# Schools and immunizations - How to get around it



## AverageJo (Sep 24, 2010)

I'm probably late to this topic but can't find the answer doing a search.

I'm a homeschool mom who doesn't like all the immunization requirements the school is demanding our children take. And now my oldest child is seriously wanting to go to public school.

I've heard that you can write a letter that will get them out of all or most of the immunizations for "religious" reasons. Has anyone written a letter like that? Has it worked? If so, can you please help me?? We do SOME immunizations but don't agree with all of them.

Help!! School starts really soon!!!

AJ


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Contact your school district.and request form the vaccine exemption from... ask question of them if need be.

In our district my son had to get it notarized.

Done... got monthly scare letter from state health department.


----------



## AverageJo (Sep 24, 2010)

The school nurse told us that we either had to have our doctor send in a letter exempting them for health reasons or write a letter ourselves asking for exemption for religious reasons. Our doctor is already fighting us on this, so I doubt that they will write any such letter (they even threatened us with dropping us as patients). So now I'm trying to figure out how to word the letter that I write myself. They do not have an vaccine exemption form. Thanks for the idea though. And dealing with the health department is already a pain.


----------



## wiscto (Nov 24, 2014)

http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

AverageJo said:


> The school nurse told us that we either had to have our doctor send in a letter exempting them for health reasons or write a letter ourselves asking for exemption for religious reasons. Our doctor is already fighting us on this, so I doubt that they will write any such letter (they even threatened us with dropping us as patients). So now I'm trying to figure out how to word the letter that I write myself. They do not have an vaccine exemption form. Thanks for the idea though. And dealing with the health department is already a pain.


Jo, why not ask your pastor/priest/religious leader to help with the letter? Nobody here knows the details of your faith, but if you have a religious objection to vaccinations I assume it must be coming from your religious sect's teachings.


----------



## bluemoonluck (Oct 28, 2008)

Many places are cracking down on the exemptions handed out for not vaccinating your children. If your child qualifies, than he/she can easily get a letter from their doctor stating why they cannot medically be vaccinated, or a letter from your pastor/religious leader explaining that the religion you practice is a recognized one (i.e. has qualified for tax exempt status from the government as a "real" religion) and clearly explain why immunizations are against that religion, with specifics cited.

If you do not meet either of those requirements, and you are making a choice to not vaccinate your child for reasons that do not fall under either of those exemptions, your only option is to continue homeschooling him/her. 

Public schools have these requirements in place to prevent the lawsuits and negative publicity that occur when unvaccinated students pass diseases that vaccines prevent along to students who are not able to be vaccinated for health reasons.... if another student has cancer, for example, they are counting on the herd immunity of their classmates to prevent them from coming down with measles or whooping cough, which is dangerous enough for a healthy kid but is almost certain to kill an immunocompromised child. If the parent of the immunocompromised child finds out that their child died because of an exemption granted to another student for reasons other than medical or religious, they can sue the school for endangering their child's life...and whether they win or not, the threat of negative publicity alone has school boards cracking down on the exemptions that they grant.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

It's going to be difficult to qualify for a religious exemption due to the fact that you have your children immunized for some things. Generally, with the religious exemptions, school districts see them as an all or nothing thing.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

What kind of an example does a mother set to lie about religious convictions in order to get what she wants?
If you believe strongly in not vaccinating your kid, keep her at home.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

AverageJo said:


> I'm probably late to this topic but can't find the answer doing a search.
> 
> I'm a homeschool mom who doesn't like all the immunization requirements the school is demanding our children take. And now my oldest child is seriously wanting to go to public school.
> 
> ...





This first link is a vaccination exemption form used by an Illinois mother.
I'll explain in a moment the legal dangers of using the state provided forms unless you read them and alter them before signing.

http://www.allnaturalmomof4.com/2013/08/vaccine-exemption-letter.html





This next link, about half way down, explains WHY you never sign the state forms without amending them, basically there is legal liability they put on you, so they have the right to take your child away, because you admitting putting them in danger.......and signed it, therefore admitting child endangerment.

http://www.vaclib.org/exempt/illinois.htm



THIS link provides the Illinois statutes so you can read and verify what they ACTUALLY say, not what some bureaucrat or socialist do-gooder wants you to BELIEVE what it says. It also gives you clues to the specific language to use, which I believe is also included in that 1st link I gave you.

http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements/illinois.aspx





And don't bother reading the link in post #4, that isn't what you asked for, it's a link telling you to obey the gov't because they know what is best for you and your child.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

SLFarmMI said:


> It's going to be difficult to qualify for a religious exemption due to the fact that you have your children immunized for some things. Generally, with the religious exemptions, school districts see them as an all or nothing thing.


The same thing goes for the federal gov't on religious exemptions.
The answer is quite simple.
None of us were born with the knowledge we have now. Whatever decisions I made earlier in life, in no way, alter the fact that I am wiser now and there is no logical reason to continue doing something foolish when I know better now.


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

farmrbrown said:


> The same thing goes for the federal gov't on religious exemptions.
> The answer is quite simple.
> None of us were born with the knowledge we have now. Whatever decisions I made earlier in life, in no way, alter the fact that I am wiser now and there is no logical reason to continue doing something foolish when I know better now.


No need to get snarky. I wasn't actually questioning her decision. I was just expressing that it is going to be more difficult than just writing a letter because many school districts are going to question why you have your children immunized for some things and not for others.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

basketti said:


> What kind of an example does a mother set to lie about religious convictions in order to get what she wants?
> If you believe strongly in not vaccinating your kid, keep her at home.


She's not lying, she's asking for advice on how to word the letter correctly, since the school isn't supplying an exemption form for something they apparently already recognize as a legal right to be exempt from. Sheesh.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> She's not lying, she's asking for advice on how to word the letter correctly, since the school isn't supplying an exemption form for something they apparently already recognize as a legal right to be exempt from. Sheesh.


The subtlety of the word "religious" in quotes escaped you, huh? 
If she truly had religious objections she wouldn't need to ask here on HT, nor would she have partially immunized.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

SLFarmMI said:


> No need to get snarky. I wasn't actually questioning her decision. I was just expressing that it is going to be more difficult than just writing a letter because many school districts are going to question why you have your children immunized for some things and not for others.


It wasn't meant to be snarky, and yes, there isn't any need for that on here.
If you'll reread my post, keeping in my mind I agree with you and offering the reasons why, you'll see that my reply wasn't snarky, nor meant in that way.
Any derision was being directed at Satanic gov'ts and their minions.

I will soon be taking on the IRS and the U.S. gov't on a religious exemption to Obamacare's gov't insurance mandate, and I'm sure that one of the IRS accusations will be that I haven't ALWAYS rejected insurance going all the way back to my teenage years.
It's a ludicrous conclusion (the government's) that as a person ages, they won't change their minds or their ways.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

SLFarmMI said:


> It's going to be difficult to qualify for a religious exemption due to the fact that you have your children immunized for some things. Generally, with the religious exemptions, school districts see them as an all or nothing thing.


I don't doubt there are some district that may do that. But, I find that as ridiculous a notion as when some people want to say only certain people who say they are Catholic, Muslim, mormon, etc actually are because they don't behave like clones or practice their faith identically to one another. People are what they state they are regardless of what others believe. That's how you individual faith and identity works.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

basketti said:


> The subtlety of the word "religious" in quotes escaped you, huh?
> If she truly had religious objections she wouldn't need to ask here on HT, nor would she have partially immunized.


That's ridiculous. No one has the right to claim authority over whether another person's decisionsor beliefs are truly based on their faith and/or religion. We have to take people at their word. You can't prove it false because it's faith, personal belief, and people's faith and personal beliefs aren't required to meet any legal standards.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> The subtlety of the word "religious" in quotes escaped you, huh?
> If she truly had religious objections she wouldn't need to ask here on HT, nor would she have partially immunized.


Perhaps you can give me the definition of "religion"?

Hint: It's in Timothy.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

gibbsgirl said:


> That's ridiculous. No one has the right to claim authority over whether another person's decisionsor beliefs are truly based on their faith and/or religion. We have to take people at their word. You can't prove it false because it's faith, personal belief, and people's faith and personal beliefs aren't required to meet any legal standards.


Right. We have to take everyone at their word. :thumb:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Freedom OF religion.

Not the role of government to regulate faith.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Okay...so if she actually really, truly has religious objections and her religion dictates that some vaccines are okay and not others....okay.

But are you in agreement with using "religious beliefs" as a reason for exemption if those beliefs are not truly held? Just used as an excuse?

Any means to the end?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Define religious beliefs... do you find that religion is personal? Is there a certain number required by the government or you for thicker to be a religion?

If religion is personal than even if only you ....one person holds a standard of a belief system of faith is it not a religion?

Another thing... are only those that with out errors of a faith tenets really allowed and accept?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> Okay...so if she actually really, truly has religious objections and her religion dictates that some vaccines are okay and not others....okay.
> 
> But are you in agreement with using "religious beliefs" as a reason for exemption if those beliefs are not truly held? Just used as an excuse?
> 
> Any means to the end?


Not at all.
BTW, have you read the definition of "true religion" found in Timothy yet?
It always helps to know the definition of a subject before discussing it.:thumb:

It also helps to acknowledge that the wisdom we arrive at later in life, makes what we thought we knew in our youth, look foolish.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Not at all.
> BTW, have you read the definition of "true religion" found in Timothy yet?
> It always helps to know the definition of a subject before discussing it.:thumb:
> 
> It also helps to acknowledge that the wisdom we arrive at later in life, makes what we thought we knew in our youth, look foolish.


Just curious. Why would you expect me to look up the definition of a word in a book that I don't take seriously? Why not on an online dictionary, etc? 

Would a Buddhist use the bible to get the definition of a word?

All I'm asking is that if the person does not hold religious beliefs that they are using to claim an exemption, do you think that's okay?


----------



## AverageJo (Sep 24, 2010)

Thank you for your incite and opinions. I was seeking another way to go about this without claiming "religious" belief. THAT is why I put it in quotes. I am trying to find a compromise between what the government is demanding, the health of those children who can not be vaccinated, and the health of my own children. Yes, I will vaccinate my children on some things but will not on others. That's a whole different topic which went to many pages on another thread and I really don't want it rehashed here. 

I do not agree that all vaccines are safe and good for our children, especially when they're bombarded with so many at one time. My eyes were opened when my first child spiked a 105 temp every time she got a shot! First time chalked it up to being given *3* shots at once, and one of them a 3-way shot at that! Second time, it was just a single dose and AGAIN she spiked a 105 temp for a day. Second child... same thing. I am now picking and choosing for myself what is right for my children and for my community. I'm trying to be responsible here by weighing the risks and benefits of all concerned. 

Again, thank you for the positions stated above and for the food for thought. And most of all, thank you for the documents and resources I was looking for. I appreciate getting help the most and I've always found someone or another here on Homesteading Today that is willing to help me find the answers I'm looking for. God bless you, and keep up the good work.


----------



## Marshloft (Mar 24, 2008)

http://www.nvic.org/Vaccine-Laws/state-vaccine-requirements/illinois.aspx

Under "Exemptions information"
_a) The provisions of this Part shall not apply if: _

_1) The parent or legal guardian of the child objects to the requirements of this Part on the grounds that the administration of immunizing agents conflicts with his or her religious tenets or practices, or _

_2) A physician licensed to practice medicine in all its branches, an advanced practice nurse or a physician assistant states in writing that the physical condition of the child is such that the administration of one or more of the required immunizing agents is medically contraindicated. _

_b) If a religious objection is made, a written and signed statement from the parent or legal guardian detailing the objection shall be presented to the child care facility or local school authority. The religious objection statement shall be considered valid if: _

_1) The parent or legal guardian of a child entering a child care facility objects to the immunization or immunizations on the grounds that they conflict with the tenets and practices of a recognized church or religious organization of which the parent is an adherent or member; or _

_2) The objection by the parent or legal guardian of a child entering school (including programs below the kindergarten level) sets forth the specific religious belief that conflicts with the immunizations. The religious objection may be personal and need not be directed by the tenets of an established religious organization. _

_c) It is not the intent of this Part that any child whose parents comply with the intent of the Act should be excluded from a child care facility or school. *A child or student shall be considered to be in compliance with the law if there is evidence of the intent to comply. Evidence may be a signed statement from a health care provider that he or she has begun, or will begin, the necessary immunization procedures, or the parent's or legal guardian's written consent for the child's participation in a school or other community immunization program. *_


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AverageJo said:


> I'm probably late to this topic but can't find the answer doing a search.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



If you're religion is such that you can prove that certain vaccines contradict your faith, I'm sure other church members can guide you in this matter. 

If it is not faith based and you're looking for an easy out, you're likely going to have some problems and I'm not sure it would be fair to misrepresent your beliefs to used precedent that those of faith have fought hard for. 

If your child is partially vaccinated and you have issues with others, perhaps speak with the school and ensure those you disagree with are required.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

No. I do NOT think that is OK.
Nor did I say it was OK.
I did say, that what one thought was ok in their youth, should be subject to change when they discovered the truth later in life.

As far as definitions go, you can choose to get yours from whatever source you like, but if you are going to discuss it with someone who relies on the Bible for their information, guidance and definitions, then you should be aware of the context of their position.
Whether you believe it or not, has no relevance to their beliefs and decisions based on that belief.
IOW, you can't intelligently discuss a "religion" if you don't know what it means to the person you are discussing it with.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> If religion is personal than even *if only you ....one person *holds a standard of a belief system of faith is it not a religion?


Of course it's not a "religion"


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> No. I do NOT think that is OK.
> Nor did I say it was OK.
> I did say, that what one thought was ok in their youth, should be subject to change when they discovered the truth later in life.
> 
> ...



I was not ever interested in discussing religion with anyone, but as you actually were, it's interesting that you chose to try discussing it with me without knowing my religious views. 

My question was quite clear. Is it okay to claim a religious exemption based on a belief that one does not sincerely hold? 
It was not an attack on religion at all.

And also, is it setting a good example for children to lie about something to attain the result you want?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course it's not a "religion"


Why... and how many are needed for a religion?

Christianity started with one
Islam started with one

What is the a limited / cap on the number of faiths.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

wiscto said:


> http://www.antivaccinebodycount.com/Anti-Vaccine_Body_Count/Home.html



That's a waste of a website. The links are to the weekly CDC mortality tables but they give you no information on the deaths so far as vaccinated or not and it would appear they include things like influenza which we know for a fact plenty of people get the vaccination and yet still get it and some even die because they miss the strain. Pretty sad scare tactics without facts to back it up. I'd put that right up there with Jenny McCarthy for Pinocchio noses.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> IOW, you can't intelligently discuss a "religion" if you don't know what it means to the person you are discussing it with.


By the same token you can't intelligently discuss it if you think the definition changes depending on who is talking


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

AverageJo said:


> Thank you for your incite and opinions. I was seeking another way to go about this without claiming "religious" belief. THAT is why I put it in quotes. I am trying to find a compromise between what the government is demanding, the health of those children who can not be vaccinated, and the health of my own children. Yes, I will vaccinate my children on some things but will not on others. That's a whole different topic which went to many pages on another thread and I really don't want it rehashed here.
> 
> I do not agree that all vaccines are safe and good for our children, especially when they're bombarded with so many at one time. My eyes were opened when my first child spiked a 105 temp every time she got a shot! First time chalked it up to being given *3* shots at once, and one of them a 3-way shot at that! Second time, it was just a single dose and AGAIN she spiked a 105 temp for a day. Second child... same thing. I am now picking and choosing for myself what is right for my children and for my community. I'm trying to be responsible here by weighing the risks and benefits of all concerned.
> 
> Again, thank you for the positions stated above and for the food for thought. And most of all, thank you for the documents and resources I was looking for. I appreciate getting help the most and I've always found someone or another here on Homesteading Today that is willing to help me find the answers I'm looking for. God bless you, and keep up the good work.


You might want to talk to your doctor about a medical exemption for your children since they do have extreme reactions to vaccinations. Some people do and since yours is an easily verifiable reaction the doctor should be willing to work with you on a schedule that is best for your children. 

You might also want to have your daughter's titer checked. Since she has received some vaccinations she may have the immunity she needs.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

I find it hard to believe that there are still people out there willing to endanger their own and other people's children by fighting vaccinations. 

If a child is likely to be endangered by a vaccination that child's physician would block the vaccination. The fact that the Dr. has indicated that he will drop a patient rather than have the patient go unvaccinated is a pretty clear indication of the lack of medical reasons for withholding the shots. 

There are some religious sects who deny all medical treatment. It is easy to call such people nuts, but they believe they are following the teachings of the true religion--it is a free country. Even so the authorities will sometimes force them to allow children to be treated for serious conditions. 

More and more the country is coming to the conclusion that withholding vaccinations from some children endangers all children. Try joining the army and telling them you'll not be vaccinated.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Oxankle said:


> I find it hard to believe that there are still people out there willing to endanger their own and other people's children by fighting vaccinations.
> 
> If a child is likely to be endangered by a vaccination that child's physician would block the vaccination. The fact that the Dr. has indicated that he will drop a patient rather than have the patient go unvaccinated is a pretty clear indication of the lack of medical reasons for withholding the shots.
> 
> ...



Then please tell me the name of a Dr. who knows ahead of time the vaccine will hurt the child, OR who will admit the vaccine did it after the fact.
(That one is gonna be tough, so I'll be patient, pardon the pun)

And no, I would never join the army anyway, I'm not inclined to follow orders, unless I trust the One giving the orders.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> By the same token you can't intelligently discuss it if you think the definition changes depending on who is talking


That's true.
That's why I take God's authority on that matter and no one else's.
His definitions never change.:thumb:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Of course it's not a "religion"


Just a question.
Is that from the "word of Bearfoot" or the word of God?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> I was not ever interested in discussing religion with anyone, but as you actually were, it's interesting that you chose to try discussing it with me without knowing my religious views.
> 
> My question was quite clear. Is it okay to claim a religious exemption based on a belief that one does not sincerely hold?
> It was not an attack on religion at all.
> ...



And my answer was quite clear, but I'll repeat it.



> Is it okay to claim a religious exemption based on a belief that one does not sincerely hold?


No.




> And also, is it setting a good example for children to lie about something to attain the result you want?


No.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I do need to correct what I posted earlier, about Timothy.
There IS a great deal in Timothy defining religion, but the specific verse I was thinking of, but never posted, is found in James......

James 1:27King James Version (KJV)

27 Pure religion and undefiled before God and the Father is this, To visit the fatherless and widows in their affliction, and to keep himself unspotted from the world.


----------



## Oxankle (Jun 20, 2003)

By golly it sure is comforting to know there is someone here who knows exactly what God thinks about vaccinations. He never has been big on confiding in me.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> Just a question.
> Is that from the "word of Bearfoot" or the word of God?


It's just a fact, whether you agree or not


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

I find it puzzling as to why some folks are so dead set against protecting their kids from some pretty horrible diseases. But, to each their own. :shrug:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Creating weakened immunities over basic childhood illness. Chick pox is one I would not give my child. It was not an issue.. he got an lived.


----------



## Sumatra (Dec 5, 2013)

It may not be a good example to lie, but they should be free to do whatever is necessary to protect their children. And at the moment, vaccines are considered the threat.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Creating weakened immunities over basic childhood illness. Chick pox is one I would not give my child. It was not an issue.. he got an lived.


Batpucky.


----------



## gibbsgirl (May 1, 2013)

kasilofhome said:


> Creating weakened immunities over basic childhood illness. Chick pox is one I would not give my child. It was not an issue.. he got an lived.


I fought with multiple ped drs about our older boy getting the chicken pox vax. Wanted no part of it. Was a young mom and they pressured me enormously to do it or else. I eventually relented.

A few years later him and another one came down with chicken pox anyway. Took em to the dr., who had to get posters out and help from other Dr/staff to confirm it was pox even though I knew it was and said so immediately. Their first answer flung at me was"well, this is what happens wh n people like you fight us about getting these vax shots. If you'd just gotten the vax like we said...". I made them recheck the vax records to see both kds had gotten it. They couldn't even recognize it on sight, and had nothing much to ev n offer to help treat it, even as advice. We were fine and handled it on our own. The guy was young, I swear what do they even teach at some med schools. Can't recognize chicken pox or know how to tell a parent to manage it?!? Nothing shocks me (usually) anymore, lol.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Oxankle said:


> By golly it sure is comforting to know there is someone here who knows exactly what God thinks about vaccinations. He never has been big on confiding in me.



And who would that be?
I don't recall anything being said like that, perhaps you could quote it here?

I DO know what He said on many subjects because I can read and I can listen, I can't recall any on vaccines.


----------



## AverageJo (Sep 24, 2010)

There's a lot of mud flinging here and I had told myself I was not going to get involved, but some of it splattered on me... the original poster... so let me clarify my stance.

I was *NOT* trying to get out of this for 'religious' reasons, that's why it was in quotes. My bad for not clarifying that better, even in my second post where I stated it again. I do *NOT* lie to my children or anyone else. Not even here. Nor do I teach them to lie to either me nor anyone else. 

My only fault here was owning up to the fact that I do not immunize my children over EVERYTHING. A lot of the vaccines they give children these days are not all that effective. I've seen it myself with other children who have been vaccinated and gotten ill and it was witnessed to above. Are you all that positive that the vaccines are effective? How do you know unless your child is exposed to the disease and doesn't catch it? If you're still positive, then immunize your children and don't worry about mine. If you can not immunize your child, then keep him/her home wrapped in a bubble, just as you're expecting me to do to mine. Right. That's not practical is it. But isn't it child endangerment if you knowingly take that risk of exposing your child to dangers? My child will be in places other than school. They'll be in the stores, museums, parks, church, restaurant, even walking down the road. School isn't the only place they'll catch a bug.

I ***WILL*** protect my child from diseases that could kill or seriously hurt or disfigure them. But I will not be pumping drugs into them just because my doctor or government says so. My doctor expects me to bow down and do as he says. He does not consider it important that both my children had 105 temps with any of their shots. He will not sign the waiver/exemption form. If I could find another doctor in my area that is on my Obama required insurance, I would. 

Now relax!! I ***WILL*** also be keeping my children ***HOME*** if they show any sign of illness. Can you say the same? Have you ever sent your child to school with a slight temp or cold? Have you gone into work or to the store when you're not feeling well? If you do, then you're responsible for the endangerment of others as well as you are spreading germs and disease that will make others sick, just as you're accusing me of doing. 

Ok. let the mud fight continue. ... LOL...


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

AverageJo said:


> Ok. let the mud fight continue. ... LOL...


You shouldnt hold back and candy coat things.... tell em straight out how it is!


----------



## Farmerga (May 6, 2010)

Just a question, and don't get me wrong, I vaccinate my child with all recommended vaccines, but, what ever happened to not being forced to vaccinate because we (used to) live in a free society? Should that not be enough of an exemption for anyone?


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

Farmerga said:


> Just a question, and don't get me wrong, I vaccinate my child with all recommended vaccines, but, what ever happened to not being forced to vaccinate because we (used to) live in a free society? Should that not be enough of an exemption for anyone?


It's a good question, but apparently this has been an established point of the law far longer than most of us have been alive. Per the source below, The U.S. Supreme Court upheld mandatory vaccination laws in Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905) and ruled specifically for mandated vaccinations as a precondition of school enrollment in Zucht v. King (1922): 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Harlan ruled that personal liberties could be suspended given external circumstances. During an outbreak, for example, the state can encroach on those liberties when "the safety of the general public may demand."[1] He compared the smallpox outbreak to the Civil War (in which three out of nine Justices at the term served) by saying that a community has the right to protect itself both from disease and from military invasion. [3]


That time is not prevent. As the rational was defined


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Farmerga said:


> Just a question, and don't get me wrong, I vaccinate my child with all recommended vaccines, but, what ever happened to not being forced to vaccinate because we (used to) live in a free society? Should that not be enough of an exemption for anyone?


Yep, its sad, there was a time in this country that the second amendment was the only "permit" required to carry a firearm of any kind too. :flame:


----------



## SLFarmMI (Feb 21, 2013)

AverageJo said:


> There's a lot of mud flinging here and I had told myself I was not going to get involved, but some of it splattered on me... the original poster... so let me clarify my stance.
> 
> I was *NOT* trying to get out of this for 'religious' reasons, that's why it was in quotes. My bad for not clarifying that better, even in my second post where I stated it again. I do *NOT* lie to my children or anyone else. Not even here. Nor do I teach them to lie to either me nor anyone else.
> 
> ...


I agree with you that parents should be able to make the choice for their children re: vaccinations. Unfortunately, I think you're going to lose this fight. Illinois doesn't happen to be one of the states that allows personal belief reasons as one of the allowable exemptions for vaccinations. It's medical or religious only. There are only about 15 or so that allow personal belief exemptions. So, unless you want to move, it looks like homeschooling or finishing up the list of vaccinations are going to be your only choices. 

I really think the school district is going to hold the partial immunizations against you in granting the religious exemption. 

I wish you luck whichever way you decide to go.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

AverageJo said:


> There's a lot of mud flinging here and I had told myself I was not going to get involved, but some of it splattered on me... the original poster... so let me clarify my stance.
> 
> I was *NOT* trying to get out of this for 'religious' reasons, that's why it was in quotes. My bad for not clarifying that better, even in my second post where I stated it again. I do *NOT* lie to my children or anyone else. Not even here. Nor do I teach them to lie to either me nor anyone else.
> 
> ...


It seems to me that you can certainly partial vaccinate your kids but if your public school system doesn't accept that, you may have to consider continuing to home school. 

I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding your question about taking sick kids out in public. Do you believe that's what parents of vaccinated kids do or are you intending to reinforce your opinion that those that give their kids full vaccinations are irresponsible parents?


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

I just wanted to share a link that may help you find a more open-minded doctor: http://integrativemedicine.arizona.edu/alumni.html

Where we used to live, we had a pediatrician who is an MD but also had education in integrative medicine from the University of Arizona. My children are partially vaccinated as well and I felt this pediatrician was on the same page with us. We saw her along with a regular pediatrician because she was too far away in case the kids were sick and needed quick attention. But our two pediatricians were willing to work together & share all records with each other. 

With that said, my son had a severe reaction to one vaccine and our regular pediatrician who was pro-vaccines (although not pushy & respectful of our choices) gladly wrote medical exemption for preschool for both my son and my daughter for that particular vaccine. If your current doctor feels that 105 degree fever is an acceptable reaction to a vaccine, I really think you need a new one. Where we live now, I have not found a pediatrician who is willing to accept patients who are not vaccinated on schedule. However, I have found that family doctors are more open minded. My kids are 5 & 7 and we see a family doctor now. 

I know it is hard finding a doctor within confines of your insurance plan, but it may be worth it to just pay for the doctor visits out of pocket. Obviously, assuming it is something you can manage financially. 

Good luck! I know how frustrating it can be when you know what is right for *your* kids and feel bullied to do otherwise.


----------



## AverageJo (Sep 24, 2010)

wr said:


> It seems to me that you can certainly partial vaccinate your kids but if your public school system doesn't accept that, you may have to consider continuing to home school.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're getting at regarding your question about taking sick kids out in public. Do you believe that's what parents of vaccinated kids do or are you intending to reinforce your opinion that those that give their kids full vaccinations are irresponsible parents?


I'm totally ready to continue to homeschool my children, but my oldest REALLY wants to go to public schools with her friends and I'd like to be able to give her that option. That's the reason I'm going through all of this. If I can't work it out, we'll continue to homeschool, but she'll be really disappointed.. for a while. LOL... And it won't be ME being the bad guy by just saying "NO". At least I'm trying and she understands my reasoning and agrees with it. Bless her heart.

Taking sick kids out of school... Someone posted that I would be endangering other children by allowing my unvaccinated children to go to school. My comment was to assure them that I am a responsible person who is ready and willing to keep my children out of the public schools (or anywhere else) when they're sick. I then asked if they, too, keep their (vaccinated) children home from school (or anywhere else) if THEIR children are sick. Same goes for keeping themselves home instead of going to work, where they can spread disease or viruses. I see plenty of sick people out in public. Aren't these people just as likely to endanger another child by being in public when they're sick with a disease or virus? Simply trying to open eyes wider than just unvaccinated children.

BTW... vaccination does not equal immunity. And even if you are immune, it doesn't mean you can't be a carrier and still carry it to that child that is immune-compromised. Who is to say if it was my unvaccinated child or your vaccinated child who is the carrier and had close contact with the other? :gaptooth:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

AverageJo said:


> I'm totally ready to continue to homeschool my children, but my oldest REALLY wants to go to public schools with her friends and I'd like to be able to give her that option. That's the reason I'm going through all of this. If I can't work it out, we'll continue to homeschool, but she'll be really disappointed.. for a while. LOL... And it won't be ME being the bad guy by just saying "NO". At least I'm trying and she understands my reasoning and agrees with it. Bless her heart.
> 
> Taking sick kids out of school... Someone posted that I would be endangering other children by allowing my unvaccinated children to go to school. My comment was to assure them that I am a responsible person who is ready and willing to keep my children out of the public schools (or anywhere else) when they're sick. I then asked if they, too, keep their (vaccinated) children home from school (or anywhere else) if THEIR children are sick. Same goes for keeping themselves home instead of going to work, where they can spread disease or viruses. I see plenty of sick people out in public. Aren't these people just as likely to endanger another child by being in public when they're sick with a disease or virus? Simply trying to open eyes wider than just unvaccinated children.
> 
> BTW... vaccination does not equal immunity. And even if you are immune, it doesn't mean you can't be a carrier and still carry it to that child that is immune-compromised. Who is to say if it was my unvaccinated child or your vaccinated child who is the carrier and had close contact with the other? :gaptooth:


All of your "reasoning" has been refuted here and a million other places online. If you're silly enough to try lying to the school officials given the info you share online, go for it. Not my circus, not my monkeys.


----------



## AverageJo (Sep 24, 2010)

basketti said:


> All of your "reasoning" has been refuted here and a million other places online. If you're silly enough to try lying to the school officials given the info you share online, go for it. Not my circus, not my monkeys.


I don't know how I can say it clearer... I am not going to lie to the schools. I will write my letter stating my personal religious views. It will be up to them to decide if my children will be allowed into school or not and I will abide by their decision. Why the mud flinging? Especially if it's "not your circus, not your monkeys"? 

If you want to pump your children full of meds that are made from aborted human fetus (sorry but this is murder in my book), or put toxins in their body, or whatever, that is your business. 

Again, thank you to the folks on here who helped me search out the information I was seeking. I'm done here.

Moderators, you may close this thread down if you wish. It's turning out to be nothing more than bashing and no longer helpful in any manner. :hammer:


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

AverageJo said:


> I don't know how I can say it clearer... I am not going to lie to the schools. I will write my letter stating my personal religious views. It will be up to them to decide if my children will be allowed into school or not and I will abide by their decision. Why the mud flinging? Especially if it's "not your circus, not your monkeys"?
> 
> If you want to pump your children full of meds that are made from aborted human fetus (sorry but this is murder in my book), or put toxins in their body, or whatever, that is your business.
> 
> ...


It would be societies business if I were poisoning my kids and whatever other foolishness you are implying, but I'm not. I vaccinate my kids. Which has nothing to do with the misinformation you just spewed.
No one was bashing. If you aren't silly enough to lie, than my post didn't apply to you. See? Easy peasy.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

AverageJo said:


> Taking sick kids out of school... Someone posted that I would be endangering other children by allowing my unvaccinated children to go to school. My comment was to assure them that I am a responsible person who is ready and willing to keep my children out of the public schools (or anywhere else) when they're sick. I then asked if they, too, keep their (vaccinated) children home from school (or anywhere else) if THEIR children are sick. Same goes for keeping themselves home instead of going to work, where they can spread disease or viruses. I see plenty of sick people out in public. Aren't these people just as likely to endanger another child by being in public when they're sick with a disease or virus? Simply trying to open eyes wider than just unvaccinated children.


I can only speak from my own experience but I have noticed that among our social circles, people who have kids in public or private school will bring them around other kids much sicker than homeschoolers. I think they go based on the rules that schools use - e.g. if the child does not have a fever, it's okay to come to school - even though he is coughing and has green snot coming out of his nose. The homeschool kids I know would stay home under those circumstances. I can understand it to some degree - a parent cannot take time off work each time the kids have the sniffles. They would also probably get in trouble for too much unexcused absence from school. Where a homeschooling parent is home already and it's no big deal to stay home. Schoolwork still gets done but we can always reschedule a field trip with others.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmerKat said:


> I can only speak from my own experience but I have noticed that among our social circles, people who have kids in public or private school will bring them around other kids much sicker than homeschoolers. I think they go based on the rules that schools use - e.g. if the child does not have a fever, it's okay to come to school - even though he is coughing and has green snot coming out of his nose. The homeschool kids I know would stay home under those circumstances. I can understand it to some degree - a parent cannot take time off work each time the kids have the sniffles. They would also probably get in trouble for too much unexcused absence from school. Where a homeschooling parent is home already and it's no big deal to stay home. Schoolwork still gets done but we can always reschedule a field trip with others.


I was a SAHM and homeschooled as well as sent my kids to public and private schools. Never once sent my kids to school sick. 
Unfortunately, in many diseases or illnesses like measles, people are contagious before they show signs of the illness. So even if you do keep a sick child home, the damage is already done.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Well, maybe bubble suits for parents who want to shelter their children from life.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Well, maybe bubble suits for parents who want to shelter their children from life.


If you had a child with a compromised immune system who couldn't receive vaccinations and you didnt try to shelter him as best you could from communicable diseases that could kill him or make him seriously ill, then you don't deserve to be a mother. 

Especially because of well meaning people who don't understand what they think they do and risk the public health because of their silliness.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Define religious beliefs... do you find that religion is personal? Is there a certain number required by the government or you for thicker to be a religion?
> 
> If religion is personal than even if only you ....one person holds a standard of a belief system of faith is it not a religion?
> 
> Another thing... are only those that with out errors of a faith tenets really allowed and accept?


What do you mean by thicker being a religion?


----------



## Shrek (May 1, 2002)

Parents can choose if they wish to vaccinate their children or not. If they choose not to they simply must consider homeschooling or a private parochial school that does not require immunization if they can find one as in this day private schools including parochial ones generally require the same immunizations as public school do to offer the most protection to the majority of their student bodies and the communities the students interact with.


----------



## Scott SW Ohio (Sep 20, 2003)

basketti said:


> What do you mean by thicker being a religion?


Basketti, I think this should have read "Is there a certain number required by the government or you for there to be a religion?" Probably a combination misspelling/mistyping/autocorrect issue: Poster was keying "their" instead of "there" but struck the k inadvertently to produce "theikr" (i and k being adjacent keys) and autocorrect took a stab with "thicker."


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

I was going to respond earlier, when the 1905 SCOTUS decision was mentioned, at the talk about whether vaccines are effective and HOW they are effective.
But don't take my word for it, start with the CDC and then research the history of the smallpox vaccine. Find out what happened in Asia, Europe and Africa in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
Today's vaccines are different because they don't use live viruses. The result is short term immunity vs. lifetime immunity, but the risks are lower.
What were the risks back then?
You either survived the disease and got natural immunity, you got the vaccine and got the same natural immunity or you caught the disease from all the symptomatic vaccinated folks and died.
Just a few? No, tens of thousands.

They are constantly experimenting with different parts of viruses today to get the more effective immunity of the natural immunity. If you want to take their word that they aren't in fact causing a lot of these outbreaks with the very vaccines that are supposed to stop it, then you have more faith in them than I do in historical facts.


----------



## wr (Aug 10, 2003)

basketti said:


> If you had a child with a compromised immune system who couldn't receive vaccinations and you didnt try to shelter him as best you could from communicable diseases that could kill him or make him seriously ill, then you don't deserve to be a mother.
> 
> Especially because of well meaning people who don't understand what they think they do and risk the public health because of their silliness.


That list extends a bit further than kids with compromised immune systems. People on anti rejection drugs as well as patients receiving chemo can also die from those seemingly communicable diseases.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

wr said:


> That list extends a bit further than kids with compromised immune systems. People on anti rejection drugs as well as patients receiving chemo can also die from those seemingly communicable diseases.


Yes, I was including them as immunocompromised.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I was going to respond earlier, when the 1905 SCOTUS decision was mentioned, at the talk about whether vaccines are effective and HOW they are effective.
> But don't take my word for it, start with the CDC and then research the history of the smallpox vaccine. Find out what happened in Asia, Europe and Africa in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
> Today's vaccines are different because they don't use live viruses. The result is short term immunity vs. lifetime immunity, but the risks are lower.
> What were the risks back then?
> ...


Why don't you post your sources. Tens of thousands died from what?
They do in fact still use live, but attenuated viruses for many vaccines.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

AverageJo, have you asked your child if he/she would like to be vaccinated in order to go to school? If he/she DID want to be vaccinated in order to go to school, would do let that happen? Just curious what the kid thinks, and if the kid has talked to the doc about his/her own body.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

I took a religious exemption for our kids on the chicken pox vaccine. I probably won't state this well on here..but my religion/God wants me to do the best I can for my children and I felt that was the best thing for them. I also felt like I shouldn't have to give an explanation of why I was doing this. If I told them I felt moved by the Holy Ghost that I should not have the shot done at this time they won't believe me anyway. 

Fast forward to this year. I finally decided that they were all old enough and the chicken pox vaccine has been around long enough to try to give it to our children. Everyone of them had a reaction instantaneously to the shot. We had to go right home from the doctors office and give Benadryl to the children. The youngest ended up with a swollen leg/rash/ and screaming in pain most of the night. The oldest one ended up covered head to toe in large splotchy hives that took about two weeks to go away.

Sometimes mama does know best. I am all for protecting the kids who can't get vaccines but what about protecting my children also.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> If you had a child with a compromised immune system who couldn't receive vaccinations and you didnt try to shelter him as best you could from communicable diseases that could kill him or make him seriously ill, then you don't deserve to be a mother.
> 
> Especially because of well meaning people who don't understand what they think they do and risk the public health because of their silliness.



My brother could not leave our house for a long time when he came home from the hospital.


I lived it ... but we did altered our life style vs... even considering other other make changes for him.

He attended school on the phone.. kids took turn carrying phone to the different classrooms... germs and infection were a threat to him

The school did the same for a classmate during in six grade...for another child


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> My brother could not leave our house for a long time when he can home from the hospital.
> 
> 
> I lived it ... but we did altered our life style vs... even considering other other make changes for him.
> ...


That is a different issue. Recovering from severe burns as opposed to being healthy enough to attend school but endangered by people who don't contribute to herd immunity.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Ziptie said:


> I took a religious exemption for our kids on the chicken pox vaccine. I probably won't state this well on here..but my religion/God wants me to do the best I can for my children and I felt that was the best thing for them. I also felt like I shouldn't have to give an explanation of why I was doing this. If I told them I felt moved by the Holy Ghost that I should not have the shot done at this time they won't believe me anyway.
> 
> Fast forward to this year. I finally decided that they were all old enough and the chicken pox vaccine has been around long enough to try to give it to our children. Everyone of them had a reaction instantaneously to the shot. We had to go right home from the doctors office and give Benadryl to the children. The youngest ended up with a swollen leg/rash/ and screaming in pain most of the night. The oldest one ended up covered head to toe in large splotchy hives that took about two weeks to go away.
> 
> Sometimes mama does know best. I am all for protecting the kids who can't get vaccines but what about protecting my children also.


I can't imagine what kind of doctor you go to if all of your children had instantaneous reactions and the doc didn't treat them right there. Very strange.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> That is a different issue. Recovering from severe burns as opposed to being healthy enough to attend school but endangered by people who don't contribute to herd immunity.


Two different events were give of parents and family's take responsibility... and are school assisting

Donny Schmitz did die from cancer after six grade just be for seventh grade.



As for my brother due to an error he lost his external ear because of an infection.

He was at risk of infection..... burns to his degree are massive areas of healing skin patches that would crack and open and bleed... multiple times a day he had to soak in a pool with stuff that disinfected his body....a job of skin it to reduce and protect the body from infections he was at risk 

Common illness were a risk for my brother as well as he had to be free of illness for the constant return to surgery.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Two different events were give of parents and family's take responsibility... and are school assisting
> 
> Donny Schmitz did die from cancer after six grade just be for seventh grade.
> 
> ...


Sorry. Couldn't understand the first part of your post. No time to try and decipher.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Two different children
One Donny... since he died... he had leukaemia... 
Brother was the other child not attend school in person just on a speaker phone.
due to a personal threat to both children's health.

BOTH were able to attend but had high risk of getting ill from others....Thus the phones.

There was around thing when solutions are the goal.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> Why don't you post your sources. Tens of thousands died from what?
> They do in fact still use live, but attenuated viruses for many vaccines.


I suppose I could repost the sources from a previous thread, I'll probably just link the thread and give the post #'s.

I also happen to think you study and learn better when you find and read your own sources, that's why I suggested you start with what the CDC says about the many types of vaccines and go from there.

Smallpox and Polio, to answer your question, mostly smallpox.
You've never heard about the deaths from the vaccination because it was over a 100 years ago, and they would rather you not go looking for it. Once an outbreak hits a population, only the survivors live to tell.

Your second sentence should set alarm bells off in your own head after you read about those earlier events.

It's like deciphering the coy way doctors say, "It's impossible to get the flu from the flu shot."
Technically, they are correct, you don't get the flu, just all the symptoms, lol.
You get a 102 degree fever, not 104. You get 4 days of cough and sniffles, not 6. You want to lay in bed 2 days, not 3. 
You also get 5 years of immunity..........not 75 years.:heh:

I could say the exact same thing, you don't get sick from the flu, you get sick from your body's _immune response_ TO the flu.
That's a huge difference to both people lying in bed feeling miserable, isn't it?
:umno:


There's a lot to learn in this big old world, but I've found a tendency to dismiss anything not personally witnessed as false, or it never happened.
It's a lot easier for info to enter an open mind, than a closed one. I've chosen to keep mine open.




Edit:

Curiously, I missed this one in the other thread I posted although it has similar info only more detail.
It's short and scary, like a Poe poem, read it if you get a chance.......

http://www.vaclib.org/legal/MTstate/smallpox.pdf


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

farmrbrown said:


> I was going to respond earlier, when the 1905 SCOTUS decision was mentioned, at the talk about whether vaccines are effective and HOW they are effective.
> But don't take my word for it, start with the CDC and then research the history of the smallpox vaccine. Find out what happened in Asia, Europe and Africa in the late 19th and early 20th centuries.
> Today's vaccines are different because they don't use live viruses. The result is short term immunity vs. lifetime immunity, but the risks are lower.
> What were the risks back then?
> ...


How many people are at risk of smallpox today? Is that because of vaccinations or maybe it was the result of prayer.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Immunizations have saved millions of lives and continue to save millions of lives.

The safest situation for you and your family is for the whole world to get vaccinated, except you and your family. That way everyone else has the tiny risk of a reaction, but not you. The chance of your family getting the disease is tiny because there won't be any groups spreading it around, because they are vaccinated. Sort of selfish, I think.

The most risky situation for you and your family would be for ever larger groups of your friends, neighbors and community to refuse vaccinations. This increases the likelihood that with just one infected person, the disease will sweep through your personal contacts and infecting your family.

For awhile, your refusal to be vaccinated will have little effect, the vaccinated majority will slow the spread of diseases and if measles doesn't spread to your town because of their immunity, you'll be safe. 

But when others adopt your beliefs, creating a large group of susceptible people, pandemics return to the way they did for much of recorded history. Except, now with everyone traveling, diseases will be spread much faster.

Get your vaccinations, keep your children vaccinated, blame autism and mental retardation on women ingesting alcohol and recreational drugs during pregnancy.
Turn off Mercola.


----------



## Fishindude (May 19, 2015)

Have heard a bit about this lately, but don't really understand the issue.
Why wouldn't you just get your child the immunizations? Are there health concerns?

And I'm with basketti ...... sounds like trying to create a "religious beliefs" issue where there truly isn't one.


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

basketti said:


> I can't imagine what kind of doctor you go to if all of your children had instantaneous reactions and the doc didn't treat them right there. Very strange.



Wasn't his fault it was mine. Due to our allergies we have to have Benadryl compounded. I didn't think there would be any problems now that they were older. 

On the other hand he was not happy that we had avoided this shot and his nurses have given us a really hard time in the past about it. I was sure to point out to the nurse as the rash was spreading on their arm from the injection site and to make sure she noted the reaction in their file.


----------



## Agriculture (Jun 8, 2015)

AverageJo said:


> There's a lot of mud flinging here and I had told myself I was not going to get involved, but some of it splattered on me... the original poster... so let me clarify my stance.
> 
> I was *NOT* trying to get out of this for 'religious' reasons, that's why it was in quotes. My bad for not clarifying that better, even in my second post where I stated it again. I do *NOT* lie to my children or anyone else. Not even here. Nor do I teach them to lie to either me nor anyone else.
> 
> ...


So the convictions of those who fear (government required) vaccinations extend only so far as their government required health insurance. Interesting.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

I wish there had been a chicken pox vaccine when I was young enough to get one (before I had chicken pox). Chicken pox aren't terribly dangerous, usually, but I saw the pain my poor mom was in a few months ago when she got shingles. Talk about painful, and could cause permanent nerve damage. I really, really, really hope I do not get shingles when I am older.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Yvonne's hubby said:


> How many people are at risk of smallpox today? Is that because of vaccinations or maybe it was the result of prayer.


 
About 7 billion + or -, read the link at the bottom of my last post.



haypoint said:


> Immunizations have saved millions of lives and continue to save millions of lives.
> 
> The safest situation for you and your family is for the whole world to get vaccinated, except you and your family. That way everyone else has the tiny risk of a reaction, but not you. The chance of your family getting the disease is tiny because there won't be any groups spreading it around, because they are vaccinated. Sort of selfish, I think.
> 
> ...


 
Ditto.
Read the link and educate yourself. Vaccines do more to spread the disease that fighting it naturally. Of course, if your mind is made up and closed, then DON'T read the link. But please don't deter others from investigating it themselves. Some of us are still willing to learn and won't blindly accept what the gov't tells us as "safe".

Sanitation has saved more lives than all the vaccines put together.m It is the coicidental timing of better sanitation and vaccines that has produced the misleading results that have deceived people.



Agriculture said:


> So the convictions of those who fear (government required) vaccinations extend only so far as their government required health insurance. Interesting.


 
Maybe for some. This rebel won't bow to Obamacare and will take his case to the SCOTUS. Stay tuned...........




MDKatie said:


> I wish there had been a chicken pox vaccine when I was young enough to get one (before I had chicken pox). Chicken pox aren't terribly dangerous, usually, but I saw the pain my poor mom was in a few months ago when she got shingles. Talk about painful, and could cause permanent nerve damage. I really, really, really hope I do not get shingles when I am older.


 
Again educate yourself and examine the facts and statistics by themselves.
Ever wonder why the sudden upsurge in shingles is happening now that kids get chickenpox vaccines instead of having a little belly scar like me?
All ya gotta do is open your eyes y'all.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I suppose I could repost the sources from a previous thread, I'll probably just link the thread and give the post #'s.
> 
> I also happen to think you study and learn better when you find and read your own sources, that's why I suggested you start with what the CDC says about the many types of vaccines and go from there.
> 
> ...


Oh good grief. Try reputable sources and not crackpot sites. No one but crackpots will take you seriously until you do.
The Cutter incident I'd well documented and it directly led to the very effective federal regulation of vaccines.


----------



## AngieM2 (May 10, 2002)

MDKatie said:


> I wish there had been a chicken pox vaccine when I was young enough to get one (before I had chicken pox). Chicken pox aren't terribly dangerous, usually, but I saw the pain my poor mom was in a few months ago when she got shingles. Talk about painful, and could cause permanent nerve damage. I really, really, really hope I do not get shingles when I am older.


Can you take the shingles vaccine?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Has enough studies been do to know if the vaccine for chicken pox will allow ....enable those vaccinated with a chance of shingles.

Thus if everyone got the shot under a mandate. Would the potential for there to be an increase in shingle as an unintended consequence?


As, mandated vaccine would impact a larger pool that natural infection rate of chicken pox..


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Has enough studies been do to know if the vaccine for chicken pox will allow ....enable those vaccinated with a chance of shingles.
> 
> Thus if everyone got the shot under a mandate. Would the potential for there to be an increase in shingle as an unintended consequence?
> 
> ...


Shingles risk for those vaccinated for CP is much lower than those who were infected with wild CP.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> Shingles risk for those vaccinated for CP is much lower than those who were infected with wild CP.


Link to a study please. Opinions are not helpfully when facts are needed.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

You can search for the study yourself..lim heading out on my boat. 

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/vaccines/varicella/


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> *Link to a study* please. Opinions are not helpfully when facts are needed.


You're the one who wanted to know in the first place

Why not find the answer yourself rather than expecting someone here to hand it to you?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Greatful for the news you will be gone boating


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Greatful for the news you will be gone boating


Meow.


----------



## MDKatie (Dec 13, 2010)

AngieM2 said:


> Can you take the shingles vaccine?


It's recommended for people 60 and older. I'm a little over halfway there.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

Fishindude said:


> Have heard a bit about this lately, but don't really understand the issue.
> Why wouldn't you just get your child the immunizations? Are there health concerns?
> 
> And I'm with basketti ...... sounds like trying to create a "religious beliefs" issue where there truly isn't one.


Yes, there are very real health concerns and mountains of evidence for that, but as for whether or not hearing that does a person any future good seems to usually rely upon whether a person has a blind, unwavering trust of drug makers, doctors and the government, or not.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Fishindude said:


> And I'm with basketti ...... sounds like trying to create a "religious beliefs" issue where there truly isn't one.


I don't think that OP is trying to create religious belief where there is not one. Just recently we have had several threads here about abortion and many say that Christians should not force their religious beliefs - i.e. opposition to abortion - on others. So if the OP is opposed to vaccinating her children with vaccines that are made using aborted fetal tissue (see quote from her post below), how is that not a religious objection? Not all vaccines are made using fetal tissue, but some are. There are also no available alternatives in the US to these vaccines. I don't think you can have it both ways - either being against abortion is a religious issue or it is not. 

I think the trouble is that many states have laws that do not allow objections to individual vaccines, it's an all or nothing thing. And then people who are not opposed to vaccinating in general but are selective due to specific reasons are stuck in between. 



AverageJo said:


> If you want to pump your children full of meds that are* made from aborted human fetus (sorry but this is murder in my book)*, or put toxins in their body, or whatever, that is your business.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> So if the OP is opposed to vaccinating her children with vaccines that are made using aborted fetal tissue (see quote from her post below),*how is that not a religious objection?*


Because you have to be able to prove your excuse is an actual tenet of your religion, and not just some personal belief.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> Oh good grief. Try reputable sources and not crackpot sites. No one but crackpots will take you seriously until you do.
> The Cutter incident I'd well documented and it directly led to the very effective federal regulation of vaccines.


I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
I guess I'll dig up the older thread, where my sources were JAMA, the British NIH, CDC and others.
The "Cutter incident was Polio and occurred in 1955.
Nothing in that link referred to any of that. It was British stats on smallpox, decades before.
But thanks for confirming what I thought would be said if I DID post a link.
I've learned quick on here who truly listens and learns and who just wants to take potshots.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmerKat said:


> I don't think that OP is trying to create religious belief where there is not one. Just recently we have had several threads here about abortion and many say that Christians should not force their religious beliefs - i.e. opposition to abortion - on others. So if the OP is opposed to vaccinating her children with vaccines that are made using aborted fetal tissue (see quote from her post below), how is that not a religious objection? Not all vaccines are made using fetal tissue, but some are. There are also no available alternatives in the US to these vaccines. I don't think you can have it both ways - either being against abortion is a religious issue or it is not.
> 
> I think the trouble is that many states have laws that do not allow objections to individual vaccines, it's an all or nothing thing. And then people who are not opposed to vaccinating in general but are selective due to specific reasons are stuck in between.


Except that fetal tissue is NOT used in vaccines. No matter what the crackpots like to claim. What do you think is in there...ground up embryos?
http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/human-cell-strains-vaccine-development


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> I don't have any idea what you're talking about.
> I guess I'll dig up the older thread, where my sources were JAMA, the British NIH, CDC and others.
> The "Cutter incident was Polio and occurred in 1955.
> Nothing in that link referred to any of that. It was British stats on smallpox, decades before.
> ...


The only link you posted was to vaclib.org...a crackpot website designed to cater to the fearful and uneducated.

So why would any intelligent person listen to the pap coming from there?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Ziptie said:


> Wasn't his fault it was mine. Due to our allergies we have to have Benadryl compounded. I didn't think there would be any problems now that they were older.
> 
> On the other hand he was not happy that we had avoided this shot and his nurses have given us a really hard time in the past about it. I was sure to point out to the nurse as the rash was spreading on their arm from the injection site and to make sure she noted the reaction in their file.


Really? Because I can't see ANY doctor allowing a kid who was having an instantaneous reaction to a vaccine, particularly if your kids already have allergy issues as you imply, to leave the office. It could have gone into anaphylaxis.

Surely you know that allergies arent necessarily outgrown?


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

basketti said:


> Except that fetal tissue is NOT used in vaccines. No matter what the crackpots like to claim. What do you think is in there...ground up embryos?
> http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/human-cell-strains-vaccine-development


Is abc news reliable enough? http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539

From the linked article:


> Merck, as well as other vaccine manufacturers, uses two well-established human cell lines to grow the virus for selected vaccines," Merck said in a statement to ABC News. "The FDA has approved the use of these cell lines for the production of these Merck vaccines."
> 
> *Other common vaccines, including those for chicken pox, hepatitis and rabies, are also propagated in cells originating from legally aborted human fetuses, according to the FDA.*
> 
> "These abortions, which occurred decades ago, were not undertaken with the intent of producing vaccines," said a spokeswoman for the U.S. Centers Disease Control and Prevention.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmerKat said:


> Is abc news reliable enough? http://abcnews.go.com/Health/aborted-fetuses-vaccines/story?id=29005539
> 
> From the linked article:


Cell strains, not fetal tissue. Even the Catholic Church is okay with it. They refer to it as a historical association with an aborted fetus, basically.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

basketti said:


> Cell strains, not fetal tissue.


OK, cell strains. Either way, a child had to die for the manufacturers to obtain these cells. To some, it's not okay.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Kinda like someone ok with 1 percent rodent parts and poo in their food... complaining about how wrong that someone want no rodent parts and poo in their food.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Kinda like someone ok with 1 percent rodent parts and poo in their food... complaining about how wrong that someone want no rodent parts and poo in their food.


Then why is your Church okay with it?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

FarmerKat said:


> OK, cell strains. Either way, a child had to die for the manufacturers to obtain these cells. To some, it's not okay.


The cells are not IN the vaccine, the virus was cultured in the cell strains.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Kinda like someone ok with 1 percent rodent parts and poo in their food... complaining about how wrong that someone want no rodent parts and poo in their food.


Except that the cells are not IN the vaccine.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

FarmerKat said:


> OK, cell strains. Either way, a child had to die for the manufacturers to obtain these cells. To some, it's not okay.


Those abortions were going to be done whether there was any use for the cells or not, and they were done, I believe, in the 60's

It's OK for you to think it's not OK.
You just can't force that belief on anyone else


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> Originally Posted by kasilofhome
> Kinda like someone* ok with* 1 percent rodent parts and poo in their food... complaining about how wrong that someone want no rodent parts and poo in their food.


No one has ever claimed to be "OK with" any foreign material such as that in their food.
It's simply a reality that it will be there whether one is "OK with" it or not and it must be accepted.

It's these subtleties that make all the difference, and they seem to elude you quite often


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

FarmerKat said:


> OK, cell strains. Either way, a child had to die for the manufacturers to obtain these cells. To some, it's not okay.


I am pretty sure the "child" was already dead when that tissue was obtained. I am also fairly certain it was not killed for the purpose of obtaining the tissue.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> Then why is your Church okay with it?


By basketti
Why don't you cut the melodrama? Good grief. Grow...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> The only link you posted was to vaclib.org...a crackpot website designed to cater to the fearful and uneducated.
> 
> So why would any intelligent person listen to the pap coming from there?


Actually, I said I posted other links in an earlier thread and it would take a while to find it.
Post #299
http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...nother-law-diminishes-parental-rights-15.html

But I gather from your misinformed referral earlier about Dr. Cutter, that you didn't even read the link to see if it was British smallpox stats or not.
I anticipated the "That source isn't credible" response although I don't post links on that basis, rather on verification of what is stated, such as the 19th-20th century smallpox outbreaks, deaths and vaccination programs.

The British NIH contains far more damning historical stats from other countries under British rule at the time, than the "crackpot" website which only mentioned the British Isles........so what are we to conclude now?:shrug:

Either they are all crackpots, or the facts are accepted, but we draw different conclusions. 

Usually what happens next is a sidetrack, that although the facts are true, we can only accept the conclusion from the "approved" sources and go back to dismissing the crackpots, thereby disregarding the invitation to debate the conclusions.
Is that about right?


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> By basketti
> Why don't you cut the melodrama? Good grief. Grow...


That's not melodrama it's a legitimate question. You started a whole thread on the Catholic Church's Canon law. So it's safe to assume you take your Church's stance on things seriously. So how do you feel about the fact that the Catholic Church cleared those vaccines? They have a strong stance against abortion so there must be a good reason they said the vaccines are okay right?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Site your source and link


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> Then why is your Church okay with it?


False...


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Site your source and link


The number to call is BR-549
Ask for Junior


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> That's not melodrama it's a legitimate question. You started a whole thread on the Catholic Church's Canon law. So it's safe to assume you take your Church's stance on things seriously. So how do you feel about the fact that the Catholic Church cleared those vaccines? They have a strong stance against abortion so there must be a good reason they said the vaccines are okay right?


It is an interesting question, the answer isn't so cut and dry.....

http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1284

https://www.cogforlife.org/catholicguide.pdf


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> Actually, I said I posted other links in an earlier thread and it would take a while to find it.
> Post #299
> http://www.homesteadingtoday.com/ge...nother-law-diminishes-parental-rights-15.html
> 
> ...


Dude, the last thing I'm interested in doing is going back to sort thru *another* thread to decipher one of your gasbag posts. Say what you mean here or don't.

Not sure how you think my post about The Cutter Incident was misinformed (it references Cutter Labs by the way, not Dr. Cutter) since you were going on about past vaccine problems, and that was rather a biggie. A disaster, in fact. Gave lots of children polio.

But if your ultimate point, after all the rambling, is that there have been problems with vaccines in the distant past, well, no poop, Sherlock.

You want to throw out the baby with the bath water, have at it, but you'd better throw out most all modern medicine with it. Because, you know...doctors used to BLEED people and kill them with nosocomial infections and all, so for pity's sake, so better not use a modern doctor.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> Dude, the last thing I'm interested in doing is going back to sort thru *another* thread to decipher one of your gasbag posts. Say what you mean here or don't.
> 
> Not sure how you think my post about The Cutter Incident was misinformed (it references Cutter Labs by the way, not Dr. Cutter) since you were going on about past vaccine problems, and that was rather a biggie. A disaster, in fact. Gave lots of children polio.
> 
> ...




You certainly have every right to read or not read a link, I simply posted some when you asked proof of the large number of deaths that I stated, so I obliged your request.
It now seems you already knew about some of it, but others may not have. Sorry to be such a "gas bag", but the info isn't exactly minute memo material.

My "point" was far deeper than deaths in the distant past, but more about the present and the future development of vaccines. That was contained in the CDC link.

And yes, thank you, I have abstained from doctors except for a few rare circumstances, in which *I* direct the treatment or treat it myself.
So far, it has resulted in a healthy, disease-free life.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Site your source and link


Not sure what you mean? Link to your thread about Canon Law? The Catholic Church's stance on vaccines?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Dear school district

Please excuse little Mary from performing sexual acts scheduled during school hours.
Seems that with your cooperation little Mary will not get genital warts etc.

Why other parent may accept that a vaccine is the best way not to spread and such an infection during school hours. I prefer to follow my faith. 

Sincerely a Catholic mom


----------



## Ziptie (May 16, 2013)

basketti said:


> Really? Because I can't see ANY doctor allowing a kid who was having an instantaneous reaction to a vaccine, particularly if your kids already have allergy issues as you imply, to leave the office. It could have gone into anaphylaxis.
> 
> Surely you know that allergies aren't necessarily outgrown?


It was a slow spreading rash from the injection site and he did send us home. They told me if it got worse call them when I told them about the hives they said give the kid more Beyndryl.:shrug: I even took pictures of the rash to send them (I thought the child may be getting the chicken pox), called the ask a nurse line a couple times that day. No one was interested in the pics.

I know they might not grow out of the allergies but they have had the other childhood vaccines and never have had such a reaction as they did the chicken pox shot. 

Last time I was in the emergency room my husband had to go back home to get my compounded Benadryl and acetaminophen. Doctors and such just don't know how to handle us and to tell you the truth I have found that they really don't care.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> It is an interesting question, the answer isn't so cut and dry.....
> 
> http://www.ncbcenter.org/page.aspx?pid=1284
> 
> https://www.cogforlife.org/catholicguide.pdf



Seems pretty cut and dried to me: 



> *What do I do if there is no alternative to a vaccine produced from these cell lines?*
> 
> One is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion. The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine. This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them.
> 
> ...


Both links clearly state that the official word from the Vatican is that they can be used if no alternate is available.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Dear school district
> 
> Please excuse little Mary from performing sexual acts scheduled during school hours.
> Seems that with your cooperation little Mary will not get genital warts etc.
> ...



:shrug:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Seems a safe way to prevent a sexually transmitted disease while at school would be to stop sexual activity at school....

That to me is a reasonable a alternative to that request for a vaccine to prevent the the spread of genital wart and a precursor potentially of cervical cancer.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Seems a safe way to prevent a sexually transmitted disease while at school would be to stop sexual activity at school....
> 
> That to me is a reasonable a alternative to that request for a vaccine to prevent the the spread of genital wart and a precursor potentially of cervical cancer.


This may shock you but if a kid wants to have sex they will find a way. And generally it does not happen at school. 

So back to the Catholic Church's stance on vaccines that come from fetal lines since Farmrbrown kindly supplied links above I take it you agree with your Church's stance?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Wait ....so it's not about transmission of infections during school.
Really it was my job as a parent to deal with my child's behavior 24 / 7

The school only has to worry about the activity of students during school hours.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> Seems pretty cut and dried to me:
> 
> 
> 
> Both links clearly state that the official word from the Vatican is that they can be used if no alternate is available.





Yes both links say that, and if that's ALL they said, I would agree with your premise that the Church said it was "OK" to use the vaccines.



From the 1st link........


_What do I do if there is no alternative to a vaccine produced from these cell lines?

One is morally free to use the vaccine regardless of its historical association with abortion. The reason is that the risk to public health, if one chooses not to vaccinate, outweighs the legitimate concern about the origins of the vaccine. This is especially important for parents, who have a moral obligation to protect the life and health of their children and those around them.

What support is there in Church teaching for this position?

A statement from the Pontifical Academy for Life issued in 2005 holds that one may use these products, despite their distant association with abortion, at least until such time as new vaccines become available._




This is no doubt where one can point the finger and say, "You said we can use abortion based vaccines!"

Leaving out the first part about seeking alternative vaccines indicates that it really isn't "OK" with the Church, and although many churches are fearful and reluctant to defy earthly authorities, they do admit an individual can do this on their own. This is one of the many reasons I steer clear of mainstream denominations.
Perhaps if they knew more about the dangers and ineffectiveness of vaccines in general, their position would be less ambiguous.
It's like when I say a liar/thief, that's exactly what I call them right to their face. Others will hem and haw about it, even though they know it's true.



_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._








The 2nd link uses a little stronger language. 
An excerpt.........



* 




To summarize, it must be confirmed that: 
onsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with 
regard to those which have moral problems; 
as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be 
be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in 
order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for 
the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women; 
the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness 
of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, 
nd remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to 
provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant 
such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to 
choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and 
as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible. 
*




This goes to the core of my argument.
If you have a legitimate reason to take or NOT take a vaccine, that is your decision to make. It should be made after consulting as many resources as possible - not just the "approved" ones.
Ultimately the decision is yours, as well as the benefits and/or consequences.
My path is not to blindly follow any crowd, but to keep my eyes open, constantly.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Bearfootfarm said:


> Those abortions were going to be done whether there was any use for the cells or not, and they were done, I believe, in the 60's
> 
> It's OK for you to think it's not OK.
> You just can't force that belief on anyone else


I never said the cells were IN the vaccine, the article I quoted said that the vaccines were developed using these cells. It is irrelevant to me whether the abortion was done with the purpose of obtaining the cells or for another reason as I am opposed to abortion of any kind.

I am not forcing my view on anyone. I am not telling anyone *not* to vaccinate their child. I would, however, argue that those who say that I must vaccinate my child are forcing their belief on me.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

basketti said:


> Except that fetal tissue is NOT used in vaccines. No matter what the crackpots like to claim. What do you think is in there...ground up embryos?
> http://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/human-cell-strains-vaccine-development


There was an entire thread on fetal tissue used for making vaccines. I think it's a more or less well known fact by now that it is done.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Woolieface said:


> There was an entire thread on fetal tissue used for making vaccines. I think it's a more or less well known fact by now that it is done.


Really. What tissue do they use? Brain, muscle...?


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> There was an entire thread on fetal tissue used for making vaccines. I think it's a more or less well known fact by now that it is done.


Used in vaccines or used in the initial production of vaccines? We need to be careful not to mix up the fact that fetal tissue was once used in the process to develop a vaccine and then saying an untruth that fetal tissue was in vaccines.

We might oppose GMO (genetically modified organism), but be willing to accept a life saving diabetes medication that was developed with a GMO.

Be very careful that while drawing that very fine line that defines your position, that you don't lose sight of the bigger picture.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> There was an entire thread on fetal tissue used for making vaccines.* I think* it's a more or less well known fact by now that it is done.


You also *think* drinking goat's milk will cause enamel to regrow on your teeth, as you have previously stated


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You also *think* drinking goat's milk will cause enamel to regrow on your teeth, as you have previously stated


 
But..........but............but, didn't you post the phone number of a guy who has been dead since 1983?
You weren't thinking he was still alive and the phone number was real were ya?


Hee Haw!


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> But..........but............but, didn't you post the phone number of a guy who has been dead since 1983?
> You weren't thinking he was still alive and the phone number was real were ya?
> Hee Haw!


My post was a ridiculous response to a ridiculous post.
The goat milk claim was presented as fact


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

haypoint said:


> Used in vaccines or used in the initial production of vaccines? We need to be careful not to mix up the fact that fetal tissue was once used in the process to develop a vaccine and then saying an untruth that fetal tissue was in vaccines.
> 
> We might oppose GMO (genetically modified organism), but be willing to accept a life saving diabetes medication that was developed with a GMO.
> 
> Be very careful that while drawing that very fine line that defines your position, that you don't lose sight of the bigger picture.


It really makes no difference to me, personally, at what point in the chain of events the fetal tissue was used. 

I would personally oppose medicine with GMO, regardless.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

Woolieface said:


> It really makes no difference to me, personally, at what point in the chain of events the fetal tissue was used.
> 
> I would personally oppose medicine with GMO, regardless.


Just trying to understand where you draw the line. We've been talking about aborted fetuses. Does it change if the tissue is from a miscarriage? How about an organ donor?

We may never know for sure, but I'm betting that faced with death, you'd chose a medication developed through genetic manipulation to save your life.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

haypoint said:


> Just trying to understand where you draw the line. We've been talking about aborted fetuses. Does it change if the tissue is from a miscarriage? How about an organ donor?
> 
> We may never know for sure, but I'm betting that faced with death, you'd chose a medication developed through genetic manipulation to save your life.


Yes, if you (Woolieface) had diabetes, would it be cinnamon and herbs even if they didn't control blood sugar or would you use insulin if it was the best choice?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> My post was a ridiculous response to a ridiculous post.


:thumb:
I couldn't agree more.
Glad to see you're lightening up a little bit.




basketti said:


> Yes, if you (Woolieface) had diabetes, would it be cinnamon and herbs even if they didn't conteol blood sugar or would you use insulin if it was the best choice?



If the best choice is diet and exercise, "diet" being very specific to the individual and diabetes, it shouldn't be a hard choice.
There has been quite a lot of medical research and study on this lately, and the results are phenomenal.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

> I couldn't agree more.
> Glad to see you're lightening up a little bit.


You should give it a try


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> You should give it a try


Why, thank you!
I have taken that advice to heart and trying it on a daily basis. Good to see you doing the same.
Thinking about old Hee Haw reruns always gives me a chuckle.:thumb:


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

haypoint said:


> Does it change if the tissue is from a miscarriage? How about an organ donor?
> 
> We may never know for sure, but I'm betting that faced with death, you'd chose a medication developed through genetic manipulation to save your life.


For me, I wouldn't take the donated organ... but that is just a personal thing, not a moral objection I necessarily extend to society in general....and no, faced with something the doctors might tell me was life threatening, I still wouldn't take any of those things I mentioned.


----------



## Woolieface (Feb 17, 2015)

basketti said:


> Yes, if you (Woolieface) had diabetes, would it be cinnamon and herbs even if they didn't control blood sugar or would you use insulin if it was the best choice?


I've already used herbs and diet to control blood sugar, so have others I know. It's my informed decision that insulin is not the better choice.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> Just trying to understand where you draw the line. We've been talking about aborted fetuses. Does it change if the tissue is from a miscarriage? How about an organ donor?
> 
> We may never know for sure, but I'm betting that faced with death, you'd chose a medication developed through genetic manipulation to save your life.


I'm a registered organ donor myself, I'll give that option to someone else to make for their circumstance.
I've had many people make that same bet on me, swearing that when the time comes, I'll change my mind.
They will only get one chance to see if their bet was right or wrong, but my gambling advice is always the same.

Never bet on anything that eats.:croc:


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm a registered organ donor myself, I'll give that option to someone else to make for their circumstance.
> I've had many people make that same bet on me, swearing that when the time comes, I'll change my mind.
> They will only get one chance to see if their bet was right or wrong, but my gambling advice is always the same.
> 
> Never bet on anything that eats.:croc:


So, in your mind, a vaccine originally developed using fetal tissue, either miscarried or aborted is evil. Right?
However, you are willing to donate your own tissue, that will be used to further science and could be used in the development of a genetically modified organism, actions that you view as sinful? Is the word complicit? 

Lots of Atheists start going to church when their hair turns white. 

When faced with laying there waiting for death or the will to survive, you can bet any way you want, but my money is on the will to survive.

If you get bit by a rabid bat, you can wait until you have symptoms and then you die or you can get vaccinated. What is your action plan?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

haypoint said:


> So, in your mind, a vaccine originally developed using fetal tissue, either miscarried or aborted is evil. Right?
> However, you are willing to donate your own tissue, that will be used to further science and could be used in the development of a genetically modified organism, actions that you view as sinful? Is the word complicit?
> 
> Lots of Atheists start going to church when their hair turns white.
> ...


 

I'm not sure where you got your information wrong, but the little thingy on my D/L means if someone neds a kidney, cornea, piece of liver, etc., they can have mine...............as long as I'm done using it.:hrm:

I can't win this stupid bet everyone wants to make with me about checking out of this hotel ASAP, and winning means I'm not around to collect anyway, but if y'all are scared, I'm sorry.
I really am, I don't get any joy from your fear, I wish you gain comfort when it comes your time.
But please, believe me when I say, the sooner Yeshua and I get to meet face to face, the better.
Via con Dios.


----------



## haypoint (Oct 4, 2006)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm not sure where you got your information wrong, but the little thingy on my D/L means if someone neds a kidney, cornea, piece of liver, etc., they can have mine...............as long as I'm done using it.:hrm:
> 
> I can't win this stupid bet everyone wants to make with me about checking out of this hotel ASAP, and winning means I'm not around to collect anyway, but if y'all are scared, I'm sorry.
> I really am, I don't get any joy from your fear, I wish you gain comfort when it comes your time.
> ...


So, you believe that none of your body parts can end up in scientific research? It does seem so much more pleasant to think your mortal coil will only be used to save those in need of an organ. Not sure that is always the case.:nana:

Drawing on my experiences, I've seen lots of folks that say when they can no longer walk, they'll shoot themselves rather than exist like that. But when that happens, they modify their quality of life standard. We can bluster about how ready we are to dance with the grim reaper, but when that day comes most are ready for the cure, no matter the source.

Have you read about the recent outbreak of the plague? 
http://abcnews.go.com/beta/Health/2...orted-health-officials-warn/story?id=32922262

So far it is rare. But if it were to become wide spread, are you going to get vaccinated? If it consumed half the country, would you still refrain from vaccination?:hrm:

Am I to believe a puncture wound from a rabid animal would not move you to reevaluate your prohibition on vaccines? :smack


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

farmrbrown said:


> I'm a registered organ donor myself, I'll give that option to someone else to make for their circumstance.





haypoint said:


> So, you believe that none of your body parts can end up in scientific research? It does seem so much more pleasant to think your mortal coil will only be used to save those in need of an organ. Not sure that is always the case.:nana:



I'm pretty sure you're right.

Having to deal with such a serious and delicate matter at what is the ultimate test of emotional endurance for the loved ones gathered at the hospital, I can tell you all manner of life and death go thru your mind.

Trying to figure out the right moral path in the midst of it, and get every "i" dotted and "t" crossed is NOT an enviable position.
The only "proof" I saw was two people regain sight and two get off dialysis after by brother died. I also know my wife has a piece of cadaver bone grafted to her spine.
No doubt, I won't be able to object after I'm gone, so I guess they can do whatever they want, lol.


I don't think all those who struggle with the morality of ending a life, equate an adult's decision about their own fate, with those of an unborn child.
So I can't agree that it's a valid comparison.





haypoint said:


> Drawing on my experiences, I've seen lots of folks that say when they can no longer walk, they'll shoot themselves rather than exist like that. But when that happens, they modify their quality of life standard. We can bluster about how ready we are to dance with the grim reaper, but when that day comes most are ready for the cure, no matter the source.


Yep, me too.
I've seen some cling until the bitter end, and a few go out exactly the way the wanted.....and lots more in between.









haypoint said:


> Have you read about the recent outbreak of the plague?
> http://abcnews.go.com/beta/Health/2...orted-health-officials-warn/story?id=32922262
> 
> So far it is rare. But if it were to become wide spread, are you going to get vaccinated? If it consumed half the country, would you still refrain from vaccination?:hrm:
> ...


I know this is a thread on avoiding childhood vaccinations, but I'd like to clarify that I never said I had a prohibition on them.
What I said was......




farmrbrown said:


> My "point" was far deeper than deaths in the distant past, but more about the present and the future development of vaccines. That was contained in the CDC link.
> 
> *And yes, thank you, I have abstained from doctors except for a few rare circumstances, in which I direct the treatment or treat it myself.
> So far, it has resulted in a healthy, disease-free life.*




Until the recent PP videos released, I had thought that established vaccines wouldn't have been involved, just uncured diseases that were being researched.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Yes both links say that, and if that's ALL they said, I would agree with your premise that the Church said it was "OK" to use the vaccines.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


An official statement from the Vatican is law. Period. The Church has spoken. Anything beyond that is the individual's opinion. It means nothing so far as the Church goes and holds no weight at all. Your second link was to a website that I think the Pope himself would quibble with.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> An official statement from the Vatican is law. Period. The Church has spoken. Anything beyond that is the individual's opinion. It means nothing so far as the Church goes and holds no weight at all. Your second link was to a website that I think the Pope himself would quibble with.


Ummmmm...........don't kill the messenger, lol.
But.......


Unbeknownst to me when I found the 2nd link, that was an excerpt of a letter from the last Pope in 2005. The German guy who resigned, Rathzinger (?)
Maybe there is a later revision, I dunno?

My reading of it was that the Pope was saying avoid them if at all possible, work to change the laws and policies, and if your health forces you to accept one, you are considered a small part of the sinful practice.......hopefully with the same right to ask forgiveness as any other.


Here is the original in full......
http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm


****
I looked at the bottom and didn't see the Pope's signature, so I'll retract that it came directly from him.
Can you tell by the name of that committee, if it was sanctioned by the Vatican as the official response, or did someone intercede without official authority?
I don't know anything about the Roman officials or hierarchy.
It's all Latin to me.........


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I was laughing too hard... 

Hay want the letter head?


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

kasilofhome said:


> I was laughing too hard...
> 
> Hay want the letter head?


Hey, I'm just a dumb country boy, lol.
I saw the intro at the top, but I was trying to be nice, just in case I was right without fully knowing what I was posting.:rain:


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

I only just learned to.link on a kindle but had trouble doing copy paste sometimes.. saw you posted it an just sat back ...noted you didn't post the Vatican letter head and kept quiet.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

It was not "written by a Pope"

It referred to a letter written *TO* a Pope

The Vatican letterhead means it applies only to Catholics.

They still said *take the vaccines *if the risk of disease was great and no other vaccines were available.

It means nothing to any other religion, or to those who follow no religion at all


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Asked answered... boom done... 

Complain to someone who cares.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Bearfootfarm said:


> The number to call is BR-549
> Ask for Junior


I just had to acknowledge the HeeHaw humor. Well done, sir. Well done.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

farmrbrown said:


> Ummmmm...........don't kill the messenger, lol.
> But.......
> 
> 
> ...


 Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict (Ratzinger) were both very strong on abortion. So they may have taken a harder line on it. But as a general rule the Catholic Church puts life first so the vaccine is allowed rather than risk the life of a child.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Asked answered... boom done...
> 
> Complain to someone who cares.


So you are cool with using vaccines that were created originally using fetal lines because the Vatican okayed it then correct? See that wasn't so hard!


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Bearfootfarm said:


> It was not "written by a Pope"
> 
> It referred to a letter written *TO* a Pope
> 
> ...




Yes, that is correct. I so noted that at the bottom of the post.....




farmrbrown said:


> ****
> I looked at the bottom and didn't see the Pope's signature, so I'll retract that it came directly from him.
> Can you tell by the name of that committee, if it was sanctioned by the Vatican as the official response, or did someone intercede without official authority?
> I don't know anything about the Roman officials or hierarchy.
> It's all Latin to me.........




After further review, that committee is the one sanctioned by the vatican to review such issues and give the Pope's official policy.
The first line confused me, and I thought the reply was the Pope's himself after her letter was forwarded to him.
The letterhead of the committee and searching thru Church documents led to my correction.
Mistakes and errors are fairly easy to catch, but curiously, are often hard to admit, for some people anyway.

And yes, it only applies to Catholics as far as their obligation to their church doctrine, all others may do as they choose.




This is the part that is being overstated, intentionally or not. That is why I posted the letter in full.


Bearfootfarm said:


> They still said *take the vaccines *if the risk of disease was great and no other vaccines were available.


This is more correctly stated.....


Patchouli said:


> Pope John Paul and Pope Benedict (Ratzinger) were both very strong on abortion. So they may have taken a harder line on it. But as a general rule the Catholic Church puts life first so the vaccine is allowed rather than risk the life of a child.




And immediately followed with this mischaracterization again.



Patchouli said:


> So you are cool with using vaccines that were created originally using fetal lines because the Vatican okayed it then correct? See that wasn't so hard!



It's almost like playing the "gotcha" game.
What was stated (I'm not going to pull out the excerpts again) was that taking the illicit vaccines was the choice of a lessor of two evils. The final line of the letter proclaims this clearly.
It doesn't say it's "OK", it doesn't even say "go ahead and take it".
It says examine your conscience carefully, and choose the best path you can will the knowledge that if you DO use the illicitly made vaccines, you are in a small way, contributing and participating in a sinful act according to the tenets of the church.
Via con Dios.


I think a far better point, was comparing the stance of the Catholic leadership on how strongly they handled the child abuses by priests.
Once again, it is easier to criticize the mistakes of others than to turn that examination towards one's own actions.

It is written.....


1Judge not, that ye be not judged. 2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

And thus a Catholic has ground for religious exemption... study ones conscience.

If in doing so one finds the can't do the vaccine they would be totally in line with their faith.

Case closed.


----------



## sunshinytraci (Oct 20, 2007)

I have to wonder if choosing not to vaccinate one's child for their potential health risks and then sending said child unprotected into one of the better venues for disease exchange is a logically consistent position.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

sunshinytraci said:


> I have to wonder if choosing not to vaccinate one's child for their potential health risks and then sending said child unprotected into one of the better venues for disease exchange is a logically consistent position.


It would be a very foolish, highly illogical thing to do


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Do vaccines people die?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Do vaccines people die?


What does this mean?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Work on it. I am not your mama


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> Do vaccines people die?


Yes, everyone dies, vaccines or not
Statistically those not vaccinated have a higher probability of dying sooner


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Work on it. I am not your mama


Nor are you coherent.


----------



## sunshinytraci (Oct 20, 2007)

QUOTE=kasilofhome;7518374]Do vaccines people die?[/QUOTE

I am assuming you mean vaccinated people. Of course they die but generally not of the diseases they were vaccinated against. Is this a feeble attempt at a red herring? We are not vaccinating against death unspecified, but against diseases that cause illness and death if contracted. 

Look, most likely in our society unvaccinated people wont die of those diseases either but it is even less likely that a vaccinated person will be harmed by the vaccine. And these people receive an added benefit of reduced risk of dying from horrific communicable diseases. 

My area had an outbreak of pertussis last winter. It began in an alternative school with a very low vaccination rate and spread to the public schools. Many people became seriously ill as a result. Infants became ill and their lives were at risk. 

This is a serious public health issue and should supersede people's silly notions on religion and unscientific tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. If you dont wish to vaccinate fine, but stay home.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The bill of rights.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

If you want to be vaccinated get it. Then you are safe. Can't get the vaccines... life happens.. shoot people die all the time waiting for a liver, heart, kidneys..oh well.

Nature is beautiful but is not there to make your life perfect.

Everyone dies. At least your head was crunchy.


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

kasilofhome said:


> The bill of rights.


The Louisiana Purchase


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> And thus a Catholic has ground for religious exemption... study ones conscience.
> 
> If in doing so one finds the can't do the vaccine they would be totally in line with their faith.
> 
> Case closed.


I'd be curious if Catholic schools require vaccinations.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

The case for Catholics is closed... like it or not the church leave it up the the individual.

Our nation is not to trample our rights.. 

You have every right to stay home, dress in a hazmat suit. What ever you feel the need to do...(please avoid the tin foil unless you have an invite...)


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> I'd be curious if Catholic schools require vaccinations.


Yes, they do. My oldest grandchild attended a nursery school program for the last two years, and will start a preK program next month. 

All vaccinations must be current.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Patchouli said:


> I'd be curious if Catholic schools require vaccinations.


The correct answer is, "Some do, some don't."
It depends on the school, the local Diocese and the state the school is in, all but 2 states have exemptions and the other 2 are in violation of the Bill of Rights.

Being private schools, not public, I'm sure the difference in what is applicable is apparent.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

I have a question...

Does anyone have a reliable statistic showing that unvaccinated children bring 'diseases' to school and infect vaccinated children?

That whole statement just sounds off.
How can my 'unvaccinated' child affect your vaccinated child? 
My kid could have raging mumps, but if your kid has had the vaccination, then it should be no big deal? 
AND if my unvaccinated child is the 'minority': lets say 100 kids, only 5 are not vaccinated, then only 5 kids will get the mumps......

Help me understand.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I have a question...
> 
> Does anyone have a reliable statistic showing that unvaccinated children bring 'diseases' to school and infect vaccinated children?
> 
> ...


Hey Laura...this isn't exactly an insightful question. Do a little search here about herd immunity and the fact that vaccines aren't 100 percent effective and maybe throw in the fact that there are some people who are immune impaired or can't be vaccinated because of real, actual medical reasons, and maybe you will figure it out. There are only about a trillion threads about it so you might have to look hard.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> Yes, they do. My oldest grandchild attended a nursery school program for the last two years, and will start a preK program next month.
> 
> All vaccinations must be current.


Hearsay.. no proof...


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I have a question...
> 
> Does anyone have a reliable statistic showing that unvaccinated children bring 'diseases' to school and infect vaccinated children?
> 
> ...


Unfortunately, this where you have to do your own research and ignore the propaganda from the opposing sides and focus on truth and facts, not opinions.

It takes a while to get thru the CDC stats until you find the vaccines' effectiveness. This was the beginning of enlightenment for me.
The vaccines are not 100% effective and never will be. They just try to distract you from that. Additionally the effect of the protection has a time limit, where the natural immunity you acquire is almost always a lifetime.

It varies according to the disease, but somewhere between 10-40% of those vaccinated can still catch the virus.
Go figure.:hrm:


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> Hey Laura...this isn't exactly an insightful question. Do a little search here about herd immunity and the fact that vaccines aren't 100 percent effective and maybe throw in the fact that there are some people who are immune impaired or can't be vaccinated because of real, actual medical reasons, and maybe you will figure it out. There are only about a trillion threads about it so you might have to look hard.


See my post above.
It is a VERY insightful question.
She's smarter than you think.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

farmrbrown said:


> See my post above.
> It is a VERY insightful question.
> She's smarter than you think.



Not insightful at all, given that it's been posed and answered so many times. Neither was your answer. No one ever claimed that vaccines were 100 percent effective. Ever. Which of course is why herd immunity is so important to public health.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Not insightful at all, given that it's been posed and answered so many times. Neither was your answer. No one ever claimed that vaccines were 100 percent effective. Ever. Which of course is why herd immunity is so important to public health.


Sadly not everyone understands antibody titers.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> Not insightful at all, given that it's been posed and answered so many times. Neither was your answer. No one ever claimed that vaccines were 100 percent effective. Ever. Which of course is why herd immunity is so important to public health.




No, they don't make that claim because they can't.
It's the *implication* that's made continually, thru the use of this "herd immunity" term, that is intentionally deceiving.
The *implication* is, if we all get the vaccine, the result will be near 100% effectiveness.

That's their story and they're sticking to it. When you break down the individual components of this near 100% effectiveness, you find that sanitation, lifetime natural immunity and continued booster shots are more of a factor than the gov't sources want you to realize.

IOW, it's not as simple as it is *implied.*






Irish Pixie said:


> Sadly not everyone understands antibody titers.


That's very true.

Another hidden fact is that the more effective the vaccine, the more risk it poses, the exact same point is made about catching a childhood disease like measles or chickenpox, and being rendered immune for life.
It's comes with risks, but it works.

Finding the stats on comparative risk is what the CDC would like to remain hidden.
They are both around 1%, whether you take the vaccine or get the measles.
Different stats for different diseases.

I've done the math, BTW.
.7104% is the risk of death prior to the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963.
It hasn't changed.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

The herd immunity is also an interesting dilemma when the CDC stats and recommendations are taken into account.
Traveling to a foreign country presents the risk of catching diseases that you've already been vaccinated for, and they state this clearly.

So, is the implication that just as we tell unvaccinated students not to attend public schools, we should also tell vaccinated ones, not to travel?
After all, we have to protect the "herd" don't we?


----------



## sunshinytraci (Oct 20, 2007)

https://youtu.be/VW1IEqKuf6s

I am not sure how to do the copy paste clipboard operation on my phone. So maybe this link will not work. However, a good video by a virologist can be found on YouTube. Its c0ncOrdance - Do vaccines cause autism 1/2. 


In my area, the Pertussis outbreak started with a teacher. A couple of factors contributed to the problem:

1. The pertussis vaccine does not provide lifelong immunity. A booster needs to be given roughly every 7-10 years. 

2. My area has a very low vaccination rate among school age children. 11% are unvaccinated and for good community immunity 5% is the acceptable number. This accounts for immunocompromised individuals and people with allergies to vaccine components. 

So the teacher with pertussis infected her unvaccinated students and there it spread. Now at about age 10-12 some children had lost immunity and had not received their booster yet. They became ill. 100's were infected.

To top that off, many parents ignored medical directives that included preventative antibiotics and quarantine. 


Winter break came just in time.


So yes. It has been my experience that unvaccinated children can indeed spread infections in the community and harm other people. The lower a community vaccination rate, the better chance disease has of getting a foothold in that community. 

In c0ncOrdance's video he states that without vaccines, 1in 5 people would not be living today. I will look for the data to support this but should that number be accurate, its startling to say the least.

In all seriousness, one should not be getting medical advice from the internet. Please talk to trained medical professionals in your community who have the knowledge and the training to help you make the best decisions for your family's health.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

sunshinytraci said:


> https://youtu.be/VW1IEqKuf6s
> 
> I am not sure how to do the copy paste clipboard operation on my phone. So maybe this link will not work. However, a good video by a virologist can be found on YouTube. Its c0ncOrdance - Do vaccines cause autism 1/2.
> 
> ...


I read this twice, so tell me if I read it correctly.

A teacher, who was vaccinated, got whooping cough.
Came to school.
Infected unvaccinated kids.
They in turn infected vaccinated kids who may or may not be up to date on their vaccines.
100's were affected.

This outbreak started w/ someone who 'had' been vaccinated, and was not 'up to date' on her vaccines? Or was the teacher an unvaccinated teacher?

I know that it is required for nurses to have up to date vaccines to work, is this also true for teachers?


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

I just had a TDAP booster for my new grandson per pediatrician request.
Shots sometimes require boosters...big deal. Small price to pay to protect my newborn grandson.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

basketti said:


> I just had a TDAP booster for my new grandson per pediatrician request.
> Shots sometimes require boosters...big deal. Small price to pay to protect my newborn grandson.




Sometimes?

You may want to consult the CDC on that.
Then the others questions arise......


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Sometimes?
> 
> You may want to consult the CDC on that.
> Then the others questions arise......


So? Even if all vaccines require boosters I don't understand how that makes them worthless?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Laura Zone 5 said:


> I read this twice, so tell me if I read it correctly.
> 
> A teacher, who was vaccinated, got whooping cough.
> Came to school.
> ...


They very well could have been up to date on their vaccines. Google antibody titer- it's the level of antibodies against a specific disease. The teacher's titer could have dropped below the threshold to fight off Pertussis, he or she brought the bacteria to school and spread it to unvaccinated and low titered individuals (kids and adults). This could have caused a epidemic in the community. 

The moral of the story is get vaccinated and keep up with the boosters because there are some in our world that can't be vaccinated due to medical reasons.


----------



## Patchouli (Aug 3, 2011)

kasilofhome said:


> Hearsay.. no proof...


 She is giving us her experience with a Catholic school. How is that not proof? I am sure they probably do vary. What are you expecting as "proof"?

Here's one for you: http://staugustinecs.org/archdiocese-statement-on-immunzations/



> *Archdiocese Statement On Immunzations*
> 
> 
> To Whom It May Concern:
> ...


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

Patchouli said:


> She is giving us her experience with a Catholic school. How is that not proof? I am sure they probably do vary. What are you expecting as "proof"?


It's not an issue, Patchouli. Just consider the source, after all she is the highest authority on canon law.


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> Hearsay.. no proof...


Are you trying to find out where her granddaughter goes to school?! 


Super creepy.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

basketti said:


> Are you trying to find out where her granddaughter goes to school?!
> 
> 
> Super creepy.


You seem to look for things that just don't exist. Do you do this to make yourself feel "special"? That's my opinion based on your posts. To me, THAT is super creepy! And bizarre too! :shrug:


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

basketti said:


> Are you trying to find out where her granddaughter goes to school?!
> 
> Super creepy.


It is creepy. And a reason why I don't share much about my children and grandchildren.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)




----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> You seem to look for things that just don't exist. Do you do this to make yourself feel "special"? That's my opinion based on your posts. To me, THAT is super creepy! And bizarre too! :shrug:


Don't get all excited Jeffrey. You might burst a vessel.


----------



## Laura Zone 5 (Jan 13, 2010)

Irish Pixie said:


> They very well could have been up to date on their vaccines. Google antibody titer- it's the level of antibodies against a specific disease. The teacher's titer could have dropped below the threshold to fight off Pertussis, he or she brought the bacteria to school and spread it to unvaccinated and low titered individuals (kids and adults). This could have caused a epidemic in the community.
> 
> The moral of the story is get vaccinated and keep up with the boosters because there are some in our world that can't be vaccinated due to medical reasons.


Thank you, sincerely.
I appreciate your intelligent and informational response!
This is all new information to me, and I appreciate you taking the time to share your knowledge.


----------



## JeffreyD (Dec 27, 2006)

basketti said:


> Don't get all excited Jeffrey. You might burst a vessel.


Not excited at all basketti, but with all the anger you show here, I'm affraid for you!


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

JeffreyD said:


> Not excited at all basketti, but with all the anger you show hear, I'm affraid for you!


I appreciate your concern, Jeffrey.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

basketti said:


> Are you trying to find out where her granddaughter goes to school?!
> 
> 
> Super creepy.


 By basketti
Oh good grief. Try reputable sources and not...


----------



## Lisa in WA (Oct 11, 2004)

kasilofhome said:


> By basketti
> Oh good grief. Try reputable sources and not...


Stalking?


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

Quoting = stalking:hysterical:

I note the value of comments. Recycling and I give credit where it is earned.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> So? Even if all vaccines require boosters I don't understand how that makes them worthless?


Please don't do that with my quotes.
I have never stated that vaccines were "worthless".
I have only discussed their effectiveness vs. natural immunity and the risks associated with acquiring both types of immunity and the individual choice in making that decision. 
It's about making a truly informed decision.
Again, I never said vaccines were "worthless".


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> Please don't do that with my quotes.
> I have never stated that vaccines were "worthless".
> I have only discussed their effectiveness vs. natural immunity and the risks associated with acquiring both types of immunity and the individual choice in making that decision.
> It's about making a truly informed decision.
> Again, I never said vaccines were "worthless".


You are questioning the effectiveness of vaccines and the CDC's reporting of it. Should I have said you think that vaccines are worth less than popular belief?


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

Since we got away from the original question, I will throw this out there ... I thought of this yesterday and I am curious what people think about this. 

When I was a kid, I was vaccinated for tuberculosis. It was standard practice in my country of birth. Today they only vaccinate high risk kids for TB. I have medical records to show this along with a certified translation by a court translator. When I was doing my immigration paperwork, it showed during medical exam that I have TB antibodies. They did the skin test where you get a site reaction if TB antibodies are present. When I was a child, I had the same test. If you had a reaction (a red spot of a certain size), you did not get a booster. If reaction was not sufficient, you got a booster. During the immigration medical exam, if you have a reaction (which I did), you are deemed to have TB. 

I got lucky as I lived here for a few years by then (legally, the medical was not needed until I applied to become a permanent resident). My doctor knew me and was satisfied with a chest X-ray to prove I did not have TB. I did, hovever, have friends (coming from same country) who had a 7 year old son. In order for him to be allowed to attend school, he had to undergo 2 months of tuberculosis treatment because he also was vaccinated against TB. 

Why do we treat everyone vaccinated for TB as if they have the disease?


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

FarmerKat said:


> Since we got away from the original question, I will throw this out there ... I thought of this yesterday and I am curious what people think about this.
> 
> When I was a kid, I was vaccinated for tuberculosis. It was standard practice in my country of birth. Today they only vaccinate high risk kids for TB. I have medical records to show this along with a certified translation by a court translator. When I was doing my immigration paperwork, it showed during medical exam that I have TB antibodies. They did the skin test where you get a site reaction if TB antibodies are present. When I was a child, I had the same test. If you had a reaction (a red spot of a certain size), you did not get a booster. If reaction was not sufficient, you got a booster. During the immigration medical exam, if you have a reaction (which I did), you are deemed to have TB.
> 
> ...


A reaction to the TB tine test (PPD) means the person has been exposed to TB. Further testing (usually lung x-rays) will reveal if they truly have the TB bacteria.

Your friend's son situation doesn't make sense because kids under 12 even with active TB are rarely contagious. It has something to do with the area of the lung that is usually targeted by the bacteria. I can't hazard a guess as to why he would have required treatment unless he was found to be contagious.


----------



## farmrbrown (Jun 25, 2012)

Irish Pixie said:


> You are questioning the effectiveness of vaccines and the CDC's reporting of it. Should I have said you think that vaccines are worth less than popular belief?




Yes. That is an accurate description, I am saying that not all vaccines are any more risk than the disease itself, particularly common childhood diseases, and the immunity from vaccinations is far less effective than the natural immunity from getting those diseases.
Others, like rabies, smallpox, polio, would be some that I would definitely say are worth having.




FarmerKat said:


> Since we got away from the original question, I will throw this out there ... I thought of this yesterday and I am curious what people think about this.
> 
> When I was a kid, I was vaccinated for tuberculosis. It was standard practice in my country of birth. Today they only vaccinate high risk kids for TB. I have medical records to show this along with a certified translation by a court translator. When I was doing my immigration paperwork, it showed during medical exam that I have TB antibodies. They did the skin test where you get a site reaction if TB antibodies are present. When I was a child, I had the same test. If you had a reaction (a red spot of a certain size), you did not get a booster. If reaction was not sufficient, you got a booster. During the immigration medical exam, if you have a reaction (which I did), you are deemed to have TB.
> 
> ...



It isn't like that. Somewhere along the way you were exposed to TB, but didn't catch it. My wife gets the same reaction to the vaccine, because her mother had TB. I don't get any reaction to the shot.





*****
Edit
*****

I'll point out the supposed contradiction before others pounce, lol.
Smallpox was one of the examples I used earlier to illustrate the dangers and risks of vaccinating whole populations, that's true.
The vaccines that use live viruses are the most effective at stopping the disease. They are also the closest thing to population infection as well, the very reason they work well.
IOW, pick your poison, but do it carefully and fully informed, not based on what the "herd" tells you to do.

I've had a tetanus shot and rabies is always in the back of my mind living in the woods.
I like the fact the shots are available, but I think carefully before using one.


----------



## kasilofhome (Feb 10, 2005)

kasilofhome said:


> Has enough studies been do to know if the vaccine for chicken pox will allow ....enable those vaccinated with a chance of shingles.
> 
> Thus if everyone got the shot under a mandate. Would the potential for there to be an increase in shingle as an unintended consequence?
> 
> ...


*ANSWER IN *​

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2015-08/e-cvd081115.php

Many countries have avoided introducing universal chickenpox vaccination in children because it was previously predicted that the reduction in chickenpox related disease would be outbalanced by the temporarily increase in shingles-related disease.

A new model developed by the scientists also confounds previous findings on the length of time re-exposure chickenpox boosts immunity to shingles. The effect was thought to last for up to 20 years, but results of the current modeling study show it only lasts for two. The new model is the first based on real immunological and virological data from individuals.

"We were surprised to find that re-exposure to chickenpox is beneficial for so few years and also that the most pronounced effect of vaccination on incr


----------



## Bearfootfarm (Jul 13, 2006)

You stopped in the middle of one sentence, and just before this one:



> "Our findings should allay some fears about implementing childhood chickenpox vaccination," he says.





> Shingles occurs most often in individuals with a declined immunological status, such as HIV or cancer patients. Ageing is also assumed to increase susceptibility. In previous studies, Ogunjimi and colleagues found that the impact of ageing is exacerbated by Cytomegalovirus infection, another virus in the herpes family.


----------



## Evons hubby (Oct 3, 2005)

Irish Pixie said:


> You are questioning the effectiveness of vaccines and the CDC's reporting of it. Should I have said you think that vaccines are worth less than popular belief?


How about stating your own beliefs/opinions and letting others state their own beliefs/opinions without rewriting them? That would save a lot of confusion and bickering as well.


----------



## FarmerKat (Jul 3, 2014)

farmrbrown said:


> It isn't like that. Somewhere along the way you were exposed to TB, but didn't catch it. My wife gets the same reaction to the vaccine, because her mother had TB. I don't get any reaction to the shot.


It is definitely from the vaccine. When I was a kid, they would come to school and do the test on everyone. If the reaction was not large enough, you got a booster vaccine. I cannot say positively that I have never been exposed to TB (you never know who you sit next to on the bus, etc.) but based on what you are saying, half the kids in my class were exposed to TB. I have never heard of or knowingly met anyone who had TB. It just was not a common disease when I was growing up.


----------



## Irish Pixie (May 14, 2002)

farmrbrown said:


> It isn't like that. Somewhere along the way you were exposed to TB, but didn't catch it. My wife gets the same reaction to the vaccine, because her mother had TB. I don't get any reaction to the shot.


A positive PPD _can_ come from the vaccine, but not everyone that had the BCG vaccine will have a positive PPD test.


----------

