Amanda Marcotte, just another pro-abort fraud
While I think all abortion industry types are crooks and liars, there are some pro-abort ideologues who I believe are misguided but genuine.
Until 2 days ago I had Amanda Marcotte of Pandagon in that category. She’s harsh and anti-Christian, but I thought she was honest.
No more. On April 22 Marcotte wrote a post attacking my first post on the issue of vaccines containing aborted fetal cells potentially causing autism.
I anticipated pushback from the Left on the question of the autism connection (although I don’t know why it’s such a leap when it is commonly believed mercury in vaccines causes autism) but not on the fact that some vaccines indeed did and do contain aborted fetal cells. That’s just a fact. But Marcotte wrote…
And so it wasn’t exactly a surprise to hear that anti-choicers are running with a bullsh** story that vaccines are made with aborted fetuses, and that’s what causes autism. This article and the one it banks off of from Jill Stanek, are both amazing examples of what can be produced when a person has no respect for their audience’s intelligence or the truth. The “evidence” that vaccines are made from aborted fetuses comes from a story about how vaccines are not made from aborted fetuses….
The claim that vaccines are made from aborted fetuses is farcical on its face….
And of course, the aborted fetuses thing is just pure wishful thinking. The assertion that vaccines are made from aborted fetuses is such a weird idea that I don’t imagine the EPA even examined that assertion in the first place….
Marcotte linked to a LifeNews.com story about the swine flue vaccine, which, of course, has nothing to do with childhood vaccinations.
I figured Marcotte had been in a hurry and just skimmed stories to put together her sloppy piece.
So when I wrote my April 28 WorldNetDaily.com column on the same topic I was careful to corroborate that many childhood vaccines are derived from 2 specific aborted babies, providing links the Left would trust, such as to Salon.
So it was with surprise yesterday that I engaged in a Twitter exchange with Marcotte wherein she refused to admit she gave her readers utterly false information (click to enlarge)….
I expect Marcotte could care less to know she really disappointed me. Despite our differences, I gave her the benefit of the doubt as being authentic. No more. Marcotte now falls into the liar and deceiver category.
The question remains what Marcotte now thinks of vaccinations made with aborted human fetal cells, since she thought the suggestion of it was pro-life “wishful thinking,” “weird,” and “farcical.”
By the way, the story of abortionist Krishna Rajanna allegedly eating fetuses came from an affidavit by Kansas City, KS, detective William Howard, Jr., reporting what clinic worker Julia Walton Garcia told him. See Garcia’s photos, submitted into evidence, here.
But I digress.
Yesterday, People for the American Way picked up on my column, which flatters me personally to no end. But I do get aggravated that it and other liberal rags are hitchhiking on Marcotte’s piece and attempting to ridicule what is actually fact: Many childhood vaccines are derived from human fetal cells (click to enlarge)…
If we also know human embryo cells used in research have a will of their own and create havoc in another’s body it is by no means a leap to conjecture that DNA from primitive fetal cells – particularly lung cells, which are among the last to mature in the preborn human body, and which were the source of both human fetal vaccine lines – might also create havoc.
Finally, no study has been conducted to date taking into consideration residual human DNA in vaccines. So it is irresponsible to dismiss the idea, indicating a small mind if not ideological fanaticism that clouds rationale, intelligence, and sound science.
Jill Stanek is a nurse turned speaker, columnist and blogger, a national figure in the effort to protect both preborn and postborn innocent human life.
Bravo Jill!! You have done what the best scientists do:
You have revisited a topic in question with new and compelling data and have asked some rather important questions. From my perspective as a scientist, it really doesn’t matter if your hypothesis fails to be substantiated upon rigorous experimentation and data analysis. Most hypotheses fail under scrutiny.
What matters is that someone had the courage of their convictions to ask serious questions, regardless of the font for those questions’ inspiration. What matters is that new knowledge be applied to prevailing orthodoxy to see which prevails.
It is the classic thesis+antithesis—> synthesis.
Your detractors are actually the ones who are guilty of the very thing that they are accusing you of:
Being mindless buffoons who are so ideologically driven that they torture the truth to preserve their prevailing orthodoxy.
It is the person who calls for new testing in light of new information, availing themselves of the power of new investigative technologies, and who is willing to let the chips fall where they may who is the true intellectual.
The truth is that embryonic and fetal cells have not been able to be tamed, made to behave like fully differentiated and mature adult cells. Do we really know all that is needed to be known about these cells?
I dare anyone to step forward and answer that question in the affirmative.
Not only do you have moral certitude on your side, you also have the approach of the scientific community, including this scientist.
The pro-aborts have the same refried insults and ridicule, the same empty skulls and stone-cold hearts. The living dead.
Way to go Jill!!!
Amanda is an evil and wicked woman. Pray for her. I cannot believe the filth and trash on her site! It’s like every other word from the pro-deathers is F*** !!! They show their ignorance.
Jill, don’t waste your time with Marcotte. She isn’t open to honest debate; it’s ad hominem attacks or nothing.
http://secularprolife.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=136&p=146 (second half)
For the abortion advocates who peruse the blog, I’m curious: why deny the use of fetal cell lines in vaccines? After all, you could just as easily argue that there’s not enough evidence to prove a link yet. Why lie?
Jill – I determined long ago AM is not worth the time.
Something must’ve snapped in her. IIRC – she went ahead aborting her child when her BF didn’t want her to and he asked her to marry. She refused. Sad. Tragic even. I bet the ex-BF is relieved.
A simple rule of thumb re: media stories – punch above your weight.
Kelsey,
They lie because all they have is a script: deny, deny, deny. They don’t need to be intelligent, just effective. Deviating from the mantra is extremely dangerous as they know it’s all a tissue of lies.
Chris, I didn’t know that about AM!!!! That’s very telling. She’s stuck in Post Abortion Syndrome!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I never knew she’d had an abortion.
Hi Heather! Always good to see you.
Heather, I doubt she has PASS. Seems like the exact opposite to me- HER abortion experience was apparently so great, abortion must be the most awesomest pro-woman thing ever! That’s just my take though, I’m not a psychologist.
Who funds Marcotte? She is a nut.
As for scientists, many complain often about media reporting especially on science. The public largely does not have even a minimal grasp of concepts in science, and unfortunately neither do many science reporters evidently.
Matt Springer complains of shoddy reporting on physics:
http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/04/the_worst_physics_article_ever.php
and a commenter to the New York Times article “Human Culture, an Evolutionary Force” points out that many people’s understanding of natural selection is practically a complete misunderstanding.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02evo.html?sort=oldest&offset=5
“There is an astonishing amount of scientific illiteracy displayed in these comments, ranging from the person denying that evolution is “causal” on the grounds that it is “non-teleological” — an absurd non sequitur, whether something is teleological has no necessary relation to whether it is causal — to the gibberish about inheritance of “acquired traits.” Evidently a significant portion of the NYT readership is composed of convinced Lamarckists. Sad. This article’s research has absolutely nothing to do with Lamarckism. And that’s not even to mention the various bonkers permutations of “evolutionary theory” other commenters are putting forward.
“Goes to show that creationists aren’t the only ones operating with a miserably defective understanding of how the modern evolutionary synthesis works. Apparently most of the NYT readership is in the same boat as the creationists.”
I would bet that Ms. Marcotte could not explain how vaccines are made to save her life. Fine, many others can’t either. However to call Jill’s factual assertion “farcical” exposes Marcotte’s ignorance and fraud as a commenter on such issues.
Mary, likewise!!! Don’t know if you had heard, but I gave birth to a baby boy on April 20th. Jacob Isaac Gabriel! My daughter was born on April 19th of 07.
Who funds Marcotte? She is a nut.
As for scientists, many complain often about media reporting especially on science. The public largely does not have even a minimal grasp of concepts in science, and unfortunately neither do many science reporters evidently.
Matt Springer complains of shoddy reporting on physics:
http://scienceblogs.com/builtonfacts/2010/04/the_worst_physics_article_ever.php
and a commenter to the New York Times article “Human Culture, an Evolutionary Force” points out that many people’s understanding of natural selection is practically a complete misunderstanding.
http://community.nytimes.com/comments/www.nytimes.com/2010/03/02/science/02evo.html?sort=oldest&offset=5
“There is an astonishing amount of scientific illiteracy displayed in these comments, ranging from the person denying that evolution is “causal” on the grounds that it is “non-teleological” — an absurd non sequitur, whether something is teleological has no necessary relation to whether it is causal — to the gibberish about inheritance of “acquired traits.” Evidently a significant portion of the NYT readership is composed of convinced Lamarckists. Sad. This article’s research has absolutely nothing to do with Lamarckism. And that’s not even to mention the various bonkers permutations of “evolutionary theory” other commenters are putting forward.
“Goes to show that creationists aren’t the only ones operating with a miserably defective understanding of how the modern evolutionary synthesis works. Apparently most of the NYT readership is in the same boat as the creationists.”
Anyway,
I would bet that Ms. Marcotte could not explain how vaccines are made to save her life. Fine, many others can’t either. However to call Jill’s factual assertion “farcical” exposes Marcotte’s ignorance and fraud as a commenter on such issues.
Hi Heather
Congratulations to you and yours. How many is that now? I stopped at 3. I don’t know if you heard but my oldest daughter is back with her family, and has been accepted into a Ph.d program.
Its always amusing to me when pro-aborts know they can’t win the argument they say “I am not debating with you” and then continue debating. As if stating that they are NOT debating somehow removes the possibility of losing the debate. And they always say it so contemptuously. As if trying to back up arguments with FACTS is so beneath them.
Kelsey, Sad but true. The women on her site do indeed act like it was just dandy [their abortions] and anybody who disagrees is NoT allowed to comment!!!! I attempted to leave a fair comment on her site. She did not post it. Not a bit surprised.
I honestly don’t think Amanda M understands the concept of vaccines nor how they are made.
But then she doesn’t understand much about fetal development, pregnancy and childbirth.
no excuse for such ignorance…..
Mary, that’s wonderful re:your daughter! That makes 4 for me. I used the screen name mom of 3 while pregnant with my daughter. Now it’s mom of 4! I decided to just use my real name. Gotta run. My own computer should be up and running next week.
Frankly, Jill, I don’t even see the point of mentioning Marcotte’s sophomoric opinions on anything she says, even when she includes your name. A legend in her own mind, Marcotte lives as a hack lacking any authority or influence in the abortion industry.
I’ll take twenty columns by Frances Kissling or Gloria Feldt any day over one pathetic podcast by a no-talent, ad hominem obsessed clown who can’t write anything without hate.
You ever try pouring water on a used, dried-up, rock-hard, old sponge? It runs right off. That’s what Amanda Marcotte reminds me of. And I think that’s what happens to the grace in Marcotte’s life.
I feel sorry for her.
You have to spend a large amount of humility in admitting you’re wrong about something. I like to think that we do a pretty good job of admitting when we’re wrong. It would be nice if they would return the favor of honesty.
For what it’s worth, as a pro-choice person, if there really is some kind of a link between the use of those cell lines in vaccines and rises in the number of autism cases, I happen to believe it needs to be studied. Unfortunately, the research we do have suggests that syndromes on the autistic spectrum are caused by a number of different factors, which makes finding links more difficult. Nevertheless, with the rate of new autism cases on a pretty consistent rise, and given how devastatingly disabling it can be especially on the severe end of the spectrum, anything that gives us insight to even a small subset of people with autism or other syndromes like Asperger’s needs to be studied.
Violet,
Thanks for that refreshingly compassionate and common-sense approach. In this day and age, with induced pluripotent stem cells, there is simply no need for unstable, immature cells. It is on the common ground of our shared humanity that we advance humanity most efficaciously.
God Bless
Ms. Marcotte:
Why are you so miserable?
Jesus is really the answer.
Bless you.
I was able to locate the EPA study that’s cited by Sound Choice (the group that did the research and found three change points), and you can read it at http://www.all.org/pdf/McDonaldPaul2010.pdf. The work they did took data from three studies — data from California, Japan, and Denmark — and found that in all three there was a change point around 1988. This is consistent with other studies that used data from Sweden and Minnesota.
This suggests that at least as far as 1988 is concerned, the change was not limited to the United States. If a second dose of MMRII is the root cause, I’m curious whether that recommendation was consistent with recommendation changes made in Europe and Japan. If the specific timing of the vaccine recommendation change is limited to the United States, the EPA results do seem to suggest that there is more to this than that one change in vaccinations — and perhaps more to it than vaccines, period.
One thing that’s interesting is that the Japan data showed a far more significant increase in autism cases than the California or Denmark data: “Using our postchangepoint means in AD cumulative incidence for each of the studies, it appears that exposure was higher in California and potentially in other developed countries than it was in Denmark (Table 1). However, Kohoku Ward may have experienced the highest exposure of all (Table 1).” (“Exposure” refers to possible exposure to some type of environmental contaminant, and the study authors don’t go anywhere near suggestion what those contaminants might be, leaving that for future closer study.)
If that is the case, and we are talking about vaccine-induced cases of autism as far as the increase goes, does that correlate with Japan making more vaccine recommendation changes than the U.S.?
The other thing that occurs to me is that the added MMRII vaccine booster is given when children are older, if that’s what the Sound Choice hypothesis refers to. Since autism usually manifests in the first few years of life, I’m wondering how giving older children a booster shot would translate to such a rise, unless there is data out there showing that the increase in cases includes a sharp increase in kids diagnosed after the MMRII booster. Or maybe the change they’re talking about is not the one I’m thinking of.
In any case, it sounds like the full analysis done by Sound Choice will be released next month and that they’re beginning a two year study to look more closely at the issue. There are obviously way more questions than answer when it comes to autism, and especially when you start looking into potential causes. This particular issue is no different.
I look forward to hearing more on the subject over the next few years. My family includes a couple of people on the autistic spectrum, including my younger brother, and we try and keep up with the research. Knowing what causes something is one of the first steps to finding out how to make it better, and while there are plenty of people on the spectrum who don’t want or need to be “fixed”, there are also a lot of kids — and adults — out there who would benefit from being able to just communicate their needs and interact better with their family.
But I do get aggravated that it and other liberal rags are hitchhiking on Marcotte’s piece and attempting to ridicule what is actually fact: Many childhood vaccines are derived from human fetal cells…
Wait a minute. Jill uses the accurate language above. Many vaccines are derived from human fetal cells. But her original WND articles described the vaccines inaccurately as containing cells from ‘aborted fetuses’, implying that somehow fetuses that saw the inside of a uterus made their way into a harmful, tainted vaccine. That was a not only a red meat argument, meant to stir-up her readers, but it was an insult to her readers’ intelligence, assuming that they would visualize a woman going into a clinic for an abortion, and then the pathology department secretly freezing human tissue for vaccine production.
So who’s backing-off her original argument here? Marcotte might be rude and use bad language, but her original point about Stanek’s original articles is correct!
You have to spend a large amount of humility in admitting you’re wrong about something.
Talk about projection. Marcotte might be rude, but is not incorrect to criticize Jill’s use of the word ‘aborted.’
If Amanda did indeed have an abortion, she is EMPOWERED as her writing clearly shows!! :P
Jill, keep up the good fight. Of course, there will be those who try and stop the good work.
Some of these comments against Marcotte are quite vicious. What if she reads them?
Norma McCorvey (Roe) was won by love, not by hate.
Dhalgren stated, “Wait a minute. Jill uses the accurate language above. Many vaccines are derived from human fetal cells. But her original WND articles described the vaccines inaccurately as containing cells from ‘aborted fetuses’, implying that somehow fetuses that saw the inside of a uterus made their way into a harmful, tainted vaccine.”
Yes, Dhalgren, both statements are absolutely accurate. What don’t you understand? Quoting National Network for Immunization Information (http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-components/human-fetal-links-some-vaccines):
WI-38 came from lung cells from a female fetus of 3-months gestation and MRC-5 was developed from lung cells from a 14-week-old male fetus. Both fetuses were intentionally aborted, but neither was aborted for the purpose of obtaining diploid cells. The fetal tissues that eventually became WI-38 and the MRC-5 cell cultures were removed from fetuses that were dead.
Again, what don’t you understand? How would you otherwise interpret that statement?
As I understand it–and I could be wrong, the information on this is hard to find–the vaccines in question were developed and grown using fetal tissue, but do not contain it.
The virus needs host cells to replicate, and the vaccine companies use fetal cells, presumably because it’s easy to obtain them and get them to keep reproducing. So the virus grows in fetal cells, and then is removed and killed or weakened for use in the vaccine. Some viruses can be grown in the fetal cells of nonhuman species, such as monkeys or chickens (hence those with egg allergies being advised against some vaccines). Sometimes they just use something that “looks like” the virus to our cells–hence the acellular pertussis vaccine.
In the case of MMR, the virus they used was also derived from fetal cells.
And many doctors can’t even tell you how they are made and will outright deny fetal humans were involved without even looking into it.
I have chosen not to vaccinate my children with vaccines manufactured using aborted babies. Because I don’t believe the cells would enter the bodies of those being vaccinated, and nothing will change whether the children in question were aborted, I can understand those who would choose differently even if they were pro-life–and if there were informed consent on the issue, I imagine even a lot of wishy-washy pro-choice-to-dismember folks would skip them and for public relations purposes we’d have a better chance of actually getting new, ethical vaccines.
Because a virus reproduces by integrating itself with the DNA of the host cell, it’s possible that some of the DNA of the aborted children could end up in the vaccines.
If I am wrong, I am certainly willing to be corrected by those more knowledgeable than myself.
Congenital rubella is known to cause severe birth defects, miscarriage, or stillbirth of an otherwise healthy fetus. That some of you refuse to vaccinate your children for the sake of perceived ideological purity is anything but “pro-life.”
Fetal cells are part of the culture medium in which some viruses are reproduced, but they aren’t included in the finished product. It’s not as though they just pour the whole petri dish into a bottle and call it a vaccine.
It’s misleading to imply that vaccines somehow create a market for aborted fetuses (since the two fetal cell lines that have been mentioned were created from tissue from just TWO fetuses, both of which were aborted BEFORE Roe v. Wade), and it’s an outright LIE to say that vaccines contain fetal cells.
If the main problem of rubella occurs in pregnancy, and we are refusing to vaccinate children, what is the problem? If my daughter were grown, she would have the option to vaccinate herself then. Two-year-olds do not get pregnant.
Why is it that this information isn’t freely available? Why isn’t it on the vaccine factsheets or even the CDC website? Why the secrecy?
It’s almost as if the pro-choice-to-have-one’s-child-dismembered-in-the-womb crowd knows that the general public would find the use of unborn children’s cells to grow viruses for vaccines repulsive regardless of their opinion on child dismemberment choice.
If I refuse to eat blood because of the conditions God set for Noah’s and my eating of flesh (Genesis 9), then won’t I also be reluctant to use vaccines developed in the flesh of murdered human beings?
If the main problem of rubella occurs in pregnancy, and we are refusing to vaccinate children, what is the problem? If my daughter were grown, she would have the option to vaccinate herself then. Two-year-olds do not get pregnant.
What is the problem? You’re right, two-year-olds don’t get pregnant — but they do sometimes get measles, and the people at highest risk for complications and death from measles are kids under the age of 5. And measles cases are on the rise in this country, with 2008 having more reported cases than any year since 1996. According to a CDC report on the 2008 cases (which only looks at the first 6 months of that year), while a handful were “imported” from other countries, nearly all of the reported cases were in kids who were exposed to the imported germs in the U.S: “These importation-associated cases have occurred largely among school-aged children who were eligible for vaccination but whose parents chose not to have them vaccinated.” (http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm)
So, yeah, there’s no problem with choosing not to vaccinate your children — as long as you feel okay about playing russian roulette with their lives.
And if you’re thinking of forgoing vaccines because of this particular issue, there is a list of vaccines that were not incubated using the 1964 or 1970 fetal cell lines at http://www.rtl.org/prolife_issues/LifeNotes/VaccinesAbortion_FetalTissue.html. The alternative MMR vaccines were incubated using chick embryo cells.
If you’re interested, there are a couple of other interesting links on this subject, including a long post in part detailing the full history of the creation of the vaccines in question at http://cathmedweek.blogspot.com/2007/03/human-technology-manufacturing.html and a timeline of vaccine history at http://www.immunize.org/timeline/.
Let me just say this one more time: measles can kill or permanently harm your child, especially if children are under the age of 5. Because of a sharp rise in the number of parents opting out of the MMR vaccine and booster(s), the number of measles cases in the U.S. (and outside of it) is on the rise, and unvaccinated children are the most afftected. There are alternative vaccines. Use them. PLEASE get your children vaccinated, for their sake.
You do realise that measles and rubella (called “german measles”) are two separate diseases, right?
In addition, most outbreaks of measles occur in the population of VACCINATED children.
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14993716
Oh, and here is a great one. Yeah, it’s from 1985, but 99.7% of these kids were VACCINATED and they had an outbreak of measles.
Measles Outbreak in 99.7% Vaccinated Population
Robert T. Chen (1), Gary M. Goldbaum (2), Steven G. F. Wassilak (1), Lauri E. Markowitz (1) And Walter A. Orenstein (1). An Explosive Point-Source measles outbreak In A Highly Vaccinated Population Modes Of Transmission And Risk Factors For Disease. Am J Epidemiol 1989;129:173-82.
(1) Division of immunization, Center for Prevention Services, Centers for Disease Control Atlanta, GA. (2) Division of Health Education, Center for Health Promotion and Education, Centers for Disease Control Atlanta, GA
In 1985, 69 secondary cases, all in one generation, occurred in an Illinois high school after exposure to a vigorously coughing Index case. The school’s 1,873 students had a pre-outbreak vaccination level of 99.7% by school records. The authors studied the mode of transmission and the risk factors for disease in this unusual outbreak. There were no school assemblies and little or no air recircu latlon during the schooldays that exposure occurred. Contact interviews were completed with 58 secondary cases (84%); only 11 secondary cases (19%) of these may have had exposure to the index case in the classrooms, buses, or out of school. With the use of the Reed-Frost epidemic model, only 2265% of the secondary cases were likely to have had at least one person-to-person contact with the index case during class exchanges, suggesting that this mode of transmission alone could not explain this outbreak. A comparison of the first 45 cases and 90 matched controls suggested that cases were less likely than controls to have provider-verifiable school vaccination records (odds ratio (OR) = 8.1) and more likely to have been vaccinated at less than age 12 months (OR = 8.6) or at age 12-14 months (OR = 7.0). Despite high vaccination levels, explosive measles outbreaks may occur in secondary schools due to 1) airborne measles transmission, 2) high contact rates, 3) inaccurate school vaccination records, or 4) Inadequate immunity from vaccinations at younger ages.
Oh, and are you aware that there are children who cannot receive vaccinations cultured on chick embryo cells? Children with severe allergic reactions to eggs can have reactions to these vaccines. The biggest problem in the very young children is that we haven’t always identified those children with a severe allergic reaction to eggs because many parents, knowing that eggs can cause allergies, choose not to give their children under age 1 (and some even under age 2) eggs or egg based products.
Oh, and in addition, it is possible to get vaccines that are preservative free and to receive each component of the MMR separately? Pain in the arse to get your doctor to hunt them down, but they’re out there.
You do realise that measles and rubella (called “german measles”) are two separate diseases, right?
Um, yes. You do realize that most kids get measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines — aka MMR — at once, right? Oh, and that some of the measles vaccines out there also use these same cell lines?
In addition, most outbreaks of measles occur in the population of VACCINATED children.
And you’re also incorrect. In the early 80s this was true, which is why they added the MMRII booster to recommendations in 1989, because the earlier vaccine was shown to be insufficient to fully protect children. Since two of your three citations date to before the booster addition, they don’t represent the current state of things.
And your third citation is from India, where 32% of the children who got measles were vaccinated. Which suggests to me, without reading the full study, that they probably did not receive a booster. Also, we’re not talking about India — we’re talking about the U.S. where once again, as I stated, the CDC is finding a rise in measles cases and also that most of the new cases are in children whose parents chose not to vaccinate them. You can read it for yourself: http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5733a1.htm.
If that’s not enough for you, here are some more sources:
http://www.chiroaccess.com/Articles/Unvaccinated-Children-Trigger-Measles-Outbreak.aspx?id=0000143
http://www.mass.gov/Eeohhs2/docs/dph/cdc/immunization/alerts_measles_200809.pdf
If you don’t want to click on the links, here’s a preview: “In January 2008, an intentionally unvaccinated 7-year-old boy who was unknowingly infected with measles returned from Switzerland, resulting in the largest outbreak in San Diego, California, since 1991. …The importation resulted in 839 exposed persons, 11 additional cases (all in unvaccinated children), and the hospitalization of an infant too young to be vaccinated. …Although 75% of the cases were of persons who were intentionally unvaccinated, 48 children too young to be vaccinated were quarantined.”
It’s pretty clear from this current data that intentionally not vaccinating children puts them at high risk for contracting measles if they are exposed. I’ll say it again: Not vaccinating your children is playing russian roulette with their lives.
Oh, and are you aware that there are children who cannot receive vaccinations cultured on chick embryo cells? Children with severe allergic reactions to eggs can have reactions to these vaccines.
Yes. So those parents will have to decide what’s more important: protecting their children, or not using vaccines made from these cell lines. I guess it would be a question of whether your beliefs and ideals are more important than your children.
Oh, and in addition, it is possible to get vaccines that are preservative free and to receive each component of the MMR separately? Pain in the arse to get your doctor to hunt them down, but they’re out there.
You’re correct, you can do that. Though we’re not talking about preservatives here — and thimoseral was taken out of vaccines years ago, as far as I’ve read — and getting each component separately doesn’t take away the question of whether they were incubated with these cell lines.
“If the main problem of rubella occurs in pregnancy, and we are refusing to vaccinate children, what is the problem?”
Is your two-year-old ever around women who are pregnant or may become pregnant? Will she come into contact with pregnant women over the course of the next 16 years? Will the people she is in contact with be in contact with pregnant women? Would it concern you if your kid was responsible for passing the virus to someone who, as a result, had a stillbirth? There’s your problem.
Violet,
You are quite correct in all that you say, and you have said it very well. I don’t think it was Jill’s intention to start an anti-vaccination crusade, but rather to call attention to what may be a connection between autism and vaccines derived from tissues that are the descended cells of aborted babies.
Elisabeth, your argument about a high school epidemic misses point that Violet made. The greatest danger with measles is for people under the age of 5. Did all of the high school students have their second dose of vaccine, or even a first? The paper you cite is a 1985 study, from an era when mandatory vaccination laws hadn’t been enacted in all states and were inadequately enforced in others.
That said, Violet is correct in pointing out that deaths from measles are on the rise in proportion to those not vaccinated. You and I have been having at one another on another thread over this, so no need to derail this one. For all of their problems, vaccines save lives by orders of magnitude more than they produce untoward effects in their recipients.
Regarding the use of human tissue obtained from aborted babies in the development of vaccines:
It really does not matter whether any of the cells or the DNA from these babies, or cells descended from the original tissues, are present in the final product. It’s an ethical question. Is it right to benefit from the destruction of an innocent human being? The first paragraph of the Nuremberg Code states:
“The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, over-reaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonable to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment.
The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.”
This is quoted on the Web site of the U.S. National Institutes of Health under “Directives for Human Experimentation” (http://ohsr.od.nih.gov/guidelines/nuremberg.html) These provisions would certainly apply to the activity that resulted in the development of certain (not all) vaccines. And of course, unborn children are not asked for their consent to be aborted.
It seems clear to me that it would not be permissible or ethical to use these vaccines. Last year, I came down with shingles. Once one has shingles the first time, it is highly likely that one will come down with them again — unless one gets vaccinated. The only vaccine for shingles is one of those derived through the use of cells from the aborted male child referred to by a previous poster. I refused to be vaccinated. I’d rather suffer with the pain (and if you’ve had shingles, you know what that means) than cooperate with evil.
Pray for Ms. Marcotte.
Posted by: Dhalgren at April 30, 2010 7:56 AM
“Talk about projection. Marcotte might be rude, but is not incorrect to criticize Jill’s use of the word ‘aborted.'”
—————————————————-
Yes, Dhalgren, both statements are absolutely accurate. What don’t you understand? Quoting National Network for Immunization Information (http://www.immunizationinfo.org/issues/vaccine-components/human-fetal-links-some-vaccines):
WI-38 came from lung cells from a female fetus of 3-months gestation and MRC-5 was developed from lung cells from a 14-week-old male fetus. Both fetuses were intentionally aborted, but neither was aborted for the purpose of obtaining diploid cells. The fetal tissues that eventually became WI-38 and the MRC-5 cell cultures were removed from fetuses that were dead.
—————————————————
Gangrene,
Looks like you got ‘owned’.
But you just like the ol houndog who encounters a porcupine and sticks his nose where it don’t belong and ends up with a snout that looks like a pincussion
But being a hound dog he learns slow, if he learns at all, and forgets even quicker.
Still waiting for that financial statement from Komen or PP showing no funds flowing between the two.
I guess you will be preoccupied for while picking the pointed truth from your evergrowing nose.
yor bro ken
Oh, and are you aware that there are children who cannot receive vaccinations cultured on chick embryo cells? Children with severe allergic reactions to eggs can have reactions to these vaccines.
Yes. So those parents will have to decide what’s more important: protecting their children, or not using vaccines made from these cell lines. I guess it would be a question of whether your beliefs and ideals are more important than your children.
———————————————–
Again, you are ignoring the basic fact: There are risks to vaccines, as well as benefits. For some families the benefits will outweigh the risks. For some families the risks will outweigh the benefits.
To claim that a parent who is attempting to sift through the myriad and sometimes contradictory (and often suspect due to who is paying for it) data does not think that their children’s lives are important is a very rude statement. Parents are doing the best they can and making decisions based upon their understanding of the data.
But, when facts fail you, resort to smears.
As a pediatric nurse, I have a higher regard for parental concerns than you appear to. The vast majority of parents are doing the very best they can and want the very best for their children. Just because their definition of the very best may not match yours does not give you the right to claim that their beliefs are more important to them than their children.
Elisabeth,
I ignorantly vaccinated my first 3 children and started to with my fourth. I say ignorantly, not because I regret it or will not vaccinate my children in the future, but because I blindly accepted societal norms instead of doing any research.
Now that I have looked into vaccinations, I am more confused than before. Obviously vaccines are a big money maker in the medical field. Well Child Check-ups are correlated to the vaccine schedule. I have a problem taking the manufacturer’s word that vaccines are as safe as they say because they profit, however, I have found such contradictory information all over the internet that I don’t know how to make a well-informed decision. My good friend, who just finished nursing school, was telling me what she had learned about vaccines in classes and it contradicted what is found on the packet inserts and other information that I read directly from the vaccine websites.
It seems reasonable to me to take a more gradual approach, like Dr. Nadal has mentioned before, or go back to the 10 shot schedule that I had as a child, but I am not sure how to choose which vaccines are worthwhile or how to determine what is an age appropriate time to vaccinate.
I was wondering what other people have found that made them feel comfortable with their decisions. Reading about a possible SIDS association to one of the vaccines is not helping me sleep better.
I don’t mind doing the research, but there don’t seem to be many long-term studies that address many of the problems that are being brought to light. Any information/links would be helpful. Thanks.
American Power tracked-back with, ‘Amanda Marcotte: Liar and Deceiver’.
Posted by: Gerard Nadal at April 29, 2010 7:28 PM
“Not only do you have moral certitude on your side, you also have the approach of the scientific community, including this scientist.
The pro-aborts have the same refried insults and ridicule, the same empty skulls and stone-cold hearts. The living dead.
Way to go Jill!!!”
—————————————————-
Brother Gerard,
You make me wanna stand up and shout haleleujah and amen.
You have hit the ‘sweet spot’, repeatedly and effectively.
As the Spanish speaking sportscaster like to shout when some one scores in soccer:
¡GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAL!
(I close my eyes imagine Aunt Esther from Sanford and Son swooning and waving her hankie in the air.)
Enough with sounding ‘moderate alarms’. The seriousness of the issue demands some passion as well as sound reason.
I was vaccinated as a child. OF course we didn’t have all the vaccines back then that we do now. We are overloading our children’s immature immune systems with these vaccines. I was vaccinated against rubella.
Lot of good that did me. Did you know vaccinations do NOT provide lifelong immunity? many people don’t. There are a good many adults walking around who think “I had shots as a child. I’m good” and they are not immune. I am not immune to rubella now that I am of child-bearing age.
They may not put thimerosal in vaccines anymore but they still put aluminum, formaldehyde and countless other poisons and carcinogens into them.
That book about child vaccines by Stephanie Cave M.D. points out an outbreak of polio in I believe, 1991. The common link? ALL THE CHILDREN HAD BEEN VACCINATED AGAINST POLIO.
I have read a LOT about vaccines and I have talked with my pediatrician. Even the way vaccines work with the immune system and it’s “layers” is not the best. I am not a doctor but I am not an idiot. I can read and understand. And there are many in the medical community who think vaccines are not the salvation they are touted to be.
That being said, my son is MY child. I carried him in my womb, gave birth to him. No one loves him more than me. I am the one who gets up all night when he is miserable with a cold. I am the one who has sacrificed to give him care. And I recognized his humanity from the moment he was conceived. Sorry if I don’t see any weight to the comment of someone like Violet who can’t even accept basic biological TRUTH that children are human beings from the moment they are conceived. She can’t comprehend basic sexual reproduction but I am supposed to care what she says on vaccines? No thanks!
When I was a kid my next door neighbor, Mr. Duncan, had really large, distorted and deep vacination scar on his arm.
I asked him about one day and he told me the vacine he was given contained some live small pox bacteria and he actually contracted small pox.
Mr. D. served in WWII so I am guessing he was in his 50’s at the time. That would have placed his birthdate around 1910-20.
I do not remember if he received that vacination when he was inducted into the army or as a child.
It is an imperfect world.
One of the benefits of homeschooling is we had the option of having our children vaccinated, immunized,etc.
I believe we chose not to.
Now that they are nearly all adults they can make that choice for themselves.
Look, what you choose for your kids is up to you. The facts are out there and you all have to make your own choices — as you obviously have.
Are there some risks associated with vaccinations that we give kids today? A few, but the more people decide to opt out of vaccinations the greater the risk of a major outbreak that will affect mainly those children. We saw that in 2008, when the first six months saw more cases of measles than any year since 1996, and where intentionally unvaccinated children made up most of the cases. Getting vaccinated doesn’t just protect your children, it protects everyone.
Ken,
You are simply the best, brother! Simply the best!
Your passion, delivered with a sense of humor unparalleled is beautiful to behold. We need to meet up and polish off a few beers, hopefully sooner rather than later.
God Bless,
Gerry
Elisabeth,
“But, when facts fail you, resort to smears.
“As a pediatric nurse, I have a higher regard for parental concerns than you appear to. The vast majority of parents are doing the very best they can and want the very best for their children. Just because their definition of the very best may not match yours does not give you the right to claim that their beliefs are more important to them than their children.”
It’s impossible to hold an intelligent conversation with someone who accuses EVERYONE with whom she disagrees of “smearing” people. It is you Elisabeth, on two threads who have engaged in ad hominem attacks. You accuse ardent pro-lifers (me) and committed pro-choicers (Violet) alike. At least you’re consistent.
You DON”T have a higher regard for people than those of us with whom you disagree. And it isn’t being a pediatric nurse that drives that bloated self-assessment, it’s pridefulness.
In trotting out the fact that you are a pediatric nurse, you aimed a barb at me that you are “on the front lines”, as though I am not.
As for the front lines, I do consulting work in infectious diseases with physicians, as well as teach clinical coursework to pharmacy, nursing, and medical lab tech students. So your suggestion on the other thread that I am somehow a back-bencher in all of this was sadly laughable.
You sneer at the physicians as being imperious, but fail to behold the same as you lay into the folks here who cite rational, fact-based concerns.
I’m not moved by the fact that you are a pediatric nurse. So is my wife, who is one of the best here in NYC having worked at Cornell Medical Center for 17 years, and having received a small mountain of honors and awards. She read your remarks to me on the other thread with stunned disbelief when you told me I didn’t know what I was talking about regarding microbial genetics and epidemiology.
One pediatric nurse to another, she said, “So her one course in microbiology in nursing school trumps your 15 years of advanced training in two master degrees, doctorate and post-doctoral training in the field of infectious diseases and microbial genetics??”
You just got owned by a peer.
Violet has spoken powerful scientific truth, and quite frankly I don’t care that she’s pro-choice where this is concerned, because it has no bearing on the safety of vaccines as she has outlined her case.
I’ve withheld my fire until now because you have clearly crossed the line from impassioned dissenting opinion to imperiousness and obnoxiousness.
These are difficult and agonizing decisions for a parent, including this parent. Public message boards such as this are a forum for people to come and air their opinions. Your treatment of me and Violet with your repeated admonition that you “expect better” of me have grown tiresome.
I have advocated my position with great passion and concern from my perspective not only as a seasoned scientist, but as the father of an autistic son that may well be vaccine-injured. Pardon me for saying, but I also expected better from you.
Let’s just end this here and now. The positions have been staked out on all sides. I understand parental concerns over vaccines, having lost more than my fair share of sleep worrying about my children and wondering if I inflicted autism on my son.
However, Violet’s point stands the test of logic and epidemiology. Not vaccinating is going to lead to outbreaks and sequellae that will make the current concerns pale in comparison.
That’s the terrible dilemma we face, and there are no good answers.
Violet..if other people are vaccinated then how is it harmful to “everyones” health if I don’t vaccinate MY kids? If you got the shots, then you are protected right? No matter who does or doesn’t get vaccinated.
I always ask why pro-vaccine people tout the “good for the community” line if they think vaccines protect then those who get the shots are protected even if my kids don’t get the vaccines. The “community” isn’t affected by my decision not to vaccinate if they themselves are vaccinated, right?????
You assume that I am anti-vaccination, which I am not. I am pro-vaccination, but I am pro informed and intelligent vaccination, not a mindless acceptance of every new vaccine that comes down the pike and realizing that not every child should necessarily receive the same (or in some cases, any) vaccines.
This highly vitriolic post is unwarranted. Let’s look at the facts.
At April 29, 2010 1:29 PM you called John a “snake-oil carnival barker”.
In that same post you used the words to him: “let me clue you in”, called his statement: “as chauvanistically arrogant as it is ignorant”.
In my response at April 29, 2010 3:07 PM, other than saying that I expected better from you, I made no personal comments about you. I did make comments about the medical field IN WHICH I WORK… “If the medical community wants parents to trust them, they need to stop with the blanket statements about all vaccines being harmless for all children.”
and
“Until doctors are willing to be real and own up to the fact that there are risks as well as benefits, parents will continue to turn away.”
I stand by those words. They were not personally insulting to you, they were an assessment of the way that the mainstream medical community presents itself.
At April 29, 2010 4:04 PM you said: “It may come as surprise to you, but yes, bacteria do become resistant to antibiotics.” (I’m pretty sure you meant to add “in the absence of the antibiotic itself” because otherwise the statement doesn’t make any sense.)
You then cited three ways that bacteria can become antibiotic resistant without being exposed to the antibiotic itself.
You then referred to John again by name and called him “dangerous in his ignorance”. You said that he “sneers at this process” and said you trust modern medicine instead of “Doc John barking “Step right up!”…
At April 29, 2010 9:01 PM I responded by asking what percentage of bacteria became antibiotic resistant due to never having been exposed to any antibiotic. You never did answer that question. And I very carefully chose my words when I stated that you “seem as ignorant of alternative treatment modalities as John is of standard treatment modalities”.
Please note that I used the word “seem”. I don’t know what your level of experience is in alternative treatment modalities nor did I presume what it was. What I stated was that given what you had posted you SEEMED to not be very familiar with them. Comparing them to snake oil salesmen and carnival barkers didn’t exactly indicate a large familiarity with them, but I still didn’t want to say for sure.
I also stated that I had no way of knowing what your intent was. My exact words: “Perhaps you did not see the connection and how your words would be taken”… I was giving you the benefit of the doubt while letting you know how your words came across to others… And I did say that automatically dismissing how your words appear to others was “arrogant and insulting”.
I then pointed out that “This type of attitude is something I have to overcome in my daily interactions with families. Sneering condescension from the “medical elite” makes MY job on the frontlines much harder.” It does. I have to break down barriers because families don’t want to tell me what they have and have not vaccinated for… when I get told that a child is 100% up to date on all recommended vaccinations because they are afraid that we will deem them poor parents and maybe even take their children away it affects the care of their child.
At April 30, 2010 12:38 AM you responded: “You are simply wrong about transformation, transduction and conjugation.” I find that amazing given that I ASKED A QUESTION in the previous post.
And then you posted the comment that seems to be the most upsetting to you: “Again I present you with John’s incredibly arrogant and ignorant statement:
“Perhaps orthodox medicine got its aura of saintly miracle-cures from vaccines. It is time for this to end.””
You seem to assume that he is saying vaccines need to end. However, what the statement actually says is that it is time for the aura of saintly miracle cures to end. That is true. It doesn’t do either the doctor or the patient any good to put modern medicine and its practitioners on such a pedestal that they are unquestionable.
You then said: “Anyone who denies the power of vaccines and what they have accomplished simply isn’t dealing with the facts. No vaccine will ever be 100% safe for every person, and a small percentage will be injured. But doing a cost-benefit analysis, vaccines effect overwhelmingly more good than harm.”
So I responded at April 30, 2010 9:55 AM with “Doctors do not always know best. And I’m sorry, but yes, the medical community (of which I am a part) bears the responsibility for its own lack of credibility.”
I followed that up with “The standard formula when presented with questions goes like this:
(1) Dismiss the concerns as a lack of knowledge or being misinformed
(2) Dismiss the concerns as a lack of ability to understand
(3) Attack the one presenting the concerns and state that they will be responsible for the next pandemic.”
Do you disagree that this is how the medical community reacts when questioned? This is exactly the “saintly miracle cure” attitude that John was referring to. It doesn’t do anyone any good. It doesn’t answer the questions.
I followed this up at April 30, 2010 10:01 AM with: “The problem is that the cost-benefit analysis has not been thoroughly or honestly done. What is that small percentage? 1%? 10%? Nobody knows.”
Is this untrue?
I then discussed how “ethics will prohibit a truly scientifically based study” because “we can’t just inject children with toxins as a study, that would never be acceptable research.”
Is this untrue? Was I in some way hurling insults?
I responded by asking questions and raising concerns… not by making attacks against you by name.
At April 30, 2010 10:16 AM I addressed where you told me I was “simply wrong”. (Again, I was asking a question you never answered… you just told me I was wrong. How precisely is a question “wrong”?)
So, because everything I was basing my question and concerns off of was your words, I quoted your words to show where I got my conclusions from. It is that same post, I’m not going to copy and paste the whole thing here. I went through what you said and gave my conclusions based upon YOUR WORDS because that was all I had to go off of. If I misinterpreted something you said, then you need to go back and clarify.
And again… never once in that post did I insult you or call you a name. I did say: “I am certainly not against antibiotics. Rather, I am concerned that indiscriminate use of antibiotics will render these treatments unusable in future generations, reverting us to the type of outcomes we had prior to the discovery of antibiotics.”
Is that statement wrong? In what way?
I ended with “And if it does… people using tea tree oil are not going to be the ones to blame. WE are going to be to blame, the medical community… even if it was originally done without knowledge of the consequences of our actions.”
Again… not calling you a single name. Pointing out the law of unintended consequences and once again stating that I stand with the medical community.
I did not insult you or call you names.
At April 30, 2010 10:30 AM I suggested the very thing you say is lacking… testing alternative treatment modalities. I also pointed out why that isn’t done very often.
I did not insult you or call you names.
I did say “Just dismissing them as quackery is intellectually dishonest.” That’s because it is.
At April 30, 2010 12:21 PM you stated: “People are inherently distrustful of the medical establishment because some vaccines have harmed a very small percentage of people who received them, yet turn to homeopathy with complete trust and uncritically as they ingest thousands of biochemicals whose effects are unresearched and unknown.”
I don’t disagree that people are too trusting and uncritical of natural remedies.
But I do disagree with your reasoning as to why people lurch in the wrong direction…. which is why at April 30, 2010 2:43 PM I stated: “People are inherently distrustful of the medical establishment because of its arrogance and its “we know best” attitude, despite the fact that new technologies and new research comes out every day that contradicts some previously known “fact” of medical belief.”
I then cited a personal experience with that attitude.
Nowhere in this did I call YOU a name.
At April 30, 2010 2:53 PM I responded to your statements about it being easier and less expensive to make chemicals than purify natural sources.
And oh yeah, I agreed with you on that.
I did point out that sometimes it is what is previously thought to be an impurity that turns out to be a key ingredient and that sometimes we aren’t able to identify what all of the ingredients are.
Nowhere in that post did I call you a name.
When I was responding to Violet, again, I even made points that backed up HER assessment that there are alternative ways to get vaccinations… (Because, you see, I am not anti-vaccination) such as pointing out at April 30, 2010 12:35 PM that “it is possible to get vaccines that are preservative free and to receive each component of the MMR separately? Pain in the arse to get your doctor to hunt them down, but they’re out there.”
Which she then responded to my previous statement about measles and rubella being different diseases as “Um, yes. You do realize that most kids get measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines — aka MMR — at once, right? Oh, and that some of the measles vaccines out there also use these same cell lines?”
I figured she just hadn’t seen my follow-up post… she was just making the argument (and a logical one) that I expected to follow, which is why I had made the follow up post about the availability of separate vaccines in the first place.
As for her reply, I don’t disagree with her… I was just throwing out the fact that up until this point outbreaks have mostly been in the vaccinated population… maybe the vaccines weren’t as good as we thought? Maybe the records weren’t as good as we thought? Just pointing out that outbreaks can occur even when parents are trying to follow the schedules or think that they have.
I didn’t attack her on any of that. I didn’t call her names.
At April 30, 2010 12:32 PM I had thrown out a caution (because Violet had claimed chick embryo cultured vaccines as the logical “fix” to being concerned about aborted fetus cultured vaccines… which it is, and I didn’t disagree) about the fact that egg cultured vaccines aren’t safe for everyone.
Not an attack. Not calling anyone names.
At April 30, 2010 12:47 PM Violet made the one comment I DID object to: “I guess it would be a question of whether your beliefs and ideals are more important than your children.”
I objected on the basis that I think all parents care about their children and are trying their best to do what they think is right.
So at April 30, 2010 1:51 PM I replied:
“To claim that a parent who is attempting to sift through the myriad and sometimes contradictory (and often suspect due to who is paying for it) data does not think that their children’s lives are important is a very rude statement.”
It is. And I called it a smear that wasn’t based on facts… because it IS.
And I said: “As a pediatric nurse, I have a higher regard for parental concerns than you appear to.” (Please note the words “appear to”… again giving the benefit of the doubt even though I thought her comments very rude.)
I followed that up with “The vast majority of parents are doing the very best they can and want the very best for their children. Just because their definition of the very best may not match yours does not give you the right to claim that their beliefs are more important to them than their children.”
How was I wrong to say that? Should I not stand up for the parents I encounter who are struggling to understand, who don’t know who to trust but who really do love their children?
Heather seemed to agree that there is confusion… at April 30, 2010 3:33 PM she stated.. “Now that I have looked into vaccinations, I am more confused than before.”
Which was my point. Parents are confused, they don’t know who to trust and when medical professionals act arrogant and as if they are not to be questioned, parents stop trusting them.
And why do I think this is a problem? BECAUSE I THINK VACCINATIONS ARE IMPORTANT. I delay vax… I selectively vax… but my kids eventually do get vaccinations! Just on my schedule, not the CDCs.
But you had to follow all of this up at May 1, 2010 2:18 AM with:
“And it isn’t being a pediatric nurse that drives that bloated self-assessment, it’s pridefulness.”
“You sneer at the physicians as being imperious, but fail to behold the same as you lay into the folks here who cite rational, fact-based concerns.” (Um, actually, I agree with those fact-based concerns and added more of my own based upon indiscriminate antibiotic use.)
“She read your remarks to me on the other thread with stunned disbelief when you told me I didn’t know what I was talking about regarding microbial genetics and epidemiology.”
I didn’t ever tell you that you didn’t know what you were talking about. NEVER ONCE DID I SAY THAT.
What I did do was ask question. What I did do was quote your words and show the conclusions I drew from them. NEVER ONCE DID I SAY YOU DIDN’T KNOW WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. Find me the post where I say that.
You said: “your suggestion on the other thread that I am somehow a back-bencher in all of this was sadly laughable.”
I didn’t SAY what your role was. I SAID that I work on the front lines. I do. In the emergency room. I cited AN ATTITUDE that is a problem. I didn’t say “Gerard, you are a back bencher” or “Gerard, you are a problem”. I cited the ATTITUDE and the ATTITUDE is a problem.
“One pediatric nurse to another, she said, “So her one course in microbiology in nursing school trumps your 15 years of advanced training in two master degrees, doctorate and post-doctoral training in the field of infectious diseases and microbial genetics??””
Where did I say that? Where did I do anything other than lay out what YOU said and respond to it using logic? If I misinterpreted or there was clarifying information… why didn’t you address that? If your two masters degrees, doctorate and post doctoral training are so impressive… then use words that a lay person can understand to show me exactly what I got wrong.
You then said: “You just got owned by a peer.” Excuse me? How on earth is this statement warranted??
“Violet has spoken powerful scientific truth, and quite frankly I don’t care that she’s pro-choice where this is concerned, because it has no bearing on the safety of vaccines as she has outlined her case.”
I didn’t disagree with Violet on the science! I pointed out some concerns for some families based upon egg allergies. I pointed out some other options that families can have in regards to getting vaccinations… BECAUSE THEY NEED VACCINATIONS.
I did disagree that parents are putting beliefs above their children … how is that disagreeing with her science?
“I’ve withheld my fire until now because you have clearly crossed the line from impassioned dissenting opinion to imperiousness and obnoxiousness.”
REALLY? Because I advocate for confused families that don’t know who to trust? Because I point out that WE, and that includes ME, the MEDICAL COMMUNITY shuts down avenues of communication and destroys trust in the process?
“Let’s just end this here and now.”
Of course, now that you have portrayed yourself as the one with “great passion and concern” and cited your autistic son… and made some extremely rude comments about me that aren’t even based upon anything other than what… your possible hurt feelings that I, a mere nurse with only one course in microbiology dared to question your multiple degrees?
Wow. Wow…. and people wonder why I advocate for families who feel like they aren’t allowed to question.
“By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”
“Love is patient, Love is kind,
Love does not boast, Love is not proud.
Love is not rude,
Love is not easily angered,
Love keeps no record of wrongs.”
Dr. Nadal and Elisabeth,
I hesitate to even write this because I hate confrontation in any form. I have so much respect for both of you. Gerard, I have read almost everything on your website and am constant ly amazed at your intelligence and the articulate way you write. Elisabeth, you are a woman after my own heart, as we are both homeschooling mothers of ‘large’ famililes, and I have much respect for your ability to work with children and families in times of crisis.
I realize that you are both people of strong passions and that can lead to heated debates. However, I fully believe that we are to shine the light of Jesus’ love at every opportunity. There are so many non-christians that visit this blog. Please understand that I am still learning, that I am probably a lot less loving than either of you, that God has been showing me my own failures and He is working to make me more like Him.
In regards to the vaccine debate, I have read so much from ‘experts’ on both sides of the issue until I don’t know what to do. However, I have realized that I have not asked the Great Physician for wisdom and answers in this regard, which I will begin to rectify today. God obviously knows what is best for my children.
It is with much love, respect, and humility that I write this to you. With love in Christ.
Heather M
You’re right Heather, and I respect Elisabeth immensely and will not let one heated debate sour me.
Elisabeth, you do have my respect, and my apologies, and substantial differences notwithstanding I ask your forgiveness for the tone and tenor of my commentary. I made those comments publicly and I will apologize here publicly.
Please forgive me.
Thanks again Heather :-)
And I shall do the same. At no time have I ever doubted your experience or intellect and if I had, quite honestly, I wouldn’t have bothered trying to hammer things out. I hope that makes sense.
We have the same goals… that parents make informed, educated decisions. We see the same hazards in parents blindly running to unproven, untested remedies. There is no reason for us to be at cross purposes on this issue.
So for whatever wrongs to you that have been either stated or perceived I do ask for your forgiveness.
Sydney,
Violet..if other people are vaccinated then how is it harmful to “everyones” health if I don’t vaccinate MY kids? If you got the shots, then you are protected right? No matter who does or doesn’t get vaccinated.
You’re right — in a community where the vast majority of people are vaccinated, a handful of unvaccinated children has little effect on everyone else. However, this calculation only works when most children receive vaccinations, and with the growing movement of families choosing not to vaccinate, the choices each family makes for their own children have a greater weight. If everyone in a group of kids has been vaccinated against measles, and that group of kids is exposed to someone with measles, we would I think expect to see few or no cases of transmission. However, if that group of kids includes several who were not vaccinated against measles, we would not only see likely transmission of the disease to those children, but before they developed symptoms, they would continue to pass the disease on to their siblings and others in the community.
This is what happened in 2008 in San Diego, when an unvaccinated child returned from Switzerland where he had been exposed to measles, and exposed I think 11 other unvaccinated children before they were able to quarantine the people who had been exposed and stop the outbreak.
The bottom line is that the choices each family makes about vaccinations do not happen in a vacuum. We can no longer assume that most children are receiving the vaccines that have for decades protected this country against major outbreaks of diseases like measles and rubella. A single unvaccinated child in a vaccinated community does not necessarily place the community at risk (aside from very young children who have not yet received their vaccinations) — but it is no longer a question of just one or two kids in a community. There are many families like yours making a choice not to vaccinate, and the more that happens, the more we are going to see sharp increases in the number of reported cases of measles, rubella, and other diseases that have until recently seen only a few cases each year because of widespread vaccination. Many families who choose not to vaccinate are far from silent on the subject, and influence other families to make similar choices. Unfortunately, the more children who don’t receive vaccinations, the more likely it becomes that they will contract the diseases other children are vaccinated against, and the more likely it is that they will transmit the disease to other children who are also not vaccinated.
The “community” isn’t affected by my decision not to vaccinate if they themselves are vaccinated, right????? (emphasis mine)
And that is the big “if”. Everything you say is correct, as long as the rest of the community is vaccinated. Which, at this point, we can no longer count on.
Elisabeth,
Thanks. You’re beautiful :-)
My point is Violet, that if you are concerned then you vaccinate YOURSELF and YOUR CHILDREN. Then you won’t get any of those diseases. Even if a large number of kids don’t get vaccinated, the ones who are vaccinated don’t have to worry. And if anyone chooses not to vaccinate they accept the risk. The fact that they choose not to vaccinate THEMSELVES or THEIR CHILDREN does not place anyone one else who disagrees with them at risk because they are vaccinated.
And actually, the lower rates of diseases such as measles, mumps, rubella, polio, pertussis, diptheria etc…do not correlate with the rise in vaccinations. They were on the decline already.
when the Eastland fell over in the Chicago river in 1915, there was oil all over the top of the river, and raw sewage. Those who didn’t drown caught different lung diseases. Our waterways were polluted with sewage. Our cities were filfthy. There wasn’t even basic sanitation. When we started addressing these issues, the rate of diseases went down.
most of our citizenry is not vaccinated any longer. A bout with a disease produces lifelong immunity. vaccines must be helped along with “booster” shots for the rest of a person’ life to keep “immunity” which is not a sure thing to begin with. Yet with so many people walking around THINKING they are vaccinated and yet they really aren’t, we don’t see dramatic bursts of these diseases.
I am not against vaccines. If a parent thinks that is best for their child I am all for it. But I know there are many toxins found in vaccines and I do not think the benefits outweigh the risks for MY child.
Sydney,
I had a long response written but I realized I was just making the same points I’ve already made clear here. Look, the reason some vaccines are required for kids is that vaccines don’t just protect the people who get them – they protect everyone around us. It’s not just about your kids. It’s about everyone they come into contact with. Ever. Especially infants and young children who can’t yet be vaccinated, whose parents don’t get to make a choice about whether to protect their kids. Vaccines protect communities, as well as individuals.
“Vaccines protect communities, as well as individuals.”
Abortions negatively affect communties, as well as individuals.
Gerard,
Please take this as sincerely as it is meant…
PLEASE go back to the other thread and read the post where I posted your definitions of the three processes and my conclusions based on those words. Because I cannot for the life of me figure out how any of that works UNLESS at some point in the process, even if it was 25 or 50 years ago (which is a number so high in generations of bacteria that even the Obama administration debt burden hasn’t needed a word for it) some bacteria at some point stumbled across an antibiotic.
Sydney,
Violet is accurately describing the theory of herd immunity. There are children with auto immune disorders and other contraindications to vaccination who are presumed to be protected if a certain number of those around them are vaccinated against the disease.
It is a bit more problematic in real life than it is in theory because even those who are vaccinated don’t always gain full immunity (hence the outbreaks among vaccinated children); also, we only recognize a segment of those children who shouldn’t be immunized (basically the ones for whom it is as if a giant neon sign were blinking above their medical records); and, of course, the moral ramifications of making someone put something into their (or their child’s) body that cannot be taken back out again and has the potential for negative consequences.
But that is a valid aspect of the issue and shouldn’t be dismissed lightly.
Violet–my son had his first round of vaccines when he was DAYS OLD. okay? So what are you saying that they might come into contact with kids who haven’t been vaccinated yet? They do it almost immediately after birth.
The theory of herd immunity I am quite familiar with. And its bull. Like I said, there are tons of baby boomers, for example, who THINK they are immune since they got shots as kids and they are NOT immune and are walking around unvaccinated and yet you don’t see a polio epidemic do you? NO. you don’t.
I thought I was immune until they discovered while I was pregnant that I was not immune to rubella. How many other women are like me, who think since they got shots as a child they are safe? And yet there isn’t huge outbreaks of disease that you would see if the theory of “herd immunity” was correct.
Furthermore, I am NOT going to inject TOXINS into MY CHILD because some other child MIGHT have an autoimmune problem and can’t get vaccinated. Not gonna happen. I don’t care about the “community” I care about the health of MY CHILD.
Sydney… hence my statement that the theory is more problematic in real life. Although your statement is definitely more interesting to read!
“I anticipated pushback from the Left on the question of the autism connection (although I don’t know why it’s such a leap when it is commonly believed mercury in vaccines causes autism) but not on the fact that some vaccines indeed did and do contain aborted fetal cells. That’s just a fact.”
While Dhalgren covered the distinction between the statements “vaccines are ‘derived from human fetal cells'” and “vaccines ‘contain aborted fetal cells,'” I see no one has called Stanek on her “mercury” comment.
Marcotte addressed the ample research demolishing any hypothetical link between thimerosal (mercury-based preservative) and autism. This did not stop Stanek from stating “it is commonly believed mercury in vaccines causes autism” as if a common belief is more relevant than science.
Given Stanek’s disdain for science, I am pleased that she no longer works in the healthcare industry.
Arium,
I have discussed these matters with Jill, even the thimerosol issue. It may well be one of several variables in a number of neurological disorders. By the time a child was finished with the full regimen of shots at the 15 month mark, they had 237.5 micrograms of thimerosol injected into them. Look at this link to see how badly this exceeded EPA safe limits.
http://www.putchildrenfirst.org/media/1.17.pdf
I doubt that you yourself are medically trained, and if you are, then not very well by the way you speak. It’s a tragedy that Jill isn’t still in practice, that she and I by necessity have walked away from the clinical environment to advocate on behalf of babies being slaughtered by medicine.
We should be employing our clinical skills to advance medicine and not to rescue it.
Look at those numbers and justify them to me. Try to do it with a straight face.
Gerard,
I didn’t come here to debate whether the use of thimerosal in childhood vaccines was a good idea. Since thimerosal has been removed from childhood vaccines (with no concurrent reduction in autism rates) the issue is moot.
You are correct in that I have no medical training. I don’t know the difference between ethylmercury, methylmercury and the elemental mercury that my junior high school science teacher in the late ’70’s let us literally handle. I don’t know whether or not the mercury and ethylmercury exposure figures are comparable. I certainly don’t trust an organization created by an antivaccination celebrity such as Jenny McCarthy to provide such contextual information.
What I do know is it is the height of irresponsibility for someone to ignore established science by making “it is commonly believed” statements designed to intentionally mislead people who are already concerned about vaccine safety.
What I do realize is that members of a movement willing to go on about “babies being slaughtered” when actually referring to z/b/e/fs have no interest in facts and consider the ends to justify the means.
Bill – Voluntary human consent is required for almost all procedures involving medical treatment, from participation in research to dental exams. In the case of minors, of course they’re not legally able to give consent for themselves. That’s why their parents are empowered to make those decisions for them (including, incidentally, the decision to vaccinate or not vaccinate). Similarly, a medical power of attorney empowers an appointed individual to make medical decisions and provide consent when the patient is unable to do so him- or herself. But I’m sure you know that.
In this case, it’s a question of consent for medical research. A parent can give consent for a child to participate in a clinical trial. Next of kin can give consent for a person’s body to be used for organ donation or scientific research after death. So the question isn’t whether the fetus was able to consent but whether the mother was able to consent on the fetus’s behalf. If she was, your argument fails.
Arium, even if one were to argue that all thimerosol has been removed from all vaccines (which it has not, only some vaccines)… there are still the issues of the wisdom of injecting formaldehyde, aluminum and the many other adjuvants still used.
This is NOT a cut and dry issue… there are many factors and many variables that need to be assessed.