Originally published April 1 2011
Pediatricians refuse to treat non-vaccinating patients (Opinion)
by Paula Rothstein
(NaturalNews) As though joining a noble cause, some pediatricians in the U.S. are making the decision not to see patients, who are unvaccinated, and are calling upon colleagues to do the same. Ironically, one reason given, and feigning great heroism in its expression, is to keep waiting rooms free of "diseased patients". The reality, however, is quite different. Outbreaks of diseases commonly vaccinated against are most often found in individuals, who have received the vaccine. Dr. William Atkinson, senior epidemiologist with the CDC confirmed this fact when he reported: "Measles transmission has been clearly documented among vaccinated persons. In some large outbreaks...over 95% of cases have a history of vaccination." This is true with regards to other diseases as well.
As parents, it is acceptable and encouraged that you research the safety of all products your child is to use. You consider car seat safety, appropriate toys, food ingredients and chemical exposure - all with the desire to keep your child safe. Yet a reasonable decision not to have your child injected with dangerous toxins is not respected on any level by the medical establishment.
Vaccines could pose the greatest threat to a child's well being. Why then are parents not allowed to refuse their doctor's advice with regards to vaccines? It is virtually unheard of that a doctor would refuse care to a patient because he or she smokes, drinks heavily, engages in dangerous activities, or consumes a diet which could ultimately lead towards heart disease, cancer or diabetes. Rather than looking at the serious epidemic of childhood diseases resulting from vaccines, it is the response by some pediatricians to deny care. Medical mandates have no place in a free society, and this should most certainly hold true with regards to the injection of toxins into a child.
Why the public pressure to vaccinate?
The medical establishment attempts to make a case for herd immunity, meaning a large percentage of the public needs to be immune to a disease in order to control or eradicate it. This theory would make sense if vaccines were proven to be effective at producing life-long immunity, did not potentially cause severe or fatal harm, and were not linked to the creation of a whole host of health problems which occur as a result of vaccines.
If a vaccination program was, in fact, meant to protect the public health there would be an open dialogue as to the risks of vaccines. No vaccine would be given during that critical time period when the immune system is still developing from birth to two years old. The child, over the age of two, would be given one shot at a time, spaced by six months. There would be far fewer shots recommended. No cocktail shots would exist. Independent studies would be performed. Patients would be carefully monitored post vaccination for any adverse effects and immediately reported to the VAERS system if a problem occurred.
Vaccines are a multi-billion dollar industry. If you feel bullied by the medical establishment, remember you have the right to be suspicious and skeptical as to the merits of vaccines. Be firm about your decision and utilize exemptions when necessary. If a doctor does not want to see your child because you choose not to vaccinate, then you know the name of the doctor you would never want treating your child.
About the authorPaula Rothstein is a freelance writer and certified holistic health coach active in the area of natural health and health freedom advocacy. As a graduate of the Institute for Integrative Nutrition, she has gained insight into the political nature of food, the failings of a drug-dependent healthcare system, and the uniqueness of individual health. For more information, please visit: http://www.medicinefreeliving.com.
All content posted on this site is commentary or opinion and is protected under Free Speech. Truth Publishing LLC takes sole responsibility for all content. Truth Publishing sells no hard products and earns no money from the recommendation of products. NaturalNews.com is presented for educational and commentary purposes only and should not be construed as professional advice from any licensed practitioner. Truth Publishing assumes no responsibility for the use or misuse of this material. For the full terms of usage of this material, visit www.NaturalNews.com/terms.shtml