vaccines!

  • Thread starter Thread starter sherimarie
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
whatsmyname said:
And do your own research so you can make up your own mind.
Click to expand...
I am not an epidemiologist. I do not think I am allowed to conduct medical research. I humbly must acknowledge that I have to rely on trusted professionals.
 
From the Pontific Academy for Life:

catholicnews.com/data/stories/cns/0504240.htm
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.
Click to expand...
“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.
Click to expand...
“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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
From the National Catholic Bioethics Center
ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1284
Am I free to refuse to vaccinate myself or my children on the grounds of conscience?

One must follow a certain conscience even if it errs, but there is a responsibility to inform one’s conscience properly. There would seem to be no proper grounds for refusing immunization against dangerous contagious disease, for example, rubella, especially in light of the concern that we should all have for the health of our children, public health, and the common good.
Click to expand...
The morality of the issue is weighing whether we sacrifice for the common good of society or act in accordance with what is best for us. Do we “love our neighbor as ourselves” or do we love our neighbor only when we can do so without any risk? Jesus illustrated this principle by describing two very religious people cared more for the practice of their religion than their fellow man in need.
 
whatsmyname said:
I thought the topic of this thread was more a general discussion of vaccines, and a possibly peaceful discussion of vaccines, not only the vaccine-autism link or the fetal cell lines in vaccines.

Repeating it does not make it true. So you’re just going to ignore the scores of peer reviewed medical studies? I’ve posted links to quite a few in this post and I’ve posted a link to another link to a hundred. You can say, “There’s no credible link” over and over again, but that doesn’t make it true.

But again, there are countless reasons other than the autism risk to be concerned about vaccines.

And to the person who mentioned that measles is a danger to a pregnant woman’s fetus…you should also avoid contact with people who have been vaccinated in the past 28 days because they can shed the live virus and it is theoretically possible that the pregnant woman can catch it that way (source: the MMR vaccine insert from Merck). Should the recently vaccinated be quarantined?
Click to expand...
According to the CDC, the vaccinated person isn’t contagious. cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/measles/faqs-dis-vac-risks.htm
 
whatsmyname said:
Repeating it does not make it true. So you’re just going to ignore the scores of peer reviewed medical studies?
Click to expand...
It may not be a matter of ignoring evidence as it is deciding that the American Academy of Pediatrics, the CDC, the World Health Organization, and the Institute of Medicine, simply are more compelling, taken a whole. Like I said, look at the studies and see how many use science and how many use statistics. How many isolate variables? How many show correlation and then imply causation? I am not epidemiologist, but I know enough to recognize who is the expert, who is not, who has an agenda and who does not. If Merck puts out a study, it should be suspect. The same goes for the antivax movement who, for reasons I cannot fathom, are not content with their own choices but seem almost religious in defense of their choice. The phrase, “I think thou doest protest too much” comes to mind.

On can almost go to the “About” section of a website and know what opinion they will have. It is called confirmation bias.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias
 
cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/

That is a link to read about whether using aborted babies to make vaccines causes more babies to die.

I’m gonna look into my crystal ball and say this will give rise to someone saying “this fetus died 40 years ago”!and"the church says we have an obligation to get that vaccine and save lives!"

You do realize this vaccine was nothing more than a Frankenstine experiment? They already had a fine measles vaccine up and running. You know when they indroduced the new one? The same time the autism rate started to rise.

Or was it the same time sour cream was invented? …🤷
 
whatsmyname said:
Here’s a link to about 100 scientific studies (compiled in a blog, but not blog opinions) that link vaccines to autism
Click to expand...
I don’t have time to read 100 studies. But I might have time to read one. Please cite just one study that best supports your contention that vaccines **without Thimerosal **pose a significant risk for autism.
 
I clicked on that link, anyone else can save themselves the time it had nothing to do with the discussion. You people do revel in killing time!

:rolleyes:

These charts do not show a fleeting haphazard, one and done correlation. They track in the same way for every state and various different countries.

look at it.
 
whatsmyname said:
I thought the topic of this thread was more a general discussion of vaccines, and a possibly peaceful discussion of vaccines, not only the vaccine-autism link or the fetal cell lines in vaccines.

Repeating it does not make it true. So you’re just going to ignore the scores of peer reviewed medical studies? I’ve posted links to quite a few in this post and I’ve posted a link to another link to a hundred. You can say, “There’s no credible link” over and over again, but that doesn’t make it true.

But again, there are countless reasons other than the autism risk to be concerned about vaccines.

And to the person who mentioned that measles is a danger to a pregnant woman’s fetus…you should also avoid contact with people who have been vaccinated in the past 28 days because they can shed the live virus and it is theoretically possible that the pregnant woman can catch it that way (source: the MMR vaccine insert from Merck). Should the recently vaccinated be quarantined?
Click to expand...
Um… thats why at the initial OB visit we draw labs to test for MMR immunity, so the woman if not immune can avoid being around those recently vaccinated (really immediate family only) and she can be vaccinated prior to d/c from the hospital.

To some people on this thread:
  1. It is well established that Vaccines save lives and is a NO BRAINER when it comes to risk vs benefit.
  2. The link between autism and vaccines has been DEBUNKED. (I personally think autism is due to microwave ovens… just kidding).
:slapfight:

The problem here is that you can’t vaccinate against stupidity!!!
 
sherimarie said:
I clicked on that link, anyone else can save themselves the time it had nothing to do with the discussion. You people do revel in killing time!

:rolleyes:

These charts do not show a fleeting haphazard, one and done correlation. They track in the same way for every state and various different countries.

look at it.
Click to expand...
A posting like this is very confusing, since you don’t quote the person you are responding to. A reader has no idea what link you clicked on.
 
I think this is the best one for inspiring interest in the autism/vaccine linkresource://pdf.js/web/
 
sherimarie said:
cogforlife.org/vaccines-abortions/

That is a link to read about whether using aborted babies to make vaccines causes more babies to die.
Click to expand...
The site states that they
Our Purpose Is:
•To bridge the gap between ethicists, clergy and moral theologians who hold opposing opinions on the morality of using these vaccines
Click to expand...
Yet they say:
Further, the perceived “moral permissibility” of using these vaccines has led to a denial by the pharmaceutical industry for ethical alternatives. Merck Public Affairs Executive Director Isabel Claxton has already stated as much in a letter to Children of God for Life in response to the Campaign for Ethical Vaccines, November 2000:
Click to expand...
There is no opposing opinions, at least in the Catholic Church. I posted the view of the PAL, as well as the NCBC. I have not seen any view that opposes this from within the magisterium. The use of scare quotes around “moral permissibility” and the use of the word “perceived” for an moral opinion taught by the Church belies this author’s, Debra Vinnedge, adherence to Church teaching in this area. The more immediate cooperation of evil by not considering the good of society is a greater issue than the more remote cooperation with evil by use of a vaccine.
 
We do not have a responcibility to put our kids at risk of autism in order to promote a herd immunity.

The church allows cannibalism when there is a necessity. I don’t think taking this vaccine is a “remote” cooperation in a persons murder. We are benefiting from her death in a very material way. I think that promotes more scientists to do like wise. I KNOW it gives a pregnant mom considering abortion one more reason to pull the trigger.
 
sherimarie said:
Change point stuff s3.amazonaws.com/soundchoice/soundchoice/wp-content/uploads/UNITED-STATES.pdf#page=5&zoom=auto
Click to expand...
More Sound Choice stuff. You said earlier:
I hate reading links almost as much as I hate waisting my time posting links nobody reads. lol
Click to expand...
(name removed by moderator) owes me 10 min. of my life back. DId you even read that? Confounded! That is a good example of why people DON"T read links. It’s usually a rabbit hole.
Click to expand...
As I said earlier, confirmation bias makes sites promoting a single issue useless for investigating that issue. That is why medical information is better from a diverse group of established medical organizations, like the CDC, WHO and major hospitals and universities. Moral information should be from sites that are either part of the Catholic Church or an approved lay apostolate under the supervision of some bishop.
 
They are just about the only place to go for this compilation. I don’t think they have money at heart because they are trying to get Merck to release the original vaccine, if it was all about $ with them they would just promote production of their own.

You think the cdc is not invested in this, your wrong. They have been telling sheep like you that they have nothing to fear in these vaccines. If they are proven wrong do you think their credibility would take a serious hit? Do you think it would mean all kinds of law suits?$$$$$$$$$$$
 
sherimarie said:
They are just about the only place to go for this compilation.
Click to expand...
I never thought they did. When drug companies are involved, then the profit motive casts dispersion on their motives, and therefore their data. Yes, the CDC has their motives, as all government agencies do. They need to stay relevant and keep their funding and influence coming. That is why multiple sources are better, though special interest groups will never be a source I rely on.

My own doctor is a good source for medical opinions.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top