# Religious waiver for vaccinations?



## Denton Elliott

Saints,

Are there any valid religious objection(s) to vaccinations? In the past we have stated religious objections but I am not sure they are valid. I am wondering if my objections are merely ethical?


----------



## N. Eshelman

Do you use any other medical 'means'? 

WHAT OBJECTION HAVE YOU STATED?


----------



## Denton Elliott

Nathan, your questions to me are why I started this thread. I would like to hear others' views. Like I said, I am not sure the religious objections I have used in the past are valid and that is why I am asking here if anyone else has objected to vaccines.


----------



## he beholds

I think the abortion issue could/would be religious.


----------



## Denton Elliott

Jessi,

There is no doubt that abortion is objectionable and easily refuted using Scripture. This thread is in regard to vaccination only.


----------



## CDM

To start, if you believe them to be harmful to the health of those vaccinated see WSC:

Q. 67. Which is the sixth commandment?
A. The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

Q. 68. What is required in the sixth commandment?
A. The sixth commandment requireth all lawful endeavors to preserve our own life, and the life of others.​
Q. 69. What is forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sixth commandment forbiddeth the taking away of our own life, or the life of our neighbor unjustly, or whatsoever tendeth thereunto.​
Also, see WLC:

Q. 134. Which is the sixth commandment?
A. The sixth commandment is, Thou shalt not kill.

Q. 135. What are the duties required in the sixth commandment?
A. The duties required in the sixth commandment are, all careful studies, and lawful endeavors, to preserve the life of ourselves and others by resisting all thoughts and purposes, subduing all passions, and avoiding all occasions, temptations, and practices, which tend to the unjust taking away the life of any; by just defense thereof against violence, patient bearing of the hand of God, quietness of mind, cheerfulness of spirit; a sober use of meat, drink, physic, sleep, labor, and recreations; by charitable thoughts, love, compassion, meekness, gentleness, kindness; peaceable, mild and courteous speeches and behavior; forbearance, readiness to be reconciled, patient bearing and forgiving of injuries, and requiting good for evil; comforting and succoring the distressed, and protecting and defending the innocent.

Q. 136. What are the sins forbidden in the sixth commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the sixth commandment are, all taking away the life of ourselves, or of others, except in case of public justice, lawful war, or necessary defense; the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life; sinful anger, hatred, envy, desire of revenge; all excessive passions, distracting cares; immoderate use of meat, drink, labor, and recreations; provoking words, oppression, quarreling, striking, wounding, and whatsoever else tends to the destruction of the life of any.​
-----Added 8/10/2009 at 11:57:30 EST-----



Denton Elliott said:


> Saints,
> 
> Are there any valid religious objection(s) to vaccinations? In the past we have stated religious objections but I am not sure they are valid. I am wondering if my objections are merely ethical?



If the reasons are ethical would'nt they be religious [for us]?


----------



## Denton Elliott

Chris,

This is excellent! I never even thought about the 6th coming into play...duh on my part. Now I feel comfortable with stating I have religious objections!


----------



## Scottish Lass

Denton Elliott said:


> Jessi,
> 
> There is no doubt that abortion is objectionable and easily refuted using Scripture. This thread is in regard to vaccination only.



Aborted fetuses/babies are often used in the process and culturing of vaccines. Google 'abortion' and 'vaccine' to find details from myraid sources.


----------



## kvanlaan

Brother, I think she's referring to this:

Vaccines cultured on aborted fetal tissue?


----------



## Denton Elliott

Ahhh...I didn't follow the connection. Thanks for clarifying. Sorry for misunderstanding Jessi. And thanks for bringing this to my knowledge.


----------



## EricP

Forgive me, please, but I'm not sure what connections are being discussed. The notion that aborted fetuses are used for vaccine production is downright silly--while many vaccines used to be cultured (say from egg), more often recombinant technology allows them to be produced from cloned tissue, often mouse, insect, etc. And religious objections to vaccinations from the 6th commandment? If the WCF tells us that " the neglecting or withdrawing the lawful and necessary means of preservation of life" is sinful, in what way does that adversely apply to the MMR, OPV, etc? Using "religious objections" to argue against vaccination (for example by trying to claim how harmful they might be) flies in the face of a whole lot of evidence that they are helpful--note how less often we see iron lungs these days from polio, scarred faces from small pox, male sterility from mumps, etc. I suspect it's a whole lot easier to speak against vaccination from common but harmful disease when many of us live in countries like the US where standard of living (which goes along with food preservation, the ready availability of food refrigeration, good sanitation and garbage removal, clean water, and so forth) and medical care availability is much better than in many less developed countries. I might suggest being careful in using Scripture to argue something like this--it likely would be a stretch of exegesis, and might cause some unconvinced people to look askance at Christianity.


----------



## Scottish Lass

EricP,
Here is one of many sources that list the vaccines that use cells as part of the culturing process: Vaccines, Abortion & Fetal Tissue

I would like to be wrong--do you have a source for your second sentence?


----------



## he beholds

The question of moral complicity with regard to using the vaccines that *continue* to be cultivated on the fetal cell line of aborted babies (though the abortions took place 30 years ago or more) may not be black and white, but the fact remains that the Rubella Vax, and the Chicken Pox vax are indeed created from fetal cell lines. 

The easiest scenario that I have heard to determind moral complicity is this:
if a man was murdered and his wife authorized the use of his organs, would your accepting those for transplant make you culpable for his murder??

The parents who aborted the babies used for vaccines did not do it to create vaccines, just as the murderer in the above situation did not murder in order to give organs. It is obvious that if either baby or man were murdered for medical benefits it would be a no-brainer that the accepting the benefits of this death would be evil. 

Here is the CMDA on vaccines and abortions. 

Here is an excerpt from one of their articles:


> Godly reasoning reinforces Biblical teaching. Having spent eleven years in Africa as a doctor, I have seen tragic epidemics of whooping cough, polio, tetanus and other communicable diseases. Sixty years ago, polio, measles and other epidemics caused enormous suffering in this country. Vaccines have saved more lives than CT scanners and even antibiotics.
> 
> So where is the controversy for Christians and immunizations?
> 
> First is the moral issue of giving your children measles, mumps, German measles, hepatitis or chickenpox vaccine that may have been made in a cell culture created from an aborted fetus. Is there moral complicity and, if so, what degree of complicity should preclude vaccination? Some would say the end (benefits of vaccination) does not justify the means (abortion). The Bible clearly proscribes a utilitarian ethical foundation. We should not do evil so that good may result (Romans 3:8). It also teaches we must hate and oppose evil (Romans 12:9), but reminds us that we cannot totally separate ourselves from evil (1 Corinth 5:9-10). We are told to overcome evil with good (Romans 12:21) and to seek wisdom in applying Biblical principles (James 1:2-5).
> 
> The Christian Medical Association has an excellent ethical statement on moral complicity , which gives good guidance on this issue. In giving vaccinations to our children we have the intent to do good, not evil. Giving them does not reward, perpetuate, justify, cooperate with or ignore the original evil. More children are not aborted because we use the vaccine, there is no better alternative to protect our children, and there is substantial risk of an even greater evil if we don’t immunize. Our children could be harmed or die. At the same time, we should (and CMA does) admonish vaccine companies to develop new production techniques, and to make new products without using aborted fetal tissue.


You can find their moral complicity statement here.


----------



## Jon Peters

EricP said:


> I might suggest being careful in using Scripture to argue something like this--it likely would be a stretch of exegesis, and might cause some unconvinced people to look askance at Christianity.



I agree. Choosing not to vaccinate may be your preference but a Biblical mandate? I don't think so. If you use a Sixth Commandment arguement then you still have to wrestle with evidence about whether the vaccinations do more harm than good. From what I have read, much less than convincing me that more harm than good has occured, I have concluded quite the opposite. While a brother or sister may disagree with my conclusions, we should be careful not to judge the preferences of our fellow believers (not that anyone on PB has done so).


----------



## Pergamum

If the vaccination counters a highly contagious disease, then refusing to vaccinate is a violation of the 6th commandment because it endangers both you AND the health of your community. 

A civil government, in such a case, for the public good, may make it a law that some vaccinations MUST be mandatory for all citizens.


----------



## Denton Elliott

Jon,

If vaccines 1) are created (some of them) using aborted babies, and 2) harm the immune system (there is plenty of evidence), then I believe we surely can and should claim the 6th to defend not vaccinating our children. I do agree that we shouldn't condemn others for getting their children vaccinated, but we should inform them shouldn't we?

-----Added 8/10/2009 at 02:39:18 EST-----



Pergamum said:


> If the vaccination counters a highly contagious disease, then refusing to vaccinate is a violation of the 6th commandment because it endangers both you AND the health of your community.
> 
> A civil government, in such a case, for the public good, may make it a law that some vaccinations MUST be mandatory for all citizens.



I know of no vaccine that is proven to be full-proof. Also, if vaccines protect people, then not vaccinating our children MUST NOT affect any other person already vaccinated right? 

Also, I believe in freedom. The government should not hold a gun to my head and force me to vaccinate my children when 1) there is no full-proof vaccine, and 2) there is plenty of evidence that they harm our immune system.


----------



## he beholds

A negative to not getting vaccines (even the ones created via abortions):
Rubella is most dangerous for pregnant women.
Infants not receiving Rubella vax may not be seriously harmed, but they may pass it to pregnant women (b/c they happen to be around them a lot). 
Pregnant woman's baby is now at risk. 
That is not loving your neighbor.


----------



## Denton Elliott

Interesting Jessi. So you are saying we have a double dilemma. On the one hand we can vaccinate and possibly harm our children and on the other we can not vaccinate and possibly harm an unborn child if our child is around a pregnant woman.


----------



## wallingj

A balanced article on the fetal tissue in vaccinations and the moral ethical problems associated with it. Vaccines, Abortion & Fetal Tissue

with a list of alternative vaccines not made with aborted fetal tissue


----------



## R Harris

We are about to be bombarded with government claims of the dire necessity to be vaccinated for the "swine flu." Much misinformation has been propagated from both government and non-government sources about the true nature of this viral strain.

However, the Washington Post reported three weeks ago that the H1N1 vaccine will definitely contain Thimerosol (which contains Mercury), Formaldehyde, and Aluminum - three known neurotoxins, with Thimerosol having received great publicity over the past 15 years as being a potential contributor to the rise of autism in young children.

While establishment medical authorities are casually dismissing the link and calling people "kooks" who attempt to make the correlation, numerous doctors are on record as to also questioning the impact that thimerosol is making.

So if you feel that a vaccination poses a health risk to your children, by all means forego it. Your concern is your family, not the profits of Novartis or their obviously biased "experts" who tell you there is no problem. The reality of the matter is that washing hands frequently, having a diet high in fruits and vegetables, and being careful in settings where there is much social contact are often all that is needed to prevent catching the virus. I work in a hospital, have followed the above advice, and have not had the flu for as long as I can remember - despite going several years without a vaccination. (Admittedly, I do not have much direct patient contact, but I am still on the nursing floor units frequently.)

With regard to scriptural support, I suppose any passage that reinforces your care and provision for your family would be adequate.


----------



## Leslie

The sixth commandment should be a powerful incentive TO vaccinate. It's the same logic as wearing seat belts. While there have been occasions when seat belts have been detrimental to survival in a crash, in the vast majority of cases they save lives. 

Another reason--anyone not vaccinated should not EVER go to a developing country. In the states where most people are vaccinated, there is herd immunity so the unvaccinated are protected against some of the infectious diseases. Overseas the infectious diseases that are prevented by vaccination are rampant. Churches and mission agencies are negligent if they permit an unimmunized young person to go on a short term trip.


----------



## CatherineL

We struggled a lot with the question of giving our children MMR (containing Rubella, which was initially created using tissue from aborted babies) as well as Varicella. I'm surprised more people don't know about the connection with abortion - even the Merk website clearly states that this is how the vaccinations originated (although it also clearly states that the vaccines themselves don't contain fetal tissue, which sometimes people mistakenly believe). The Catholics tend to be more up to date on these things than we are.

Jessi's point is the impasse we came to - not only would a child not vaccinated against Rubella be a danger to any pregnant women, but also an unvaccinated girl grows up to be a women who could potentially be exposed to the virus while pregnant, almost certainly hurting her unborn baby.

So, our solution at the moment is to allow the MMR vaccine, but not Varicella. Varicella was produced quite recently, despite the outcry (at least from the Catholic community) about the MMR vaccine's production using fetal tissue. Although chicken pox can be dangerous as an adult, we don't perceive the danger of not being vaccinated to be anywhere as bad as Rubella.


----------



## he beholds

Denton Elliott said:


> Interesting Jessi. So you are saying we have a double dilemma. On the one hand we can vaccinate and possibly harm our children and on the other we can not vaccinate and possibly harm an unborn child if our child is around a pregnant woman.



Yep. We give most vaccines and are still weighing Rubella--I am not concerned about vaxing for chicken pox, I had it and survived. 
I am pretty convicted about causing pain or death to a person with a weakened immune system (elderly) or pregnant women just for my ideals. At this point, I feel that my pro-life stance, which is the right and only proper stance, could put others in detriment, while not actually doing anything for the cause, when it comes to vaccines. (It could be argued, though, that future vaccines will be created via aborted babies _because_ so many accept its use in history--I would hate to have my name on the list of approvers.)

It is a hard choice. But in the end, I do not feel personally responsible in anyway for the abortions, even if I did use the vax. I feel that what man meant for evil, God meant for good _can_ apply (it may not, though--I am not basing my theology on this issue!) and that the babies aborted were not my fault, even if my children (and even me--I was vacinated as a child for Rubella) do somehow benefit from it. I would in no way support the killing of a baby FOR my good--and that is currently illegal. But I don't feel that I would be sinning to vax. So I don't have moral/religious convictions not to vax--though for the practical argument (will my use appear as support for future abortions?) I am withholding for now. 

I do think I would have religious convictions not to vax against HPV. If sin causes that disease, I don't know that I feel right denying that fruit.


----------



## Idelette

he beholds said:


> I do think I would have religious convictions not to vax against HPV. If sin causes that disease, I don't know that I feel right denying that fruit.



Yes, I was just about to mention the Vaccine for HPV! I read some states are requiring schools to mandate the vax....I would certainly protest against this if I were a parent! And there has been much debate about this vaccine and whether it leads to promiscuous behavior.

HPV Vaccine: State Legislation


----------



## OPC'n

It really is important for you guys to get your children vaccinated. There are many diseases out there that are life-threatening and not vaccinating them puts them in danger, and I'm sure one of the Ten Commandments (7th) comes into play here. There are also vaccinations that are not needed bc the disease isn't life-threatening to most ppl like the flu vaccination for example....so if you want to skip this one as I do go for it. I feel it's irresponsible not to vaccinate your children.


----------



## OPC'n

lol sorry just woke up! 6th commandment....


----------



## Anton Bruckner

I highly urge my fellow Pbers to do research as to this swine flu and its so called vaccine. You guys are basing your need to take this vaccine on the notion that the government is ethical and paternal.

This is not a clear cut case as thou shalt not kill or the Biblical case law against leprosy. There are many worldview factors that are coming to bear on this issue which will set a precedent as to what rights the government has over personal freedom and privacy of the individual citizens.

I for one will try everything in my power to not have to take this vaccine since the vaccine makers have been granted immunity and other fishy things.

Please brothers and sisters do not be naive.


----------



## Denton Elliott

Won't you only cause issues with a woman's unborn baby if the mother has never been vaccinated? I remember I had a bad vaccination as a child and had to get a "real" vaccine later in life. Also, the vaccine itself is not 100% so I can't see how not getting vaccinated could violate the 6th. or 7th


----------



## Edward

Anton Bruckner said:


> I highly urge my fellow Pbers to do research as to this swine flu and its so called vaccine. You guys are basing your need to take this vaccine on the notion that the government is ethical and paternal.



I don't consider the swine flu situation to be normative for the broader question of vaccinating children. Those of us old enough to remember the last swine flu vaccination fiasco are suitably jaundiced about this one. 

I'd also recommend avoiding yellow fever vaccine unless absolutely necessary. 

On the other hand, I would not have much regard for a parent who wouldn't vaccinate a child for polio or tetanus.


----------



## Denton Elliott

Edward said:


> On the other hand, I would not have much regard for a parent who wouldn't vaccinate a child for polio or tetanus.



There are no new cases of polio since they stopped administering the live vaccine which was the cause of perfectly healthy individuals contracting polio!!!


----------



## Edward

Denton Elliott said:


> There are no new cases of polio since they stopped administering the live vaccine which was the cause of perfectly healthy individuals contracting polio!!!



If by 'no new cases' you mean no cases reported since mid July, 2009. 

Without looking, how many cases of polio worldwide since the beginning of 2009? 

Map
Wild Poliovirus Weekly Update

Numbers
Wild Poliovirus Weekly Update


----------



## Scot

In Pennsylvania the law states that you may object if you hold a strong belief similiar to a religious conviction. We object to them and five out of six of my children are not vaccinated. After looking at the issue I've come to the conclusion that they are more harmful than helpful (especially since you can go back and see the diseases on the decline way before a vaccine for a particular disease was introduced). Therefore, I'm convicted that it's not in their best interest and would have no problem claiming a religious exemption.

And for the arguement that my children will put others at risk, I ask: How can that be if your children are vaccinated and the vaccines really work? You should have nothing to worry about. Right?

You can look at state laws for exemption here:

Vaccination Liberation Home Page

(good site but I'm not endorsing everything on it)


----------



## Nate

Scot said:


> And for the arguement that my children will put others at risk, I ask: How can that be if your children are vaccinated and the vaccines really work? You should have nothing to worry about. Right?



What about infants that are not yet vaccinated? Are you not putting them at risk?

-----Added 8/10/2009 at 11:08:42 EST-----



R Harris said:


> However, the Washington Post reported three weeks ago that the H1N1 vaccine will definitely contain Thimerosol (which contains Mercury), Formaldehyde, and Aluminum - three known neurotoxins, with Thimerosol having received great publicity over the past 15 years as being a potential contributor to the rise of autism in young children.
> 
> While establishment medical authorities are casually dismissing the link and calling people "kooks" who attempt to make the correlation, numerous doctors are on record as to also questioning the impact that thimerosol is making.



Many physicians and scientists have put years of earnest study into the question: "Do the small quantities of toxins (particularly Timerosol/mercury) contained in some vaccines pose a real risk of inducing autism in children?" The answer has been a resounding "No" from epidemiological, cellular, and molecular mechanistic studies. The British physician who started the "Vaccines cause autism" scare has been conclusively shown to be a fraud and crook. Even the "Vaccines cause autism" movement has recently shied away from linking the onset of autism with mercury.
It would be good if you did not marginalize the hard work done by many individuals who are intensely concerned with finding the causes of autism.


----------



## Scot

> What about infants that are not yet vaccinated? Are you not putting them at risk?



Considering non-efficacy of the vaccines, I say no.

In the Philippines, the largest smallpox epidemic occurred between 1917 and 1919, in which there were 162,503 cases and 71,453 deaths. All cases were vaccinated.

In England, smallpox vaccinations were made compulsory in 1853. Between 1863 and 1865, the population rose 7% and the death rate rose by 41%. Between 1870 and 1872, the population rose 9% and the death rate from smallpox rose 123%. 

Following the introduction of compulsory immunization, the incidence of diphtheria increased by 30% in France, 55% in Hungary, 200% in Switzerland and 625% in Germany. In Sweden, diphtheria virtually disappeared without immunization. 

Germany began compulsory diphtheria vaccinations in 1939. After that country was thoroughly vaccinated, cases of the disease skyrocketed to 150,000. France initially rejected diphtheria vaccinations because of the disasters she witnessed in other countries due to its use. But after the German occupation, France was forced into submitting to the shots. By 1943, cases of diphtheria in that country had soared to nearly 47,000. At the same time in nearby Norway, which refused vaccinations, there were only 50 cases. 

References:
Trevor Gunn, "Mass Immunization, A Point in Question", (Cutting Edge Publications, 1992), ISBN 0-9517657-1-X 
P. Airola N.D., PhD. "Everywomans Book", Health Plus, Phoenix, Arizona. 
Scientific American, April, 1955, p.98. 
H.L. Coulter and B.L. Fisher "DPT - A Shot in the Dark"


----------



## Pergamum

How Safe Are Vaccines? - TIME


----------



## Nate

Scot said:


> What about infants that are not yet vaccinated? Are you not putting them at risk?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Considering non-efficacy of the vaccines, I say no.
> 
> In the Philippines, the largest smallpox epidemic occurred between 1917 and 1919, in which there were 162,503 cases and 71,453 deaths. All cases were vaccinated.
> 
> In England, smallpox vaccinations were made compulsory in 1853. Between 1863 and 1865, the population rose 7% and the death rate rose by 41%. Between 1870 and 1872, the population rose 9% and the death rate from smallpox rose 123%.
> 
> Following the introduction of compulsory immunization, the incidence of diphtheria increased by 30% in France, 55% in Hungary, 200% in Switzerland and 625% in Germany. In Sweden, diphtheria virtually disappeared without immunization.
> 
> Germany began compulsory diphtheria vaccinations in 1939. After that country was thoroughly vaccinated, cases of the disease skyrocketed to 150,000. France initially rejected diphtheria vaccinations because of the disasters she witnessed in other countries due to its use. But after the German occupation, France was forced into submitting to the shots. By 1943, cases of diphtheria in that country had soared to nearly 47,000. At the same time in nearby Norway, which refused vaccinations, there were only 50 cases.
> 
> References:
> Trevor Gunn, "Mass Immunization, A Point in Question", (Cutting Edge Publications, 1992), ISBN 0-9517657-1-X
> P. Airola N.D., PhD. "Everywomans Book", Health Plus, Phoenix, Arizona.
> Scientific American, April, 1955, p.98.
> H.L. Coulter and B.L. Fisher "DPT - A Shot in the Dark"
Click to expand...


Could you state your beliefs as to why measles has become endemic in England at precisely the time that vaccination levels are dipping below herd immunity due to the scares brought on by Andrew Wakefield and company? Also, could you explain why Larry Brilliant's tactics to combat polio in 3rd world countries is actually working when his tactics are based on immunization? 

I'll keep trying to get access to your citations to read them for myself.


----------



## JBaldwin

> Many physicians and scientists have put years of earnest study into the question: "Do the small quantities of toxins (particularly Timerosol/mercury) contained in some vaccines pose a real risk of inducing autism in children?" The answer has been a resounding "No" from epidemiological, cellular, and molecular mechanistic studies. The British physician who started the "Vaccines cause autism" scare has been conclusively shown to be a fraud and crook. Even the "Vaccines cause autism" movement has recently shied away from linking the onset of autism with mercury.
> It would be good if you did not marginalize the hard work done by many individuals who are intensely concerned with finding the causes of autism.



Tell that to my sister. Her son was developing normally. At 2 1/2, he took his childhood vaccines and within hours of taking the vaccines, he started having seizures. He almost died. Not long after the episode, he was diagnosed with autism. His doctor linked it to the vaccines.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:06:39 EST-----

I will add that we've had three individuals (one being me, one being my nephew mentioned above) who have had adverse reactions to childhood vaccines. We oppose them on religious grounds for this reason. When people in my gene pool take vaccines, they tend to have results that are damaging. As far as I'm concerned, if I know that vaccines affect people in my family negatively, then I am putting my children in harms way by allowing them to have them. 

In regard to the question of pregnant women who haven't been vaccinated. If the woman has had the childhood disease, she passes her natural immunity on to the child when she nurses the child. 

According to my personal doctor, the Hep B given to babies at birth compromises their immune systems. She fully expects to see a rise in liver cancer in the next 10 years linked to the Hep B shots given to babies at birth. The doses they give to babies are the same doses they give to adults. It's too much for a baby's immune system to handle.


----------



## Pergamum

People have rare allergic reactions to peanut and many other substances as well. Aspirin has caused such seizures as well. 

These are rare and unfortunate occurrences, but do not disprove the great efficacy of vaccines and the millions of lives improved, preserved, and saved due to vaccination programs. 

Isolated testimonials, honing in on one type of questionable vaccination while ignoring the solid evidence for all the others, or relying on internet data or self-published books or non peer-reviewed articles are not convincing strategies.


----------



## ewenlin

Jonathan Edwards was one of the earliest proponents of vaccines. Sadly he died because of it. 

Anyway, cool thread.


----------



## Peairtach

TranZ4MR said:


> lol sorry just woke up! 6th commandment....



The Seventh comes into play with a vaccine that is being given here in Britain to all young girls whose parents will allow them have it. This vaccine is to protect against cervical cancer, but if a young woman isn't promiscuous she won't get cervical cancer anyway.

The moral quandary for some parents is, "By accepting this vaccine are they giving tacit agreement to an ungodly society's assumption that all young girls will be/are promiscuous?"; "Should the parents trust their daughter's moral judgment not to be promiscuous, or should they provide her with a failsafe, just in case she falls into sin?" ; "Does accepting the vaccine, in some way give tacit sanction to the daughter to behave badly?"


----------



## OPC'n

Well, I hope that those who do not want to vaccinate their children are allowed that right even though I think it's not wise. They are your children and you should be allowed to make decisions for them based on your good judgment. This is America after all and everyone is entitled to make their own health care decisions. I do hope that you have done thorough research though and not just hear-say.


----------



## EricP

I must say I have learned a lot about common vaccines from this thread, particularly Jessie's wise comments. I personally have qualms about certain vaccines (for example, mandated Hep B vaccination of US school age children, as opposed to targeting potentially "at risk" populations; a bit perhaps like the HPV vaccination), and there will always be concerns about efficacy, allergic reactions, sustained effect (for example, will the VZV vaccine prevent post-herpetic neuralgia in older people?), additives, and so forth. But as I understand this thread, the initial question was regarding a Christian/moral/ethical argument for or against vaccination. I suspect that most of the vaccines being produced today COULD be redone using recombinant technology, but of course that would be an expensive and long process through the FDA, if it would even be possible to do the studies today. In any case, I for one really appreciate the depth of the discussion on the board, here!


----------



## Nate

JBaldwin said:


> Tell that to my sister. Her son was developing normally. At 2 1/2, he took his childhood vaccines and within hours of taking the vaccines, he started having seizures. He almost died. Not long after the episode, he was diagnosed with autism. His doctor linked it to the vaccines.
> 
> -----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:06:39 EST-----
> 
> I will add that we've had three individuals (one being me, one being my nephew mentioned above) who have had adverse reactions to childhood vaccines. We oppose them on religious grounds for this reason. When people in my gene pool take vaccines, they tend to have results that are damaging. As far as I'm concerned, if I know that vaccines affect people in my family negatively, then I am putting my children in harms way by allowing them to have them.



Then you have a sound reason for you and your family to stay away from vaccines, and I pray that no one else from your gene pool has one of these rare and adverse reactions to a vaccine.
I would like to suggest that there is no way for one doctor to link autism to one vaccination. It is just not possible - there is absolutely no known mechanism by which a vaccination can cause autism. I honestly do not like to engage in these discussions - family members of autistic individuals have my full sympathy, but anyone simply stating the facts that there are currently no known links between autism and vaccines usually comes across as unsympathetic or abrasive towards families that have been affected by autism. Please know that there are many scientists and physicians who have spent large portions of their careers honestly trying to determine if there is a link between vaccines and autism based on the testimonials like the one of your sister's family. In each an every appropriately conducted study, all of the evidence simply says "there is no way we can say with any reasonable certainty that vaccines are responsible for causing autism".

Blessings


----------



## Peairtach

TranZ4MR said:


> Well, I hope that those who do not want to vaccinate their children are allowed that right even though I think it's not wise. They are your children and you should be allowed to make decisions for them based on your good judgment. This is America after all and everyone is entitled to make their own health care decisions. I do hope that you have done thorough research though and not just hear-say.



I know, but it's not America where I live, but Britain 

I don't know at what age girls are legally permitted to go behind their parents' backs on this one. I don't have daughters myself.


----------



## JBaldwin

NateLanning said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to my sister. Her son was developing normally. At 2 1/2, he took his childhood vaccines and within hours of taking the vaccines, he started having seizures. He almost died. Not long after the episode, he was diagnosed with autism. His doctor linked it to the vaccines.
> 
> -----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:06:39 EST-----
> 
> I will add that we've had three individuals (one being me, one being my nephew mentioned above) who have had adverse reactions to childhood vaccines. We oppose them on religious grounds for this reason. When people in my gene pool take vaccines, they tend to have results that are damaging. As far as I'm concerned, if I know that vaccines affect people in my family negatively, then I am putting my children in harms way by allowing them to have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have a sound reason for you and your family to stay away from vaccines, and I pray that no one else from your gene pool has one of these rare and adverse reactions to a vaccine.
> I would like to suggest that there is no way for one doctor to link autism to one vaccination. It is just not possible - there is absolutely no known mechanism by which a vaccination can cause autism. I honestly do not like to engage in these discussions - family members of autistic individuals have my full sympathy, but anyone simply stating the facts that there are currently no known links between autism and vaccines usually comes across as unsympathetic or abrasive towards families that have been affected by autism. Please know that there are many scientists and physicians who have spent large portions of their careers honestly trying to determine if there is a link between vaccines and autism based on the testimonials like the one of your sister's family. In each an every appropriately conducted study, all of the evidence simply says "there is no way we can say with any reasonable certainty that vaccines are responsible for causing autism".
> 
> Blessings
Click to expand...


While I don't really want to engage in an argument with you (I think your mind is made up), I have done more research on this than what I have mentioned above. I gave one example, because it is personal and can be verified. My nephew is not the only person I've met who suddenly became autistic after taking childhood vaccines. 

This article which I came across recently is very interesting reading on the subject. 

Vaccinations: Deadly Immunity

Some other interesting things to research on the subject of vaccines are squalene adjuvents and cancer viruses. There is more to this topic than just the issue of reactions and autism. Another interesting person to research is Dr. Maurice Hilleman of Merck.


----------



## ChristianHedonist

NateLanning said:


> JBaldwin said:
> 
> 
> 
> Tell that to my sister. Her son was developing normally. At 2 1/2, he took his childhood vaccines and within hours of taking the vaccines, he started having seizures. He almost died. Not long after the episode, he was diagnosed with autism. His doctor linked it to the vaccines.
> 
> -----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:06:39 EST-----
> 
> I will add that we've had three individuals (one being me, one being my nephew mentioned above) who have had adverse reactions to childhood vaccines. We oppose them on religious grounds for this reason. When people in my gene pool take vaccines, they tend to have results that are damaging. As far as I'm concerned, if I know that vaccines affect people in my family negatively, then I am putting my children in harms way by allowing them to have them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then you have a sound reason for you and your family to stay away from vaccines, and I pray that no one else from your gene pool has one of these rare and adverse reactions to a vaccine.
> I would like to suggest that there is no way for one doctor to link autism to one vaccination. It is just not possible - there is absolutely no known mechanism by which a vaccination can cause autism. I honestly do not like to engage in these discussions - family members of autistic individuals have my full sympathy, but anyone simply stating the facts that there are currently no known links between autism and vaccines usually comes across as unsympathetic or abrasive towards families that have been affected by autism. Please know that there are many scientists and physicians who have spent large portions of their careers honestly trying to determine if there is a link between vaccines and autism based on the testimonials like the one of your sister's family. In each an every appropriately conducted study, all of the evidence simply says "there is no way we can say with any reasonable certainty that vaccines are responsible for causing autism".
> 
> Blessings
Click to expand...



And there is absolutely no political/funding motivation behind the results of these scientists? They may not be able to prove a link between vaccines and autism with "reasonable" certainty, but that doesn't mean there isn't a link. My older brother was diagnosed with autism shortly after he received the MMR vaccine, and up until he received it he was a normal toddler and never showed a symptom of autism. And not every doctor denies the link between vaccines and autism.


----------



## raekwon

Aren't there some MDs around here who can weigh in?


----------



## Nate

JBaldwin said:


> While I don't really want to engage in an argument with you (I think your mind is made up)



Me either, and likewise.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:10:20 EST-----



ChristianHedonist said:


> And there is absolutely no political/funding motivation behind the results of these scientists? They may not be able to prove a link between vaccines and autism with "reasonable" certainty, but that doesn't mean there isn't a link. My older brother was diagnosed with autism shortly after he received the MMR vaccine, and up until he received it he was a normal toddler and never showed a symptom of autism. And not every doctor denies the link between vaccines and autism.



There is government funding behind most of these studies, but that does not mean political funding. Are you familiar with government funded studies of molecular biology and epidemiology at public and private institutions? If you are, will have to agree that scientists will not tolerate the government meddling with their research.
Again, I do not want to seem uncaring that your brother has autism. This disease genuinely saddens me, and I hope that the good people performing research on this disease find a cure sometime soon. 
However, I do tire of people constantly saying that just because almost all science of this sort in the U.S. is funded by the gov't that is necessarily tainted by some political motive. There is simply no way that is true.


----------



## Pergamum

raekwon said:


> Aren't there some MDs around here who can weigh in?



Leslie weighed in towards the beginning seemingly in favor of vaccinations and noting the lives being saved in the Third World. She has more Third World medical experience than any other doctor you will find.

Me and my wife are both nurses also are both heavily in favor of vaccinations and would like to note that the beggars on every city street corner in the country where I minister have twisted limbs due to polio. 

Allegies to all sorts of things exist, and are unfortunate, but public health sometimes demands mass treatments for communities for the public good and this is within the rights of gov't to protect its people.


----------



## EricP

As a weighing-in doctor (nephrology) all I'd say is that there are obvious pros and cons to everything in medicine, including vaccination. As I hear they say in the legal field, tough cases make bad law, and the same is true in medicine--rare or occasional bad outcomes, as sad as they are, don't argue well against a medical therapy that by and large does great good for many people; I'd suggest that vaccination is one of those therapies. 
That being said, at one time I was one of the folks volleying for research money from NIH and so forth, and I'd have to disagree with Nate: medical research in my experience was very politically motivated; for example, in doing the research I did in the mid 90's, we could significantly increase our funding level/rate if we could find an HIV tie-in, since it was the hot-button issue of the decade. Government may not "meddle" per se in research, but those with the money have a great influence on what is done and said--look today for example at the whole global warming issue. Autism has actually been pretty "hot" in the past several years, judging by public press and bulletin boards; I would actually suspect that if there were a solid statistical link between autism and vaccination it would be pretty well trumpeted in the press, and in the successful lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and the folks who give the things.


----------



## a mere housewife

Here is my dr's article, which I found to be informative. I am pretty sure he would recommend vaccinations for exposure to things like polio etc. in other countries. However it does seem that too many vaccines stateside contain harmful products, and that too many are administered to be safe for a little child's immune system. I think I would try to understand which ones were more important to give, weigh risks for our situation on either side with the information available through CDC, and try to space out the vaccines better, if we have children.


----------



## R Harris

EricP said:


> As a weighing-in doctor (nephrology) all I'd say is that there are obvious pros and cons to everything in medicine, including vaccination. As I hear they say in the legal field, tough cases make bad law, and the same is true in medicine--rare or occasional bad outcomes, as sad as they are, don't argue well against a medical therapy that by and large does great good for many people; I'd suggest that vaccination is one of those therapies.
> That being said, at one time I was one of the folks volleying for research money from NIH and so forth, and I'd have to disagree with Nate: medical research in my experience was very politically motivated; for example, in doing the research I did in the mid 90's, we could significantly increase our funding level/rate if we could find an HIV tie-in, since it was the hot-button issue of the decade. Government may not "meddle" per se in research, but those with the money have a great influence on what is done and said--look today for example at the whole global warming issue. Autism has actually been pretty "hot" in the past several years, judging by public press and bulletin boards; I would actually suspect that if there were a solid statistical link between autism and vaccination it would be pretty well trumpeted in the press, and in the successful lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and the folks who give the things.



Good post.

Again, despite supposed "research," what do we know as fact?

Thimerosol, Formaldehyde, and Aluminum are KNOWN NEUROTOXINS. The only question of research is what amounts administered to what age groups show statistical significance for adverse outcomes. Just as there are many scientists who question and deny the validity of the data put forth by global warming advocates, there are also many physicians who question the "no problem" claims of establishment medical authorities about the probabilities of adverse outcomes pertaining to children ages 1 -12 regarding flu vaccinations which contain these known neurotoxins. Frankly, the research is NOT "conclusive" about the amounts administered. Several parameters such as co-morbidities and genetic factors have not been tightly controlled enough to provide definitive results and conclusions. Much still needs to be done to empirically validate either side.


----------



## Honor

I was in a car accident and I busted the windshield out and broke the dashboard with my forehead before the airbag exploded. All while wearing a seatbelt. the seatbelt didn't work properly in that instance but I still continually wear my seatbelt. There is a risk with EVERYTHING. Look on the back of a bottle of Tylenol. Yes I am sure that sometimes unfortunate things happen... kids may or maynot get autism from vaccines. But so long as we live in a fallen world with decaying bodies stuff is going to happen. However. If your child was hurt and need a brain operation you would not deny them that simply based on the fact that people do die during brain surgeries. Vaccines prove to work. I prayed about it and then I thought about what would happen if my child contracted something that could have been prevented. Could I look in their tearfilled eyes with a clear conscience. I think that as parents we have a duty to be the best parents that we can. We are to pray hard, love abundently and deside fairly. For us that entails vaccinating. I hate it when my children cry when they get stuck with a needle.but then I think about my grandma who watched her father and baby sister die literally right in front of her from Polio and I thank God He gave me the means to protect my babies from that. I firmly believe that every parent should be informed of the vaccines and that you should only do so with a prayerful and solemn heart.


----------



## Nate

EricP said:


> As a weighing-in doctor (nephrology) all I'd say is that there are obvious pros and cons to everything in medicine, including vaccination. As I hear they say in the legal field, tough cases make bad law, and the same is true in medicine--rare or occasional bad outcomes, as sad as they are, don't argue well against a medical therapy that by and large does great good for many people; I'd suggest that vaccination is one of those therapies.
> That being said, at one time I was one of the folks volleying for research money from NIH and so forth, and I'd have to disagree with Nate: medical research in my experience was very politically motivated; for example, in doing the research I did in the mid 90's, we could significantly increase our funding level/rate if we could find an HIV tie-in, since it was the hot-button issue of the decade. Government may not "meddle" per se in research, but those with the money have a great influence on what is done and said--look today for example at the whole global warming issue. Autism has actually been pretty "hot" in the past several years, judging by public press and bulletin boards; I would actually suspect that if there were a solid statistical link between autism and vaccination it would be pretty well trumpeted in the press, and in the successful lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and the folks who give the things.



I appreciate you weighing in. I believe you and I are on the same page regarding politics and research funding (I think). I agree that there are politics within the funding agencies that dole out the cash - if the study happens to be stacked with scientists that value translational research over basic science, grant applications showing promise of future therapeutics will be given better marks than applications where basic science is driving the study. I have been intimately involved in the way life science research is funded over the past 8 years... I know how it works.

I don't think that's the politics that Mr. Harris is referring to - he likes to put "research" in quotation marks and qualify it as "supposed" research, all indicating that he thinks the research is tainted or fraudulent. My point is that that is unfair and even _untrue_. 

Like you mentioned at the end of your post - if there were a real link between autism and vaccines it _would_ be trumpeted in the press and lawsuits (like the recent omnibus trial) would find in favor of the defendants. Any scientist would love to make a breakthrough like finding a true link between autism and vaccines - it would make their career!


----------



## Edward

Richard Tallach said:


> This vaccine is to protect against cervical cancer, but if a young woman isn't promiscuous she won't get cervical cancer anyway.



Trying hard to be charitable in my response, so I'll say, 'that's not accurate'. 

The vaccine is intended to block HPV infections (which have been linked to cervical cancer.) HPV infection is not proof of promiscuity. A bride could be exposed to it on her wedding night. A woman could be exposed to it during a rape. To accuse either woman of promiscuity, again being charitable, is wrong.


----------



## HokieAirman

It's a matter of the 6th Commandment for me. There's enough evidence out there for me to believe that certain vaccines can be harmful to the very young (especially when they're given all at once at a very young age). In addition, when I get my vaccines for the Air Force, the information sheet says that if one's immune system is compromised in any way, they should not take the vaccine...even a cold. For a child who has allergies, this applies.

In addition, vaccines are often placed on the market with little testing and no long-term testing, presenting a danger to participants (e.g., swine flu vaccine).

Giving vaccines to a child when they're older makes more sense to me, and keeping them away from sick children (rather keeping sick children out of public) makes more sense than vaccinating for a largely harmless childhood disease such as chicken pox, which provides a life long immunity to the disease...unlike the varicella vaccine, which wears off in adulthood.

It does not make sense to give the tetanus shot to an infant or very young child, as this shot can be administered retroactively...after one is exposed by say stepping on a nail. The tetanus virus needs a very deep wound in order to fester, so scrapes and cuts are harmless...this is why you hear about people stepping on a nail and getting a tetanus shot.

meningitis is scary, but again, it is most commonly spread among people in close quarters, college dorms, military barracks, sailors, child daycare...unless your child is in this situation, catching the disease is unlikely, and one can reasonably hedge his bets...in this case, the benefit of not getting it can outweigh the risks of obtaining the disease.

DTaP is the major controversial one. Whooping cough is not dangerous to most toddlers over the age of one...protect your babies and seek medical care if suspicious that he has this. Tetanus...ditto to above, and Diptheria? don't know much about that one, but when's the last time you heard about someone getting that?  Sorry for my lapse.

Polio is a funny story...cases actually dropped off BEFORE the vaccine was administered, indicating the disease was being defeated even before the so-called prevention. 

I can't remember the particular weblink for my sources on what I'm claiming here, but will return and edit if I have time.


----------



## Nate

HokieAirman said:


> Polio is a funny story...



No, It's not.


----------



## Edward

HokieAirman said:


> Giving vaccines to a child when they're older makes more sense to me, and keeping them away from sick children (rather keeping sick children out of public) makes more sense than vaccinating for a largely harmless childhood disease such as chicken pox, which provides a life long immunity to the disease...unlike the varicella vaccine, which wears off in adulthood, exposing it's participant to shingles, which at this point is dangerous.



Looks like you pretty much have that one completely backwards. 

"Shingles itself can develop only from a reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus in a person who has previously had chickenpox."
Shingles and chickenpox (Varicella-zoster virus) - Risk Factors

In other words, it's the child that had chicken pox who's at significant risk for shingles - not the child who avoided chickenpox through vaccination.


----------



## HokieAirman

NateLanning said:


> HokieAirman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polio is a funny story...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, It's not.
Click to expand...


Figure of speech, thanks.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 09:29:02 EST-----



Edward said:


> HokieAirman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Giving vaccines to a child when they're older makes more sense to me, and keeping them away from sick children (rather keeping sick children out of public) makes more sense than vaccinating for a largely harmless childhood disease such as chicken pox, which provides a life long immunity to the disease...unlike the varicella vaccine, which wears off in adulthood, exposing it's participant to shingles, which at this point is dangerous.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like you pretty much have that one completely backwards.
> 
> "Shingles itself can develop only from a reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus in a person who has previously had chickenpox."
> Shingles and chickenpox (Varicella-zoster virus) - Risk Factors
> 
> In other words, it's the child that had chicken pox who's at significant risk for shingles - not the child who avoided chickenpox through vaccination.
Click to expand...


My mistake. Edited out. Since the varicella vaccine is relatively new, how does one know he will not develop shingles in later years due to having the virus in his body from the vaccine?

In addition, the article I just read says that shingles is still relatively rare...I think 'significant' risk might be a stretch...


----------



## Nate

HokieAirman said:


> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> HokieAirman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Polio is a funny story...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, It's not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Figure of speech, thanks.
Click to expand...


I realize that. I was just making a (poor) attempt to point out that while individuals earlier in the thread charged the "medical establishment" as being "casually" dismissive of issues regarding vaccines, it seems that the casual language and approach to vaccines and disease belongs largely to the anti-vaccination group.
Anyway, you mentioned that you gave the issue real consideration and it has become a 6th commandment issue for you. I respect that and won't try to make you go against you conscience.
Blessings, brother.


----------



## HokieAirman

NateLanning said:


> Anyway, you mentioned that you gave the issue real consideration and it has become a 6th commandment issue for you. I respect that and won't try to make you go against you conscience.
> Blessings, brother.



And to you, brother. That said, I'm required to receive vaccines...While I don't believe that most of them are harmful to me, I do have to wonder about some (anthrax) which is quite controversial. I realize many have taken it with no problems. I read an article recently linking it quite surely to Gulf War Syndrome, although I don't have the energy now to find it again. Sorry. Goodnight all.


----------



## Edward

HokieAirman said:


> In addition, the article I just read says that shingles is still relatively rare...I think 'significant' risk might be a stretch...



Across the general population, yes. For older folks and folks with impaired immune systems, no.

"Anyone who has had chickenpox is at risk for shingles. "
Shingles Information Page: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS)

"patients in their 70s could be told that their risk for shingles is roughly 1% during the next year (or 10% during the next 10 years)."
What Is the Incidence of Shingles? - Journal Watch (General)


----------



## CatherineL

Dr. Sears' The Vaccine Book was helpful to us using an alternative vaccine schedule. If you're not familiar with Dr. Sears, he's a Christian and has 8 kids! I think he presents a very evenhanded approach to the whole issue.

When I had my oldest my sister scared the tar out of me with her stories of babies on her floor (she was working in a hospital in downtown Atlanta where the majority of patients were very poor) who were dying of whooping couph, mumps, and other completely preventable diseases. Even though our kids would benefit from a higher quality of life (some people cite poor living conditions as a reason diseases thrive in the inner city, for example), my husband wants to do homeless ministry, so we'd be exposed to germies regardless. And if my kids ever want to go to Mexico, where some of our best friends are missionaries (its our family dream to be able to do down and help them once a year) they'll have to get all those anyway.


----------



## raekwon

Edward said:


> Richard Tallach said:
> 
> 
> 
> This vaccine is to protect against cervical cancer, but if a young woman isn't promiscuous she won't get cervical cancer anyway.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trying hard to be charitable in my response, so I'll say, 'that's not accurate'.
> 
> The vaccine is intended to block HPV infections (which have been linked to cervical cancer.) HPV infection is not proof of promiscuity. A bride could be exposed to it on her wedding night. A woman could be exposed to it during a rape. To accuse either woman of promiscuity, again being charitable, is wrong.
Click to expand...


I'd go as far as saying "ignorant" (but still charitably).


----------



## R Harris

NateLanning said:


> EricP said:
> 
> 
> 
> I appreciate you weighing in. I believe you and I are on the same page regarding politics and research funding (I think). I agree that there are politics within the funding agencies that dole out the cash - if the study happens to be stacked with scientists that value translational research over basic science, grant applications showing promise of future therapeutics will be given better marks than applications where basic science is driving the study. I have been intimately involved in the way life science research is funded over the past 8 years... I know how it works.
> 
> I don't think that's the politics that Mr. Harris is referring to - he likes to put "research" in quotation marks and qualify it as "supposed" research, all indicating that he thinks the research is tainted or fraudulent. My point is that that is unfair and even _untrue_.
> 
> Like you mentioned at the end of your post - if there were a real link between autism and vaccines it _would_ be trumpeted in the press and lawsuits (like the recent omnibus trial) would find in favor of the defendants. Any scientist would love to make a breakthrough like finding a true link between autism and vaccines - it would make their career!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh please.
> 
> If you have been involved in research, surely you understand that in any kind of experimentation, variables/parameters can be controlled and/or influenced to achieve a certain desired outcome. To say that a major pharmaceutical company such as Novartis does not exert influence with regard to obviously its own scientists in their testing procedures or with the FDA is to be naive. It is well known that over the decades some drugs have gone to market where either the drug company or the FDA dropped the ball with regard to proper testing methodology. Whether they _deliberately_ engaged in improper behavior or simply made mistakes can be debated, and I am sure in most cases there was no willful misconduct. But the fact of the matter is that we are talking major dollars here, and the temptation of the money factor is indeed great.
> 
> But regardless, it does appear that you did not even bother to read my second paragraph. I don't know your motivations here, but if you would attempt to address the issues raised instead of attacking me, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.
Click to expand...


----------



## CredoFidoSpero

I am not a parent and I do have a lot of sympathy for how hard this decision can be for parents. But if God blesses me with children, I would definitely get the vaccinations for highly contagious and potentially deadly diseases like polio, measles and diptheria. I think the benefits far outweigh the risks for the individual getting vaccinated, and I also consider it a civic duty given the concept of 'herd immunity' which is one of the major factors behind the government/medical community's decision in favor of universal vaccinations. Getting 85% or more of a population immune is enough to prevent epidemics, though you may still see sporadic cases. So, say, if you live in the US and refuse vaccines, you'll still probably be safe from these diseases because of the immunity of the general population - but you'll be riding on the risks that everyone else who got vaccinated took. And if enough people start opting out, we'll all be at risks for epidemics because vaccines are not 100% (nothing in medicine is 100%), and there are also those whose immunity from the vaccine will wane over time.

I have mixed feelings about the newer immunizations for less deadly diseases. Chicken pox is mostly a nuisance, but it can kill infants and the immunocompromised (like those with cancer), and I know of one healthy young girl who died from a secondary bacterial infection. Hepatitis B - that's transmitted the same ways that AIDS is, but they started giving it to infants because its very difficult to get teenagers in for a 3-shot series, and near impossible to get teenager in who might be prone to the high risk behavior that would expose them to hepatitis B. I think I might wait until my kids were older for that one. And HPV - I don't think I would have a problem giving that to a young teenage girl. I don't see that the remote threat of cervical cancer from HPV is currently a big deterrent to promiscuous behavior in teenagers and young adults, and, as pointed out above, you don't necessarily have to be promiscuous to be exposed to HPV. 

But, like I said at top, I sympathize with how tough a decision it can be when faced with giving _your own_ child all these shots.


----------



## Webservant

We refused a number of vaccines (though not all of them) on the basis of how they were produced. Our doctor did not hassle us about it. The chicken pox vaccine was one of them. My wife has never had chicken pox and none of my kids have, either. Either they are benefiting from herd immunity or they have natural immunity.


----------



## wallingj

HokieAirman said:


> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, you mentioned that you gave the issue real consideration and it has become a 6th commandment issue for you. I respect that and won't try to make you go against you conscience.
> Blessings, brother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to you, brother. That said, I'm required to receive vaccines...While I don't believe that most of them are harmful to me, I do have to wonder about some (anthrax) which is quite controversial. I realize many have taken it with no problems. I read an article recently linking it quite surely to Gulf War Syndrome, although I don't have the energy now to find it again. Sorry. Goodnight all.
Click to expand...


Had to take 4 of the anthrax series, still living, and I don't believe I have any mental problems, but I could be wrong on that one.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Dr. Tenpenny Vaccine Information Center

Dr. Sherri Tenpenny is respected as one of the country's most knowledgeable and outspoken physicians regarding the impact of vaccines on health. 

As a member of the prestigious National Speaker’s Association, Dr. Tenpenny is an outspoken advocate for free choice in healthcare, including the right to refuse vaccination. As an internationally known speaker, she is highly sought after for her ability to present scientifically sound information regarding vaccination hazard and warnings that are rarely portrayed by conventional medicine. Most importantly, she offers hope through her unique treatments offered at OsteoMed II for those who have been vaccine-injured.

-----Added 8/12/2009 at 02:49:43 EST-----

Interesting autism stats:
"When 1 in 150 is really 1 in 67" by Raymond W. Gallup & F. Edward Yazbak, MD, FAAP


----------



## EricP

I know this thread has gotten a bit off the "Scriptural arguments regarding vaccination" theme, but if I may add: the research I mentioned above was strictly through government (say NIH) or large group (American Heart for example) sources; and as Nate and I agree, there are political/influence elements even to that. I can't comment on Randy's concern about research done by pharmaceutical companies; as he seems to suggest, maybe the grain of salt is bigger with this kind of research, but private funding is not equivalent to bad research. Though I don't know Dr. Tenpenny, what I do tend to suspect is the outspoken opinion of one who has some organization or business set to profit from those outspoken opinions (for example, I won't listen to someone talk about "global warming" when they're selling "carbon offsets" on the side, whatever they are). And yes, a good handwashing, even with the instant EtOH-based sanitizers is a great way to avoid a whole bunch of viruses and bacteria.
For whatever it's worth in this type of discussion, my years as an MD, and my fewer years as a Christian, have taught me more than I ever could have hoped what wonderful bodies God gave us, that can stand a whole lot more bad things than we could possibly understand (at least until they stop working, like the opportunistic infections of an AIDS patient, or what we nephrologists see in those on dialysis). Sometimes, like even in the global warming brouhaha, I fear that modern secularism grafted onto pseudoscience makes us start feeling godlike in our "wisdom" and certainty that we know "what's going on". Even for us cocky MD's, a "down on my knees glorying God" humility seems the best approach!


----------



## Anton Bruckner

Swine flu - German health expert warning does virus vaccine increase cancer risk - News - Bild.de


----------



## Bald_Brother

wallingj said:


> HokieAirman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> NateLanning said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyway, you mentioned that you gave the issue real consideration and it has become a 6th commandment issue for you. I respect that and won't try to make you go against you conscience.
> Blessings, brother.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And to you, brother. That said, I'm required to receive vaccines...While I don't believe that most of them are harmful to me, I do have to wonder about some (anthrax) which is quite controversial. I realize many have taken it with no problems. I read an article recently linking it quite surely to Gulf War Syndrome, although I don't have the energy now to find it again. Sorry. Goodnight all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Had to take 4 of the anthrax series, still living, and I don't believe I have any mental problems, but I could be wrong on that one.
Click to expand...


Received my 5th annual booster earlier this year. Still kicking myself.


----------



## Nate

R Harris said:


> Oh please.
> 
> If you have been involved in research, surely you understand that in any kind of experimentation, variables/parameters can be controlled and/or influenced to achieve a certain desired outcome. To say that a major pharmaceutical company such as Novartis does not exert influence with regard to obviously its own scientists in their testing procedures or with the FDA is to be naive. It is well known that over the decades some drugs have gone to market where either the drug company or the FDA dropped the ball with regard to proper testing methodology. Whether they _deliberately_ engaged in improper behavior or simply made mistakes can be debated, and I am sure in most cases there was no willful misconduct. But the fact of the matter is that we are talking major dollars here, and the temptation of the money factor is indeed great.
> 
> But regardless, it does appear that you did not even bother to read my second paragraph. I don't know your motivations here, but if you would attempt to address the issues raised instead of attacking me, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.




OK. I think we are discussing different research here. Yes, I'm well aware that you can set variables to push and prod your results into any tight little box of an outcome that you want. I also know that these types of studies will not be funded by the NIH because anyone with half a brain can see these research plans for what they really are. If a lab that is funded by the NIH does a study like this after they receive their money, and then tries to publish, no respected journal will allow that trash to be printed on their pages. Just look at what journals are requiring now after the whole stem cell fraud fiasco. ALL raw data is required to be handed in. That type of research simply won't be published in journals that anyone respects.

You seem to be referencing studies privately funded that don't generally get published in scientific journals.... OK, I don't read any of that type of research. If you say that they are corrupt to the core, I guess I'll take your word for it. However, you do seem to insinuate that just because a conflict of interest or temptation to cheat is present, that scientists will automatically cheat. I refuse to accept that presumption. If you were really involved in research you would surely know that is a bogus claim.

Regarding the sources you cited in an early post - they seemed to be self-described homeopaths or alternative medicine practitioners. Again, OK - I really don't know how to have discussions about science or medicine with these types of people... From my previous interaction with homeopaths, I find that many of them reject the germ theory of disease and argue that Western medicine has no scientific basis. I have a completely different set of presuppositions in this area than they do, so I am not going to be able to really critique those citations.

Regarding your second paragraph, yes, I know about the "KNOWN NEUROTOXINS" in many vaccines. I also know that the "dose makes the poison". The controlled studies that I have looked at have shown that the doses of KNOWN NEUROTOXINS in vaccines are not harmful, even when multiple vaccines are taken together or within a short time frame. Like you I would love to see more co-morbidity analysis (which probably can be done) and tightly controlled genetic factors in studies (which maybe can't currently be done). If you're not going to believe the statistically impressive epidemiological studies (I'm sure you'll have something to say about statistics - just look through this thread to see whose giving out statistics first) or tightly controlled cell biology studies until the co-morbidity and tightly controlled genetic studies come out, then I guess you win.

My motive is not to attack you. I'm sorry for coming off that way. You can have the last word on the topic.


----------



## a mere housewife

EricP said:


> For whatever it's worth in this type of discussion, my years as an MD, and my fewer years as a Christian, have taught me more than I ever could have hoped what wonderful bodies God gave us, that can stand a whole lot more bad things than we could possibly understand (at least until they stop working, like the opportunistic infections of an AIDS patient, or what we nephrologists see in those on dialysis). Sometimes, like even in the global warming brouhaha, I fear that modern secularism grafted onto pseudoscience makes us start feeling godlike in our "wisdom" and certainty that we know "what's going on". Even for us cocky MD's, a "down on my knees glorying God" humility seems the best approach!



Thanks for this great post. This is a big reason why I trust my current dr. He was the first doctor who ever said to me, "I don't know". --He's a Christian, too. 

I wanted to add this info from CDC to the discussion:
In 2009 there have been 5,500 reported emg room visits associated with vaccines (with 20 deaths of infants less than six months old -- the death statistic decreases with an increase in the child's age). You can get the statistics here: VAERS Request. You can look at the breakdown for individual vaccines which is very helpful in assessing risks relative to immunising or not immunising for specific diseases in the states. 

This is from my drs. article linked above:
*In the Mumps out-break of 2006, what percentage of the people who got the disease were vaccinated?* . . . The answer is that two-thirds of the close to 6,000 people who got mumps and 85% of the group most affected were confirmed to have received proper vaccination. This means that the vaccines either did not work or only gave short-term immunity.​If immunity wears off over time it could be the case that most of us are not immune to many things for which we were vaccinated -- in which case one's neighbor may actually be about as likely to contract some things from one's previously vaccinated child (or to have to go to the ER because of his own vaccinations) as to encounter anything deadly from one's unvaccinated child.

I am incredibly grateful for vaccines (we could still be dealing with smallpox and so on, otherwise): it is a no brainer of Biblical application if a child's risk of _exposure_ to a serious disease is significantly greater than his risk of a serious adverse reaction to vaccinations. In the states though, I don't believe that is the case -- my doctor says that the risk on both sides is fairly low (though I can't imagine how that statement must feel to families whose children have actually died or suffered severely from either the diseases or the vaccines).


----------



## Webservant

Richard Tallach said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> lol sorry just woke up! 6th commandment....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Seventh comes into play with a vaccine that is being given here in Britain to all young girls whose parents will allow them have it. This vaccine is to protect against cervical cancer, but if a young woman isn't promiscuous she won't get cervical cancer anyway.
Click to expand...

This is painting with too broad a brush. Women are molested all the time. People are promiscuous and then the Spirit works in their hearts and their behavior is changed. And then there is the percentage of people who are not promiscuous and yet get cervical cancer anyway. I saw my mother die a horrifying death from cervical cancer. I am certain you are not saying my mother was promiscuous.


----------



## Bald_Brother

I found this thread very interesting. 

A number of years ago I heard on the news about the danger of over vaccinating, and problems associated with vaccination. I talked with a few doctor friends of mine about it (my youngest had just been born) and they told me that vaccinations more helpful than harmful and safer than the media was letting on. My wife and I decided we would be putting our son into greater risk if we did not vaccinate. So, we vaccinated.

Honestly, I never thought of it as a 6th commandment issue (of course, I wasn't familiar with the Confessions back then) and haven't really thought of it since. But, now, I see the vaccination issue from a different perspective.

I also never knew of the fetus grown vaccines. 

Thank you all for the informative thread.

BTW, if I have another kid I'll still vaccinate.


----------



## Edward

Blueridge Believer said:


> As a member of the prestigious National Speaker’s Association





$600 and 20 speeches, either paid public appearances or in house at a company, over a 12 month period. 
JOIN NSA

And, to save everyone else the effort of looking, no, she is not an M.D.


----------



## Blueridge Believer

Edward said:


> Blueridge Believer said:
> 
> 
> 
> As a member of the prestigious National Speaker’s Association
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> $600 and 20 speeches, either paid public appearances or in house at a company, over a 12 month period.
> JOIN NSA
> 
> And, to save everyone else the effort of looking, no, she is not an M.D.
Click to expand...




Background and Training 
Dr. Tenpenny is a graduate of the University of Toledo in Toledo, Ohio. She received her medical training at Kirksville College of Osteopathic Medicine in Kirksville, Missouri. Dr. Tenpenny is Board Certified in Emergency Medicine and Osteopathic Manipulative Medicine. Prior to her career in alternative medicine, Dr. Tenpenny served as Director of the Emergency Department at Blanchard Valley Regional Hospital Center in Findlay, Ohio, from 1987 to 1995. In 1994, she and a partner opened OsteoMed, a medical practice in Findlay limited to the specialty of osteopathic manipulative medicine. In 1996, Dr. Tenpenny moved to Strongsville, Ohio, and founded OsteoMed II, expanding her practice and her vision of combining the best of conventional and alternative


----------



## Sven

TranZ4MR said:


> Well, I hope that those who do not want to vaccinate their children are allowed that right even though I think it's not wise. They are your children and you should be allowed to make decisions for them based on your good judgment. This is America after all and everyone is entitled to make their own health care decisions. I do hope that you have done thorough research though and not just hear-say.



Sarah,
It is a little frustrating for you to make the claim that a) you are putting your children at risk if you don't vaccinate, and b) you are not wise for not vaccinating. There are several good studies available that show that vaccines are more harmful than helpful. My wife and I have both looked into the vaccination issue and came to the conclusion that it was best not to vaccinate our children. Aborted fetuses in some vaccines is one issue. Mercury used in others is another. The stress vaccines put on the body yet another. And the linkage of vaccinations to autism.
These issues are explored and researched by people who are educated in medical fields and their research is usually blown off by nurses and doctors alike. The reactions against the research clearly shows an elitist mentality by those in the medical profession. I'm glad you are one to recognise that parents have the right to choose their own healthcare, but you seem to be stuck in that elitist mentality. Just because my name badge doesn't have M.D. or R.N. at the end doesn't mean I'm not capable of doing my own research or making wise choices for my family's healthcare. We've done research, and from the way things look in this thread others have done research as well. Have you?


----------



## JBaldwin

Sven said:


> TranZ4MR said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well, I hope that those who do not want to vaccinate their children are allowed that right even though I think it's not wise. They are your children and you should be allowed to make decisions for them based on your good judgment. This is America after all and everyone is entitled to make their own health care decisions. I do hope that you have done thorough research though and not just hear-say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sarah,
> It is a little frustrating for you to make the claim that a) you are putting your children at risk if you don't vaccinate, and b) you are not wise for not vaccinating. There are several good studies available that show that vaccines are more harmful than helpful. My wife and I have both looked into the vaccination issue and came to the conclusion that it was best not to vaccinate our children. Aborted fetuses in some vaccines is one issue. Mercury used in others is another. The stress vaccines put on the body yet another. And the linkage of vaccinations to autism.
> These issues are explored and researched by people who are educated in medical fields and their research is usually blown off by nurses and doctors alike. The reactions against the research clearly shows an elitist mentality by those in the medical profession. I'm glad you are one to recognise that parents have the right to choose their own healthcare, but you seem to be stuck in that elitist mentality. Just because my name badge doesn't have M.D. or R.N. at the end doesn't mean I'm not capable of doing my own research or making wise choices for my family's healthcare. We've done research, and from the way things look in this thread others have done research as well. Have you?
Click to expand...


Another topic to research is the ties between researchers, doctors, legislators and the pharmacuetical companies who distribute vaccines. The money trail speaks loudly. 

What I want to know is why the Massachusetts health authorities feels it's necessary to deputize the health officials who are distributing the flu vaccine. Is it a crime now to choose not to take a flu vaccine?

State asks volunteers to aid flu vaccinations - The Boston Globe


----------



## he beholds

JBaldwin said:


> What I want to know is why the Massachusetts health authorities feels it's necessary to deputize the health officials who are distributing the flu vaccine. Is it a crime now to choose not to take a flu vaccine?
> 
> State asks volunteers to aid flu vaccinations - The Boston Globe



Could this have anything to do with Mass having Universal Healthcare?


----------

