Vaccination Issues
#11
Some interesting reading from the Free Yurko Project about a father who was imprisoned for life after being convicted of Shaken Baby Syndrome - which actually turned out to be an adverse vaccine reaction. (he is now free thanks to the tireless efforts of supporters)
 
 
From ThinkTwice.com, some personal stories from parents who's children were vaccinated.
 
 
Another goldmine of information on vaccines is AdvancedHealthPlan.com which contains many informational links - including info that explores the link between vaccines and SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome).
 
To those feel that there is too much hysteria surrounding vaccine-induced health issues, I can only reply that there are volumes of studies and case files that point to the serious risks of immunization, and this is not a chance I am prepared to take with my daughter. I keep hearing about the wonderful advances in health, but all I'm really seeing is that people are getting sicker and sicker, children's health issues are on the rise, and new strains of diseases are cropping up all the time. Why is that?
Reply
#12
JLeigh Wrote:To those feel that there is too much hysteria surrounding vaccine-induced health issues, I can only reply that there are volumes of studies and case files that point to the serious risks of immunization, and this is not a chance I am prepared to take with my daughter. I keep hearing about the wonderful advances in health, but all I'm really seeing is that people are getting sicker and sicker, children's health issues are on the rise, and new strains of diseases are cropping up all the time. Why is that?

 
 
Jen, I was wondering. Did you discuss your decision with your doctor/s? I did, and they were very understanding about my concerns. One of the issues we discussed is the one I highlighted from your post.
 
My oldest 3 kids had all the recommended vaccines (at the time there were less than 10) and my middlest 2 kids had some of the vaccines- I stopped the practice because one had a bad reaction. My youngest 3 kids have had zero vaccinations and they have had fewer infections than their older siblings. The child who had the reaction has the worst time with allergies and breathing troubles. Yesterday she had to get a shot of Kenalog to help alleviate her symptoms. So, I too wonder about some of the long term problems of vaccination. Are we simply trading acute illness for chronic illness?
 
Lots of people-including mainstream health professionals- are wondering the same thing. There aren't any studies being done, and why would there be... the vaccine industry is very big business. Look how long it took for Lilly to admit that they knew thimerosal is a harmful agent. If it wasn't for independent research, that poison would still be in virtually all vaccines. (Btw, it is in flu vaccines, and those are now recommended for infants.)
 
 Last summer, I wrote a research paper about vaccination and had access to licensed data bases through the college I am attending. Most of the information is also available on the Web. One great site that anyone can access is NVIC, alot of the info on there is peer-reviewed.
 
The reason I mention this paper and my personal experiences is to demonstrate that I have had an ongoing interest in this subject for about 20 years, that I take it seriously, and I continue to follow new developments. I haven't meant to sound condescending toward anyone, and I hope that most of you don't take it that way. I understand that we are all parents who want the best for our children.
Reply
#13
On the rare occasion that I did discuss my concerns with health professionals, I got the "this woman is nuts" look. That, combined with some very serious multiple mis-diagnosis I have had in the past, a hospital being directly responsible for the death of my grandmother, and a doctor who fought to have my aunt's breathing machine removed, (he lost and she went on to fully recover, even though he had given her up for dead) has rendered my trust in doctors to almost nil. The first book I read (about 6 years ago) on what has been going on in the medical industry for a long time is Confessions of a Medical Heretic by Dr. Robert Mendelsohn. This book is an eye-opener, and I highly recommend it to anyone seeking a better understanding of the medical industry as a whole.
Reply
#14
Nobody replied to the Vatican statement on Rubella. Do you really want to be responsible for the malformation or the retardation or the death of someone elses  baby?  I think that trust in God,and his Divine Will is most important.  I know, ya'll will come back and say you ARE trusting in His Will by NOT immunizing.  But it is said in books(Heliotropium,Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence) about His Divine Will that we are to avail ourselves of medicines and if God Wills them not to work then it is His Will for them not to work.  Where is faith?  Also, as Catholics we are supposed to do that which is for the good of ALL, not just for ourselves.  The statement that the Vatican made was pretty clear on that I think.  There is another statement made by Cardinal Ratzinger that I have not been able to find that states the same position.

In Christ
Monique

Reply
#15
quoprimum Wrote:Nobody replied to the Vatican statement on Rubella. Do you really want to be responsible for the malformation or the retardation or the death of someone elses  baby?  I think that trust in God,and his Divine Will is most important.  I know, ya'll will come back and say you ARE trusting in His Will by NOT immunizing.  But it is said in books(Heliotropium,Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence) about His Divine Will that we are to avail ourselves of medicines and if God Wills them not to work then it is His Will for them not to work.  Where is faith?  Also, as Catholics we are supposed to do that which is for the good of ALL, not just for ourselves.  The statement that the Vatican made was pretty clear on that I think.  There is another statement made by Cardinal Ratzinger that I have not been able to find that states the same position.

In Christ
Monique

I am not in any way obliged to run out and have my child vaccinated just because I read this article. A couple of problems with the article stand out already: "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." So the Church now condones mild immoral acts for the so-called good of society? "The Vatican study emphasized that being forced to use an unethical vaccine in no way reflected church approval of its production." So the Church doesn't approve of its production, but approves of its use? "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. " Oh good. So now I have a choice between two "morally questionable" acts. What to do, what to do?
 
 
In closing, I have the God-given right to make choices regarding the health and well-being of my daughter, so that is what I will continue to do, which includes no vaccinations.


Reply
#16
I just got this from Life Site:
 
Link
 
Catholic Medical Association Calls for End to Aborted Fetal Vaccines

By Terry Vanderheyden
NEEDHAM, Massachusetts, May 17, 2006 (LifeSiteNews.com) – The U.S.-based Catholic Medical Association has called on drug manufacturers to stop using aborted fetal tissues in the production of vaccines.
Drawing on a recent Vatican Pontifical Academy for Life (PAFL) publication condemning unethical vaccines, the CMA explained in a release that “circumstances have arisen in which development and /or application of certain medical techniques, even though effective, are morally illicit and must be condemned and actively opposed.”
“An ethical problem exists today because some vaccines for rubella (Meruvax), Hepatitis A, (VAQTA, HAVRIX) as well as others are derived from cell lines originally prepared from tissue taken from voluntarily aborted fetuses,” the CMA release continued. “The question is to what degree do those who participate in production, distribution or use of these vaccines ‘cooperate in evil.’”
The CMA highlighted that it is morally illicit to prepare, distribute, or market vaccines that are made with aborted fetal tissues, because “it could contribute in encouraging the performance of other voluntary abortions, with the purpose of producing such vaccines,” quoting from the PAFL document, Moral Reflections on Vaccines Prepared from Cells Derived from Aborted Human Foetuses.
The CMA proffers several guidelines as concerns the use of vaccines created by unethical use of aborted fetal tissues, including using an alternative vaccine – one not grown on fetal tissues – if available. The organization also states that “when no alternative vaccines are available ‘it is right [permissible] to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health.’”
See related LifeSiteNews.com coverage:
Abortion-Tainted New Flu Vaccine from Vaxin Uses Aborted Fetal Cell Lines
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2005/feb/05020703.html
New Small Pox Vaccine May Use Aborted Fetal Cell Line
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/nov/01110503.html
New Flu Vaccine To Use Cancer-Potential Aborted Fetal Cell Line
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/aug/02081603.html
Another Vaccine Using Aborted Baby Tissue Marketed
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2001/may/01052504.html
Pro-Lifers Rankle Fetal-Tissue Using Vaccine Makers at Shareholders Meeting
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/apr/03042804.html
Pro-Life Group Urges Boycott of Foetal-Tissue Vaccine Manufacturer Merck
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/nov/02110901.html
Vaccination Not Compulsory Under Canadian Law
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/apr/04042708.html
New Ebola and HIV Vaccines Will Use Tissue from An Aborted Baby
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2002/jul/02072506.html
Pharmaceutical Giant Forced To Admit Aborted Fetal Tissue Used In Vaccines
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/mar/03032706.html
New World Health Organization Chief Involved In Population Control Vaccine Scandal
http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2003/jan/03013003.html
Reply
#17
I'd just like to point out that regardless of how one feels about Vaccination, the principle remains that those who oppose the practice are not doing so because of some sort of "more perfect trust in God's providence," they know full well that medicine is not "evil" and that Catholics can and should avail ourselves of it. However, their position is, if I understand it aright, that vaccination is bad, largely unproven science, and hence bad medicine, and that there are grave, largely unknown and unspoken-of dangers to this vaccination, particularly in light of modern manufacturing techniques/medical practice, which could very well result in chronic injury or death.
 
 
Reply
#18

quoprimum Wrote:Nobody replied to the Vatican statement on Rubella.

I haven't replied because I was trying to confirm the claim you made about "carriers" of rubella. On the CDC website I found that the claim is not true:

Quote:

Reservoir

Rubella is a human disease. There is no known animal reservoir.

Although infants with CRS may shed rubella virus for

an extended period, a true carrier state has not been described.


As far as the Vatican statement, I am taking it with a grain or so of salt. Remember, JPII made a statement about being open to various theories of evolution; that does not mean that I am going to start claiming monkeys for my ancestors.

quoprimum Wrote:Do you really want to be responsible for the malformation or the retardation or the death of someone elses baby?

This is a false dilemma. In the first place, you might as well blame God for allowing the disease to exist. In the second place, do you really want your children injected with the remains of an aborted baby? And in the third place, there is no such thing as an 100% effective vaccine. Fourth, if a vaccine happens to "take" they can and do wear off. I know several mothers who were told after giving birth that they were not immune to rubella and were then forced to receive the vaccine. Either the nurses were lying to them or the manufacturer is lying about the product. Fifth, the vaccine can cause active rubella and result in CRS. The cases of CRS that I have read about are linked to the vaccine, not the wild virus. In other words, like polio, the easiest way to catch the disease is to get vaccinated or have close contact with a recently vaccinated individual. Hmmm. Interesting way to prevent disease.

quoprimum Wrote:

I think that trust in God,and his Divine Will is most important. I know, ya'll will come back and say you ARE trusting in His Will by NOT immunizing. But it is said in books(Heliotropium,Trustful Surrender to Divine Providence) about His Divine Will that we are to avail ourselves of medicines and if God Wills them not to work then it is His Will for them not to work.

And I think that parents have a duty to protect their children from harm whether the harm is well-intentioned or not. The fact is that vaccines are harmful in some people. Not even the manufacturers deny this fact. Furthermore, manufacturers actively seek protection from liability for the damage their products cause. It took an act of Congress to redress the injustices suffered by the victims of adverse vaccination events. Unfortuantely, the safeguards put in place in the 1980's are being dismantled in the name of "Homeland Security."

quoprimum Wrote:

Where is faith?

Not in the people who are making a fortune on vaccines. It is a HUGE business, fraught with conflict of interest. There are people on the boards of directors at Merck and Lilly, for example, who also have desks at the FDA.

quoprimum Wrote:

Also, as Catholics we are supposed to do that which is for the good of ALL, not just for ourselves.

It is always evil to presume that some humans are more expendable than others.Using aborted children to make vaccines is wrong. Knowing full well that some people will die or suffer serious injury due to vaccine, then requiring them to make that sacrifice for "all" is wrong. It is the same logic employed by the Aztecs and just about as scientific. Here is a well stated article on the flawed concept of herd immunity:

Quote: Is the theory of "herd immunity" flawed?
"Herd" immunity is a theory which purports to explain how an entire group can be protected from disease. It is thought to result in protection of everyone once a magic percentage of vaccinated or otherwise immune individuals is reached, by preventing transmission of the virus to those who remain "unprotected", either because a vaccine didn't happen to work for them, or was too risky in their case.
It relies on getting as high a percentage vaccinated as possible, which means requiring that everyone who doesn't have an obvious contraindication to getting a vaccine, be vaccinated.
However, it is ironic and worth noting that it is the failure of vaccination, not its success, which is used as justification for requiring its use. Thus, children attending school are required to get vaccinations, whether their parents want them to or not, whether it is personally good for them or not, simply because vaccination doesn't always work. This, all in the name of "herd immunity".
Notwithstanding the questionable validity of using the weakness of a product as justification for forcing it on people (more on that another time), and whether or not there is any justice in forcing someone to potentially sacrifice their own health in order to "protect" someone else's, there seem to be problems with the theory itself, i.e., the notion that if you reach a high enough percentage that is vaccinated, a "herd immunity" will result.
One of those potential problems is that outbreaks have occurred in highly vaccinated populations, including those documented to be 100% vaccinated.
If the "herd" cannot be protected with 100% vaccination rates, maybe there is something wrong with the theory.
Another possible problem is that vaccines often do not prevent transmission, instead merely preventing full-blown cases of disease (i.e., causing mild or subclinical cases). In fact, circulating virus is known to boost the immunity of the vaccinated (and perhaps even those naturally immune), thereby prolonging the apparent effectiveness of the vaccine (and maybe even natural immunity). In the absence of circulating disease, vaccine-induced immunity is more likely to wane, and boosters will be required. In any event, it is hard to understand how something which does not necessarily prevent transmission can result in immunity for the "herd".
Is the notion of "herd immunity" scientifically valid?
If circulation of disease cannot always be prevented by vaccination, and instead merely drives it underground in the guise of mild or subclinical cases, can "herd immunity" be counted on to work?
Is one of the reasons outbreaks have occurred in highly vaccinated populations because vaccines are not as effective as we have been led to believe? Are the methods currently used to measure/determine immunity inadequate or flawed?
How valid is the justification for mandating vaccination, given what appears to be some evidence against the theory used to support that policy?

Sandy Mintz

Look for the next
Scandals on Friday, July 12, 2002.

Past
Scandals
Copyright 2001-2002 by Sandy Mintz. All Rights Reserved. This content may be copied in full ONLY with copyright, contact, creation, authorship, and information intact (including all links), without specific permission, and ONLY when used in a not-for-profit format. If any other use is desired, permission in writing from Sandy Mintz is required.

quoprimum Wrote:

The statement that the Vatican made was pretty clear on that I think. There is another statement made by Cardinal Ratzinger that I have not been able to find that states the same position.

I thought it was about as clear as mud.

There is alot of clearer information on Children of God for Life. It is a Catholic website that calls for the use of ethical vaccines. However, they don't really address the other moral issue of vaccine related deaths and injuries.

Reply
#19

Quote:

I haven't replied because I was trying to confirm the claim you made about "carriers" of rubella. On the CDC website I found that the claim is not true:

Quote:

Reservoir

Rubella is a human disease. There is no known animal reservoir.

Although infants with CRS may shed rubella virus for

an extended period, a true carrier state has not been described.


Funny how ya didn't put this part in[Image: hmmm.gif] Just after your quote this:

Communicability

"Rubella is only moderately contagious . The disease is most contagious when the rash is erupting,but the virus may shed from 7 days before to 5-7 days after rash onset.

Infants with CRS shed large of quantities of virus from bodily secretions for up to one year and can therefore transmit rubella to persons caring for them who are susceptible to the disease."

Yes, we should protect our children ,but not at the expense of other unborn children. Shedding virus for up to a year may not be a carrier to you, but sure sounds like one to me.
The statistics don't lie about the drop in rubella from 1966 on. The largest number of cases in the US was in 1969-56,686. In 2003-7 cases reported. Obviously, immunizing works. No manufacturer will tell you that its vaccine is 100%. Nothing is. It has a 95% rate for immunization. Yes, after some time, some people will not have a titre any more(no immunity). I'm 45 and I am still immune. I know of NO child injured by MMR. None. I have been a surgical technician for 20 years. I know of no one who knows anyone who has been injured by a MMR vaccine.

You may feel that you have a "God given right to protect your child" but you also have a God given responsibility to care for others. Even at your own risk.

I do wish there was an alternative. Believe me when I say that I am torn because of the moral issue. I did not know until this child that fetal tissue was used to create some of the vaccines. I am going to discuss this with my Priest as soon as I can. I'll let you know what he says if you would like.

In Christ
Monique

Reply
#20
quoprimum Wrote:You may feel that you have a "God given right to protect your child" but you also have a God given responsibility to care for others. Even at your own risk.

My responsibility is first and foremost my family. Period. This includes their spritual and physical health. My responsibilities towards others is not supposed to be at the expense of my family. Putting the obvious ethical issues of some vaccines aside, the fact remains that having your children vaccinated is playing Russian Roulette with their health. Many have turned out fine; some of them are dead or permanently disabled, some have permanent chronic health issues, and no one knows which category their child will fall into until after the fact. By that time it's a little too late. I'm not taking that chance.
Reply




Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)