Religious waiver for vaccinations?

[HokieAirman]

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

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

 

[Edward]

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

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

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

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

 

[CatherineL]

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

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

 

[raekwon]

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

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

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

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

 

[R Harris]

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

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

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

Oh please.

If you have been involved in research, surely you understand that in any kind of experimentation, variables/parameters can be controlled and/or influenced to achieve a certain desired outcome. To say that a major pharmaceutical company such as Novartis does not exert influence with regard to obviously its own scientists in their testing procedures or with the FDA is to be naive. It is well known that over the decades some drugs have gone to market where either the drug company or the FDA dropped the ball with regard to proper testing methodology. Whether they deliberately engaged in improper behavior or simply made mistakes can be debated, and I am sure in most cases there was no willful misconduct. But the fact of the matter is that we are talking major dollars here, and the temptation of the money factor is indeed great.

But regardless, it does appear that you did not even bother to read my second paragraph. I don't know your motivations here, but if you would attempt to address the issues raised instead of attacking me, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

 

[CredoFidoSpero]

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

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

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

 

[Webservant]

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

 

[wallingj]

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

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

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

 

[Blueridge Believer]

Dr. Tenpenny Vaccine Information Center

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

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

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

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

 

[EricP]

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

 

[Anton Bruckner]

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

 

[Bald_Brother]

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

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

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

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

 

[Nate]

Oh please.

If you have been involved in research, surely you understand that in any kind of experimentation, variables/parameters can be controlled and/or influenced to achieve a certain desired outcome. To say that a major pharmaceutical company such as Novartis does not exert influence with regard to obviously its own scientists in their testing procedures or with the FDA is to be naive. It is well known that over the decades some drugs have gone to market where either the drug company or the FDA dropped the ball with regard to proper testing methodology. Whether they deliberately engaged in improper behavior or simply made mistakes can be debated, and I am sure in most cases there was no willful misconduct. But the fact of the matter is that we are talking major dollars here, and the temptation of the money factor is indeed great.

But regardless, it does appear that you did not even bother to read my second paragraph. I don't know your motivations here, but if you would attempt to address the issues raised instead of attacking me, it would be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

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

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

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

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

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

 

[a mere housewife]

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

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

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

This is from my drs. article linked above:

In the Mumps out-break of 2006, what percentage of the people who got the disease were vaccinated? . . . The answer is that two-thirds of the close to 6,000 people who got mumps and 85% of the group most affected were confirmed to have received proper vaccination. This means that the vaccines either did not work or only gave short-term immunity.
​

If immunity wears off over time it could be the case that most of us are not immune to many things for which we were vaccinated -- in which case one's neighbor may actually be about as likely to contract some things from one's previously vaccinated child (or to have to go to the ER because of his own vaccinations) as to encounter anything deadly from one's unvaccinated child.

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

 

[Webservant]

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

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

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

 

[Bald_Brother]

I found this thread very interesting.

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

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

I also never knew of the fetus grown vaccines.

Thank you all for the informative thread.

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

 

[Edward]

As a member of the prestigious National Speaker’s Association

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

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

 

[Blueridge Believer]

As a member of the prestigious National Speaker’s Association

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

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

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

 

[Sven]

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

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

 

[JBaldwin]

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

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

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

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

State asks volunteers to aid flu vaccinations - The Boston Globe

 

[he beholds]

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

State asks volunteers to aid flu vaccinations - The Boston Globe

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