Catholic Teaching and Immunization Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
The fact that we are exposed to so many chemicals in products should be no surprise.
Mankind has always been exposed to chemicals. Physical life is a chemical process.
The 40 year old woman with Ewing’s Sarcoma! Do you know who primarily gets Ewing’s Sarcoma?? Prepubescent boys!! How did she get it?? What was the cause?
Someone had cancer. I guess one can go all paleo and natural, unless one understands the the lifespan in that era was 33. The data simply does not support what you are claiming. People are living longing than they did pre-industrial age, and even pre-internet age. Furthermore, people live longer where good old Big Pharma and scary medicine with all these new-fangled chemicals are contaminating all these bodies.

Of course there are dead ends medically, which is why medical science is a process not an historical event that we did.

So fine, if one wants to live in a manner consistent with an early death for them and their children. I only expect them to accept the consequences, which means not subjecting other children to the dangers they are blind to. I also would like them to quit peddling their deadly ideas here.
 
That is the problem with all slippery slope arguments is that they can always be simply denied, like the idea that somehow mandatory vaccinations will lead to some sort of government excess.
Lead to? Mandating a for-profit, indemnified, risk-laden pharmaceutical product on the populous is government excess.
I base mine on biology, not statistics, not that statistics are not valid.
I use both, but I also use ethical considerations. The latter were the impetus for this thread.
 
I use both, but I also use ethical considerations. The latter were the impetus for this thread.
That is good. My reasoning is also founded in ethical considerations. Do not forget that for a Catholic, the Church is our source for moral guidance. This is why I believe we have more responsibility toward society than many here.
 
Thank you thank you thank you!
I am a massage therapist and you wouldn’t believe all the ridiculous pseudoscience involved in the field…and the whole detox thing is BIG here…sigh…I’m trying to fight the good fight against pseudoscience and it is HARD!
 
I’m not honestly sure how Pup7 feels about mandatory influenza vaccination for health care workers. But re: the Hep B for infants and small children, it must be nice to disagree with the CDC on something without being name-called an “anti-vax conspiracy theorist.”
I was very much out of commission yesterday thanks to anesthesia.

I laughed (not rudely, just a laugh) at your last sentence.

I’m not an anti-vax conspiracy theorist because I’m not falling for propaganda saying vaccines are killing en masse. Because they’re not. I know they don’t cause autism, ADHD, or the diseases they protect against. I know they’re not laced with other diseases in the name of genocide (yep, that’s out there too). I don’t agree with HepB for an infant because there’s nothing to convince me it’s needed. I came to that as an educated decision, with careful research of peer reviewed sources on HepB the virus, how it works, and how it’s spread and how common it is. I disagree with its administration at 24 hours old as a personal choice, and I don’t judge those who have it administered because they believe it is the right thing for their baby.

I want to add that I do NOT believe its administration at that age is harmful in the least, and I can’t find ANY evidence saying it is. I just don’t see the point in 24 hours old.

I am assuredly not an antivax conspiracy theorist. I don’t go around telling people of the evils of the HepB vaccine for infants or tell them it’s going to give their kid autism - or reference non-peer reviewed sources full of misinformation and old bunk science.

I said I don’t quite get the reasoning for it - not that it was going to cause cancer or autism or a host of other issues. I said I can’t get evidence validating the reason - and then I turned around and said “but you should have it when you’re older for certain” or something to that effect. The other rationale I’ve seen is “what if they need a blood transfusion”? Plenty of people in this world have never been vaxxed against HepB and get blood transfusions - and if a baby that small needs a blood transfusion there are far larger concerns at stake. And that belief in me developed from working in a NICU for my pediatrics rotation in nursing school, where I helped take care of 25, 26 weekers who DID get transfusions - and hepatitis wasn’t the neonatologist’s primary concern.
 
Last edited:
@blackforest

The American Nurses’ Association is 100% behind employee vaccination.


Didn’t say this initially - so am I.
 
Last edited:
The fact that human beings are being injected with man-made genetically engineered vaccines designed to tamper with the immune system might be a clue as to why there are a horde of cancers and diseases popping up in the oddest places
Right. It’s not extended lifespan, the Industrial Revolution, organophosphate use, or other daily exposures to chemicals that break DNA.

Interesting, then, that the rate of cancer is the same among the immunized as the non immunized.

Again, I point to Norway. Mandatory vaccines, same stories. Or Europe. Same.

Again - you need to pick another cause.
 
Last edited:
There are a plethora of cancers popping up in the oddest places. And just read the booklets on the pharmaceutical products, those warnings with the tiny almost illegible fonts. If all those potential side effects were printed on a standard sheet of paper with a regular size font it would be a stack of papers warning you of all the dangers; they even warn you to to seek medical help if the side-effect symptoms appear right away. People who were exposed at Chernobyl didn’t develop their symptoms right away.
Do you know how drug studies work and what gets reported? This is easily verified with a few strokes of Google.

I’ve worked for a clinical research organization that runs drug trials for drug companies. I’ve had the FDA in my office and had the chance to talk with representatives. I’ve been on conference calls with drug company (low level) executives. It was an education in more ways than one.

During the controlled testing phase, anything - and i mean anything - that happens during the trial is recorded as a possible side effect.

Rashes, death, cancer, ear infection, wheezing, cold symptoms, snot, red eyes, bruising, ingrown toenails (okay, that’s an exaggeration, but I’ve seen incredible things listed in my day) - ALL OF IT gets reported as a possible side effect because they cannot prove the drug didn’t cause it.

That’s why you get all those weird side effects in inserts. Not because that’s what the medication caused. But because that stuff happened during the trial.

Some of them over time get refined - let’s use leg cramping with statins. We know that’s a very common side effect. We’re 99% sure the drug causes it. So we tell people to take it at night, because generally the cramps are mild enough to sleep through. We also know it’s dose dependent, so if you’re on the 40mg you’re more likely to experience it than if you’re on the 10mg.

They tell you to seek medical attention because the side effect might not be a true side effect (since they’re not sure with some of them but are legally obligated to report them) - it could be indicative of a greater problem, and they also say to seek medical attention right away because a little issue can be a harbinger of a greater issue. It’s like me telling you when you call me (because nurses do telephone triage for specific illnesses - totally legal and totally safe, practiced everywhere in the US and I know they do it in England as well) that you’ve probably got a massive cold and should be fine in 4-7 days, but if your fever skyrockets or your symptoms get worse you need to call for an appointment. Not a huge difference to me. Confusing and scary for someone unfamiliar, which is why you’re meant to call the expert - your doctor/NP/PA.

Same thing with vaccines.

As for Chernobyl, we KNOW that exposure to radiation causes latent onset cancer. We knew that in 1986, and we know it now. That’s not the best example.
 
Last edited:
Autism Speaks is recognized as a hate group by the autistic community. It doesn’t advocate for autistic people. It continues to stigmatize them.

Autism diagnoses have gone up since the 70s because we recognize that it is a spectrum condition and have discovered that there are many more ways that autism presents. The amount of people born with autism hasn’t gone up. We just know what to look for better.
 
Only in a society that’s grown so complacent and bloated with good fortune can the people start forgetting what life was like before immunization. It’s really shameful when people take things for granted like this.
 
Autism Speaks is recognized as a hate group by the autistic community. It doesn’t advocate for autistic people. It continues to stigmatize them.

Autism diagnoses have gone up since the 70s because we recognize that it is a spectrum condition and have discovered that there are many more ways that autism presents. The amount of people born with autism hasn’t gone up. We just know what to look for better.
I’m not advocation any group. The changes in diagnostic practices only accounts for some of the increase, whereas the majority of the increase is unaccounted for most likely die to environmental factors. To go from 1 in 5,000 to 1 in every 110 is shocking. AUTISM is not coming from nature.
 
Last edited:
Yes I agree for the most part. I also think that with the advent of the internet, more mildly affected people with autism have met others like them, married, reproduced, passed on their genes etc; rinse and repeat.
 
I’m not an anti-vax conspiracy theorist because I’m not falling for propaganda saying vaccines are killing en masse.
I get it. I’m trying to illustrate the fanatical, rigid, and black-and-white anti-intellectualism that’s come to characterize this debate. It’s not “pro” versus “anti” because it’s not that black and white.
The American Nurses’ Association is 100% behind employee vaccination.
Apologies. It’s particular nurses unions that oppose it. I find it refreshing that someone in the medical field is actually siding with science on this one.
http://www.bcmj.org/point-counterpoint/cover-lack-evidence-vaccinate-or-mask-policies#


 
It’s not just science in the debate, it’s also risk vs. benefit (which I know is being researched - I get that) - and the fact that even with research things are slow to change.

Cochrane and CIDRAP are reliable sources. And yes, it’s a hot debate. I have a feeling that eventually the mandate will be dropped except in specific cases (like those in cancer and organ transplant, where everyone is on immunosuppressants of some ilk; or in ICUs with the gravely ill; or even in the military, where everyone is mandated to get it because we have the propensity to live in close quarters) - and then they will closely watch what happens as a result. If flu rates were to increase (I don’t know that they would, that’s just a comment), you can bet the mandates would return.

The problem I see is we never know how virulent one year’s strain is going to be. We never know how bad it can get, which is why at this point it’s just a questioning and opening research. Looking at it is the right thing to do.

Having worked among the immunocompromised, I’m for it - but that’s just me. It doesn’t hurt me to get the vaccine, so I don’t mind it - and I’d likely get it anyway.

Flu, however, isn’t measles, or mumps, or polio.
 
I get it. I’m trying to illustrate the fanatical, rigid, and black-and-white anti-intellectualism that’s come to characterize this debate. It’s not “pro” versus “anti” because it’s not that black and white.
What bugged me and spawned that comment was this:
I’m not honestly sure how Pup7 feels about mandatory influenza vaccination for health care workers. But re: the Hep B for infants and small children, it must be nice to disagree with the CDC on something without being name-called an “anti-vax conspiracy theorist.”
That’s why I said what I said - because that was clearly directed at me. No hard feelings at all, but that’s why I made the statement.
 
But re: the Hep B for infants and small children, it must be nice to disagree with the CDC on something without being name-called an “anti-vax conspiracy theorist.”
I am frustrated by be called these names just for disagreeing with the mainstream. I find anecdotally that health care professionals enjoy more immunity from this. It’s not an insult.
 
I’m not advocation any group. The changes in diagnostic practices only accounts for some of the increase, whereas the majority of the increase is unaccounted for most likely die to environmental factors. To go from 1 in 5,000 to 1 in every 110 is shocking. AUTISM is not coming from nature.
No, it’s actually not shocking in the least to me.

Look at how even our diagnostic criteria have changed in the last thirty years.

You have no idea - just like the experts - where autism is coming from. And as I said, you need to look at Norway, where their rate of autism is exactly the same as ours, with government vaccination records spanning fifty years.

It’s not vaccines.
 
I am frustrated by be called these names just for disagreeing with the mainstream. I find anecdotally that health care professionals enjoy more immunity from this. It’s not an insult.
Because as a group we don’t fall for the propaganda. Because we know what peer reviewed literature is, and we can sift through the chaff to find the wheat. We don’t fall for the whole shebang.

You could’ve specified the same instead of appearing to single me out. That is what grated on me.

And there are plenty of healthcare professionals who are just as ridiculous as Jenny McCarthy, and they get told that on a regular basis.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top