Religious waiver for vaccinations?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Scot

Puritan Board Sophomore
In Pennsylvania the law states that you may object if you hold a strong belief similiar to a religious conviction. We object to them and five out of six of my children are not vaccinated. After looking at the issue I've come to the conclusion that they are more harmful than helpful (especially since you can go back and see the diseases on the decline way before a vaccine for a particular disease was introduced). Therefore, I'm convicted that it's not in their best interest and would have no problem claiming a religious exemption.

And for the arguement that my children will put others at risk, I ask: How can that be if your children are vaccinated and the vaccines really work? You should have nothing to worry about. Right?

You can look at state laws for exemption here:

Vaccination Liberation Home Page

(good site but I'm not endorsing everything on it)
 

Nate

Puritan Board Junior
And for the arguement that my children will put others at risk, I ask: How can that be if your children are vaccinated and the vaccines really work? You should have nothing to worry about. Right?
What about infants that are not yet vaccinated? Are you not putting them at risk?

-----Added 8/10/2009 at 11:08:42 EST-----

However, the Washington Post reported three weeks ago that the H1N1 vaccine will definitely contain Thimerosol (which contains Mercury), Formaldehyde, and Aluminum - three known neurotoxins, with Thimerosol having received great publicity over the past 15 years as being a potential contributor to the rise of autism in young children.

While establishment medical authorities are casually dismissing the link and calling people "kooks" who attempt to make the correlation, numerous doctors are on record as to also questioning the impact that thimerosol is making.
Many physicians and scientists have put years of earnest study into the question: "Do the small quantities of toxins (particularly Timerosol/mercury) contained in some vaccines pose a real risk of inducing autism in children?" The answer has been a resounding "No" from epidemiological, cellular, and molecular mechanistic studies. The British physician who started the "Vaccines cause autism" scare has been conclusively shown to be a fraud and crook. Even the "Vaccines cause autism" movement has recently shied away from linking the onset of autism with mercury.
It would be good if you did not marginalize the hard work done by many individuals who are intensely concerned with finding the causes of autism.
 

Scot

Puritan Board Sophomore
What about infants that are not yet vaccinated? Are you not putting them at risk?
Considering non-efficacy of the vaccines, I say no.

In the Philippines, the largest smallpox epidemic occurred between 1917 and 1919, in which there were 162,503 cases and 71,453 deaths. All cases were vaccinated.

In England, smallpox vaccinations were made compulsory in 1853. Between 1863 and 1865, the population rose 7% and the death rate rose by 41%. Between 1870 and 1872, the population rose 9% and the death rate from smallpox rose 123%.

Following the introduction of compulsory immunization, the incidence of diphtheria increased by 30% in France, 55% in Hungary, 200% in Switzerland and 625% in Germany. In Sweden, diphtheria virtually disappeared without immunization.

Germany began compulsory diphtheria vaccinations in 1939. After that country was thoroughly vaccinated, cases of the disease skyrocketed to 150,000. France initially rejected diphtheria vaccinations because of the disasters she witnessed in other countries due to its use. But after the German occupation, France was forced into submitting to the shots. By 1943, cases of diphtheria in that country had soared to nearly 47,000. At the same time in nearby Norway, which refused vaccinations, there were only 50 cases.

References:
Trevor Gunn, "Mass Immunization, A Point in Question", (Cutting Edge Publications, 1992), ISBN 0-9517657-1-X
P. Airola N.D., PhD. "Everywomans Book", Health Plus, Phoenix, Arizona.
Scientific American, April, 1955, p.98.
H.L. Coulter and B.L. Fisher "DPT - A Shot in the Dark"
 

Nate

Puritan Board Junior
What about infants that are not yet vaccinated? Are you not putting them at risk?
Considering non-efficacy of the vaccines, I say no.

In the Philippines, the largest smallpox epidemic occurred between 1917 and 1919, in which there were 162,503 cases and 71,453 deaths. All cases were vaccinated.

In England, smallpox vaccinations were made compulsory in 1853. Between 1863 and 1865, the population rose 7% and the death rate rose by 41%. Between 1870 and 1872, the population rose 9% and the death rate from smallpox rose 123%.

Following the introduction of compulsory immunization, the incidence of diphtheria increased by 30% in France, 55% in Hungary, 200% in Switzerland and 625% in Germany. In Sweden, diphtheria virtually disappeared without immunization.

Germany began compulsory diphtheria vaccinations in 1939. After that country was thoroughly vaccinated, cases of the disease skyrocketed to 150,000. France initially rejected diphtheria vaccinations because of the disasters she witnessed in other countries due to its use. But after the German occupation, France was forced into submitting to the shots. By 1943, cases of diphtheria in that country had soared to nearly 47,000. At the same time in nearby Norway, which refused vaccinations, there were only 50 cases.

References:
Trevor Gunn, "Mass Immunization, A Point in Question", (Cutting Edge Publications, 1992), ISBN 0-9517657-1-X
P. Airola N.D., PhD. "Everywomans Book", Health Plus, Phoenix, Arizona.
Scientific American, April, 1955, p.98.
H.L. Coulter and B.L. Fisher "DPT - A Shot in the Dark"
Could you state your beliefs as to why measles has become endemic in England at precisely the time that vaccination levels are dipping below herd immunity due to the scares brought on by Andrew Wakefield and company? Also, could you explain why Larry Brilliant's tactics to combat polio in 3rd world countries is actually working when his tactics are based on immunization?

I'll keep trying to get access to your citations to read them for myself.
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Many physicians and scientists have put years of earnest study into the question: "Do the small quantities of toxins (particularly Timerosol/mercury) contained in some vaccines pose a real risk of inducing autism in children?" The answer has been a resounding "No" from epidemiological, cellular, and molecular mechanistic studies. The British physician who started the "Vaccines cause autism" scare has been conclusively shown to be a fraud and crook. Even the "Vaccines cause autism" movement has recently shied away from linking the onset of autism with mercury.
It would be good if you did not marginalize the hard work done by many individuals who are intensely concerned with finding the causes of autism.
Tell that to my sister. Her son was developing normally. At 2 1/2, he took his childhood vaccines and within hours of taking the vaccines, he started having seizures. He almost died. Not long after the episode, he was diagnosed with autism. His doctor linked it to the vaccines.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:06:39 EST-----

I will add that we've had three individuals (one being me, one being my nephew mentioned above) who have had adverse reactions to childhood vaccines. We oppose them on religious grounds for this reason. When people in my gene pool take vaccines, they tend to have results that are damaging. As far as I'm concerned, if I know that vaccines affect people in my family negatively, then I am putting my children in harms way by allowing them to have them.

In regard to the question of pregnant women who haven't been vaccinated. If the woman has had the childhood disease, she passes her natural immunity on to the child when she nurses the child.

According to my personal doctor, the Hep B given to babies at birth compromises their immune systems. She fully expects to see a rise in liver cancer in the next 10 years linked to the Hep B shots given to babies at birth. The doses they give to babies are the same doses they give to adults. It's too much for a baby's immune system to handle.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
People have rare allergic reactions to peanut and many other substances as well. Aspirin has caused such seizures as well.

These are rare and unfortunate occurrences, but do not disprove the great efficacy of vaccines and the millions of lives improved, preserved, and saved due to vaccination programs.

Isolated testimonials, honing in on one type of questionable vaccination while ignoring the solid evidence for all the others, or relying on internet data or self-published books or non peer-reviewed articles are not convincing strategies.
 

ewenlin

Puritan Board Junior
Jonathan Edwards was one of the earliest proponents of vaccines. Sadly he died because of it. :(

Anyway, cool thread. :popcorn:
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
lol sorry just woke up! 6th commandment....
The Seventh comes into play with a vaccine that is being given here in Britain to all young girls whose parents will allow them have it. This vaccine is to protect against cervical cancer, but if a young woman isn't promiscuous she won't get cervical cancer anyway.

The moral quandary for some parents is, "By accepting this vaccine are they giving tacit agreement to an ungodly society's assumption that all young girls will be/are promiscuous?"; "Should the parents trust their daughter's moral judgment not to be promiscuous, or should they provide her with a failsafe, just in case she falls into sin?" ; "Does accepting the vaccine, in some way give tacit sanction to the daughter to behave badly?"
 

OPC'n

Puritan Board Doctor
Well, I hope that those who do not want to vaccinate their children are allowed that right even though I think it's not wise. They are your children and you should be allowed to make decisions for them based on your good judgment. This is America after all and everyone is entitled to make their own health care decisions. I do hope that you have done thorough research though and not just hear-say.
 

EricP

Puritan Board Freshman
I must say I have learned a lot about common vaccines from this thread, particularly Jessie's wise comments. I personally have qualms about certain vaccines (for example, mandated Hep B vaccination of US school age children, as opposed to targeting potentially "at risk" populations; a bit perhaps like the HPV vaccination), and there will always be concerns about efficacy, allergic reactions, sustained effect (for example, will the VZV vaccine prevent post-herpetic neuralgia in older people?), additives, and so forth. But as I understand this thread, the initial question was regarding a Christian/moral/ethical argument for or against vaccination. I suspect that most of the vaccines being produced today COULD be redone using recombinant technology, but of course that would be an expensive and long process through the FDA, if it would even be possible to do the studies today. In any case, I for one really appreciate the depth of the discussion on the board, here!
 

Nate

Puritan Board Junior
Tell that to my sister. Her son was developing normally. At 2 1/2, he took his childhood vaccines and within hours of taking the vaccines, he started having seizures. He almost died. Not long after the episode, he was diagnosed with autism. His doctor linked it to the vaccines.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:06:39 EST-----

I will add that we've had three individuals (one being me, one being my nephew mentioned above) who have had adverse reactions to childhood vaccines. We oppose them on religious grounds for this reason. When people in my gene pool take vaccines, they tend to have results that are damaging. As far as I'm concerned, if I know that vaccines affect people in my family negatively, then I am putting my children in harms way by allowing them to have them.
Then you have a sound reason for you and your family to stay away from vaccines, and I pray that no one else from your gene pool has one of these rare and adverse reactions to a vaccine.
I would like to suggest that there is no way for one doctor to link autism to one vaccination. It is just not possible - there is absolutely no known mechanism by which a vaccination can cause autism. I honestly do not like to engage in these discussions - family members of autistic individuals have my full sympathy, but anyone simply stating the facts that there are currently no known links between autism and vaccines usually comes across as unsympathetic or abrasive towards families that have been affected by autism. Please know that there are many scientists and physicians who have spent large portions of their careers honestly trying to determine if there is a link between vaccines and autism based on the testimonials like the one of your sister's family. In each an every appropriately conducted study, all of the evidence simply says "there is no way we can say with any reasonable certainty that vaccines are responsible for causing autism".

Blessings
 

Peairtach

Puritan Board Doctor
Well, I hope that those who do not want to vaccinate their children are allowed that right even though I think it's not wise. They are your children and you should be allowed to make decisions for them based on your good judgment. This is America after all and everyone is entitled to make their own health care decisions. I do hope that you have done thorough research though and not just hear-say.
I know, but it's not America where I live, but Britain :lol:

I don't know at what age girls are legally permitted to go behind their parents' backs on this one. I don't have daughters myself.
 

JBaldwin

Puritan Board Post-Graduate
Tell that to my sister. Her son was developing normally. At 2 1/2, he took his childhood vaccines and within hours of taking the vaccines, he started having seizures. He almost died. Not long after the episode, he was diagnosed with autism. His doctor linked it to the vaccines.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:06:39 EST-----

I will add that we've had three individuals (one being me, one being my nephew mentioned above) who have had adverse reactions to childhood vaccines. We oppose them on religious grounds for this reason. When people in my gene pool take vaccines, they tend to have results that are damaging. As far as I'm concerned, if I know that vaccines affect people in my family negatively, then I am putting my children in harms way by allowing them to have them.
Then you have a sound reason for you and your family to stay away from vaccines, and I pray that no one else from your gene pool has one of these rare and adverse reactions to a vaccine.
I would like to suggest that there is no way for one doctor to link autism to one vaccination. It is just not possible - there is absolutely no known mechanism by which a vaccination can cause autism. I honestly do not like to engage in these discussions - family members of autistic individuals have my full sympathy, but anyone simply stating the facts that there are currently no known links between autism and vaccines usually comes across as unsympathetic or abrasive towards families that have been affected by autism. Please know that there are many scientists and physicians who have spent large portions of their careers honestly trying to determine if there is a link between vaccines and autism based on the testimonials like the one of your sister's family. In each an every appropriately conducted study, all of the evidence simply says "there is no way we can say with any reasonable certainty that vaccines are responsible for causing autism".

Blessings
While I don't really want to engage in an argument with you (I think your mind is made up), I have done more research on this than what I have mentioned above. I gave one example, because it is personal and can be verified. My nephew is not the only person I've met who suddenly became autistic after taking childhood vaccines.

This article which I came across recently is very interesting reading on the subject.

Vaccinations: Deadly Immunity

Some other interesting things to research on the subject of vaccines are squalene adjuvents and cancer viruses. There is more to this topic than just the issue of reactions and autism. Another interesting person to research is Dr. Maurice Hilleman of Merck.
 

ChristianHedonist

Puritan Board Freshman
Tell that to my sister. Her son was developing normally. At 2 1/2, he took his childhood vaccines and within hours of taking the vaccines, he started having seizures. He almost died. Not long after the episode, he was diagnosed with autism. His doctor linked it to the vaccines.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:06:39 EST-----

I will add that we've had three individuals (one being me, one being my nephew mentioned above) who have had adverse reactions to childhood vaccines. We oppose them on religious grounds for this reason. When people in my gene pool take vaccines, they tend to have results that are damaging. As far as I'm concerned, if I know that vaccines affect people in my family negatively, then I am putting my children in harms way by allowing them to have them.
Then you have a sound reason for you and your family to stay away from vaccines, and I pray that no one else from your gene pool has one of these rare and adverse reactions to a vaccine.
I would like to suggest that there is no way for one doctor to link autism to one vaccination. It is just not possible - there is absolutely no known mechanism by which a vaccination can cause autism. I honestly do not like to engage in these discussions - family members of autistic individuals have my full sympathy, but anyone simply stating the facts that there are currently no known links between autism and vaccines usually comes across as unsympathetic or abrasive towards families that have been affected by autism. Please know that there are many scientists and physicians who have spent large portions of their careers honestly trying to determine if there is a link between vaccines and autism based on the testimonials like the one of your sister's family. In each an every appropriately conducted study, all of the evidence simply says "there is no way we can say with any reasonable certainty that vaccines are responsible for causing autism".

Blessings

And there is absolutely no political/funding motivation behind the results of these scientists? They may not be able to prove a link between vaccines and autism with "reasonable" certainty, but that doesn't mean there isn't a link. My older brother was diagnosed with autism shortly after he received the MMR vaccine, and up until he received it he was a normal toddler and never showed a symptom of autism. And not every doctor denies the link between vaccines and autism.
 

Nate

Puritan Board Junior
While I don't really want to engage in an argument with you (I think your mind is made up)
Me either, and likewise.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 12:10:20 EST-----

And there is absolutely no political/funding motivation behind the results of these scientists? They may not be able to prove a link between vaccines and autism with "reasonable" certainty, but that doesn't mean there isn't a link. My older brother was diagnosed with autism shortly after he received the MMR vaccine, and up until he received it he was a normal toddler and never showed a symptom of autism. And not every doctor denies the link between vaccines and autism.
There is government funding behind most of these studies, but that does not mean political funding. Are you familiar with government funded studies of molecular biology and epidemiology at public and private institutions? If you are, will have to agree that scientists will not tolerate the government meddling with their research.
Again, I do not want to seem uncaring that your brother has autism. This disease genuinely saddens me, and I hope that the good people performing research on this disease find a cure sometime soon.
However, I do tire of people constantly saying that just because almost all science of this sort in the U.S. is funded by the gov't that is necessarily tainted by some political motive. There is simply no way that is true.
 

Pergamum

Ordinary Guy (TM)
Aren't there some MDs around here who can weigh in?
Leslie weighed in towards the beginning seemingly in favor of vaccinations and noting the lives being saved in the Third World. She has more Third World medical experience than any other doctor you will find.

Me and my wife are both nurses also are both heavily in favor of vaccinations and would like to note that the beggars on every city street corner in the country where I minister have twisted limbs due to polio.

Allegies to all sorts of things exist, and are unfortunate, but public health sometimes demands mass treatments for communities for the public good and this is within the rights of gov't to protect its people.
 

EricP

Puritan Board Freshman
As a weighing-in doctor (nephrology) all I'd say is that there are obvious pros and cons to everything in medicine, including vaccination. As I hear they say in the legal field, tough cases make bad law, and the same is true in medicine--rare or occasional bad outcomes, as sad as they are, don't argue well against a medical therapy that by and large does great good for many people; I'd suggest that vaccination is one of those therapies.
That being said, at one time I was one of the folks volleying for research money from NIH and so forth, and I'd have to disagree with Nate: medical research in my experience was very politically motivated; for example, in doing the research I did in the mid 90's, we could significantly increase our funding level/rate if we could find an HIV tie-in, since it was the hot-button issue of the decade. Government may not "meddle" per se in research, but those with the money have a great influence on what is done and said--look today for example at the whole global warming issue. Autism has actually been pretty "hot" in the past several years, judging by public press and bulletin boards; I would actually suspect that if there were a solid statistical link between autism and vaccination it would be pretty well trumpeted in the press, and in the successful lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and the folks who give the things.
 

a mere housewife

Not your cup of tea
Here is my dr's article, which I found to be informative. I am pretty sure he would recommend vaccinations for exposure to things like polio etc. in other countries. However it does seem that too many vaccines stateside contain harmful products, and that too many are administered to be safe for a little child's immune system. I think I would try to understand which ones were more important to give, weigh risks for our situation on either side with the information available through CDC, and try to space out the vaccines better, if we have children.
 

R Harris

Puritan Board Sophomore
As a weighing-in doctor (nephrology) all I'd say is that there are obvious pros and cons to everything in medicine, including vaccination. As I hear they say in the legal field, tough cases make bad law, and the same is true in medicine--rare or occasional bad outcomes, as sad as they are, don't argue well against a medical therapy that by and large does great good for many people; I'd suggest that vaccination is one of those therapies.
That being said, at one time I was one of the folks volleying for research money from NIH and so forth, and I'd have to disagree with Nate: medical research in my experience was very politically motivated; for example, in doing the research I did in the mid 90's, we could significantly increase our funding level/rate if we could find an HIV tie-in, since it was the hot-button issue of the decade. Government may not "meddle" per se in research, but those with the money have a great influence on what is done and said--look today for example at the whole global warming issue. Autism has actually been pretty "hot" in the past several years, judging by public press and bulletin boards; I would actually suspect that if there were a solid statistical link between autism and vaccination it would be pretty well trumpeted in the press, and in the successful lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and the folks who give the things.
Good post.

Again, despite supposed "research," what do we know as fact?

Thimerosol, Formaldehyde, and Aluminum are KNOWN NEUROTOXINS. The only question of research is what amounts administered to what age groups show statistical significance for adverse outcomes. Just as there are many scientists who question and deny the validity of the data put forth by global warming advocates, there are also many physicians who question the "no problem" claims of establishment medical authorities about the probabilities of adverse outcomes pertaining to children ages 1 -12 regarding flu vaccinations which contain these known neurotoxins. Frankly, the research is NOT "conclusive" about the amounts administered. Several parameters such as co-morbidities and genetic factors have not been tightly controlled enough to provide definitive results and conclusions. Much still needs to be done to empirically validate either side.
 

Honor

de-cool
I was in a car accident and I busted the windshield out and broke the dashboard with my forehead before the airbag exploded. All while wearing a seatbelt. the seatbelt didn't work properly in that instance but I still continually wear my seatbelt. There is a risk with EVERYTHING. Look on the back of a bottle of Tylenol. Yes I am sure that sometimes unfortunate things happen... kids may or maynot get autism from vaccines. But so long as we live in a fallen world with decaying bodies stuff is going to happen. However. If your child was hurt and need a brain operation you would not deny them that simply based on the fact that people do die during brain surgeries. Vaccines prove to work. I prayed about it and then I thought about what would happen if my child contracted something that could have been prevented. Could I look in their tearfilled eyes with a clear conscience. I think that as parents we have a duty to be the best parents that we can. We are to pray hard, love abundently and deside fairly. For us that entails vaccinating. I hate it when my children cry when they get stuck with a needle.but then I think about my grandma who watched her father and baby sister die literally right in front of her from Polio and I thank God He gave me the means to protect my babies from that. I firmly believe that every parent should be informed of the vaccines and that you should only do so with a prayerful and solemn heart.
 

Nate

Puritan Board Junior
As a weighing-in doctor (nephrology) all I'd say is that there are obvious pros and cons to everything in medicine, including vaccination. As I hear they say in the legal field, tough cases make bad law, and the same is true in medicine--rare or occasional bad outcomes, as sad as they are, don't argue well against a medical therapy that by and large does great good for many people; I'd suggest that vaccination is one of those therapies.
That being said, at one time I was one of the folks volleying for research money from NIH and so forth, and I'd have to disagree with Nate: medical research in my experience was very politically motivated; for example, in doing the research I did in the mid 90's, we could significantly increase our funding level/rate if we could find an HIV tie-in, since it was the hot-button issue of the decade. Government may not "meddle" per se in research, but those with the money have a great influence on what is done and said--look today for example at the whole global warming issue. Autism has actually been pretty "hot" in the past several years, judging by public press and bulletin boards; I would actually suspect that if there were a solid statistical link between autism and vaccination it would be pretty well trumpeted in the press, and in the successful lawsuits against vaccine manufacturers and the folks who give the things.
I appreciate you weighing in. I believe you and I are on the same page regarding politics and research funding (I think). I agree that there are politics within the funding agencies that dole out the cash - if the study happens to be stacked with scientists that value translational research over basic science, grant applications showing promise of future therapeutics will be given better marks than applications where basic science is driving the study. I have been intimately involved in the way life science research is funded over the past 8 years... I know how it works.

I don't think that's the politics that Mr. Harris is referring to - he likes to put "research" in quotation marks and qualify it as "supposed" research, all indicating that he thinks the research is tainted or fraudulent. My point is that that is unfair and even untrue.

Like you mentioned at the end of your post - if there were a real link between autism and vaccines it would be trumpeted in the press and lawsuits (like the recent omnibus trial) would find in favor of the defendants. Any scientist would love to make a breakthrough like finding a true link between autism and vaccines - it would make their career!
 

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
This vaccine is to protect against cervical cancer, but if a young woman isn't promiscuous she won't get cervical cancer anyway.
Trying hard to be charitable in my response, so I'll say, 'that's not accurate'.

The vaccine is intended to block HPV infections (which have been linked to cervical cancer.) HPV infection is not proof of promiscuity. A bride could be exposed to it on her wedding night. A woman could be exposed to it during a rape. To accuse either woman of promiscuity, again being charitable, is wrong.
 

HokieAirman

Puritan Board Freshman
It's a matter of the 6th Commandment for me. There's enough evidence out there for me to believe that certain vaccines can be harmful to the very young (especially when they're given all at once at a very young age). In addition, when I get my vaccines for the Air Force, the information sheet says that if one's immune system is compromised in any way, they should not take the vaccine...even a cold. For a child who has allergies, this applies.

In addition, vaccines are often placed on the market with little testing and no long-term testing, presenting a danger to participants (e.g., swine flu vaccine).

Giving vaccines to a child when they're older makes more sense to me, and keeping them away from sick children (rather keeping sick children out of public) makes more sense than vaccinating for a largely harmless childhood disease such as chicken pox, which provides a life long immunity to the disease...unlike the varicella vaccine, which wears off in adulthood.

It does not make sense to give the tetanus shot to an infant or very young child, as this shot can be administered retroactively...after one is exposed by say stepping on a nail. The tetanus virus needs a very deep wound in order to fester, so scrapes and cuts are harmless...this is why you hear about people stepping on a nail and getting a tetanus shot.

meningitis is scary, but again, it is most commonly spread among people in close quarters, college dorms, military barracks, sailors, child daycare...unless your child is in this situation, catching the disease is unlikely, and one can reasonably hedge his bets...in this case, the benefit of not getting it can outweigh the risks of obtaining the disease.

DTaP is the major controversial one. Whooping cough is not dangerous to most toddlers over the age of one...protect your babies and seek medical care if suspicious that he has this. Tetanus...ditto to above, and Diptheria? don't know much about that one, but when's the last time you heard about someone getting that? :) Sorry for my lapse.

Polio is a funny story...cases actually dropped off BEFORE the vaccine was administered, indicating the disease was being defeated even before the so-called prevention.

I can't remember the particular weblink for my sources on what I'm claiming here, but will return and edit if I have time.
 
Last edited:

Edward

Puritanboard Commissioner
Giving vaccines to a child when they're older makes more sense to me, and keeping them away from sick children (rather keeping sick children out of public) makes more sense than vaccinating for a largely harmless childhood disease such as chicken pox, which provides a life long immunity to the disease...unlike the varicella vaccine, which wears off in adulthood, exposing it's participant to shingles, which at this point is dangerous.
Looks like you pretty much have that one completely backwards.

"Shingles itself can develop only from a reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus in a person who has previously had chickenpox."
Shingles and chickenpox (Varicella-zoster virus) - Risk Factors

In other words, it's the child that had chicken pox who's at significant risk for shingles - not the child who avoided chickenpox through vaccination.
 

HokieAirman

Puritan Board Freshman
Polio is a funny story...
No, It's not.
Figure of speech, thanks.

-----Added 8/11/2009 at 09:29:02 EST-----

Giving vaccines to a child when they're older makes more sense to me, and keeping them away from sick children (rather keeping sick children out of public) makes more sense than vaccinating for a largely harmless childhood disease such as chicken pox, which provides a life long immunity to the disease...unlike the varicella vaccine, which wears off in adulthood, exposing it's participant to shingles, which at this point is dangerous.
Looks like you pretty much have that one completely backwards.

"Shingles itself can develop only from a reactivation of the varicella-zoster virus in a person who has previously had chickenpox."
Shingles and chickenpox (Varicella-zoster virus) - Risk Factors

In other words, it's the child that had chicken pox who's at significant risk for shingles - not the child who avoided chickenpox through vaccination.
My mistake. Edited out. Since the varicella vaccine is relatively new, how does one know he will not develop shingles in later years due to having the virus in his body from the vaccine?

In addition, the article I just read says that shingles is still relatively rare...I think 'significant' risk might be a stretch...
 

Nate

Puritan Board Junior
Polio is a funny story...
No, It's not.
Figure of speech, thanks.
I realize that. I was just making a (poor) attempt to point out that while individuals earlier in the thread charged the "medical establishment" as being "casually" dismissive of issues regarding vaccines, it seems that the casual language and approach to vaccines and disease belongs largely to the anti-vaccination group.
Anyway, you mentioned that you gave the issue real consideration and it has become a 6th commandment issue for you. I respect that and won't try to make you go against you conscience.
Blessings, brother.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top