Abortion and vaccines (Part 4)

Why does "My body, my choice" apply only to abortion?

Vaccine proponents imply all people have an obligation to be vaccinated for the sake of
others. In other words, for the sake of others, you do not have a choice - and this is increasingly
enforced by law, either directly or indirectly.

Abortion is framed as being about personal autonomy for women, and about control of their bodies - so why is vaccination different? Why are we denied our personal autonomy in determining whether we will, or won't receive a vaccine (male or female). Why are our bodies violated with an invasive procedure when it is not wanted?

If we're obligated to receive a vaccine for others, where will the intrusion into personal decisions end? What other diktats will be issued, and required, "for the sake of the herd"?

Why is the baby only part of the "other" (for whom there is an obligation) when a woman
carries to term?
   Have an abortion - child is torn limb from limb ... pro-aborts call you a heroine.
   Carry to term - your a pariah if you don't get a flu shot, or you could be forced
                             to have a c-section (for the sake of the baby, of course).

Cognitive dissonance, all too present in both issues: abortion and vaccines.

We don't have the right to kill other people - and that is what abortion does (indeed
that is its purpose).
Our children should not pay with their lives because biology is what it is.
Once a child is conceived, "my body, my choice" no longer applies.
"My body, my choice" applies before a person (male or female) makes the
decision, the choice, to have sex. Yes, I know women are raped and do not
have a choice then ... however rape is not about sex, it is about power and
control (oh, I see a similarity there with vaccines and choice, among other
issues!) - regardless, in the unlikely event a child is conceived as a result of
rape, the child should not pay for their father's crime by being killed! Also,
most women who are pregnant as a result of rape and abort report the
abortion as being as traumatizing as the rape itself, whereas women who
are pregnant as a result of rape and choose to have the child report being
glad they did.

And once again, if you have an abortion history and are troubled by it and want
help, it's available - you can start at The Elliott Institute, among others. Feel free
to contact this blogger at aschnedl(at)gmail.com - I'll be happy to provide you
with resources.

Illness happens with or without vaccines, and vaccines are available for those who want
them and believe the risk reduction is worth the trade off in possible harm.

"My body, my choice" absolutely should apply to vaccines.

Resources for post-abortive women:
http://www.operationoutcrystories.org/hope-and-healing/

http://afterabortion.org/help-healing/

Inconsistencies

Inconsistencies

Some of the ingredients in vaccines are common to other products or are found in other substances/foods/medicines that we use, some daily.

What's odd is that there is concern expressed about the danger these ingredients cause when in these other products, but not the risk caused by these same ingredients when used in vaccines.

For example, most seafood is contaminated with mercury. While it is good to be aware of the risk of mercury in fish, and to consider modifying how much fish you eat, or what fish you eat in order to minimize or manage this risk, why is there no concern about the mercury in vaccines – or why did it require tremendous public outcry before it was addressed? You may hear that there is no more mercury (thimerosal) in vaccines – this simply is not true. There is mercury/thimerosal in most flu vaccines, and in others as well – it is important to educate yourself prior to deciding if you want a vaccine for yourself or your child – read the vaccine package inserts, not simply the Vaccine Information Sheet (VIS), click on the “Vaccine Links” page/tab of this blog for other websites providing information about vaccines. Consider both sides of the issue and decide what is best for your health.

Formaldehyde is also an ingredient in many vaccines – used to “kill” or “deactivate” the antigen/virus/bacteria … according to the CDC it is present only in “trace” amounts. We don't know how many times we can be exposed to “trace” amounts of a carcinogen before the repeated exposure can/will be part of the process that triggers the development of an actual cancer. This is a legitimate concern because vaccines at best provide temporary risk reduction (they do not protect – different concept, and not synonymous), so to maintain the risk reduction one needs to be vaccinated multiple times throughout a lifetime – multiply that with multiple vaccines and/or multiple doses and “trace” amounts may not be so trace! Should we be worried about formaldehyde as a chemical in second-hand smoke (whether of regular cigarettes or e-cigarettes), but not concerned about exposure to formaldehyde from/in vaccines?

Other ingredients that may be of concern (and this is a partial list):

Neomycin (Polio – IPV Ipol, Rabies - RabAvert)

Streptomycin (Polio – IPV Ipol)

Neomycin and Streptomycin are both antibiotics – they may be in the vaccine as a way to reduce risk of bacterial contamination (one of the reasons for thimerosal). One can only wonder if exposure via vaccines might predispose someone to an allergic reaction if later exposed to these antibiotics at a later time (for the purpose of treating an infection). 

As always – if you think the benefit of a vaccine is greater than the risk, get vaccinated. And if you think the risk is more than the benefit, decline.

The decision should always be yours, and yours alone.

http://oehha.ca.gov/prop65/prop65_list/Newlist.html

http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/B/excipient-table-2.pdf

http://www.drugs.com/mtm/neomycin.html

http://www.rxlist.com/neomycin-sulfate-drug.htm

http://www.rxlist.com/streptomycin-drug.htm

http://www.drugs.com/ppa/streptomycin-sulfate.html

Abortion and vaccines (Part 3)

Vaccines used as abortifacients – for birth control (culling the herd)?!

Margaret Sander advocated for abortion and contraception as a way of culling the “herd” of those she deemed undesirable – the poor, minorities, and those with any form of disability.

Since the 1973 there have been efforts at creating vaccines that can be used as “birth control” … but they target beta-HCG, a sub-unit of Human Chorionic Gonadotropin, a hormone that helps support and maintain pregnancy prior to development of the placenta – in other words, after conception of a new and unique human being.

During the 1990's allegations were made that a vaccine against b-HCG was tested in the Philippines, Mexico, Nicaragua – on poor women of color, without their knowledge or consent.

Another target of vaccination as contraception was sperm … with the vaccine to be given to the **woman** of course! The developer of this contraceptive “option” was clear that it's primary target was LDC's (“less developed countries”, a more politically correct term for those Margaret Sanger and her ilk would like to see less of); Chinese researchers worked with Dr. Herr at the University of Virginia in his efforts to create this vaccine – and China's human rights abuses

in the area of “family planning” are well documented.

At a TED talk in ~2010 Bill Gates was quoted as saying vaccines, along with reproductive health care (abortion and birth control) and health care would be useful in reducing population/population growth – the quote was in the context of lower CO2 levels because 

there would be fewer people breathing and using energy. Many who question vaccines 

jumped on this and made the assumption that he wants to use vaccines to either reduce or prevent population growth. I think what he left unsaid (and meant to say) is that one reason parents want children is to support and care for them in their old age, and where infant

mortality is high, parents will have more children in the hopes that some will survive. 

Mr. Gates' statement in the TED talk was very truncated and did not convey his belief that vaccines will prevent infant deaths/increase child survival, and hence lead to people having fewer children because they are more confident their children will survive.

Rather than attempting to increase child survival with injections, a far simpler approach (and one that will help not just children, but everyone) is to make improvements in public health infrastructure – clean water, sanitation (isolating human waste from water sources), and wider availability of energy for refrigeration and cooking.

We are designed to live in freedom … regardless of our skin color/ethnicity, etc.

Economic development generally preceeds spontaneously falling birth rates, but

few seem as committed to helping “LDC's” develop their economies to achieve

this.

It stems from a mind-set of viewing people as the problem rather than acknowledging that people (all of us, 100%) have a problem – called sin, and the solution to sin is the cross of Jesus Christ. But that would also require acknowledging The Creator of us all … Who gave us a mandate to fill the world, and care for it – but if you worship creation instead of The Creator, caring for the world means eliminating people. The ultimate vaccine against people is the 

mindset that people are the problem - this belief drives the motivation to continue creating 

all manner of ways to stop their birth. 

No one should be forced or coerced or manipulated into accepting a vaccine.

The use of coercion in birth control programs (and vaccination) is well documented and 

on-going, and targets the poor and people of color (well, at least abortion and birth 

control - vaccination is equal opportunity and targets us all).

Post-abortion resources for help/healing:
http://www.operationoutcrystories.org/hope-and-healing/

http://afterabortion.org/help-healing/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7683889

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2936313/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1874951

http://educate-yourself.org/vcd/vcdvaccineslacedwithbirthcontrol.shtml

http://www.pop.org/content/a-aquotstickaquot-in-time-saves-nine-487

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6WQtRI7A064

http://www.pop.org

Abortion and vaccines (Part 2)

DNA from aborted babies in vaccines

There are several vaccines that are manufactured using cell lines from aborted babies (Varivax, Pentacel – among others).

MRC-5 is a fetal cell line (lung, fibroblast) derived from a normal male human aborted in 1966 in England (MRC = Medical Research Council, of the United Kingdom/England http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/index.htm);

WI-38 is a fetal cell line (lung) from an electively aborted female baby of about

4 months gestation in Sweden. (WI = Wistar Institute of Philadelphia PA);

PER C6 is a cell line begun in 1985, derived from a retinal cell from a baby electively aborted at 18 weeks. http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/transcripts/3750t1_01.pdf (page 91); 

I think PER.C6 stands for Primary Embryonic Retinal Cell 6, though I was not able to 

confirm this. 

One of the primary reasons this writer holds the opinion that vaccine use should be voluntary and not compulsory (for anyone, child or adult) is that there are too many instances in medical care where people have suffered because we charged ahead with an intervention/procedure (based on theory) only to find out later that the theory was not correct and the intervention had unintended (adverse) effects. I think that is true for vaccines – those who are confident in their safety and efficacy should be free to use them, those who have reservations and want further study/information should be free to decline them.

For example, how many women have been harmed by routine episiotomy (which we now know is more likely to cause larger tears than a spontaneous laceration and the use of this procedure should be restricted to emergencies only), how many women have been harmed by the routine use of electronic fetal monitoring during labor? It was implemented in the early 1970's because it was *believed* that it would reduce risk of a baby developing cerebral palsy which *was thought* to be caused by lack of oxygen during labor – and yet further research has shown that the greatest risk factor for CP is prematurity and antepartal infection, not lack of oxygen during labor – and yet the cat is out of the bag, and there will be no putting it back in, as OB providers have a genuine concern (and risk for) lawsuits, and this is perceived as helping shield them from liability – but it is part of what has contributed to the significant rise in cesarean sections – a real source of risk to childbearing women.

The presence of human DNA from aborted children raises at least two issues:

1. Safety

I think it remains unknown what effect there may be to being exposed to

foreign DNA from vaccines – whether that DNA is human or animal. We

do not yet fully understand how our bodies (immune system and DNA)

interacts with foreign DNA and what consequences this may have for our

short-term and/or long-term health. This is true for both children and adults

who are exposed to vaccine manufactured using human and/or animal

DNA. 

We know that unborn babies cells can and do cross the placenta and 

integrate into maternal tissues, persisting for decades. 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2633676/ 

If this happens during pregnancy why would it not also occur with 

remnants of DNA present in vaccines? 

2. Ethics

Many people would not want to use a product made (even in part) from

tissue derived from a human being whose life was electively terminated

(regardless of the reason). 

Regardless of the number of people who may have benefited from vaccines

derived from aborted people, the ends do not justify the means. 

The people from whom these cell lines were derived did not consent to the 

use of their bodies for this purpose (much less the sacrifice of their life 

regardless of why their lives were ended). 

Many have benefited (and continue to benefit) financially from these cell 

lines - but have their parents been compensated, have they "benefited" 

from ending their unborn child's life (other than not having to give birth 

to and raise a child they did not want to have). While there are laws 

prohibiting the sale/purchase of human parts there are also ENORMOUS 

loop-holes that make such prohibitions an absolute sham. 

Once again, let me re-iterate that the purpose of raising this issue is not to pour 

salt into an open wound for those who are post-abortive ... if you have had an 

abortion and are hurting and want help please reach out to a local pregnancy 

resource center (https://www.care-net.org/) - they can help you find counseling 

to obtain peace.

Other post-abortion resources for help/healing:
http://afterabortion.org/help-healing/
and
http://www.operationoutcrystories.org/hope-and-healing/

http://www.atcc.org/products/all/CCL-171.aspx#characteristics

(MRC-5) 

https://imfar.confex.com/imfar/2010/webprogram/Paper6417.html

http://www.whale.to/v/FDA%20Briefing%20Document%20Sept%2019,2012.pdf

http://www.mrc.ac.uk/About/index.htm

https://www.vaccineshoppe.com/image.cfm?doc_id=11169&image_type=product_pdf (Pentacel PI)

http://www.nature.com/news/medical-research-cell-division-1.13273

http://www.khouse.org/articles/2012/1060/print/

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/01/transcripts/3750t1_01.pdf

(page 91);  

http://www.crucell.com/page/downloads/Factsheet_Crucell_Technologies.pdf 

http://www.crucell.com/Technology%20-%20Cell%20Technology 

Abortion and vaccines (Part 1)

Abortion and vaccines (Part 1)

There are several connections between abortion and vaccines. Today's post will explore the irony of “choice” in both abortion and vaccines.

One of the justifications given for abortion is to provide/allow women to have

control over their bodies. In contrast there is very little choice in regards to vaccines – certainly for children, and increasingly for adults (of either sex).

What irony – adults can make the decision to end their unborn child's life (for the sake of greater personal autonomy), but are not able to make decisions regarding

vaccines (for either themselves or their [born] children). The ability to obtain an

exemption from vaccination varies. For the sake of greater autonomy vaccines should be “opt in”, no exemption necessary.

What irony – abortion is framed as being about personal choice for women, when in reality it is seldom about personal choice and autonomy. More than half of abortions (in the United States) are done under duress – in other words, those seeking them did not feel they had a choice! (#1)

Vaccination is not much different – parents vaccinate their children in order to get them into school or to maintain access to healthcare for their children (some pediatric practices will “fire” a patient who does not comply with vaccination or will refuse to accept them as patients … parents of newborns have been threatened with CPS involvement for declining vaccination or have been told they would not be allowed to take their child home), health care workers are coerced into vaccination in order to keep their jobs. (#2), (#3);

If vaccination is mandated for “the greater good” one can only wonder where this ends? What else might be justified for the sake of the “herd”? Will restrictions on diet/food be imposed “for the greater good”?

And are you a part of the “herd” (being managed) or one of its managers, making decisions to maintain the quality of the “herd”?

This writer is painfully aware of how abortion has hurt many women and is a tender and sensitive subject. My intent is not to open any wounds or cause any pain – as a midwife I've cared for many post-abortive women who told me how the decision was made for them.

If you have had an abortion and want/need healing it is available – you can click on this link for more information:

http://afterabortion.org/help-healing/
and/or
http://www.operationoutcrystories.org/hope-and-healing/

#1)

see http://www.theunchoice.com/pdf/FactSheets/ForcedAbortionFactSheet.pdf

#2)

see http://www.inquisitr.com/1191522/parents-blackmailed-by-doctor-consent-to-vaccine-or-we-take-your-newborn/#hZfhVYjas5wZomjL.99

#3)

see http://news.yahoo.com/nurses-fired-refusing-flu-shot-224637902--abc-news-health.html

Why exemptions?

The link below is to a parent's response to a physician's editorial encouraging the elimination of exemptions to vaccination - it has apparently gone "viral" (um, even more terrifying is the thought of government "vaccinating" us against free speech with net "neutrality", among other forms of censorship ... );

Her blog is a great summation of why vaccination is such a heated topic, and why I agree that exemptions are necessary and should remain available and easy to obtain. Actually, I think we should not need exemptions, but that vaccination should rather be "opt in" so to speak - in other words, available, and if you want them, get them. If you don't want them you should not be bullied or manipulated into obtaining them (ie: as a condition of employment, or of education, or to receive federal benefits that to which you are otherwise entitled, etc ... );

The only nit I have to pick is that I would extend this to adults as well, since they are targeted for vaccination too - all the more so. It's incredibly lucrative, and virtually risk free (well, except for the person receiving the vaccine!)


#1)
http://www.livingwhole.org/a-parents-response-to-the-new-york-times-article-eliminate-vaccine-exemptions/

Who's next?

This writer has long wondered if mandating annual flu vaccine for HCW's was just a start. This article from the CDC may be dropping hints of what group may be the next target (real estate and hospitality industries).

The article (dated 3.14.2014) looks back to the 2009 - 2010 flu season and estimates rates of illness and flu vaccine coverage by taking telephone samples and "adjusting" numbers - how any of this could be verified for accuracy is anyone's guess. The response rates were low, just over 1/3 of those called (~6,000/month - and even these targets were approximate) took part in the survey, further calling into question the veracity of the results.

Influenza like illness was defined as " having been sick with fever and cough or sore throat in the past month" ... which could be influenza/ILI/or just about anything else. 

Contradictions abound in the following paragraph, quoted from the article:

Among all adults, employed persons had a similar prevalence of ILI in the month before the interview (5.5%) compared with those not in the labor force (6.0%); these groups also had similar pH1N1 vaccination coverage (23.7% versus 26.5%) (Table 3). In contrast, ILI prevalence was higher (9.4%) and pH1N1 vaccination coverage was lower (16.7%) among unemployed adults in the labor force.

 "Unemployed adults in the labor force" must be the same group that counts as part of the official unemployment statistic, whereas if you are unemployed but no longer looking you do not count as being unemployed (officially) - clearly a factor in differentiating risk of flu. Those "not in the labor force" are defined as "homemakers, students, retirees, and adults unable to work", a rather broad, and diverse, group by any standards, which could also affect accuracy of the "estimates". How many students work in addition to going to school? How many women who at home would like to once again, be informed, that they are not really working! Adults "unable to work" = disabled, a group that might well be at increased risk for a variety of illnesses, including flu/ILI!

The authors do at least acknowledge these weaknesses in the editorial section of the write up, but this could hardly be considered data upon which to base policy decisions of any kind.

When it comes to vaccinations, let people make up their own minds.


#1)
http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm6310a3.htm?s_cid=mm6310a3_x