h-thur, I am a little confused by your post. Your pediatrician has pretty much said that he would give you the waiver (even though he is reluctant, and you said also that you could get a religios exemption. It sounds like the decision is in your hands.
I will say, though, that you make a case for your beliefs based on evidence, which is refreshing.
He wanted me to try the religious exemption first. Texas is pro vaccination to the point of including all new vaccines (soon to be included is the new ear infection vaccine made by the same manufacturers that brought us the now banned Rotavirus vaccine) in the vaccination requirement for school children/daycare attendees/college students. If my daycare provider will not accept the religious exemption, I can take her to court, as she would be violating State Codes. The same would apply if she had refused a medical exemption. My son’s pediatrician doesn’t want to get involved by providing the medical exemption if I can get by with a religious exemption.
I would rather get the medical exemption, as the daycare provider is less likely to have a problem with it. However, I cannot force my son’s pediatrician to write the exemption. I explained to him that she would be least likely to put up a fuss about the medical exemption. He still wanted me to try the religious exemption first, as he doesn’t want to call attention to himself for granting a medical exemption to a “healthy-looking boy”.
Does that make more sense? I asked my son’s previous physician to provide a medical exemption and he flat out refused. In fact, he was pushing me to vaccinate my son even though he had fever and diarrhea two days prior to his “well baby” check-up. A physician that supports my decision is hard to come by here, so I am happy with my son’s new pediatrician.
“Masters” indeed! I resent being compared to a dog fetching a newspaper…
All right…I’ll bite…regarding the passages at Genesis 9:4, Leviticus 17:10, 11, the 15th Chapter of Acts, what “interpretation” (I’m getting to sense that there is a broken record somewhere) do you put on it?
And while you’re at it, since you have set up the term “interpret” and its variations as an obstacle, give me an “interpretation” to Job 26:7. 
I know that, in centuries past, the Bible was inaccessible to most people since it was kept in a dead lanuage–Latin–and most of the common people were illiterate anyway. And translators faced the penalty of being burned at the stake, with their translations tied around their necks! 
With the “free exercise” clause in the Bill of Rights, and similar enlightenment in other parts of the Western world, the aforementioned barbarous suppression of Bible translation has, out of necessity, disappeared. More recently, however, there has been a much more insidious attack on the Bible: “intellectuals” who assert that the Bible is useless and meaningless unless they tell us what it means (“interpretation.”) If any Dopoer asks, or e-mails me, I will furnish documentation–no, the Watchtower Society is not the source–to show that the learned expositor standing between ordinary people and an understanding of the Bible’s message is “just another attack on the Bible.”
h_thur, I also live in Texas, and I understand how persnickety daycare is about the vaccination records.
My sister-in-law (who is a registered daycare provider, incidentally) took her kids to Dallas to a doctor who would fraudulently validate the vaccination records so she could avoid having them actually vaccinated. Her church teaches (but not officially) that vaccinations invariably cause mental retardation. If she was able to get her kids okayed for no legitimate reason, I’m sure you can find a way. It sounds like you have a very good basis for your case; if your pediatrician won’t give you a waiver, you should be able to find one who can. Legitimately.
dougie:
Then don’t act like one.
The Watchtower is not the source? Do they know you’re frequenting this message board? Don’t you know you can be disfellowshipped for that?
Of the Bible quotes you mentioned, the first two prohibit the eating of blood, so they do not apply. (Do you really think a blood transfusion is eating blood?) Acts is referring to what the gentile converts needed to do to make themselves acceptable to Jewish Christians. They did not need to follow every rule laid out in the old testament, but in order to be accepted they needed to abstain from eating blood, among other things. They did not need to be circumcised. This is a political concession.
If Jehovah really probits eating blood, he should prohibit breastfeeding (which the Watchtower allows) as well, because breast milk contains many white blood cells. The Watchtower Society would also forbid the consumption of any kind of meat, because even if bled “properly”, meat contains some blood. If Jehovah really prohibits eating blood, and receiving blood components intravenously is eating blood, then the Watchtower Society should not allow hemophiliacs to receive Factor VIII.
Holly:
The one thing in your post I would disagree with is that the parents in these situations are seeking to damage these children. from their perspective quite to opposite they are doing quite the opposite…rather saving their souls.
Now for the record, I personally agree with you that these situations are sad and shocking, but ultimately I find it presumptuous and arrogant to intervene. I guess this just reflects my personal bent that it is better to uphold personal/religious freedom, even at the costs of lives.
avalongod:
Yes, but the kids who are compelled to give up their lives have no religious freedom. They’re kids, too young to choose their own faiths or make their own decisions. They’re dying for their parents’ religion.
This is why I don’t believe that freedom of religion extends to the freedom to endanger your child’s life, no matter how good your intentions. A child is a human being, not property.
I do understand that the parents do not intend to harm their kids and in fact are seeking to do what’s right. The parents at Jonestown were doing the same thing when they gave their kids the special Kool-Aid.
If I understand your point aright, you are chiding me severely for not acting or thinking independently. Well, La-dee-dah! Do you believe any of the faithful prophets or others (Old Testament) or Jesus or the apostles or other disciples (New Testament) ‘acted independently?’ I sure don’t, if you mean, Acting independently of the will of God on earth. In Isaiah (28:8) God said that Israel’s tables were full of vomit. This could be atply applied to the Jewish priests of the first century, who were certainly acting independently–look what it got them. (Cf. the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus, or the murderous cultivators.) The fundamentalists, at one end of the spectrum, and the “modern” churches, at the other–have veered grossly from the message of the Bible. The Witnesses have not.
Even a non-theist like me can see that there might be the tiniest difference between doubting Jesus and doubting the leaders of your little sect dougie. It must be refreshing to be told exactly what one must think. All that saved brainpower!
The message of the bible is “don’t eat blood?” (assuming your interpretation of “transfusion” and “eat” is right, which, IMO, it is not)???
I think not. The message of the bible is “Do unto others as you would have done unto you.” Read it as fiction. It becomes a much more useful tool if you don’t get so caught up in details.
D_M said:
Holly already took my response, but, really, if you act like somebody who acts without thinking, well, what else can we say? Besides, I wasn’t talking about dogs with masters, but slaves. You are a slave to the Biblical interpretations handed down by your masters. You don’t think about it, but rather rely on what they tell you – even to the point of being willing to murder your own child!
Oh, and if you don’t want to be compared to a dog, don’t object and then, with the very next words, say:
That is funny, David. I wish I’d caught it.
I can certainly Identify with your plight. Me, being the victim of the DPT shot in it’s infancy will certainly not be vaccinating my children with it. I was not allergic to anything until the shot…then it all went wrong. The P{pertussis) in DPT is a verified neurotoxin(there are options available today, E.G. the D_T shot which does not contain the pertussis component and I would probably consider giving it to my kids but I’d still lean toward not vaccinating with it), and there have been many bad lots.
I was lucky, I was just learning disabled with epilepsy and various allergies. The others who were affected are chairbound. It’s very sad. My brother was opted out under California law with a waiver.
That being said…
David, I don’t think waivers should be pulled at all. It is the parent’s right to not have their child immunized, especially when one of their children had to suffer an adverse reaction to a shot.
Please note, there is a huge difference between immunizations and transfusions. Immunizations are pre-emptive and transfusions are required in life and death situations. I would never question a transfusion, but I would definitely question a harmful shot.
And in California, you’re not required to be immunized if there is a waiver filed.
[bold]h_thur:[/bold] Keep it up if you wish to not immunize, it’s your right. I’ve heard many stories about Texas and their immunization programs. If you need resources to aid you in fighting this, please contact me at my E-mail address and I have a few great resources that might be of some help.
-Sam
GaWd said:
If one child has already suffered an adverse reaction, and it’s the type that may be hereditary, I’d agree. But we must remember that correlation is not causation – in other words, we must make sure it really was an adverse reaction, not just a coincidence on the order of “He had a shot; he got allergies; therefore the shot must have caused them.”
I must agree and disagree with you David.
Having gone through the whole process myself, I can say that the verification of a vaccine reaction takes years. I had my reaction in 1978, and my brother was born that same year. To get a physician to concede to a vaccine reaction is impossible.
It was my mothers’ responsibility to find the proper people who’d had children that were adversely reacted, and physicians that would agree that DPT can kill/maim. Since my brother was born so close to me, it was only right to opt out. It was probably a bad lot that got to me and not a familial disposition to react to the vaccine, however would you want your child subjected to the “Game of chance”, if you knew there was a possibility of another adverse reaction?
It took until the late 90’s for the US government to concede to the vaccine damage and for me and my family to be compensated under the omnibus health bill and childhood vaccination compensation fund(thanks, Mom, for your hard work in bargaining with congress and the president :)). That took the efforts of a full legal team(representing many children who were adversely affected), and hundreds of tests(MRI, EEG, fractal X, IQ tests, bloodwork, family histories, Etc…), costing thousands of dollars and taking over 12 years to be completed.
And David, as far as correlation not equalling causation, if you take a healthy child for an immunization and they experience screaming fits, high fever, rashes and 18 hours later he/she experiences a non-febrile seizure…chances are pretty great that it was the cause.
-Sam
P.S.-- Sorry for the hijack…
I wanted to also note that I’m one of only 2 children with a verified adverse reaction to be lucid, aware, functional adults who don’t need to be in a chair or wear a crash helmet.
How’s that for odds?
-Sam
Sam, you are very lucky indeed. Your mom has done a great service to those injured by vaccines. The sad thing is, to get compensation for vaccine damage, the damage has to be apparent within a specified amount of time and match the NVIC’c strict definitions. Even the NVIC’s definition for encephalopathy is contradictory. They even state “high-pitched and unusual screaming, persistent inconsolable crying, and bulging fontanelle…do not demonstrate an acute encephalopathy or a significant change in either mental status or level of consciousness.” The previous quote can be found here. Even though many of the children that experience those symptoms die within 72 hours of receiving a vaccine, they are not considered encephalopathic and would not receive compensation because they would fall within condition C., which reads, “C. Any acute complication or sequela (including death) of an illness, disability, injury, or condition referred to above which illness, disability, injury or condition arose within the time period prescribed”. Sad, huh?
Not my child.
Also, with the new research on stealth viruses (Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Autism, etc.) many fingers are now pointing at vaccines as the cause. See this link for information on stealth viruses related to the polio vaccine and more links (one to the CCID). I don’t want monkey cells that may have a simian virus in them that may cause cancer (SV-40) or a stealth virus injected into my son.
Anyway, I’m glad that I am not the only person out there who has researched vaccination and is worried about the consequences of vaccinating. Knowing that my son has an allergy to the vaccine (which might have been spurred by the vaccination he received at his 2 month well baby visit) makes me even more wary of vaccination. I just wish more parents would research the issue rather than blindly following their (misguided) pediatrician. After they research the subject, then they can make and informed choice, whether it be to vaccinate, not to vaccinate, or to vaccinate selectively. I respect an informed choice over a blind decision any day.
Sam, I have PROVE’s website information, and I used it to claim an exemption for my son to attend daycare a few times a month. I found out that his daycare provider really didn’t want to vaccinate her children, but she didn’t realize that she could use an exemption. Now she is going to try and exempt her children too.
GaWd: Under the circumstances you described, I probably wouldn’t risk vaccinating another of my children either. And I didn’t mean to imply that in your specific case, it might not be causation, but too many people continue to assume that if A happens and then B happens, A must have caused B, and that simply isn’t true.
In the case of vaccines, who am I to question the parent? Don’t they know what’s best for their child? A shot is pre-emptive and in this day and age offers limited protection anyway.
Whether a child in the family was affected by a shot or not, I stand by the right of the parent to opt her child out and not give the shot to them.
On the other hand, a parent who denies a child a life-saving blood transfusion is a cold-blooded killer. I don’t care if it’s your religions’ interpretation of the bible or not, it’s murder. Well-thought out, pre-meditated murder.
-Sam
My daughter’s seven months old. She’s been vaccinated, but not with “live virus.” I am told that this significantly reduces the risks. Neither my wife, nor I have any known allergies.
Gawd:
I think your standpoint is reasonable, and I fully support your choice based on your circumstances.
I look at it this way.
Polio is nearly eradicated. Children don’t die of it in this country. Millions of lives have been saved because of these innoculations.
The fact that nearly every child in this country is innoculated keeps the disease at bay, and helps prevent resistant mutations from forming.
It also builds up enough of a safety margin that we can occasionally afford to exempt children with legitimate health concerns from these innoculations without exposing them or society to significant risk.
If everybody just decides they want ot be exempt, the situation breaks down, and we could very easily have an epidemic of Polio or another disease.
In some 3rd world countries Polio has made a deadly resurgence.
The vaccine is also not 100% effective. If enough people decide on an arbitrary basis not to innoculate their children, that puts your child at greater risk of catching the disease. It also puts my child at risk.
I certainly don’t respect the right of another parent to arbitrarily put my child at risk, and agree that those without a medical waiver shouldn’t be allowed in public schools.
Does this mean that you think a child on waivers is ok, but one without is not? If so, I certainly agree that almost all children should be immunized…just not mine when I have them!
As far as live cell/dead cell, I had the only vaccine that was available at the time. I’ve recently read some reports that say that the core neurotoxin is still in the vaccine as well(I think I can find a cite if you give the some time).
-Sam