[SaneVax: Dr. Paul Offit apparently does not believe in religious freedom or the United States legal system when it comes to vaccines, simply compliance with the recommended vaccine schedule no matter what the personal cost may be. Evidently the concept of informed consent is beyond his comprehension. Vaccine rights attorney, Alan Phillips dismantles Dr. Offit’s position on vaccine exemptions in the article below. The SaneVax team would like to thank Alan for putting some common sense back in the vaccine debate.]
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.
Leave a Reply