# Infant Vaccinations



## zsmcd

Alright folks, my wife is due Friday and I am looking for info regarding the very heavily debated topic of infant vaccinations. Trying to be wise about making sure my child gets vaccinated if 1. the disease is high risk, still around, and life threatening and 2. the vaccine itself is morally upright. I know there are many vaccines for diseases that are no longer a danger or its a vaccine for a std or something. I also know some vaccines have been created using abortive tissue strands which I would like to stay away from obviously. Any thoughts/insight?


----------



## timfost

Dr. Sears had a very good book on the subject. He covers the questions in the OP.

http://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Book-...=1445960975&sr=8-1&keywords=Sears+vaccination


----------



## earl40

Be weary of all the hype around the dangers of vaccinations which are all over the place. I believe it would be a vary rare thing to seriously consider not doing the shots for your children. One can look into this so deeply that the proper thing to do is avoided by many people. In other words, I believe unless you have some type of rare condition in your family or child's history that precludes vaccination get them vaccinated. Also ask your Dr. if you trust him.


----------



## Paul1976

The risks of vaccination are exceedingly small compared to the diseases vaccines protect against. From the perspective of the health of your child, the regular set of vaccines is unquestionably a good thing medically (despite some of what you'll read in social media). A second issue is that, when people do not vaccinate their children, they increase the risk of exposing infants who have not yet had vaccines to some really nasty diseases. I wouldn't allow our babies to stay in our churches nursery until they had their first set of vaccines due to the recklessness of some parents who refuse to vaccinate their children, and increase the risk of needlessly spreading potentially fatal, preventable diseases.


----------



## Edward

I'll give two conflicting pieces of advice.

1) Don't get your medical advice from social media.

2) Vaccinate your children. The importation of undocumented people from second, third, and fourth world counties ensures that your children will be exposed to diseases that were unknown in this country a generation ago. Vaccines aren't risk free, but they sure beat some of the diseases they protect against.


----------



## Pergamum

timfost said:


> Dr. Sears had a very good book on the subject. He covers the questions in the OP.
> 
> http://www.amazon.com/Vaccine-Book-...=1445960975&sr=8-1&keywords=Sears+vaccination



Beware of Dr Sears.

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cashing-in-on-fear-the-danger-of-dr-sears/

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterlipson/2015/01/30/anti-vaccine-doctors-should-lose-their-licenses/

http://blogs.plos.org/thepanicvirus/2012/03/26/bob-sears-bald-faced-liar-devious-dissembler-or-both/


----------



## Edward

timfost said:


> Dr. Sears had a very good book on the subject. He covers the questions in the OP.



For those who don't want to read the book, here's an interview with Dr. Sears:

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/front...rs-why-partial-vaccinations-may-be-an-answer/


----------



## timfost

Yes, I understand that there is controversy surrounding the delayed vaccine schedule. I recommend Dr. Sears because he speaks specifically to the effectiveness, risks, and prevalent status of each disease as well as the particular risks involved with each vaccine. One can glean a lot of useful information from this book even if one disagrees with his delayed vaccine schedule.


----------



## AThornquist

My 7 month old daughter contracted German measles (aka rubella) last month because someone didn't get the MMR vaccination; the MMR vac isn't administered until 12-15 months old so it wasn't our fault, but I am more determined than ever to follow our pediatrician's vac advice. I also agree with what was previously stated: don't get your vaccination advice from social media. Much of the fear mongering about vaccinations is laughably unscientific. 

On a somewhat related note, I listened to a very interesting lecture from Dr. Rhonda Patrick--one of the foremost experts on vitamin D--last week, and she explained how, since the 70s, increased autism rates have correlated with increased vitamin D deficiency. She readily admitted--because she is a scientist--that this does not prove causality, but further researcher is worth pursuing to see what this correlation means.


----------



## Reformed Fox

I am not an expert, but my two cents would be to check the intensity of the schedule. Part of the issue are not vaccines per se (many have been around for decades are are acceptably safe) but rather vaccinating against too many diseases too quickly. I had about twice as many vaccinations as a child (1990s) than my parents (1960s). I think the number has at least doubled since then.


----------



## Jack K

Vaccinations are an example of an act that serves a communal benefit rather than just an individual benefit. The evidence is strong that the spread of dangerous diseases halts dramatically when strong vaccination programs are in place—that's the communal benefit. In such a situation, the individual benefit of being vaccinated starts to disappear. It may even be in an individual's best interests not to risk getting vaccinated and instead to trust the widespread vaccinations of others, which create a generally healthy community, to protect you as an individual.

The problem with this kind of thinking is that it is selfish. It means benefiting from a risk that others are taking without being willing to take that risk yourself as a part of the overall effort to protect the whole community. Christians, being unselfish, should be first in line for vaccinations... not because we've researched the risk/benefit to ourselves individually, but because we care about the benefit to everyone.


----------



## Pergamum

More info on Dr Sears:

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2014/03/19/after-all-this-time-dr-bob-sears-finally-tips-his-hand-on-vaccines-part-iv/



> Indeed, Dr. Bob has even publicly admitted that it’s not evidence-based...



http://www.immunize.org/concerns/offit_moser2009.pdf

https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/cashing-in-on-fear-the-danger-of-dr-sears/

http://www.immunize.org/talking-about-vaccines/countering-dr-sears.asp

When Christians latch on to sketchy beliefs (like Babywise or the Anti-Vax movement, or Moon Landing denial) they destroy their credibility and folks may not believe them when they start spouting off about a Jewish carpenter dying 2,000 years ago for the sins of mankind.


----------



## Pergamum

Here are more links about autism and vaccines NOT being linked:

http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/yes-autism-rate-rising-vaccines-caused-vaccines/

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/22/3650089/massive-study-autism-vaccine/

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism


But...I know, I know.... there must be a massive cover-up by the "Big Vaccine" industry to suppress the real truth (thank God for all the activist housewives who can still educate people about vaccine dangers through Facebook  ).

p.s. My wife and I are R.N.s and my wife worked in public health, head of the Pulaski County infectious diseases dept while I was in the army. So...we are already suspect because we have worked for the "establishment" in the past.


----------



## johnny

Some good friends of mine are into alternative medicine.
They refused the vacines and all their kids caught whooping cough.
This happened in Brisbane, and they were pretty unrepentant about it.
Nobody died but some were hospitalised, took ages to get over.

It was a weird couple of months.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude

Some info on the abortive cells issue.



http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539 said:


> Some childhood vaccines, including the one against rubella -- which is part of the MMR vaccine given to millions of children worldwide for measles, mumps and rubella -- is cultured in "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts," according to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's fact sheet on the vaccine's ingredients.
> 
> Merck, the vaccine's manufacturer, acknowledged that those cells were originally obtained from an electively aborted fetus. They were used to start a cell line, which is a cell multiplied over and over again to produce cells that are of a consistent genetic makeup. The WI-38 cell line is used as a culture to grow live viruses that are used in vaccines.
> 
> ...
> 
> "These abortions, which occurred decades ago, were not undertaken with the intent of producing vaccines," said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Centers Disease Control and Prevention.
> 
> The original cells were obtained more than 50 years ago and have been maintained under strict federal guidelines by the American Type Culture Collection, according to Merck.
> 
> "These cell lines are now more than three generations removed from their origin, and we have not used any new tissue to produce these vaccines," the company added in its statement.





http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html said:


> The ethical quandary created by the tainting of these otherwise beneficial vaccines is vexing. Parents are justified in wanting to protect their children from potentially life-threatening diseases, and it can be legitimately argued that parents have an obligation to do so. Likewise, as a society, we must take into consideration the morality and cost of failing to prevent widespread outbreaks of disease.
> 
> The moral perspective of those opposed to the use of these vaccines is equally justifiable. If these vaccines were merely tested on patients without their consent, similar to the Tuskegee syphilis experiments, there would be widespread outrage and those responsible for the violation of patients’ rights would face serious consequences. Yet the researchers in this case not only failed to receive consent from the research subjects, but purposefully took their lives.
> 
> When dealing with difficult ethical issues, one of the main questions is how should individuals act in a moral way when they are acting in a world that is filled with immorality? The further away the current act (using a vaccine) and intent (protecting a child from a disease) of an individual are from a previous immoral act (aborting a child), the less that individual is restricted by the immorality of the previous act. While the act of aborting the child was certainly immoral, all of the steps involved with the development and use of the vaccines thereafter did not cooperate with the abortion.
> 
> The Vatican’s Pontifical Academy for Life, and the U.S. and British bishops conferences have studied the issue in detail and concluded that using the vaccines is morally permissible. However, once a person learns that certain vaccines are morally tainted, there is an obligation to seek out ethical alternatives where possible and to make objections known to health care providers and vaccine manufacturers. In addition, parents are entirely justified in citing a “conscientious objection” to tainted vaccines being used to immunize their children, particularly when the vaccine is not for a substantially threatening illness (Chickenpox). A number of noted prolife activists have weighed in on both sides of the issue. Some have encouraged parents to use and demand nothing less than vaccines obtained through morally acceptable means.(6) Others like Jack Willke, M.D., former National Right to Life Committee president and the late Bernard Nathanson, M.D., prolife activist and creator of “The Silent Scream” have opined that using the vaccines is morally allowable.(7,8)
> 
> What is unanimous among all commentators on the subject is that everyone ought to know the facts surrounding the vaccines, and prolife citizens should make an effort to persuade - even pressure - vaccine producers to eliminate their tainted products in favor of ethically acceptable products.



I found two charts with information on which vaccines contain abortive tissue and what alternatives are available. Use the one that you find more readable. (The second is the one that pediatricians would find most useful.)

Personally, I would urge you to still vaccinate, even with those that use fetal cell lines and have no alternative. Vaccinations are extremely important to public health, and to your child's health and his/her peers. I'd urge you, at the very least, to talk to your doctor and pastor and to pray about it.


----------



## Mr. Bultitude

With regard to the other points you raised, the only vaccine that has to do with STDs is the HPV vaccine, which the CDC recommends for age 13-18.

All of the vaccinations recommended by the CDC are for high-risk and life-threatening illnesses:



http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2015/sep/23/ben-carson/carson-wrong-vaccine-claim/ said:


> The CDC recommends a series of shots to protect children against 15 infectious diseases. They are measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, hepatitis A, hepatitis B, diphtheria, tetanus, whooping cough, Human papillomavirus (HPV), Haemophilus influenza type B (Hib), polio, influenza (flu), rotavirus, and pneumococcal disease.
> 
> Most everyone likely knows about measles, the flu and the two types of hepatitis – and that all of those diseases can be deadly.
> 
> But of the others, are any not lethal or, at the least, not crippling?
> 
> Hardly. Several experts told us no such disease is prevented by those on the childhood immunization schedule.
> 
> "Every one of those can kill or cripple or maim you," said Dr. Paul Offit, a pediatrics professor at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and one of three inventors of the rotavirus vaccine.
> 
> And just what is rotavirus? Think of it as a particularly nasty stomach flu – one estimated to have killed 453,000 children under the age of 5 in 2008, most in developing countries, according to the World Health Organization.
> 
> The others:
> 
> Mumps – Death is rare, and happens usually in adults. But complications of childhood mumps include deafness and sterility in both genders.
> 
> Rubella – A relatively mild virus that usually leads to severe birth defects and blindness and can cause miscarriage and stillbirth in expectant mothers.
> 
> Chicken pox – Another relatively mild virus that killed 100-150 children annually before vaccines.
> 
> Diphtheria – Once a major cause of death among U.S. children – including a record 15,520 in 1921 and the terror behind the original Iditarod sled-dog race in Alaska, this powerful disease killed a 6-year-old boy in Spain last year.
> 
> Tetanus – This bacteria kills up to 20 percent of those infected, with many suffering from spasms severe enough to break bones.
> 
> Whooping cough – A brutal disease that killed 20 in 2012, including 15 infants too young for the vaccine. The World Health Organization estimates it caused 89,000 deaths worldwide in 2012.
> 
> HPV – The more controversial of all vaccines, largely because it prevents a sexually transmitted virus that can cause several types of cancer which can be deadly, even with treatment.
> 
> HiB – A bacteria that can cause several invasive diseases, including meningitis, which that killed about 1,000 American children annually before vaccines. In 2008, it killed an estimated 199,000 children worldwide.
> 
> Pneumococcal disease – One of the leading causes of illness in children that kills about 5 percent of those infected and leaves some survivors with permanent injury.



And any disease that's "no longer a danger" is only so _because_ of vaccines -- so it's still important to vaccinate in those instances:



http://www.vox.com/2015/2/6/7988715/the-vaccine-delayers-they-hate-anti-vaxxers-but-dont-quite-vaccinate said:


> The reason these diseases don't affect most Americans now is precisely because people like them have been using vaccines.
> 
> If we stop vaccinating, or put off giving them to kids in a way that exposes them to infection, these diseases will undoubtedly return.
> 
> ...
> 
> The parents who took their kids to Disneyland in December probably didn't imagine they'd leave with an ancient virus, the measles. Many travelers to Europe, one CDC official told me, forget to check in on their vaccines because they don't think about the fact that diseases like measles are now prevalent in some parts of Europe.
> 
> That's what happened to one of Sears' very own patients: the child contracted measles on a trip to Switzerland. When the boy returned to the US, he infected 11 others. All it takes is a single traveler to hit a community of similarly unvaccinated people for an outbreak to spark.
> 
> What's worse, Sears has admitted there are dangers to too many people opting out, which is why he tells delayers to keep their decision secret. "I also warn them not to share their fears with their neighbors," he writes, "because if too many people avoid the MMR, we'll likely see the diseases increase significantly."



If you're concerned about overloading your child's immune system, don't be:



http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/48/4/456.full said:


> Vaccines do not overwhelm the immune system. Although the infant immune system is relatively naive, it is immediately capable of generating a vast array of protective responses; even conservative estimates predict the capacity to respond to thousands of vaccines simultaneously. [src]


----------



## timfost

Neither the companies that manufacture vaccines, nor the doctors have the same care invested in your children than you do. When it comes to making decisions for my children, I want to be informed to the best of my ability because I'm invested in my children in a unique way.

I have a sister, now a teenager, who has incurable epilepsy. She started having seizures shortly after receiving a round of vaccines. I understand that most people don't have problems with the vaccines, but my sister's condition has turned my family's life upside-down. She has multiple seizures every day. She convulses, grinds her teeth, falls and hits her head, chokes on her food. After bad seizures she can hardly speak. She cannot concentrate. She has to wear a padded hat most of the time. Must I go on? After trying everything, the doctors said the only option left is exploratory brain surgery.

I personally know another boy who did not have a major reaction to being vaccinated, but the toddler regressed in his verbal abilities after each vaccination.

I understand that for most people who are vaccinated, life goes on as normal. However, if you spent a day with my family, you would probably want to spend some time researching the risks/benefits of each vaccine prior to use, not simply taking the advice of the medical practitioner. After all, at the end of the day, _you_ are the one responsible for your child's health, not the pediatrician or vaccine manufacturer. 

I am not _anti_-vaccine. Vaccines have done amazing and unprecedented things for public health. For that I am grateful. But are we over-vaccinating? I would venture to say yes. 

I am not a conspiracy theorist, nor do I think that the "establishment" is out to get us. I do not read Jenny McCarthy. _But_, big money is involved. Where there is big money, history has demonstrated that dishonesty, scare tactics and skewed statistics are often used and abused.

It seems short-sighted and ignorant when I hear people making this topic into a moral issue when someone decides not to get every vaccine that the pediatrician recommends. It certainly changes one's perspective when a loved one suffers because mom and dad simply took the doctor's prescription.


----------



## Edward

timfost said:


> She started having seizures shortly after receiving a round of vaccines.



Has it been established that there was a relationship, or is there just a proximity in time and an assumption that the two events might be related?


----------



## Pergamum

Here is some info on vaccines and fetal tissues:

http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion



> Where do the vaccine companies get the cells for these vaccines? They get them from companies like Coriell Cell Repositories, 403 Haddon Avenu, Camden, New Jersey 08103, 800-752-3805. This company has many cell lines, which are cultures of self-perpetuating cells. Each culture of cells is continually reproducing, making more cells. Those cells are sold to researchers, drug companies, and other medical technology firms. The specific cell lines used in vaccines are the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines1, and they have been supplying medical research of all types for more than 45 years. Where do these cell lines come from? That's where the grain of truth in this lie comes from. Both of these cell lines were cultured from cells taken from two abortions, one (MRC-5) that was performed in September,19662 and one (WI-38) that was performed in July, 19623.
> 
> The cells that were taken from the two aborted babies more than 35 years ago are much like my loved one's heart. Two innocent babies were killed. However, they were able to donate something that has been used not only to make vaccines, but in many medical research projects over the years. Thus, these cells have been saving millions of lives for almost two generations! Although the babies were clearly murdered, the fact that their cells have been saving lives is at least a silver lining in the dark cloud of their tragic murder.
> 
> It is important to note that Federal law is quite specific in the matter of donated fetal tissue. The law does not allow for an abortion to be performed for the purpose of donating tissue, and the law even explicitly states that the abortion procedure cannot be changed in order to collect the tissue4. It also prohibits the baby's family or the doctor from profiting from the donation5. Thus, these cells were truly donated, just as any organ might be donated. If a person is an organ donor and he or she is murdered, it is not immoral for you to use those organs. Once again, at least something good will come out of the murder if those organs are used.




http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539


Here is what I advised someone last week who asked about vaccines and fetal cells:



> The Catholic Bioethics experts (who are, regrettably, more consistent and informed on "Life Issues" than us Protestants" approves of the use of these vaccines, despite their origins. This is their statement:
> 
> "We should always ask our physician whether the product he proposes for our use has an historical association with abortion," the National Catholic Bioethics Center states on its website, but then goes on to say "one is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion."
> 
> "The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine," the center's position statement continued. "This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them."



and 



> The Merck MMR vaccine was obtained from "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts," obtained from aborted babies.
> 
> In some cases, there are different producers of vaccines and one might be able to avoid Merck so as not to be associated with the way in which they obtained their ingredients.
> 
> But if not...if one is faced with the choice between the risks of going unvaccinated and using a Merck vaccine, I don't think we are morally commanded to go unvaccinated if we believe it poses risks to our living children.
> 
> I view this issue in the same way as buying groceries or gas from corporations that hold stock in evil enterprises or give to Planned Parenthood. If I can buy my latte from a coffee shop that does not give donations to Planned Parenthood that is preferable, but it is questionable whether my buying a coffee at Starbucks is supporting Planned Parenthood. Most would not see this as implicit support of abortion, even though their CEO is a liberal.
> 
> And it is questionable whether I can even reasonably shop in a way that avoids supporting evil corporations. If a Muslim and a Christian both bake bread...I need not always buy the bread of the Christians when shopping and avoid the muslim bread-baker due to his false religion. When shopping, I merely buy the bread I prefer to taste most of the time. There is a degree of separation between the intent of the purchaser or customer and the producer.
> 
> I believe we ought to campaign for the production of vaccines that do not use cell lines from elective abortions. But for now, if that is all that is available, I don't believe it is sin to use those vaccines already produced.
> 
> President Bush's compromise stance on stem cell research around the year 2000 was a very Christian one I feel that mirrors this issue of vaccines (he limited much stem cell research where it would encourage new abortions to happen in order to procure new cells, but he allowed research using those cells already obtained since they were already obtained and no new abortions would be performed in order to procure said tissue. I guess he figured that we ought to make good use of those cells already obtained since they were available, even if they were obtained in a bad way, rather than throw them away unused).
> 
> I suppose another analogy would be this: Villagers are hungry and someone steals bread. The bread is stolen and obtained through sin. But, if there is no way to give back the bread, might as well eat the bread and take good benefit from a thing obtained through an evil means rather than waste the bread. If I were truly hungry, I feel there is no moral obligation to throw away the stolen bread, but to eat it for your health. In like mannner, vaccinating your kids to keep them healthy, even if the vaccine production was produced under conditions of sin, is okay.
> 
> And also, Merck did not encourage abortions to happen IN ORDER THAT they may make those vaccines...Merck used those cells on hand and seemed to have no motive or push towards performing the abortion. They merely used the products of abortion that were already available.
> 
> And currently, the same is not being done....those cell lines were made long ago.


----------



## timfost

Edward said:


> timfost said:
> 
> 
> 
> She started having seizures shortly after receiving a round of vaccines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Has it been established that there was a relationship, or is there just a proximity in time and an assumption that the two events might be related?
Click to expand...


Proximity and timing. We cannot say with absolute certainty that there is a correlation. The seizures started out very small, and we didn't realize what they were at first (she was six at the time). Of course the further time went on made making a case more difficult.


----------



## Nate

timfost said:


> Neither the companies that manufacture vaccines, nor the doctors have the same care invested in your children than you do. When it comes to making decisions for my children, I want to be informed to the best of my ability because I'm invested in my children in a unique way.
> 
> ...if you spent a day with my family, you would probably want to spend some time researching the risks/benefits of each vaccine prior to use, not simply taking the advice of the medical practitioner. After all, at the end of the day, _you_ are the one responsible for your child's health, not the pediatrician or vaccine manufacturer.
> 
> 
> ...It certainly changes one's perspective when a loved one suffers because mom and dad simply took the doctor's prescription.



Tim, I am sorry to hear about your sister. I can imagine that is a hard providence to bear. Knowing this, I thank God for your life's witness: you don't come off as a bitter person at all - quite the opposite in fact. You are a great example to others who might have similar situations arise in their lives. Keep it up, brother. 

To offer my perspective to you and the OP, it is exactly because of your quotes above that we choose to vaccinate our children with the advised vaccination schedule. We have diligently sought the advice of our family physicians, asking for the reasons behind their advice. We have performed our own research into the studies behind both sides of the issue. For us, the clear choice was to get each of the recommended vaccinations for our infants and young children on the recommended schedule. None of our family physicians have ever tried to hide the fact that vaccination injuries do occur. But the simple facts have shown that the risks of non-vaccination are greater than the injury risks due to vaccinations. 

So, my take is that is seems a bit unfair to make remarks along the lines of "simply took the doctor's prescription". Doctor's prescriptions in this area seem to be rooted in hard evidence on the side of vaccinations. In His providence, God has provided a means by which we can reduce the probability that our children will contract devastating diseases. Our family chooses to make use of these means as recommended.

Here are a couple of sources to consider regarding the vaccination schedule:
https://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/the-infection-schedule-vrs-the-vaccination-schedule/
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/multiple-vaccines-immunity.html


----------



## Miss Marple

I'd ask someone with these important qualifications: A Christian. Doctor. With Children. (someone you know, not a celeb with a theory or book to sell) He/She should have the biblical mindset, the medical knowledge, and the experience to address the issue best.

Too many opinions I've read come from non-Christians, medically ignorant or biased, people with something to sell, or folks without children who can be pretty flippant.

I think a Christian doctor with kids is best. Did he vaccinate his kids? Should be the best advice in my opinion.


----------



## Nate

Miss Marple said:


> I'd ask someone with these important qualifications: A Christian. Doctor. With Children. (someone you know, not a celeb with a theory or book to sell) He/She should have the biblical mindset, the medical knowledge, and the experience to address the issue best.
> 
> Too many opinions I've read come from non-Christians, medically ignorant or biased, people with something to sell, or folks without children who can be pretty flippant.
> 
> I think a Christian doctor with kids is best. Did he vaccinate his kids? Should be the best advice in my opinion.



_The Standard Bearer_ is a Reformed magazine associated with the PRCA. The October 1, 2015 issue includes an article by Dr. Brian Decker entitled "A Christian Doctor's Perspective on Vaccines." Dr. Decker is a family practitioner in a suburb of Grand Rapids, MI, and is a father of at least four children. The article provides the grounds upon which he urges his patients to vaccinate their children. I have a hard copy but unfortunately I can't find a link to the article.


----------



## zsmcd

> _The Standard Bearer_ is a Reformed magazine associated with the PRCA. The October 1, 2015 issue includes an article by Dr. Brian Decker entitled "A Christian Doctor's Perspective on Vaccines." Dr. Decker is a family practitioner in a suburb of Grand Rapids, MI, and is a father of at least four children. The article provides the grounds upon which he urges his patients to vaccinate their children. I have a hard copy but unfortunately I can't find a link to the article.



I could not find that specific issue. Would you happen to have a link?


----------



## Andrew P.C.

Pergamum said:


> Here is some info on vaccines and fetal tissues:
> 
> http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do the vaccine companies get the cells for these vaccines? They get them from companies like Coriell Cell Repositories, 403 Haddon Avenu, Camden, New Jersey 08103, 800-752-3805. This company has many cell lines, which are cultures of self-perpetuating cells. Each culture of cells is continually reproducing, making more cells. Those cells are sold to researchers, drug companies, and other medical technology firms. The specific cell lines used in vaccines are the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines1, and they have been supplying medical research of all types for more than 45 years. Where do these cell lines come from? That's where the grain of truth in this lie comes from. Both of these cell lines were cultured from cells taken from two abortions, one (MRC-5) that was performed in September,19662 and one (WI-38) that was performed in July, 19623.
> 
> The cells that were taken from the two aborted babies more than 35 years ago are much like my loved one's heart. Two innocent babies were killed. However, they were able to donate something that has been used not only to make vaccines, but in many medical research projects over the years. Thus, these cells have been saving millions of lives for almost two generations! Although the babies were clearly murdered, the fact that their cells have been saving lives is at least a silver lining in the dark cloud of their tragic murder.
> 
> It is important to note that Federal law is quite specific in the matter of donated fetal tissue. The law does not allow for an abortion to be performed for the purpose of donating tissue, and the law even explicitly states that the abortion procedure cannot be changed in order to collect the tissue4. It also prohibits the baby's family or the doctor from profiting from the donation5. Thus, these cells were truly donated, just as any organ might be donated. If a person is an organ donor and he or she is murdered, it is not immoral for you to use those organs. Once again, at least something good will come out of the murder if those organs are used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539
> 
> 
> Here is what I advised someone last week who asked about vaccines and fetal cells:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Bioethics experts (who are, regrettably, more consistent and informed on "Life Issues" than us Protestants" approves of the use of these vaccines, despite their origins. This is their statement:
> 
> "We should always ask our physician whether the product he proposes for our use has an historical association with abortion," the National Catholic Bioethics Center states on its website, but then goes on to say "one is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion."
> 
> "The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine," the center's position statement continued. "This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Merck MMR vaccine was obtained from "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts," obtained from aborted babies.
> 
> In some cases, there are different producers of vaccines and one might be able to avoid Merck so as not to be associated with the way in which they obtained their ingredients.
> 
> But if not...if one is faced with the choice between the risks of going unvaccinated and using a Merck vaccine, I don't think we are morally commanded to go unvaccinated if we believe it poses risks to our living children.
> 
> I view this issue in the same way as buying groceries or gas from corporations that hold stock in evil enterprises or give to Planned Parenthood. If I can buy my latte from a coffee shop that does not give donations to Planned Parenthood that is preferable, but it is questionable whether my buying a coffee at Starbucks is supporting Planned Parenthood. Most would not see this as implicit support of abortion, even though their CEO is a liberal.
> 
> And it is questionable whether I can even reasonably shop in a way that avoids supporting evil corporations. If a Muslim and a Christian both bake bread...I need not always buy the bread of the Christians when shopping and avoid the muslim bread-baker due to his false religion. When shopping, I merely buy the bread I prefer to taste most of the time. There is a degree of separation between the intent of the purchaser or customer and the producer.
> 
> I believe we ought to campaign for the production of vaccines that do not use cell lines from elective abortions. But for now, if that is all that is available, I don't believe it is sin to use those vaccines already produced.
> 
> President Bush's compromise stance on stem cell research around the year 2000 was a very Christian one I feel that mirrors this issue of vaccines (he limited much stem cell research where it would encourage new abortions to happen in order to procure new cells, but he allowed research using those cells already obtained since they were already obtained and no new abortions would be performed in order to procure said tissue. I guess he figured that we ought to make good use of those cells already obtained since they were available, even if they were obtained in a bad way, rather than throw them away unused).
> 
> I suppose another analogy would be this: Villagers are hungry and someone steals bread. The bread is stolen and obtained through sin. But, if there is no way to give back the bread, might as well eat the bread and take good benefit from a thing obtained through an evil means rather than waste the bread. If I were truly hungry, I feel there is no moral obligation to throw away the stolen bread, but to eat it for your health. In like mannner, vaccinating your kids to keep them healthy, even if the vaccine production was produced under conditions of sin, is okay.
> 
> And also, Merck did not encourage abortions to happen IN ORDER THAT they may make those vaccines...Merck used those cells on hand and seemed to have no motive or push towards performing the abortion. They merely used the products of abortion that were already available.
> 
> And currently, the same is not being done....those cell lines were made long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Perg,

This is like justifying the Dr. Mengele's torture of twins in the name of science. Two wrongs do not make many rights. Pontius Pilate tried to wipe his hands clean, but we know he is being judged for the murder of Jesus. Just because these are saving many lives does not mean we should partake because it MIGHT help prevent disease. 

I am not anti-vaccination. I would use vaccinations. However, I am anti-murder of children no matter what the so-called "benefits" might be. Sacrificing children to Molech for the community is evil no matter how you look at it. Likewise, the ACT that leads to "benefits" is just as important as INTENT.

By the way, the bread analogy is ridiculous since scripture clearly teaches restitution. The bread stolen CAN be returned through the criminals repayment of his crime.


----------



## moral necessity

zachmcdonald said:


> Alright folks, my wife is due Friday and I am looking for info regarding the very heavily debated topic of infant vaccinations. Trying to be wise about making sure my child gets vaccinated if 1. the disease is high risk, still around, and life threatening and 2. the vaccine itself is morally upright. I know there are many vaccines for diseases that are no longer a danger or its a vaccine for a std or something. I also know some vaccines have been created using abortive tissue strands which I would like to stay away from obviously. Any thoughts/insight?



Remember that, if they ever attend public schools or public universities, there are certain vaccination requirements.

For Virginia, they can be found here:

http://www.vdh.state.va.us/epidemiology/immunization/requirements.htm 
http://www.virginia.edu/studenthealth/NSImmunizations.html
http://www.virginia.edu/studenthealth/NSVaccineInfo.html#Required 

Blessings!


----------



## Nate

zachmcdonald said:


> I could not find that specific issue. Would you happen to have a link?



Sorry, I don't. It looks like they don't make recent articles available on their website. There's a good chance they will send you that issue of the magazine if you contact them and ask for it though.


----------



## AThornquist

I hate how certain vaccines are historically associated with aborted children; however, I cannot undo what was done to those little ones, nor are ongoing abortions necessary to maintain the supply of vaccines. Therefore, I have no qualms of conscience when using vaccines historically associated with abortions; if anything, since this is the sad set of circumstances we find ourselves, I want to honor those aborted children by helping prevent the unnecessary death of as many other children as possible.


----------



## Edward

moral necessity said:


> public schools or public universities



Not just public. See, for example, the denominational college of the PCA (PDF). 

Immunization against 7 diseases required, 6 others highly recommended. 

http://www.covenant.edu/docs/consumer/Immunization_Policy.pdf


----------



## Pergamum

Andrew P.C. said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is some info on vaccines and fetal tissues:
> 
> http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where do the vaccine companies get the cells for these vaccines? They get them from companies like Coriell Cell Repositories, 403 Haddon Avenu, Camden, New Jersey 08103, 800-752-3805. This company has many cell lines, which are cultures of self-perpetuating cells. Each culture of cells is continually reproducing, making more cells. Those cells are sold to researchers, drug companies, and other medical technology firms. The specific cell lines used in vaccines are the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines1, and they have been supplying medical research of all types for more than 45 years. Where do these cell lines come from? That's where the grain of truth in this lie comes from. Both of these cell lines were cultured from cells taken from two abortions, one (MRC-5) that was performed in September,19662 and one (WI-38) that was performed in July, 19623.
> 
> The cells that were taken from the two aborted babies more than 35 years ago are much like my loved one's heart. Two innocent babies were killed. However, they were able to donate something that has been used not only to make vaccines, but in many medical research projects over the years. Thus, these cells have been saving millions of lives for almost two generations! Although the babies were clearly murdered, the fact that their cells have been saving lives is at least a silver lining in the dark cloud of their tragic murder.
> 
> It is important to note that Federal law is quite specific in the matter of donated fetal tissue. The law does not allow for an abortion to be performed for the purpose of donating tissue, and the law even explicitly states that the abortion procedure cannot be changed in order to collect the tissue4. It also prohibits the baby's family or the doctor from profiting from the donation5. Thus, these cells were truly donated, just as any organ might be donated. If a person is an organ donor and he or she is murdered, it is not immoral for you to use those organs. Once again, at least something good will come out of the murder if those organs are used.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm
> 
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539
> 
> 
> Here is what I advised someone last week who asked about vaccines and fetal cells:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Catholic Bioethics experts (who are, regrettably, more consistent and informed on "Life Issues" than us Protestants" approves of the use of these vaccines, despite their origins. This is their statement:
> 
> "We should always ask our physician whether the product he proposes for our use has an historical association with abortion," the National Catholic Bioethics Center states on its website, but then goes on to say "one is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion."
> 
> "The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine," the center's position statement continued. "This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Merck MMR vaccine was obtained from "WI-38 human diploid lung fibroblasts," obtained from aborted babies.
> 
> In some cases, there are different producers of vaccines and one might be able to avoid Merck so as not to be associated with the way in which they obtained their ingredients.
> 
> But if not...if one is faced with the choice between the risks of going unvaccinated and using a Merck vaccine, I don't think we are morally commanded to go unvaccinated if we believe it poses risks to our living children.
> 
> I view this issue in the same way as buying groceries or gas from corporations that hold stock in evil enterprises or give to Planned Parenthood. If I can buy my latte from a coffee shop that does not give donations to Planned Parenthood that is preferable, but it is questionable whether my buying a coffee at Starbucks is supporting Planned Parenthood. Most would not see this as implicit support of abortion, even though their CEO is a liberal.
> 
> And it is questionable whether I can even reasonably shop in a way that avoids supporting evil corporations. If a Muslim and a Christian both bake bread...I need not always buy the bread of the Christians when shopping and avoid the muslim bread-baker due to his false religion. When shopping, I merely buy the bread I prefer to taste most of the time. There is a degree of separation between the intent of the purchaser or customer and the producer.
> 
> I believe we ought to campaign for the production of vaccines that do not use cell lines from elective abortions. But for now, if that is all that is available, I don't believe it is sin to use those vaccines already produced.
> 
> President Bush's compromise stance on stem cell research around the year 2000 was a very Christian one I feel that mirrors this issue of vaccines (he limited much stem cell research where it would encourage new abortions to happen in order to procure new cells, but he allowed research using those cells already obtained since they were already obtained and no new abortions would be performed in order to procure said tissue. I guess he figured that we ought to make good use of those cells already obtained since they were available, even if they were obtained in a bad way, rather than throw them away unused).
> 
> I suppose another analogy would be this: Villagers are hungry and someone steals bread. The bread is stolen and obtained through sin. But, if there is no way to give back the bread, might as well eat the bread and take good benefit from a thing obtained through an evil means rather than waste the bread. If I were truly hungry, I feel there is no moral obligation to throw away the stolen bread, but to eat it for your health. In like mannner, vaccinating your kids to keep them healthy, even if the vaccine production was produced under conditions of sin, is okay.
> 
> And also, Merck did not encourage abortions to happen IN ORDER THAT they may make those vaccines...Merck used those cells on hand and seemed to have no motive or push towards performing the abortion. They merely used the products of abortion that were already available.
> 
> And currently, the same is not being done....those cell lines were made long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Perg,
> 
> This is like justifying the Dr. Mengele's torture of twins in the name of science. Two wrongs do not make many rights. Pontius Pilate tried to wipe his hands clean, but we know he is being judged for the murder of Jesus. Just because these are saving many lives does not mean we should partake because it MIGHT help prevent disease.
> 
> I am not anti-vaccination. I would use vaccinations. However, I am anti-murder of children no matter what the so-called "benefits" might be. Sacrificing children to Molech for the community is evil no matter how you look at it. Likewise, the ACT that leads to "benefits" is just as important as INTENT.
> 
> By the way, the bread analogy is ridiculous since scripture clearly teaches restitution. The bread stolen CAN be returned through the criminals repayment of his crime.
Click to expand...


Nah, it does no such thing. I have the same position as the Catholic Bioethicists, who are usually well-thought on these issues. Andrew Thornquist states it better than I do above.


----------



## Abeard

I appreciate your thoughtfulness in this area Zach. Here are some links that shows the other side of the coin (I realize some of these are blogs, but the authors give solid research to back their claims).

http://www.livingwhole.org/category/vaccines-2/
http://vran.org/about-vaccines/vaccine-essentials/vaccination-the-basics/
http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html
http://www.vaccinationinformationnetwork.com/
http://autismrawdata.net/1/post/2013/08/raw-data-measles.html
http://www.thelibertybeacon.com/201...t-out-corruption-in-vaccines-promotion-11498/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EuA4VhhcaBg
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1oYAVLDyR6Y
http://vran.org/ingredients-childhood-vaccines-in-canada/
http://www.ias.org.nz/vaccination-2/101-reasons-to-not-vaccinate-part-1/
http://www.vaccineriskawareness.com/
http://www.nvic.org/
http://www.livingwhole.org/what-you-didnt-know-about-the-aborted-baby-parts-in-your-vaccines/

A question we should consider is, if vaccines are effective, why do so many people fear the person who is not vaccinated? Shouldn't they care less if they run into a non-vaccinated person if they themselves are "protected?" 

Another question to consider is our level of trust we place in the federal government. As a general principal, it seems that in today's world (or for most of human history) the government is untrustworthy and corruption permeates every level. So, if you question your government's involvement in other areas (money, education, security, food, environment) then would you not question the government and its involvement in regards to our health care? I am not trying to make assumptions. Perhaps you and others on here do trust their government more than I do, but if you do not place much trust in your government as a general rule, than I would begin to investigate how trustworthy they are in this area (a place to start on this topic would be to google "CDC whistleblowers")

One other big issue for me was finding out that the companies who manufacture the vaccines cannot have a lawsuit brought against them for damages resulting from side effects of the vaccines (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/supreme...ant-sue-drug-makers-for-kids-health-problems/
). To me that shows there is no accountability. Would you purchase or drive a car manufactured by a company who you knew could never be sued? Would you go to a doctor for treatment if you knew that doctor could not be sued for malpractice?

I am not against all vaccines but I think we need to weigh the pros and the cons carefully and meticulously. Someone who does not vaccinate is taking a risk. But someone who does vaccinate is also taking a risk of the side effects that could occur from injecting this substance. In the end you have to choose the course of action where you feel the risks are fewer than the alternative.


----------



## Pergamum

Alex,



> A question we should consider is, if vaccines are effective, why do so many people fear the person who is not vaccinated? Shouldn't they care less if they run into a non-vaccinated person if they themselves are "protected?"



Research herd immunity.


----------



## Unoriginalname

Abeard said:


> A question we should consider is, if vaccines are effective, why do so many people fear the person who is not vaccinated? Shouldn't they care less if they run into a non-vaccinated person if they themselves are "protected?"



Because we would not like the return of polio or measles as common diseases. We have truly reached an age where people dont appreciate how many children routinely died and were disabled from things that we never even hear about anymore. You also have the issue as Andrew pointed out that certain vaccines can only be given after a child reaches a certain age so by refusing to vaccinate your children you do not only risk your own children becoming ill but the children of others. This paranoia surrounding vaccines is embarrassing


----------



## DeniseM

AThornquist said:


> Therefore, I have no qualms of conscience when using vaccines historically associated with abortions;


We're told not to ask where our meat comes from, for conscience's sake, but if we know that it is offered to idols we are to refuse to eat. How then are we allowed to knowingly inject ourselves or our children with vaccines that were produce using the tissues of murdered children? I never can seem to wrap my mind around that one.


----------



## KMK

I remember someone older than myself ( I don't remember who) saying, if you don't vaccinate your children against measles you probably have never seen a child die of measles.


----------



## lynnie

We had friends in Latvia right after the USSR collapsed. Trade was disrupted and it took a couple years to start getting vaccinations from the west instead of Russia. It did not take long for outbreaks of polio and diptheria to begin. Babies died.

You don't need to get chicken pox and Hep B, but I would get the classic basics, and get them spread out on an old fashioned schedule, even if it means more visits to the doctor.

I hope your wife intends to nurse the child. A great deal of immunity is conferred by nursing. 

Keep in mind that back during epidemics, say polio, often in one family you could have three kids, one with a fever but recovering fine, one with leg paralysis, and one who dies. Human immunity is a mystery. It is my opinion that kids who get autism from a vaccination probably would have been the ones who died from the disease itself. If they react so badly to inactivated virus, how would they fare with the real thing?


----------



## lynnie

This is from snopes, so should be accurate:

http://www.snopes.com/politics/medical/pepsi.asp

If you drink Pepsi, and possibly other major food brands, you are most likely ingesting flavoring additives derived from an old aborted cell line, same as vaccines. Snopes was not able to get direct replies from the companies but I read elsewhere (don't feel like looking for reputable links) that it is certain that Nestle and Pepsi and Coke are all using this stuff. At some point you just need to beg God for mercy on being part of an entire corrupt system, and maybe focus on stopping current day abortions.

From a strictly medical point of view, I would think vaccines grown on human tissue are far safer than those grown on animals, where you actually inject animal materials into a person. Horowitz wrote the definitive work on all the monkey viruses they didn't know about when they made polio vaccine back in the 50s, and some may be carcinogenic. Those are the ones I got.....


----------



## Edward

lynnie said:


> You don't need to get chicken pox



I understand that shingles can be quite unpleasant in older folks.


----------



## lynnie

Well yeah, if I was an adult who never had chicken pox I might study up on this and get the vacc. I know CP can be very hard for adults who never had it as a child. But OP is having a baby. Does the new baby need a CP right away? 

Even whooping couch is back for people that got vaccinated. I wonder if more resistant strains are coming in with immigrants. It really is vital to do all you can to keep your immunity up. Make your kids run around and not sit in front of electronic screens all day. Go organic if possible, cut out the junk food. And definitely nurse a baby.


----------



## Edward

lynnie said:


> if I was an adult who never had chicken pox I might study up on this and get the vacc.



You have it backwards. You need the shingles vaccination if you DID have chicken pox. That's why it's good to vaccinate children. Those of us who came along before the chicken pox vaccine was available (and were infected) have the choice of the shingles vaccine or the risk of a painful session with shingles. And the retail price for the vaccine is on the high side. ($300-350).


----------



## AltogetherLovely

If you want a chill up your spine, check out the Federal Register, Volume 49 No. 107, published Friday June 1, 1984. 21 CFR Part 630. Additional Standards for Viral Vaccines, Polio Virus Vaccine, Live, Oral.

There, you will find this gem of scientific and medical integrity:

"However, although the continued availability of the vaccine may not be in immediate jeopardy, *any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist* in view of the need to assure that the vaccine will continue to used to the maximum extent consistent with the nation's public health objectives." (bold is mine)

With stuff like that from the FDA, does anyone really have to wonder where the anti-vaccination movement comes from? "Whether or not well-founded" gives me shivers every time I read it.

Now, after extensive research into the primary literature (that is, the studies in professional journals), we have gone with a slightly delayed and spaced out vaccine schedule for our children. However, that is really just a punt. I can't do the cost/benefit analysis because the data we have just aren't any good. The methods are always sketchy, and the statistical analysis almost always draws conclusions far beyond what the data actually support. Confounding variables are ignored, or pushed away with the wave of a hand.

I'm not convinced that vaccines are safe regarding autism or other neurological problems. I'm also not necessarily convinced that they are major contributors. My suspicion is that there is an effect of some kind, but that's about all I can say. But, that's just a suspicion, more of a hint from the data instead of a conclusion. 

On the question of aborted babies and vaccines, I think the Catholic resources listed previously are very good.


----------



## Unoriginalname

AltogetherLovely said:


> With stuff like that from the FDA, does anyone really have to wonder where the anti-vaccination movement comes from?



Yeah it mostly comes from a doctor who purposely made false claims in hopes of launching a class action suit for millions. It also comes from people who have no concept of medicine constantly posting things that basically say "I have a bad feeling about this." This nonsense can only fly because most people here have never seen someone die of the diseases we have nearly done away with in the west due to vaccination


----------



## KMK

Unoriginalname said:


> This nonsense can only fly because most people here have never seen someone die of the diseases we have nearly done away with in the west due to vaccination



I received my measles inoculation (that's what it was called in those days) in the late 60s, and I distinctly remember the joy and relief upon my mother's face.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

I understand that some vaccines have their value especially against diseases that have high mortality rates, but I think it's a bit hypocritical to say those who oppose vaccines in any way are using fear mongering tactics. The pro vaccine advocates are definitely using fear tactics, just reread some of the posts in this thread. I'm not against all vaccines but can somebody tell me why it's imperative that I vaccinate my new born child for Hepatitis B?


----------



## Edward

Fogetaboutit said:


> why it's imperative that I vaccinate my new born child for Hepatitis B?


Sloppy nursing and the baby in the next crib being infected. In a few years some infected kid at the mothers day out program skins his knee, and your child has a skin break....


----------



## Pergamum

I believe it is a tribute to western medicine and the effectiveness of vaccinations that so many people have so quickly forgotten the epidemic-level fear of diseases like polio in our own recent past as a nation. Parents wouldn't even let their kids go swim at the public pool due to polio fears. 

Now, on the other hand, people have the luxury of being afraid of the very small percentage of folks that experience reactions or ill effects from these vaccinations which prevent these large-scale epidemics. 

The anti-vax movement is, in a way, proof of vaccination's effectiveness. 

Sort of like the reason we don't see uproar over gluten-free food or peanut allergies in Third-World Countries where a quarter of the population is starving..... 

Anti-vax-induced fear is a concern that we can afford to exercise...because of the success of vaccinations.

http://www.plosin.com/beatbegins/projects/sokol.html

http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2012/10/16/162670836/wiping-out-polio-how-the-u-s-snuffed-out-a-killer

http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/blog/polio-and-swimming-pools-historical-connections


----------



## Abeard

In response to the responses on herd immunity--here is my question: If herd immunity requires roughly 95% to be effective and protect the unprotected 5%, how does one get around the fact that millions of Americans are not up-to-date on their booster shots--not by a long shot (no pun intended haha). If they are not up-to-date on boosters, it means their immunity is compromised--are we really at a 95% rate? I'd say we are far far far below that. Using conventional pro-vaccine wisdom, we should be seeing these diseases sky rocket back, not the few hundred tops we see here and there. 


To follow up a question I posed earlier, here is a documented source that reveals outright lies told by the CDC regarding the link between vaccines and autism: http://truthinmedia.com/reality-check-cdc-scientist-admits-data-of-vaccines-and-autism-was-trashed/ This is one of many examples of the corruption. This news came through a mainstream media outlet.

A very insightful documentary is called "The Greater Good." You can watch it here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_nWp6ZHA2Q


----------



## Edward

Abeard said:


> how does one get around the fact that millions of Americans are not up-to-date on their booster shots--not by a long shot



Got a link to statistics on this?

And do you have any understanding as to how vaccination works? 

And do you have any understanding on how herd immunity works? 

Here's a quick, easy read that discusses issues you've ignored as to herd immunity.

"The magnitude of the indirect effect of vaccine-derived immunity is a function of the transmissibility of the infectious agent, the nature of the immunity induced by the vaccine, the pattern of mixing and infection transmission in populations, and the distribution of the vaccine—and, more importantly, of immunity—in the population. "

http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/52/7/911.full


----------



## OPC'n

If I were going to be a parent, I would do research as to what they put into the vaccines and let that be my deciding factor. Do they put harmful things into any of the vaccines or don't they? I know they put mercury into the flu shot which is highly cancerous. If I weren't force to get it at work, I wouldn't get it. I and my sisters didn't get some of our childhood vaccines, we got some of the disease, lived through it, and built up an immunity to those diseases naturally. In the end, you have to do the research yourself and decide for yourself. Don't take anyone else's advice but your own and that of your wife...they are *your* children.


----------



## AltogetherLovely

> Now, on the other hand, people have the luxury of being afraid of the very small percentage of folks that experience reactions or ill effects from these vaccinations which prevent these large-scale epidemics.



How do you know it's a very small percentage? Has there been a large-scale, long-term study (or any study at all) comparing the health outcomes of vaccinated and unvaccinated populations with similar demographics and lifestyles? How do you know what is or isn't affected by vaccination?


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Edward said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> why it's imperative that I vaccinate my new born child for Hepatitis B?
> 
> 
> 
> Sloppy nursing and the baby in the next crib being infected. In a few years some infected kid at the mothers day out program skins his knee, and your child has a skin break....
Click to expand...


I understand some of the risks, I'm just a bit weary of giving vaccines to a baby coming out of the womb, especially when the dosage is the same as for adults. My wife and I have our hepatitis vaccines and I'm not saying we will not eventually give them to our children.





On an other note I believe there's an issues with some people in the medical field who overreact to people being cautious about certain vaccines. My wife was accused of being an unfit mother by doctors and nurses for refusing to take certain vaccines during her pregnancy. 

I certainly value professional opinions of people in the medical field but I reserve the right to make my own decision and I do not appreciate being disrespected when I choose to go against their suggestions. My family doctor worked at the obstetric clinics for many years and when we decided to wait before administering certain vaccines for our child he said he respected our decision and was also not convinced about the safety of vaccines on young infants especially with the amount being administered before the age of 2 nowadays. So it's not just social media hype. 

We might not be able to prove without doubts that vaccines can cause neurological issues but we also cannot disprove it. I think common sense can be applied. We have friends who have a young boy who had convulsions within an hour after receiving his vaccines, this happened at least 4 times that I know about. Now some might say it only a coincidence but my common sense tells me otherwise. I don't need to have medical proof to deduces that when somebody is vomiting after ingesting a pint of whiskey within 10 minutes that the vomiting was cause by the ingested alcohol. The fact that some people might be able to ingest a pint of whiskey in the same amount of time without vomiting does not change the fact it did cause it for this other person.

PS: I was not responding to any post on this thread in particular, I was just sharing my experience and point of view on the subject.


----------



## AltogetherLovely

> We might not be able to prove without doubts that vaccines can cause neurological issues but we also cannot disprove it.



There are very simple ways to come to a pretty good certainty about it. We just won't do it.


----------



## Pergamum

Herd-immunity and the rise of previously beaten illnesses (like measles):

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/health360/posts/2015/02/06-measles-vaccines-mmr-herd-immunity-antivaxxers-patel



> Despite being declared eliminated from the United States in 2000, a recent Disneyland-centered measles outbreak has since spread to 14 states and may be responsible for an estimated 102 reported cases. This alarming resurgence has once again brought the safety and effectiveness of vaccines to the forefront of national debate.



If vaccines show improved public health, even if there is slight danger to the individual, then vaccination is not merely a public health or legal issue, but a "love thy neighbor" and 6th commandment issue.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-anti-vaccination-trends-vex-herd-immunity-1423241871



> Last year, in seven states and Washington, D.C., fewer than 90% of kindergartners were vaccinated for measles, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Colorado, at 81.7%, had the lowest percentage. Mississippi, at 99.7%, had the largest portion of kindergarten students immunized.
> 
> Measles was declared eliminated in the U.S. in 2000, but cases continue to be imported by unvaccinated travelers and spread to others. Last year, 644 cases were diagnosed in the country. California has confirmed 99 cases since an outbreak started there in December, and the CDC reports the disease has spread to 13 other states.
> 
> Even when a large number of people are vaccinated against a disease like measles, immunity is never 100%.
> 
> For example, the CDC recommends all children get two doses of the measles vaccine, one at 12 to 15 months of age and another at 4 to 6 years of age. A single dose is about 93% effective; two doses are about 97% effective. So even people who have gotten the vaccine need the protection provided by the herd to minimize their odds of contracting the disease.



http://www.iflscience.com/health-and-medicine/herd-immunity-and-measles-why-we-should-aim-100-vaccination-coverage

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/03/measles-us-facts_n_6581922.html



> But a series of stumbling blocks -- notably, a fraudulent and discredited 1998 study linking vaccinations to the onset of autism -- set vaccination rates back in certain communities in the U.S. The backsliding has resulted in several measles outbreaks in the past year in a country that had already declared measles defeated.



http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/05/health/la-he-vaccines-herd-immunity-20110801



> In addition to the rise in whooping cough, the CDC has received reports of 12 outbreaks of measles this year that have sickened more than 170 people, the highest number since 1996. One cluster involved 21 people in a Minnesota community that included many children who skipped the MMR vaccine for measles, mumps and rubella because their parents had doubts about its safety, the CDC says.
> 
> "This is an ominous trend in our country," says Dr. James Campbell, a pediatrician in Golden, Colo.
> 
> Doctors know they will never be able to vaccinate everybody against every disease. Infants may be too young for some vaccinations. People with compromised immune systems due to an illness or chemotherapy treatment may have to skip shots as well. But as long as most members of a group are vaccinated, the protection extends to the few who aren't.
> 
> Herd immunity is "like a moat around a castle," says Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children's Hospital of Philadelphia. "The more and more people you immunize, the more difficult it is for the virus or bacteria to spread."
> 
> The existence of herd immunity is well established in scientific and medical literature.
> 
> After American children began receiving the pneumococcal conjugate vaccine in 2000, for instance, the incidence of pneumococcus caused by the strains of bacteria in the vaccine fell by 55% among adults ages 50 and older, a group that didn't even get the vaccine, according to a 2005 study in the Journal of the American Medical Assn. In another example, after the vaccination rate for rotavirus reached 50% of U.S. children in 2007, the number of rotavirus cases in kids fell 87%, according to a report in Clinical and Vaccine Immunology.
> 
> On the flip side, a 2008 study found that clusters of non-medical exemptions from vaccination played a significant role in the whooping cough outbreaks that have flared up in the U.S. over the last two decades. "Geographic pockets of vaccine exemptors pose a risk to the whole community," researchers concluded in the American Journal of Epidemiology.
> 
> Experts are watching the same pattern play out with measles. Every year, several dozen people arrive in the U.S. from Europe carrying the virus that causes the disease. Until 2008, "we never had outbreaks because a critical number of children was vaccinated" and they provided "a wall of immunity," Offit says. Now, with more American parents declining to have their children immunized, the virus is able to find a foothold and spread. "That wall is breaking down," he says.
> 
> The threshold for achieving herd immunity varies from disease to disease and depends on how easily it spreads. For measles, experts believe that 92% to 95% of children must be vaccinated to maintain herd immunity. The spread of polio was virtually eliminated in the U.S. once about 70% of the population got the polio vaccine. And Haemophilus influenzae Type b, or Hib, a bacterial disease that can cause meningitis, pneumonia, septic arthritis and a life-threatening swelling of the windpipe called epiglottitis, is largely controlled when about 85% of children are immunized.


----------



## OPC'n

[video=youtube;q62DcaNs_0M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q62DcaNs_0M[/video]


----------



## Pergamum

AltogetherLovely said:


> We might not be able to prove without doubts that vaccines can cause neurological issues but we also cannot disprove it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are very simple ways to come to a pretty good certainty about it. We just won't do it.
Click to expand...


*Proof vaccines don't cause autism:*

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/autism.html

http://thinkprogress.org/health/2015/04/22/3650089/massive-study-autism-vaccine/

http://www.realclearscience.com/2015/04/21/vaccines_amp_autism_study_is_nail_in_the_coffin_264377.html

https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/new-meta-analysis-confirms-no-association-between-vaccines-and-autism



> Analysis of 10 studies involving more than 1.2 million children reaffirms that vaccines don’t cause autism





> A meta-analysis combines and analyzes the results of multiple, earlier studies. By increasing the size of the sample – in this case to 1,266,327 children –scientists can generate more accurate conclusions than would be possible with a single study.
> 
> “This analysis provides further confirmation for a lack of association between vaccines and autism that the broader healthcare community has understood and embraced for some time,” ...


----------



## Pergamum

This study addresses the "Too many, too soon" concern about vaccinations: https://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-addresses-%E2%80%98too-many-too-soon%E2%80%99-vaccine-concerns



> The researchers analyzed the vaccination and medical records of more than a thousand children in three managed care organizations. They totaled each child’s exposure to the immune-stimulating compounds, or antigens, in vaccines up to age 2. (Vaccines vary in the amount of antigens they contain.) The researchers also totaled the maximum exposure to vaccine antigens that each child received in any single day. They then tracked the children’s development through at least age 6.
> 
> They found no link between increased risk of autism spectrum disorder (ASD) and higher exposures to vaccine antigens in the first two years of life or on any one day. More specifically, they looked for associations with regressive autism. This subtype of autism involves the development and later loss of early language skills. Here, too, they found no association with increased early exposure to the immune-stimulating compounds in vaccines.
> 
> “This study adds to the existing epidemiological studies showing no link between vaccines and autism,” noted Chief Science Officer Geri Dawson, PhD.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Pergamum said:


> If vaccines show improved public health, even if there is slight danger to the individual, then vaccination is not merely a public health or legal issue, but a "love thy neighbor" and 6th commandment issue.



I think we should be careful before invoking the 10 commandments in this discussion, if somebody showed statistics of decreased murder cases in areas where gun confiscation is in place and invoked the 6th commandment as an argument to disarm the population how would you respond?


----------



## Pergamum

OPC'n said:


> [video=youtube;q62DcaNs_0M]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q62DcaNs_0M[/video]



http://www.snopes.com/medical/disease/cdcwhistleblower.asp

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Concerns/Autism/cdc2004pediatrics.html

http://www.morganverkamp.com/august-27-2014-press-release-statement-of-william-w-thompson-ph-d-regarding-the-2004-article-examining-the-possibility-of-a-relationship-between-mmr-vaccine-and-autism/



> I regret that my coauthors and I omitted statistically significant information in our 2004 article published in the journal Pediatrics. The omitted data suggested that African American males who received the MMR vaccine before age 36 months were at increased risk for autism. Decisions were made regarding which findings to report after the data were collected, and I believe that the final study protocol was not followed.
> 
> I want to be absolutely clear that I believe vaccines have saved and continue to save countless lives. I would never suggest that any parent avoid vaccinating children of any race. Vaccines prevent serious diseases, and the risks associated with their administration are vastly outweighed by their individual and societal benefits.


----------



## Pergamum

Fogetaboutit said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> If vaccines show improved public health, even if there is slight danger to the individual, then vaccination is not merely a public health or legal issue, but a "love thy neighbor" and 6th commandment issue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think we should be careful before invoking the 10 commandments in this discussion, if somebody showed statistics of decreased murder cases in areas where gun confiscation is in place and invoked the 6th commandment as an argument to disarm the population how would you respond?
Click to expand...


When you endanger others through unwise actions, this is a moral issue. We should not ignore the moral implications of public health.


----------



## AltogetherLovely

Pergamum, none of those are new to me and, while many of them have yielded interesting details or phenomena, they cannot ultimately be stretched far enough to reach their conclusions.

I admit my question was rhetorical. There are no studies that have compared unvaccinated populations to vaccinated populations that are otherwise similar, with regard to autism. And, the things that need to be studied are not limited to neurological disorders.

When you come up with something new, the first logical step is to look at what happened to the people who took it, and what happened to those who didn't. We have purposefully avoided doing that.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Pergamum said:


> When you endanger others through unwise actions, this is a moral issue. We should not ignore the moral implications of public health.



So if you have firearms in your house, is it not a risk that somebody might steal them to commit murder. This sounds like extreme left arguments, if the truth is obvious let it speak for itself but this is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is, at least for some of us. But to accuse me of sin by breaking the 6th commandment (which technically should mean that I should be liable to church discipline) is a bit exaggerating to say the least, and I don't think it has it's place in such discussion.


----------



## Pergamum

Fogetaboutit said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you endanger others through unwise actions, this is a moral issue. We should not ignore the moral implications of public health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you have firearms in your house, is it not a risk that somebody might steal them to commit murder. This sounds like extreme left arguments, if the truth is obvious let it speak for itself but this is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is, at least for some of us. But to accuse me of sin by breaking the 6th commandment (which technically should mean that I should be liable to church discipline) is a bit exaggerating to say the least, and I don't think it has it's place in such discussion.
Click to expand...


If you have firearms and don't lock them up, you are definitely at fault and immoral for endangering toddlers if those toddlers come to harm. Just like the railing-on-rooftops-law in the OT. You are morally obligated not to endanger others if you can help it and you are morally guilty for endangering the health of others if there are safeguards that you refuse to implement. Just like the laws quarantining the sick in the OT. 

If you were put under quarantine (like the ebola lady last year) and snuck out of your house while on quarantine, this is immoral. 

Again, public health decisions have moral implications.


----------



## Fogetaboutit

Pergamum said:


> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you endanger others through unwise actions, this is a moral issue. We should not ignore the moral implications of public health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you have firearms in your house, is it not a risk that somebody might steal them to commit murder. This sounds like extreme left arguments, if the truth is obvious let it speak for itself but this is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is, at least for some of us. But to accuse me of sin by breaking the 6th commandment (which technically should mean that I should be liable to church discipline) is a bit exaggerating to say the least, and I don't think it has it's place in such discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have firearms and don't lock them up, you are definitely at fault and immoral for endangering toddlers if those toddlers come to harm. Just like the railing-on-rooftops-law in the OT. You are morally obligated not to endanger others if you can help it and you are morally guilty for endangering the health of others if there are safeguards that you refuse to implement. Just like the laws quarantining the sick in the OT.
> 
> If you were put under quarantine (like the ebola lady last year) and snuck out of your house while on quarantine, this is immoral.
> 
> Again, public health decisions have moral implications.
Click to expand...


Would I also breaking the 6th commandment if I was eating a peanut butter sandwich in public?


----------



## johnny

Vacinations are still voluntary so the ethical implications are subject to conscience.

I would not feel I was breaking the 6th commandment if I had strong reasons to suspect
that I was putting a child in danger, problem is, I don't have that strong reason. 

So for myself, the 6th commandment does apply. (but for others it may not) 

Has Edwards been mentioned yet? 
I wonder what he would think after his experience with early vacines.


----------



## johnny

On reflection,

I don't think the 6th commandment applies. (what was I thinking?)
Its more appropriate to use the Great Commandment in this instance


----------



## Abeard

Stat for American adults not up to date with vaccinations: http://www.foxnews.com/health/2014/02/07/cdc-adult-vaccination-rates-are-drastically-low.html

As for my understanding of how vaccines work, I found this helpful: http://www.vaccinedecision.info/cgi-bin/viewcontent.cgi?article_id=18

As for my general understanding of vaccines and their side effects, as well as "herd immunity", these links may prove useful to anyone interested in credible sources: 

General Articles with Many Links to Studies

Less allergies and asthma in unvaccinated children
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15805992

German study showing unvaxed kids are healthier
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/

Unvaxed children who are they and where do they live?
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15231927

Regressive Autism and Heavy Metals
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3364648/

Studies and explanations.
http://therefurbishedrogue.wordpress.com/2013/05/03/my-list-of-peer-reviewed-vaccine-research/

A collection of peer reviewed studies
http://www.educate4theinjured.org/#!the-factsscience/cc2d/

Overuse of vaccines overcomes natural autoimmunity and creates autoimmune- disorders Japanese study
http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0008382

Repeated immunization with antigen causes systemic autoimmunity in mice otherwise not prone to spontaneous autoimmune diseases
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2795160/


----------



## timfost

Perg,

Just a gentle encouragement to not go too far to an extreme, accusing of breaking the 6th commandment when someone does not choose to vaccinate or does not get all the recommended vaccinations. I think it would be wise to speak about this a little less emphatically.

I understand your position and respect it. As I explained earlier, I have first-hand experience to approach vaccines with caution and weigh both sides of the equation.

You may continue to provide evidence supporting your convictions, but to me, my sister is a person, not a statistic.


----------



## Pergamum

Fogetaboutit said:


> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fogetaboutit said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pergamum said:
> 
> 
> 
> When you endanger others through unwise actions, this is a moral issue. We should not ignore the moral implications of public health.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if you have firearms in your house, is it not a risk that somebody might steal them to commit murder. This sounds like extreme left arguments, if the truth is obvious let it speak for itself but this is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is, at least for some of us. But to accuse me of sin by breaking the 6th commandment (which technically should mean that I should be liable to church discipline) is a bit exaggerating to say the least, and I don't think it has it's place in such discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you have firearms and don't lock them up, you are definitely at fault and immoral for endangering toddlers if those toddlers come to harm. Just like the railing-on-rooftops-law in the OT. You are morally obligated not to endanger others if you can help it and you are morally guilty for endangering the health of others if there are safeguards that you refuse to implement. Just like the laws quarantining the sick in the OT.
> 
> If you were put under quarantine (like the ebola lady last year) and snuck out of your house while on quarantine, this is immoral.
> 
> Again, public health decisions have moral implications.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Would I also breaking the 6th commandment if I was eating a peanut butter sandwich in public?
Click to expand...


Ha.... if I knowingly fed my friend shrimp sauce when I knew he couldn't breathe afterwards, I suppose this would fit as a 6th Cmdmnt violation I suppose exposing folks to violent reactions to peanuts could also fit the bill if you knew you were to be in a crowded room with folks who had a severe problem. 

I suppose ignorance serves somewhat as a shield against immorality if I was eating shrimp next to a violently allergic person and didn't know it. But if I knew they suffered reactions if exposed to shrimp, and I worked closely next to them, I would think there would be kindness involved (and some level of moral weight) to decisions about whether to bring shrimp again to work when working the same shift as this person and eating next to them.

If you knowingly endanger somebody else, you are sinning.


----------



## Pergamum

timfost said:


> Perg,
> 
> Just a gentle encouragement to not go too far to an extreme, accusing of breaking the 6th commandment when someone does not choose to vaccinate or does not get all the recommended vaccinations. I think it would be wise to speak about this a little less emphatically.
> 
> I understand your position and respect it. As I explained earlier, I have first-hand experience to approach vaccines with caution and weigh both sides of the equation.
> 
> You may continue to provide evidence supporting your convictions, but to me, my sister is a person, not a statistic.



Tim:

I believe it would be a good idea to keep the question of morality as part of this discussion since it concerns public health: (1) Public health decisions have moral implications. Some private or family decisions impact neighbors and the society at large (2) Knowingly exposing your sick or unvaccinated kids to the general vaccinated population increases the chances of sickening others. (3) large groups of unvaccinated kids together increase the risks of renewed cases of measles, etc., and lowers herd immunity (4) Knowingly endangering others (or possibly endangering others), or refusing legitimate safeguards or actions which serve to protect others, all have moral implications. 

If your church taught against vaccines and I put my vaccinated kids in services with the many unvaccinated kids that inhabit some churches, and my kids got sick due to decreased herd immunity...I believe there is a moral element involved. My kids were exposed because of you. You have compromised my safety and the safety of my children. It is similar (though not the same) as if your child was enrolled in a daycare and you knowingly admitted your child to daycare even though the child had the flu. 

There is a moral element involved, whether you take offense or not and whether the danger is very great or just medium. You have decreased my safety somewhat. Therefore, there is that question concerning the morality of decreasing someone else's safety somewhat. 

If 10 million parents decided not to vaccinate their children, then rates of disease would sky-rocket. Children would then die unnecessarily. That is unethical if you were part of the cause.

We may disagree as to the DEGREE in which there is a moral element to this debate (especially since there are other factors involved, such as those Merck vaccines created from those cell lines procured from those two past abortions several decades ago). But I assert that there is some moral element involved in public health debates, because we share a society and your actions impact the lives of others. 

It is, therefore, permissible to discuss this topic's moral and ethical implications. The ethics of both vaccinating as well as refusing to vaccinate should remain as part of this discussion.

Ironically, both sides of this debate could assert that there are possible 6th Commandment violations at play for the other side, both (1) if we view vaccines created from cell lines first procured through the use of aborted embryos, as well as (2) if we support actions which publicly endanger the herd immunity of others by refusing to be vaccinated. I have researched this topic not only because my wife was in public health, but also because there is no escaping the ethical implications of this issue. It is not merely a menu choice like Coke or Pizza or a matter of taste or preference....whatever you choose to do impacts others and has ethical ramifications. We might as well admit that this questions involves ethics and how we love others.

Even if some studies proved (which they don't seem to) that vaccinations increase the autism rate, there is still the question of "In a shared society, do these slight individual risks to my child outweigh the larger societal benefits of mass immunity and mass vaccination?" I would say that if you asked parents in the 30s, 40s and 1950's this question as it pertained to polio, they would almost 100% agree that any risks posed by polio vaccines were worth it if it meant that the scourge of polio could be stopped.

http://www.everydayhealth.com/columns/health-answers/why-unethical-opt-out-measles-vaccination-your-child/


----------



## Pergamum

johnny said:


> Vacinations are still voluntary so the ethical implications are subject to conscience.
> 
> I would not feel I was breaking the 6th commandment if I had strong reasons to suspect
> that I was putting a child in danger, problem is, I don't have that strong reason.
> 
> So for myself, the 6th commandment does apply. (but for others it may not)
> 
> Has Edwards been mentioned yet?
> I wonder what he would think after his experience with early vacines.



John,

You stated, "


> Vacinations are still voluntary so the ethical implications are subject to conscience.


.

Do you believe that if the State required vaccinations this would remove the ethical questions for us? How would we treat this topic differently if the Gov't required as a law for us to get certain vaccinations? I believe one candidate, Ben Carson, proposes precisely that. 

An analogy: When I was younger I had friends who claimed (based on bad science) that seat belts were dangerous because, sometimes, they trapped the person or pinned them in a dangerous position if the car rolled a certain way. Therefore, this person always refused to wear seat-belts (due to a claimed concern over his safety). Now that more studies have shown the efficacy of seatbelts and now that seatbelt laws are passed, many people would assert that refusing to wear a seatbelt might be immoral, in the very least because it breaks a law, but also because it endangers the driver. At what point did my friend's action of always refusing to wear a seatbelt become immoral (if ever at all)?

About J. Edwards: Yes, he died from a botched early inoculation. His willingness to undergo this risk for the furtherance of science and the safety of later generations is very commendable, don't you think?


----------



## timfost

Perg,

Although I understand your points, I still think you are getting into subjective territory. For example, is it morally wrong to drive somewhere for recreation since I _could_ get into an accident? Is it immoral to drive an SUV when I _could_ drive something that produces less greenhouse gases, thus reducing pollutants that harm lungs and the environment? 

Should I rebuke my parents for under-vaccinating some of my siblings (as they deal with a child whose epilepsy is likely from a vaccine), citing a violation of the 6th commandment?

I think if you slow down a little and consider the implications of your assertions, you would be less dogmatic in your presentation.


----------



## timfost

zachmcdonald said:


> Alright folks, my wife is due Friday and I am looking for info regarding the very heavily debated topic of infant vaccinations. Trying to be wise about making sure my child gets vaccinated if 1. the disease is high risk, still around, and life threatening and 2. the vaccine itself is morally upright. I know there are many vaccines for diseases that are no longer a danger or its a vaccine for a std or something. I also know some vaccines have been created using abortive tissue strands which I would like to stay away from obviously. Any thoughts/insight?



This is probably more than you bargained for, huh?


----------



## Pergamum

timfost said:


> Perg,
> 
> Although I understand your points, I still think you are getting into subjective territory. For example, is it morally wrong to drive somewhere for recreation since I _could_ get into an accident? Is it immoral to drive an SUV when I _could_ drive something that produces less greenhouse gasses, thus reducing pollutants that harm lungs and the environment?
> 
> Should I rebuke my parents for under-vaccinating some of my siblings (as they deal with a child whose epilepsy is likely from a vaccine), citing a violation of the 6th commandment?
> 
> I think if you slow down a little and consider the implications of your assertions, you would be less dogmatic in your presentation.



Tim:

How about this for a compromise then: "This issue has moral implications. We are undecided how much or what exactly those implication are....but these decisions are not merely matters of taste but involve ethics and morality?"

As to your question about recreation: I believe base-jumping or jumping off the Alps in one of those flying-squirrel suits is unethical because of the high level of risk involved. For that reason, I have tried to avoid circus acts where the tightrope walkers go "net-less" because introducing a high level of needless danger into your life appears to be a 6th Commandment violation? Do you agree? 

If SUVs were shown to be a high contributor to gases and gases were shown to be a high factor in bad health, I believe driving an SUV would be a matter of morality. Like vaccines, that topic is a matter of studies and questions about the credibility of the authorities involved in those studies. I believe knowingly ruining the environment is great sin. 

One recent issue of questionable morality has been second-hand smoke. Many people now believe second-hand smoke is harmful and some have produced studies that might prove the dangers of second-hand smoke. Recently the US government passed laws against parents smoking in the car with their small children subjected to the smoke. If second-hand smoke is harmful to those around you, then, indeed, it seems immoral to smoke in a closed car with your kids choking in the backseat. 

Should we rebuke our parents for smoking Pall Malls like chimneys? Our grandparents? I believe there was less knowledge in the 1940's and 1950s about the dangers of smoking, but I still believe there is an element of morality there. Many of our paents smoked like chimneys until their second heart attacks, long into the 1970's and 1980's when it became clear the smoking was unhealthy.

I am sorry to hear that you have a family member with epilepsy that is possibly from a vaccine. For this reason, I can see why there might be some passion in your views about vaccinations. I will try to be less dogmatic, even as I assert that morality is part of this discussion.


----------



## timfost

Pergamum said:


> I am sorry to hear that you have a family member with epilepsy that is possibly from a vaccine. For this reason, I can see why there might be some passion in your views about vaccinations. I will try to be less dogmatic, even as I assert that morality is part of this discussion.



Thank you. It's one thing to say that for you and your family, the 6th commandment informs your decision. It's another thing to assert that everyone else that doesn't see it your way has compromised morality.


----------



## Edward

Abeard said:


> As for my understanding of how vaccines work, I found this helpful:



Written by a chiropractor, not a medical doctor, osteopath, or nurse. 



Abeard said:


> Unvaxed children who are they and where do they live?



Quite useful. Stay away from poor blacks. And maybe Mormons. And avoid the following states if unvaccinated:

California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, and Michigan. 



> Regressive Autism and Heavy Metals



If autism isn't caused by putting mercury into the vaccines, it must be caused by taking mercury out of the vaccines. "Although the withdrawal of mercury from vaccines has not resulted in an overall decline in the occurrence of autism this does not mean that the problem does not lie with thimerosal[243,263]. It may indicate that the problem is associated with the elimination of mercury_ " 

Well. that really sheds a lot of light on the problem, doesn't it?



> Studies and explanations



Now, what was my first comment on the thread?



I may get around to looking at some of the others, or I may not.


----------



## dog8food

Here is a response from my healthcare provider if it helps (which I'm sure it will just add to the confusion)

*Do you believe in vaccinations ?*

"No, not at all. They have never been proven to work to begin with. The whole claim of proof is that smallpox was eradicated by vaccinations. But various viral outbreaks for which no vaccines exist have died out on their own accord. Look at the Ebola, Marburg's and Lassa fever outbreaks in Africa in the late 70s. Interesting thing is that all of these outbreaks and the appearance of AIDS all coincided with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Expanded Program on immunization (EPI). When the vaccinations were halted the Ebola, Marburg's and Lassa fever outbreaks all died out on their own. It should also be noted that the WHO had been warned several times previously that their vaccines were contaminated with live viruses but failed to do anything about the problem. They also reported in their own journal that they were going to produce man-made viruses that would selectively destroy the immune system then introduce them during routine vaccinations in humans. The documentation for this can be found in the Bull WHO 1972 and the Fed Proc 1972. This is not the only case of vaccines being contaminated. Another great example are the polio vaccines given to 90 million Americans in the 50s and 60s that were contaminated with simian virus type 40 (SV40), which causes a number of cancers in humans.

There are also the facts that you can still get the same diseases you are vaccinated for and diseases for which vaccines exist are on the rise, such as mumps.

My biggest concern with vaccines is the risk that they can lead to superviruses. Viruses can mutate through several mechanisms. One of these is through the incorporation of other viral coats in to their own viral coat in which the virus takes on properties of both viruses. Since vaccines can contain either live viruses or viral coats vaccines can in theory provide sources for mutation of viruses within the body."

*Are they maybe linked to Autism?*

"I personally think there is strong evidence as to many cases of autism. Rates of autism did increase dramatically when vaccines were made mandatory. And the brains of infants and young children would be more susceptible to the mercury in vaccines. Furthermore, if there was no basis for this then why did the medical establishment lie stating that there was no difference when the mercury was taken out the vaccines? The part they left out was that the mercury source, Thimerosal, was only removed from a few, not all, vaccines. Therefore, if there was really no link then they should have removed the mercury from all vaccines to show there was no change in rates if this was really the case. The fact that they deliberately mislead the public says a whole lot that they know more than they are saying in my opinion."


----------



## Edward

dog8food said:


> healthcare provider



What kind of health care provider?


----------



## dog8food

Edward said:


> dog8food said:
> 
> 
> 
> healthcare provider
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What kind of health care provider?
Click to expand...


I don't know if he specializes, so probably family practice.


----------



## Edward

dog8food said:


> I don't know if he specializes, so probably family practice.



MD or DO, then?


----------



## SRoper

Wife's a Christian. And an MD. We have a kid. We vaccinate him. On schedule.


----------

