or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Dorit Reiss
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Dorit Reiss

post #1 of 31
Thread Starter 

http://www.ageofautism.com/2013/07/dorit-rubenstein-reiss-and-the-benefits-of-agency-capture-1.html

Dorit Rubinstein Reiss and the Benefits of Agency Capture: The Latest Vaccine Industry Advocate

Quote:
By now the vaccine manufacturers enjoy a largely captive market and freedom from liability, plus exceedingly lax and non-independent scrutiny   - we have no reason to be complacent - but Dorit Reiss is greedy for more. The industry for which she has become advocate behaves obscenely in the name of the public good.
post #2 of 31

PUKE! :angry

post #3 of 31
post #4 of 31

You know, even if I make the assumption that she is not paid to post her YouMustAcceptAllVaccinesOrYouAreEndangeringSociety posts, I'm still left wondering how on earth she finds the time to post hundreds of such posts per week (sometimes even within a 24-hour window) while maintaining a full-time job and raising a toddler.

 

Even the SAHMs I know complain that they have absolutely no spare time once their little one starts crawling/walking, and the Work-Outside-The-Home-Moms complain that they never, ever have enough time with their little one...

post #5 of 31

Yes, how does she post so very much and find time to take her little one in for all of those vaccines on schedule at the well baby visits?  I know when I was a young mother with a little one, I had very little time to read or do research.

post #6 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

Yes, how does she post so very much and find time to take her little one in for all of those vaccines on schedule at the well baby visits?  I know when I was a young mother with a little one, I had very little time to read or do research.


Read?  Research?  I was lucky to have time to take a shower!

post #7 of 31

I could not even go to the bathroom or change my clothes.

post #8 of 31

She now has a series on Shot of Prevention, meant to frighten parents into vaccinating by threatening them with legal action if they don't.

Talk about police state....

 

It's getting really frightening.   Dorit Reiss is doing everything she can to force vaccination on people who don't want it.  Notice how she talks about "vaccinating" as an all-or-nothing concept. In her mind, parents should have absolutely no choice about WHICH vaccines might be necessary for their child, with no regard to, say, the Cochrane Review determining that the flu shot (for example) doesn't work.

 

If a vaccine manufacturer decides to sell a vaccine, Dorit Reiss wants your child to be injected with it, as soon as possible.  No matter what.

post #9 of 31
Thread Starter 

I wonder if she get s death threats, or lives in seclusion a good part of the time.

post #10 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View Post
 

I wonder if she get s death threats, or lives in seclusion a good part of the time.


It seems to me that she is the one threatening others.  

"Those who don't vaccinate are threatening the rest of us."

 

"Vaccinate or we will sue you."

 

How the hell has it gotten this far???????

post #11 of 31

I'd love to know who got her panties in a wad to start her off in this direction to begin with.  To be so spiteful and full of hatred - over someone else's decisions!!  I mean she really does dedicate her life to being negative.  Imagine that poor kid growing up in that environment...hell all that stress is more toxic than any disease out there!

post #12 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View PostHow the hell has it gotten this far???????

I have been following this subject for decades and it has always been mean and contentious.

The problem is that now it is so obvious, so big, and so many intelligent people are involved that the link between chronic illness and vaccines can no longer be ignored.

post #13 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by emmy526 View PostI wonder if she get s death threats, ...

I understand that Dr. Paul Offit gets death threats, but I doubt that he does. He just complains a lot.

post #14 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by applejuice View Post
 

I have been following this subject for decades and it has always been mean and contentious.

The problem is that now it is so obvious, so big, and so many intelligent people are involved that the link between chronic illness and vaccines can no longer be ignored.

 

I meant, how have they managed to control the mindset of SO MANY PEOPLE?  I suppose I really do know, I just don't want to believe that history is repeating itself...

post #15 of 31

The government and the medical profession have lied to you, your parents, and your grandparents; your grandparents, your parents and you believed and trusted  them.

 

For example, there have always been legal exemptions to vaccines for school, for employment, and for the military but the media keeps repeating the lie so many times that everyone believes it.

 

There are plenty of other lies told about diet, nutrition, health, breastfeeding, childbirth, education, work, insurance and no one questions it.

 

Das Grosse Luge  -

Quote:
 "But the most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success."

Notice how every article/report about measles or pertussis always comes down to, "...make sure to get your shots! That is the best way to avoid illness!"


Edited by applejuice - 2/25/14 at 5:54pm
post #16 of 31
Thread Starter 

she's named in this article

http://www.ageofautism.com/2014/03/how-the-cdc-and-dorit-reiss-hyped-risk-of-childhood-hep-b-infection-by-50-fold-to-push-vaccines-.html

 

Quote:
How the CDC (and Dorit Reiss) Hyped Risk of Childhood Hep B Infection by 50-fold to Push Vaccines
Quote:
Professional vaccine operatives like Dorit Reiss have been hard at work for some time to exaggerate the dangers of the vaccine-preventable diseases, while simultaneously denying the damage that the vaccines for them often do. A case in point was found in the comments on this article on the Mother Jones website last week:
post #17 of 31

she has views that are just out there  - http://shotofprevention.com/2014/03/04/rights-of-the-unvaccinated-child-vaccinating-over-the-parents-will/

 

let's get rid of parents rights!!! yea yea yea!!!!!!!! 

Conclusion: How Should the Law Change?

  • Courts should order intervention when a strong case is made that not vaccinating would be life-threatening.  For example, ordering intervention during an outbreak, or if a child may have been exposed to a potentially fatal vaccine-preventable disease and something can be done after the fact, or if the child is otherwise at high risk of exposure. Courts should make the line clear: Vaccination will not be ordered against parental will unless the child is at high risk, but if there is a risk, vaccination will be ordered.
  • Courts should prefer the pro-immunizing parent in custody disputes. As explained above, if at least one parent agrees, there really is no justification to privilege the parent acting against the best interests of the child – as acknowledged even by the Grzyb court – over the parent that wants to vaccinate.
  • Courts should not the allow use of exemptions when a parent has lost custody. If a parent was found legally unfit to care for their children, they should not be allowed to withhold vaccines – supported by the medical and scientific community – when they were already violating their responsibilities to that child.
  • States should allow adolescents above a certain age to consent to being vaccinated generally. After a certain age, a child deserves the right to make some medical decisions about her or his own welfare. There may be good reasons to limit a child’s rights on this in relation to very invasive treatment, where a child’s immaturity can lead her to object – that can be debated. But in relation to vaccines, which offer low invasiveness, high effectiveness and low risk, there is no reason to withhold the right to consent from a child. The converse, however, is also true: If a child is granted the right to consent, a child over that age – probably between 12 and 14 – should also be granted the right to refuse to be vaccinated, and vaccination should not happen without consent.
post #18 of 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by serenbat View Post
 

she has views that are just out there  - http://shotofprevention.com/2014/03/04/rights-of-the-unvaccinated-child-vaccinating-over-the-parents-will/

 

let's get rid of parents rights!!! yea yea yea!!!!!!!! 

Conclusion: How Should the Law Change?

  • Courts should order intervention when a strong case is made that not vaccinating would be life-threatening.  For example, ordering intervention during an outbreak, or if a child may have been exposed to a potentially fatal vaccine-preventable disease and something can be done after the fact, or if the child is otherwise at high risk of exposure. Courts should make the line clear: Vaccination will not be ordered against parental will unless the child is at high risk, but if there is a risk, vaccination will be ordered.
  • Courts should prefer the pro-immunizing parent in custody disputes. As explained above, if at least one parent agrees, there really is no justification to privilege the parent acting against the best interests of the child – as acknowledged even by the Grzyb court – over the parent that wants to vaccinate.
  • Courts should not the allow use of exemptions when a parent has lost custody. If a parent was found legally unfit to care for their children, they should not be allowed to withhold vaccines – supported by the medical and scientific community – when they were already violating their responsibilities to that child.
  • States should allow adolescents above a certain age to consent to being vaccinated generally. After a certain age, a child deserves the right to make some medical decisions about her or his own welfare. There may be good reasons to limit a child’s rights on this in relation to very invasive treatment, where a child’s immaturity can lead her to object – that can be debated. But in relation to vaccines, which offer low invasiveness, high effectiveness and low risk, there is no reason to withhold the right to consent from a child. The converse, however, is also true: If a child is granted the right to consent, a child over that age – probably between 12 and 14 – should also be granted the right to refuse to be vaccinated, and vaccination should not happen without consent.


So....who determines the threshold or criteria for "high risk"?  That would be where it gets real hairy because risk is subjective and even with strict criteria someone will inevitably fall outside the norm and how would they make exceptions or would they always say when in doubt vaccinate? 

 

"But in relation to vaccines, which offer low invasiveness, high effectiveness and low risk" - Cuss.gif  I am sooooooo sick of this argument it's beating a dead horse.  How many people have to suffer and die before these risks become real?  One person dies of the flu (in reality it's usually complications from and not the flu itself, but I digress) and it's a crisis; 10 people die as a result of a vaccine and that's just taking one for the team??????   At 14 years old I was in no way capable of understanding the complexities of vaccination and making medical decisions for myself.  Hell, at 18 I fought with my mother to get on birth control because I was sick of irregular heavy menstrual cycles and even then I didn't do any research on birth control prior - didn't know side effects, risks, any of that!  I think if a child that age wishes to make complex decisions about their health, it should be the exception, not the norm.  Make them prove themselves worthy of such a decision first.

post #19 of 31

WTH this woman is posting comment after comment on Kristin Cavallari's Facebook page. Wish I had a job that paid me to sit on my butt posting comments all over the Internet! 

 

https://www.facebook.com/KristinCavallari

 

ETA: There ought to be a megaphone app so people who have the time can find out where pharma trolls like her are posting and go counter her arguments.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megaphone_desktop_tool 

post #20 of 31
Wow, Dorit and I agree on something!!!
 
"The converse, however, is also true: If a child is granted the right to consent, a child over that age – probably between 12 and 14 – should also be granted the right to refuse to be vaccinated, and vaccination should not happen without consent."
 
California's AB 2109 allows children ages 12 and over to consent to the HPV and hepatitis B vaccines without parental knowledge. I always thought that if they are able to consent to those vaccines, they should also have the right to refuse those vaccines, against the parents' wishes. Dorit agrees! Would she support a bill giving children that right in California?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: I'm Not Vaccinating
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › I'm Not Vaccinating › Dorit Reiss