FishEaters Traditional Catholic Forums

Full Version: Vaccination Issues
You're currently viewing a stripped down version of our content. View the full version with proper formatting.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
I saved my post replying to Catholic Lady because I suspected it might disappear. I just wish that I had saved the entire thread. It is highly annoying to put time and effort into a post only to have it vanish into cyber-space and it is indescribably rude of the original poster to have so little regard for the others, if indeed this is the case.
Here is my reply to Catholic Lady:



Originally Posted by CatholicLady


I willl stand by my opionion on the matter of having one's children immunized.  I think it is the responsible  thing to do.....The risk of getting a serious illness certainly outweighs the risks posed by immunizations......



---Unless you are the one who is injured or killed by the vaccine.



Originally Posted by CatholicLady


How would you lilke a return of polio, or small pox, or the "real" measles, or any number of illnesses that previously and routinely took the lives of many chldren?  The reason these serious and deadly diseases are no longer a threat is that someone had the God given intelligence to create vaccines that prevent them from being a problem.


---If all vaccines were abruptly ended, no one knows what would happen because there has never been a control group to study. What is known is that the "deadly diseases" scare tactic has escorted common sense right out of the building.


Look at polio. It is a disease of modernity and squalor. The first line of defense against it is breastfeeding. As women (pressured by the medical wisdom of the day) started bottle feeding their babes, the disease surfaced. In fact, polio was first called infantile paralysis. Don't believe me? You are not alone, but look it up in the PDR. I told a family doctor that breastfeeding renders the virus harmless and looked at me with the 3 heads look. However, the next time I came back he said he had checked into it and I was right. I was also right about the fact that the only way to contract the disease today is by exposure to a vaccinated individual.


The other line of defense against polio is sanitation. In areas with 100% vaccination compliance the disease can still be found wherever there is squalor.


And what about "real measles?" I had the hard measles as a child and it was a blast. I got to sit in a dark room and watch TV. I have a life long immunity to the disease now. I don't have to worry about a vaccine failure. Rubeola is not that serious of an illness in the U.S. like it is in underdeveloped countries where the population lacks adequate nutrition. All diseases are more deadly among the poor populations of third world countries.


The fact is that many of the "deadly diseases" that children are currently vaccinated with are treatable now while, in the days before antibiotics, they were not.




Originally Posted by CatholicLady

I am old enough to remember the way Polio was feared by parents everywhere, and have an Aunt who had a mild case of it.....I remember how thankful mothers were for the Salk Vaccine. 


---And so was my mom. I am old enough to be a recipient of contaminated polio vaccine, along with 98 million other people. It came from sick monkeys and was identified in 1960. Was the vaccine recalled? No. It was used up. I have already had to have one giant cell tumor removed from my hand and I suspect I am getting another one. They can become cancerous, and all courtesy of the SV40 virus, released via the SOM polio vaccine. Don't believe me? Go to the CDC website and look it up.



Originally Posted by CatholicLady

If you want to live "naturally", let's do away with medicine completely.....After all, illnesses and death are a natural part of life.....aren't they?  It's part of the law of nature for people to get sick and die.....Why fight it.....?

I know I'm stretching a point, but I for one am grateful that children no longer die in large numbers as the result of childhood illneses.....Praise God that he gave man the intelligence the  main....solve this problem...


Yes, you are stretching a point, so for arguments sake, I will stretch it the other way.


Why am I expendable? How intelligent is it to sacrifice lives to save lives? It is the domain of Satan to demand human sacrifice, not God's. And what about the aborted babies whose cell lines are in virtually every new the vaccine? Is abortion now good because it is used for a perceived (by some) good?


Sandy, I don't think that you would ever agree that abortion should be considered an option because of the greater good of society, or that some people's lives are less valuable than others, so please don't think I am. I am just trying to illustrate the slippery slope that is evident as soon as vaccination proponents take the moral high ground.


I don't think it is too much to ask that vaccines be made safe and be proven effective before they are forced on the population.



Topics tend to progress naturally. If a thread goes "off topic," then the moderators are usually responsible for reigning it in. Various ladies had given their thoughts on the matter, CatholicLady took the topic in a natural direction following the beginning post, and several people took offense and were well within their rights to respond to her post. Deleting an entire thread because one does not like the tangent it's taken generally comes across as quite rude, and the thing to do is not delete the thread, but merely to post a brief reminder to everyone redirecting them to the original topic, or perhaps angling the discussion in a manner that pertains to a greater extent to the original topic. Deletions of whole threads can sometimes be necessary, but are very very irksome, particularly when other posters have spent, in some cases, literally hours composing well-thought-out, objective, well-formatted posts, only to have them deleted in an instant by a quick decision.
Aviano Wrote:
It is highly annoying to put time and effort into a post only to have it vanish into cyber-space and it is indescribably rude of the original poster to have so little regard for the others, if indeed this is the case.
Well, this is just a guess, but the post may have been removed because it degenerated into a vaccine/anti-vaccine debate, completely removed from her original question. Sara has stated in the past that she believes in vaccination, and she mentioned in the OP that one of her concerns with all of the sick children at her church is that she lives in one of the most highly unvaccinated areas in her state. She wasn't asking for your opinions on vaccination.
While it may be rude to remove a post with no notice (though I'm not really convinced that it is), it is also rude for posters to hijack a thread in order to preach their particular views, completely derailing it from the original question. If anyone from the non-vaccination crowd wanted to debate Catholic Lady's comments, they should have started their own post. In cyber-space, it's quite easy to get your own virtual soapbox; no need to steal someone else's.

The original post did include vaccination in the topic which is why CL picked up on it and commented on it, referring to those who choose not to vaccinate as irresponsible. Imo, Sara could have made her point without the vaccination bit. However, since she chose to include it, it was part of the topic. Of course, there is no way to prove that now.
I'm hoping that CL will reply. After that, I will change the title of the thread to one that better describes the content and move it to the health issues forum where it belongs if there is further interest in the topic.
I really do apologize if I am seen as "hijacking " a good thread.  I really did not mean to do this...But...Couldn't resist commenting on a subject I feel so strongly about.

AC...I will reply to you later....Got to get grandkids to school! 


CatholicLady Wrote:I really do apologize if I am seen as "hijacking " a good thread.  I really did not mean to do this...But...Couldn't resist commenting on a subject I feel so strongly about.

AC...I will reply to you later....Got to get grandkids to school! 


No hurry! I am getting kids off to school myself. :)
I agree. Obviously, sometimes posts have to be moved, locked, edited, etc, but to delete an entire thread where many people have put hard work into their posts is inconsiderate.
Back to the vaccination issue: I found this article from Medical News Today to be very interesting:
Mumps Vaccine Clinics To Open In Iowa 22 Apr 2006  

Iowa is to open clinics to immunize young people in Iowa. A mumps outbreak has infected 975 people so far in the state. 25,000 vaccine doses will be given to 18-22 year olds, the most vulnerable group.

Most of the current mumps cases have been among young adults, the majority of whom had been vaccinated when they were little. Scientists are investigating whether this virus is exceptionally infectious or less susceptible to the vaccine.

Many (including health care professionals) believe the vaccine may not be as effective as first thought. Others say it is likely that the young people becoming infected did not have the recommended two shots.

The immunization clinics will target university, college and higher education students.

Seven neighbouring states have reported significant increases in mumps cases.

This is the biggest mumps outbreak the USA has seen in 20 years and it shows no signs of slowing. Federal officials warned that the outbreak is likely to continue to spread. A number of people who catch mumps never show any symptoms but can infect others. As college students leave for the summer and go back home there is a good chance the infection will spread more rapidly.

So far, 20 people have been hospitalized. Nobody has become severely ill.

A high number of infections have been reported in Minnesota, Nebraska, Kansas, Illinois, Wisconsin, Missouri and Oklahoma.
When I applied for nursing school, part of the entry requirement is that you have had a series of vaccines.  I knew that I had my required two MMR doses as a child, but had since lost the records.  I know for a fact that I did because when I enrolled in public school in TX, it was a requirement, and I had to go for my booster shot when I was 12.
Rather than receive the vaccines again, I decided to get a tither blood test.  This test proves that one has been vaccinated by showing an anti-body count, which is what gives us the immunity.  It turned out that although I had received the required MMR vaccines, one at the age of 5, and one at the age of 12, I had no immunity, my blood didn't show the antibodies.
I know that certain vaccines are more successful at creating immunity, but I'm thinking the MMR vaccine has largely failed us. 
What does this mean?  It may mean that the lack of diseases such as Mumps in the past 10-20 years have more to do with regular fluctuations in disease amongst populations, and perhaps with better hygeine practices, than with the effectiveness of a vaccine.  Perhaps children are immune, and since children are better germ-spreaders than teens and young adults, it is supressing the illness somewhat better. 
---Unless you are the one who is injured or killed by the vaccine.

I would argue that point in the other direction. If your child is a non symptomatic carrier of rubella and you didn't (obviously) immunize them, then it's fine unless you or your unborn baby are the one injured or killed by RUBELLA. The Vatican has in fact spoken on this very subject.

Vatican says refusing vaccines must be weighed against health threats

By Carol Glatz
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- The Vatican urged parents to use caution when deciding not to inoculate their children against infectious diseases when so-called "ethical vaccines" are not yet available.

In a paper, the Vatican's Pontifical Academy for Life reaffirmed a person's right to abstain from receiving vaccines that were prepared from cells derived from aborted fetuses, but it said such a choice must be made after carefully considering whether refusing the vaccination would pose serious health risks to the child and the larger public.

"We are responsible for all people, not just ourselves," Msgr. Jacques Suaudeau, a medical doctor and official at the Pontifical Academy for Life, told Catholic News Service.

"If it is a question of protecting the whole population and avoiding death and malformation in others, that is more important" than abstaining from vaccines developed from abortions that might have occurred decades ago, he said.

The academy's paper, "Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared From Cells Derived From Aborted Human Fetuses," was based on a study of the issue resulting from a request by a Largo, Fla.-based pro-life group, Children of God for Life. In June 2003 the group asked the Vatican's Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith for a formal statement on the church's position concerning the morality of using vaccines associated with human tissue coming from abortions.

The doctrinal congregation approved of the academy's findings, which were published in Italian in the May/June edition of Medicina e Morale (Medicine and Morals), a journal put out by the bioethics institute at Rome's Sacred Heart University.

The Pontifical Academy for Life also sent an English synthesis of the same paper to Children of God for Life; the group released the synthesis to the public July 18.

Debi Vinnedge, head of Children of God for Life, told CNS that Catholics who wanted to conscientiously object to the "tainted" vaccines by refusing inoculation had been refused entry into some schools. Children are required to follow a state's immunization requirements if they wish to attend public or private schools.

Most states, however, allow for a "religious exemption" from receiving vaccines that go against a person's faith.

But because the Catholic Church lacked a "definitive statement" on the issue, Catholics were not eligible for the religious exemption, she said.

"But for the most part parents were allowed to exempt in accord with church teaching on moral conscience," she said in a July 23 e-mail.

However, without a formal position on the issue by the church, state courts and health and school officials could challenge Catholic parents when they applied for a "religious exemption" for vaccines from human cell lines derived from abortions.

When asked what groups were eligible for the exemption, Vinnedge said members of the Lutheran Church were because they have "a stronger statement" concerning the immorality of using such vaccines.

But the Vatican-approved study lacks the kind of absolutes that would give Catholics the backing they would need to be eligible for the exemption.

"The document says parents could use (the vaccines) or that they could abstain," which is "too gray," said Vinnedge in a July 21 telephone interview from Florida.

"We need a stronger statement" if Catholics are to get the exemption, she said.

Msgr. Suaudeau, who helped oversee the study, said the document "could not be changed" because it accurately reflected church teaching.

He said the study "in general supports the right of parents to not accept vaccinations" that are connected with abortion. But in particular cases, the use of morally objectionable vaccines can be morally justified according to the principle of proportionate reason and because there is a "hierarchy in morals," he told CNS.

He said the academy's study "takes a balanced stance," explaining the different forms and degrees of cooperation with evil and "the concerns about public health."

The French priest said the human cell lines used to cultivate the production of most vaccines used today come from tissue derived from two human fetuses voluntarily aborted in 1964 and 1970.

The paper said the people involved in the original abortions are guilty of cooperating with evil as well as "those who prepare the vaccines using human cell lines" coming from those abortions, "those who participate in the mass marketing of such vaccines," and "those who need to use them for health reasons."

But there are gradations of complicity and immorality of those involved, the text said.

Those who were closely involved with the original abortion and acted with the intent of ending human life acted immorally by formally cooperating with evil, the paper said.

Those who then utilize the aborted fetus cell lines to produce the vaccines are engaged in "passive material cooperation" which is equally illicit, it said.

But the doctors and parents who use the vaccines for health reasons are carrying out "a form of very remote ... material cooperation," reflecting a "very mild" immoral act, the paper said.

Msgr. Suaudeau said that because the abortions occurred some 40 years ago, using vaccines associated with those cell lines "is a very, very remote" form of cooperation with evil, so remote that it "does not indicate any moral value" when compared to the greater good derived from preventing the spread of an infectious disease.

"If the health of the child or of the whole population" is at risk, then "the parents should accept having their kid be vaccinated if there is no alternative," he said.

The Vatican study emphasized that being forced to use an unethical vaccine in no way reflected church approval of its production.

Msgr. Suaudeau said the paper urged people to lobby "and push government and health officials" to get alternative, effective vaccines on the U.S. market so Catholics would not be forced to "act against their conscience" if they are to safeguard their children's health.

Vaccines that use animal, not human, cell lines raise no moral questions whatsoever, Msgr. Suaudeau said. But two of those vaccines, one for rubella, another for hepatitis A, are not available in the United States because they still need approval from the Food and Drug Administration. So far there is no vaccine for chicken pox that does not use human cell lines.

But until ethical vaccines are available in the United States for rubella and hepatitis A, parents should also consider "the common good" when deciding whether to abstain from mandatory vaccinations, he said.

Mandatory, universal immunization against these viruses has resulted in proper disease control, Msgr. Suaudeau said.

Both he and the Vatican study warned that ongoing disease control through inoculation, even of rare but serious diseases like rubella, is key in preventing fresh outbreaks.

Even though rubella has been virtually eradicated from the United States, it is still an epidemic in some parts of the world. The rubella virus causes severe problems, even death, for a fetus in its first trimester.

An unvaccinated child "could get (the virus), not show any symptoms" and, as "a healthy carrier," pass it on to other unvaccinated people, the most vulnerable being pregnant women, said Msgr. Suaudeau.

Parents who do not immunize their children against rubella would be responsible for the malformations and subsequent abortions of malformed fetuses that might result from a pregnant women being infected by the unvaccinated child, both the study and Msgr. Suaudeau said.

In this case, the parent would be in "much more proximate cooperation with evil" than if he had accepted a morally questionable vaccine to begin with, he said.

Children and unborn children must not pay the price for "the licit fight against pharmaceutical companies" that produce immoral vaccines, said the Italian version of the study.


The idea that vaccines are some kind of poison and parents should not vaccinate is utter hogwash. The parents who refuse to vaccinate can refuse with a minimal risk because MILLIONS of parents DO vaccinate and I am one of them.

In Christ

[Image: spacer.gif] [Image: spacer.gif] [Image: spacer.gif]
[Image: spacer.gif]

Copyright © 2005 Catholic News Service/USCCB. All rights reserved.
I posted a response as to why I did what I did, but a couple of other people posted much more charitable responses that perfectly covered my reasons. 

Eric, I've probably deleted 4 threads of my own since I've been on this board and I've been here since the beginning.  I don't do it lightly.  But I've discussed my feelings on this issue, they're known to Kathy, she knows I hate these debates, and since she IS a moderator, she should know better then to use it as a platform for her own personal agenda on this issue.
fiatvoluntastua Wrote:Eric, I've probably deleted 4 threads of my own since I've been on this board and I've been here since the beginning.  I don't do it lightly.  But I've discussed my feelings on this issue, they're known to Kathy, she knows I hate these debates, and since she IS a moderator, she should know better then to use it as a platform for her own personal agenda on this issue.

I was not the poster who steered your thread to vaccination, that was someone else's "platform." My "personal agenda" is to stay as informed as possible on the subject, which includes reading both sides of the debate. It is a controversial issue within the medical community, not cut and dried as some people would have us believe. Since the experts can't agree, lay people are left to sort this out on our own. My interest in the vaccination aspect of your post was not in response to you per se, but to another poster.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7