Catholic Teaching and Immunization Policy

[blackforest]

Here’s an interesting article in light of our discussion on chicken pox. More Canadians are getting shingles, and researchers aren’t sure why - National | Globalnews.ca

Another possibility – somewhat paradoxically – is vaccination. “We know that as we immunize children, we have less and less chickenpox in the community,” said McNeil. So one theory is that parents used to get re-exposed when their kids caught chickenpox, and again as their grandchildren did, which gave them a “boost” in their immunity.

With fewer kids catching chickenpox since the vaccine was introduced in Canada in roughly 2000, adults aren’t having their immunity boosted so may be less able to keep the latent virus suppressed later in life. And so, they’re more likely to develop shingles.

Yet another case against mandates, ce n’est pas?

 

[Pup7]

This begs the question. Why do you believe the schedule “exploded?”. Could it be financial incentive from the pharmaceutical companies which drove this? Or was it a reaction to a real need?

Improvements in medicine is the reason.

 

[Pup7]

PetraG:

Yes, and it hasn’t been evaluated to see if it ever causes a child’s hair to turn purple, either.

I get that cause doesn’t equal correlation, but enough logical correlations -purple-haired pirates need not apply - are enough to warrant investigations that aren’t happening to the degree that they should.

I’ll say this - not every single thing that gets investigated gets published.

 

[Pup7]

And Aluminum is also widely associated with breast cancer…

Myth. Total email myth. It isn’t. When you say that, you lose credibility.

Antiperspirants and Breast Cancer Risk | American Cancer Society

Studies have showed that exposure to formaldehyde caused nasal cancer in rats. and it was the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) that classified formaldehyde as a probable carcinogen-

…at specific levels. We’ve all been exposed to an awful lot of it over the course of our lives.

This reminds me of the whole aspartame argument, where the level that one human would have to consume to duplicate the concentration given to rats that caused cancer is humanly impossible.

Coffee is a potential carcinogen, and there’s enough garbage in most tap water to cause it…but the amount you’d have to consume to see an effect from it borders on impossible.

You can’t make a causal connection with “happens to coincide”. No scientific, organized inquiry is run off the principle that you can - because you can’t.

 

[pnewton]

Coffee is a potential carcinogen, and there’s enough garbage in most tap water to cause it…but the amount you’d have to consume to see an effect from it borders on impossible.

Radiation is one of the most known causes of cancer. But there is the sun. Almost anything can kill us in one way or another, at some level.

Avoiding death is a life-long challenge. (can I copyright this?)

 

[blackforest]

Myth. Total email myth. It isn’t. When you say that, you lose credibility.

Antiperspirants and Breast Cancer Risk

Aluminum In Breast Tissue: A Possible Factor In The Cause Of Breast Cancer | ScienceDaily

Aluminium, carbonyls and cytokines in human nipple aspirate fluids: Possible relationship between inflammation, oxidative stress and breast cancer microenvironment - PubMed

Aluminium chloride promotes anchorage-independent growth in human mammary epithelial cells - PubMed

Dispute the research to your heart’s content, but you don’t get to call it an “email myth” when there is indeed research.

 

[Pup7]

You’d be correct on that. I’ll eat the words to a point, but there’s still no confirmed and direct cause/effect relationship. “Possible” does not mean “we have proven”. The emails claim “proven”. Poorly worded on my part, and I’ll own it.

But there is no “proven” here.

 

[JW55]

It is a logical connection that it may affect some individuals in this manner and there have been studies for years that have eluded to this. There are also no doubt studies that also say other wise or at least shed suspicion to the results. There are a lot of things surfacing all the time that seem to call problems to things we once accepted as safe. For example, the talcum powder issue a few years ago, even the case with cigarettes going back to the 50s and 60s. Many industries have strong lobbies that yield a powerful influence sometimes on slanted research that shows something in their favor. There at least seems to be sufficient evidence in this case to warrant judgement on the part of the user not to utilize these additives if they are concerned about it’s possible effects.