FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Refusing vaccines
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4
I'm in a public health nursing class right now, and for my clinical I'm working at the county health department.  We're doing a lot with promoting vaccinations.  I've heard a few traditional Catholics say they are against vaccinations, but I never understood why.

Gardasil would be a horse of a different color, and may be better discussed in a different thread.  I'm primarily interested in things like chicken pox, polio, measles/mumps/rubella.  Childhood diseases that were once common and sometimes deadly.

So why would anyone be morally opposed to vaccines?  Has the Church said anything about this?  I couldn't find anything, myself.

Some vaccines are morally objectionable because they are made from or grown on aborted fetal tissue.

Other vaccines are problematic in a practical sense because of the grouping together of vaccines into one "super vaccine" and the potentially harmful effects on young children.

Yet others are practically speaking problematic because there is still a question of their effectiveness, the need for boosters or the fact that artificial immunity against a childhood disease is wiping out the titer boosting exposure to the virus that adults get from caring for kids with the disease.  There is expected to be a huge increase in the number of shingles cases as adults are not getting the natural immunity boosts from being exposed to children with chicken pox.   Shingles is a much more serious disease than chicken pox. 

Not all reasons for opting not to use vaccines or to space vaccines differently are moral.

SouthernCatholic Wrote:Some vaccines are morally objectionable because they are made from or grown on aborted fetal tissue.

It's troubling to me that I've never heard this before.  Really?  Which ones?

Quote:Other vaccines are problematic in a practical sense because of the grouping together of vaccines into one "super vaccine" and the potentially harmful effects on young children.

Quoting the CDC for this one:
Is simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines safe? Wouldn't it be safer to separate combination vaccines and spread them out, vaccinating against just one disease at a time?
The available scientific data show that simultaneous vaccination with multiple vaccines has no adverse effect on the normal childhood immune system. A number of studies have been conducted to examine the effects of giving various combinations of vaccines simultaneously. These studies have shown that the recommended vaccines are as effective in combination as they are individually, and that such combinations carry no greater risk for adverse side effects. Consequently, both the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices and the American Academy of Pediatrics recommend simultaneous administration of all routine childhood vaccines when appropriate. Research is underway to find methods to combine more antigens in a single vaccine injection (for example, MMR and chickenpox). This will provide all the advantages of the individual vaccines, but will require fewer shots. Another advantage is that combination vaccines result in fewer shots and less discomfort for children. In addition, spreading out the administration of separate vaccines may leave children unnecessarily vulnerable to disease.
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concern...ines.htm#4
This explanation seems reasonable to me.   The key phrase here is in the normal childhood immune system.  If there is a problem, they wouldn't be getting the usual vaccines anyway. The vaccines are not strong enough to cause disease in normal kids.

Quote:Yet others are practically speaking problematic because there is still a question of their effectiveness, the need for boosters or the fact that artificial immunity against a childhood disease is wiping out the titer boosting exposure to the virus that adults get from caring for kids with the disease. There is expected to be a huge increase in the number of shingles cases as adults are not getting the natural immunity boosts from being exposed to children with chicken pox. Shingles is a much more serious disease than chicken pox.

Funny you should mention shingles.  There is a brand new vaccine for that one too; it's called Zostavax.  This is the vaccine I chose to do my project on, so I know a bit about that one.  But it's not really relevant to the topic, so I shall desist. :-)  And adults can get vaccinated as well as children.

Quote:  Not all reasons for opting not to use vaccines or to space vaccines differently are moral. 

Agreed.  There are several cases where for medical reasons the usual vaccination schedule is not followed, or no live vaccines may be safely given, etc.  I think the biggest concern you raised, however, is the connection between abortion and vaccination.  I would appreciate anymore information you can present on that issue.
cogforlife.org is an excellent group which stays on  top of all this stuff.  There was also a letter in summer 2005, I believe, from somewhere in the Vatican on the issue, but I can't find the text at the moment, only this write-up: http://www.catholicnews.com/data/stories...504240.htm .
SmileBugMG,

You can do a Google search on "vaccines fetal tissue" or "vaccines aborted tissue" and you'll come up with a plethora of reliable information.

As for the CDC's information - Not everyone trusts that the FDA and the CDC are unbiased, objective or fully trustworthy.  Too many times has the FDA or the CDC recommended a certain protocol only to come back later an say, "Oops!  We were wrong.  Don't do it this way any more."

Guidelines Updated for Administration of Combination MMRV Vaccine

In 2005 the FDA approved the use of a combination MMRV vaccine - Mumps, Measles, Rubella and Varicella (chicken pox).  They are now saying that it isn't such a good idea to administer the MMRV because there is an increased risk of febrile seizures.

Quote:"This report summarizes current knowledge regarding the risk for febrile seizures after MMRV vaccination and presents updated ACIP recommendations that were issued after presentation of the new information. These updated recommendations remove ACIP's previous preference for administering combination MMRV vaccine over separate injections of equivalent component vaccines (i.e., measles, mumps, and rubella [MMR] vaccine and varicella vaccine)."

Quote:On September 6, 2005, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) licensed the combination tetravalent MMRV vaccine for use in children aged 12 months to 12 years. To prevent measles, mumps, rubella, and varicella, the MMRV vaccine can be used instead of the trivalent MMR and monovalent varicella vaccines. To fulfill the recommended 2-dose vaccine policies, the first dose is recommended at ages 12 to 15 months and the second at ages 4 to 6 years.

Compared with administration of MMR and varicella vaccines at the same visit, the MMRV vaccine was associated with a higher incidence of fever 5 to 12 days and 0 to 42 days after the first vaccine dose, based on prelicensure studies. Concern regarding the possible increased risk for febrile seizures potentially associated with MMRV vaccination led the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) and Merck to conduct postlicensure studies.

This is just one example of why some people don't trust the FDA and the CDC who are far too beholden to the politicians who are in turn too beholden to big pharma who just want to turn a quick buck.

As for adult vaccines for shingles ... if we didn't insist on the chicken pox vaccine we would have natural immunity boosts from repeated exposure.  It's a ridiculous cycle that ranks nearly as high as using anti-bacterial soap for everything.

If I remember correctly, Zostavax is vaccine whose manufacture uses fetal tissue from cell lines that came from aborted babies.

I have nine kids. 

No. 1 did not have hepatits vaccine.

Nos. 2 and 3 had it, as I didn't know much about the vaccine.

The rest don't have it.  I refused it because the vaccine was known to cause problems and was banned in some European countries.  Plus, it's basically a disease that is transmitted sexually or through intravenous drug use.  Don't think babies need this....

 

Guess which two of my kids have asthma?  Coincidence?

 

Christina

SouthernCatholic Wrote:SmileBugMG,

You can do a Google search on "vaccines fetal tissue" or "vaccines aborted tissue" and you'll come up with a plethora of reliable information.

This is the first thing that came up:

Quote:Interestingly enough, a June 9, 2005 statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life (the Vatican's official voice in the area of abortion/right-to-life) comes to essentially the same conclusion. Even though some organizations have mischaracterized the document as condemning the use of such vaccines6, the document, in fact, says quite the opposite. It says that when an alternative vaccine which has no connection whatsoever to abortion is available, parents should use it. There is no question that this is the moral thing to do. In addition, when there is no alternative available, parents should object by demonstration, etc. so as to force manufactures to come up with an alternative.

However, as for actually using the vaccines that have no alternatives, the document clearly says that parents can do so in order to protect their children and the community. The English translation of the document (originally written in Italian) says, "As regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole—especially for pregnant women."7 Note what this official Roman Catholic document says. It says that parents should CONTEST the vaccines so as to force the manufactures to find new ways to make them, but UNTIL THAT HAPPENS, parents can still use the vaccines that have no alternative, because it will allow them to avoid serious risk to their children, and more importantly, to the population as a whole. The moral good done by the vaccine, then, outweighs any moral evil when it comes to actually USING the vaccine. The statement clearly says the MAKING of the vaccine is bad, but the USE of it is not. In fact, the document specifically mentions rubella as something that should be vaccinated against, even though there is no alternative vaccine—"Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles."7

Because some organizations have tried to mischaracterize this statement, the Catholic News Service (CNS) produced an article that quotes Msgr. Jacques Suaudeau, a medical doctor and official at the Pontifical Academy for Life, as saying, "If the health of the child or of the whole population [is at risk], the parents should accept having their kid be vaccinated if there is no alternative." 8 Because some organizations clearly do not like the Roman Catholic church officially saying that the use of these vaccines is morally acceptable, they have asked the Pontifical Academy for Life to change its statement. However, CNS reports that Msgr. Jacques Suaudeau said the document "could not be changed" because it accurately reflected church teaching.8 Despite what you might read, then, even the Vatican supports the use of vaccines that have a tangential relationship to abortion, as long as no alternative vaccines are available.

http://www.apologia.com/vaccines/vac_abortion.html

I think the whole article is worth reading, but this part most directly addresses the morality issue.
SmileBugMG Wrote:I think the whole article is worth reading, but this part most directly addresses the morality issue.

Again, though, not everyone's decision is solely moral.  Some of us have very real and very serious concerns about the necessity of some vaccines, the efficacy of others and the safety of yet others.
introibo Wrote:

I have nine kids.

No. 1 did not have hepatits vaccine.

Nos. 2 and 3 had it, as I didn't know much about the vaccine.

The rest don't have it. I refused it because the vaccine was known to cause problems and was banned in some European countries. Plus, it's basically a disease that is transmitted sexually or through intravenous drug use. Don't think babies need this....

Guess which two of my kids have asthma? Coincidence?

Christina


I can't say that it wasn't a coincidence.  It's impossible to prove either way.  But I will venture to say I think it entirely unlikely that both children's asthma was directly cause by hepatitis vaccine..

Hepatitis A is transmitted by the oral-fecal route.  Hepatitis B and C are spread by blood-to-blood contact, which is why healthcare workers especially are encouraged to be vaccinated (accidental needle sticks happen).  Hepatitis B can be transmitted sexually, but also through tears, saliva, and sweat.  So it is entirely possible to get hepatitis "innocently".  There is no hepatitis C vaccine currently, but A and B are available.
Pages: 1 2 3 4