I would disagree that vaccinations have been controversial in the modern era. Except for a handful of liberal hippie types in the 60s and 70s vaccinations were not controversial.
Regarding religious exemptions, no religion expicitely bars adherents from getting vaccinations though a quick search we find some denominations outline a theological opposition such as Dutch Reformed Church, Christian Scientists, and a handful of faith-healing denominations (Faith Assembly, Faith Tabernacle, the Church of the First Born, and the Endtime Ministries). Most of these are very small populations. In fact, from personal knowledge having a girlfriend who was Christian Scientist, she had never had a needle to her body for her (at that time) 17 years, but the church doesn't outright ban it and leaves the choice to the person.
The measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico is largely among Mennonites who also do not have an explicitly bar the practice.
When innoculations (vaccinations) were invented they literally used a tiny bit of the live virus which was more risky. Modern vaccinations do not do so. They generally use an inert version of the virus as Johnson and Johnson did with Covid. Vaccinations 'controversy' is largely manufactured by people like RFKjr and Trump MAGA followers for no good reason other than cult like adherence to Trump as well as ignorance.
As noted, the J&J was old school using inert virus. The Moderna mRNA vaccinations (which I took) were not viruses at all. And despite the misinformation by MAGA, not even experimental. mRNA had been used for a lot of diseases at small scale and only the need to scale up due to a pandemic brought them into mass production.
It is true that a small, small number of people will be negatively affected. Those that choose to not get vaccinated and rely on the vaccinations around them are, in my view, selfish and moochers on public health. They are also inconsiderate and put other people at risk- the immune compromised or children too young to get vaccinations. For the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR), a child has to reach one year old to get them but if exposed younger than that, the disease can KILL them- If I had a child die under some circumstance because my child caught it from an anti-vaxxer there would be hell to pay.
When I took the history of the American Revolution, the professor stressed George Washington's command of his troops as a public health action. Teaching camp sanitation and compelling inoculation promoted the health of the Colonial troops. It takes healthy people to fight. I thought that was an interesting takeaway from General Washington.
"Inoculation — the term then used for what we call vaccination"
Not really. Inoculation is an illegal practice these days and has a number of differences to vaccination. The idea of vaccination is based on homeopathy and the use of milder virus. Many of the safeguards such as preparing for the procedure with healthy food and choosing a convenient time have been abandoned and vaccination might be conducted when someone is admitted to hospital and already in a bad state. Pregnant women are given 'vaccines' and infants. The misuse of homeopathic ideas and the confusion between the two distinct ideologies has made it more dangerous than inoculation. Inoculation was not conducted on pregnant women or infants or the elderly or persons admitted to hospital in a bad state. It was not labelled safe and it was not conducted multiple times for various 'disease' labels.
"imunization reduced the hazard of the spread of smallpox, to the benefit of even the uninoculated."
So it was claimed but where is the evidence for this?
"the risks of the disease itself."
There is no disease itself. There are lymphatic expressions given different labels in different periods of time and with the advent of the 'measles vaccine' 'vaccination' status has become the basis for differentiation.
"Measles is the manner in which a child's body throws off toxemia. When children are cared for improperly, they become toxemic, and their skin eliminates toxin to a greater degree than does the skin of grown people. It is said that measles causes more deaths than any other of the acute fevers in childhood. In the large cities whooping-cough is a running-mate of measles in the matter of mortality. Statistics show that ninety-four per cent of the deaths from measles occur among children under five years of age. This disease, like scarlet fever, starts with a decided derangement of the gastro-intestinal canal, and where patients are fed to keep up their strength, it is made very much more intense than where they are given water, and left entirely without food or drugs until the disease has spent its force."
If Francis Franklin had survived to adulthood, he would probably insist people stop calling him "Franky". And he might have filled the void when Franklin and his grown son William became estranged (as you noted in another piece)...
I would disagree that vaccinations have been controversial in the modern era. Except for a handful of liberal hippie types in the 60s and 70s vaccinations were not controversial.
Regarding religious exemptions, no religion expicitely bars adherents from getting vaccinations though a quick search we find some denominations outline a theological opposition such as Dutch Reformed Church, Christian Scientists, and a handful of faith-healing denominations (Faith Assembly, Faith Tabernacle, the Church of the First Born, and the Endtime Ministries). Most of these are very small populations. In fact, from personal knowledge having a girlfriend who was Christian Scientist, she had never had a needle to her body for her (at that time) 17 years, but the church doesn't outright ban it and leaves the choice to the person.
The measles outbreak in Texas and New Mexico is largely among Mennonites who also do not have an explicitly bar the practice.
When innoculations (vaccinations) were invented they literally used a tiny bit of the live virus which was more risky. Modern vaccinations do not do so. They generally use an inert version of the virus as Johnson and Johnson did with Covid. Vaccinations 'controversy' is largely manufactured by people like RFKjr and Trump MAGA followers for no good reason other than cult like adherence to Trump as well as ignorance.
As noted, the J&J was old school using inert virus. The Moderna mRNA vaccinations (which I took) were not viruses at all. And despite the misinformation by MAGA, not even experimental. mRNA had been used for a lot of diseases at small scale and only the need to scale up due to a pandemic brought them into mass production.
It is true that a small, small number of people will be negatively affected. Those that choose to not get vaccinated and rely on the vaccinations around them are, in my view, selfish and moochers on public health. They are also inconsiderate and put other people at risk- the immune compromised or children too young to get vaccinations. For the measles-mumps-rubella vaccine (MMR), a child has to reach one year old to get them but if exposed younger than that, the disease can KILL them- If I had a child die under some circumstance because my child caught it from an anti-vaxxer there would be hell to pay.
When I took the history of the American Revolution, the professor stressed George Washington's command of his troops as a public health action. Teaching camp sanitation and compelling inoculation promoted the health of the Colonial troops. It takes healthy people to fight. I thought that was an interesting takeaway from General Washington.
"Inoculation — the term then used for what we call vaccination"
Not really. Inoculation is an illegal practice these days and has a number of differences to vaccination. The idea of vaccination is based on homeopathy and the use of milder virus. Many of the safeguards such as preparing for the procedure with healthy food and choosing a convenient time have been abandoned and vaccination might be conducted when someone is admitted to hospital and already in a bad state. Pregnant women are given 'vaccines' and infants. The misuse of homeopathic ideas and the confusion between the two distinct ideologies has made it more dangerous than inoculation. Inoculation was not conducted on pregnant women or infants or the elderly or persons admitted to hospital in a bad state. It was not labelled safe and it was not conducted multiple times for various 'disease' labels.
"imunization reduced the hazard of the spread of smallpox, to the benefit of even the uninoculated."
So it was claimed but where is the evidence for this?
"the risks of the disease itself."
There is no disease itself. There are lymphatic expressions given different labels in different periods of time and with the advent of the 'measles vaccine' 'vaccination' status has become the basis for differentiation.
"Measles is the manner in which a child's body throws off toxemia. When children are cared for improperly, they become toxemic, and their skin eliminates toxin to a greater degree than does the skin of grown people. It is said that measles causes more deaths than any other of the acute fevers in childhood. In the large cities whooping-cough is a running-mate of measles in the matter of mortality. Statistics show that ninety-four per cent of the deaths from measles occur among children under five years of age. This disease, like scarlet fever, starts with a decided derangement of the gastro-intestinal canal, and where patients are fed to keep up their strength, it is made very much more intense than where they are given water, and left entirely without food or drugs until the disease has spent its force."
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/tilden3.html
If Francis Franklin had survived to adulthood, he would probably insist people stop calling him "Franky". And he might have filled the void when Franklin and his grown son William became estranged (as you noted in another piece)...