Are Immunizations unhealthy and sinful?

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by rivers1222:
Dr. Bob writes:
They can poison and harm their children if they so desire.
------------------------------------------
I'm gonna take that as levity and your sence of humor that you are famous for.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's why we use icons/smilies like or to try to take the bite off and show humor or tongue-in-cheek.
-----------------------------

I am aware of that Dr. Bob. My fault. Bad day yesterday and took it wrong.

 

If you had a potentially fatal disease and the cure was created in animal serum, would you accept the cure or just assume God wanted you to die?

 

Here we go again...

Immunizations save lives. They do not cause autism. They do not hurt the liver or kidneys.

I cannot believe that this is even being discussed here. What conspiracy theory will people think of next????

 

Amen Brother Charles Meadows -- Preach it!

 

Paul33: "Scriptures that speak of what defiles a person's
body, such as what one puts in his mouth, etc. are not germane."

Yes, they are germane. Else why would some (not necessarily those
present here) use those very scriptural arguments for not
"injecting monkey serum directly into a person's bloodstream"?

Paul33: "I've given specific quotations that show that the studies done by scientists and used by government agencies are biased and misleading."

I've given stats and shown that you
are making a mountain out of a molehill.

 

Paul33,

There is no significant evidence that immunizations cause autism.

Nothing is 100% safe - that certainly applies to everything about medicine. And of course there is politics involved as well.

But neither of these change the fact that the risk/benefit ratio for immunizations is way in favor of benefit. That is a fact. You can choose to believe otherwise if you wish - but you would be wrong.

This whole thing is just another conspiracy theory.

And those pastors and church leaders spearheading this deserve to have their mouths sutured shut - before they cause any more parents to refuse immunization and bring risk upon children.

 

Paul33: "That's why every state in the union allows parents
to object and exempt their children from getting immunized."

We have shown that these laws are hollow. The states make the
rules cause the federal government requires them to make the rules
if they want $$$ support. In general, the only thing that works
is if you have a doctor who says your child had an allergic
reaction earlier OR if you have a government complaint on file.

There are also procedures for those harmed to file complaints
against the Federal Government.
Of the under 2% who file complains
only about 12% receive average payments for damages done of
about one-half a million dollars. This was a maximum of 4,000
in the US in one year for ALL immunizations.

 

Ed, are you a cheerleader for the pharmaceutical companies! </font>[/QUOTE]

BTW, i live
behind a pharmaceutical plant. This pharmaceutical
plant employees 230 of my fellow central
Oklahomans. Yes, i'm a cheerleader for the
pharmaceutical companies.

Charles Meadows: "This whole thing is just another conspiracy theory. "

Amen, Brother Charles Meadows -- Preach it!

 

USA TODAY had an interesting article 18 May 05 called:
PUSH TO RID AFRICA OF POLIO MARCHES ONWARD.

"A massive campaign this week to immunize more than 77 million children
across Africa against polio is the latest effort
to stop the spread of the disease by the end of this year.

However, Africa may take until 2006 to end all Polio.

"When authorities in northern Nigeria stopped
immunizing children from August 2003 to July 2004,
wrongly suspecting that the vaccine could cause
HIV infection or sterility, polio rates shot up."

"In 2004, Nigeria reported 792 cases of polio."
Indonisia was polio free 1995-2004. But 8 cases
have been reported in 2005 so far.
India had 14 cases of polio in 2004 and Pakistan 7.

Speaking of Small pox: "About one in 200 children with the
virus become paralyzed."

Note that 1/2 of 1% is not much. But if you are talking
2 billion children world-wide, you are talking ten million
paralized children

 

posted by charles meadows:

Nothing is 100% safe - that certainly applies to everything about medicine. And of course there is politics involved as well.

But neither of these change the fact that the risk/benefit ratio for immunizations is way in favor of benefit. That is a fact. You can choose to believe otherwise if you wish - but you would be wrong.

---------------------------
Ah, the risk /benefit ratio.
Example: Aids has taken a huge toll in the continent of Africa. Suppose, just suppose, a vacine is found. However, this vacine has a 1/2 per cent mortality rate and those effected refused to take it. Or worse, their government refused to deliver and administer it. With this epidemic taking more lives than the plague, and a vaccine readily available, we in the western hemisphere would call them backward,unintelligent, and uncivilized, for refusing such a medical miracle.

 

No one would ever administer a vaccine with a 0.5% case fatality rate.

 

Well without the 'treatment', AIDS has a 100% mortality rate.

 

Hey Paul! Where you been for a week? I thought you'd gotten tired of playing and gone home.

Since your back.....

I counted two specific quotations that were posted without a link to their source. One of these purported to be a quote from a CONGRESSIONAL hearing. (Congress=government) If the government is talking about them how is that misleading?

You also posted a link to a document called "Vaccines: A Second Opinion", in which the author takes data from one country and applies it to another. (Specifically data from Australia that is then applied to an American formula). This authors statistical ability is then in question. You cannot interchange medical data/formulas from different countries. Doing so can create huge errors due to the differing diets, climates, and general environment that may have an effect on the data in question. It is just not good science.

Neither of these things supports your assertation that:

This then is the question that we are left with, which I have attempted to give an answer to. Answers I might add that have been swept away as "not germaine".

How is the idea that the blood of Christ has cleansed the unclean, not germaine to the topic of whether or not it is a sin to vacinate our children, seeing as how the blood of animals is sometimes used in the manufacture of said vaccines?

Hmmm, I've heard such things as, I've been misinformed, I'm not listening, I don't have the intelligence to know when something is relavent to a conversation and the like before. It happened every time I had a differing opinion from my "absolutely in control parents who absolutly had all the answers and could never be wrong". They used those things when they knew they didn't have an answer to my questions and simply wanted me to shut up and go along with them. (It only worked for them till I turned 21, it won't work for you at all).

Testy? Hmmm, didn't think I was, but perhaps. It is something of a pet peeve of mine to be told that I must do/believe something just because I've been told to.(see above comments on controlling parents)

Now you have made one comment that might be a good reason for not using products made from the blood of animals. That is the scripture you quoted from Deuteronomy 12:16 that the nation of Isreal was not to eat the blood of animals.

Here again, we are back to whether or not the ceremonial laws given to Isreal are part of our covenant with God as Christians. I say not, based on scripture I have already given. What say you?

This mission should you wish to accept it will only be complete if arguements are backed up with scripture!