New Mexico removes fake religious objections from vaccine exemptions

As I discussed previously, the pendulum is swinging against the so-called “philosophical exemption” against vaccination, which allows parents to not vaccinate their children based on the “just because I don’t want to” principle. They don’t even have to support their exemption with a discussion with a healthcare worker who might explain the risks of their decision.

According to an article in the Las Cruces Sun-News, New Mexico state law says that residents can exempt their children from immunization for two reasons: 1) medical issues that might make the vaccination unsafe (often called medical exemptions) or 2) vaccinations conflict with the family’s religious beliefs (religious exemptions). Apparently, according to the article, “the New Mexico Department of Health wants to keep it that way.”

Earlier this year, the Department of Health modified the vaccine exemption form (pdf) to prevent “philosophical objections” being used as an option. “We believe people were using the philosophical objections when filling out the form,” stated NM Department of Health spokesman Kenny Vigil. “We became concerned that vaccine-preventable diseases are on the rise because of that. The new form specifically requires you to state your religious belief.”

The NM Department of Health stated that exemption rates in 2003 were about 3.2 percent when 1,799 of the incoming kindergartners subject to vaccine requirements requested exemptions. In 2011, the rate was around 5.8 percent when 3,372 children of immunization age received exemptions.

Again, according to the Las Cruces Sun-News,

In recent years, some parents opted out of the standard immunizations, generally required for admittance to daycare and school, in part because of a bogus study linking a vaccination to autism. That study has been repeatedly debunked — related court cases surrounding that decision have been upheld by U.S. courts — and the head researcher in the study lost his license.

(Note: Not sure why, but the Las Cruces Sun-News seemed reluctant to mention Mr. Andrew Wakefield by name in the article. I’m not. Wakefield wrote the bogus study. And Wakefield lost his license. So there, Las Cruces Sun-News, I did your job for you.)

The old version of the vaccination exemption form required parents to affirm that they held religious beliefs that didn’t allow them to have their children vaccinated, but it didn’t ask them to state exactly what that religion was, or the nature of those beliefs. In other words, the parents could just invent something. The new form asks specifically the nature of their beliefs, and it is reviewed by the Department of Health. 

Apparently, not only parents thought New Mexico allowed these types of exemptions, but so do a lot of anti-vaccination websites based on what is published on the School Immunization Exemption State Laws website. It states that New Mexico allows philosophical exemptions, but does qualify it by stating that “The New Mexico Department of Health interprets the state’s exemption based on individual or jointly held religious beliefs as a philosophical exemption.” The New Mexico Department of Health has now closed that loophole by preventing misinterpretation of law, intentionally or otherwise. 

Just for your information, here is the letter of the New Mexico law:

Exemption from immunization.

A. Any minor child through his parent or guardian may file with the health authority charged with the duty of enforcing the immunization laws:

(1) a certificate of a duly licensed physician stating that the physical condition of the child is such that immunization would seriously endanger the life or health of the child; or

(2) affidavits or written affirmation from an officer of a recognized religious denomination that such child’s parents or guardians are bona fide members of a denomination whose religious teaching requires reliance upon prayer or spiritual means alone for healing; or

(3) affidavits or written affirmation from his parent or legal guardian that his religious beliefs, held either individually or jointly with others, do not permit the administration of vaccine or other immunizing agent.

B. Upon filing and approval of such certificate, affidavits or affirmation, the child is exempt from the legal requirement of immunization for a period not to exceed nine months on the basis of any one certificate, affidavits or affirmation.

So what has New Mexico done here? It tightened up a law that was already on the books, and anyone requesting an exemption must actually prove that they are observing a religion that has some anti-vaccination belief. There really aren’t many mainstream religions that are opposed to vaccinations, so obviously many who abused this exemption in the past were probably inventing religion to claim a “philosophical exemption,” meaning they didn’t like vaccinations, but were taking advantage of the religious exemption to get what they wanted

I still remain strongly opposed to the religious exemption, because it has no place in this discussion. Public schools should not be required to make decisions about students involving religion, whether it’s prayers, teaching creationism, or whether someone’s religious belief (fake or otherwise) means they can send their unvaccinated children to a taxpayer supported school.

Public schools, as a state-supported entity, should remain blind to religion. Per the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, religion has no place in any government discussion; should we allow a Department of Health bureaucrat to determine the validity of a religious practice? Of course not. Therefore, no religious exemption should be allowed, and those individuals who wish to practice some religion that outrageously believes that the gift of vaccinations, which prevents deadly diseases, is somehow against their religion, can send their kids to a private school or home-school. 

And as I mentioned recently, the rise in religious exemptions has lead to a concomitant increase in the pertussis infection rate in New York state. I would like to know what religion would ever put children at intentional risk of harm. Oh, wait.

Because, Vaccines Save Lives.

Use the Science-based Vaccine Search Engine.

The Original Skeptical Raptor
Chief Executive Officer at SkepticalRaptor
Lifetime lover of science, especially biomedical research. Spent years in academics, business development, research, and traveling the world shilling for Big Pharma. I love sports, mostly college basketball and football, hockey, and baseball. I enjoy great food and intelligent conversation. And a delicious morning coffee!

93 Replies to “New Mexico removes fake religious objections from vaccine exemptions”

  1. Ha, ha, you are wrong about vaccines, and come across as a Big Pharma cheerleader.

    Google “CDC vaccine ingredient list”, and read the Wikipage (since CDC makes it very hard to find). Anyone who still wants a vaccine after that knows what they’re getting.

    Common vaccine ingredients include mercury (new code name is thimerisol), formaldehyde, aluminum, and puss from various creatures including pigs, chickens, cows, monkeys, and even aborted babies. Of course, there’s much more.

    Now, go to Youtube and search for “vaccine maker admits cancer viruses in vaccine”. Listen to Merck vaccine chief admitting AIDS virus and cancer viruses in vaccines was known. No one went to jail, but plenty are still dying of cancer and AIDS.

    1. Wow. You really believe in myths. You probably think homeopathy works. And astrology can tell you the future.

      No elemental mercury exists in vaccines. Thiomersal, which is not a code word, it is a chemical description of one mercury atom encased in an ethyl carbon group (yeah, education matters if you’re going to make specious claims). And because of the construction of said molecule, it flushes out of the body in a few hours, if not minutes. Eh.

      Anyways, you’re spouting ignorant nonsense. Hard to really converse with you.

  2. Plus, the way you choose the express yourself just that you are irresponsible, ignorant, and fucking lame and just simply a prick. You don't have to be rude just because someone has a different opinion then you.

  3. Plus, the way you choose the express yourself just that you are irresponsible, ignorant, and fucking lame and just simply a prick. You don't have to be rude just because someone has a different opinion then you.

  4. Plus, the way you choose the express yourself just that you are irresponsible, ignorant, and fucking lame and just simply a prick. You don't have to be rude just because someone has a different opinion then you.

  5. Respecting a persons religious beliefs doesn't mean that religion is being brought into school. Schools don't allow hats but they don't have the right to not allow someone to wear a burka because that would be denying them religious freedom. School policies shouldn't affect peoples lives outside of school just as much as religion shouldn't impact whats in school. No body made up a fake religion, some people have these moral and religious beliefs.

  6. Respecting a persons religious beliefs doesn't mean that religion is being brought into school. Schools don't allow hats but they don't have the right to not allow someone to wear a burka because that would be denying them religious freedom. School policies shouldn't affect peoples lives outside of school just as much as religion shouldn't impact whats in school. No body made up a fake religion, some people have these moral and religious beliefs.

  7. Respecting a persons religious beliefs doesn't mean that religion is being brought into school. Schools don't allow hats but they don't have the right to not allow someone to wear a burka because that would be denying them religious freedom. School policies shouldn't affect peoples lives outside of school just as much as religion shouldn't impact whats in school. No body made up a fake religion, some people have these moral and religious beliefs.

  8. Here is a link from various doctors on the risks of vaccines, being a real author doesn't mean that they know anything. And I think these doctors would know more then you would.

  9. Here is a link from various doctors on the risks of vaccines, being a real author doesn't mean that they know anything. And I think these doctors would know more then you would.

  10. What risks? Please, provide me with evidence of risks in peer-reviewed journals. And it better include a statement that the benefits of vaccination are not 1000X any risk, because I can assure you that any real journal with real authors and real peer review will not state that.

    No, schools should have NOTHING TO DO WITH WORTHLESS RELIGION. Period. Religion is a danger to learning, but frankly that's irrelevant. Inventing fucking religions just to stop getting vaccinations is crazy, irresponsible, ignorant, and fucking lame.

  11. What risks? Please, provide me with evidence of risks in peer-reviewed journals. And it better include a statement that the benefits of vaccination are not 1000X any risk, because I can assure you that any real journal with real authors and real peer review will not state that.

    No, schools should have NOTHING TO DO WITH WORTHLESS RELIGION. Period. Religion is a danger to learning, but frankly that's irrelevant. Inventing fucking religions just to stop getting vaccinations is crazy, irresponsible, ignorant, and fucking lame.

  12. What risks? Please, provide me with evidence of risks in peer-reviewed journals. And it better include a statement that the benefits of vaccination are not 1000X any risk, because I can assure you that any real journal with real authors and real peer review will not state that.

    No, schools should have NOTHING TO DO WITH WORTHLESS RELIGION. Period. Religion is a danger to learning, but frankly that's irrelevant. Inventing fucking religions just to stop getting vaccinations is crazy, irresponsible, ignorant, and fucking lame.

  13. Wrong. By using a school district to determine whether one useless and irrelevant religion is any different than all other useless and irrelevant religions is simply allowing the government to approve of a religions belief. Fuck that. When religion is gone from the planet will be a good day, but keeping it out of schools is what's in our constitution.

  14. Wrong. By using a school district to determine whether one useless and irrelevant religion is any different than all other useless and irrelevant religions is simply allowing the government to approve of a religions belief. Fuck that. When religion is gone from the planet will be a good day, but keeping it out of schools is what's in our constitution.

  15. Wrong. By using a school district to determine whether one useless and irrelevant religion is any different than all other useless and irrelevant religions is simply allowing the government to approve of a religions belief. Fuck that. When religion is gone from the planet will be a good day, but keeping it out of schools is what's in our constitution.

  16. For future rants, keep in mind that the key clause with regard to religious exemptions is "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The establishment clause doesn't enter into it. The argument can be made that by making admission to public schools dependent on vaccinations is disincentivizing the free exercise of religions with anti-vaccination beliefs. Whether or not you might believe that the damage to public health outweighs the harm done to keeping those children out of public schools is an open question, but it is not sufficient to simply dismiss religious exemptions as though their constitutionality is a decided question. In short, apply the same level of skepticism and academic rigor to your claims of constitutionality that you would to your science and your position will be that much stronger.

  17. For future rants, keep in mind that the key clause with regard to religious exemptions is "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The establishment clause doesn't enter into it. The argument can be made that by making admission to public schools dependent on vaccinations is disincentivizing the free exercise of religions with anti-vaccination beliefs. Whether or not you might believe that the damage to public health outweighs the harm done to keeping those children out of public schools is an open question, but it is not sufficient to simply dismiss religious exemptions as though their constitutionality is a decided question. In short, apply the same level of skepticism and academic rigor to your claims of constitutionality that you would to your science and your position will be that much stronger.

  18. For future rants, keep in mind that the key clause with regard to religious exemptions is "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof". The establishment clause doesn't enter into it. The argument can be made that by making admission to public schools dependent on vaccinations is disincentivizing the free exercise of religions with anti-vaccination beliefs. Whether or not you might believe that the damage to public health outweighs the harm done to keeping those children out of public schools is an open question, but it is not sufficient to simply dismiss religious exemptions as though their constitutionality is a decided question. In short, apply the same level of skepticism and academic rigor to your claims of constitutionality that you would to your science and your position will be that much stronger.

  19. If vaccines work, you shouldn't be concerned about your vaccinated children catching any thing. Anyone who doesn't understand the risks of vaccines are uninformed and don't understand that the people feeding you fear about not vaccinating are interest groups. Even some well educated doctors out there feel that vaccines are wrong. We can't say that all the kids that get vaccines are fine because a lot of them aren't. Public schools are required to respect other peoples religious beliefs because religious freedom is in the constitution and to say that school is separate from religion is a stupid argument as long as "under god" is said in the pledge of allegiance everyday. How dare anyone accuse someone of being abusive to their children for not wanted to inject them with things that are potentially very harmful. I don't think it's right for someone to do that to their kids but I'm not going to judge you because you're doing what you think is best for your children. What if somebody didn't give you the right to do what you thought was best?

  20. If vaccines work, you shouldn't be concerned about your vaccinated children catching any thing. Anyone who doesn't understand the risks of vaccines are uninformed and don't understand that the people feeding you fear about not vaccinating are interest groups. Even some well educated doctors out there feel that vaccines are wrong. We can't say that all the kids that get vaccines are fine because a lot of them aren't. Public schools are required to respect other peoples religious beliefs because religious freedom is in the constitution and to say that school is separate from religion is a stupid argument as long as "under god" is said in the pledge of allegiance everyday. How dare anyone accuse someone of being abusive to their children for not wanted to inject them with things that are potentially very harmful. I don't think it's right for someone to do that to their kids but I'm not going to judge you because you're doing what you think is best for your children. What if somebody didn't give you the right to do what you thought was best?

  21. If vaccines work, you shouldn't be concerned about your vaccinated children catching any thing. Anyone who doesn't understand the risks of vaccines are uninformed and don't understand that the people feeding you fear about not vaccinating are interest groups. Even some well educated doctors out there feel that vaccines are wrong. We can't say that all the kids that get vaccines are fine because a lot of them aren't. Public schools are required to respect other peoples religious beliefs because religious freedom is in the constitution and to say that school is separate from religion is a stupid argument as long as "under god" is said in the pledge of allegiance everyday. How dare anyone accuse someone of being abusive to their children for not wanted to inject them with things that are potentially very harmful. I don't think it's right for someone to do that to their kids but I'm not going to judge you because you're doing what you think is best for your children. What if somebody didn't give you the right to do what you thought was best?

  22. You are free to chose to place your children in a private school or homeschool them. That way your little sunshine cannot spread disease.

  23. You are free to chose to place your children in a private school or homeschool them. That way your little sunshine cannot spread disease.

  24. What about free choice? Don't you live in a free country? Those who do not want toxic poisonous vaccinations injected into their childrens veins surely have the right to protect their children, if they have to tick the religious box to uphold that right, then that is very sad indeed, as you said, it's highly unlikely most of those are really based on any kind of belief system, more a case that its the parents personal decision to protect their children this way. If you personally believe that injecting mercury and other crap into the bloodstream of young children is "a gift" and will keep them safe from certain diseases etc, then get them vaccinated, and then also, it shouldn't matter to you if other children are not injected, as yours are safe in your eyes.. Not everyone blindly believes in magical vaccinations the same as you.. I agree with you in that religion should be left outside of schools, I don't agree with the institutions of religion pushing their beliefs on others, in the same way, those who have other beliefs, (whether they be for or against vaccines, or anything else) should not force them onto everybody else.. freedom of choice should be the most important thing.. Its not about 'because I don't want to' its more a strong desire to protect children from toxic vaccines.. Where I live, vaccinations are not mandatory, and there are no raised disease levels, those who vaccinate feel safe, those who don't, have healthy kids, everyone is happy!

  25. What about free choice? Don't you live in a free country? Those who do not want toxic poisonous vaccinations injected into their childrens veins surely have the right to protect their children, if they have to tick the religious box to uphold that right, then that is very sad indeed, as you said, it's highly unlikely most of those are really based on any kind of belief system, more a case that its the parents personal decision to protect their children this way. If you personally believe that injecting mercury and other crap into the bloodstream of young children is "a gift" and will keep them safe from certain diseases etc, then get them vaccinated, and then also, it shouldn't matter to you if other children are not injected, as yours are safe in your eyes.. Not everyone blindly believes in magical vaccinations the same as you.. I agree with you in that religion should be left outside of schools, I don't agree with the institutions of religion pushing their beliefs on others, in the same way, those who have other beliefs, (whether they be for or against vaccines, or anything else) should not force them onto everybody else.. freedom of choice should be the most important thing.. Its not about 'because I don't want to' its more a strong desire to protect children from toxic vaccines.. Where I live, vaccinations are not mandatory, and there are no raised disease levels, those who vaccinate feel safe, those who don't, have healthy kids, everyone is happy!

  26. What about free choice? Don't you live in a free country? Those who do not want toxic poisonous vaccinations injected into their childrens veins surely have the right to protect their children, if they have to tick the religious box to uphold that right, then that is very sad indeed, as you said, it's highly unlikely most of those are really based on any kind of belief system, more a case that its the parents personal decision to protect their children this way. If you personally believe that injecting mercury and other crap into the bloodstream of young children is "a gift" and will keep them safe from certain diseases etc, then get them vaccinated, and then also, it shouldn't matter to you if other children are not injected, as yours are safe in your eyes.. Not everyone blindly believes in magical vaccinations the same as you.. I agree with you in that religion should be left outside of schools, I don't agree with the institutions of religion pushing their beliefs on others, in the same way, those who have other beliefs, (whether they be for or against vaccines, or anything else) should not force them onto everybody else.. freedom of choice should be the most important thing.. Its not about 'because I don't want to' its more a strong desire to protect children from toxic vaccines.. Where I live, vaccinations are not mandatory, and there are no raised disease levels, those who vaccinate feel safe, those who don't, have healthy kids, everyone is happy!

  27. Again, you can't read regarding URL shortening, but I can't expect much from someone so angry and abusive.

    Religious exemptions should be banned because they are being abused. Every child should be vaccinated unless there is a valid medical exemption approved by a physician. By the way, repent to what? Non-existent sky beings? LOL

  28. Again, you can't read regarding URL shortening, but I can't expect much from someone so angry and abusive.

    Religious exemptions should be banned because they are being abused. Every child should be vaccinated unless there is a valid medical exemption approved by a physician. By the way, repent to what? Non-existent sky beings? LOL

  29. Oh my! You are more sleazy than I originally thought. Aren't religious exemptions still available, sleaze Michael Simpson? How wonderful that you slandered everybody with these being "fake religious objections." You are one vile piece of shite. Get a religion and repent, garbage-mongerer.

  30. Oh my! You are more sleazy than I originally thought. Aren't religious exemptions still available, sleaze Michael Simpson? How wonderful that you slandered everybody with these being "fake religious objections." You are one vile piece of shite. Get a religion and repent, garbage-mongerer.

  31. Yes, you are a sad person. That was well evident before any of my posts mocking your blatant stupidity. The funny part is that somehow you think you are "scientific!" Thanks for the entertainment! LOL! And yes, "mexico" is a totally acceptable form of "new mexico!" Do you proofread your stupidity before posting? Obviously not, or just plain stupid would explain it. Good luck with your new pseudo-career of being a "skeptic!" Absolutely hilarious!

  32. Yes, you are a sad person. That was well evident before any of my posts mocking your blatant stupidity. The funny part is that somehow you think you are "scientific!" Thanks for the entertainment! LOL! And yes, "mexico" is a totally acceptable form of "new mexico!" Do you proofread your stupidity before posting? Obviously not, or just plain stupid would explain it. Good luck with your new pseudo-career of being a "skeptic!" Absolutely hilarious!

  33. 1. Wow, a Homer Simpson reference. That took intelligence.
    2. Wow, a "mopping floors" reference. That took creativity.
    3. Wow, a lame Homer Simpson reference. Not sure what to say, but you lack any sense of humor.
    4. Wow, you lack knowledge on URL-shortening. Words like "new", "the", "and" are removed because they aren't necessary for URL pointing. But if you knew anything about web design, you might have known that. Then again, my expectations for you are rather low. Furthermore, google searches don't utilize the url, but only the meta title, which is accurate. Oh, you probably didn't understand that.

    You keep using "pseudoscience". It's pretty clear you have NO clue what it means, but then again anyone who watches Homer Simpson and makes lame references has no clue. Good luck.

    By the way, you might want to look under the FAQ's for this website. I have a section on logical fallacies. Look at "ad hominems." Yeah, you just wrote out 4 ad hominems. Usually those who lack good arguments, use ad hominems. I only use ad hominems when I have really good arguments.

    You're a sad person.

  34. 1. Wow, a Homer Simpson reference. That took intelligence.
    2. Wow, a "mopping floors" reference. That took creativity.
    3. Wow, a lame Homer Simpson reference. Not sure what to say, but you lack any sense of humor.
    4. Wow, you lack knowledge on URL-shortening. Words like "new", "the", "and" are removed because they aren't necessary for URL pointing. But if you knew anything about web design, you might have known that. Then again, my expectations for you are rather low. Furthermore, google searches don't utilize the url, but only the meta title, which is accurate. Oh, you probably didn't understand that.

    You keep using "pseudoscience". It's pretty clear you have NO clue what it means, but then again anyone who watches Homer Simpson and makes lame references has no clue. Good luck.

    By the way, you might want to look under the FAQ's for this website. I have a section on logical fallacies. Look at "ad hominems." Yeah, you just wrote out 4 ad hominems. Usually those who lack good arguments, use ad hominems. I only use ad hominems when I have really good arguments.

    You're a sad person.

  35. Great accuracy in your URL:
    mexico-removes-fake-religious-objections-vaccine-exemptions
    Yes, "Mexico" has done that, and it was definitely for "fake" religious objections. Slow down and try to understand the world around you before launching off into your pseudo-scientific agenda. LOL!

  36. Great accuracy in your URL:
    mexico-removes-fake-religious-objections-vaccine-exemptions
    Yes, "Mexico" has done that, and it was definitely for "fake" religious objections. Slow down and try to understand the world around you before launching off into your pseudo-scientific agenda. LOL!

  37. I believe I know the reason for the error. The 580,000 represents all students in the New Mexico school system that are subject to vaccine requirements, but 5.8% is the exemption rate for incoming Kindergartners. I'm going to update the paragraph.

  38. I believe I know the reason for the error. The 580,000 represents all students in the New Mexico school system that are subject to vaccine requirements, but 5.8% is the exemption rate for incoming Kindergartners. I'm going to update the paragraph.

  39. You are completely right. I quoted the newspaper article without checking the math, which I usually do, and that doesn't even pass the sniff test. Let me see if I missed something.

  40. You are completely right. I quoted the newspaper article without checking the math, which I usually do, and that doesn't even pass the sniff test. Let me see if I missed something.

  41. Just wondering – shouldn't the exemption rate, at 3,372 exemptions from a cohort of 580,210, work out to 0.58% rather than 5.8%?

  42. Just wondering – shouldn't the exemption rate, at 3,372 exemptions from a cohort of 580,210, work out to 0.58% rather than 5.8%?

  43. Just wondering – shouldn't the exemption rate, at 3,372 exemptions from a cohort of 580,210, work out to 0.58% rather than 5.8%?

    1. You are completely right. I quoted the newspaper article without checking the math, which I usually do, and that doesn't even pass the sniff test. Let me see if I missed something.

    2. I believe I know the reason for the error. The 580,000 represents all students in the New Mexico school system that are subject to vaccine requirements, but 5.8% is the exemption rate for incoming Kindergartners. I'm going to update the paragraph.

    3. Great accuracy in your URL:
      mexico-removes-fake-religious-objections-vaccine-exemptions
      Yes, "Mexico" has done that, and it was definitely for "fake" religious objections. Slow down and try to understand the world around you before launching off into your pseudo-scientific agenda. LOL!

    4. 1. Wow, a Homer Simpson reference. That took intelligence.
      2. Wow, a "mopping floors" reference. That took creativity.
      3. Wow, a lame Homer Simpson reference. Not sure what to say, but you lack any sense of humor.
      4. Wow, you lack knowledge on URL-shortening. Words like "new", "the", "and" are removed because they aren't necessary for URL pointing. But if you knew anything about web design, you might have known that. Then again, my expectations for you are rather low. Furthermore, google searches don't utilize the url, but only the meta title, which is accurate. Oh, you probably didn't understand that.

      You keep using "pseudoscience". It's pretty clear you have NO clue what it means, but then again anyone who watches Homer Simpson and makes lame references has no clue. Good luck.

      By the way, you might want to look under the FAQ's for this website. I have a section on logical fallacies. Look at "ad hominems." Yeah, you just wrote out 4 ad hominems. Usually those who lack good arguments, use ad hominems. I only use ad hominems when I have really good arguments.

      You're a sad person.

    5. 1. Wow, a Homer Simpson reference. That took intelligence.
      2. Wow, a "mopping floors" reference. That took creativity.
      3. Wow, a lame Homer Simpson reference. Not sure what to say, but you lack any sense of humor.
      4. Wow, you lack knowledge on URL-shortening. Words like "new", "the", "and" are removed because they aren't necessary for URL pointing. But if you knew anything about web design, you might have known that. Then again, my expectations for you are rather low. Furthermore, google searches don't utilize the url, but only the meta title, which is accurate. Oh, you probably didn't understand that.

      You keep using "pseudoscience". It's pretty clear you have NO clue what it means, but then again anyone who watches Homer Simpson and makes lame references has no clue. Good luck.

      By the way, you might want to look under the FAQ's for this website. I have a section on logical fallacies. Look at "ad hominems." Yeah, you just wrote out 4 ad hominems. Usually those who lack good arguments, use ad hominems. I only use ad hominems when I have really good arguments.

      You're a sad person.

    6. Yes, you are a sad person. That was well evident before any of my posts mocking your blatant stupidity. The funny part is that somehow you think you are "scientific!" Thanks for the entertainment! LOL! And yes, "mexico" is a totally acceptable form of "new mexico!" Do you proofread your stupidity before posting? Obviously not, or just plain stupid would explain it. Good luck with your new pseudo-career of being a "skeptic!" Absolutely hilarious!

    7. Oh my! You are more sleazy than I originally thought. Aren't religious exemptions still available, sleaze Michael Simpson? How wonderful that you slandered everybody with these being "fake religious objections." You are one vile piece of shite. Get a religion and repent, garbage-mongerer.

    8. Again, you can't read regarding URL shortening, but I can't expect much from someone so angry and abusive.

      Religious exemptions should be banned because they are being abused. Every child should be vaccinated unless there is a valid medical exemption approved by a physician. By the way, repent to what? Non-existent sky beings? LOL

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.