Catholic Teaching and Immunization Policy

Status
Not open for further replies.
blackforest said:
It would depend on how each party behaved ethically. So far, the drug companies don’t have a terribly good track record. They might have better luck if they cleaned up their act. To state the obvious, nobody is entitled to trust; it must be earned. Hate campaigns against “anti-vaxxers” shift the blame.
Click to expand...
I would think the victories outweigh the errors.

The fact that an oral antiarrhythmic keeps my mother alive is nothing short of a miracle.
The fact that antibiotics keep millions of us from dying of things that killed people less than 100 years ago is also a miracle in many ways.
The fact that I witnessed so many cured of cancer thanks to chemotherapy is a miracle.
Watching a child be saved from an anaphylactic reaction and potential death will always amaze me.
Seeing diabetics live long and healthy lives is incredible - and that is a very recent innovation; we haven’t had mass marketed insulin for that long.

Are they corrupt? Yes. As is every business. And I get that it’s a bit different here because lives are at stake. Bu the track record of pharmaceutical companies as a whole over time isn’t as horrid as it seems at first pass.
 
You were asking who made the argument that raped women could will themselves against pregnancy. It was a guy running for Senate in Missouri.
 
We’ll agree to disagree on this. Read Dr. Marcia Angell’s writings, if you haven’t already. Some of them are dated, but they’re still relevant.
 
You don’t think the achievements of modern medicine are relevant?

A lot of people condemn the Church continuously for her mistakes. “How can Catholicism be good if all of this horrible stuff has been done by it?” The Church, though, isn’t ultimately defined by her shortcomings. Neither is modern medicine or all the components thereof.
 
I know. But Google it. Check my own links.

As I said, Congressmen don’t always do their research or have any idea of what they’re talking about.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
Ah! The “childhood safety” argument! It can be used to defend even the most preposterous absurdities. The world is full of risks and trade-offs. It is impossible to build our lives around every single one of them, and I haven’t seen a solid case presented to build our lives around the risk of childhood Hep B transmission in a classroom setting.

Here’s a wonderful piece on how irrational we are with, “But . . .but, it’s for the CHILDREN!” How to Overcome Fear Based Parenting | Let Grow
Click to expand...
We are talking about getting a shot, not joining in a nutrition program. What on earth is with the “build our lives around” objection? You say “we are safe in this country, we don’t have to worry about HepB.” Do you know why that is? Because we have an immunization program!!

Using words like “preposterous” or “absurd” doesn’t change the reality that HepB is at bay because we immunize and will come back if we don’t. HepB transmission does not require hypodermic needles. It does not require sexual activity. Children transmit it to other children in other countries all of the time.

So…if you don’t want to do that, then take care of your own children at home. That’s your prerogative. You can hire a babysitter without having your children immunized.
 
My point was there have been far more hits than misses.

And this doesn’t excuse the misses or the ways they’ve screwed up over the years - I’m not about to absolve them from responsibility or shield them from their own stupidity. As I said, working with that CRO for the two years I did was an eye-opener, for sure. They’re as dirty as I thought they were.

But the people doing the work are also a part of those organizations, and they’re the ones who deserve the credit.
 
“Build our lives around” refers to children being blackballed because they aren’t vaccinated for a primarily-adult disease, for which most adults aren’t even vaccinated, before they have access to an education.

Please look up how Hep B is transmitted. Then quantify for me, to the percentage point, the risk of the following occurring in a classroom setting: A) My Hep B - child spreading Hep B, B) My Hep B- child catching Hep B, and C) My Hep B- child catching, then spreading Hep B. All in a classroom.
 
Last edited:
I will say that I believe the reason it gets passed in other countries easily is because of the greater number of people residing in one household in parts of the world where there are not occupancy restrictions. Not vaccinating is a contributing factor, yes, but close quarters multiplies your risk.

There are reasons the US is so far reaching with codes of that nature (there is indeed a limit on how many people can legally live in a privately owned home), and one of them is disease transmission. A lot of it comes out of the work of people like Jane Addams, who worked tirelessly to rid the city of tenements - at the time, rife with disease.

As I’ve said before I have an issue with HepB for someone 24 hours old - especially in my personal case, where both my husband and I are vaccinated and both of us test positive for antibody titers. We are both immune. I know this because he had to have titers drawn for his immigration status, and I’ve had them drawn in the military (which is who gave me the vaccine in the first place). He had to have it to live in certain places he’s lived in the past.

I can’t and won’t downplay what I think is the importance of later vaccination.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
“Build our lives around” refers to children being blackballed because they aren’t vaccinated for a primarily-adult disease, for which most adults aren’t even vaccinated, before they have access to an education.

Please look up how Hep B is transmitted. Then quantify for me, to the percentage point, the risk of the following occurring in a classroom setting: A) My Hep B - child spreading Hep B, B) My Hep B- child catching Hep B, and C) My Hep B- child catching, then spreading Hep B. All in a classroom.
Click to expand...
The disease doesn’t discriminate with regards to age, and young children do innocently exchange bodily fluids with each other at home and at school.
 
PetraG said:
The disease doesn’t discriminate with regards to age, and young children do innocently exchange bodily fluids with each other at home and at school.
Click to expand...
It’s always interesting when you relay this information to a severely germaphobic parent. 😶

Kids scratch their butt (maybe not at kindergarten age, but certainly in daycare), pick their nose, wipe their eyes, then hug their neighbor. 🤣 Kids keep it real, though.
 
Last edited:
PetraG said:
How did you work a fear of eugenics in to whether or not to get immunized?
Click to expand...
You were praising the wonders of medical science, which I ageeed with; I was just giving you an example of what science in the hands of government and a few intellectuals is capable of doing to entire populations; eugenics was implemented in the U.S. right through the 1970s, until things got re-branded. The same mentality is behind those who see overpopulation as the biggest threat to the planet. It’s a question of trust. Global health organizations who have no problem with spreading the gospel of abortion-killing humans-in the name of population control, have no problem with rationalizing other things.
 
Gab123 said:
You were praising the wonders of medical science, which I ageeed with; I was just giving you an example of what science in the hands of government and a few intellectuals is capable of doing to entire populations; eugenics was implemented in the U.S. right through the 1970s, until things got re-branded. The same mentality is behind those who see overpopulation as the biggest threat to the planet. It’s a question of trust. Global health organizations who have no problem with spreading the gospel of abortion-killing humans-in the name of population control, have no problem with rationalizing other things.
Click to expand...
When it is a matter of trust, then it is prudent to ask whether trust is reasonable in a particular set of circumstances. Immunization has wiped out diseases, where there is compliance. Living in a country with modern medicine, however, does not magically give the advantages that modern medicine has to offer without compliance.

People still die of untreated pneumonia in this country because they think “no one dies of pneumonia anymore.” Well, it is true that the mortality rate is very much lower for otherwise healthy people who actually seek treatment. Those who don’t seek treatment can still die of pneumonia, whether they are here or somewhere without any modern treatment available.
 
Last edited:
blackforest said:
Were the trial participants given informed consent and appropriately compensate?
Click to expand...
I have no idea. I wasn’t directly involved. Someone must have gotten paid…but maybe not the people involved!
blackforest said:
more energy should be spent reforming the corrupt parties that create them.
Click to expand...
Not sure what you mean here. I think the medical people who actually create vaccines, etc. are great, and although there might be a couple bad apples, I wouldn’t say they are corrupt. I think (since I’ve seen it first hand–in several jobs) corruption sets in because private companies are in business to make profits first and foremost. You can’t really blame them, since they’re playing by the rules set up by their various governments / societies. But this sets the system up for problems, even without individual corruption. And I have seen individual corruption all over the place first hand (e.g. my boss who rubbed his hands together when there was some outbreak he could make money off).

I may get in trouble with Pup7 and others here, but I don’t see any other way around it: vaccines and medical research needs to be government owned and run. NIH already does this to a great degree–they dole out grants, mostly to universities, to do research. The universities are private (or state), but they’re not going to make a profit off the research. And of course there needs to be oversight, which I am assuming NIH provides.

One of the big problems is that in the last 30 years vaccine companies have been combining like crazy. I’m not sure how many are left at this point. The bigger they get, the more they act like any other corporation–Exxon, Microsoft, etc.

Without getting into all the details, it seems to me that a lot of people are looking for certainty in medicine, and they’re not going to find it. Any operation has an element of risk to it. So does any pill–even aspirin. Just read all those side effects, or listen to them on the TV ads. (And you have to ask yourself why the drug companies are allowed to advertise directly to the public anyway. Other countries think that’s nuts, which it is.) For example, maybe you should take some hormone for osteoporosis…but wait, that increases your risk of cancer! So it goes with almost all medicines nowadays–it might help this over here, but it increases your risk over there. It’s up to you and your doctor to weigh the odds based on your own particular medical historiy. There is no sure thing!
 
Last edited:
Look at 2:38 Coleen Boyle states that they have never done a study of vaccinated children’s autism rates versus unvaccinated children’s rates of autism. I’ll read your links, but I don’t understand why she answered that they haven’t, while you say that they have.
 
Myles_Falworth said:
Here’s an article about the new champion of vaccine safety in the U.S. Congress,
Click to expand...
This is exactly the type of article it takes less than a minute for me to blow off. I will use it as an example. First, it is blog-style (agenda) as opposed to reporting. Second, it is about the old, disproved link to autism, once again. Third, the actual complaint was only that the CDC was not answering the way one politician wanted.

There is no greater mismatch than politicians trying to play scientist.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top