Infant Vaccinations

Discussion in 'Family Forum' started by zsmcd, Oct 27, 2015.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Fogetaboutit

    Fogetaboutit Puritan Board Freshman

    So if you have firearms in your house, is it not a risk that somebody might steal them to commit murder. This sounds like extreme left arguments, if the truth is obvious let it speak for itself but this is not as clear cut as you seem to think it is, at least for some of us. But to accuse me of sin by breaking the 6th commandment (which technically should mean that I should be liable to church discipline) is a bit exaggerating to say the least, and I don't think it has it's place in such discussion.
  2. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

    If you have firearms and don't lock them up, you are definitely at fault and immoral for endangering toddlers if those toddlers come to harm. Just like the railing-on-rooftops-law in the OT. You are morally obligated not to endanger others if you can help it and you are morally guilty for endangering the health of others if there are safeguards that you refuse to implement. Just like the laws quarantining the sick in the OT.

    If you were put under quarantine (like the ebola lady last year) and snuck out of your house while on quarantine, this is immoral.

    Again, public health decisions have moral implications.
  3. Fogetaboutit

    Fogetaboutit Puritan Board Freshman

    Would I also breaking the 6th commandment if I was eating a peanut butter sandwich in public?
  4. johnny

    johnny Puritan Board Sophomore

    Vacinations are still voluntary so the ethical implications are subject to conscience.

    I would not feel I was breaking the 6th commandment if I had strong reasons to suspect
    that I was putting a child in danger, problem is, I don't have that strong reason.

    So for myself, the 6th commandment does apply. (but for others it may not)

    Has Edwards been mentioned yet?
    I wonder what he would think after his experience with early vacines.
  5. johnny

    johnny Puritan Board Sophomore

    On reflection,

    I don't think the 6th commandment applies. (what was I thinking?)
    Its more appropriate to use the Great Commandment in this instance
  6. Abeard

    Abeard Puritan Board Freshman

    Stat for American adults not up to date with vaccinations:

    As for my understanding of how vaccines work, I found this helpful:

    As for my general understanding of vaccines and their side effects, as well as "herd immunity", these links may prove useful to anyone interested in credible sources:

    General Articles with Many Links to Studies

    Less allergies and asthma in unvaccinated children

    German study showing unvaxed kids are healthier

    Unvaxed children who are they and where do they live?

    Regressive Autism and Heavy Metals

    Studies and explanations.

    A collection of peer reviewed studies!the-factsscience/cc2d/

    Overuse of vaccines overcomes natural autoimmunity and creates autoimmune- disorders Japanese study

    Repeated immunization with antigen causes systemic autoimmunity in mice otherwise not prone to spontaneous autoimmune diseases
  7. timfost

    timfost Puritan Board Senior


    Just a gentle encouragement to not go too far to an extreme, accusing of breaking the 6th commandment when someone does not choose to vaccinate or does not get all the recommended vaccinations. I think it would be wise to speak about this a little less emphatically.

    I understand your position and respect it. As I explained earlier, I have first-hand experience to approach vaccines with caution and weigh both sides of the equation.

    You may continue to provide evidence supporting your convictions, but to me, my sister is a person, not a statistic.
  8. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)

    Ha.... if I knowingly fed my friend shrimp sauce when I knew he couldn't breathe afterwards, I suppose this would fit as a 6th Cmdmnt violation I suppose exposing folks to violent reactions to peanuts could also fit the bill if you knew you were to be in a crowded room with folks who had a severe problem.

    I suppose ignorance serves somewhat as a shield against immorality if I was eating shrimp next to a violently allergic person and didn't know it. But if I knew they suffered reactions if exposed to shrimp, and I worked closely next to them, I would think there would be kindness involved (and some level of moral weight) to decisions about whether to bring shrimp again to work when working the same shift as this person and eating next to them.

    If you knowingly endanger somebody else, you are sinning.
    Last edited: Oct 30, 2015
  9. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)


    I believe it would be a good idea to keep the question of morality as part of this discussion since it concerns public health: (1) Public health decisions have moral implications. Some private or family decisions impact neighbors and the society at large (2) Knowingly exposing your sick or unvaccinated kids to the general vaccinated population increases the chances of sickening others. (3) large groups of unvaccinated kids together increase the risks of renewed cases of measles, etc., and lowers herd immunity (4) Knowingly endangering others (or possibly endangering others), or refusing legitimate safeguards or actions which serve to protect others, all have moral implications.

    If your church taught against vaccines and I put my vaccinated kids in services with the many unvaccinated kids that inhabit some churches, and my kids got sick due to decreased herd immunity...I believe there is a moral element involved. My kids were exposed because of you. You have compromised my safety and the safety of my children. It is similar (though not the same) as if your child was enrolled in a daycare and you knowingly admitted your child to daycare even though the child had the flu.

    There is a moral element involved, whether you take offense or not and whether the danger is very great or just medium. You have decreased my safety somewhat. Therefore, there is that question concerning the morality of decreasing someone else's safety somewhat.

    If 10 million parents decided not to vaccinate their children, then rates of disease would sky-rocket. Children would then die unnecessarily. That is unethical if you were part of the cause.

    We may disagree as to the DEGREE in which there is a moral element to this debate (especially since there are other factors involved, such as those Merck vaccines created from those cell lines procured from those two past abortions several decades ago). But I assert that there is some moral element involved in public health debates, because we share a society and your actions impact the lives of others.

    It is, therefore, permissible to discuss this topic's moral and ethical implications. The ethics of both vaccinating as well as refusing to vaccinate should remain as part of this discussion.

    Ironically, both sides of this debate could assert that there are possible 6th Commandment violations at play for the other side, both (1) if we view vaccines created from cell lines first procured through the use of aborted embryos, as well as (2) if we support actions which publicly endanger the herd immunity of others by refusing to be vaccinated. I have researched this topic not only because my wife was in public health, but also because there is no escaping the ethical implications of this issue. It is not merely a menu choice like Coke or Pizza or a matter of taste or preference....whatever you choose to do impacts others and has ethical ramifications. We might as well admit that this questions involves ethics and how we love others.

    Even if some studies proved (which they don't seem to) that vaccinations increase the autism rate, there is still the question of "In a shared society, do these slight individual risks to my child outweigh the larger societal benefits of mass immunity and mass vaccination?" I would say that if you asked parents in the 30s, 40s and 1950's this question as it pertained to polio, they would almost 100% agree that any risks posed by polio vaccines were worth it if it meant that the scourge of polio could be stopped.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2015
  10. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)


    You stated, "

    Do you believe that if the State required vaccinations this would remove the ethical questions for us? How would we treat this topic differently if the Gov't required as a law for us to get certain vaccinations? I believe one candidate, Ben Carson, proposes precisely that.

    An analogy: When I was younger I had friends who claimed (based on bad science) that seat belts were dangerous because, sometimes, they trapped the person or pinned them in a dangerous position if the car rolled a certain way. Therefore, this person always refused to wear seat-belts (due to a claimed concern over his safety). Now that more studies have shown the efficacy of seatbelts and now that seatbelt laws are passed, many people would assert that refusing to wear a seatbelt might be immoral, in the very least because it breaks a law, but also because it endangers the driver. At what point did my friend's action of always refusing to wear a seatbelt become immoral (if ever at all)?

    About J. Edwards: Yes, he died from a botched early inoculation. His willingness to undergo this risk for the furtherance of science and the safety of later generations is very commendable, don't you think?
  11. timfost

    timfost Puritan Board Senior


    Although I understand your points, I still think you are getting into subjective territory. For example, is it morally wrong to drive somewhere for recreation since I could get into an accident? Is it immoral to drive an SUV when I could drive something that produces less greenhouse gases, thus reducing pollutants that harm lungs and the environment?

    Should I rebuke my parents for under-vaccinating some of my siblings (as they deal with a child whose epilepsy is likely from a vaccine), citing a violation of the 6th commandment?

    I think if you slow down a little and consider the implications of your assertions, you would be less dogmatic in your presentation.
    Last edited: Oct 31, 2015
  12. timfost

    timfost Puritan Board Senior

    This is probably more than you bargained for, huh? :deadhorse:
  13. Pergamum

    Pergamum Ordinary Guy (TM)


    How about this for a compromise then: "This issue has moral implications. We are undecided how much or what exactly those implication are....but these decisions are not merely matters of taste but involve ethics and morality?"

    As to your question about recreation: I believe base-jumping or jumping off the Alps in one of those flying-squirrel suits is unethical because of the high level of risk involved. For that reason, I have tried to avoid circus acts where the tightrope walkers go "net-less" because introducing a high level of needless danger into your life appears to be a 6th Commandment violation? Do you agree?

    If SUVs were shown to be a high contributor to gases and gases were shown to be a high factor in bad health, I believe driving an SUV would be a matter of morality. Like vaccines, that topic is a matter of studies and questions about the credibility of the authorities involved in those studies. I believe knowingly ruining the environment is great sin.

    One recent issue of questionable morality has been second-hand smoke. Many people now believe second-hand smoke is harmful and some have produced studies that might prove the dangers of second-hand smoke. Recently the US government passed laws against parents smoking in the car with their small children subjected to the smoke. If second-hand smoke is harmful to those around you, then, indeed, it seems immoral to smoke in a closed car with your kids choking in the backseat.

    Should we rebuke our parents for smoking Pall Malls like chimneys? Our grandparents? I believe there was less knowledge in the 1940's and 1950s about the dangers of smoking, but I still believe there is an element of morality there. Many of our paents smoked like chimneys until their second heart attacks, long into the 1970's and 1980's when it became clear the smoking was unhealthy.

    I am sorry to hear that you have a family member with epilepsy that is possibly from a vaccine. For this reason, I can see why there might be some passion in your views about vaccinations. I will try to be less dogmatic, even as I assert that morality is part of this discussion.
  14. timfost

    timfost Puritan Board Senior

    Thank you. It's one thing to say that for you and your family, the 6th commandment informs your decision. It's another thing to assert that everyone else that doesn't see it your way has compromised morality.
  15. Edward

    Edward Puritanboard Commissioner

    Written by a chiropractor, not a medical doctor, osteopath, or nurse.

    Quite useful. Stay away from poor blacks. And maybe Mormons. And avoid the following states if unvaccinated:

    California, Illinois, New York, Washington, Pennsylvania, Texas, Oklahoma, Colorado, Utah, and Michigan.

    If autism isn't caused by putting mercury into the vaccines, it must be caused by taking mercury out of the vaccines. "Although the withdrawal of mercury from vaccines has not resulted in an overall decline in the occurrence of autism this does not mean that the problem does not lie with thimerosal[243,263]. It may indicate that the problem is associated with the elimination of mercury_ "

    Well. that really sheds a lot of light on the problem, doesn't it?

    Now, what was my first comment on the thread?

    I may get around to looking at some of the others, or I may not.
  16. dog8food

    dog8food Puritan Board Freshman

    Here is a response from my healthcare provider if it helps (which I'm sure it will just add to the confusion)

    Do you believe in vaccinations ?

    "No, not at all. They have never been proven to work to begin with. The whole claim of proof is that smallpox was eradicated by vaccinations. But various viral outbreaks for which no vaccines exist have died out on their own accord. Look at the Ebola, Marburg's and Lassa fever outbreaks in Africa in the late 70s. Interesting thing is that all of these outbreaks and the appearance of AIDS all coincided with the World Health Organization's (WHO's) Expanded Program on immunization (EPI). When the vaccinations were halted the Ebola, Marburg's and Lassa fever outbreaks all died out on their own. It should also be noted that the WHO had been warned several times previously that their vaccines were contaminated with live viruses but failed to do anything about the problem. They also reported in their own journal that they were going to produce man-made viruses that would selectively destroy the immune system then introduce them during routine vaccinations in humans. The documentation for this can be found in the Bull WHO 1972 and the Fed Proc 1972. This is not the only case of vaccines being contaminated. Another great example are the polio vaccines given to 90 million Americans in the 50s and 60s that were contaminated with simian virus type 40 (SV40), which causes a number of cancers in humans.

    There are also the facts that you can still get the same diseases you are vaccinated for and diseases for which vaccines exist are on the rise, such as mumps.

    My biggest concern with vaccines is the risk that they can lead to superviruses. Viruses can mutate through several mechanisms. One of these is through the incorporation of other viral coats in to their own viral coat in which the virus takes on properties of both viruses. Since vaccines can contain either live viruses or viral coats vaccines can in theory provide sources for mutation of viruses within the body."

    Are they maybe linked to Autism?

    "I personally think there is strong evidence as to many cases of autism. Rates of autism did increase dramatically when vaccines were made mandatory. And the brains of infants and young children would be more susceptible to the mercury in vaccines. Furthermore, if there was no basis for this then why did the medical establishment lie stating that there was no difference when the mercury was taken out the vaccines? The part they left out was that the mercury source, Thimerosal, was only removed from a few, not all, vaccines. Therefore, if there was really no link then they should have removed the mercury from all vaccines to show there was no change in rates if this was really the case. The fact that they deliberately mislead the public says a whole lot that they know more than they are saying in my opinion."
  17. Edward

    Edward Puritanboard Commissioner

    What kind of health care provider?
  18. dog8food

    dog8food Puritan Board Freshman

    I don't know if he specializes, so probably family practice.
  19. Edward

    Edward Puritanboard Commissioner

    MD or DO, then?
  20. SRoper

    SRoper Puritan Board Graduate

    Wife's a Christian. And an MD. We have a kid. We vaccinate him. On schedule.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page