Discussion: Newborn Vaccines
Dangers of Newborn Vaccines
With any vaccine, the effects of an allergic reaction can be life-threatening. The most common reaction to an allergic reaction is a high fever of about 99.9°F. [1] According to Pediatrician, Jo Ann Rohyans, a fever is the bodies natural reaction to infection and it is necessary to defeat most infections that are more comfortable at 98.6°F. [2] However, a high fever can lead to severe dehydration, and, in the case of newborns, if left untreated can result in organ damage and/or death within a matter of days. [4]
In a report published by the CDC, approximately 1 out of every 15 people will have adverse effects to the Hepatitis B vaccine. [1] Now, let’s extrapolate that to the amount of babies that are born each day, so that we can determine approximately how many newborn babies will suffer from adverse effects each day in the United States. According to the article Surprising facts about birth in the United States the estimate is 4 million babies born each year, so:
Let,
a = 4,000,000 babies born per year in USA
b = 365 days per year
Thus,
a/b = 10958.904109589041095890410958904 babies born per day in USA
We now round our answer to the nearest whole number and divide by 15, so:
a/b = 10959/15 = 730.6 newborns at risk per day
Therefore, we see that in America an approximate 731 out of 10959 (~7%) newborn babies are expected to suffer from adverse effects due to receiving the Hepatitis B vaccine, each day. Therefore, we must ask ourselves, “Are the risks of contracting the Hepatitis B virus greater or less than the approximate risk factor?” To answer this question, we turn back to the CDC report and we take note of the following information:
Hepatitis B virus is easily spread through contact with the blood or other body fluids of an infected person. People can also be infected from contact with a contaminated object, where the virus can live for up to 7 days.
• A baby whose mother is infected can be infected at birth;
Theoretically, it would appear that the likelihood of a newborn contracting Hepatitis B on its own is 0%, however, the likelihood of a newborn contracting the Hepatitis B virus through their infected mother is roughly 50%, because either she has it or she doesn’t. So, perhaps in order to eliminate the estimated 7% chance of artificially inducing SIDS, we could begin testing the mother before we vaccinate the newborn baby. This way we can determine if there is any current need to vaccinate. Furthermore, regardless the outcome, it is still the parents right to refuse or accept vaccination, because if a mother has the legal right to have an abortion, then surely she has the legal right to refuse vaccinations too, right?
Forced Vaccination in America
Just recently, a pregnant mother in Pennsylvania, USA was having a newborn baby at home. There were complications and the midwife suggested that she and her husband both go to the hospital immediately, so they called an ambulance. The ambulance rushed the husband and his pregnant wife to the Hershey Medical Hospital where Jodie Ferris had her newborn baby girl, Annie, in the hospital parking lot. The child was rushed into the hospital where a team of medical experts worked to stabilize the newborn child, and at first glance, the situation was fine, the newborn was in good standing. [3]
As Jodie and her husband sit waiting in the hospital, a social worker approached the married couple with allegations of child endangerment, because it was learned by the hospital staff that Jodie was attempting to have a home-birth. When it came time to administer the Hepatitis B vaccine to little Annie, her mother Jodie refused. [3]
This enraged the social worker who then threatened to call the police and to take custody of Annie if the parents did not allow the hospital staff to inject Annie with the Hepatitis B vaccine. At some point, the father had to leave the hospital and while the exhausted mother lay helplessly in the hospital bed, the social worker returns and threatens her again. [3]
Jodie refused the vaccination again and the social worker took custody of the newborn child and the mother was ejected from the hospital. She was told that she could visit her child every 3 hours to breast feed, so she spent the night in her car that was parked at a nearby Walmart. Meanwhile, the newborn child was administered the Hepatitis B vaccine, despite her parent’s refusal. Jodie Ferris was re-awarded custody of her child the next day. [3]
Conclusion
After careful review, we find that the approximate risk factor of newborn children expected to suffer from severe allergic reaction to vaccines are in some cases far greater than the likelihood of a newborn self-contracting a virus, such as Hepatitis B and that what should be the right of the parents to decide whether or not to vaccinate their children is merely a privilege that can be taken by the state from parents at will. It all really seems hypocritical, because how is it the right of a mother to reject and abort her nearly born fetus, yet it is not her right to reject and abort the idea of vaccinating her newborn baby?
It just goes to show what a joke the American legal and medical system really is and just how corrupt they are and how badly they truly contradict themselves and each other. When the state has the authority to steal children away from loving parents, simply because they want to avoid the 7% chance of killing their child, then we no longer live in a free society.
Welcome to socialism.
God Bless,
James Everett
Footnotes
1. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/vis/downloads/vis-hep-b.pdf
2. http://www.babycenter.com/404_can-a-high-fever-cause-brain-damage_11591.bc
3. http://www.minotdailynews.com/page/blogs.detail/display/783/Pennsylvania-social-worker-and-hospital-face-HSLDA-lawsuit-after-seizing-custody-of-newborn.html
4. http://www.parents.com/baby/health/sick-baby/baby-dehydrated/
References
“Surprising facts about birth in the United States” http://www.babycenter.com/0_surprising-facts-about-birth-in-the-united-states_1372273.bc
Study: Who Was Jesus?
Let’s examine the Bible:
Believe it or not, the Bible does provide us with a direct correlation between God and who Jesus really was, thus proving that Jesus and God are both one and the same spirit.
Thus saith the LORD the King of Israel, and his redeemer the LORD of hosts; I am the first, and I am the last; and beside me there is no God.
Here we see a shockingly familiar verse in the book of Isaiah (chapter 44, verse 6) where God Himself makes the above statement. By now, avid Bible readers probably know where this is going, for the rest of you, what if I were to replace the above statement, with:
I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.
Here we see in the book of Revelation (chapter 22, verse 13) where Jesus makes the above statement. And, there it is, a direct correlation between Jesus of the New Testament and God of the Old Testament. Therefore, we need not look any further, we have our answer!
Conclusion
Wow, that was easier than I thought it would be. So, it would appear that the answer to the age old question, “Who was Jesus?” is in fact, God. So, the next time you guys get the “Is Jesus God?” question, you now have a good, biblical reason to reply, “Yes!”
God Bless,
James Everett
Response: Life Without Religion
Before I begin to rip apart this English teacher’s delusional attempt to somehow “win the day for atheism”, despite he having no real credibility as a source of scientific opinion nor does he seemingly posses any real understanding of scientific arguments, I would first like to focus your attention to this bit of misinformation we see all too often these days:
Science and all human knowledge has advanced too far to allow us to wallow in any kind of superstition. – Joseph Smigelski
Actually, science relies on two supernatural forces to complete their theories of both the “big bang” and evolution, in fact, the evolution theory claims that non-living material produced self-replicating living material, and the “big bang” theory claims that something exploded out of nothing, thus both supernatural, hence why both are called theories and not laws.
Let’s get on with the show…
In his article Life Without Religion, Joseph Smigelski provides us with a brief rundown of his life where he used to believe in both science and religion, but he can no longer believe in religion, because science has made him too smart. He then goes on to provide us with an imaginary argument that he deems “conciliatory”, yet he denies it as his own thinking and instead provides to us his own homemade version, which is as follows:
My own thinking on the subject has evolved: the notion of reconciling science and religion has lost its charm. Too many people have used religion for too long as a manipulative tool to obtain and maintain inordinate power and authority over others. And religion is based upon nothing but non-verifiable supernatural beliefs. It’s founded on nothing that is real. Certainly, many people have done good in the name of religion, but balance that with all the Crusades, the jihads, the Spanish Inquisition, and the many “heretics” throughout history who were hanged and burnt at the stake.
This might have been a strong argument if it weren’t for all of the inaccuracies. He basically called out two types of religious people, Catholics and Muslims, unfortunately, neither are a religion, therefore his point is moot. Moreover, what about the Communists (that were atheists) like Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot who each are responsible for the brutal killing of millions of innocent people? Why not just blame politics?
One can justifiably argue that unscrupulous rulers have misused science and made the world a less happy place. Science isn’t perfect, and scientists are flawed human beings just like the rest of us. But at least science is something that is real and testable. It concerns itself with the real world, not a world of superstition and unreality. The scientific method is the only thing we have to really help us survive on this planet and perhaps, one day, colonize others. Sure, you can say that science has contributed to global warming, for instance; but it will take more science to cope with that and other serious environmental concerns. No amount of praying is going to make our problems disappear. Albert Einstein said, “All of our science, measured against reality, is primitive and childlike — and yet it is the most precious thing we have.” Science deals with the tangible, not angels and demons and Da Vinci codes.
First off, “Da Vinci” codes are make believe, whose concept was derived from a science fiction novel and then later made into the world’s worst science fiction movie ever. Secondly, science is the discovery of knowledge, and just like religion it can be used to do evil, I agree, but to say that science only deals with “real and testable” things is pure nonsense. No one has ever seen non-living material produce living material, or in other words nothing producing something, however I am quite positive that Mr. Smigelski will confirm that he does indeed believe in evolution, therefore where is your tangible?
He then goes on to say, “No amount of praying is going to make our problems disappear.” to which I say, sarcastically, “You’re right, the only way to solve our problems is to abolish religion.” I mean, come on, this guy has already blamed religion for genocide and he has already given us the impression that atheists are smart and religious people are dumb, so what is his next most logical step? Well, let’s see:
it is time to reject all supernatural explanations for the way things are. There is plenty to surprise and inspire us in the natural world.
Bingo! Did I nail that or what? These guys are so predictable. You know, the Bible calls these people “Scoffers” and it says that they are “willingly ignorant”. When this fellow looks at the universe and sees supernovas and black holes, he looks past the extreme fine-tuning to see only a small section of design and he mistakes it for spontaneity -he obviously has no appreciation for mathematics or else he would see the fine-tuning.
He even goes on to mention, in error:
I now find it much more interesting and gratifying to ponder that what really made me was an incredibly hot ball of luminous fire. Science informs me that every atom in my body was created eons ago in the center of a star. And that is something that I don’t have to accept solely on faith; there is verifiable evidence that — excepting hydrogen and helium, which were generated by the Big Bang — all the elements of the periodic table (at least through number 92, uranium) were created when stars formed, and then those elements were distributed throughout the universe when those stars exploded.
I say in error, because he loses himself in the logic. He claims that most of the periodic table was formed after the “big bang” and during star and planetary formation, and calls that verifiable, yet he mistakenly leaves out the supernatural part about the “big bang” where all of these elements appeared out of nowhere. Where is your tangibles on that, Mr. Smigelski?
He sure offers up a lot of opinion, yet I did not see a single true scientific fact nor claim made in his entire article, which is a shame because I was hoping that Mr. English teacher would attempt to wear that hat in this argument. Although, he did not, so instead he gave us broken logic and a polarizing topic that has little to no weight in logical significance.
Furthermore, I couldn’t help but notice how Mr. Smigelski decided to completely ignore all of the really awesome things that religious people do for their communities. In my local city, I can drive down the street and count out at least a dozen Christian based NGOs and Churches that give food, clothing, and shelter to anyone that is in need regardless of their race, religion, gender, or orientation. I know that right now there are thousands of Christian missionaries trekking around foreign countries, risking life and limb, to bring aid to people that would have been otherwise left to die of disease and starvation because their own secular based government couldn’t possibly care less about what happens to them.
You see, when the world begins to develop a “Godless” view on life, we lose our absolutes and with them our civility, so we stop caring for each other. Contrary to the highly erroneous suggestion given by Mr. Smigelski in his article, the world would not somehow magically become less violent just because everyone switched to Humanism. I think WWII, the Korean War, and Vietnam War are three really great examples of how the Humanist approach is not the most ideal approach to civility.
Conclusion
Contrary to what Mr. Smigelski would like you to believe, what this world needs right now, more than ever, is religion. Religion is not your enemy, it is the foundation for which human freedom is built. Our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are, God-given, inalienable rights, and it is from these basic principles for which the remainder of our laws and morals are derived.
Therefore, it is my opinion that any pursuit to remove religion from any free society is equally an attempt to remove these basic principles in order to enslave the aforementioned society, thus any attempt to do so should be met with fierce opposition in order to ensure that these exact same freedoms are preserved for our next generation.
And, with that, I will leave you with this final quote:
“All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing” – Edmund Burke
God Bless,
James Everett
X-Mas: The Pagan Revision
It wasn’t until I reached my teens before I realized who “everyone” really was. You see, “everyone” is really only “someone” and that someone is none other than “atheists”. Case in point, Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims, and Jews do not celebrate Christmas, so why would they care how we name a Christian holiday? The answer is, they don’t. Atheists care, because they celebrate Christmas, but without the Christ, because their God is a giant X.
So, each year, American atheists cheerfully enjoy the Christian holiday with their family and friends, while spitting on nativity scenes and boycotting the aforementioned in towns that they don’t even live in, yet we continuously fail to ask ourselves why.
Why do these non-believers do what they do, such as:
1. Celebrate a bootleg copy of a Christian Holiday
2. Care if others celebrate the original version
It is a strange thing, indeed. In fact, you don’t see Christians celebrating Maha x-ratri, right? We have no interest, at all, in Hindu festivals, therefore we would never have a reason to remove the word “Shiva” from the word “Shivaratri”, so perhaps the reason why atheists in America are so infatuated about Christmas (Christian Holiday) should be explored.
Now, if the American atheist claims that the reason they celebrate the Christian holiday, Christmas, is because they grew up doing it and that it is a part of the culture, then I would mention that you are an atheist today, you hate all things religion, especially Christianity, which many atheists consider a form of brainwashing, so I must ask the question “Why do you celebrate a time that represents a concept that you both hate and do not believe in?”
I personally do not celebrate Christmas, nor “X-Mas”. Why? Because they truly represent both something I hate and do not believe in, but you don’t see me going around telling people to replace the name of their God with an “X”! Why? Because, unlike them, I don’t care.
It is well-known now that Christmas was originally a Pagan holiday where Pagan believers would worship a tree and that Catholics from long ago stole the holiday, stuck Christ at the front of it, made up a lie about His birth being in December, and in effect hijacked the Pagan holiday. They also did this with both Easter and Halloween, two more I don’t celebrate.
I suppose we should just face it, we live in a Pagan country, filled with Pagan idols and Pagan holidays. But, you see, my American atheist focus, I choose not to celebrate those holidays, so my question to you is, why don’t you? Moreover, why do you care?
Conclusion
So, I hope that I have left my readers with something to chew on and perhaps I can get a few answers from our atheist readers as to why they care so much about something they hate and do not believe in. And, with that, I will leave you with this final quote from every atheist’s “best friend”, Dr. Kent Hovind:
“What is more insane? To believe in something you cannot see or to hate something you do not believe in?”
God Bless,
James Everett
Religious Infamy 