Re: [Unschooling-dotcom] Re: Question about the objection of shot requirement...
[email protected]
In a message dated 8/9/2001 12:05:37 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
fetteroll@... writes:
the web sites mentioned and they were sponsored by people with a financial
interest in the public getting vaccinations. Those web sites were very
definitely trying to convince me that vaccinations were what I should do.
Anytime you bring money/profit into the equation, things get a bit skewed. .
. that's just the way business is. I think the book published by Mothering
Magazine and some of the articles I have read in there are much more
balanced. One of the articles I read in there (I guess about 2 years ago) had
a panel of people from various professions concerned with the issue as well
as parents (coming from both sides)
And actually we don't really know how many people's lives have been saved
and/or destroyed on either side. . . it's a guess on your part to say that
much more have been saved. . . . we really don't have that information. We
do know that there are casualities on both sides of the issue and that is
truly unfortunate. I have no vested interest in people getting or not getting
their vaccinations. What I do feel I have an interest in is in letting
people know they DO have control and that vaccinations ARE NOT mandatory, and
that there are exemptions. I trust that people can make the decision that is
best for their own family when they are been able to get information from all
sides of the issue.
lovemary
There are no mistakes, no coincidences. All events are blessings given to us
to learn from. - Elisabeth Kubler-Ross
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
fetteroll@... writes:
> The numbers aren't equal though. It's certainly not six of one, half dozenI don't think the article was balanced. I looked at it carefully as well as
> of the other.
>
> There was a good article in Consumer Reports this month, August 2001, on
> vaccinations with a great deal more balanced information to draw conclusions
> from than websites devoted specifically to convincing people vaccines are
> bad (or convincing people vaccines are good for that matter).
>
>
the web sites mentioned and they were sponsored by people with a financial
interest in the public getting vaccinations. Those web sites were very
definitely trying to convince me that vaccinations were what I should do.
Anytime you bring money/profit into the equation, things get a bit skewed. .
. that's just the way business is. I think the book published by Mothering
Magazine and some of the articles I have read in there are much more
balanced. One of the articles I read in there (I guess about 2 years ago) had
a panel of people from various professions concerned with the issue as well
as parents (coming from both sides)
And actually we don't really know how many people's lives have been saved
and/or destroyed on either side. . . it's a guess on your part to say that
much more have been saved. . . . we really don't have that information. We
do know that there are casualities on both sides of the issue and that is
truly unfortunate. I have no vested interest in people getting or not getting
their vaccinations. What I do feel I have an interest in is in letting
people know they DO have control and that vaccinations ARE NOT mandatory, and
that there are exemptions. I trust that people can make the decision that is
best for their own family when they are been able to get information from all
sides of the issue.
lovemary
There are no mistakes, no coincidences. All events are blessings given to us
to learn from. - Elisabeth Kubler-Ross
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]