Big Brother State getting tough with Innocent Children and Parents...
In an amazing turn of events the Attorney General of Maryland issued summons to more than 1600 parents of children who have not been immunized by vaccines.
If these parents do not submit their children to on the spot vaccinations (which will involve a cocktail of 17 vaccines, hopefully not all administered at the same time) they will be subject to a $50 per day fine for each day the vaccination is delayed...or, 10 days in jail.
This is pretty heavy handed and shocking stuff and brings the entire question of 'freedom' into focus. A citizen should be allowed to live in their own country without this sort of intimidation from the 'authorities' and the usurping of free will.
America used to be able to proudly proclaim to the rest of the world that it was the land of the free, but that unfortunately is steadily changing. To make matters worse these types of actions if got away with in the US embolden 'authorities' in other countries to also step over the line. There is no question that a deadly battle is going on behind the scenes, particularly in so far as it relates to our health and personal freedom of choice. This is driven by big money interests.
Now is the time for citizens to become vocal about these types of happenings and let their elected representative know that it must be stopped.
You can read more about it by clicking here.
Reader Comments (6)
Warren,
I admire your passion about this topic. However, I do not admire your narrow focus. As an elementary school teacher in an urban school district, I am keenly aware of the costs in time away from work and medical care for teachers, staff, and students when sick students bring their infectious illnesses to school. This happens because many urban parents are among the working poor and can't afford to take time off work to stay at home with a sick child. As a result, they send their sick children to school where they spread their illnesses to others. Mandatory inoculations serve to help all of us avoid costly and for some, possibly life threatening illnesses.
An individuals freedom the swing their fist, ends at the point where that fist may contact my nose. By the same token, I believe that a parent's freedom to decide not to have their child or children inoculated against infectious diseases, ends at the point where that decision threatens the health, welfare, and possibly the life of other children and adults.
Eric
November 27, 2007 | Eric D. Evans
I appreciate your comments Eric and I go along with it to a degree. I am not totally against all vaccinations but some of them I feel are not needed and present some risks to the children.
I personally would not want to be forced to give my children a vaccination if I had cause to be concerned that it may put the childs health at risk...and there are certainly cases where this happens.
The main thrust of this item was the means in which this 'operation' was carried out and that it potentially sets a precedent for other such 'operations'. We have already seen state interference in the rights of the individual to choose their own method of medical treatment even when their condition is no threat to the general community.
In addition, consider the widespread unnecessary administering of Ritalin to children which the parents are forced to accept even though that it sets the stage for many future problems for that child including on going drug use.
Most of these children who are given Ritalin are 'normal' hyperactive kids who could be fixed by banning sodas, junk food and giving them Omega 3 instead of starting their life as a committed drug user. Can't see the 'authorities' doing that approach though!
November 27, 2007 | Warren Matthews
Warren,
When I wrote my first response, I had not read the AAPS article. Now that I have read it, I share your concern about how the "vaccination roundup" was handled.
Parents do have the right and the responsibility to make informed decisions about the vaccinations that there children receive. However, I believe that because many parents don't have access to the information that they need to make informed decisions, they choose to either trust or not trust the "authorities" to do what is in the best interest of their children. In this case, it appears that the potential loss of state funding caused the "authorities" to make a bad exercise of power.
As for the administration of Ritalin to children, I do not support hasty decisions to medicating our children. Too often, teachers, school administrators, and doctors see the administration of Ritalin as a viable substitute for effective classroom management techniques and a healthy diet. In my experience, most kids tend to be hyperactive after consuming sugary snacks, simple carbohydrates and sugary sodas.
Recent reports on brain research indicate that children diagnosed as having ADD and ADHD experience slower brain development, than other children, in those areas of the brain which, among other things, enable the control of inappropriate behaviors. The researchers think that this may explain why many children grow out of these two disorders. This also argues against hastily administering Ritalin to children.
Eric
November 27, 2007 | Eric D. Evans
Thanks for that Eric
November 28, 2007 | Warren Matthews
Quite amazing - and in the Land of the Free!
I am a pro-vaccination advocate as I have seen the effect of a serious epidemic on children (which Warren and I have written of here before) and the result of both the injectable and Salk vaccines in ridding us of the polio scourge. I have also seen the effects of a small-pox epidemic (India) - well, the 30% who died I didn't see of course - and I try to keep a mental balance between the "rights" of the parents to vaccinate/not vaccinate their children with the rights of those children to a life and the rights of other children to being free of contamination. It is not an easy question to answer.
If, in 100 children 99% are vaccinated, there is NO chance of an epidemic. Simply those vaccinated won't carry the disease therefore one infected child is not threat to any of the others and will quietly die - the disease dying out instantly. When the percentage of unvaccinated subjects goes under 85% then an epidemic is possible - except that it will usually be of greater virulence. More children infected will die/be permanently affected.
It pays to remember in all this that the current epidemic of AIDS in the US and Europe can be traced to ONE infected subject - the ripple effect of this one person stays with us today.
I do not condone the draconian methods of the Maryland authorities - indeed I find such offensive - but I am also not sure how you'd go about getting vaccinations etc into the 90+% of the community without some form of encouragement.
If there was an outbreak of say small pox (33% fatal - higher in the young and the old) I suspect the queues of panicking parents would likewise stretch around the block as they DEMANDED to have their children vaccinated - thimerisol being a minor problem all of a sudden.
Of course, then it would be the "fault" of those same "authorities" for NOT making the vaccination available before it all happened. damned if they do, damned if they don't.
Oh yes, of course there won't be a small pox epidemic as this ancient scourge ws defeated by ... compulsory vaccination!
November 28, 2007 | Muzz
I encourage you to read The Sanctity of Human Blood : Vaccination is not Immunization by Tim O'Shea. More info can be found at www.thedoctorwithin.com
December 13, 2007 | Ginger
Reader Comments (0)