Dr. Deisher, vaccines and autism: three red flags

 

PIC vaccine

Catholics and vaccines. Oh, this is hard.

Can we live with letting our children profit through the deaths of aborted babies? I’ve had those awkward conversations with our pediatricians. At first, I explained why we were declining the MMR and chickenpox vaccines, because they use cells derived from cell lines from aborted fetuses. Later, we began accepting the vaccines, but registering our desire for ethically-derived alternatives.

Why did we make the change? We turned to the Church for guidance.  Bishop Elio Sgreccia, speaking for the Pontifical Academy for Life, said that

the Vatican had sent a two-part message to the American pro-life group. “On the one hand,” he said, “in a particular context such as that in the United States, it is licit to use these vaccines, because there are no others actually available.” The bishop explained that parents have a serious obligation to protect their children from disease whenever possible, and in doing so they are not signaling their approval for abortion.

Drug companies who choose to use cell lines derived from aborted fetal tissue are guilty of formal cooperation with evil; parents who choose to use these vaccines to protect their children are not guilty of formal cooperation with evil. They are not culpable.

Many parents decide that, since vaccination is not morally obligatory, they will regretfully decline the ethically troubling vaccines even though they accept their medical efficacy.  In our family, we have decided that we do have the obligation to protect both our kids, and other people who are immuno-compromised or who cannot be vaccinated for various legitimate medical reasons. We recognize that vulnerable people face the serious threat of serious disease, especially since they can rely less and less on other parents to help make those diseases rare.

This is why, after weighing the small risks against the undisputed benefits, we vaccinate. We believe that the vaccines that are currently available are both morally permissible and safe for most people, and that while no medical treatment is 100% safe or 100% effective, the benfits they offer far outweigh the small risk of harm.

You may have heard that Dr. Theresa Deisher is working on an ethically sound version of the MMR vaccine. This is wonderful news, and as soon as an ethical, effective vaccine becomes available, we’ll certainly request that for our kids.

But here is where Dr. Deisher lost me. She recently published a study once again resurrecting a putative link between austism and vaccines that use cell lines derived from cells from aborted fetuses. Her study raises three red flags:

Red flag #1: This is a clear conflict of interest. Imagine that someone says, “My studies show that product X will make your children sick. But I’ve developed product Y, which will keep your children healthy, and I’ll be selling it soon.”  What would your first thought be? Would you assume that his studies about product X are reliable and objective? Or would you take a closer look?

I do not mean that Deisher is deliberately lying to sell her product. I do mean that, when we have personal reasons for wanting something very badly, it hinders our ability to work objectively.

Red flag #2: Her study relies on an emotional response to an ethical question. Catholics everywhere are accepting her study as Gospel truth. Why? Her theory has a special appeal for Catholics who feel a natural horror at the idea of profiting through the death of innocents. It seems only logical and just that we should suffer physically if we cooperate, even remotely, with something so dreadful as abortion. It seems like God and nature should cooperate to punish people who, in effect, rob graves for their own health.

But that’s not how it works — not medically, and not theologically. This argument — that sin always leads directly to physical suffering — is a red herring. Hundreds of the medical cures we rely on every day came from unethical sources. That is how the world works: sometimes bad actions lead to suffering, sometimes they don’t. We may not like it, but we cannot deny it. Show me an effective alternative, and I’ll use it with gratitude. But don’t tell me that God will not allow us to make good come out of evil.

Red flag #3 (the big one):   The science is just plain bad. For a short, clear, accessible explanation that helps us understand why Deisher’s study is no scientific bombshell, read this response from the Rational Catholic Blog.

Parents do not recognize the symptoms of autism until a child is a few months old, and they assume that these symptoms are caused by the vaccine their child just received. But a trained doctor can spot signs of autism in newborns, long before these symptoms are obvious to laymen. There are myriad markers of austism in newborns, in unborn children, and even in their placentas.  How could these be caused by a vaccine administered after birth?

Moreover, if DNA transplants caused autism, then people who received organ transplants or even blood transfusions would be at risk for autism. Heck, we’d be at risk for autism every time we ate a burger, because of all the cow DNA we’re allowing into our bodies.

Deisher commits the cardinal sin of scientific research: she confuses correlation with causation. There is even some question whether even the correlation she posits actually exists.

This is bad science.

I applaud her efforts to find an ethical alternative to current vaccines, I do not doubt that her motives are good, and I hope and pray that she or someone else will develop one soon.

But if we are going to hesitate over any vaccine, let it be for medically and theologically sound reasons. Dr. Deisher has not provided either. Her study displays a conflict of interest; it banks on an emotional response to an ethical question; and most damningly, it relies on heavily flawed science. Catholics should keep their eyes open for other scientists whose research is sound.

 

 

 

Like Patheos Catholic on Facebook!

Patheos Catholic LogoCLICK HERE TO "LIKE" PATHEOS CATHOLIC ON FACEBOOK

What's for supper? Vol. 13: Women Who Love Soup Too Much
Tell the sisters of Talitha Kum about security, Mr. Trump.
What to do about refugees?
Additions, corrections to Greg Popcak's book Holy Sex?
  • Keith Strohm

    Simcha, thank you for this clear and concise post. It has helped clarify my thinking on vaccinations for our family.

  • CS

    I have been staying away from it because of the judgmental nature of
    the commenting on this topic. But I really think this is helpful.Thank you for this.

    Personally I speculate that what we define as autism, as a neurologically complex phenomenon, might be brought about by more than one cause, from placental development on. Is it sometimes/partially an immune system response? Maybe, but all other things being equal there is no compelling science to indicate that vaccination has an overwhelming effect. If it does, other factors of predisposition have to be at play.

    Other vaccine questions: Are injectible methods more likely to provoke immune responses? Are my kids more at risk for Hep B because of where we live? Does the vaccine schedule as it exist now harm more children than a more relaxed, paced schedule? What are the differences in risk with different illnesses, including the risk to the general population, to whom I do feel obligated– although not to the extent of putting my own kids in *actual* danger if I was convinced there is some?

    Anyway, this is all stuff I think about, round and round, in my science-mind. My mom mind, my conscience, needs to make a decision. So far I, too, have changed in my thinking over the years and I am now fine with DTP, MMR, and Polio. Everything else has been a painful cost-benefit analysis, factoring in their current activities and the fact that we live in a city chock full of heroin addicts whose innocent children are attending school with mine…from flu shots (we get them due to asthma now) to hpv(no, not until there is more study done on the high rates of death following the shots). Meningitis is the latest one to agonize about, and until there is more risk I am waiting because of my family history with neurological weirdness.

    • CS

      To nudge this comment back in the direction of Catholic thinking, I just wanted to express how difficult it truly is to inform the conscience and exercise it. But the point that **emotions** cannot be the primary way we make health decisions (which are moral decisions, in essence, even if they can have more than one choice that is Good) is an absolutely essential one. Even when the emotions are responses to the indignity of dehumanizing the unborn.

      And I recommend the book, The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, for a trove of information on the history of medical exploitation and shady ways scientists have used people to get where we are today. *Not* as a justification of the behavior, but as a look at where we came from to get what we take for granted now.

    • Linda Tock

      The majority of vaccines are injected because it produces the best available immune response with the least amount of degradation of the vaccine – as our GI tracts are very efficient at breaking up proteins, etc. which would render the vaccine ineffective.

      The schedule as it stands now has been studied, will continue to be studied and is continuously monitored for safety via the Vaccine Safety Datalink. There is no evidence which supports a more relaxed schedule, as it leaves children more vulnerable to vaccine preventable diseases for a longer period.

      As far as the HPV vaccine, the reports of deaths following the vaccine, while temporally related, are not caused by the vaccine.

      • CS

        Thanks for your response but they are not really answers to my questions, which persist despite doing research on them. For example, I agree that injecting them is necessary for optimum efficacy, but I also wonder about the exact level of increased risk you get for immune-response. This is something that has not been studied, as far as I know; we only have anecdotal use over time to help us with it. And in a family with strange immune-response history this is a big question.

        As for the HPV vaccines, there are assertions one way or the other, and afaik no controlled review of data or studies. Please let me know if you have something like that.

        I am completely uninterested in debating vaccines. My post is not meant to encourage anyone to vaccinate (or not) and should not be construed as such; my only purpose was to discuss the difficulties of the process of discerning how, when and why to give them.

    • Barbara Fryman

      My son had adverse reactions to some vax, and others did not take at all. We chose to give home only one at a time there after to figure out which were problematic. When our daughter was born with DS, our Ped recommended the same scenario just because she is medically fragile.

      • Barbara Fryman

        I should also add we did a one per 3 wk schedule so she would be on target by two. We chose vax based on what was highest risk, so things like Polio were last, but DTaPwas up priority b/c of the risk. Your Ped should be able to guide you on these choices. Ours is so great, she called me to make special arrangements for DTaP because so many kids were coming in with whooping cough.

        • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com/ Beadgirl

          That’s key, isn’t it — a caring doctor who pays attention to the particular needs and circumstances of each child. My pediatrician is like that, too.

  • http://www.diennodemarest.com Julie Dienno-Demarest

    I really appreciate your logical analysis of this topic. The conflict of interest is clear; there is a reason why “independent” studies are necessary. Moreover, great use of the quote from Bishop Elio Sgreccia/the Pontifical Academy for Life.

  • Rach

    Thank you for concisely explaining this topic. I get confused with a lot of conversations on the topic of vaccines since I don’t actually know a lot about it, so I appreciate a side being shown clearly and without too much emotion.

  • Dave

    I really like your writing on this topic, but what I find significantly more useful is the statement from Bishop Sgreccia, of which I was unaware.

    (Please note, that’s not meant as dismissal of your writing, just nice to know of a Church document to which I can refer, too.)

  • Allison Grace

    Thank you for this. I am one with a child that benefits from the population protection of herd immunity. Medicine contains an element of art with the mathematics: the beautiful/awful mix of millions of interacting genes, which is why some people smoke for 50 years and don’t get cancer and some are dead in 6 months. It’s why some vaxed people still get infected with these things while most do not. I rest in the decision of the Church’s department of theologians, ethicists, biologists, etc.

    • Chris

      I’m sorry Allison but herd immunity is a theory. There are outbreaks where there’s 100% vaccination and others where well over the standard is met. We’ve played a dangerous game and because we’ve ignored the history of disease and vaccine difficulty we’re in a mess for it. Children are now over vaccinated and we’re seeing the increase in casualties for it. Many credible doctors are trying to fix this but are slaughtered for trying because pharma is king.

  • anna lisa

    I put the ethical dilemma to bed a few years ago, (as far as my own actions go), after I read that document from the Vatican. I know it’s hard to come to terms with making a decision when fear lies on both sides of the vax/anti vax equation. I’ve felt a certain agony every. single. time I’ve had to hand my infant over to that hypodermic needle. So it really came down to choosing awful vs. AWFUL.
    If I ever had another baby, I would stick to the slow immunization schedule, but only if I didn’t live in a densely populated area, and didn’t have to get on any international flights.

    As far as ethical dilemmas go, I know that evil loves to get us all tied in a knot. Who makes sound decisions (is easy to live with) when they are a ball of nerves? I’ve just gotten too tired to be OCD about little things that I can’t control anyway. When Honeynut Cheerios goes on sale I buy it. Somewhere in the back of my head, I know that General Mills has donated to Planned Parenthood, AND I know there’s too much sugar in it, but I’ve got bigger fish to fry.

    Btw, last night I was channel surfing, and I caught a few minutes of a show which was discussing the odds of having a serious reaction to the hpv immunization. They pictured a single girl, and then an entire stadium filled to capacity. They multiplied this times six, and then shrunk the picture of the six stadiums down to show one girl versus all those thousands of people, to visually demonstrate the odds of her being seriously impacted.

    Again: awful vs. AWFUL.

    • NFP Instructor

      Anna Lisa were you watching the NOVA show on vaccines? I haven’t gotten to watch it yet as I only get two channels, lol. I heard it was very good though.

      • anna lisa

        I *think* that’s what it was. Sorry.

        Having a bunch of channels just makes me feel more scattered. You’re not missing out on much.

        Can somebody please explain to me the fascination with mining,swamp people, pawn shops and naked survival shows?

        I’m worried about Americans.

        • Eileen

          I don’t know about naked survival, but my new fascination is the folks in Alaska who buy houses without running water or electricity. I think I admire them, but I’m too scared – and probably too lazy – to live like them.

          • anna lisa

            I haven’t seen that one yet. If I have the controller, and they’re doing anything in on, or off of Alaska, I quickly speed ahead, lest I become the victim of one of those marathons where they dig for gold for hours and hours and hours and hours and hours. and I slowly turn into “grousing wife” with nothing better to suggest except House Hunters International.
            Last night it was “Extreme Parenting”, which I dearly wish I could unsee. It was exceptionally horrendous.
            But if another woman can give her stamp of approval, and nobody drinks their own pee, I’ll have to check your show out. It’s GOT to be better than what we’ve been watching lately.

    • Eileen

      I wish I could like this 100 times.

  • Michel Accad

    Simcha,

    Some objections to your red flags…

    Disclaimer: I’m an MD and we vaccinate our kids.

    1). All epidemiology is correlative. “Smoking causes lung cancer” only means that the correlation is quite strong. In fact, strictly speaking, all empirical science is correlative. Since Hume, science has resigned itself to a rather weaker meaning of cause. Don’t criticize Deishler for not doing scholastic philosophy!…

    Her study may show a weak correlation, or may be methodologically weak (you don’t address either of these points), but the medical and scientific literature is replete with reports like that. (For years, we have been told that eating fat “causes” heart disease….). Furthermore, the study was published in a peer-reviewed journal. No guarantee of scientific validity, but that’s the only and best (not perfect) way to advance scientific claims.

    2) The fact that the topic is “emotional” should not be used to discount the merits of the study . Should we examine each researcher for a cool detachment toward their subject of inquiry? The scientific methods exist precisely to take care of irrational influences.

    3). Likewise “conflicts of interest” should not be used to berate a scientific claim. If I discover penicillin to treat typhoid fever, should that keep me from pointing out the harms of bloodletting?

    Thank you!

    • wineinthewater

      Your points are quite well-made. But she laid out three red flags, not three refutations. Emotional topics and conflict of interest do not discredit a person’s claims, but they quite legitimately raise red flags about that person’s claims. Red flags do not call for the rejection of a claim, but only the closer examination of the claim.

      • Michel Accad

        Perhaps, but “closer examination” was not provided, so these are just innuendos here, and I’m afraid the aim of the red flags was indeed to discredit. Besides, every researcher has potential emotional bias or conflict of interest, and the same red flags can be raised against those who show a link between abortion and breast cancer, for example. Why single out this particular researcher and this particular study? The table could also be turned against Simcha by accusing her of being “overly fearful” for her family about lower rates of vaccination, and therefore of being biased against any study that shows potential problems with vaccines, etc…Once you open that avenue of criticism, there is no end to the shouting match. To raise a red flag *only* on the basis of possible conflicts is in a sense anti-intellectual or anti-scientific. It means that you don’t trust that people can rationally overcome their own biases, and that you don’t trust the scientific methods and the peer-review process to minimize these possible sources of error.

        • Anna

          She linked to the closer examination of the science at Rational Catholic. No need to repeat what that blog already has written.

          • Michel Accad

            I know, Anna, that’s where she picked up the “correlation is not causation” bit…

            I should add that it in the aftermath of the Wakefield affair, I can’t imagine that medical journals are going to be very eager to publish papers that correlate autism with vaccines. Deishler had her manuscript pass by two independent reviewers plus the editor-in-chief of the journal (that’s the usual process). Need we be so quick to appeal to the authority of the “rational blogger” instead?

          • Anna

            Well, I use that “correlation is not causation” thing all the time, re. fad diets, crystals, etc. so I don’t know that that’s where she picked it up. It’s certainly a thing people tend to forget when it’s a fearful topic, or something they stand to make money from (e.g. Reliv sellers, for one of my pet peeves). :-)

            I don’t know anything about the journal in question; I know there are reputable ones and not-so-much-so, so it’s possible that this one isn’t as rigorous as it should be and that should be taken into account. I do think the points raised by Rational Catholic (e.g. things like the more change points you add, the more it looks like statistical significance) are good cautions for people eager to find a source that will confirm their fear of current vaccines, but I don’t know that I would cite that website authoritatively given the number of statements that are solely snarky and not substantial criticism.

        • wineinthewater

          I do not think pointing out red flags creates an obligation
          to actually do the closer examination. I think it is a warning for people as they look at the topic to slow down and look more carefully and critically.

          Everyone has a bias, and most people have at least some sort of vested interest, it is true. But we are talking about a whole other level of conflict of interest here. We have a person researching the potential negative ramifications of a medical treatment, who is also developing an alternative to that treatment from which she stands to gain significantly both professionally and financially (even if in the form of research funding rather than personal wealth) if she is successful and can then displace the normative treatment. That is a *huge* conflict of interest. She stands to realize significant gain from the research reaching a certain conclusion.

          Of course it doesn’t automatically mean her conclusions are wrong or that she is incapable of balanced treatment of the subject. But it does mean that she has a significant conflict of interest and that should be a big, bright waving red flag to anyone looking at her conclusions. Perhaps they withstand scrutiny, perhaps they don’t, but the red flag means that anyone looking at those conclusions needs to do extra – quite a bit extra – due diligence before accepting them.

          • Michel Accad

            But wineinthewater, even here I have to disagree with you for two reasons:

            1) For her to potentially gain financially, people would have to buy into her thesis in large number. The scientific community would also have to move in that direction. That will require many additional corroborating studies with different data sets, performed by different investigators, etc.. In the aftermath of the Wakefield affair, the chance of this ever happening is near zero. Surely she must know this.

            2). If people start demanding a non-fetal cell-derived vaccine in large number on the basis of epidemiological work like this, Merck or other big pharma will be able to produce a vaccine in no time (the product already exist!). There is zero chance she could bring a product to market for a successful commercial venture and surely she knows this too.

            I don’t think we have to worry about a “huge” or potentially sinister conflict of interest here

          • wineinthewater

            Red flags do not refute and they do not discredit, they simply call for greater attention. And that is what you have done. This is a closer examination. If accepted, it demonstrates that what the red flag warns about is actually not a problem.

            However, I don’t buy your take on the issue. A market that Merck wouldn’t even bother to consider whether bothering to consider can still be a huge market to someone like an individual researcher. Especially when that market is ideologically motivated. Convincing a small, principled market of her thesis is all that would be required to make an alternative vaccine profitable for a small producer and all that would be required to plumb that market for research funding.

            Merck’s business model in vaccines is nearly complete market penetration and thin margins. An alternative vaccine targeting a niche market of principled customers could operate at much higher profit margins and do quite well. And the amount of profit that could make a successful small company wouldn’t even be a blip worth considering for a large company like Merck.

            Dr. Deisher doesn’t need to capture a large number from the market. She’s targeting two principled niche markets. First, Catholics and others who object to vaccines being made from aborted fetal cell lines. Second, anti-vaxers concerned about autism .. if she can convince them that the autism link is due to the use of human cell lines in vaccine development and which she is tiring to do with this study. The taint of the Wakefield connection doesn’t even matter in this case considering the number of anti-vaxers who consider it settled science.

            As far as I can tell, I have not yet seen a reason to think that the red flag was just an overzealous warning.

          • ISeeThruYou

            Most prominent critics of the “anti-vaccine” movement also have financial incentives to promote vaccines. RED FLAG!

            Maybe it is her objection to the use of human fetuses in the development of vaccines, or the possible link to autism, that is prompting her to develop the alternative. Looks like a noble cause to me.

          • wineinthewater

            I don’t know any prominent critics of the anti-vaccine movement. The critics that I know are mostly parents like me who have had their children exposed to serious diseases because they were too young to have been vaccinated yet and they came into contact with the sick child of an anti-vaccine parent (in fact, my 8 month-old just got exposed to whooping cough last week). Many are the parents or relatives of an immune-compromised person who cannot be vaccinated and who live in constant fear that their loved-one is going to be exposed to what can be a life-threatening disease because of someone else’s anti-vaccination ideology. Many others have simply seen the outbreaks of diseases like measles and whooping cough (common in my state, anti-vaccination is a common stance) where children have gotten seriously ill and there have even been deaths.

            There is lots about the vaccination industrial complex to be critical of: the fact that they use cell lines from aborted fetuses, the fact that vaccines sometimes include substances with questionable safety, the lack of flexibility in the group vaccines, etc. But the prevalence of the persistence of the vaccine-autism myth and the mischaracterization of the connection between vaccines and abortion (there is no “use of human fetuses in the development of vaccines,” some vaccines are produced using cell lines that were derived from fetuses that had been aborted decades ago, a much more remote connection) make it much harder to address the real problems.

    • EpiMom

      Michel I enjoyed your response very much. As an epidemiologist and new mother going through the vaccine decision ordeal right now, I can say that I really appreciate well informed and educated commentary on epidemiological studies. Critiquing a study in a meaningful way takes a lot of training and most people just don’t have that. Too many people throw around epidemiological terms that they themselves don’t really understand. Unfortunately it creates a lot of meaningless debate… I’ll be digging into Dr. Deisher’s research and commenting once I have spent adequate time dissecting it.

      • Mike P

        And the results are?… :)

    • http://www.vanmeterproduction.com BillyHewitt

      Dr Deisher’s study is based on facts which the government has lied about (CDC vaccine safety tests by wanted criminal Dr Poul Thorsen PhD on OIG 10 MOST WANTED LIST). This Poul Thorsen quack scammed CDC for $14.6 million for publishing 22 fake vaccine safety studies and CDC helped this criminal escape to Belgium where he works openly thumbing nose at CDC and Belgium police as CDC winks at him from Atlanta as they rake in $100 BILLION DRUG AND AUTISM EPIDEMIC PROFITS. DIRECTOR NCBDDD Dr Coleen Boyle testified before Congress O&GR Committee November 29th 2012 that CDC would still use fake vaccine safety studies
      to prove vaccines are safe for our children.

  • Debi Vinnedge

    Here’s 3 red flags for your article:
    1) DNA does not cross species so the eating burgers analogy
    is pathetic
    2) Having a marker for autism does not mean a person will
    contract it but it certainly can be triggered by human DNA insertion which is
    explained extensively in Dr Deisher’s study
    3) The Pontifical Academy for Life lets parents decide
    whether or not they wish to abstain or use the vaccines and they set those
    parameters to be of “significant risk”, “grave
    inconvenience” or “serious danger” – because the duty to avoid remote
    material cooperation is not obligatory – not that it wasn’t permissible if a
    parent wants to abstain.

    • meg

      What do you mean by saying DNA does not cross species? How do you account for GMOs?

      • Debi Vinnedge

        There is a difference between intentionally modifying genes vs natural insertion. If you receive a vaccine with animal DNA the body rejects that as foreign. In order to force an insertion of foreign DNA you would have to first modify the recipient cell.

        • ISeeThruYou

          Apparently viruses assist in mutagenesis of DNA. And what’s in vaccines? Oh yeah, viruses!

    • AnonyMom

      Her study explains exactly nothing but a fantasy of her own making.

  • Collin Wahlund

    I’m sorry, but even if a remote cooperation with evil is allowed, it is far better to not cooperate. Is a kid getting ill, or even the ultra-remote possibility of dying worth letting evil benefit? Many saints have willingly died for the faith.

    Unless there is an immediate emergency that we must consider I will not endorse cooperation and increasing the profit of evil. Even in an emergency I do not think that automatic cooperation is required or necessarily laudable.

    A bishop saying evil is allowed will not force my family to go along with it, nor accept the possible health risks involved. Having an autistic child makes this only more personally upsetting. Should we follow bishops into acceptance of homosexual activists into Catholic parades? The saying goes that the road to hell is paved with the skulls of bishops. The modern bishops have a high level of cooperation with evil.

    I’d recommend seeing another viewpoint from the Children of God for Life website, as well as a list of ethical vs. non-ethical vaccines. If every Catholic demanded ethical ones we’d have them by now.

    http://www.cogforlife.org

    • Matt Zukowski

      “A bishop saying evil is allowed will not force my family to go along with it”

      That’s your choice. However we can say with objective certainty that those who don’t do MMR are far more likely to get measles, as in you literally are the ONLY source of measles in America with one exception. Measles is not endemic, it’s always imported.

      “Should we follow bishops into acceptance of homosexual activists into Catholic parades?”

      Totally. Pesky thing about that whole love they neighbor business. And you can’t morally resolve being anti abortion and anti-gay marriage since gay men want to adopt. Demand would be so high no child would go unadopted resulting in either gay men footing the bill for not-an-abortion or importing children from overseas slated for infanticide. Now if you want to say a child is better off with their heads smashed with rocks than risk being raised by gays that’s between you and you. We in the real world have morals and ethics.

      “If every Catholic demanded ethical ones we’d have them by now.”

      Not true at all. You could get monovalent vaccines which were popular among those theologically inclined avoiding the rubella component. But demand got high after the Wakefield scare and they stopped making them. Vaccines are simply not a huge profit item representing only ~2.4% of big pharma’s gross world wide. And the bulk of the population vaccinates simply because they want increase the odds their child will live long enough to have their own family.

      • Debi Vinnedge

        Actually Merck did not discontinue the separate doses of measles and mumps until 2009. $10 million was their revenue for those doses so I don’t feel badly for them at all. I will say that if Merck provided those doses as they did in the past we would see measles and mumps outbreaks decline again. I put the blame squarely on the pharmaceutical industry – not the parents.

        • Matt Zukowski

          2009 would be after the Wakefield scare wouldn’t it. You’re also being dishonest since the immunization rate is near 90% thus those who took exception to the rubella component are very few. You even concede this citing only 10 million for two vaccines which is insanely small.

          And yes, it’s totally the parents fault if they don’t vaccinate before traveling and their precious little one brings back measles and causes an outbreak. There is no excuse.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            Yes, it would be WAY after the Wakefield scare of 2001 and the 10 mil is what they made in the last year they had it on the market. Fact is though that if Merck didn’t use aborted fetal cell lines we would not be having this discussion at all.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Then you’re really going to have to avoid a good deal more than vaccines because MRC 5 and WI-38 are used in research. Let’s say they finally find a cure for AIDS. This would be great right? Except these cell line are used in this research. Do you let your child die?

            And yes, high demand for these vaccines in the UK diminished our supply and as you concede it’s such a low revenue vaccine it’s not worth really investing in.

          • Collin Wahlund

            I do not concede the fact at all. Profit will be taken by corporations wherever they can get it.

            If demand is there, even from a public health perspective licit vaccines will become needed and therefore desired.

            So, if they have to use fetal stem cell research to find a cure for AIDS, that’s just perfectly fine? That’s against Church teaching completely in the matter.

            How about I let my kid not die by living a moral life and not sleeping around instead?

          • Matt Zukowski

            “If demand is there”

            No, that’s not how it works in reality. Demand might be there for flying cars but it doesn’t change the objective fact that they’re wildly impractical. Same deal with growing attenuated pathogens which only infect humans.

            “if they have to use fetal stem cell research to find a cure for AIDS, that’s just perfectly fine?”

            Well they could use live humans but that would be unethical. You’ll find these cell lines are used in research and if you’re going to be a hardliner you’ll have to abandon much of modern medical science.

            “That’s against Church teaching completely in the matter.”

            Not exactly since the church makes it perfectly clear that their use in vaccines is okay so long as there is no viable alternative.

            “How about I let my kid not die by living a moral life and not sleeping around instead?”

            This is a very non Catholic attitude because it presumes someone deserves to die for perceived lack of morals. And I’m pretty sure Jesus treated lepers and there is that pesky parable abut the good Samaritan. And your assertion is patently delusional since abstinence only programs simply do not work to prevent pregnancies nor STDs.

          • Collin Wahlund

            You know damn well that what I was talking about is that allowing intrinsic evil so another isn’t done is illicit. If not, you’ve now been educated.

            In this case the average person’s connection is remote enough where the use is permissible due to the gravity of the situation. The makers of these vaccines have no such remoteness or excuse, as the document clearly shows.

            And there you go on the AIDS bandwagon “you can’t believe anyone won’t sin, so you have to make sin ‘safe’…” oh, the horrors inflicted on man from this reasoning.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “the horrors inflicted on man from this reasoning.”

            Indeed. It gives someone a chance to see the errors of their ways, ask forgiveness, maybe even find God, or not. They can’t do that if they’re dead, and we’re not just talking mortal death here.

            And the whole concept of sin covers things people actually do.

          • Collin Wahlund

            And you aren’t really suggesting that ethical vaccines are the same level of difficulty as flying cars? Perhaps you are. Sad. Ethical ones have been available for many diseases, and new ones can be found without violating the laws of God.

            Your acceptance of aborting children to do stem cell research says all a faithful Catholic needs know about your moral compass. Pathetic that you’d try to call evil good and good evil. Don’t talk to me about non-Catholic attitudes about morality here.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “And you aren’t really suggesting that ethical vaccines are the same level of difficulty as flying cars?”

            You’re right, flying cars are FAR more realistic.

            “Your acceptance of aborting children”

            Talk about intellectually dishonest. Two cell lines MRC-5 and WI-38 were collected from fetuses in the 1960s. These cells are cultured and are used to this day in research. This doesn’t equal aborting children. On the contrary lives are saved, and not just a few.

            And my priest would STRONGLY disagree with you.

          • irena mangone

            It can be passed by blood transfusions. At least it did in the past in Australia think they test more vigorously now. Re. Non use of condoms for aids sufferers, not all men will agree to abstinence if the wife won’t oblige there are unfortunately other females. Also. Non Catholics also get aids so they can use can’t they . Not sure if n Australia vaccinations use fetal cells. As my children are all adults and my grandchildren have all been vaccinated. At least 7 years ago.

          • $1028912

            You may indeed be a great parent, who raises your kid to live a moral life……..but you are not raising your kid’s spouse.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            Actually the Vatican HAS addressed this – Read Dignitas Personae – or the US bishops statement on using aborted fetal cell lines for research. No can do…not and be faithful to the teachings of the Church.

          • Collin Wahlund

            The Vatican document allows this protest and encourages it. We have the moral right to reject cooperation with evil. You are quite simply wrong.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Yes, we have a moral right to reject cooperation with evil. Agreed, but you must ask a quesiton…is cooperation with evil using the vaccine or imposing your Will on countless of other children when you decide not to vaccinate your children?

            We must protest how all vaccines, which use the cells of aborted babies, are created. Agreed. But God can turn great evil into good.

            I do not believe you are on sound Moral grounds here, Collin.

            You have the Free Will to choose not to vaccinate yourself and your children, but when you send your kids to schools, you are now imposing your Will on the children of others.

            If the children of other parents die because you chose to not vaccinate your children, is this not evil?

            None of us have the Right to impose our Will on others. In fact, it is one of the greatest evils. This is what the Enemy is constantly attempting to do, impose his Will on humanity.

      • Collin Wahlund

        We are called to admonish the sinner, one of the Spiritual Works of Mercy, NOT condone sin. Accepting sin and letting another die in it is not loving your neighbor.

        I stand by it, if a huge portion of the population demanded ethical vaccines, we would have them. Profit is profit, no matter how small. Even from a public health standpoint the pressure could effect change.

        The Vatican document is clear that we have a duty to stand against them and that you have the moral right to not use them, even if cooperating in the sin is remote enough to not be mortal. We stand with the choice to go with God rather than temporal gain.

      • Leila Miller

        Matt, there are millions of married people waiting to adopt, especially infants, and even special needs infants. They wait years. The impediments and barriers to adoption of older, special needs, or international kids are legion. It’s not for lack of mothers and fathers. You need to study the adoption issue a lot more closely. And gay men are now often choosing to rent out the wombs of women to get children for themselves. Their numbers are small to begin with, and they use surrogates often (lesbians just go to the local sperm bank to make fatherless children). So, sorry, gay adoption is not “pro-life” nor will it solve the problem of children who are waiting for families. And for the record, gay adoption is against the teachings of the Church, so no Catholic may condone it.

        • Matt Zukowski

          “Matt, there are millions of married people waiting to adopt, ”

          This is a classic lie since if there were enough married couples to adopt there would be no child would go unadopted.

          “And for the record, gay adoption is against the teachings of the Church, so no Catholic may condone it.”

          Except those Catholics who would rather a child live than die. If you want to be pro-abortion and pro-infanticide that’s between you and you but in objective terms it just makes you a bigot.

          ” So, sorry, gay adoption is not “pro-life” ”

          Sure it is since we still have perfectly good children who are not adopted and perfectly good children, typically girls, who literally get their heads smashed by rocks. Sorry you’re just pro-death.

          • Collin Wahlund

            So, following Church teachings is pro-death too. Please tell me you’re not Catholic.

            So sad that you also think children who are not adopted will all die. More likely you’re lying about the situation in order to solicit sympathy for your mistaken position.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Actually no. Children slated for infanticide in Asia and Africa actually die. They often have their little skulls smashed by rocks. They are typically girls. It’s why adoption agencies exist, giving these parents an alternative. But people like these actually prefer it if they die. Same deal with abortion, throw in a couple of gays and suddenly abortion is preferred. There is heavy resistance to gays marrying and adopting a kid.

            I totally get you’re using religion to validate your bigotry, and you’re kind of entitled. Priests still can reject mixed marriages under their churches. But your moral and ethical code only applies to you, not the rest of us who are actually trying to address social issues.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Bigotry? You’ve displayed an immense amont of bigotry against the beliefs and people who do not see the World as you demand all must see it.

            Throw in gays and abortion is preferred? This is quite intellectually dishonest from you. Abortion isn’t prefered, but neither is children being adopted by so called gay families. That is like saying, which do you prefer to die by, a knife or a gun.? If one chooses neither, you’ll scream, “BIGOT!”

            I totally get you’re using secular humanism to validate your bigotry, Matt, and you are entitled to it. But your moral and ethical code only applies to you, not the rest of us who are actually trying to live according to the Laws of God.

            Why is it, Matt, that individuals like you believe that your moral code is THE moral code we must all abide by and accept. Can you please prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your moral code is the correct one?

            Furthermore, do you accept Moral Absolutes or Moral Relativism? By your statements on this forum, it sounds like you are a Moral Relativist. If you are, why do you attack and call bigots those who do not agree with your moral code? If Moral Relativism is true, allow all to live according to their moral code, right? Why even bother calling others bigot? Using the word bigot in the context that you have, implies that you actually believe in Moral Absolutes.

          • Matt Zukowski

            ” You’ve displayed an immense amont of bigotry against the beliefs”

            Because live and let live equals bigotry. I guess Martin Luther King was also a bigot.

            “Abortion isn’t prefered, but neither is children being adopted by so called gay families”

            So you concede the point, better to abort than adopted by gays. The same with children slated for infanticide. And I totally get to call you an inhuman bigot.

            “But your moral and ethical code only applies to you, not the rest of us who are actually trying to live according to the Laws of God”

            So you concede the point. You’re perfectly welcome to not be gay and adopt. You have no right to tell someone else to do the same in the name of religion.

            “Can you please prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that your moral code is the correct one?”

            Sure, it’s the one that’s most likely to not result in a child’s brain crushed against a rock. The solution that mitigates this outcome is moral. The solution that promotes this is immoral, inhuman, and depraved beyond all moral and ethical standards. But perhaps you can explain in words a child can understand why they should die because of your so called moral code.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Comparing the sexual desire to the color of our skin is preposterous at best. Please do not insult us minorities, Thanks.

            You can choose who you have sex with, unless you want to claim homosxuals are somehow irrational animals who can’t choose who they bring to their bed.

            None of us can choose the color of our skin. The two aren’t remotely equivalent.

            So you concede the point, better to abort than adopted by gays. The same with children slated for infanticide. And I totally get to call you an inhuman bigot.

            You can call me whatever your heart desires, intellectually dishonest one, but it doesn’t make your flawed argument right.

            I am unsure what part of, neither scenerio is the Morally correct one, you do not understand. You make it sound that it is either abortion or a gay adoption. This is what is known as a false choice. The premise of your choice is false. your questioning and reasoning is based on false assumptions. Unsure how else to put it so you give up your intellectual dishonesty.

            Your strawman is quite ridiculous. You’ve presented a point of view no one here agrees with and then you argue against it while claiming is the position of those who you disagree with. Intellectual honesty is not your forte.

            Neither abortion nor a gay adoption are Moral. We must fight so neither one happens. Period. It is not a matter of choosing one over the other. Neither one is a choice, period. None of these two scenerios is Morally acceptable.

            Given your arguments, you need to explain why a child should land in the home of individuals like Peter Truong and Matthew Newton and the horrific homosexual ring the poor child lived through.

            I see that instead of proving how your moral code is THE correct one everyone should abide by, you again went down the intellectually dishonest path.

            Homosexuals have ZERO right to impose their homosexual life style on a child that they did not conceive.

            Why do you put the sexual needs of homosexuals and their personal need to have a child before the human rights of a child?

            Children have human rights, but pro-homosexuals ignore these.

            Why do you not respect the human right of a child to be raised by a family, one male father and female mother?

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Comparing the sexual desire to the color of our skin is preposterous at best. Please do not insult us minorities, Thanks.”

            Actually you’re delusional since LGBT(lmnop) is a minority. FAIL.

            ” You make it sound that it is either abortion or gay adoption.”

            Because it is, and don’t forget infanticide. If you’re against abortion then you must logically be for opening as many homes up to children as possible. If you’re not, then you’re pro-abortion.

            “You can choose who you have sex with, unless you want to claim homosxuals are somehow irrational animals who can’t choose who they bring to their bed.”

            But you can’t exactly choose who you love can you? And all evidence is gays are born that way. FAIL

            “Perhaps you should explain why a child should land in the home of individuals like Peter Truong and Matthew Newton and the horrific homosexual ring the poor child lived through.”

            Let’s not stop there. Let’s talk about I dunno, the Catholic church. But I’d be intellectually dishonest just because an army of priests molested boys logically equals all priests are pedophiles. This would make me a bigot just as you are. FAIL

            And it’s not like married people don’t ever molest kids. FAIL FAIL

            “Homosexuals have ZERO right to impose their homosexual life style on a child that they did conceive.”

            Thus you concede the point. I know of NO homosexual who would dare impose their sexuality on a child. But feel free and cite me actual gay couples who think their child should be gay because they are. And explain to me in simple words that a child can understand why they’re better off dead than raised by a loving gay couple.

          • NB_Liberallies

            I see you continue to lack any level of intellectual honesty.

            Why do you want to deny children the human right to be raised by one male father and one female mother?

            Raising a child in a home of a homosexual couple is imposing the homosexual couples beliefs on the child. Stop with your intellectual dishonesty.

            Again, you lack any level of intellectual honesty.

            And you continue your intellectual dishonesty by claiming that homosexuals are a minority because they are small in numbers. In that case, so are individuals who use glasses. Right? Don’t be ridiculous.

            Yes, we may not be able to choose who we fall in love with, but it doesn’t justify or give credence to homosexual sex relationships. Using your logic, a husband who falls with his beautiful woman co-worker is not cheating on his wife, right? I mean, how dare the wife get angry, the husband couldn’t help, but fall in love with the beautiful co-worker.

            Falling in love with someone else doesn’t justify anyone’s sexual relationship. AND…yes, you can help who you fall in love with. It is Hollywood stupidity to claim that you can’t help who you fall in love with.

            Your priest comparison is a failure. Furthermore, more secular people abuse children than in the Catholic Church. In fact, you’ll find a much great abuse of children in public schools than you’ll find in the Catholic Church.

            But you sidestep the issue, explain why a child should be forced through an adoption to land in the house of people like Matthew Newton and Peter Truong?

            So, because heterosexual couples and priests have molested children it is ok for homosexuals to adopt children and also molest them. Ok, got it.

            Again, with the false question of, why a child is better off dead than raised by a loving gay couple. I am not answering questions based on false premises. You are proving that you do not have reading and comprehension skills.

            You are again pushing strawman arguments.

            Again, your question is based on two false choices, dead or adoption by gay couples. These are both Immoral, thus neither one is a choice. We must fight to stop both.

            I find it a badge of honor when militant pro-homosexuals like you call me a bigot. It proves that you have very little moral ground to argue your case. Sadly, it is obvious, you do not know the meaning of bigotry. You merely use it as you have been programmed and brainwash to use it.

            It is also obvious you do not care about the human right of children. You put the made up rights of homosexuals over that real human rights of children.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “I see you continue to lack any level of intellectual honesty.”

            I’m not the bigot who thinks all homosexual men are pedophiles. But since married men and woman can molest children let’s ban adoption there too. And ban churches because of pedophile priests. This is obviously silly.

            “Why do you want to deny children the human right to be raised by one male father and one female mother?”

            This is intellectually dishonest since there is no such right. A single woman can easily get knocked up and raise a child. Why do you think that child is better off dead than raised by gays?

            “Raising a child in a home of a homosexual couple is imposing the homosexual couples beliefs on the child”

            That’s a lie. Show me one healthy homosexual couple that indoctrinate their kid to be gay. Doesn’t happen.

            “Yes, we may not be able to choose who we fall in love with, but it doesn’t justify or give credence to homosexual sex relationships. ”

            That’s a lie. That’s EXACTLY what it does. But no one is telling you you have to be homosexual.

            “explain why a child should be forced through an adoption to land in the house of people like Matthew Newton and Peter Truong”

            More intellectual dishonest since we have pedophile priests, we have pedophile married couples, we have pedo teachers, pedo everything. You’re just a bigot.

            “So, because heterosexual couples and priests have molested children it is ok for homosexuals to adopt children and also molest them”

            No, you’re just a bigot asserting all homosexuals molest children.

            “I find it a badge of honor when militant pro-homosexuals like you call me a bigot.”

            I’m sure the neo-nazis and the KKK also consider it a badge of honor too. Doesn’t make them any less depraved loons.

            But let’s review your argument. Because all homosexuals are child molesters (they’re not) we shouldn’t let them adopt. This is delusional since this happens with non-homosexuals. It’s a terrible thing but we don’t ban adoption because of a few sickos, just as we don’t presume every Catholic priest is a pedophile.

            And how dare I love my neighbor and want a child to have a home.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Wow…what a sad display of intellectual dishonesty by you, Matt.

            1) Let’s see, let’s establish your honesty. Where have I said all homosexuals are pedophiles? Please cut and paste my words that show I typed this. Don’t worry, we both know you’ll do everything you can to ignore this point.

            2) You have refused to address the question about Matthew Newton and Peter Truong. Again, did a child deserve to be adopted by these two monters and molested by them and the countless homosexuals they invited into their home?

            3) Yes, I figured as much. You do not believe that a child has the human right to be raised by one male father and one female mother. Your hatred for the rights of children is obvious. You prefer to accomdate to depraved sexual desires of some human beings before taking care of children. Got it.

            Just because a single mother can raise a child it doesn’t mean a child doesn’t have the human right to be raised by one male fathe rand one female mother. You are as illogical as they come.

            4) Again with the silly and childish bigotry insult. Let’s get it straight. You calling me a bigot is like the Nazis insulting those who opposed them. Not as you claimed. Sadly, the only depraved loons (you obviously do not know the meaning of depraved) is proving to be you. But don’t worry, the Nazi ranks, specially the SS, were full, full of homosexuals. So, you are in “good” company.

            5) Again, you lack any type of intellectual honesty. If you were well read, which you are obviously not, you would know that study after study shows that 80% of children grow up believing the values of their parents/guardians. Thus, yes, if you are raised in a house were homosexual sex is taught as normal, you are imposing homosexuality on the child. You are making the child believe in the fairy tale that homosexual sex is normal.

            6) Still wrong. Love doesn’t equate to sex, period. Don’t be absurd. Falling in love with a person, doesn’t mean it is moral to have sex with that individual. Love doesn’t justify sexual relationships. If it did, which you did not address, intellectual dishonesty one, spousal cheaint based on true love, which happens, is not immoral or wrong. NO wife, no husband has a moral ground to complain to their cheating spouse, using your logic, if the cheating was based on love.

            6) Let’s review your arguments. If you “dare” not agree with Matt’s moral code, you are a bigot. Matt doesn’t believe children have human rights. Matt believes it is no big deal what Matthew Newton and Peter Truong, as well as countless homosexuals, did to a poor child. Matt enjoys bringing up strawman arguments and then demanding people defend arguments they never made. Matt believes love equates to sexual relationship. Matt doesn’t believe anyone should live with the consequences of their choices. Yeap, Matt is the typical immature, depraved, want to impose his moral cod on others, force people to live, believe, and do as he demands, hate children Liberal/Progressive.

          • Matt Zukowski

            1) “explain why a child should be forced through an adoption to land in the house of people like Matthew Newton and Peter Truong”

            Your assertion is gays should not adopt because these two people molested children. FAIL

            2) You concede the point once again. You’re a bigot who honestly thinks all gays are pedophiles. FAIL

            3) There is no right. A mom can raise a child without a dad. As such your argument is invalid. Further two gays would make a family and be at least a better financial arrangement, and a child is entitled to the best that can be accommodated. And you further concede you believe all gays are pedos. FAIL

            4) Actually you are just like a NAZI since they exterminated the gays along with the Jews. FAIL

            5) Homosexual sex is normal, as in it’s part of nature and is practiced by roughly 10% of the population. FAIL

            6) You already conceded this point since you can’t choose who you love thus if you are a man who loves a man this isn’t a choice. FAIL

            6) Strawman flail fail!

          • NB_Liberallies

            And more intellectual dishonsty from our resident liar, Matt.

            1) My assertion? No, kid, you are the one making assumptions and coming to conclusions based on your assumptions. You either lack the intellect to see this or you are a liar.

            Still waiting for you to cut and paste where I have said all homosexuals are pedophiles.

            2) Again, you make a strawman. You still refuse to address the question about Matthew Newton and Peter Truong.

            Still waiting for you to cut and paste where I said all homosexuals are pedophiles.

            3) Again, stupid and illogical argument from you. Just because a mother or a father, raises a child in a single parent home, it doesn’t mean that children do not have the right to be raised in a two parent home where there is a male father and a female mother.

            Only a buffoon believes that money is the measure of a happy home for a child. You are quite teh amusing buffoon.

            Still waiting for you to cut and paste where I said all homosexuals are pedophiles.

            4) Oh, now, the voices in your head are telling you others want to exterminate gays. YIKES kid, you get crazier by the post. Have you taken your meds this evening, kid.

            But like I said, the Nazi ranks, especially the SS, were full, full of homosexuals. So, if you want to be historically accurate, it was homosexuals in Nazi germany who were exterminating Jews. Go figure. History and facts don’t back up your lunacy.

            5) Again with your, “conceded the point…” You poor thing, you honestly believe using these words make you sound smart.

            Sorry, I conceded no point. It is YOU the one who claimed people can’t help who they fall in love with. I actually have argued completely against it. People can help who they fall in love with.

            Regardless, and again, repeating myself here. If falling in love was the way to justify homosexual sexual relationships, than spouses who cheated because they fell in love with someone else, are not doing anything wrong. A wife has no right to complain or get angry at her husband, if the husband cheating is based on love.

            Don’t worry, Intellectual Dishonest One, we both know you don’t like addressing points that are inconvinient to your flawed logic.

            6) Nope, no strawmen, It is an accurate description of your failed arguments and logic.

          • Matt Zukowski

            1) You repeated it in assertion 2.

            2) All homosexuals are not pedophiles. You’re just a bigot. We don’t ban hetrosexual adoption because a child gets molested, nor worshiping god because some priests molested kids. FAIL

            3) It’s not illogical since you resumed a child has a right. I demonstrated there is no such right. A mom can be a single parent thus there is no law protecting a child from not having a mom and a dad, thus there is no right. Now two parents is preferred which is why gays should adopt.

            4) No, that’s just bigots like you who exterminate gays, blacks, Mexicans, Chinese, pretty much anyone different than yourself. And the NAZIs exterminated homosexuals. There were Jews in the military too, and one even made a front cover. However here you concede the point that even though it was unlawful even the NAZI military had gays. FAIL

            5) You conceded MY point that you can’t choose who you fall in love with. As in I claimed it and you conceded it was valid. Thus it justifies homosexual relationships since it’s not a choice and you’re just a bigot no different than those MLK addressed who abused, murdered, and denied rights to blacks.

            6) No, your strawman is still a strawman. FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

          • NB_Liberallies

            1) You poor thing, still unable to cut and paste where I said the words, “all homosexuals are pedophiles”. I accept your admission, via your omission. You are unable to cut and past these words, as you have constantly claimed I have claimed this, because, I never said them.

            Dishonesty is your forte and friend. Very sad.

            i am sorry you are so full of sinful pride.

            2) yeap, you again can’t address the Matthew Newton and Peter Truong horror. Yes, an inconvenient truth for the militant pro-homosexuals.

            3) More illogical b.s. from you. Just because a Right is not protected under a law, it doesn’t mean it isn’t a Right. DUH!

            Rights do not come from the government or human laws. Rights come from God. The duty of the government is to protect these Rights not to create them.

            4) Yes, I a Latino. hahahaha…

            C’mon, Matt. Read up on facts. It is a historical fact that the Nazi ranks, especially the Gestapo and the SS, were full of homosexuals. but you’ve proven time and time again that history is far from your forte.

            It is you the one who is full of hate and bigotry against me because I “dare” to be different than you and today’s pop-culture. You spew hate and bigotry at me because I have “dared” say that homosexual sex is not normal and a sin. You are the one who is full of hate for people who are different than you and who do not believe like you. Why? You are sadly foaming at the mouth with hate. No need to deny it, we both know it.

            Hate and bigotry is sadly the value of too many militant pro-homosexuals like you. Very sad.

            5) Nope, I concede not point. However, even if I had, falling in love doesn’t justify any behavior. You’ve yet to address the fact that if it did, a spouse who was cheated on, cannot morally get upset at the spouse who cheated on him/her.

            Your assertion that supposed uncontrollable feelings justify behavior is ridiculous, at best.

            6) Matt, just because you repeat something, as you constantly do, it doesn’t make it real or a fact. I was quite accurate in the description of what your arguments are. Very sad to run into such hateful and bigoted individuals like you. The sad part is, you’ve been so brainwashed, you can’t see how you’ve been taught to twist logic, words, etc. to fit your immoral stances. You are truly a product of our Immoral and Evil Orwellian pop-culture and society.

          • Matt Zukowski

            1) Hey, sick inhuman bigot. That’s point 2. Your central thesis gays shouldn’t adopt because gays are pedophiles. You are just a scumbag bigot.

            2) Scumbag, this is addressed perfectly well. Being gay doesn’t equal being a pedophile. A pedophile is a unique class of people, those attracted to non-sexually mature people. This differs greatly from a man who dates men. You’re just a bigot. It’s addressed perfectly well when I bring up all the pedos in the Catholic Church. Same deal with hetrosexual married couples. We don’t ban adoption to them, nor ban church membership.

            3) Actually that’s EXACTLY what it means. That’s what rights are. You have a comprehension disorder. FAIL

            4) Latinos can be total racists. FAIL
            And the NAZIs exterminated homosexuals. FAIL!!!

            5) You did concede the point.

            6) More projection. You’re the bigot. You’re brain washed, and you’re delusional.

          • NB_Liberallies

            1) Oh, oh Matt, you are unhinged. LOL CAPS, exclamation marks galore. Step back, kid. Breath…breath. Stop foaming at the mouth.

            Notice how, of us two, you are the only one calling someone who disagrees with you “inhuman” that is, in your mind, i am not a human being. Thus, making it easier for you to spew hate and bigotry.

            How sad, how pathetic that you, like the Nazis, believe that someone who disagrees with you is an inhuman. The Nazis called Jews inhuman. Thanks for proving my point.

            You are still unable to provide a cut and paste of where I said, per your assertion, “all gays are pedophiles”.

            2) Yeap, you are still unable to address the Matthew Newton and Peter Truong horror.

            3) Wow…hmmm….no, Matt. That is not what a Right is. A Right is not created by human laws. We are born with certain Rights and Freedoms. Rights and Freedoms are not given to us by human beings, by human laws, by men and women in government. Rights and Freedoms are given to us by God. Laws, human Moral Laws are supposed to protect our Rights and Freedoms, not create them.

            4) Just because you claim Nazis exterminated homosexuals, it doesn’t mean that the Nazi SS and the Gestapo weren’t full of homosexuals. Per your own claim that Latinos can be racist. Nazis could also be hateful homosexuals who murdered countless of other homosexuals. Or are you saying a group of people can’t do something horrific to their own kind?

            You lack the logical capacity to see how you contradict yourself.

            5) And like a good intellectual dishonest person, you can’t address this: You’ve yet to address the fact that if it did, a spouse who was cheated on, cannot morally get upset at the spouse who cheated on him/her.
            Your assertion that supposed uncontrollable feelings justify behavior is ridiculous, at best.
            6) I am sorry you are blind to your bigotry, hate, and unhinged foaming at the mouth craziness.

            But by all means, continue to foam at the mouth, spew hate, and call those who disagree with you, non-humans. It is the way that you can justify your obvious hate for anyone who “dares” not agree with little Matt. Remember, the Nazis called those who they exterminated inhuman too. Amazing how individuals like you, Matt, who have so much hate in their heart, need to dehumanize those who “dare” not agree with their opinion.

          • Matt Zukowski

            1) You’re changing your points now. So your points are literally pointless. You are not human.

            2) Hey BIGOT. Addressed very clearly. Hetrosexual couples can and DO molest children. We don’t ban adoption. The Catholic Church has it’s share of pedophiles, we don’t ban children from there. The fact that you think all homosexuals are pedos makes you an inhuman bigot. It’s presumed when discussing gay adoption we’re talking a married homosexual couple, not a pedo couple. Only bigots like you equate the two.

            3) That is exactly what a right is. Gays now have the right to marry which logically entitles them to adopt. This is awesome as we’ll have more homes for unwanted children.

            4) And this justifies your bigotry toward homosexuals how?

            5) You’re just delusional. A spouse who was monogamous who gets AIDS is perfectly entitled to be upset. This could have been prevented with a condom.

            6) Scumbags like you kill homosexuals for kicks thinking you’re doing gods work. Even if you yourself don’t kill a homosexual your hatred and contributes to their suffering. They’re entitled to have a life just like any member of any race. Your kind belongs back in 1930.

            And yeah, how dare I accept humans for who they are like the bible says. I’m totally not forcing you to be a homosexual, so logically you have no right telling a homosexual to act differently as they’re doing you no harm.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Remember, the Nazis called those who they exterminated inhuman too. ”

            And they were inhuman for doing so. So don’t be a NAZI. And as soon as your lot stops exterminating gays and restricting their god given rights I’ll stop calling you a NAZI. Have an inspirational day.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Matt, Matt…what are we going to do with you. You call people inhuman and literally claim they are not human, simply because they do not agree with your opinion and World view, yet you have the chutzpah to call others Nazis. are you honestly this blind to your hypocrisy?

            Yes, by all means, continue to dehumanize those who disagree with you. Your behavior is exactly what the Nazis did.

            No one is exterminating gays in the United States, please stop your lies. No one is restricting from homosexuals their God given Rights. What is happening is that we are not accepting made up rights militant pro-homosexuals demand. Yes, I understand you do not know the difference.

            Regardless, I’ve wasted enough time on you, Matt.

            I won’t reply to any more of your hate, bigotry, Nazi behavior, and your dehumanization of those who “dare” disagree with you. I will no longer dignify your hate, bigotry, and Nazi behavior. Reply don’t reply, I will no longer read your hate, bigotry or Nazi behavior.

            Please seek mental help and I hope, one day, you find the peace and love you lack.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “And you continue your intellectual dishonesty by claiming that homosexuals are a minority because they are small in numbers”

            That’s what a minority is. And no, those with perfect vision are the minority. FAIL

            And actually there are protections for those with exceptionally bad eyesight. These protections wouldn’t be needed if it was the norm. FAIL

            And like it or not being homosexual is part of a protected class where targeted brutality based on this is a hate crime. FAIL

          • NB_Liberallies

            Ahhh..more hate and lies from our resident liar.

            Child, learn how to read. I didn’t say perfect vision vs. imperfect vision, I said people with glasses. DUH!

            Again you prove reading and comprehension are not your forte.

            Again, I never said anything about people with exceptionally bad eyesight. YOu did though .

            But nice strawmen arguments, child.

            Hey, moron, being a religous person is also part of a protected class where targeted brutality based on this is a hate crime. DUH!

            So, using your logic, your own arguments….you are a bigot. You poor thing.

            Regardless, where did I say hmosexuals are not part of a protected class? Again, more lies from you.

            However, at the end of the day, given the laws of the USA, we are all part of some protected class. You are obviously not a person who has ever signed a “non-discrimination” document at a place where you work. It list today’s countless protected classes. All Americans fall into at least one. DUH!!!

            You poor thing, hate oozes out of you and you are so brainwashed, you are blind to it. Sad.

          • Matt Zukowski

            ” didn’t say perfect vision vs. imperfect vision, I said people with glasses.”

            Corrective lenses CORRECT someone with less than perfect vision. FAIL

            “Regardless, where did I say hmosexuals are not part of a protected class?”

            You argued they were not a minority. They are both in terms of numbers AND a protected class. FAIL

            “being a religous person is also part of a protected class where targeted brutality based on this is a hate crime”

            Can we say comprehension disorder. It was established I believe ~1908 that first amendment doesn’t protect those who don’t vaccinate for religious reasons because it doesn’t target a specific religion. As such it’s not a hate crime to target someone who believes in god, but it would be a hate crime to attack or kill a Muslim. FAIL

            “hate oozes out of you and you are so brainwashed, you are blind to it”

            Can we say psychological projection. Very good!

            Gays are a minority. FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

          • NB_Liberallies

            More hate and lies from the resident liar. You love your strawmen. You must be high on something. You poor thing.

            No, Let’s slow it down for you since it is too hard for you to understand. People. Who. Wear. Glasses. Are. A. Minority.Too. DUH!! Are. PEOPLE. WHO.WEAR.GLASSES.A.PROTECTED.CLASS.?

            wow…you are one dense little boy.

            I argue, correctly, that claiming the color of our skin is equal to the sexual wishes and desires of a human being is stupid and preposterous at best.

            Human beings can control who they wish and desire to have sex with. Human beings can’t help or control the color of their skin. Only an imp would argue otherwise. I am sorry you believe human beings are irrational animals who can’t control their sexual desires.

            Actually, universities, high schools, elementary schools HAVE to protect non-vaccinated students and families. You can’t be denied enrollment into a school because you choose no vaccination.

            I work for a school. By law, our school has to accept non-vaccinated student. You know under what protection they land? religious freedom. You are clueless!

            They must fill out a special form, which is sent to the Department of Education of my State. The form clearly states that it is illegal to discriminate against any student or family because they’ve chosen to not vaccinate their children for religious reasons. You poor thing now get your foot out of your mouth.

            So based on the laws and policies of my State, you are a hateful bigot. Oops. sorry to bring you the truth.

            Say what you wish, child, facts prove you wrong. But one thing is for sure…you’ve been quite amusing this evening. hahahaha….

            Get out of your mommies basement and live in the real World, hateful bigot.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “ho. Wear. Glasses. Are. A. Minority.”

            No, they’re a majority. 75% of the population wears glasses. FAIL

            ” that claiming the color of our skin is equal to the sexual wishes”

            Yes. You already conceded we can’t choose who we love, and sex is part of a loving relationship, thus if you’re a man who loves a man who wants to express this monogamous love it’s golden.

            “You can’t be denied enrollment into a school because you choose no vaccination”

            The supreme court disagrees, and they actually get to decide on these big decisions. FAIL

            “By law, our school has to accept non-vaccinated student. You know under what protection they land? religious freedom. ”

            No. It was in 1905 Jacobson v. Massachusetts. FAIL. This was reaffirmed in 2011 with Workman v. Mingo County Bd. of Education. FAIL FAIL.

            “So based on the laws and policies of my State”

            So you concede to moving the goal posts since I was talking FEDERAL LAW.

            And your assertion doesn’t negate the fact that in this country we can for example ban hats and even though some religious people wear hats this would not infringe on religious freedom as it doesn’t target a specific religious group.

            EPIC FAIL

          • NB_Liberallies

            Yes, I made a mistake, a majority of the American population wear glasses.

            however, my point stands. Let’s use, for the purpose of my example, left handed people. They are about 10% of the population. Using your logic, they should be a protected minority. But they are not.

            Supreme Court disagrees? Yeah, just like they disagreed, once, that a black human being was not a human being, right? Relying on the decisions of men to make up your morality is dangerous proposition.

            Regardless, kid. No school or university can deny admissions to an individual based on none vaccination! This isn’t me saying so, these are the laws. If the school I work for refuses to admit a student because the family chose not to vaccinate them, the school is breaking the law. Period. But we know how you work, you think you know more than the countless of lawyers who work for the school. Amusing.

            You can repeat it as many times as your heart contents that this isn’t so, but just because you repeat something, it doesn’t make so. You militant pro-homosexuals believe that if you repeat something often enough, somehow the Truth will change and your opinions will become the truth.

            Again, using the law, as you have, as your standard, you are a hateful bigot.

            Oh and based on one of your posts in which you have zero problem discriminating against people who do not vaccinate their children and you want them quarantine, well, the homosexual sexual behavior has proven to be a dangerous health practice to society. For example, currently, the homosexual sector of the USA is experiencing a disastrous break out of STDs, especially of syphilis. It has reached epidemic proportions in the homosexual community. Using your logic, homosexuals should be quarantine to keep everyone else safe.

            you continue using the words “fail” and “epic fail”. Sadly, it is obvious you do not know the meaning of these words. Just like you do not know the meaning of hate and bigot. Here, this may help you, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2y8Sx4B2Sk

          • Matt Zukowski

            “however, my point stands. Let’s use, for the purpose of my example, left handed people. They are about 10% of the population. Using your logic, they should be a protected minority. But they are not.”

            Technically speaking left handed people were actually persecuted. There is total evidence of this in Catholic Schools.

            “Supreme Court disagrees? Yeah, just like they disagreed, once, that a black human being was not a human being, ”

            Actually you’re a liar since I believe the exact argument was that blacks were equal under the law. And if you’re going to argue slavery, which was justified in the bible, the supreme court ruled that this was the jurisdiction of the states.

            “No school or university can deny admissions to an individual based on none vaccination!”

            Actually that’s a lie. Do you have some kind of reading disorder? This is Workman v Mingo where the supreme court reaffirmed the 1908 decision which made it clear compulsory vaccination didn’t infringe on religious freedom. This means, and do try to read, a school CAN deny a student access to the school if they are not vaccinated specifically if they are trying to claim their religion forbids it.
            FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

            “Again, using the law, as you have, as your standard, you are a hateful bigot”

            No, I’m just more educated than you apparently. The Supreme court has ruled that compulsory vaccination don’t target a specific religious group, thus are not a first amendment issue. As such logically you can’t accuse me of a hate crime since I’m not targeting a specific religious group. FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

            “Oh and based on one of your posts in which you have zero problem discriminating against people who do not vaccinate their children”

            You have a reading disorder. We totally send home non-vaccinated children if there’s a measles outbreak. This isn’t discrimination. They’re at risk, it’s for their safety. IT’S WHAT WE ALREADY DO. I have no idea where you live but it has to the La La land. Someone who is not vaccinated who is immunocompromised is entitled to an education. They’re also entitled to not get sick and die. They totally should have a medical alert bracelet and for their safety they should NOT be in a disease outbreak.

            ” well, the homosexual sexual behavior has proven to be a dangerous health practice to society.”

            Actually you’ll find AIDS in hetrosexuals rising higher. This is a good example of a bigot thinking all men do it up the butt. I can draw you pictures in case you get confused.

            “For example, currently, the homosexual sector of the USA is experiencing a disastrous break out of STDs, especially of syphilis”

            Firstly citation needed. Secondly they should wear a condom. Thirdly, wearing a condom mitigates the risk so no quarantine is necessary. Lastly can’t we treat syphilis with antibiotics? FAIL FAIL FAIL

          • NB_Liberallies

            1) I will provide a link when you start providing links to your countless assertions. Amazing how, as always, the crazies demand links when they provided none. Cite every single claim you’ve made on this forum, then I will think about doing the same.

            2) Wow…you’ve obviously never read the Dredd Scott decision, have you. I am sorry you are so poorly educated.

            Regardless, my point stands, relying on men/women to create our own morality is a dangerous proposition since human based morality changes with whatever is popular at the moment.

            Your morality is based on pop-culture, whatever is “in”, “cool” to think and do at the moment.

            3) Yeah, I will tell my school lawyers, president, and administrators that it is all a lie. They can deny admissions to individuals who refuse vaccination because you say it is all a lie. You are a funny one, Matt.

            You do like to live in your pretend world, don’t you. You can give whatever court case you want, it doesn’t negate the fact that if the school I work for, and the two I worked for before, deny admissions to a student based on the student’s non-vaccination, the school will be in a hip of legal trouble. But heck, since you say it ain’t so…well shoot, it must not be so.

            4) Yes, homosexuals, who engage in homosexual sex, should also wear a bracelet, using your logic, since it is a proven, even by the CDC, that homosexual sexual lifestyle is much riskier behavior than heterosexual sexual lifestyle. Homosexual sexual lifestyle is one of the riskiest health behaviors to engage in.

            read up on the facts. Currently, the homosexual sector of the USA is seeing an epidemic breakout of syphilis and other STDs. Thus, so others are not infected by these horrific and in some cases deadly STDs, people need to know who are the homosexuals currently engaged in a homosexual sexual lifestyle.

            Your last paragraph assumes that STDs can only be transmitted via sexual behavior. Oh man, like I told you, kid, you do not know the meaning of the word “fail”.

            But don’t worry, Matt, I knew you weren’t going to be intellectual honest nor consistent in your logic. You want to deny the facts and history that don’t back up your militant pro-homosexual opinions.

            Just do what you do best, throw hate, bigotry, foam at the mouth and show more of your unhinged behavior.

            We both know you aren’t interested in facts. You are only interested in repeating your opinion until someone, anyone agrees with it. Individuals like you don’t allow facts to get on the way of your radical Liberal/Progressive orthodoxy.

            Like those who on this forum have argued against vaccinations, you also place your ideologies/orthodoxies before the good and health of others.

          • Matt Zukowski

            1) Your points are changing so there is no point to them, your points are pointless. I totally provided citations so you’re a liar.

            2) Slavery was legal, and the supreme court didn’t have jurisdiction over state law. FAIL

            3) It’s not funny at all. I already PROVED your assertion dead wrong (workman v mingo county schools, 2011). They cite Jacobson v. Massachusetts 1908 and reaffirmed compulsory vaccination isn’t a first ammendment issue. This means you can deny someone who is not vaccinated for religious reasons from attending a public school. FAIL FAIL FAIL FAIL

            4) No, that’s not my logic at all. Remember you’re the inhuman bigot who somehow thinks being gay is as bad as being a serial killer. This makes you as amoral as those who use to lynch blacks. Now there would be a certain wisdom to wearing a medical bracelet that alerts someone to you having AIDS, but alas this isn’t mandatory.

            “Just do what you do best, throw hate, bigotry, foam at the mouth and show more of your unhinged behavior.”

            No, that’s you. Remember homosexuals are like serial killers right?

            The bottom line is you have every right to define your own morality, but you have no right to enforce it on others. That’s where your religious freedom ends, the moment your freedom infringes on someone else’s freedom. This is what makes you no different than a neo-NAZI or a member of the KKK.

            Please learn some tolerance and stop thinking all gays are pedophiles.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LYMjXucTFaM

          • Matt Zukowski

            1) I provided citations so you are a liar.
            2) Slavery was legal and jurisdiction of the state. FAIL
            3) The Workman v Mingo county schools reaffirmed the 1908 decision {Jacobson v. Massachusetts} that compulsory vaccination didn’t infringe on religious freedoms as it didn’t target a religion. This means you can, and they do, bar access to children who are not vaccinated who claim religious reasons. This means it’s not hate speech unless I’m targeting a specific religious group.

            Shall we continue?

          • Matt Zukowski

            4) You are delusional. I’d agree someone with HIV should have a bracelet in the event they’re unconscious, but this differs greatly from targeting a protected minority. And no, HIV and STDs affect heterosexuals as well, so you’re just a bigot.

            And yeah, I don’t your argument that standing up against the KKK, the neo-NAZIs makes me amoral. There is a huge difference promoting love thy neighbor and promoting religious freedoms to persecute others. That’s you, you promote hate, and before you kick and scream you literally assert all homosexuals are pedophiles. This makes you amoral gutter trash since this form of hate speech is used to justify the marginalization and murder of gays. It’s against your church’s teachings, fine, then DON’T BE A HOMOSEXUAL. It should be really easy, but the consensus is homosexuals are BORN homosexual so it would be little different than marginalization blacks.

            Ah, but according to you MLK was a bigot and should have accepted the status quo and allowed them to pursue their religious freedom. EPIC FAIL.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Human beings can control who they wish and desire to have sex with. Human beings can’t help or control the color of their skin.”

            You already conceded that you can’t choose who you love. But golly I guess if two gay men never have sex it’s magically okay if they adopt.

            But you’re just an insane bigot. Why would someone choose to be a homosexual if they could just choose to be hetrosexual. It makes no sense unless they were born that way which makes it JUST like being born of color making you just like a Nazi, or a member of the KKK.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Being born that way doesn’t justify behavior. Furthermore, science has not proven that people are born homosexual. Stop talking out of your behind, as usual.

            According to medicine, some mass murderers are born that way, using your logic, their murders are justified.

            Again with your “you’ve conceded…”. I’ve conceded nothing. People can choose who they fall in love with. People foster a relationship with an individual or they can walk away from it.

            Again, I am sorry you believe human beings are irrational human beings who are incapable of self-control.

            Yes, I am an insane bigot because I “dare” agree with the Roman Catholic Church and say homosexuals are loved by God, but they must control their sexual urges just like heterosexuals must control themselves.

            Again with the childish comparison to the KKK or Nazi. Sorry, history proves that the Nazi ranks were full of hateful homosexuals, especially the SS. But I see you’ve gone from being crazy to full insane rants.

            Regardless, we can’t help the color of our skin, we can all help who we fall in love with and who we bring to our bed. I am sorry you believe human beings are irrational animals who can’t help who they bring to their bed.

            Sadly, given your words, hate and bigotry, it is obvious you are part of today’s gaystapo. You ooze with hate, Matt. Very sad.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Being born that way doesn’t justify behavior. ”

            You’ve already conceded otherwise since it now makes it no different than being born of color. This makes you a bigot.

            “According to medicine, some mass murderers are born that way, using your logic, their murders are justified.”

            If being gay is logically equal killing people. But we’re talking 10 commandments vs Levitican Law in the same class of eating shellfish and wearing both cotton and wool.

            “People foster a relationship with an individual or they can walk away from it.”

            So you propose someone should marry someone they don’t love?

            “Yes, I am an insane bigot because I “dare” agree with the Roman Catholic Church”

            No, you’re an insane bigot not because you agree with the church. You’re an insane bigot who thinks being gay equals being a pedophile. You agreeing with the church is limited to you not engaging in gayness and that’s it.

            ” I am sorry you believe human beings are irrational human beings who are incapable of self-control.”

            Strawman.

            “Sorry, history proves that the Nazi ranks were full of hateful homosexuals, especially the SS”

            And the whole business of exterminating them in the concentration camps that was a conspiracy right? Let me guess, you deny the holocaust happened?

            “Sadly, given your words, hate and bigotry, it is obvious you are part of today’s gaystapo. You ooze with hate, Matt.”

            No, this would be you. There is nothing more hateful than accusing a whole class of people of having sex with children.

          • Leila Miller

            Hmmmm, I think there was more to MLK’s philosophy than “live and let live”. Surely you agree with this excerpt from his Letter From a Birmingham Jail?

            “[T]here are two types of laws: just and unjust. I would be the first to advocate obeying just laws. One has not only a legal but a moral responsibility to obey just laws. Conversely, one has a moral responsibility to disobey unjust laws. I would agree with St. Augustine that “an unjust law is no law at all”

            Now, what is the difference between the two? How does one determine whether a law is just or unjust? A just law is a man-made code that squares with the moral law or the law of God. An unjust law is a code that is out of harmony with the moral law. To put it in the terms of St. Thomas Aquinas: An unjust law is a human law that is not rooted in eternal law and natural law.”

            You are a believer in the natural law, the universal moral law as St. Augustine and St. Aquinas have described? That is so good to hear. 😉

          • Matt Zukowski

            You already conceded that you can’t argue with the logic that opening up more homes to children, gay homes, would address a great social justice which includes both abortion and infanticide and thus serves the social good. While I accept that a religion can teach homosexuality is wrong that teaching doesn’t apply to those outside the walls of that church thus this behavior which serves the social good must be tolerated. And you’re still free to not be gay so everybody wins.

            And as for natural law it’s interesting how anyone can deny the utility of homosexuality in a world that is overpopulated. Thus I choose to not argue with nature, which we can presume comes from god, thus is good.

          • Leila Miller

            Wait, so you really didn’t understand the sarcasm of my “concession”? Okay sorry, I thought it was obvious. Nope, I’ve conceded no point at all, and I find your prior points to be completely illogical and based on false premises.

            Gosh, there if we are talking simple “utility”, then I guess folks should have sex with inanimate objects since that won’t produce a baby, either. Is utilitarianism your philosophy? That’s very different from what MLK said, and I noticed you never actually addressed it. After all, a lot of very bad things come “naturally” to people, but we don’t confuse that with “natural law” (the universal moral law).

            Oh, and speaking of your false premises, I disagree about overpopulation, as well. If anything, societies are dying out due to a dearth of births. Ask a demographer.

          • Leila Miller

            It’s a “lie” that millions of couples are waiting to adopt? You cannot be this ignorant. Please tell me that was a joke. What is your source for this info?

            As for saving girls from other countries who would be killed, I have a good number of friends (in the double digits) who have adopted children from China and other countries, including many children who were rotting in orphanages in Eastern Europe, mostly with mild to very severe special needs. These families go to extreme lengths to do so, and the roadblocks and heartache in the process are enormous. Are you trying to tell me these almost insurmountable obstacles do not exist, and that people can just skip oversees and take babies from other countries with ease (or even with only minor financial and physical and bureaucratic hardship)? Again, you cannot possibly be that ignorant. I’ve been an adoption advocate for years, specifically international special needs adoption. What have you done, and what do you know that I don’t know? I’m all ears.

            As for the priest scandal you predictably brought up, you realize that Catholic priests offend at much lesser rates than other populations, correct? And you realize that public school teachers and administrators have 100 times (yes, times, not percent) the rate of abuse as priests? Are you railing against the evils of public school teachers now that you know that fact (google the AP investigative report on sex abuse in the public schools)? I am calling you out for being disingenuous and an anti-Catholic bigot. It’s just sad.

            By the way the priest scandal was not primarily about pedophilia, but about pederasty. Up to 85% of the abuse was perpetuated upon pubescent and post-pubesecnt boys…. same-sex abuse, and it’s a real problem the Church has had to face.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “It’s a “lie” that millions of couples are waiting to adopt? ”

            You are delusional. Sure lots of people want to adopt, but if demand was enough there would be no child left not adopted.

            “As for saving girls from other countries who would be killed, I have a good number of friends (in the double digits) who have adopted children from China and other countries”

            Then you should concede the point since more homes for kids would increase demand and make adopting overseas more attractive for all.

            “Are you trying to tell me these almost insurmountable obstacles do not exist,”

            It’s why we have adoption agencies to help mitigate the process. You already concede this since you have friends in the double digits who have done this.

            “I am calling you out for being disingenuous and an anti-Catholic bigot.”

            Then you’re delusional since you’re obviously intellectually dishonest making the claim both practically impossible and your friends have done it.

            In any case more homes for children is accepted as a good thing unless you’re one of those pro-death nuts who honestly thinks that all gays are pedos.

          • Leila Miller

            Wow. Well, Matt, you sure got me with that logic. I can’t argue with an intellect like yours. Take care and God bless. 😉

          • Matt Zukowski

            Pleased you concede the point. Look forward to seeing you supporting gay marriage and I’m happy as a lark you’re no longer one of those pro-death bozos.

            Have an inspirational day.

          • Leila Miller

            Ha ha, you are a hoot. I’m positive that because of how intelligent you are, you understand sarcasm when you see it. 😉 God bless!

      • Farmer Brawn

        God hates cowards.

    • NFP Instructor

      Collin- There is an OCEAN of difference between Saints dying for the faith and causing someone else to die for the faith. I think that is pretty obvious. If your family members become carriers of rubella and causes a pregnant woman to miscarry, that child did NOT choose to die. Also the posibility of death is not ultra-remote. For measles the estimated death rate from the CDC is 1 in 2,000 for children. How is that remote? Rubella is estimated to cause miscarriage at a rate of 20%. How is that ultra-remote? If every Catholic refused to be vaccinated we would most certainly see a return of these diseases in the wait for a new vaccine and children would suffer and die for it. Can you choose martyrdom for someone else??

      • Collin Wahlund

        So, families in Rome that raised their kids Catholic although it could lead to their early deaths were wrong to do so, gotcha.

        These diseases are also RARE in the U.S. Your statistics are misleading and leading people to not object, as the Vatican response insists that we do.

        The spirit of the world is alive and well here.

        • NFP Instructor

          I’m talking about other people’s children, or did you not read my comment? You have no right to make someone else’s child a martyr. You have no right to expose MY CHILD!

          They are rare because everybody vaccinates, duh! If every Catholic stopped vaccinating they would no longer be rare because many diseases still exist in other parts of the world and are easily imported. My statistics are based on what happens when diseases are rampant.

          I don’t understand at all how your position is pro-life.

          • Collin Wahlund

            Ah, now you have the “right” to insist others cooperate with sin as well. I see.

            The position is pro-life because it is against profiting from abortion. The SPIRITUAL life is more important than this temporal shell we live in. Disease will always exist and some will reach their natural end of life from it. This is sad, but it is reality. There is also a 100% mortality rate from living. The soul is more important.

            Disease should be fought ethically whenever possible, but don’t delude yourself on the results. The same rationalizations you use are used to try to allow fetal stem cell research.

          • NFP Instructor

            You do of course have the right to do as you please with your own family. It was an expression of my disgust. I just want to be clear that you are indeed putting others at risk and taking their possible deaths as an acceptable sacrifice.It’s not just your own family who you are signing up to be martyrs.

          • Collin Wahlund

            That’s good to hear that you allow that we have the right that the Vatican says we do. We are also encouraged by the Vatican to protest this and demand ethical alternatives. I see no way for this to happen if we all blithely accept it as a necessary evil.

            Evil is not necessary, and suggesting that others must accept it for the health of others is simply wrong.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Only if you accept your child or someone else’s child being injured, maimed, or dead is preferable. Technically you have the right to say that about your own child, but it’s not your own child who shares the risk of your poor health choices. And that really is the bottom line. At present there is no VIABLE alternative to using MRC-5 and WI-38 in a handful of vaccines to grow attenuated pathogens . There is also no viable alternative to these cell lines for research. Again you do have the right to look at your child and say you’d rather them be dead then violate your morality. I’d rather the child live and be healthy personally.

          • Collin Wahlund

            Matthew 18:8

            “If your hand or your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; it is better for you to enter life crippled or lame, than to have two hands or two feet and be cast into the eternal fire.”

            That’s Jesus talking there.

          • oregon nurse

            In the meantime you get to have your cheap grace. It’s pretty easy to be so sanctmonious when your kids get protected from deadly disease on the backs of the vaccinated ‘herd’ that surrounds you.

            I’m all for you deciding not to vaccinate your kids but I think you should have to live separate from the rest of us, both for your kids protection and for the rest of us.

          • Collin Wahlund

            Grace is not cheap, it was bought with the precious blood of Jesus Christ. To follow His words is no shame.

            Glad you think it means I should be a second class citizen though. The country really is going to hell when people believe they have the right to make everyone else do as they would at force of governmental penalty.

          • oregon nurse

            Quarantine has always been a legal option to control disease.

          • Collin Wahlund

            Preemptive quarantine of a healthy population. It’s worked so well for wars.

            Perhaps we could just have little labels sewn onto our clothes to identify us?

          • Matt Zukowski

            That’s actually a great idea. At present in the event of an outbreak and sending on the non vaccinated kids home depends on the skill of office workers. Now I’d suggest more like a bracelet identifying the lack of vaccines just like kids who have medical conditions have. Maybe throw on an RFID tag so the kids most at risk of let’s say measles can be rushed away and the rest of the kids can continue their school day.

          • $1650412

            Hey, let’s just inject kids with those RFID tags, then we can find anyone any where at any time who is not compliant according to our perception of the common good on whatever point we want to set.

            The one who does not vaccinate assumes the greater risk to themselves not necessarily the population at large. As long as the number of those making that choice do so with respect to the welfare of the rest of society, then they have that right to that option.

          • $1028912

            That’s a great idea — so immune-compromised people can stay away from you. Or better yet, the rest of us can wear “VAX” labels, to indicate we’ve done what we can to ward off evil diseases and keep them from spreading.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            I’m Collin’s wife. Actually we do partially vaccinate. Our kids have had all the ethical vaccines. So it’s not true when you say “we don’t vaccinate our kids.” Maybe you should get the facts before making assumptions.

            We have written letters to the vaccine manufacturers begging for ethical alternatives to the MMR and other problematic vaccines. We’ve asked our pediatricians if we can get the measles and mumps vaccines separately instead of the combo MMR. We’ve offered to pay out of pocket if need be. But no one can help us.

          • Matt Zukowski

            They can’t since the MMR scare demand was higher for these vaccines and the supply was exhausted, and it was NOT a profitable vaccine to start with. They’re no longer in production.

            You can beg all you like. As pointed out to Collin a flying car is far more practical. Pathogens that infect only humans can only be grown in human tissue. We can’t make living cells from scratch, nor are we skilled enough to make the proteins that would look enough like rubella to generate antibodies.

            And it’s interesting how you would reject the rubella component and have no complains over any product that also uses WI-38 and MRC-5.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            There are ethical versions of the measles and mumps vaccines that are not derived from aborted fetal stem cells. Actually I believe there’s an ethical version of the MMR, but it’s not available for use in the United States. Ethical versions do exist, we just don’t have access to them. Given the resources of the vaccine companies, it’s a drop in the bucket for them to manufacture and distribute at the conversions. They just choose not to do so because it’s not profitable. Why is it not profitable? Because there is no demand. Why is there no demand? Because not enough people have a problem with them. If more of an outcry had been made when these vaccines were first created and distributed, or when this type of research started happening, this Pandora’s box would never have been opened. Unfortunately people bought into the lie that we may do evil so that good can result, including aborting babies and using their bodies for medical research.

          • Matt Zukowski

            No. The rubella component uses WI-38 as a growth medium. There is no alternative. You might be confused with Japan, but they use MR, which uses the rubella component, which uses WI-38. We can’t make human cells nor can we manufacture proteins that resemble rubella. And it’s not a lack of demand, this would be a huge breakthrough. We just can’t do it at this point in time.

            Vaccines are not profitable, as in they only generate 2.4% of big pharmas gross revenue world wide. MMR-II is a small fraction of this.

            There was a HUGE outcry from the start. Then they discovered less children died. The outcry stopped.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Well let me put it this way. If vaccines had been developed by the Nazis experimenting on Jews (as they did with other scientific studies on hypothermia and the like), I would still be opposed to using them, even if only one or two Jews died in the course of the experiments. How about you?
            It seems to me that a way to derive an ethical vaccine would be to use stem cells from a baby lost to miscarriage. I’ve lost two babies to miscarriage, and I would have gladly donated a portion of their remains to science, if I knew that those remains would be used to produce ethical vaccines. Or perhaps stem cells from umbilical cord blood could be utilized instead.

          • Matt Zukowski

            You raise a tough moral question, but the fact is we do use some research from the holocaust. Given how many people died rubella this with no doubt would be in the exception class. The same argument was presented with research on smoking that was stamped “no Jewish influence” and delayed looking into cigarettes for a decade.

            Now to your other question, we don’t use tissue from an aborted fetus because it’s dead. Even if it wasn’t dead, if they could predict it would die this wouldn’t be healthy tissue and unacceptable for research on healthy humans. If it didn’t grow in you why do you think it would grow in a petri dish or be viable for growing pathogens?

            WI-38 and MRC-5 are ideal because they are the same cells grown for the past 50 years. Them being the same make it ideal for experimentation. Controls are important since it leaves researchers less head scratching. Random tissue from random people results in unpredictable results. All science must be repeatable, and scientist B if reproducing your experiment wants everything as identical as possible. It’s why they are used and used in more areas than I can even remember.

            And no you can’t use stem cells from the umbilical core for Rubella since it infects the lungs. There is no alternative to diploid lung fibroblasts for growing the rubella component. We can’t make the cells, we can’t use other cells. We can’t make proteins that look like rubella yet, and this would be a break through of epic proportions. It’s not a lack of demand, or a lack of a profit motive.

            I will correct myself on one issue. The HPV vaccine uses virus like partials. This is recombinant technology and this is why this specific vaccine costs about $100 per shot. So maybe in the future we’ll have your ethical rubella component. But I’d wager mass immunization can actually eradicate the disease faster.

          • AnonyMom

            So do you use products that are made by Bayer? Because they experimented on Jews.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            Wrong. The Japanese rubella virus came from the throat of an infected child and it is grown on rabbit cells. No aborted fetal material at all.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Golly, even though citation is needed I’m happy to be corrected. As long as it’s as effective you have no real complaints. Use that vaccine. No mumps component but at least there is measles.

            I’ll be happy to stick with MMR-II. It’s insanely effective against measles and after thinking about the NAZI research I accept the reality that it’s from the concentration camps we learned about the risks of x-rays. I’m totally going to continue wearing that lead apron.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            The Kitasato Institute actually has an M-R (measles, rubella) and a separate mumps with their own fully combined MMR in clinical trials. We met with the FDA and Japanese officials and they were very impressed in the measles especially which has a higher rate of efficacy and can be given to children younger than 12 mos of age.

          • Matt Zukowski

            I know Japan use MR, as in no mumps component. What you don’t have is a citation demonstrating this is what they deploy in Japan. I’m not being stubborn, it’s an important detail. Is this MR-III or MR-IV?

            I’m still going to suspect there may be a solid economic reason to continue using WI-38 since we are talking about a human virus which no doubt grows better in human cells and there is a need to produce near 1 billion doses per year for global coverage. There are also vegetarians who would find a rabbit based vaccine distasteful.

            But obviously you can make the rubella component using something other than WI-38. Great. Go vaccinate yourself.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            Kitasato Daiichi Sankyo, jointly produce MR and mumps separately. I know of several Americans who have traveled there to get the moral versions and the Japanese are very congenial and gracious. Quick google search will show the deployment of the MR not only in Japan but also Vietnam where they helped them launch. Good to know! :-)

          • Matt Zukowski

            Okay, I’m asking you for a specific citation that the Japanese government specifically uses KDS’s MR vaccine which is based on pathogens grown from rabbit kidneys. I’m asking specifically the name of this vaccine, is it MR – III or MR – IV.

            And no ma’am I can’t just Google it as MR yields results that are unrelated as it’s an abbreviation for mister or medical representative.

            The reason it’s important is there is M-R-Vax II. This is also a MR vaccine. Its rubella component using the Wistar RA 27/3 strain grown in WI-38. What you’re talking about I believe is the Takahashi strain.

            This is kind of important since your whole thesis is it’s worth traveling to Japan to get MR when we know as an objective fact there is a version using WI-38. And this is a detail that one can easily miss in a Google search. I personally don’t care but I’d be happy to share the facts with someone who is inclined since there are issues with so many people “claiming” religious exemptions to ALL vaccines which differs greatly from the small number of people who won’t use MRC-5 or WI-38 based vaccines.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            Not MR-Vax – that’s made by Merck. Kitasato has produced the Takahashi rubella (since 1986) and its own measles vaccines for over a decade and they merged with Daiichi and Sankyo about 4 years ago. At that time Kitasato was still developing the measles rubella combo and they called it MR. That product is now readily available. You can google the three names together and you will see a ton of links. Here is one – http://www.daiichisankyo.com/media_investors/media_relations/press_releases/detail/005799.html
            And if anyone would like to go to Japan to get the measles-rubella combo + the separate mumps I would be glad to set that up for them as I have in the past.

          • Matt Zukowski

            Okay, we’re having communication difficulties, and your Googled citation (not being critical as I found it there too) isn’t clear.

            Does Japan use exclusively the vaccine using the Takahashi strain? If so is this called MR III or MR IV? Do both MR III and MR IV use the Takahashi strain.

            The point is a valid one, the fact that you do not have a specific citation that makes it clear that all vaccines in Japan are from this one company. Do you have a clear citation Japan does NOT use Mercks MR vaccine called M-R-VAX-II which can also be refereed to as an MR vaccine? Since you accept Merck’s version uses WI-38 I’m sure you can understand the need to be perfectly clear.

            I’m not being difficult as Googling “MR” yields unrelated results. I accept your proposition and freely admit I was NOT in the knew about the Takahashi rubella strain. I think it’s great. However if I’m going to share this detail with others I need clear specific details like the specific name brains of vaccines, or at the very least, assurance going to Japan and asking for not Merck yields the desired result.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            No I doubt that Japan exclusively uses the morally produced version but it is readily available. It is simply called M-R and the mumps is mumps nothing more. I can’t make it any clearer than that and as I said if someone wants to travel to get it I would be happy to help with those arrangements with the folks at Kitasato. They are extremely gracious and accommodating.

          • AnonyMom

            And Japan has a rubella problem because the vaccine isn’t effective.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            Actually not true – it was due to lack of vaccination. And they have more than one available in Japan as well. The Kitasato vaccine has been on the market since 1986 with a proven track record through WHO.

          • AnonyMom

            In that case you’ve exhausted your obligation to object and more need to get the vaccines.

          • AnonyMom

            There’s no sin. The Church has said there is NO SIN in accepting these vaccines. No sin. No. Sin.

          • Collin Wahlund

            The Church has said the vaccines are morally wrong and that we should oppose them. You are still involving yourself in sin, even if the connection is so remote as to not be mortally sinful to your participation.

            It is simply putting blinders on to say that there is no sin involved here, even if you are allowed to participate.

          • AnonyMom

            Yes the Church has said that the way the vaccines are made is morally problematic. The Church has also said that parents *do not sin* when accepting these vaccines for their children. Yes, there is sin involved but not on the part of parents who’s co-operation is extremely remote.

          • Collin Wahlund

            Being morally permissible is not the same as being in no way, shape, or form involved in the sin. The case here is that it’s so remote and the benefit substantial, so it has been ruled to be allowed. Looking at the language where it is allowed shows the distress at hand.

            “such cooperation occurs in a context of moral coercion of the conscience of parents, who are forced to choose to act against their conscience or otherwise, to put the health of their children and of the population as a whole at risk. This is an unjust alternative choice, which must be eliminated as soon as possible.”

            Other Fathers in the church have opposing viewpoints that should be considered in the personal decision to be made here as well. I’d read two of these before making a personal decision of this magnitude.

            http://www.cogforlife.org/rev-torraco/
            http://www.cogforlife.org/fr-phil-wolfe/

          • Collin Wahlund

            You are absolutely right though in stating that there is sin involved in those who procure and sell these products, as the Vatican document shows.

          • AnonyMom

            It’s not just not mortally sinful, it is not sinful at all *for parents* to accept the vaccines for their children. When the Church tells it’s flock that they are not sinning, I listen. For you to insist that it’s a sin to accept these vaccines is causing scandal. Stop.

          • anna lisa

            When I was a new Mom, I used to get taken to task over just about *everything* from my Trad obsessed friends. I had a permanent inferiority complex, because they found it exhilarating to compare themselves to one, who was such an obvious “sell out” to worldliness.

            I could write a comedy about how they would compete with each other to be *more Catholic* than the other.

            When they road tripped to World Youth Day in Colorado, and *every single one of their kids was coming down with or infected with Whooping cough*, I was speechless. My friend consoled herself with the idea that her kids were probably the better for it because they’d fought off the actual infection.

          • $1650412

            These diseases might be rarer because of mass vaccination and they might be rarer because of indoor plumbing and dishwashers. We are not really completely sure. And people who choose not to vaccinate are more likely to endanger themselves rather than your vaccinated kid, unless I am sorely mistaken on what the whole concept is over vaccinations in the first place. So, each one retains the right to accept or deny said medical intervention with accompanying risks, and we will very likely learn more as time progresses. Something you have discounted here is that vaccination is not the silver bullet it is marketed to be. Yes, it does appear to be an effective deterrent to exponential dispersion of some illnesses; but people still get pertussis, and even people who have been vaccinated for it still get it– so, why are we demanding that everyone do this again, when some people who do it will experience damaging side effects from which they will never recover? I think this is a two edged sword with no real moral high horses.

        • NFP Instructor

          In 1962-1964 we had a huge Rubella outbreak. Thousands and thousands of unborn fetuses died. Around 20,000 children were born with sever birth defects. The rubella vaccine was introduced in 1969. Those are the kind of numbers we are talking about. Those are the kind of numbers we would expect to see if half of our population stopped vaccinating against rubella. Now I think its awful and disgusting that they used a cell line derived from an aborted fetus to create some of these vaccines in the first place. I register my complaint and pray that someday ethical vaccines are created. However, I refuse to put my children or other people’s children at risk in the meanwhile. That won’t save more unborn babies.

          • Collin Wahlund

            If you really thought it was awful, you’d protest it, not endorse it or even think you should force others.

          • NFP Instructor

            I don’t intend to force others. My other comment was an expression of frustration. I think its awful, but I can’t go back and save that child. I can only save children now. And refusing to vaccinate my children is putting them and others at risk of death and disability. That is not acceptable to me and I would feel utterly responsible should death or disability happen to someone else as a result of my decision.

          • Collin Wahlund

            Opposing evil does not make you morally responsible for a natural occurrence. I see where your concern is, but morally speaking one is not responsible for a naturally occurring illness when they choose not to be involved with an illicit way of preventing it.

            I’d read this Father’s moral take on the matter: http://www.cogforlife.org/fr-phil-wolfe/

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Opposing evil does not make you morally responsible for a natural occurrence.”

            This is side stepping the issue isn’t it? Going to Europe without being vaccinated for measles puts you at risk of measles, and this act puts others at risk. We’ve had no deaths in the US thanks to high immunization rates. Europe hasn’t been so lucky. You have a moral and ethical duty to mitigate the risk to yourself and others.

            It’s a bit like condoms in Africa. Just because AIDS is natural doesn’t mean that one should NOT mitigate the risk to yourself and others.

            I really hate the lesser of two evils = evil argument since you’re arguing for the greater of two evils.

          • Collin Wahlund

            Well, then you’re arguing against the Church’s teachings. Intrinsically evil acts may not be licitly committed even if good were to come of it.

            In other words, no, you may not use that condom during intercourse in Africa. You’re also gravely sinning by sleeping around, as an aside.

            To say otherwise is to accept the Machiavellian premise that the ends justify the means. That is diametrically opposed to Church teaching, and if you’re Catholic (or even Protestant) you really should care.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Well, then you’re arguing against the Church’s teachings. ”

            Actually this would be a lie since there is a specific exemption in place since vaccines save lives and there is NO alternative to wi-38 and mrc-5.

            And no, condom use would without a doubt mitigate the risk of AIDS and there is really no excuse telling someone who is Catholic who married someone who caught AIDS in this way they deserve to die. Not even the “sinful” deserve it. And you’ll find that this “teaching” is virtually ignored in developed nations as parents enjoy smaller family sizes and totally don’t want their daughters at serious risk even if they “stray” from the golden path.

          • Collin Wahlund

            No, you are against the Church’s teachings when you say that an evil act is permitted if good may come of it. If the act is intrinsically evil, it is not permitted, period.

            I’m not saying the very remote cooperation in the evil act, that is in this case permitted, is the same, but it is just to refuse to participate at all in the evil act.

            If you are endorsing condom use, you are simply against Church teachings, plain and simple. You may want to instruct yourself in them. I have done my part in calling out your error. Your choice to sin is on your head per the Bible at this time.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Many parts of today’s modern medicine are based on horrific research carried out by evil Nazis and Japanese who experimented on prisoners of war, Jews, and other individuals they considered inferior. The experiments are uspeakable, horrific to a degree no human should ever have to endure.

            Using your logic, no Roman Catholic should ever step into a hospital. in fact, the Roman Catholic Church shouldn’t be involved in medicine at all. As we know, the Roman Catholic Church has quite a few hospitals in the USA and around the World.

            Yes, we must point out the evil of it, but to imply that we are participating in evil because we are benefiting from it is beyond preposterous.

            God is all powerfull and He, as He so often does, turns evil into good.

            Let’s not take Catholicism into the extreme and abusrd, like today’s Christian Fundamentalists.

            I agree with your comments on AIDS and condom use. The morally sound thing to do, if your partner is infected with AIDS, is to abstain from sexual intercourse.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Matt, ideally, in order to prevent the spread of AIDS to your wife or husband, you will abstain from sexual intercourse. This is what the Church demands and thus, as stated in the Bible, what God demands. It is not an easy thing to do, but we must strive to achieve it.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Ideally, in order to prevent the spread of AIDS to your wife or husband, you will abstain from sexual intercourse. ”

            And if someone is raped well that’s okay then? FAIL

            And what if the husband wasn’t faithful? The celibate wife deserves to die too? FAIL

            “It is not an easy thing to do, but we must strive to achieve it.”

            And if you fail you should die horribly? I think not.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Ahhh…Liberal wackos, always looking for the exception and making illogical and outlandish conclusions

            Yeah, the “considerate” rapist is going to use a condom, right? I am sorry, but are you honestly this stupid? WOW!!!

            If the husband wasn’t faithful, and doesn’t tell the wife, ever. Then what? I can see the conversation now, “Honey, we’ve never used condoms before, why now?” “well, beatiful wife, it is because I cheated on you!”.

            If you fail, well, you live with the consequences. I know it is something you’ve obviously never been taught. To live with the consequences of your actions, good or bad.

            You sound like a spoiled child who is quite clueless.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Yeah, the “considerate” rapist is going to use a condom, right? I am sorry, but are you honestly this stupid? ”

            You obviously are since this wasn’t suggested or implied. And you’re honestly ignoring that a person could infect a rapist with AIDS which is why condoms should be used.

            “If the husband wasn’t faithful, and doesn’t tell the wife, ever. ”

            And he picks up AIDS and gives it to her when he should have been using a condom.

            “If you fail, well, you live with the consequences. ”

            So you concede the point. Make one mistake and you deserve to die, and anyone else you encounter. WOW

            “You sound like a spoiled child who is quite clueless.”

            I’m not the one who is asserting someone deserves to die for not maintaining 100% monogamy with one life partner.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Yes, you prove that you do not want to live with the consequences of your choices. Personal responsability, sadly, is not the forte of Liberal/Progressives.

            Sadly, one mistake has caused the death of many a human being.

            And again, strawman, I never said anyone deserves to die. Those are your words, not mine. But we’ve already establish you are not an intellectual honest person.

            No one deserves to die, but your choices may lead to this horrific consequence. When you knowingly choose to cheat on your wife or husband, there will be consequences for this choice, even if it was a one time mistake.

            Part of growing up and living in the real World is realizing that this one mistake may have horrific consequences. But living in the real World and taking responsability of your actions is not part of the “values” of Liberal/Progressives.

            But again, you prove you are someone, like so many Liberals/Progressives, who refuse to face the consequences of their actions. A complete inability to take responsability for your actions, very sad

            and yes, a rapist may infect a woman or men, with AIDS. Again, it doens’t justify the use of condoms. Two wrongs never make a right. The ends, never justify the means.

            You seem to be of the belief that human beings are incapable of controlling their sexual desires. Last time I checked, human beings aren’t irrational animals who can’t control their sexual desires. You obviously, believe otherwise. Very sad.

          • Matt Zukowski

            ” you prove that you do not want to live with the consequences of your choices”

            No, I prove I don’t want to die because people like you think sexual immorality should be punished by a horrible death.

            “No one deserves to die”

            You already conceded otherwise. Condoms should not be used because AIDS is a natural consequence of sexual immorality. Not wanting to be dead as a result of sex is immature.

            “And again, strawman, I never said anyone deserves to die. ”

            That is your argument, and I’m somehow immature because using a condom is escaping the natural consequences of what you call an immoral act. This is logically equal to if someone screws up they deserve a horrible death.

            ” When you knowingly choose to cheat on your wife or husband, there will be consequences for this choice, even if it was a one time mistake.”

            And if the wife gets AIDS and die she deserves it too even if she was monogamous? That’s bullshit, sorry. Sure the husband is an asshat but that asshat should wear a condom.

          • NB_Liberallies

            More intellectual dishonesty from our resident liar, Matt. I have conceded to nothing, child.

            Nope, I never conced to anything. You do enjoy pushing your words on others, don’t you, kid.

            No one deserves to die. Just because you claim I believe otherwise, convinniently ignoring what I’ve type, it doesn’t make what you are saying correct. But again, we’ve establish you are a intellectually dishonest human being.

            You do enjoy throwing strawmans, don’t you, Intellectually Dishonesty One.

            More lies from you and another strawman from you. I’ve never made the argument that condoms should not be used because AIDS is the natural consequence of sexual immorality.

            You’ve once again presented an argument I have never made, claimed I made it and then you argue against the argument I never made. Why are you such a silly liar? What is the point to lie? Why do you need to lie?

            You have a lot of issues, kid. Why do you embrace strawman fallacies, kid? Reading and comprehension are obvioulsy not your forte.

            What I call an immoral act? So, you are saying that it is not immoral to cheat on your spouse? (you see how it is done? I am not claiming you said it is not immoral to cheat on your spous, I am asking you to clarify it. Come on, kid. Give intellectual honesty a try. I know it is hard for you, but attempt it).

            The spouse doesn’t deserve to die and in fact, neither does the one who got the AIDS virus in teh first place because he/she cheated. The best way not to risk contaminating the person you love is through abstinence. It is the ONLY way to 100% sure way the spouse that didn’t cheat isn’t infected.

            Why are you so willing to risk the life of a person by pushing for the possiblity of having them get infected with AIDS?

          • Matt Zukowski

            “No one deserves to die.”

            Unless you’re sexually immoral then AIDS is a consequence of this immorality where it would be childish to use a condom to except this natural consequence. This is logically equal to those who are immoral deserve to die. You’re just being passive aggressive to give the the illusion you’re not some sick inhuman bigot.

            “The best way not to risk contaminating the person you love is through abstinence.”

            And if they fail, which many people do, the DESERVE what ever they get right?

          • NB_Liberallies

            Intellectualy Dishonest One. No one, but you, kid, has said they deserve what they get. You poor thing do love your stramen arguments, don’t you, child.

            What your poor little brain doesn’t get, is that whether they deserve it or not, there are consequences to having sex with someone with AIDS. Period.

            What your poor little brain doesn’t get, is that whether they deserve it or not is inconsequential here. There are consequences to cheating. There are consequences to having sex with someone with AIDS. There are consequences to all of our actions, good, bad, and neutral. The use of condoms do not make all of these consequences go away. You can still spread AIDS to your spouse in countless other ways beyond sexual intercourse, correct? Yes.

            Again, why are you so happy pushing the false of security condoms? It is quite dangerous to have sex with people who have AIDS. Why do you not care for the safety of people? Why? Why do you continue to push this false sense of security?

            You argue from the point of view that we human beings are incapable to control our sexual desires. You obviously believe that human being are irrational animals incapable of controlling their sexual drive. How sad of you to think this.

            NO kid, stop projecting, you are attempting to be aggressive to hide your perversions, your hate for the right of children, you hate for humanity overall. Only someone who hates humanity pushes for the false security of having sex with people who have AIDS using a condom. You are playing the Russian Roulette when you have sex with anyone who has AIDS. But you simply do not care.

            All that you care is about sex and pleasure. How sad that you’ve allowed yourself to be reduced to such an animalistic level. Have some self-respect and start thinking of yourself and others as human beings.

            Given what you’ve said so far, the only sick and inhuman bigot here, is you, kid. I am sorry you are so blind to your hate, your depravity, you hate for children. You poor thing.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “No one, but you, kid, has said they deserve what they get. ”

            Right, they don’t DESERVE it, but it’s a logical eloquence of their immoral action and they shouldn’t take steps to escape this because that would be childish.

            Sorry, that is logically equal to anyone sexually immoral deserves to get sick and die horribly.

            “There are consequences to cheating. ”

            And if that consequence is death, and this risk can be mitigated by using a condom, and this risk is shared with your wife, then the only moral thing to do is wear a condom. But as you already conceded they all DESERVE to die.

            “The use of condoms do not make all of these consequences go away”

            Ah, the if it’s not 100% it’s 0% argument? FAIL

            “Have some self-respect and start thinking of yourself and others as human beings.”

            I do. I don’t judge others because of who they bang, how often, or with how many. Just as MLK did I point out that religious bigots like yourself are patently irrational an insane and are entitled to criticism. As he pointed out shame has great utility in moderating hateful behavior like literally wishing death on another human being. I respect person regardless of age, race, nationality, or sexual orientation. This makes me a better person than you, so I’ll just pray for you.

            Have an inspirational day.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Wow, you are one nut job.

            Of course it is childish to run from the bad consequences of your actions. A real person accepts the consequences and takes the steps needed so the consequences of your poor choices don’t have the remote possibility to affect anyone.

            Using a condom doesn’t prevent the spread of AIDS. This is a fact, period. Having sex with someone who has AIDS, even using a condom, puts the person who doesn’t have AIDS at risk. You are playing the Russian Roulette.

            But you’ve proven you don’t mind playing with the life of other individuals and putting them at risk of death.

            Shame? Trust me kid, all you’ve done is shame yourself.

            Moderating hateful behavior? Your behavior and words have been hardly moderated. You are one hateful little thing and you are proud of it.

            MLK would weep at how individuals like you have twisted his words and teachings to defend the sexual desires and wishes of people. He would be ashamed at how militant pro-homosexuals compare a sex act, which is controllable to the incontrolable color of our skin.

            Shame, you’ve proven to have none.

            Nah, you don’t judge people according to who they “bang”. You judge people according to whether they agree with Matt Zukowski twisted immoral beliefs. YOu demand people live and think according to your moral code or else while you demand others respect your moral beliefs and not attack them. You judge people according to their religious beliefs. You, according to the laws of the USA, are a bigot who is capable of committing hate crimes. Using your logic and laws of the USA.

            You poor thing are so blind to your hypocrisy.

            It is always amusing to see how judgemental bigots like you are. You attempt to claim moral superiority when you know you do not hold the morally superior stance. Thus, you start shamelessly throwing terms you do not understand, like bigot, at those who “dare”, challenge your warped World view.

            You respect a person who lives, thinks, and speaks as Matt Zukowsky demands all human beings should live. Stop with your lies, kid. You do not respect people.

            The difference between you and I? I don’t think myself superior or better than those I disagree with.You sadly believe you are better than others and superior to those who “dare” not agree with you. I don’t think I am better than you. I am a sinner, equal to you. At the end of the day, God will judge us equally. I pray He is a lot less harsher on me than I have been on you and that He is a lot less harsher and less judgemental on you that you’ve been on me.

            I will pray for our poor confused soul. You need a lot of help.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Childish to run from the bad consequences of your actions.”

            So someone who wants to NOT die is a child. Got it.

            “Using a condom doesn’t prevent the spread of AIDS”

            Actually it does since the whole spread of the disease depends on fluid exchange and that fluid getting in the blood.

            And this isn’t the only way to get AIDS. FAIL

            “MLK would weep at how individuals like you have twisted his words and teachings to defend the sexual desires”

            See, you’re a bigot. We thought the same thing about mixed marriages some 40 years ago. We’ve grown up as should you.

            ” YOu demand people live and think according to your moral code”

            Which I get from being raised Catholic which has the precept all men are brothers love they neighbor. It’s not love thy neighbor unless they’re black, Asian, crippled, or gay. This is unconditional. And golly this is your moral code too isn’t it? FAIL FAIL FAIL

            ” Stop with your lies, kid. You do not respect people.”

            Sure I do. I spent well over 2 hours informing you that you’re an inhuman bigot. That’s respect. And even if you refuse to stop being an amoral scumbag someone else will think to themselves, “my gosh, I’m an amoral scumbag and I should adjust my thinking”.

            “God will judge us equally.”

            Indeed, and I did my best to make this world a better place for his glory. You think people deserve to die for a common sin. I know where I’m going.

          • $1028912

            Oh, man……your comments make me realize why I’m glad I’m going to Hell, if Heaven is only for people like you.

          • NB_Liberallies

            Who said I am going to Heaven? Heaven is only for people like me? When did I make either one of these claims?

            Only God knows whether you or I are going to Heaven or Hell, a decision that we make through the actions, omissions, words, etc. we do/use throughout our life.

            Please pray for me. I need it.

            Have a wonderful, amazing, and Godly day!

          • $1028912

            My snarky comment was a direct response to your condescending tone and name-calling above, even as you invoked God’s name — but I read further comments, and the person with whom you were arguing also became somewhat heated. It was not exactly a civil discussion, not a very constructive exchange of ideas. Oh well — blog arguments often devolve into that.
            I don’t know if I’m going to Hell or not, or even if there is a Hell, but I don’t mind praying for anyone who specifically asks me to do so — for whatever it’s worth.

          • Guggie L Daly

            Actually, we claim that thousands upon thousands were aborted due to CRS or born w/ congenital defects caused by CRS but the CDC was not collecting official reports on it yet.

            When the vaccine was first trotted out (long before widespread use) and the CDC THEN STARTED reporting CRS, 62 cases were reported that year, and it’s never been more than 100 cases since.

          • Guggie L Daly

            From the CDC site: http://wwwn.cdc.gov/travel/yellowbook/ch4/rubella.aspx

            “The last major epidemic of rubella in the United States occurred in 1964 and 1965 when millions of rubella cases led to 20,000 cases of infants born with CRS.”

            This is what you’re repeating. But, look at the CDC’s report here: (page 3, CRS on the right)

            http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf (the CDC has removed this report, but you can see a screenshot of it here: http://web.archive.org/web/20140416021140/http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/G/cases&deaths.pdf)

            The first year they begin to track is the year they are producing the vaccine (1969). Widespread vaccination has not occurred at that time. And there is nothing.

            It wouldn’t have made sense for 20,000+ CRS cases to have occurred at that time anyways, especially w/ the population at that time. If everyone is naturally contracting rubella as a child and receiving lifetime exposures from other children, they wouldn’t contract rubella while pregnant. Congenital Rubella Syndrome should be a modern problem because now women are only vaccinated as children and teens, so with older moms just starting their pregnancies, their rubella antibodies might be low or non-existent. When exposed to freshly vaccinated individuals who are shedding or to children who have rubella, they might be putting their babies at risk due to their previous vaccine choices.

          • NFP Instructor

            Here come the conspiracy theories a la Guggie!

            So….you are going to deny the existence of epidemics? That’s one of the ways in which they happen….outbreaks of diseases happen and a lot of the surviving population gains immunity. That generation grows up (sometimes their immunity wanes depending on the disease) and eventually there are enough new people without immunity for another large outbreak to occur. The time between major epidemics of the disease vary greatly depending on the disease.

            Actually the immune response for the rubella vaccine lasts a very long time and most women when they become mothers are still immune to it. The few who aren’t should be at low risk so long as we keep vaccinating our children to keep the disease from circulating. (Although I personally support women finding out whether they are immune to rubella or not and seeking out vaccination if need be before having children and especially before travelling abroad while pregnant) Anndd….rubella vaccine doesn’t shed, but thanks for adding some more misinformation.

            The very document YOU link to posts rates from 1966 onward (not 1969) and rates go down in incidence soon after the vaccine introduction from in the range tens of thousands per year to less than ten cases a year now along with almost no deaths so….I really don’t understand what you are getting at. I won’t respond any more to your nonsense and play whack-a-mole with you but I’m posting this for the benefit of anyone reading this.

            As for us, we will protect our children and help protect other people’s children as well.

          • Guggie L Daly

            An epidemic that occurred when Merck contracted with the CDC to make the vaccine, that suddenly vanished the year the vaccine was being produced, is not “people growing up with immunity.” Which, your point makes my point. Rubella is a normal, mild childhood illness. As the CDC says, it’s so mild, parents might not even notice it or have time to diagnose it. Immunity also lasts for a long time.

            So, a population where most people are contracting it normally as a mild childhood illness with lengthy immunity would not suddenly have 20,000 cases of CRS the year Merck wants to make a vaccine.

            This article is talking about red flags such as conflict of interest and poor data. Let’s stop with the cafeteria eating here and admit to the red flags that exist in multiple areas, such as the massive vaccine industry.

          • Guggie L Daly

            Additionally, you make some broad assertions that go against the CDC and Merck. For example, you claim that the MMR does not shed. It is a live-attenuated vaccine which has not been adequately studied for shedding, and yet they still found evidence of it even with their meager glances.

            http://www.merck.com/product/usa/pi_circulars/m/mmr_ii/mmr_ii_pi.pdf

            Excretion of small amounts of live attenuated rubella virus from the nose and throat has occurred in the majority of susceptible individuals 7-28 days after vaccination. Transmission of the vaccine virus via breast milk has been documented.

          • Guggie L Daly

            Let’s talk about another point you made that backfired for you. You make a broad assertion that the MMR has long lasting immunity. This isn’t true, of course, and researchers are now aware of the breakthrough of disease in highly vaccinated populations and the need for ongoing vaccination in adults. (Notice how we have more MMR on the schedule now, as opposed to the original campaign that claimed one and done?)

            But, you go on to point out that women who believe in vaccines and who are worried about immunity can request a blood test from their doctor and receive Merck’s MR vaccine during their pregnancies. Or, they can do this sooner, such as when TTC. Or whenever they want to, because they are adults choosing certain tests and vaccinations to their desire.

            If that is true, then the assertion that my children must be put at risk by routine vaccination, and that I must cooperate in the use of replicated cell lines from aborted humans to hypothetically save the future embryo of a fully vaccinated pregnant woman who has received more vaccinations during her pregnancy, is entirely false.

    • AnonyMom

      The Church has said that it is not evil or sinful for Catholics to use these vaccines. Do you trust the Church to inform you on issues of morals?

      • Collin Wahlund

        You mean in the document where they state:

        “Therefore, doctors and fathers of families have a duty to take recourse to alternative vaccines (if they exist), putting pressure on the political authorities and health systems so that other vaccines without moral problems become available. They
        should take recourse, if necessary, to the use of conscientious objection with regard to the use of vaccines produced by means of cell lines of aborted human foetal origin.

        Equally, they should oppose by all means (in writing, through the various associations, mass media, etc.) the vaccines which do not yet have morally acceptable alternatives, creating pressure so that alternative vaccines are prepared, which are not connected with the abortion of a human foetus, and requesting rigorous legal control of the pharmaceutical industry producers.”

        You have been lied to by whoever told you it’s just fine. It’s not fine, and even if proportional reasons have been given as a reason in that same document to allow the use, it is NOT an okay thing.

        Do not pretend that the Church is happy with things, or accuse those who want to protest this evil and do not participate in it are not allowing the Church to inform them on issues of morals. The hubris of you saying so is incredible.

        • AnonyMom

          There’s no hubris. You aren’t listening to what the Church’s instructions to parents are. You’ve chosen to completely ignore that theologians have said that parents shouldn’t refuse vaccines if it places an undue burden on others in the community. Such as the unborn, pregnant women, the elderly, and immune compro
          mised.

          “Am I free to refuse to vaccinate myself or my children on the grounds of conscience?
           
          One must follow a certain conscience even if it errs, but there is a responsibility to inform one’s conscience properly. There would seem to be no proper grounds for refusing immunization against dangerous contagious disease, for example, rubella, especially in light of the concern that we should all have for the health of our children, public health, and the common good.”

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

        • NB_Liberallies

          What you must answer is: If someone else’s child dies because you chose not to vaccinate your children, is this a grave sin on your part or is the grave sin using vaccines that were formulated through evil actions?

          God can turn evil into good. While we must protest the evil way some vaccines are created, using vaccines to save the lives of countless is hardly evil or participating in evil. Now, if you took part in creating or pushing the vaccine on the public, knowing perfectly way that the way the vaccine came to be was evil, then yes, it is a grave sin.

          Otherwise, you have to answer my initial question.

          Is it a grave sin to allow someone else’s child to die of a deadly disease because you chose not to vaccinate your childre or is the grave sin using the vaccine.

          Do you listen to Relevant Radio? Great solid Roman Catholic radio. I urge you to listen to it and if you can, call in and ask that question. You’ll get an honest, Catholic based teaching answer.

        • irena mangone

          Where are the mothers do they not also have rights over their child

    • wineinthewater

      This is a decision firmly within the realm of prudential judgement, so I’m not calling your decision evil or calling you evil. But I do think your judgement is profoundly wrong.

      Remote cooperation with evil is a difficult thing. It is a reality of living in a fallen world. But let’s look at the consequences of your decision. You have decided that not even the protection of children, the ill, the immune compromised and children in the womb justifies remote cooperation with evil. You have set a very high standard for how you interact with the world. Do you apply this to all medical treatments? Did you get the Hepatitis vaccines for your children? They rely in part on immoral research done on children. Would you reject treatment for malaria? hypothermia? syphilis? certain cancers? Many medical treatments rely at least in part on immoral research practices like intentionally infecting unknowing research subjects.

      Abortion is a sin that cries out to heaven. But the Church teaches that there are other sins that cry out to heaven as well, including denying the worker his just wage. I can almost guarantee that some of your clothes were produced by workers who were denied their just wage. You are posting on the internet, which means that you are using almost certainly using a device that was produced in part by workers who were denied their just wage. And even if you found a completely “pure” device, since you are on the internet at all, you are utilizing a system that incorporates equipment produced in part by workers denied their just wage. If you eat commercial chocolate, then you are certainly eating the fruits of de facto slave labor in South America.

      Do you live in the US? Almost all of the land in the US – and many other countries – was procured by evil means .. intentionally infecting native populations with deadly diseases, genocides, swindling, unjust war, etc. Are you also prepared to eliminate your remote cooperation with that evil and relinquish your occupation of those lands?

      All of these are remote cooperation with an evil, some with an evil that cries out to heaven. Also consider that in the case of vaccines manufactured in processes that utilize cell lines from aborted children, the sin was committed in the past, and is not being recommitted each time a vaccine is manufactured. In many of the examples I gave above, each cooperation with evil rests on a new instance of that sin and that evil. So, if not even the protection of children, the ill, the immune compromised and children in the womb justify the remote cooperation of evil, then your convenient wardrobe, your chocolate and your cat videos on you tube and even your access to the wonderful blog of Simcha do not justify remote cooperation with evil and you need to give them all up right now.

      Otherwise, it is not remote cooperation with evil to which you object, but remote association with abortion. And that looks a whole lot more like protecting ritual purity than avoiding remote cooperation with evil. You quoted Jesus from Matthew above, but it does not apply in the least since the Church teaches that to avail yourself of these vaccines when you have no alternative is not a sin. There is no eye to pluck out. But Jesus does have something to say about those who put their ritual purity above helping others. It was the “impure” Samaritan who was the paragon of virtue in Jesus’ parable, not the priest who maintained his ritual purity but ignored the man in need.

      Perhaps you don’t accept my association of ideological purity with ritual purity. That is fine. But the fact remains that if you hold such a high standard for avoiding remote cooperation with evil, you render yourself essentially incapable of interacting with a society built by sinners. If that is you choice, then live it. Give it all up. But if it is not, then you need to give up the notion that remote cooperation with evil justifies your avoidance of these vaccines when you will so readily remotely cooperate with evil – and often cooperate far less remotely – in the name of procuring other, lesser, goods in your life when you will not to procure great goods in the lives of others.

    • AnonyMom

      Is that really what you think the Church is saying? That evil is *allowed*? That’s not all all what the Church is saying. Not at all. Do you think that the Church permits sin under certain circumstances? If so you might want to rethink being Catholic. I’d never trust a Church that told me it’s no big deal to commit sin.

  • http://janalynmarie.blogspot.com/ Beadgirl

    This was a well-written, measured article; thank you.

  • gkadams69

    There seems to be some confusion about what a cell line is and how much one is “contributing to evil by supporting abortion”.

    cell line
    noun
    BIOLOGY
    a cell culture developed from a single cell and therefore consisting of cells with a uniform genetic makeup.

    What this means is, once upon a time, a cell or group of cells was taken from a specific source. It is now cultured in a laboratory setting, no further abortions required. One’s acceptance or refusal of vaccines has no impact on the number of abortions performed currently, nor do those abortions contribute to current vaccines.

    Also, there seems to be a misconception that there are fetal cells in vaccines. Not the case. The cell line is used to harbor the virus that causes these diseases. If the cells themselves were to be injected, they would be destroyed by your immune system.

    “The specific cell lines used in vaccines are the MRC-5 and WI-38 cell lines, and they have been supplying medical research of all types for more than 35 years. Where do these cell lines come from? That’s where the grain of truth in this lie comes from. Both of these cell lines were cultured from cells taken from two abortions, one (MRC-5) that was performed in September,1966 and one (WI-38) that was performed in July, 1962,” according to Coriell Cell Repositories, the source of the cell lines used.

    How could anyone call himself pro-life if he “dishonors the memory of those who have been murdered” while risking the lives of those he loves? Saints sacrificed themselves willingly. Your children do not.

    • Collin Wahlund

      So, in areas of persecution parents are wrong to raise their children in the faith as it may lead to their deaths? I’m sorry, but as for me and my family, we will serve The Lord.

      You are also mistaken that lines have nothing to do with vaccines anymore. http://www.cogforlife.org/prove-it/

      You must think this nun a fool for respectfully burying even the smallest remains of one of these victims. http://www.cogforlife.org/2013/08/19/baby-victor/

    • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

      My children have a greater chance of dying in a car accident as opposed to dying of measles. By your logic, no one should never, ever drive with their children in the car because otherwise they are risking their kids’ lives.

      All choices in life come with risk. If there is proximate danger of an outbreak in our area, we are open to vaccinating with the unethical vaccines. It’s a subject we regularly discuss with our kids’ doctor. He doesn’t seem to think we’re recklessly risking our kids’ lives by choosing to refuse the unethical vaccines (and believe me — if he thought we were, he’d let us know). Our priest also does not believe we’re risking our kids’ lives. Since this is a matter of prudential judgment for Catholics, perhaps you should stop accusing us of deliberately seeking to harm our children, because it’s untrue and insulting.

      • Matt Zukowski

        “My children have a greater chance of dying in a car accident as opposed to dying of measles.”

        Thanks to vaccination. Measles literally affected the bulk of the population, over 90%, and with access to primary medical care the odds of death are 1-2:1000. The death rate in the US was around 500 per year. In 2012 the body count was 122,000 world wide.

        ” By your logic, no one should never, ever drive with their children in the car because otherwise they are risking their kids’ lives”

        That’s why we invented seatbelts and carseats. And oddly enough there is actually a risk of death using both in the event of a roll over accident if the vehicle catches fire. But odds are reasonable they’d die without one in such an accident.

        • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

          So then, by your logic, I should never drive with my kids in the car because they have this chance of dying, even with car seats and airbags.
          As a parent, I have to deal with the risk is now, not what the risk was 50 years ago before vaccines. Right now, the risk is low. If that changes, will have to reevaluate our options.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “I should never drive with my kids in the car because they have this chance of dying”

            No, you should use a car seat and a safety belt because cars are unavoidably unsafe but necessary. This is where vaccines come in.

            “I have to deal with the risk is now,”

            And we can say with objective certainty that 80-90% of all measles cases in the US are among the vaccinated. Literally EVERY outbreak with 1 exception is caused by someone who wasn’t vaccinated who traveled overseas. Measles is so infectious it’s virtually certain you’ll get it from someone who has it, with odds of 1:10 of being hospitalized if your’e not vaccinated. And like with small pox and polio there is no other reservoir thus keeping it in the human population is patently insane. And the risk of catching measles is every so much higher thanks to lower immunization rates.

          • http://a-star-of-hope.blogspot.com/ JoAnna Wahlund

            Cars are necessary? Tell that to the Amish.

            Like I said, I have to deal with the risk as it is right now, not what it was 50 years ago. I wish that the current rate of measles infections in United States (that is, the fact that it’s dropped dramatically from previous years) wasn’t essentially built on the backs of aborted babies, but I can’t change the past. I can only make decisions with the information I have in the present. And in present-day, I think our scientific knowledge has advanced enough where it’s not necessary to continue to exploit aborted children to manufacture vaccines. Sadly, the majority of the scientific community doesn’t seem to agree with me on that.

          • Matt Zukowski

            “Cars are necessary? Tell that to the Amish.”

            Who use horse and buggies, and technically trade with outsiders. Also we’re not Amish.

            ” have to deal with the risk as it is right now”

            Which is rising as immunization rates drop.

            “And in present-day, I think our scientific knowledge has advanced enough where it’s not necessary to continue to exploit aborted children to manufacture vaccine”

            You’re wrong. We can’t make living cells. Only nature can do that.

            The closest thing we have is the HPV vaccine which uses virus like particles. Recombinant technology exists but it doesn’t logically equal we can modify a protein to look like rubella. Even if we could the HPV vaccine costs about $100 per dose, insanely expensive. To eradicate rubella it needs to be mass produced and it needs to be cheap to deploy near 1 billion doses per year.

            But be a shill for measles. I’d rather eradicate it.

          • AnonyMom

            The risks to your children may be low. Have you bothered to find out if there are children at your kids’ school that are immune compromised? My children have regular contact at school with children with Down Syndrome that have heart issues for whom getting sick is extra dangerous. Those are the children for whom you have a direct responsibly for.

  • anna lisa
  • Blobee

    Somewhat related: There’s a new study that suggests it is the brain’s “culling” mechanism not working that results in autism (too many synapses). That’s not to say vaccines might not play a role in the mechanism gone awry. No one knows yet.
    http://www.biznews.com/health-briefs/2014/08/autism-study-on-brain-pruning-mechanism-may-point-to-new-treatment/

  • MamaK

    Simcha, I think you need to drop the science posts. You are pretty comfortable with “live and let live” as far as choosing educational options. I think you should accord families the same leeway as far as making medical decisions for their families. If you had ever raised an autistic child and seen some link to vaccines, you would gladly forego those vaccines for the rest of your children if there was even a slim chance that they would lead a normal life. It doesn’t sound like you really understand autism. Same with “weird” diets. It’s easy to judge from the outside.

    I really had to laugh at Red Flag #1 because the vaccine makers are not exactly developing these vaccines out of the kindness of their hearts (A chicken pox vaccine? Come on!) and any serious studies about the long-term side-effects of vaccines would be financial suicide.

    • Matt Zukowski

      The chicken pox vaccine has reduced the body count in those under 21 by a factor of 90%. Now one the whole this disease only killed roughly 100 people per year in the states, but less death is generally accepted as a good thing. And if you don’t get chicken pox you won’t get shingles which can spread chicken pox to others.

      This is rather why we do clinical trails since the makers to have an interest and they have the burden of proof. We also have independent studies for the same reason.

      The ironic thing is if Merck setup a charity that promoted Merck products we’d scream foul pretty fast for good reason. Deisher is in this class using a 501(c)3 to promote her Bio-Tech company. What Merck does has no logical bearing on this being VERY unethical.

    • http://bayareachesterton.wordpress.com RedMeg1990

      My oldest is autistic. My mom survived polio as a child. We vaccinate.

  • Stu

    “Heck, we’d be at risk for autism every time we ate a burger, because of all the cow DNA we’re allowing into our bodies.”
    ————————–
    I don’t think science is your strength. Reminds me of a guy who spouts off about firearms without requisite expertise.

  • Allie

    I’ve got to say, I agree with Stu: this is not good scientific reasoning Without even having read the Deisher study (which may be utter crap, for all I know), all the objections you’re posing seem either not accurate or not pertinent:

    –Conflict of interest is an ethical problem, but does not per se discredit someone’s research.

    –Only some cases of autism can be detected as a behavioral syndrome from birth; others involve sudden regression at later ages after normal development to that point. It’s fairly widely believed that these latter cases involve gene-environment interactions, with an underlying genetic susceptibility being met by some environmental trigger. Being able to detect a genetic marker in the womb says nothing about whether some experience AFTER birth may have triggered the actual onset of autism.

    — Autism is a developmental disorder and its onset likely involves particular conditions at very particular, possibly very narrow developmental windows. Blood transfusions and organ transplants are sufficiently rare events in infants that even if there was an elevated risk of autism associated with those procedures (say, an extra 3%), it wouldn’t necessarily be conspicuous. Vaccines, by contrast, are administered population-wide, so a small increase in odds would have a much greater absolute effect.

    — Things we eat are not actually INSIDE our body. They’re digested, and the components are absorbed. Only vanishingly small amounts of cow DNA make it into our body intact after we eat a hamburger.

    –Most medical studies relying on statistical correlations between trends over time are, indeed, pretty bad. As far as I can see, that’s not what the Deisher paper is doing. She seems to use what the Freakonomics folk would call a “natural experiment,” whereby different countries (otherwise ostensibly similar) introduce particular vaccines at different times, to show that autism upticks in those countries seem to follow the vaccine introduction. That still doesn’t prove causation, since there could still be some mystery variable that kicks in in 1984 in one place, 1980 in another and 1991 in a third. But it’s a little more persuasive than hand-wavy “Ooh, more autism over time, and also MORE LAPTOPS! QED!”-type correlation arguments, which is how both you and Rational Catholic mischaracterize her argument.

    Honestly, the very last thing we need in this debate is more poor reasoning, from either side. To the extent that I am anti-(not all, but some elements of the official AAP-scheduled levels of)-vax, I am that way because of the *really bad* scientific arguments constantly put forth by the pro-vaxxers. I don’t know why laypeople feel they need to dive into this debate, and honestly, Simcha, I don’t know that you’re doing anyone any favors with posts like this.

  • meg

    I have been thinking about the issue of the vaccines derived using tissue from aborted babies, and the closest analogy I can think of is receiving an transplant of an organ that comes from a murder victim. Suppose someone was murdered in the course of a robbery or something and her family chose to donate her organs after her death. Her death came about because of a grave sin, but I am in no way advocating murder if I accept her lungs to save my life. There is less of a possibility of scandal in that case, of course, because there is not a large pro-murder (of adults) movement the way there is a pro-abortion movement, and I think that is why it is good to push for alternatives as Simcha suggests, but in the meantime I will have no qualms accepting the vaccines that are available.
    Obviously it would be a different case if the vaccines were derived from babies who were killed specifically for that purpose (as is the case with embryonic stem cell research).

    • Debi Vinnedge

      Meg, the moral difference in organ donation is that the mother or physician did not willfully and intentionally bring about the death of the child, whereas with these abortions the mother did. And in the case of early experiments, abortions were done along with forced sterilizations without the will of the mother – but very much so with the will of the physician and scientists involved. Quoting just one of many sources:
      “Human embryos of two and one-half to five months gestation were obtained from the gynaecological department of the Toronto General Hospital. They were placed in a sterile container and promptly transported to the virus laboratory of the adjacent Hospital for Sick Children.
      No macerated specimens were used and in many of the embryos the heart was still beating at the time of receipt in the virus laboratory.” Joan
      C. Thicke, Darline Duncan, William Wood, A. E. Franklin and A. J. Rhodes; Cultivation of Poliomyelitis Virus in Tissue Culture; Growth of the Lansing Strain in Human Embryonic Tissue, Canadian Journal of Medical Science, Vol. 30, pg 231-245

  • Leeandra Nolting

    Some of what we know about safe and unsafe levels of X-ray radiation comes from horrific experiments conducted in Nazi concentration camps.

    A few weeks ago, I went to the doctor to find out if I’d broken a finger (yes, I had, in two places, it turns out). No further treatment needed other than what I’d already done, which was splinting it for a few weeks.

    Guess how he diagnosed this? He took a bunch of X-rays of my hand. And he also made me wear a lead apron and he stepped behind a lead wall.

    As a good Catholic, should I have refused the apron? Refused the X-ray? Would you have?

    After all, this wasn’t a life-and-death matter. It wasn’t even an emergency, nor was I even in serious pain (I’d waited three days and gone to work and even gone to the beach for the weekend before being nagged into FINE. I’LL GO SEE A DOCTOR, OK?)

  • Vito Alexander Pavlovic

    What a Shill!

  • Thomas Pound

    Garbage logic against real statistics. Dr. Deischer is on target and you are way off.

    • Laura

      Deisher’s “statistics” are the reason for the adage, “There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics.

      I took a painstakingly detailed look at Deisher’s “statistics” and they are about as flawed as you can get, which is probably why no one other than an open-access, potentially predatory journal would publish such rubbish: http://rationalcatholicblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/the-problems-with-deishers-study-part-i-the-numbers/

      • Debi Vinnedge

        Oh you mean like the rubbish you wrote on rationalcatholicglog? And you are qualified to make such assessments? What are your credentials? Yet you are challenging a world renowned stem cell scientist? http://soundchoice.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/CV-Theresa-Deisher-052914.pdf

        • Laura

          While I understand your desire to use a fallacious appeal to authority, I’m not impressed. Lots of people have pursued advanced degrees in science, some of whom have described Deisher’s work as “thermonuclear stupid.” (http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2009/07/22/thermonuclear-stupid-about-vaccines-from/) The mere presence or absence of a degree does not make one’s arguments immune from criticism if the argument lacks merit.

          Point out where I was wrong in my analysis and I will happily issue a retraction and apology. I’ll await such a response (laurac.rationalcatholicblog@gmail.com). But if you’re just going to dismiss what I wrote (which, incidentally, has gotten thumbs up from Ph.D/MD degree holders) out of hand because of an inconsistent appeal to authority based in confirmation bias, you have no basis to call my work “rubbish.”

          By the way, if we’re going to play the logical fallacy game, who are YOU to say that I am wrong? What is your background in science and mathematics? Are you going to poison the well against me purely on the basis that I CHOSE to not pursue a degree beyond a Bachelor of Science to serve my country and raise a family? That’s kind of messed up from a woman who claims to be pro-life/pro-family.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            Pursuing a degree and actually having one along with a PhD and actual field experience puts Dr Deisher light years ahead of anything you have to say. You are embarrassing yourself quite frankly so I guess I don’t have to say anything.

          • Laura

            I would have expected a woman so many years my senior, especially as the representative of an organization that wants to be respected, to have a better response than “Pffft! [insert appeal to authority redux and pathetic attempt at an insult].”

            No, I’m not embarrassing myself. A person with HIGH SCHOOL level probability and statistics would see red flags in Deisher’s analysis, let alone someone with university exposure. My arguments stand on their own merits and the ONLY thing to give Deisher’s argument “merit” is a fallacious appeal to authority by virtue of her degrees. You have no defense of her argument; you have no criticism of mine. You only have logical fallacy. THAT is embarrassing yourself, madame.

            And, if degrees are so paramount to you, what’s your excuse for not listening to the OTHER Ph.D./MD types who have criticized Deisher’s work as flawed, absurd, and/or laughable? I mean, I get that you like logical fallacies so maybe you can make some ad hominem attack against them. Possibly about their political/religious disposition? Still, no one seeking truth ignores an argument or a person just because of a logical fallacy… it’s obvious that you are not interested in seeking truth. You have my pity.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            The only one producing fantasies here is you Laura – you have zero credentials and zero authority to challenge data by someone who does – and you can’t back up anything you say with any data to refute it. It is obvious that you are the one who doesn’t care about truth when you refuse to see it even from the CDC. I don’t need your pity – but you CHILD, are in much need of prayer.

          • Carl

            Debi, I’m confused. Why would somebody need to use new data points to state that the data used in a study is invalid or wrongly manipulated? This sounds like a ridiculous attempt to discredit someone who did fact checking because you don’t agree with her analysis.

          • Debi Vinnedge

            There are no new data points – Dr Deisher used several existing sources for the data points – including the CDC data. Not sure what you mean…

          • Carl

            Sorry, thats not what I meant. I should have said the compilation of data points. I too can use existing studies to prove whatever I want, however I want. This is a case of exactly that (someone manipulating data incorrectly to prove a point), and all I see is you attacking someone who is pointing that out to us.

          • $1028912

            Interesting, that a pro-life person would seek to insult someone by calling them “CHILD” — in all caps, for emphasis, too.

          • ucfengr

            An appeal to authority isn’t really a fallacy if the person you’re citing is an actual authority on the subject, as Dr. Deisher is.

  • Laura

    It would be an insult to bad science to call this study bad science. There is so much obfuscation and error that it will take an additional 1-2 lengthy blog posts to cover most of it. Part I: http://rationalcatholicblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/the-problems-with-deishers-study-part-i-the-numbers/

    • Chris

      Well written Laura and I not only laughed at the article but at your sympathy to bad science. This author clearly knows little about science. It’s written well for a high school student who hasn’t opened their science book.

  • NDaniels

    http://www.cogforlife.org/vaticanresponse.htm

    The question is, why not vaccines that do not use cell lines derived from cells from aborted fetuses.

  • Thomas Pound

    Deischer presents her analysis, and was able to replicate it from previous efforts. The purpose to peer review is for detractors to present their analysis to prove she’s wrong. It’s part of public discourse. She establishes correlations and then eliminates confounding variables. To show a 92% correlation of autism rates with Vaivax use is remarkable.

    Now, show us your numbers…

    • Laura

      No, she didn’t. And, no, it’s not remarkable. (wikipedia “Ecological bias”)

      Here are my numbers: http://rationalcatholicblog.wordpress.com/2014/09/12/the-problems-with-deishers-study-part-i-the-numbers/

      Here are other numbers: http://www.all.org/pdf/McDonaldPaul2010.pdf that do not concur with Deisher’s “change point” analysis.

      • Thomas Pound

        None of these articles counter this piece. Additionally, the wordpress blog (not peer-reviewed) confuses slope and significance. One can have a high correlation, with no significance. Adding to this, one can have small levels of correlation that are very significant. It also does not understand accounting for confounding variables, which is necessary for regression studies.

        The walls are closing in on big pharma. This kind of work and the revelations from cdc whistleblowers is leading to this. Next ten years? Changed vaccine schedule with new formulations.

        • Laura

          Unless there is a significant CHANGE in slope, inserting a change point for a “better fit” means you are purposely manipulating the data. I could have inserted a change point around Ronald Reagan’s reelection and gotten a “better fit”— that doesn’t mean Ronald Reagan causes autism.

          You clearly didn’t read the article or the EPA study or even Deisher’s study. Unless you’re going to actually read, you should stop making assertions just because they have anti-Pharma countercultural appeal. (btw,everything you said about statistical regression analysis is true… that’s why Deisher’s study is so awful. She doesn’t follow any of it!)

          • Thomas Pound

            Not only did I read them, I use them in my own publishing. Good luck

  • shofarmac

    Perhaps a study that compares the vaccinated and the unvaccinated should be done to answer the questions. As someone who has worked in the pharmaceutical industry I have seen conflicts of interests with the medical profession, regulatory agencies and the pharmaceutical companies. I am not saying that it is all the time but it certainly does happen. Vaccines are a big money item for the pharmaceutical companies.

    As a physician for more than 35 years, something has certainly happened that has caused this epidemic of autism and autism spectrum related disorders. My concern is that why would we just not be more aggressive in trying to understand this disorder? It will adversely affect our society in a major way if 1 in 58 boys are continually afflicted. Dr Deisher should be commended in her efforts to evaluate this association of change points and changes in the vaccine schedule.

    God is holy and from my reading of the Bible He hates hands that shed innocent blood. That is what happened when babies were aborted and their cells were harvested (live) to make the cell lines MRC 5 and WI 38. Both babies had their blood shed. The DNA of those children are injected into those that receive live virus vaccines like MMR.

    We should understand God’s wisdom is higher than man’s wisdom. We should pray for His wisdom as well. I personally am concerned about these vaccines that have utilized cells in which innocent blood was shed. I am not so sure that good can come from evil. I am fairly convinced that Christians need to be careful in this regard. Biomedicine excludes the issues of the spiritual part of man and this can be dangerous premise. Spiritual illness can cause physical and mental problems.

  • Mary C Donahue

    We co-operate with evil everytime we vaccinate our child with vaccines created from the cells of an aborted baby.Like it or not.
    I LOATHE this.
    I have vaccinated my children ONLY with those vaccines necessary for school attendance.
    I am thrilled with work like Theresa’s. Work that isn’t sullied by those who earn money from the death of the unborn.
    I am thrilled I can NOW get a flu shot that is unborn baby free .No babies died to make this vaccine.

    The pro-life community needs to be patient and get behind people like Theresa.
    Sometimes we must be patient and wait for the work to unfold.

    I also pray for Theresa’s child who is currently battling cancer.

  • ucfengr

    From reading the “Rational Catholic” piece, I’m not convinced that the author knows what she’s talking about. Number one, the flu vaccine is recommended for pregnant women. Some versions of the flu vaccine still contain thimerosal, a form of mercury. Mercury is a known neuro-toxin and could certainly impact the child in-utero. Number two, in my case, my son was spiking 105+ degree temperatures the evening following his first MMR shot. Temperatures that high can cause neurological damage causing autism like symptoms (Which is like saying “causing autism” because autism is diagnosed by symptoms. There is no blood or genetic test for autism). My understanding is that this is not an uncommon event. My pediatrician wasn’t concerned when we called him at 10 o’clock in the evening. Number three, the VCIP program (the special judicial system for vaccine injuries) has awarded damages to for autism. Number four, the FDA mandated insert that describes potential adverse reactions for vaccines lists autism on the DPT vaccine (as well as SIDS…). The author clearly hasn’t read anything beyond the company line from “Big Pharma”.

    • sillyinterloper

      “Number four, the FDA mandated insert that describes potential adverse reactions for vaccines lists autism on the DPT vaccine”

      That’s actually not true. Here’s what the FDA has to say on its website:

      “In 2004, the IOM’s Immunization Safety Review Committee issued its final report, examining the hypothesis that vaccines, specifically the MMR vaccines and thimerosal containing vaccines, are causally associated with autism. In this report, the committee incorporated new epidemiological evidence from the U.S., Denmark, Sweden, and the United Kingdom, and studies of biologic mechanisms related to vaccines and autism since its report in 2001. The committee concluded that this body of evidence favors rejection of a causal relationship between thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism, and that hypotheses generated to date concerning a biological mechanism for such causality are theoretical only. Further, the committee stated that the benefits of vaccination are proven and the hypothesis of susceptible populations is presently speculative, and that widespread rejection of vaccines would lead to increases in incidences of serious infectious diseases like measles, whooping cough and Hib bacterial meningitis.”

      http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/UCM096228

      • ucfengr

        FDA package insert for DTaP page 11 “Adverse events reported during post-approval use of Tripedia vaccine include idiopathic thrombocytopenic purpura, SIDS, anaphylactic reaction, cellulitis, autism, convulsion/grand mal convulsion, encephalopathy, hypotonia, neuropathy, somnolence and apnea. Events were included in this list because of the seriousness or frequency of reporting.”

        http://www.fda.gov/downloads/BiologicsBloodVaccines/Vaccines/ApprovedProducts/ucm101580.pdf

        Notice the prevalence of adverse neurological reactions, not just autism, reported?

        • sillyinterloper

          Sigh. You should check here for a fuller explanation of terms, but short answer: Yes is it listed, but no, it is still not a real thing.

          http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaccine-package-inserts-debunking-myths/

          “The most misinterpreted misused section of the PI insert is “Adverse Reactions.” The FDA states that the section should include events “for which there is some basis to believe there is a causal relationship between the drug and the occurrence of the adverse event.” The key word is “believe”, instead of based on evidence. And frankly, anything with serious evidence would be in the Warnings section, so the Adverse Reactions section is a laundry list of observed events that probably have nothing to do with the drug (or vaccine) but remain there so that the pharmaceutical company is covered in case of a lawsuit.”

          “Warnings. These are adverse events that have evidence supporting their causal association with the drug or vaccine. As opposed to the adverse reactions section, which tends to be abused by vaccine deniers, this section is where solid, repeatable scientific data is located. The FDA, by regulation, can mandate a change in the PI to include new warnings as evidence arises. Not a single PI for vaccines mentions autism as a “warning.” Not one.”

          There is no credible scientific evidence linking any vaccine to any form of autism. But, there are scads of credible studies debunking such bogus links.

          http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/07/130716-autism-vaccines-mccarthy-view-medicine-science/

        • sillyinterloper

          I don’t know what happened to my original response. Anyway, in short – that is still not true, just a confustion of terms.

          “Warnings. These are adverse events that have evidence supporting their causal association with the drug or vaccine. As opposed to the adverse reactions section, which tends to be abused by vaccine deniers, this section is where solid, repeatable scientific data is located. The FDA, by regulation, can mandate a change in the PI to include new warnings as evidence arises. Not a single PI for vaccines mentions autism as a “warning.” Not one.”

          http://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/vaccine-package-inserts-debunking-myths/

          • ucfengr

            Skeptical Raptor works in the pharmaceutical industry in, among other things, marketing (according to his own website). A less kind description of him would be “shill”. He’s not an objective observer of science, he’s an industry front man. Citing him on vaccine safety is a lot like citing Phillip Morris on tobacco safety.

          • Linda Tock

            Tripedia (the only insert which ever mentioned autism – and not as a side effect, but as an adverse event) hasn’t been on the market for nearly a decade.

            An adverse event is not a side effect – it is an event which happened after the vaccine was given, but cannot be linked to the vaccine administration.

          • ucfengr

            You’re confusing “cannot” with “has not”. There are more than a few people within the medical field that don’t agree that there has been sufficient research to rule out a vaccine-autism connection, including a former director of the NIH. Dr. Deisher isn’t unique.

          • Linda Tock

            And yet, those ‘more than a few’ within the ‘medical field’ – which could be dentistry, etc – and not researchers. Are absolutely drowned out by the overwhelming amount of evidence which suggests there is no association or causation for vaccines and autism.

            And as far as statistical analysis – use of ‘cannot’ is correct. Because you do not know the population size from whence the number came, nor whether that sample is representative, you CANNOT claim causation.

          • ucfengr

            If the evidence was overwhelming, you wouldn’t have folks like Teresa Deisher (Ph.D in Cellular Physiology and 2 decades in the biotech industry), Bernedette Healy (MD and former director of the NIH), and David Feinberg (MD, medical director of the Resnick Neuro-psychiatric Hospital at UCLA), to mention a few, saying the research hasn’t, in fact, be done to rule out a causal relationship between vaccines and autism. At best you’d have a bunch of Dr. Nick Riviera’s ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dr._Nick ). And really, you don’t need a PhD or MD after your name or “Researcher” in your job description to look at the known neurological side effects of vaccines. If you want to make the case that vaccines that can cause seizures and encephalitis can’t cause autism, you’ll need more than research from the vaccine makers themselves to prove it.

          • Linda Tock

            Nice attempt at an argument for authority AND moving the goalposts.

            You’re using a package insert (for a vaccine which hasn’t been produced for a decade, by the way) – as ‘proof’ that vaccines cause autism.

            Those package inserts are not proof of causation, and they cannot be interpreted as such, for the reasons I named above. That doesn’t require a PhD, it requires knowledge of statistics.

            By the way, Ms. Healy hasn’t been saying much about the vaccines/autism link, as she passed away about 3 years ago. There have been numerous studies, involving MILLIONS of children (total) which have not found ANY association between receipt of vaccinations and autism.

            Because individuals have an OPINION otherwise, doesn’t mean their opinion is factual, or even realistic.

          • ucfengr

            The actual term is “appeal to authority”, not “for”, and “appeal to authority” is only a fallacy when the authorities you cite don’t have actual expertise in the field you’re citing them in, which is not the case here. For example, if I cite Tiger Woods as an authority in a golf related discussion, it’s not a fallacy, but if I cite him on how to make a marriage work, it is. It’s amazing how many people use the term “appeal to authority” without understanding the fallacy.

            Side effects, like seizures, high fevers, and permanent brain damage are listed as “side effects” by the CDC ( http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm#dtap ) for the DTaP vaccine. It’s beyond words silly to assert that a vaccine that can have severe neurological impacts can’t also cause another neurological disorder, like autism. And no, there have not been numerous studies involving “million of children” that haven’t shown “ANY” (pro-tip – using CAPS doesn’t make you look smarter) association between vaccines and autism. In fact, the one study that could demonstrate that, a comparison of rates of autism between vaccinated and non-vaccinated children has never been done and probably won’t be done, because the drug companies have no desire to open themselves up to billions in legal liability.

          • Linda Tock

            It’s beyond silly to claim that a vaccine causes autism, when all the available research, done over the course of decades, has consistently and unequivocally failed to show any association.

            Also, you neglected to mention this pertinent detail regarding severe neurological impacts:

            “Severe Problems (Very Rare)

            Serious allergic reaction (less than 1 out of a million
            doses) Several other severe problems have been reported after DTaP vaccine. These include:

            Long-term seizures, coma, or lowered consciousness

            Permanent brain damage.

            These are so rare it is hard to tell if they are caused by the vaccine.”

            I see you’re a fan of the ‘one study’ fallacy. The study you desire is not possible. There are not enough unvaccinated children who could be selected randomly for the population sample.

            Then there’s the issue with double blinding – because the study MUST be double blinded, to ensure no bias on the part of either the researchers or the participants.

            What parent who refuses vaccines would be willing to let their child be in the vaccination receiving arm of that study?

            What parent who knows the value of vaccines would be willing to RISK their child being unvaccinated?

            Pro-tip – if you’re going to make a fallacious argument, you should probably think it through a little better.

          • ucfengr

            We actually don’t know how rare they are because the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System is not a very good system. If you were trying to design a reporting system to actually minimize the events reported (as opposed to the events that actually occurred) you’d have a hard time doing better.

          • Linda Tock

            That’s why we don’t just have VAERS. We have also the Vaccine Safety Datalink – which continuously monitors a cohort of children in the US for adverse events following vaccination.

            That’s why we also use data from other countries, like those in Scandinavia, whose data recordkeeping puts ours to shame.

            Again, as with the package inserts, VAERS is not indicative of causation, because it’s an unknown sample from an unknown population size. You CANNOT use it for causation for any purpose.

            VAERS was introduced so that ANYONE could file a report if they felt they had experienced an adverse event. It would not require getting a MD’s approval (even though doctors are required by law to report adverse events following vaccination). Reports included there are more often than not of the serious event – and each report is investigated.

          • Linda Tock

            http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X14006367%20%C2%A0

            “Five cohort studies involving 1,256,407 children, and five case-control
            studies involving 9,920 children were included in this analysis”

            Over a million children involved – no association between vaccines and autism. That sample size is large enough that, if there WERE an association, it would be evidenced in that dataset.

          • ucfengr

            A meta analysis isn’t an actual scientific study. It a analysis of other studies that may or may not be useful. It’s subject to the GIGO (Garbage in – Garbage out) effect. Even at that, it doesn’t compare the rates of autism between vaccinated and non-vaccinated populations, something that has never been done. Show me that non-vaccinated kids develop autism at the same rate as kids vaccinated according to the CDC schedule and you might have something.

          • Linda Tock

            A Meta-analysis is the highest quality study that we can examine. It has an enormous study population and can detect even the smallest incidence of adverse events.

            Again – the study you want will not happen. Anti-vaccine parents will not risk their child ending up in the vaccine arm of a study, and intelligent pro-vaccine parents would not risk their child’s life by risking them being in the placebo arm of the study.

            The study you want is a self-selected (where everyone anti-vaccine gets to stay anti-vaccine) and self reporting – which makes it useless for determining causation, because there’s no randomization.

            Such a survey (because really, that’s what it is) – is useless.

          • sillyinterloper

            Sounds like he might know what the terms mean in the inserts then.

    • sillyinterloper

      And here is the CDC list of potential adverse reactions from the DTaP vaccine. No autism link.

      http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/hcp/vis/vis-statements/dtap.html

  • WHB

    I would remind Ms. Fisher that vaccine production and testing is not a perfect science anymore than Theology is. In the mid-70s thousands of people contracted French polio an ofttimes crippling disease of the nervous system through widespread injections of swine flu vaccine hurriedly swept into production by a panicky government. Hundreds of thousands of people still have allergic reactions to current variations of flu vaccines because of allergy to eggs, a far less sinister issue than using human feotal remains to make various childrens’ vaccines. However egg allergy is not to be laughed at. Michel Accard below has stated the case clearly and he aptly points out this is not Aristotelian cause/effect stuff with his well stated brief examples.

    What we have here is a not-so-subtle attempt to “chill” scientific research in an area that the vaccination lobby doesn’t like. Also the use of the term “red flags” is about as pejorative as it gets and Ms. Fisher knows that.

    I try not to pay a lot of attention to her but this time throwing her weight around as an “authority” with little training in the area and less data should make her a bit more shy. Being a mother of nine children, a laudable achievement and certainly a God-loving result on the part of her and her husband, does NOT make her an authority on immunology, vaccine research, statistics, what or what not it takes to get a paper reviewed in a tough scientific journal(Where did she get the $650 number? Dr. Deisher did not “self-publish” her work as many fringe “experts” do in this game so they can point out a publication to certify their shallow expertise. That’s about what it takes to self publish a book.)

    I am not an MD but am thoroughly trained in science as a Ph. D. in Physcial Chemistry and a former research professor. That does not make me an expert in the areas Dr. Deisher specializes in at all. But it gives me an understanding of scientific research methodology. I am also a Catholic convert and student of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and many of the other philosophical writers and know their work.

    Fortunately the smokescreen raised by Ms. Fisher will not stop a full-scale further investigation into this topic. The door has been opened. The only one suffering is Dr. Deisher with the unprincipled attacks and innuendos. I am sure she would be the first to acknowledge the flaws in the scientific method applied to this type of difficult problem but it’s the best we have. Trying to stonewall her results with loud noises with no basis in fact is, unfortunately, a more popular tactic today than it should be.

    I hope this will experience a geometrically accelerating downward spiral in to zero in the Catholic blogosphere.

    Pax tibi Christi

  • Gregory Peterson

    I don’t think that stem cells are from “aborted fetuses.” A couple of hundred cells don’t make a fetus.

    You’re just being a dangerous hysteric…says the guy with an incurable genetic disease (which is fortunately quite treatable, thanks to Nobel Prize winning research.)

  • WHB

    I would remind Ms. Fisher that vaccine production and testing is not a perfect science anymore than Theology is. In the mid-70s thousands of people contracted French polio an ofttimes crippling disease of the nervous system through widespread injections of swine flu vaccine hurriedly swept into production by a panicky government. Hundreds of thousands of people still have allergic reactions to current variations of flu vaccines because of allergy to eggs, a far less sinister issue than using human feotal remains to make various childrens’ vaccines. However egg allergy is not to be laughed at. Michel Accard below has stated the case clearly and he aptly points out this is not Aristotelian cause/effect stuff with his well stated brief examples.

    What we have here is a not-so-subtle attempt to “chill” scientific research in an area that the vaccination lobby doesn’t like. Also the use of the term “red flags” is about as pejorative as it gets and Ms. Fisher knows that.

    I try not to pay a lot of attention to her but this time throwing her weight around as an “authority” with little training in the area and less data should make her a bit more shy. Being a mother of nine children, a laudable achievement and certainly a God-loving result on the part of her and her husband, does NOT make her an authority on immunology, vaccine research, statistics, what or what not it takes to get a paper reviewed in a tough scientific journal(Where did she get the $650 number? Dr. Deisher did not “self-publish” her work as many fringe “experts” do in this game so they can point out a publication to certify their shallow expertise. That’s about what it takes to self publish a book.)

    I am not an MD but am thoroughly trained in science as a Ph. D. in Physcial Chemistry and a former research professor. That does not make me an expert in the areas Dr. Deisher specializes in at all. But it gives me an understanding of scientific research methodology. I am also a Catholic convert and student of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, and many of the other philosophical writers and know their work. So a strict link with causality in this type of research is not possible, anymore than it would be for any other correlative study.

    Yes, there are flaws in the databases she used and she acknowledges that. So what’s to gripe about? It is clearly and endorsement of aborted tissue use in the vaccine production if parents choose to do it. You cannot wiggle out of it.

    Fortunately the smokescreen raised by Ms. Fisher will not stop a full-scale further investigation into this topic. The door has been opened. The only one suffering is Dr. Deisher with the unprincipled attacks and innuendos. I am sure she would be the first to acknowledge the flaws in the scientific method applied to this type of difficult problem but it’s the best we have. Trying to stonewall her results with loud noises with no basis in fact is, unfortunately, a more popular tactic today than it should be.

    I hope this will experience a geometrically accelerating downward spiral in to zero in the Catholic blogosphere.

    Pax tibi Christi

  • Mrs. Harris

    1. It is not bad science to note a correlation. Yes a distinction exists between causation and correlation.
    2. If you discredit her work because of conflict of interest, consider the other conflicts of interest that exist , ie. Dr Paul Offit earns royalties from Merck for his vaccine, Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia collaborated with the initial work of researchers at the Wistar Institute on aborted fetal tissues, Julie Gerberding formerly positioned at the CDC moved to head Merck’s Vaccine division, financial ties held by CDC and FDA to the Pharmaceutical companies they are making recommendations about. Dr Deisher’s work should be examined on its merits.
    3. The emotional impact of this issue exists but it should not stop people from looking at the study or examining it on its merits. Dr Deisher is not preying on people’s emotions. She is doing work which by its nature leads into this difficult question. It’s perfectly scientific and valid for her to do so.

  • Jennifer Hartline

    “But that’s not how it works — not medically, and not theologically. This argument — that sin always
    leads directly to physical suffering — is a red herring. Hundreds of
    the medical cures we rely on every day came from unethical sources. That
    is how the world works: sometimes bad actions lead to suffering,
    sometimes they don’t. We may not like it, but we cannot deny it. Show me
    an effective alternative, and I’ll use it with gratitude. But don’t
    tell me that God will not allow us to make good come out of evil.”

    Not saying that God will not allow us to make good come out of evil. Actually, it is God who can bring good out of evil, not us, but my reason for commenting is this: There is certainly good that has come out of our vaccines. But what if there is ALSO bad? What if the good that resulted from evil isn’t entirely good, but still retains an unexpected yet destructive result? That is very possible. There’s no harm in admitting that or in examining the possibility and investigating.

  • Therese Jacobs

    You had me until you started criticizing a parents ability to recognize the onset of autism in their child. If there is absolutely no correlation, then there is no reason why the government has paid out millions upon millions through the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. Here are just two of dozens of those cases: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-kirby/post2468343_b_2468343.html

    Tread lightly on your fellow mothers. Until you’ve had a child suffer a debilitating reaction to a vaccine, I think it’s best you not criticize the parents that have.

  • Momtoafew

    Any Catholic that can refuse vaccines after reading footnote 15 of the Holy See’s statement linked above, well, has some seriously soul searching to do!

  • http://www.vacfacts.info/ Lowell Hubbs

    I think for the correct interpretation of this study and its actual significance and as well the significance of the work that Deisher and Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute have done and continue to do; you should go to these much less biased sources.

    New Study in Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology Correlates Autism Disorder Increase and Human Fetal DNA, Retroviral Agents in Vaccines

    SEATTLE, Sept. 8, 2014 /Standard Newswire/ — A new study published in the September 2014 volume of the Journal of Public Health and Epidemiology reveals a significant correlation between autism disorder (AD) and MMR, Varicella (chickenpox) and Hepatitis-A vaccines.

    Using statistical analysis and data from the US Government, UK, Denmark and Western Australia, scientists at Sound Choice Pharmaceutical Institute (SCPI) found that increases in autistic disorder correspond with the introduction of vaccines using human fetal cell lines and retroviral contaminants.

    Even more alarming, Dr Theresa Deisher, lead scientist and SCPI founder noted that, “Not only are the human fetal contaminated vaccines associated with autistic disorder throughout the world, but also with epidemic childhood leukemia and lymphomas.”

    Their study comes on the heels of recent breaking news that the CDC deliberately withheld evidence of the significant increase in autism among African-American boys who were vaccinated prior to 36 months of age. (See: http://www.examiner.com/article/whistleblower-reveals-cdc-cover-up-linking-mmr-vaccine-to-autism )

    So it should come as no surprise that the FDA has known for decades about the dangers of insertional mutagenesis by using the human fetal cell lines and yet, they chose to ignore it. Instead of conducting safety studies they regulated the amount of human DNA that could be present in a vaccine to no greater than 10ng. (www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/05/slides/5-4188S1_4draft.ppt )

    Unfortunately, Dr. Deisher’s team discovered that the fetal DNA levels ranged anywhere from 142ng – 2000ng per dose, way beyond the so-called “safe” level.

    “There are a large number of publications about the presence of HERV (human endogenous retrovirus – the only re-activatable endogenous retrovirus) and its association with childhood lymphoma,” noted Dr Deisher. “The MMR II and chickenpox vaccines and indeed all vaccines that were propagated or manufactured using the fetal cell line WI-38 are contaminated with this retrovirus. And both parents and physicians have a right to know this!”

    Certainly these discoveries by SCPI should generate an immediate investigation by FDA officials, if not an outright ban on the use of aborted fetal cell lines as substrates for vaccine production. There are numerous other non-human FDA-approved cell lines that can and should be used.

    Read more:
    http://www.standardnewswire.com/news/965249574.html

    Vaccine Production With – Human Diploid Cells (aborted fetal cell tissue)
    http://www.vacfacts.info/vaccine-production-with—human-diploid-cells-aborted-fetal-cell—tissue.html

    • notation

      “I think…” No, honey. You don’t have any brains.

  • Chris

    I’m sorry but your article sounds like unscientific complaining. Ethical issues
    aren’t scientific they fall under philosophy. Using epidemiological data
    you’ll find most childhood diseases we vaccinate against were 90-99%
    eradicated before implementing mass vaccination for
    any. Understanding sanitation, refrigeration, access to clean
    drinking water etc. were the reasons. Your comparing organ transplants,
    blood transfusions, and eating burgers to getting DNA and RNA through
    vaccinations isn’t comparing like with like.
    You see the same argument for aluminum in vaccines compared to “you
    consume more through diet” pseudoscience argument. Our bodies chelate toxic metals when you
    consume them.

    Any medical doctor no matter their credentials will have a hit job and smear
    campaign launched the second they say anything negative about our sacred cow
    vaccines. There are numerous studies and
    experimental research indicating dangers but no matter how good the science
    they attack the doctor when they can’t refute the science. It’s pure lunacy and we should be ashamed
    that we allow this. The cover up of the
    vaccine autism link is getting ridiculous and just like smoking isn’t the only
    cause of cancer neither are vaccines to autism but to deny the link in spite of
    the data is criminal.

  • http://www.vanmeterproduction.com BillyHewitt

    My grandson has autism from the contaminated MMR vaccine that Dr Andrew Wakefield warned us about. UK GMC kangaroo court immediately convicted Dr Andrew Wakefield and Professor John Walker Smith based on false testimony by a journalist front man for UK PHARMA. UK Court Chief Justice Mitting in 2012 quashed the GMC case against Professor John Walker Smith and stated GMC needs new judges to replace the kangaroos presently on UK GMC court. The CDC has blocked all American scientists from accessing the VSD (Vaccine Safety Database) that contains all HMO vaccine injury links to vaccines that Dr Thomas Verstraten published a secret CDC study in 2000 that proved vaccines were contaminated and linked to every ASD disease. Congressional Investigator Dr Mark R Geier MD PhD testified at 2005 IOM hearing that Dr Robert Chen PhD Director of NIP (National Immunization Program) damaged the VSD by destroying VSD data from 2000 – 2004 to cover up the links CDC scientist Dr Thomas Verstraten found to ASD diseases in 2000 study. The IOM published a highly critical report on CDC and VSD in 2005 and CDC head Dr Julie Gerberding fired NIP Dr Robert Chen PhD and blocked his staff from all VSD access. They should have been criminally prosecuted because the VSD was contracted for $195 million and all data destroyed between 2000 – 2004


CLOSE | X

HIDE | X