Why Texas is becoming a major antivaccine battlefield

[William Tell]

Article is old, all attempts to infringe on vaccine freedom all failed this session.


Peter Hotez used to worry mostly about vaccines for children in far-away places. An infectious diseases researcher at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, Texas, Hotez is developing shots against diseases in poorer countries such as hookworm and schistosomiasis.

But now, Hotez is anxious about children much closer to home. The number of schoolchildren not vaccinated against childhood diseases in Texas is growing rapidly, which means that the state may see its first measles outbreaks in the winter or spring of 2018, Hotez predicted in a recent article in PLOS Medicine. Disgraced antivaccine physician Andrew Wakefield has set up shop in the Texan capital, Austin, and a political action committee (PAC) is putting pressure on legislators facing a slew of vaccine-related bills.

"Texas is now the center of the antivaxxer movement,” Hotez says. “There is a big fight coming,” adds Anna Dragsbaek of The Immunization Partnership, a nonprofit organization in Houston that advocates for vaccinations.

Texas still has one of the highest vaccination rates for childhood diseases overall, 97.4%, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. But the number of children not vaccinated because of their parents' “personal beliefs”—as opposed to medical reasons—has risen from 2300 in 2003, when such exemptions were introduced, to more than 44,000 so far this year, according to numbers prepared by The Immunization Partnership based on Texas Department of State Health Services data. The actual number may be much higher because an estimated 300,000 Texan children are schooled at home, says Susan Wootton, an infectious disease pediatrician at the University of Texas in Houston; though the law requires these kids to be immunized too, parents don't need to submit proof of vaccination.
http://www.sciencemag.org/sites/default/files/images/Nonmedical_exemptions_for_K%E2%80%9312th_grade_stu dents%2C_TX_Exemptions_chartbuilder.png


Measles is an extremely contagious pathogen and often the first one to spread when vaccination rates dip below about 95%. The risk of outbreaks is even greater because unvaccinated children aren't randomly distributed. In Gaines county in western Texas, for instance, the exemption rate is already 4.8%, and at one school in Austin, it's 40%. "I would describe Texas as sitting on a ticking time bomb," Wootton says.

Not everyone is so gloomy. Some counties in Washington and Colorado have higher levels of exemptions, says immunologist Diane Griffin of the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. “I don’t think that Texas is any worse than a number of other states, but pointing out the problem and the solution is important,” she wrote in an email.

But Hotez believes the situation in the Lone Star State is more perilous. One factor is the arrival of Wakefield, widely seen as the father of the modern antivaccine movement. Wakefield published a paper in The Lancet in 1998 that alleged a link between the MMR vaccine (which combines shots against measles, mumps, and rubella) and autism. Several large studies have failed to find the link, Wakefield's paper was retracted in 2010, and he was disbarred as a physician after the U.K. General Medical Council found him guilty of dishonesty and endangering children. Wakefield has appeared at screenings of his film Vaxxed, released in April, all over Texas and has testified at many city councils, Dragsbaek says. “He is definitely a major influencer.”

Meanwhile, a PAC named Texans for Vaccine Choice has sprung up after state Representative Jason Villalba, a Republican lawyer from Dallas, proposed scrapping nonmedical exemptions last year. (The bill was never voted on.) “While they do not have a whole lot of money, they have a lot of people that they can deploy to interfere in primary campaigns,” Dragsbaek says. “They made Villalba's primary campaign very, very difficult.” Rebecca Hardy, director of state policies at Texans for Vaccine Choice, says the group is not trying to convince parents that vaccines are dangerous, but fighting for their right not to immunize their children. (It's also helping them apply for exemptions (http://www.texansforvaccinechoice.com/online/texas-vaccination-exemption-information/).)

The Texas legislature is now pondering several bills that would help shore up vaccination. One would make it compulsory for parents to complete an online course before refusing vaccination; another would require them to discuss their decision with a doctor.
http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2016/12/why-texas-becoming-major-antivaccine-battlefield

[William Tell]

https://scontent-dft4-2.xx.fbcdn.net/v/t1.0-9/18814392_1884386791817688_8793693043367917800_n.jp g?oh=221eb02f8caf5c3a4bd13944a55dd4e7&oe=59D71197

[William Tell]

AUSTIN — The group of 40 people gathered at a popular burger and fish taco restaurant in San Antonio listened eagerly to the latest news about the anti-vaccine fight taking place in the Texas legislature.


Some mothers in the group had stopped immunizing their young children because of doubts about vaccine safety. Heads nodded as the woman giving the statehouse update warned that vaccine advocates wanted to “chip away” at parents’ right to choose. But she also had encouraging news.


“We have 30 champions in that statehouse,” boasted Jackie Schlegel, executive director of Texans for Vaccine Choice. “Last session, we had two.”

************************************************** *************

Peter Hotez, director of the Texas Children’s Hospital Center for Vaccine Development, predicts that 2017 could be the year the anti-vaccination movement gains ascendancy in the United States. Texas could lead the way, he said, because some public schools are dangerously close to the threshold at which measles outbreaks can be expected. A third of students at some private schools are unvaccinated.


“We’re losing the battle,” Hotez said.


Although the anti-vaccine movement has been strong in other states, including California, Oregon, Washington and Colorado, experts say the effort in Texas is among the most organized and politically active.


“It’s a great example of an issue that has a targeted, small minority but an intense minority who are willing to mobilize and engage in direct action,”said Mark Jones, a political science professor at Rice University in Houston.



https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/health-science/trump-energizes-the-anti-vaccine-movement-in-texas/2017/02/20/795bd3ae-ef08-11e6-b4ff-ac2cf509efe5_story.html

[donnay]

Go Texas GO!!

[Sonny Tufts]

At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment? One parent thinks vaccines are dangerous and is willing to run the risk that the child comes down with measles, whooping cough, or some other disease. Another believes modern medicine is wrong and is willing to treat a child's [appendicitis] [compound fracture] [cancer] with [prayer] [voodoo practices] [St. John's Wort]. Another believes that it's perfectly OK to discipline a child by whipping its butt raw, chaining it to the wall of an unlit tool shed, and feeding it only bread and water for a week. How far does this go?

[angelatc]

At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment? One parent thinks vaccines are dangerous and is willing to run the risk that the child comes down with measles, whooping cough, or some other disease. Another believes modern medicine is wrong and is willing to treat a child's [appendicitis] [compound fracture] [cancer] with [prayer] [voodoo practices] [St. John's Wort]. Another believes that it's perfectly OK to discipline a child by whipping its butt raw, chaining it to the wall of an unlit tool shed, and feeding it only bread and water for a week. How far does this go?

Children belong to the parents, not to the state.

[dannno]

At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment? One parent thinks vaccines are dangerous and is willing to run the risk that the child comes down with measles, whooping cough, or some other disease. Another believes modern medicine is wrong and is willing to treat a child's [appendicitis] [compound fracture] [cancer] with [prayer] [voodoo practices] [St. John's Wort]. Another believes that it's perfectly OK to discipline a child by whipping its butt raw, chaining it to the wall of an unlit tool shed, and feeding it only bread and water for a week. How far does this go?

So, you think the state should make medical decisions for people and their children so that parents don't beat their kids and lock them in a basement?

Should the state also tell people what to eat and drink?

[William Tell]

At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment? One parent thinks vaccines are dangerous and is willing to run the risk that the child comes down with measles, whooping cough, or some other disease. Another believes modern medicine is wrong and is willing to treat a child's [appendicitis] [compound fracture] [cancer] with [prayer] [voodoo practices] [St. John's Wort]. Another believes that it's perfectly OK to discipline a child by whipping its butt raw, chaining it to the wall of an unlit tool shed, and feeding it only bread and water for a week. How far does this go?

Takes a village, eh Mrs Clinton? And what's with calling children "it".

[Sonny Tufts]

Children belong to the parents, not to the state.

So are you saying that under no circumstances should a parent be held accountable for injuries to or death of a child so long as he can say he was just exercising his parental rights?

[Sonny Tufts]

Takes a village, eh Mrs Clinton? And what's with calling children "it".

No, I'm saying it's sometimes a very hard line to draw and that I don't think it's a good idea to allow parents to abuse their kids.

[euphemia]

I had measles, rubella, chicken pox, and mumps. There was no vaccine when I had them. I'm not sure you can call natural illness the result of parental neglect.

Parents have the right to make medical decisions on behalf of minor children.

[Sonny Tufts]

Children belong to the parents, not to the state.

Funny...a lot of people conveniently forgot about this during the Elian Gonzalez affair.

[euphemia]

Funny...a lot of people conveniently forgot about this during the Elian Gonzalez affair.

No, they didn't. Elian's mother died at sea. His father was not in the country at the time. What I don't agree is that Janet Reno should have sent an armed SWAT team to retrieve the boy when his father was located. If Cuba felt it was that important for the boy to be with family (which he was), they should have allowed his father to come to the US to get him.

But we are not talking about that. We are discussing vaccines in the 21st century and why Texas has chosen to codify parental rights in this case.

[William Tell]

No, I'm saying it's sometimes a very hard line to draw and that I don't think it's a good idea to allow parents to abuse their kids.
So you think not giving kids certain vaccines may be abuse? That's pretty radical. Even pro-vax folks admit that some kids have allergies that prevent them from being able to have some vaccines and medicine safely.

[euphemia]

So you think not giving kids certain vaccines may be abuse? That's pretty radical. Even pro-vax folks admit that some kids have allergies that prevent them from being able to have some vaccines and medicine safely.

That is the truth. A lot of viruses are cultured in eggs. A child who is allergic to eggs cannot be vaccinated with cultures developed that way.

[euphemia]

I think one of the problems of mandatory vaccines is that parents are no longer aware of the symptoms of various illnesses. I had chicken pox, so when our daughter got them, I knew to contact her summer camp and keep her away from other people until all the blisters scabbed over.

[Sonny Tufts]

So you think not giving kids certain vaccines may be abuse? That's pretty radical.

Not really. It's a matter of degree, not of kind. It's one thing to say that a kid has allergies to a vaccine. It's quite another to base an objection on the unverified claims of a quack or some other crackpot notion. Yes, there's a difference between (a) refusing to let a child be vaxxed and running the risk he'll get measles or whooping cough, and (b) refusing conventional medical treatment for a child with treatable cancer and relying instead on prayer or voodoo rites (I am not equating these two alternative treatments, btw). Maybe the unvaxxed kid won't get measles or if he does, maybe he won't infect anyone else. Maybe the kid with cancer will undergo spontaneous remission, even though every doctor who's seen him says he'll die without conventional treatment. My only point is that parents shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to regarding their kids, and I'd be surprised if most people on this forum wouldn't agree. But so far, that's seems to be the only response I've received: "The kid belongs to the parents, and who is the government or anyone else to ever question a parent's decision?"

[Anti Federalist]

Funny...a lot of people conveniently forgot about this during the Elian Gonzalez affair.

I didn't.

But to be honest, Elian was returned to his father after his mother "endangered" him by fleeing Cuba in raft.

[Anti Federalist]

Not really. It's a matter of degree, not of kind. It's one thing to say that a kid has allergies to a vaccine. It's quite another to base an objection on the unverified claims of a quack or some other crackpot notion. Yes, there's a difference between (a) refusing to let a child be vaxxed and running the risk he'll get measles or whooping cough, and (b) refusing conventional medical treatment for a child with treatable cancer and relying instead on prayer or voodoo rites (I am not equating these two alternative treatments, btw). Maybe the unvaxxed kid won't get measles or if he does, maybe he won't infect anyone else. Maybe the kid with cancer will undergo spontaneous remission, even though every doctor who's seen him says he'll die without conventional treatment. My only point is that parents shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to regarding their kids, and I'd be surprised if most people on this forum wouldn't agree. But so far, that's seems to be the only response I've received: "The kid belongs to the parents, and who is the government or anyone else to ever question a parent's decision?"

It's really quite simple: once you grant the premise that government can decide, and administer at gunpoint, medication that it deems "non quackery", then nothing is off the table.

You become, as a parent, nothing more than what all of us are in every other aspect of our life: squatters and serfs, because you, in reality, own or have full responsibility for nothing.

With freedom, comes risks, and sometimes freedom means being free to make dumb choices.

If you're not willing to shine that on, as tough as it may be, then you're not really ready for freedom.

[William Tell]

Not really. It's a matter of degree, not of kind. It's one thing to say that a kid has allergies to a vaccine. It's quite another to base an objection on the unverified claims of a quack or some other crackpot notion. Look, it's up to parents to decide what is best for the kid. If a mother has two children, as is often the case, and the first one had a sever reaction to vaccines, she likely isn't going to give the second one shots. Using the government to inject the family by force is assault, abuse, and if the worst happens, murder. That's what we'd call it if anyone besides the government did it.

We all make choices and take risks, forcing people to do things just adds all kinds of new risks. No one in their right mind gets between a mama bear and her cubs.


Yes, there's a difference between (a) refusing to let a child be vaxxed and running the risk he'll get measles or whooping cough, and (b) refusing conventional medical treatment for a child with treatable cancer and relying instead on prayer or voodoo rites (I am not equating these two alternative treatments, btw). Maybe the unvaxxed kid won't get measles or if he does, maybe he won't infect anyone else. Maybe the kid with cancer will undergo spontaneous remission, even though every doctor who's seen him says he'll die without conventional treatment. My only point is that parents shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to regarding their kids, and I'd be surprised if most people on this forum wouldn't agree. But so far, that's seems to be the only response I've received: "The kid belongs to the parents, and who is the government or anyone else to ever question a parent's decision?" Well, you've made your point that you don't think parents should have total control. So the question is what control do you think the government should have? Should we have mandatory yearly checkups, weekly social worker visits maybe? Or something more specific to a problem, like banning parents from having a say in cancer treatments?

On average no one cares more about, or knows more about a child than his parents. Parents should call the shots, they aren't perfect but usually they are the closest to perfect when it comes to making decisions for their children.

[euphemia]

I had all the childhood diseases except whooping cough. I did not have polio, although some friends did.

People act like vaccinations are the be-all and end-all. They are not. Immunity is not permanent.

[Danke]

Screw family and relatives and to a lesser extent, local communities, looking out for the welfare of their minors, the UN should be the decider.

[Sonny Tufts]

So the question is what control do you think the government should have?

That was my question in the OP. So far no one's really answered, although there are strong suggestions that most folks think the answer is "None", regardless of how abusive the parent's behavior is.

[William Tell]

That was my question in the OP. So far no one's really answered, although there are strong suggestions that most folks think the answer is "None", regardless of how abusive the parent's behavior is.

This thread is about vaccine choice not abuse. Parents should have control over the vaccines their kids get. I think pretty much everyone on this site holds that position. Or do you disagree?

[euphemia]

That was my question in the OP. So far no one's really answered, although there are strong suggestions that most folks think the answer is "None", regardless of how abusive the parent's behavior is.

So far, you are the only one suggesting that parents who don't want their kids vaccinated are abusive. Parents are given information about the risks when they consider vaccination. If they read the info and decide not to take the risk, how is that abusive?

The reason so many vaccinations are pushed at such early ages is because day care and so-called early childhood education brings lots of kids together before their immune systems have had a chance to mature naturally. It makes vaccination look like the so-called sensible option. If a parent lives 50 miles from nowhere, what kind of risk do those children have for contracting whooping cough? Almost none. Why should there be any risk the child will be left with permanent problems because of a vaccination? Why should the decision not wait until the child has a choice?

For the record, we did vaccinate, but it was not the same ball game back then. Doses were small and spaced out, and they did not start practically at birth.

[Working Poor]

So are you saying that under no circumstances should a parent be held accountable for injuries to or death of a child so long as he can say he was just exercising his parental rights?

Who is held accountable when a child is injured by vaccine? Many parents feel like it is their fault when they let the medical industrial complex vaccinate their child and they are injured because they did not take the time to learn about what could happen to their child. You should know that big pharma is exempt from liability and that it is very difficult to get help if your child is injured by vaccine. There is a special court designed to hear cases of vaccine injury but even still the government makes a case very hard to prove even if the child died the day of the vaccine.

[Origanalist]

Funny...a lot of people conveniently forgot about this during the Elian Gonzalez affair.

Nice deflection.

[Origanalist]

Look, it's up to parents to decide what is best for the kid. If a mother has two children, as is often the case, and the first one had a sever reaction to vaccines, she likely isn't going to give the second one shots. Using the government to inject the family by force is assault, abuse, and if the worst happens, murder. That's what we'd call it if anyone besides the government did it.

We all make choices and take risks, forcing people to do things just adds all kinds of new risks. No one in their right mind gets between a mama bear and her cubs.

Well, you've made your point that you don't think parents should have total control. So the question is what control do you think the government should have? Should we have mandatory yearly checkups, weekly social worker visits maybe? Or something more specific to a problem, like banning parents from having a say in cancer treatments?

On average no one cares more about, or knows more about a child than his parents. Parents should call the shots, they aren't perfect but usually they are the closest to perfect when it comes to making decisions for their children.

Out of rep

[Origanalist]

So far, you are the only one suggesting that parents who don't want their kids vaccinated are abusive. Parents are given information about the risks when they consider vaccination. If they read the info and decide not to take the risk, how is that abusive?

The reason so many vaccinations are pushed at such early ages is because day care and so-called early childhood education brings lots of kids together before their immune systems have had a chance to mature naturally. It makes vaccination look like the so-called sensible option. If a parent lives 50 miles from nowhere, what kind of risk do those children have for contracting whooping cough? Almost none. Why should there be any risk the child will be left with permanent problems because of a vaccination? Why should the decision not wait until the child has a choice?

For the record, we did vaccinate, but it was not the same ball game back then. Doses were small and spaced out, and they did not start practically at birth.

Excellent point. The regimes are too soon and too intense these days and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see they are problematic at best.

[merkelstan]

Also it's possible to allow some vaccines for your child, and refuse others which are less helpful or more problematic.

A lot of this goes to the problem of ignorance, stupidity, complexity of the modern world, and trust of government.

The statist argument is that we gain immensely by having experts in a field decide for us what kinds of treatments or products are safe or beneficial, since they are experts in their field. Joe six-pack will never approach 1/1000th of their knowledge.

The anti-statist argument is well - ya can't trust the State..

[jllundqu]

At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment? One parent thinks vaccines are dangerous and is willing to run the risk that the child comes down with measles, whooping cough, or some other disease. Another believes modern medicine is wrong and is willing to treat a child's [appendicitis] [compound fracture] [cancer] with [prayer] [voodoo practices] [St. John's Wort]. Another believes that it's perfectly OK to discipline a child by whipping its butt raw, chaining it to the wall of an unlit tool shed, and feeding it only bread and water for a week. How far does this go?

I didn't eat my vegetables last night and I also cut my workout 15 minutes short because I was tired.... There should be a law against that, right?

[jllundqu]

Not really. It's a matter of degree, not of kind. It's one thing to say that a kid has allergies to a vaccine. It's quite another to base an objection on the unverified claims of a quack or some other crackpot notion. Yes, there's a difference between (a) refusing to let a child be vaxxed and running the risk he'll get measles or whooping cough, and (b) refusing conventional medical treatment for a child with treatable cancer and relying instead on prayer or voodoo rites (I am not equating these two alternative treatments, btw). Maybe the unvaxxed kid won't get measles or if he does, maybe he won't infect anyone else. Maybe the kid with cancer will undergo spontaneous remission, even though every doctor who's seen him says he'll die without conventional treatment. My only point is that parents shouldn't have carte blanche to do whatever the hell they want to regarding their kids, and I'd be surprised if most people on this forum wouldn't agree. But so far, that's seems to be the only response I've received: "The kid belongs to the parents, and who is the government or anyone else to ever question a parent's decision?"

Let me explain it to you in a very simple way. Parents must be in control of vaccines, period. When my son was born, they wanted to immediately give him a vitamin k shot (completely unnecessary if you wait to cut the cord until it has stopped pulsing, ie ALL the blood has reached the baby) so we refused... they wanted to immediately give him a HEP B shot, we refused as neither my wife nor I have that particular STD, they wanted to put Gonorrhea Anti-bacterial shit in his eyes, again we don't have any STDs so we refused and all that stuff really interferes with initial bonding and nursing of the infant.

It will be a cold day in hell and over my dead body before someone will tell me that my choices listed above are NOT my choices and they will FORCE my child to take those vaccines.

I am not an "Anti-vaxxer", but I am extremely well read on the subject, as a result, I am well informed. We use an alternate schedule for vaccines that spread the vaccine out over longer time periods and never more than one shot per visit. We also have opted out of several vaccines altogether, but still get some. (We skip the varicella for example).

I understand the desire to "protect the children" but this argument/debate is very simple. Parents and informed physicians can and should 100% decide for themselves what is best for their children... NOT THE FUCKING STATE.

[Created4]

So the question is what control do you think the government should have?


That was my question in the OP. So far no one's really answered, although there are strong suggestions that most folks think the answer is "None", regardless of how abusive the parent's behavior is.

The problem is you "beg" the question and use non-sequitur examples to promote your position.

The answer to your question is quite simple: We have the Constitution to protect rights and to give government power to rule over the people through legislation and the legal system.

So, to use one of your examples which is quite different than medical decisions, if a parent spanks a child to the extent that he/she is severely injured, that is true abuse and we have laws and the criminal justice system to prosecute such an offense. It is a law enforcement issue, to protect rights and uphold the law. In the criminal justice system, the accused has constitutional rights such as trial by jury.

But the Constitution and those rights are routinely abused by Child Social Services today, which is nothing more than a BILLION dollar child trafficking business, where the government decides who is a good parent and who is not.

The battle over vaccines and any other medical decision should be first and foremost a legislative battle, so that law enforcement or lawsuits are based on the rule of law, and not the opinions of doctors, social workers, etc. (Many doctors don't give vaccines or give them at a reduced rate)

If you want to take a child for any medical reason, you should have to get a judge to sign a warrant to do so first, and then the parents/care givers should have their day in court, REAL court and not the Kangaroo family courts currently supported by federal funding for foster care and adoption.

What we have currently in terms of children being taken away for medical reasons is tyranny, as the rule of law and the Constitution are not followed in taking children away from parents in almost all of these situations. It is medical kidnapping. The children don't want to leave their home, and neither do the parents, but it happens anyway with no due process of law. Tyranny.

Does the State Ever Have a “Right” to Remove Children from a Home? (http://medicalkidnap.com/2015/01/26/does-the-state-ever-have-a-right-to-remove-children-from-a-home/)

[euphemia]

Excellent point. The regimes are too soon and too intense these days and it doesn't take a rocket scientist to see they are problematic at best.

Life experience is sometimes a really good teacher. My generation and my daughter's generation rarely had complications from vaccines, or even from the actual diseases.

I'm not a conspiracy fan, but it seems like there is some pressure to get kids away from parents and into day cares...vaccines are the golden ticket for entry.

[Sonny Tufts]

So far, you are the only one suggesting that parents who don't want their kids vaccinated are abusive.

I never suggested that. In the original post I simply asked, "At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment?" No one seems to want to answer that, although Merkelstan's post lays out the knee-jerk viewpoints of both extremes.

Forget it.

[euphemia]

Just because you don't want to define your terms...whatever.

It is not abusive not to vaccinate a child. Government should not require vaccinations for anything. Abusers are going to abuse, and in case you haven't read around, government tends to define abuse, or even the suspicion of abuse, very broadly. Kids are taken from their homes because of such abuse as being born at home with the aid of a midwife or not being vaccinated. Parents should have the right to live in somewhat primitive conditions and be self-sufficient if that's what they choose.

The system is abusive, if you really want to know.

[Created4]

In the original post I simply asked, "At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment?"


Actually, I did answer it. There is something called a "Constitution" that protects the rights of the people and also grants power to the government to enforce laws to protect those rights.

[euphemia]

To be specific to your question, I don't think there is a line to cross where parents raising their children becomes child endangerment. To be clear, beating, starving, or putting kids in cages does not fall under the heading of "raising" children. They are already codified into general criminal law. Nobody is allowed to do that to anyone. Except government.

[William Tell]

I never suggested that. In the original post I simply asked, "At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment?" No one seems to want to answer that, although Merkelstan's post lays out the knee-jerk viewpoints of both extremes.

Forget it. Why don't you answer it? The rest of us are for complete parental control over vaccines for their children.

[euphemia]

What I would consider over the line is when parents put their children over the railing to a zoo area where dangerous animals can be seen. That's child endangerment--especially when the parent loses her grip and the child falls in and is killed.

[jllundqu]

I never suggested that. In the original post I simply asked, "At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment?" No one seems to want to answer that, although Merkelstan's post lays out the knee-jerk viewpoints of both extremes.

Forget it.

I posted it earlier and you ignored my post.

I'll say it again. No one, certainly no one in government, can tell me, as the parent, what to inject into my child, period. The rest of your hypotheticals are already covered by criminal law.

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Another believes modern medicine is wrong and is willing to treat a child's [appendicitis] [compound fracture] [cancer] with [prayer] [voodoo practices] [St. John's Wort].


There have been many studies showing the positive effects of prayer on healing. Here are excerpts from a literature review:



In another systematic review, Crawford et al.[31] examined the quality of studies of hands-on healing and distance healing that were published between 1955 and 2001. There were 90 identified studies of which 45 had been conducted in clinical settings and 45 in laboratory settings. Crawford et al.[31] reported that 71% of the clinical studies and 62% of the laboratory studies reported positive outcomes;...

***

Astin et al.[30] conducted a systematic review of the literature on the efficacy of any form of distant healing as a treatment for any medical condition. A total of 23 trials involving 2,774 patients met the inclusion criteria and were subjected to analysis. Of these studies, 13 (57%) yielded statistically significant treatment effects favoring distant healing, nine showed no superiority of distant healing over control interventions and one showed a negative effect for distant healing.

***

Cha et al.[32] found that the women who had been prayed for had nearly twice as high a pregnancy rate as those who had not been prayed for...

***

Lesniak[33] described a study on the effect of intercessory prayer on wound healing in a nonhuman primate species. The sample comprised 22 bush babies (Otolemur garnettii) with wounds resulting from chronic self-injurious behavior. These animals were randomized into prayer and control groups that were similar at baseline. Prayer was conducted for 4 weeks. Both groups of bush babies additionally received L-tryptophan. Lesniak[33] found that the prayer group animals had a greater reduction in wound size and a greater improvement in hematological parameters than the control animals. This study is important because it was conducted in a nonhuman species; therefore, the likelihood of a placebo effect was removed.


..



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2802370/

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

I never suggested that. In the original post I simply asked, "At what point do parents' rights to raise their kids cross the line and become child endangerment?"

People answered your question. Maybe if you'd stopped trolling long enough, you could have a discussion and learn something. Listen more. Talk less.


No one seems to want to answer that, although Merkelstan's post lays out the knee-jerk viewpoints of both extremes.

You talked about "chaining it [a child] to the wall of an unlit tool shed, and feeding it only bread and water for a week," and you say others are talking knee jerk extremes?!

[NorthCarolinaLiberty]

Another believes modern medicine is wrong and is willing to treat a child's [appendicitis] [compound fracture] [cancer] with [prayer] [voodoo practices] [St. John's Wort].


St John's Wort is modern medicine. Walgreen's sells it. Peer reviewed studies have demonstrated its effectiveness in treating some forms of depression, even as much as prescription drugs. Peer reviewed research also shows it helps with other similar issues, like sleep disorders, anxiety, and a whole laundry list.

It appears to me that uneducated government advocates like you are the ones detrimental to children's well-being.