Originally published May 29 2013
Attorney refutes Dr. Offit on vaccine religious exemptions
by Alan Phillips, J.D.
(NaturalNews) Pediatrician and pro-vaccine advocate Dr. Paul Offit has spoken out repeatedly against vaccine religious exemptions. For example, in one speech (http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org ), he implies that since the Old and New Testaments and the Qur'an predate vaccines, these religions can't be opposed to vaccines. Sadly, Offit appears to suffer from a largely undiagnosed condition common among mainstream medical doctors, egoencephalitis (inflammation of the ego part of the brain), which causes its victims to mistakenly believe that their medical degree bestows upon them infinite, authoritative knowledge about everything. Surely one of the 250 vaccines currently in clinical trials or awaiting FDA approval addresses this concern, so perhaps there is still hope for Dr. Offit.
Offit has no theology credential and so is not qualified to speak authoritatively about the proper interpretation of religion. More importantly, though, he has no legal credential and is not qualified to speak authoritatively about vaccine religious exemptions at all, as vaccine exemptions are a legal issue, and not a theological one. The proper exercise of a vaccine religious exemption has nothing to do with determining the proper interpretation of any religion. Rather, it matters only that each religious exemption applicant follow the proper legal procedure, and that his or her beliefs meet the legal definition of 'religious.'In fact, the legal definition of 'religion' isn't even relevant unless the exemption procedure in question requires that the applicant state his or her religious beliefs that are opposed to vaccines, and the relevant officials have authority to scrutinize the beliefs to see if they qualify. But qualifying, when it is relevant, is not about the proper interpretation of religion; it is about the legal definition of religion.
As to what does or doesn't qualify for a vaccine religious exemption, that's up to the courts, not a self-aggrandizing medical doctor on a mission to validate his past participation in a fundamentally flawed vaccine program. Federal courts have interpreted the First Amendment's "free exercise" [of religion] clause as protecting any belief that is "religious in nature" and "sincerely held." A complete explanation of how exactly the law defines "religious in nature" is beyond the scope of an article, but in general, anyone who is not an atheist can potentially qualify for a vaccine religious exemption--the legal definition of 'religion' is literally that broad. The First Amendment doesn't care whether or not you belong to an organized religion, or which one you belong to if you do. In fact, you could be the only person on the planet with your particular religious beliefs--whether you're a member of an organized religion or not--and if your beliefs are religious in nature and sincerely held as the law defines those terms, you can qualify for a vaccine religious exemption. Now, there are some legal pitfalls to avoid in those exemption situations where you must state your religious beliefs opposed to immunizations, so exemption applicants must be careful if the applicable procedure requires them to state their religious beliefs. Unfortunately, most people's common sense approach to writing a statement of beliefs, in my experience, is not consistent with the law with regard to what specific beliefs do or don't qualify for an exemption. So, consider consulting a knowledgeable attorney to avoid the legal pitfalls if you're in one of those situations.
Moving on, Dr. Offit asserts that the Mississippi and West Virginia State Supreme Courts have said that vaccine religious exemptions violate the Equal Protection clause of the 14th Amendment. Dr. Offit, only the Mississippi State Supreme Court said that, over 33 years ago, and that ruling stands as an historical anomaly. No other state or federal court has ever concurred with that ruling. With all due respect to the 1979 Mississippi State Supreme Court, that Court's anomalous ruling stands more as a Constitutional embarrassment for Mississippi than as a relevant legal point of reference. It is the exception tothe vastly larger "rule."
More recently, Dr. Offit criticized vaccine religious exemptions by citing rare instances in which parents' religious beliefs led to children's deaths due to the parents' withholding of medical care (http://articles.philly.com ). Such deaths are tragic ones that might have been avoided if proper treatment had been provided. But these cases have nothing to do with vaccine religious exemptions. Parents do not have a legal right to allow their child to die for lack of proper medical treatment due to their religious beliefs, but they do have a Constitutional right to exercise a vaccine religious exemption. We might just as well blame all medical doctors for the acts of a tiny few whose medical malfeasance causes the avoidable death of one or more of their patients.
Furthermore, the exercise of a vaccine religious exemption poses no significant health risk, unlike failing to seek proper treatment for a child's serious illness or injury, legally or medically:
Medically: Some exempt kids develop natural immunity, which can happen without even getting sick, according to the CDC. Meanwhile, 5-15% of vaccinations don't work, per CDC figures (actual figures are probably much higher). The truth is, there are far more non-immune vaccinated kids than non-immune exempt kids. In fact, this is how the CDC explains that most outbreaks occur in vaccinated children.
Legally: There is a legal presumption that the exercise of a vaccine religious exemption does not pose a significant risk to anyone; for if it would, state legislatures, who are presumed to have considered the possible consequences of enacting exemption laws, would not have enacted the exemption laws in the first place. The consequences state legislatures considered were all medical safety issues, of course. That is, the legal presumption rests upon prevailing medical theory and practice.
So, medically and legally, religious exemptions pose no significant health risks. Moreover, should they ever pose a potential health risk in the future, states are empowered to take steps to keep the risk at bay. For example, exempt kids can be excluded from school during local outbreaks, and health authorities may quarantine unvaccinated persons during a declared emergency. Of course, these laws don't actually make scientific sense (e.g., why are exempt kids, who may have natural immunity, kept out of school during an outbreak, when the much larger number of non-immune vaccinated kids get to stay in school?), they are political policies put in place to placate the irrational fears of those who fail to understand basic medical principles, or who accept mainstream medical propaganda without question. In any event, if the issue was a genuine, serious concern about immunity to infectious diseases, we would have to conduct immunity tests onall persons, vaccinated or not, to identify the non-immune people in both groups. Vaccination status is not a reliable indicator of immune status; there are both non-immune vaccinated people and immune people who are not vaccinated. It's clear, then, that mainstream vaccination policy is not about protecting the populous from infectious diseases, but rather, a policy put in place to support another agenda, which policy isheld fast by fictional fears masquerading as legitimate healthcare concerns.
Finally, Dr. Offit regularly makes sweeping assumptions about the safety and effectiveness of vaccines, as though it were irrefutably established that vaccines are safe and effective. There are volumes of information refuting those assumptions, but as brief starting points only, consider:
1) Vaccines are made by an industry that routinely engages in criminal behavior. Glaxo and Pfiser got billion dollar criminal fines in 2012 and 2009 respectively; criminal and civil fines in the $100's of millions are common. Just so we're clear, you don't get a criminal fine unless you deliberately engage in criminal behavior;
2) Vaccines injure and kill. The federal government pays out about $100 million annually to vaccine victims and their families, and the CDC, FDA and AAPS have all estimated that 90-99% of vaccine adverse events never even get reported. The truth is, we have no idea what the actual scope of vaccine injury and death really is, so it's not possible to determine whether or not vaccines provide a net-benefit (but if the reality is anywhere near the estimates, there is clearly a substantial net loss with vaccines); and
3) Despite the above, the door for advancing the pro-vaccine agenda is wide open:
a) The federal government subsidizes vaccine research and development ($billions each year),
b) The federal government passed laws making vaccine manufacturers virtually immune from lawsuits for the death and disability their products cause,
c) State and federal governments buy vaccines,
d) State and federal governments mandate vaccines, and
e) State and federal governments compensate vaccine victims--or at least those who are lucky enough to get through the compensation system successfully.
Vaccines in the U.S. are part of an incestuous government-industry alliance ('racket' is more like it), the likes of which are unknown to any other place or time in recorded history.
Dr. Offit is clearly not interested in real science and law; he serves another master. But, he still influences many mainstream doctors. So, we need to act. First, continue to educate yourself on this fast-paced issue, and share your findings with any others able and willing to hear--keep the conversation going! Second, join the NVIC's Advocacy Portal to become legislatively active (www.nvicadvocacy.org); or, start your own legislative activism campaign to oppose bills seeking to further the pro-vaccine agenda, and to support bills that seek to expand vaccine freedom of choice. I'm here to help, too. Here's a list of my past vaccine legislative projects: http://vaccinerights.com/legislativeprojects.html
Finally, you can ask vaccine rights questions on one of these weekly live radio shows, or simply tune in to learn more:
1. The Know Your Rights Hour, with co-hosts Dr. Mayer Eisenstein and Vaccine Rights Attorney Alan Phillips, Monday nights, 9 pm ET/8 CT/7 MT/6 PT, at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/knowyourrightshour
The Know Your Rights Hour is rebroadcast on Natural News Radio on Wednesdays at 1:00 pm ET/12 noon CT/11 am MT/10 am PT.
2. Vaccines and Your Rights in the U.S. (VYRUS), with co-hosts HWC Founder Debby Bruck and Vaccine Rights Attorney Alan Phillips, Thursdays at 1:00 pm ET/12 noon CT/11 am MT/10 am PT, at freedomizerradio.com
 I address this question in my e-book (www.vaccinerights.com) and in client consultations. However, in federal civil rights law, which applies to employee vaccine exemptions, there's even a narrow category of beliefs you could hold as an atheist that are protected religious beliefs under the law. How would Offit interpret that 'religion'?
 Some laws still require membership in an organized religion, but those laws are unconstitutional and thus arguably unenforceable. At least 5 state and federal courts have ruled that such laws are unconstitutional. One can usually exercise an exemption in these states even if they are not members of an organized religion with tenets opposed to immunizations, though it may require the help of an attorney.
 Thanks to Vaccine Liberation Army for bringing this to my attention: http://vaccineliberationarmy.com
About the author:
Alan Phillips, Vaccine Rights Attorney
[email protected], 1-828-575-2622
Vaccine Rights (www.vaccinerights.com)
Alan Phillips, Vaccine Rights Attorney
[email protected], 1-828-575-2622
Vaccine Rights (www.vaccinerights.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