Katrina Buskirk

Scott, as you seem familiar with the history, I appreciate your response. Advocacy and mandates are not one and the same, and your point that "the regret may be the same either way" just goes to the point that it should be a CHOICE. Whether they regret not vaccinating for the loss or disability due to infection, or due to loss or disability due to vaccination, it should remain their FREEDOM to choose.

I certainly agree that an educated decision is best, and I know many who selectively vaccinate or delay, but only a handful that don't at all. Most agree that certain vaccines are more important (and more worth the risk involved) than others.

Also, consider the difference of the living conditions prior to the introduction of the MMR vaccine in 1963. Community sanitation, personal hygiene, acute symptom management, indoor plumbing, and more, ALL contributed to the decline of infectious diseases. Most notably so in the decades preceding the introduction of the MMR.

There are plenty of adults who never received the varicella vaccine, the gardasil vaccine, are not up to date on current recommended MMR, DTP, Hep B, pneumococcal, or the (CDCs acknowledged as nearly worthless) annual flu vaccine. They seem to be stable, and aren't dropping like flies over some imaginary public health (non) emergency.

Aside from that, the CDC has admitted that they INTENTIONALLY introduced cancer causing cells as part of a test, between the 1940's and the 1970's. The collated data was never followed up on, leaving I'm sure many beyond myself to wonder how many cancers were caused by those "tests".

Also, why no available data for those who were vaccinated and later developed autoimmune disorder vs non vaccinated populations? Alzheimer's has been linked to aluminum, a common adjuvant. No available data there either. I suspect it exists, but is unpublished due to its conclusions.

Contrary to your comment that Franky would have qualified as medically exempt, that's likely not the case. Current CDC dogma on those is VERY restrictive. Just being fragile/sickly, likely wouldn't be enough, considering many vaccine injured children are not eligible for medical exemption, but remain (for now at least) eligible for religious or philosophical exemption.

"He who would sacrifice liberty for safety, shall deserve neither, and lose both" ~ Benjamin Franklin

Let's take a look at history for a moment, and consider some things we may have ignored otherwise.

During the late 18th century, smallpox, measles, typhoid, diphtheria, consumption, TB, and more, were quite common, and quite lethal. Smallpox had a survival rate of approximately 1:4 for naturally acquired, vs 1:72 (still pretty high) for those who elected to inoculate with the recently pioneered method of vaccination.

Vaccination of the time period would be considered brutal and garish by today's standards, but, held promise. Let's look to smallpox as an example. First, cowpox scabs were harvested. Next, the local (or traveling) physician would cut into the flesh of the patient, and apply the cowpox scabs into the wounds, followed by bandaging them in. In most cases, a milder version of the illness, followed by immunity would follow (IF they recovered, as mentioned above, 1:72 did NOT).

This was often expensive, and the impoverished were often least likely to be able to afford it. Founding father Ben lobbied for them to have the OPTION as a human right, but didn't think it should be forced, simply available if they would want it.

How do we know this? He chose to forgo vaccination of one of his children, described as bright,joyous, intelligent and also fragile of health. He feared that the infection caused by the procedure would cause his child's death.

Sadly, this child still fell ill, and died of subsequent illness.

Does that mean he shouldn't have had the RIGHT to choose? HELL NO! It further substantiates that our founders would have supported FREEDOM to choose, with the knowledge of potential risks. As a physician, he would have been aware of both the risks of vaccination and without.

Science is fallible and ever changing. I've NEVER gotten a flu vaccine. I know I could potentially get the flu, but CHOOSE to take that risk, as I see that as my RIGHT to CHOOSE.

Most exemptions are partially vaccinated, and many adults are not up to date. If this is passed for children, you open a very slippery slope to be interpreted regarding adult medical choices as well. Should the public be mandated to undergo chemo instead of abstaining from treatment? What about the choice of a midwife instead of an ob? We already allow the TSA to molest us in order to travel, should they demand "PAPERS PLEASE" similar to the Nazis during WWII?

For a state that is supportive of death with dignity, CLEARLY. A CHOICE, I'm very disappointed to see this even be attempted by our elected officials.