the regular and alternative.

And I did take lots of Master's level science classes including epidemiology, chemistry, physiology... and in my opinion not vaccinating on diseases which can kill a child is neglectful. I live in a "crunchy" neighborhood where I have friends who do not vaccinate and while it irks me I've learned it's not worth a discussion because no matter what I say they will not change their minds from their own research, which consists of a few articles and maybe a short book. They are good, well meaning people, but don't get it.

I'm not going to follow this post because there will be attacks, and when there's heat I stay out of the kitchen. Wishing you all the very best.

marina

Fri, Aug 23 2013, 2:04 pm

amother wrote:

GreenEyes26 wrote:

amother wrote:

Ruchel wrote:

That's fine. But, please, when someone asks you what religion you are, explain that you are a Loony and say nothing about Judaism.