Little one is about to enter school. I've been notified that she needs to get shots. Long story short? I'm against it. What'll happen if I refuse? If they don't let her attend any schools without getting shots, what then?
I doubt they will let her attend a public school without the standard shots. You would probably have to have her home schooled. May I ask why you are against it? If she ended up with a disease that could have been prevented with a shot what would you do? Are you against a lot of modern medicine?
contact Donna at Vaccination Liberation and get exemptions for your state. All states have a exemption standards whether they are religious, philisophical or medical depending on the state. I have unvaxed children. They are much healthier than most kids. Vaccinations are hazardous. They are filled with poisons such as mercury, antifreeze... need I say more. anyway, here is a link http://www.vaclib.org/
Vaccinations have helped us conquer a lot of nasty diseases... I agree that vaccinating against all sorts of small stuff is probably worse than the disease itself (I don't believe in flue shots except perhaps for the really old and/or disabled for whom flue could easily be fatal) but I think vaccine against polio, tetanus & other serious, life-threatening and/or disabling diseases are a necessity. I'd take the risk of the complications over the risks of the disease any day.
Some children have GOOD reason to not be vaccinated. I have a child who was damaged by MMR and DPT. You can get religious, medical or philisophical exemptions. Not all states have all exemptions. I use the medical for some (as Tourette's runs in my dh's family, and one of my kids has it) and religious for others. Some vaccines use aborted fetuses for the medium, and I use that as my exemption. You need to do some research to see what is needed for exemption in your state.
some vaccines use aborted fetuses for the meduim?! I'm not saying I don't beleive you, but can you find an article to post? that's really out there. I never knew anything like that!
I never heard that about the aborted fetuses either. Gosh, that's horrendous if it is indeed something that they use for the medium. *shudders* Do you know which vaccinations that they possibly use it for?
Antifreeze??? Not to be discourteous, but I have a very difficult time believing that they are injecting children with antifreeze.
I didn't beleive it when I first heard it either. I would have thought it would be better known, even the Catholic Church is so happy with the Status Quo of forcing parents to immunize their children that THEY won't step in. Here is the document I use In the United States, ten different vaccines for chicken pox, hepatitis A, polio, rabies, and rubella are cultured on aborted tissue from two fetal cell lines known as WI-38 and MRC-5. These vaccines are Varivax (chicken pox), Havrix (hep-A), Vaqta (hep-A), Twinrix (hep-A/hep-B), Poliovax (polio), Imovax (rabies), Meruvax II (rubella), MR-VAX (measles/rubella), Biavax II (mumps/rubella), and M-M-R II (measles/mumps/rubella). Alternative, pro-life vaccines are available in this country for all but the chicken pox, hepatitis A, and rubella inoculations. The WI-38 “human-diploid” cell culture was developed in July 1962 from a “therapeutically aborted” three-month-old girl. “WI” is an acronym used by the Wistar Institute, an aggressive proponent of embryonic stem cell research. The August 1969 issue of the American Journal of Diseases of Children explains WI-38 was taken from a voluntary abortion performed in Sweden: “This fetus was chosen by Dr. Sven Gard, specifically for this purpose [use as a vaccine culture]. Both parents are known, and unfortunately for the story, they are married to each other, still alive and well, and living in Stockholm, presumably. The abortion was done because they felt they had too many children.” MRC-5 is derived from the lung tissue of a fourteen-week-old baby boy. MRC stands for Medical Research Council, a research center funded by British taxpayers. According to Coriell Cell Repositories, “The MRC-5 cell line was developed in September 1966 from lung tissue taken from a 14-week fetus aborted for psychiatric reasons from a 27-year-old physically healthy woman.” Development of the rubella vaccine actually involved not one, but twenty-eight abortions. Twenty-seven abortions were performed to isolate the virus and one abortion (WI-38) to culture the vaccine. The vaccine’s strain is called RA 27/3 (R=Rubella, A=Abortus, 27=27th fetus tested, 3=3rd tissue explanted). Rubella, or “German measles,” is usually a harmless childhood disease. Ironically, rubella is most dangerous for preborn infants, who have a 20 to 25 percent chance of contracting congenital rubella syndrome if their mothers catch rubella during the first trimester. Scientists at the Wistar Institute took advantage of the 1964-65 rubella epidemic to legally acquire fetal tissue from at least twenty-seven so-called therapeutic abortions conducted on women at risk for rubella. Since the live virus was not detected until the twenty-seventh abortion, the preceding twenty-six abortions were apparently performed on perfectly healthy babies. By contrast, Japanese researchers obtained a live virus by swabbing the throat of an infected child. Cooperation with Abortion In ethical parlance, using vaccines manufactured from fetal tissue entails “material cooperation” with abortion. Material cooperation may or may not be sinful depending on the circumstances surrounding the act. Four conditions determine whether using such vaccines is licit: the seriousness of the sin of abortion, the necessity of vaccination, the possibility of causing scandal, and the vaccines’ role in encouraging additional abortions. Many pro-life ethicists believe using these vaccines constitutes “remote material cooperation” with abortion—cooperation excused by the distance of the consumer from the original abortions, the necessity of vaccine use, and the unlikelihood that purchasing the vaccines will cause future abortions. In August 2001, the U.S. bishops issued a statement allowing that parents “when they have no practical alternative, may use vaccines to protect their health and the health of their loved ones without serious sin, even if the vaccines were cultured in fetal cells that ultimately came from an elective abortion.” The bishops were forced to address the question when President Bush used the abortion-tainted chicken pox vaccine to justify federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. Many ethicists, including the bishops, believe these vaccines are distinguishable from other types of fetal tissue research because they “use self-perpetuating cell lines.” The cultures that produce these vaccines, however, are not immortal. All normal cells possess a finite lifespan known as the “Hayflick limit.” After about fifty divisions, WI-38 and MRC-5 will be exhausted. If when this day comes, pharmaceutical companies know they can create new cultures from aborted tissue without loss of profit, they will certainly do so because aborted fetal tissue is easier to use and more economical to obtain than other culture mediums. The pharmaceutical industry, in fact, has already developed an additional vaccine culture derived from the “socially indicated,” elective abortion of an eighteen-week-old baby. PER.C6, as the culture is called, is currently being tested for use with at least seven new vaccines. Absent definitive guidance from the Vatican, parents must determine for themselves—after much prayer and study—whether they can conscientiously use these vaccines. While most public and private schools require chicken pox and rubella immunizations, several court rulings suggest pro-lifers have a First Amendment right to refuse to use abortion-tainted vaccines. State public health officials and/or school administrators cannot lawfully second-guess sincere religious or moral objections to vaccine use. In addition to honoring parents’ constitutional rights, Catholic school administrators must heed the Church’s magisterial teaching regarding the inalienable right and duty of parents to make decisions affecting the welfare of their children. Parents who object in conscience to abortion-derived vaccines may apply for religious or philosophical exemptions by contacting their state department of health. Vaccines Grown In Aborted Fetal Cell Cultures Chickenpox, VARIVAX: Merck Hepatitis A, VAQTA: Merck Polio (oral), Poliovac, Canada: Connaught Polio, IMOVAX: Connaught Rabies, Imovax: Pasteur Merieux Rubella, MERUVAX: Merck I am personally prochoice, but I do NOT beleive in using aborted fetuses for things like this. Not at all. Look at Rubella, the first 38 fetuses were aborted BECAUSE the mom was exposed to Rubella and the fetus was HEALTHY.
Wow Maggie Sugar, that's just mind boggling. I never knew that things like that were going on. I guess it's because they don't WANT you to know that kind of thing goes on. That's extremely upsetting information to learn.
wow, that's crazy. I never knew. I am partial prochoice (I think some restrictions should be placed but this is neither here nor there right now) but I am highly concerned about this. I guess I'll be doing some extensive research when I have a child. I want my child to be protected, but not that way.
I have a child who had seizures 3 days post vax. He is listed in VARS (vaccine damage reporting) and has developed autism as a result of the heavy metal loads in vaccines. Vaccines are the causes of many neurological disorders. I now refuse to vax. I live dialy with damage of these medical abominations. Credo Muta a zula states that vaccine inhibit natural psychic abilities. Here are a few links... http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm http://www.vaccinesafety.edu/package_inserts-byantigen.htm http://thinktwice.com/allvacs.htm two vaccine lines from fetuses... MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5): MRC5 originates from the lung tissue taken from a 14 week male fetus aborted for "psychiatric reasons" from a 27 year old woman in the UK in the 1970s. WI-38: WI -38 originates from a female fetus aborted for "psychiatric reasons" in the 1960s. These abortions were not done for the purpose of producing vaccines. ingrediants.... Acel-Immune DTaP Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Acellular Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed Lederle Laboratories 1-800-934-5556 produced using formaldehyde, thimerosal, aluminum hydroxide, aluminum phosphate, polysorbate 80, gelatin DPT Diphtheria and Tetanus Toxoids and Pertussis Vaccine Adsorbed SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals 1-800-366-8900 ext. 5231 produced using aluminum phosphate, formaldehyde, ammonium sulfate, washed sheep red blood cells, glycerol, sodium chloride, thimerosal medium: porcine (pig) pancreatic hydrolysate of casein ANTIFREEZE - Hep A vaccine.... Havrix Hepatitis A SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals 1-800-633-8900 ext. 5231 produced using formalin, aluminum hydroxide, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), polysorbate 20, residual MRC5 proteins (from medium) medium: human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue) MMR vax has HUMAN cells.... Biavax Rubella and Mumps Virus Vaccine Live Merck & Co, Inc. 1-800-672-6372 produced using neomycin, sorbitol, hydrolized gelatin medium: human diploid cells (originating from human aborted fetal tissue Formaldahyde... ick! FluShield Influenza Virus Vaccine, Trivalent, Types A&B Wyeth-Ayerst 1-800-934-5556 produced using gentamicin sulfate, formaldehyde, polysorbate 80, tri(n)butylphosphate, thimerosal medium: chick embryos ANTIFREEZE in the POLIO vax and MONKEY cells.... ick ick!!! IPOL Inactivated Polio Vaccine Connaught Laboratories 1-800-822-2463 produced using 3 types of polio virus, formaldehyde, phenoxyethanol (antifreeze), neomycin, streptomycin, polymyxin B medium: VERO cells, a continuous line of monkey kidney cells source of information.... http://www.whale.to/vaccines/ingredients1.html http://www.whale.to/vaccines.html more information on the DANGERS of vaccines....http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/ Here are a few links...
I'm very sorry about your child having the seizures post-vac. I was terrified the evening after my twin son had the DPT because he started vomiting, out of nowhere. He had been fine, playing and acting normal, although a tad irritable. His twin sister seemed fine however. Well, that night when I went in to check on the kids, my twin son had vomited all over his crib and was running a low-grade temp. I was hysterical, and looking up everything I possibly could to see if it was a "normal" reaction to the shot. I knew the low-grade temp could be, but I found nothing about the vomiting. I'm not super-thrilled about having my kids vaccinated, but yet I worry that if I don't and something happens, then I have to live with the guilt that it could have been prevented. Although, I can see in the situations where children have horrible reactions to the vaccines it would been better off NOT to have been vaccinated. It's an old world debate it seems. You hear the pros, and you hear the cons. I have seriously not been happy about having my children vaccinated, I've worried about reactions, but I just don't know what the right route is. It's all so confusing. Thanks for the links.
It IS a hard decision. Every parent has the responsibility to do their own research and come to the solution that they think will have the least amount of harm, or possibility of harm for their baby. I wish I had done more research before my first child was damaged by vaccines. Our other children are selectively vaccinated. I chose the vaccines that either had low risk of side effects or which had a high risk of the illness. (My kids get injected polio, (not oral) tetanus, (very nasty disease, and not treatable for the most part) HiB, (there was quite a bit of meningitis in our county, and this immunization helped protect children) and Diptheria (no, it isn't common around here, but it is bad, and hard to treat.) Every parent needs to work out their own vaccine schedule, if they choose to immunize at all.
CAn the bad side effects be hereditary? I know I'm vaxed fully and I never experienced any problems. So would the chance of my children having those side effects be less?
Any child can have a horrible reaction to vaccines. Although families who have a history of bad vaccine reactions have a beleived higher risk, the majority of damaged children are from parents who claim they had "no problem" with vaccinations. The thing is, most doctors will NOT admit that postvaccine reactions are due to the immunization, so most kids who get sick are told it was due to something else. So we get artificially "low" numbers of reactions. Yet, even these numbers are high enough to cause most people, if they are aware, to notice and be really worried about it.
I am also fully vaxed an had no reaction that I know of. My now 17 developed asthma following her hep b at age 12 and she never had a vax reaction and my 10 year developed autism. my 8 year old and 3 year old are unvaxed. I don't think anyone really knows the answer to your question. It is just something you are going to need to consider when you weigh the risks. If I could take back what I know now and redo none of my children would be vaxed. I learn about the dis-eases and how to treat them.
I never thought that I wouldn't vax my kids but I think I would rather pick and choose for ones that might be more of a risk and just try and keep my kid(s) healthy and safe.
My son reacted to prevnar. It caused severe food allergies with asthma and reflux as the main symptoms. He had his first asthma attack within days of receiving the first prevnar at 6 months. He had his second attack right after receiving the second prevnar at 8 months. He also developed reflux after this second shot. He has not had a third. He also has not had the MMR or chicken pox. If he gets these diseases we will deal with them. He is not having any more vaccines. So far I have lied to the day care about what he has and has not received. I am hoping to homeschool him so it won't be a problem when the time comes. If I can't homeschool him I will get an exemption. I think his doctor will write a medical exemption, otherwise I'll go the religious route. My state does not have a philosophical exemption. Kathi
OMG that stuff is terrifying. Never been a fan of vaccines anyway, aside from my being squeamish, there just seemed something really wrong about them. Got some good evidence now. So nope not planning to vax my future children.
