“ as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women”
I think the real prudential decision may be whether the disease (in this case, rubella) poses a grave enough threat to justify the use of a tainted vaccine when no alternatives are available. The document is well balanced and takes into account this aspect of the problem. Perhaps this threat is not grave enough? I ask myself this question.
It's simply an answer to a question (not a binding document), and very Ratzinger-like, it is more interested in weighing the issues than in rendering a real judgement. In fact, despite what legalists read into it, it really leaves things in the prudential realm, while leaning heavily against the "gravity" of using aborted fetal tissue. (I am here assuming that in forwarding it, ++Ratzinger, head of the CDF, directed its contents, and they do bear his intellectual imprint.)
But you are right -- the assumption is there, that rubella poses a serious threat and that the shot protects against it. I believe there are questions about both those assumptions as well as unspoken issues about risks to healthy children of getting the shots, not only for the usual reasons but also because fetal DNA itself poses a risk.
It doesn't really address the use of aborted fetal tissue in a non-threatening illness, chicken pox, either.
Subsequent statements (also not binding) take things to a greater extreme of assuming what is supposed to be addressed (e.g. that vaccines protect others, not just oneself). They plunge headlong where Ratzinger was loathe to tread, but his statement is more dispositive, because he was the head of the CDF -- but still not binding in my opinion.
The truth is that modern theology very often seeks to find a reason to do the thing the world is telling us we should or could do, rather than asking whether we should do it at all. Once you've made the assumption that it would be dangerous (health-wise or politically) to avoid the shots, you have to find rationalizations to get them. That's not actually how theology should work!
I wanted to take a wait-and-see approach for the chicken pox/varicella vaccine, in which we’d wait to see if our children got it naturally and then get the vaccine when they were older if they had not already had it. My family medicine doc (very serious Catholic) told me he once had a patient who contracted varicella as a young adult and died. I think varicella is not a concern as long as the children get it while very young. I agonize over the vaccine issue.
Thank you, Leila, for being a voice in the wilderness on this topic!! The more I have reflected on this topic I am starting to ask if it is moral to vaccinate any healthy child or adult. A healthy body is a gift from God! Vaccinating a healthy body says to God “thank you for the gift of my (or my child’s) health but I must improve it by vaccination to make it more healthy and give a stronger immune system than the one You gave me”. This sounds transhumanistic to me. Would like to hear your thoughts! Thanks!
Auntie Leila has a recipe for elderberry cordial on her Like Mother Like Daughter site that she uses to prevent colds and to make colds less severe. If she’s using it to prevent colds, presumably she does not already have a cold at the time of consumption. I for one would never affix the term transhumanistic onto Auntie Leila’s thinking. ;)
Sounds delicious! The distinction though is between using nutrition to stay healthy (or supplements to supplement nutrition) vs. injecting a germ cocktail to artificially attempt to “strengthen” an otherwise healthy immune system.
I think it's a valid distinction, one that has to be examined more closely.
I can't get into what you asked, John, about vaccines, just now, but I would say here are the areas I would want to look into:
1. there seem to be many different categories, all called vaccines. We need to have a better system for addressing them
2. I don't know that we know how they all work or if they work at all
3. Some diseases are not dire and actually provide immune benefits later on in life -- what about that?
4. the first rule of medicine is "do no harm" -- how does that apply to injecting healthy people with a substance that carries risk (vs. treating a sick person, where risk might be outweighed by the benefit)
In short, we are basically lacking in information across the board.
One could argue that creating a supplement and then ingesting the supplement has a certain amount of artificiality to it due to the purity of the supplement or the high concentration of it. Does that make it immoral? How much artificiality is too much?
Thank you, Callie, for these thought-provoking responses! I really don't have super well-developed answers for this whole picture. But there are definitely some moral aspects to vaccination (beyond the problematic methods of research and manufacture) that I think need more exploration by society and by our Church.
But to address your question on high-powered supplements and how they might differ from vaccination in promoting health ... I would offer the following ... the most obvious difference is that a vaccine is ordered toward introducing a toxin/pathogen combination that triggers an immune response. Supplements, even highly concentrated ones, are ordered toward providing the body nourishment. And often supplements are taken in response to a deficit in the body (e.g. Vitamin D in northern latitudes). Some do take Vitamin C, for example, in high does to promote a stronger immune system. I don't see this as morally problematic though as Vitamin C is a nutrient we need and can get from food; so this is a way of isolating nutrients that have been found to be particularly beneficial and nourishing our bodies with them in a higher amount.
Thank you, Leila ... I appreciate your pondering on this! A few quick thoughts in response ... using your numbering:
1. Yes, indeed, what is a vaccine anyway? What are we trying to accomplish and why? Of course, we are seeking good health but in what way and at what cost? And it is very true and important to note that not all "vaccines" function in the way we traditionally think of them (i.e. many don't give immunity, prevent illness, or spreading of the illness - as we might assume they do - and this is by the manufacturers' own admission).
2. I think the more you learn about how effective or non-effective vaccines are ... and the history ... and the suspect quality of the scientific methods that have been employed to answer these questions, the less convincing our vaccine-based health approach is. Worth a deep dive for anyone!
3. This question speaks to the whole idea of immunological equilibrium - both within our own bodies and as a society. Many of the childhood diseases seem to play an important role in our development. And that equilibrium was established over millennia perhaps. We altered that rather quickly for many illnesses. What are the consequences? More troubling is that the impacts often cannot be assessed for generations!
4. This speaks to the crux of my argument. Our health is a precious gift! Intervening by modifying the immune system of a healthy baby (or sometimes, more precisely, a newborn - who are commonly vaccinated in this country within 24 hours of birth!) is an action that does not appear to be without moral consequence. And yes, this is to be highly distinguished from providing care to a person who is ill or whose body is not working as it is intended.
Today I need to comment on your stance and previous comments on the Measles vaccine. I worry that the advice you have been giving is not only inaccurate but potentially harmful to your readers.
Every vaccine is different and needs to be judged on the specific dangers/benefits and what we generally know about each individual vaccine and it's purpose. My first cousin is nurse practitioner who has worked in the office of a beloved pediatrician for almost 20 years. She has 4 children; all grown. This is what she told me:
The measles vaccine is among the three most successful vaccines. (The others being polio and small pox). It has been in use for half a century. We KNOW this vaccine well. We have 50 years of working with it. Until recently most younger pediatricians would tell you that they never saw a case of measles. With the decline in vaccine rates that is beginning to change.
Two injections give a person LIFE LONG IMMUNITY at an efficacy rate of 97% (very high!)
Measles is NOT a benign illness (like chicken pox, or even a flu in children). 20% of children who contract measles need to be hospitalized for complications (1 in 5), both neurological and lung related. If those complications are not treated promptly, some children will die. Measles can be lethal. Measles is especially dangerous for infants. (Infants are most likely to have potentially lethal complications)
The measles virus is THE most contagious child borne virus. If someone is exposed to it and is not immune, they have a 90% chance of contracting this illness. In pregnant women it is higher.
Since measles vaccines are not given until between 12 and 15 months (first dose) unvaccinated babies are at high risk of contracting this illness if exposed.
Sadly, you are just plain wrong about measles not being a danger to pregnant women, It is dangerous to both the woman and her unborn child. So much so that pregnant women who are not vaccinated and know they have been exposed are urged to get the vaccine within 48 hours The most common complication for a pregnant woman with measles is premature birth. As for the unborn child, he/she is often born infected with measles contracted from mom; with all the dangers that this entails. These children are also at an increased risk of serious lung and congenital defects.
Vitamin A: Doctors, including the CDC, DO recommend that anyone who contracts measles be given extra vitamin A. Contrary to what you say in your writeup, the medical establishment does recognize the potential benefits of this vitamin. Vitamin A CAN minimize the effects and reduce the risks of complications. However, this benefit is primarily seen in children who have a reduced amount of vitamin A in their system. This is very rare in the US. It is known that low vitamin A levels can make one more likely to get measles and suffer complications. What is not known and currently there is not a lot of evidence that demonstrates vitamin A is beneficial for children who already have normal levels. At any rate, it is not a cure or guarantee; but just a tool in the tool box. NOT getting measles in the first place is the best protocol for avoiding serious complications and hospitalization.
The risks of the measles vaccine are minimal but we all must do a cost/benefit analysis. For most folks the measles vaccine is potentially life saving. It is estimated that during this past century, this vaccine has saved millions of children's lives. Again, this vaccine is one of the great successes in modern medicine. It has been a game changer.
My cousin also says that her office does not recommend the chicken pox vaccine. They leave this up to the patient completely because chicken pox IS a benign illness. I tell you this just to give you some context. My cousin and the pediatrician she works with care about kids, have over 40 years combined experience working with children. They do NOT recommend anything they would not recommend for their own children. They are up to date on all the research and the overwhelming consensus of physicians everywhere who work with infectious diseases.
I worry that you have given wrong information about this vaccine by minimizing the nature of this illness, exaggerating the possible benefits of vitamin A (yes there are some but may not work for all children and it is not a guarantee), gave inaccurate information about the danger of spread and potential danger to pregnant and non-immunized babies (because they are too young). This disinformation can kill. I know we all would like to believe we can treat and cure most illnesses at home. And for many many illnesses time, a supportive environment, and a little tender loving care is all that is needed. Measles is NOT one of these.
We all our responsible for our own health and the health of our children. We must balance this responsibility with what we know we can do prevent and treat illnesses without running to professionals at every nose bleed. However, we can never dismiss the expertise that our health care professionals provide. We also must be responsible enough to know when outside assistance and expertise is warranted. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Measles is truly a public health emergency. It is a dangerous and highly contagious virus. To say otherwise is not only wrong but very, very detrimental. Please let's be careful with the information we share about such serious topics.
Most of the things you say here are well known arguments to me, but I have to ask you -- *where did I give advice*?
Here's what I said at the top of the post:
"I’ve been collecting some vaccine info and just want to put it all in one place.
Maybe you’d be interested in some of these resources too."
The resources going to the issue of measles, its effectiveness, and its safety are all from reliable sources, including from the inserts themselves. I will update with some more info, actually.
But it's rather unfair of you to accuse me of putting people's lives in danger! Are you against having more information? Is information bad? How do you feel about informed consent in medicine?
I am hopeful that Dr. Jay Bhattacharya will be confirmed and will do what he has promised -- provide ethical alternatives.
The only thing I have no resource for is the safety of a pregnant woman and her unborn child if she's taking the live virus shot of measles. If anyone has anything on that, let me know. It's true that measles in pregnancy is a high-risk situation if the mother is not immune. I don't think I stated otherwise. I can think off the top of my head how to deal with that without giving her a shot when she's pregnant, but that can be for another day.
The vitamin A protocol is not the only one, it's true, and might not be appropriate (though it's a bit contradictory to say it IS given and ALSO that it's not needed). I will add the vitamin C one as well.
But to be clear -- I am not giving advice, which is pretty well understood from the actual words of my post. The post is information, full stop.
I’m sorry this reads like a copy and paste post from some Pharma lobby website.
1 in 5 kids hospitalized for a measles infection is utter nonsense.
I challenge you to find a document claiming around a million parents who took their kids to the hospital in 1962 for a measles infection when only 400 people died that year from the infection.
The mumps vaccine was fraudulently presented as being effective, so now we have outbreaks on fully vaccinated Navy ships in adults.
The fact that no vaccines can claim they have not been tested for carcinogenic effect should be a red flag. If an intervention can alter your immune system then Cancer risk should absolutely be studied.
W.r.t. the plasmid DNA contamination in the COVID-19 mRNA shots given to 6 month olds:
“6.4.2.3 Activation of oncogenes. This is a special case of the preceding point, but it is important enough to be highlighted separately.
The occurrence of malignancies through DNA integration and activation of cancer-promoting genes (oncogenes) has been demonstrated in clinical trials with a retroviral vector for the genetic treatment of children with SCID-X1 (severe combined immune deficiency)”
This probably goes in the vaccines “eradicating” disease section. But impacts on mortality is worth discussing. Cheryl Atkinson’s piece on flu shots getting introduced to adults at the change point when mortality started to rise which resulted in them adding the two flu shots for 6 month olds!?
Also check out Dennis Rancourt’s paper which debunks the claims that mass pediatric vaccinations have reduced mortality, he actually shows that the slopes change the wrong direction and slowed down the rate of mortality decline during two large roll outs.
I have one vaccine question that I don't seem to find a reassuring answer to. What to do about tetanus? There are many ways to boost the immune system and/or treat the other sicknesses they want us to vaccinate for. But when it comes to tetanus...I worry. My kids live on a homestead, and dirty cuts are common. I can't decide what to worry about more- tetanus or the Dtap vaccine?
Leila, the first link for the inserts doesn’t seem to go anywhere. Thank you for putting this together!
Sorry, fixed it!
“ as regards the vaccines without an alternative, the need to contest so that others may be prepared must be reaffirmed, as should be the lawfulness of using the former in the meantime insomuch as is necessary in order to avoid a serious risk not only for one's own children but also, and perhaps more specifically, for the health conditions of the population as a whole - especially for pregnant women”
(From the Vatican document on tainted vaccines)
I think the real prudential decision may be whether the disease (in this case, rubella) poses a grave enough threat to justify the use of a tainted vaccine when no alternatives are available. The document is well balanced and takes into account this aspect of the problem. Perhaps this threat is not grave enough? I ask myself this question.
Yes, totally agree.
It's simply an answer to a question (not a binding document), and very Ratzinger-like, it is more interested in weighing the issues than in rendering a real judgement. In fact, despite what legalists read into it, it really leaves things in the prudential realm, while leaning heavily against the "gravity" of using aborted fetal tissue. (I am here assuming that in forwarding it, ++Ratzinger, head of the CDF, directed its contents, and they do bear his intellectual imprint.)
But you are right -- the assumption is there, that rubella poses a serious threat and that the shot protects against it. I believe there are questions about both those assumptions as well as unspoken issues about risks to healthy children of getting the shots, not only for the usual reasons but also because fetal DNA itself poses a risk.
It doesn't really address the use of aborted fetal tissue in a non-threatening illness, chicken pox, either.
Subsequent statements (also not binding) take things to a greater extreme of assuming what is supposed to be addressed (e.g. that vaccines protect others, not just oneself). They plunge headlong where Ratzinger was loathe to tread, but his statement is more dispositive, because he was the head of the CDF -- but still not binding in my opinion.
The truth is that modern theology very often seeks to find a reason to do the thing the world is telling us we should or could do, rather than asking whether we should do it at all. Once you've made the assumption that it would be dangerous (health-wise or politically) to avoid the shots, you have to find rationalizations to get them. That's not actually how theology should work!
I wanted to take a wait-and-see approach for the chicken pox/varicella vaccine, in which we’d wait to see if our children got it naturally and then get the vaccine when they were older if they had not already had it. My family medicine doc (very serious Catholic) told me he once had a patient who contracted varicella as a young adult and died. I think varicella is not a concern as long as the children get it while very young. I agonize over the vaccine issue.
https://www.truedevotions.ie/author/fr-ambrose-astor/
Thank you so much, Leila. If you didn’t know about these articles already, they are well well worth the read. God Bless
Thank you, Leila, for being a voice in the wilderness on this topic!! The more I have reflected on this topic I am starting to ask if it is moral to vaccinate any healthy child or adult. A healthy body is a gift from God! Vaccinating a healthy body says to God “thank you for the gift of my (or my child’s) health but I must improve it by vaccination to make it more healthy and give a stronger immune system than the one You gave me”. This sounds transhumanistic to me. Would like to hear your thoughts! Thanks!
Auntie Leila has a recipe for elderberry cordial on her Like Mother Like Daughter site that she uses to prevent colds and to make colds less severe. If she’s using it to prevent colds, presumably she does not already have a cold at the time of consumption. I for one would never affix the term transhumanistic onto Auntie Leila’s thinking. ;)
Sounds delicious! The distinction though is between using nutrition to stay healthy (or supplements to supplement nutrition) vs. injecting a germ cocktail to artificially attempt to “strengthen” an otherwise healthy immune system.
I think it's a valid distinction, one that has to be examined more closely.
I can't get into what you asked, John, about vaccines, just now, but I would say here are the areas I would want to look into:
1. there seem to be many different categories, all called vaccines. We need to have a better system for addressing them
2. I don't know that we know how they all work or if they work at all
3. Some diseases are not dire and actually provide immune benefits later on in life -- what about that?
4. the first rule of medicine is "do no harm" -- how does that apply to injecting healthy people with a substance that carries risk (vs. treating a sick person, where risk might be outweighed by the benefit)
In short, we are basically lacking in information across the board.
One could argue that creating a supplement and then ingesting the supplement has a certain amount of artificiality to it due to the purity of the supplement or the high concentration of it. Does that make it immoral? How much artificiality is too much?
Thank you, Callie, for these thought-provoking responses! I really don't have super well-developed answers for this whole picture. But there are definitely some moral aspects to vaccination (beyond the problematic methods of research and manufacture) that I think need more exploration by society and by our Church.
But to address your question on high-powered supplements and how they might differ from vaccination in promoting health ... I would offer the following ... the most obvious difference is that a vaccine is ordered toward introducing a toxin/pathogen combination that triggers an immune response. Supplements, even highly concentrated ones, are ordered toward providing the body nourishment. And often supplements are taken in response to a deficit in the body (e.g. Vitamin D in northern latitudes). Some do take Vitamin C, for example, in high does to promote a stronger immune system. I don't see this as morally problematic though as Vitamin C is a nutrient we need and can get from food; so this is a way of isolating nutrients that have been found to be particularly beneficial and nourishing our bodies with them in a higher amount.
Lots to ponder!
Thank you, Leila ... I appreciate your pondering on this! A few quick thoughts in response ... using your numbering:
1. Yes, indeed, what is a vaccine anyway? What are we trying to accomplish and why? Of course, we are seeking good health but in what way and at what cost? And it is very true and important to note that not all "vaccines" function in the way we traditionally think of them (i.e. many don't give immunity, prevent illness, or spreading of the illness - as we might assume they do - and this is by the manufacturers' own admission).
2. I think the more you learn about how effective or non-effective vaccines are ... and the history ... and the suspect quality of the scientific methods that have been employed to answer these questions, the less convincing our vaccine-based health approach is. Worth a deep dive for anyone!
3. This question speaks to the whole idea of immunological equilibrium - both within our own bodies and as a society. Many of the childhood diseases seem to play an important role in our development. And that equilibrium was established over millennia perhaps. We altered that rather quickly for many illnesses. What are the consequences? More troubling is that the impacts often cannot be assessed for generations!
4. This speaks to the crux of my argument. Our health is a precious gift! Intervening by modifying the immune system of a healthy baby (or sometimes, more precisely, a newborn - who are commonly vaccinated in this country within 24 hours of birth!) is an action that does not appear to be without moral consequence. And yes, this is to be highly distinguished from providing care to a person who is ill or whose body is not working as it is intended.
Thanks!
The Midwestern Doctor is a wonderful resource, if you haven’t encountered it yet here on Substack. Extensive articles written in layman’s terms.
e.g. https://open.substack.com/pub/amidwesterndoctor/p/why-does-every-vaccine-often-cause?r=cqzui&utm_medium=ios
Yes, I do read that one. Very good.
Today I need to comment on your stance and previous comments on the Measles vaccine. I worry that the advice you have been giving is not only inaccurate but potentially harmful to your readers.
Every vaccine is different and needs to be judged on the specific dangers/benefits and what we generally know about each individual vaccine and it's purpose. My first cousin is nurse practitioner who has worked in the office of a beloved pediatrician for almost 20 years. She has 4 children; all grown. This is what she told me:
The measles vaccine is among the three most successful vaccines. (The others being polio and small pox). It has been in use for half a century. We KNOW this vaccine well. We have 50 years of working with it. Until recently most younger pediatricians would tell you that they never saw a case of measles. With the decline in vaccine rates that is beginning to change.
Two injections give a person LIFE LONG IMMUNITY at an efficacy rate of 97% (very high!)
Measles is NOT a benign illness (like chicken pox, or even a flu in children). 20% of children who contract measles need to be hospitalized for complications (1 in 5), both neurological and lung related. If those complications are not treated promptly, some children will die. Measles can be lethal. Measles is especially dangerous for infants. (Infants are most likely to have potentially lethal complications)
The measles virus is THE most contagious child borne virus. If someone is exposed to it and is not immune, they have a 90% chance of contracting this illness. In pregnant women it is higher.
Since measles vaccines are not given until between 12 and 15 months (first dose) unvaccinated babies are at high risk of contracting this illness if exposed.
Sadly, you are just plain wrong about measles not being a danger to pregnant women, It is dangerous to both the woman and her unborn child. So much so that pregnant women who are not vaccinated and know they have been exposed are urged to get the vaccine within 48 hours The most common complication for a pregnant woman with measles is premature birth. As for the unborn child, he/she is often born infected with measles contracted from mom; with all the dangers that this entails. These children are also at an increased risk of serious lung and congenital defects.
Vitamin A: Doctors, including the CDC, DO recommend that anyone who contracts measles be given extra vitamin A. Contrary to what you say in your writeup, the medical establishment does recognize the potential benefits of this vitamin. Vitamin A CAN minimize the effects and reduce the risks of complications. However, this benefit is primarily seen in children who have a reduced amount of vitamin A in their system. This is very rare in the US. It is known that low vitamin A levels can make one more likely to get measles and suffer complications. What is not known and currently there is not a lot of evidence that demonstrates vitamin A is beneficial for children who already have normal levels. At any rate, it is not a cure or guarantee; but just a tool in the tool box. NOT getting measles in the first place is the best protocol for avoiding serious complications and hospitalization.
The risks of the measles vaccine are minimal but we all must do a cost/benefit analysis. For most folks the measles vaccine is potentially life saving. It is estimated that during this past century, this vaccine has saved millions of children's lives. Again, this vaccine is one of the great successes in modern medicine. It has been a game changer.
My cousin also says that her office does not recommend the chicken pox vaccine. They leave this up to the patient completely because chicken pox IS a benign illness. I tell you this just to give you some context. My cousin and the pediatrician she works with care about kids, have over 40 years combined experience working with children. They do NOT recommend anything they would not recommend for their own children. They are up to date on all the research and the overwhelming consensus of physicians everywhere who work with infectious diseases.
I worry that you have given wrong information about this vaccine by minimizing the nature of this illness, exaggerating the possible benefits of vitamin A (yes there are some but may not work for all children and it is not a guarantee), gave inaccurate information about the danger of spread and potential danger to pregnant and non-immunized babies (because they are too young). This disinformation can kill. I know we all would like to believe we can treat and cure most illnesses at home. And for many many illnesses time, a supportive environment, and a little tender loving care is all that is needed. Measles is NOT one of these.
We all our responsible for our own health and the health of our children. We must balance this responsibility with what we know we can do prevent and treat illnesses without running to professionals at every nose bleed. However, we can never dismiss the expertise that our health care professionals provide. We also must be responsible enough to know when outside assistance and expertise is warranted. Let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. Measles is truly a public health emergency. It is a dangerous and highly contagious virus. To say otherwise is not only wrong but very, very detrimental. Please let's be careful with the information we share about such serious topics.
Dear Jane,
Most of the things you say here are well known arguments to me, but I have to ask you -- *where did I give advice*?
Here's what I said at the top of the post:
"I’ve been collecting some vaccine info and just want to put it all in one place.
Maybe you’d be interested in some of these resources too."
The resources going to the issue of measles, its effectiveness, and its safety are all from reliable sources, including from the inserts themselves. I will update with some more info, actually.
But it's rather unfair of you to accuse me of putting people's lives in danger! Are you against having more information? Is information bad? How do you feel about informed consent in medicine?
One bit of information needed in this discussion: the measles vaccine can't be separated, as of now, from the mumps and rubella ones. And it is tainted with aborted fetal cells (more info here: https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/Abortion-Tainted-Vaccine-List.pdf)
I am hopeful that Dr. Jay Bhattacharya will be confirmed and will do what he has promised -- provide ethical alternatives.
The only thing I have no resource for is the safety of a pregnant woman and her unborn child if she's taking the live virus shot of measles. If anyone has anything on that, let me know. It's true that measles in pregnancy is a high-risk situation if the mother is not immune. I don't think I stated otherwise. I can think off the top of my head how to deal with that without giving her a shot when she's pregnant, but that can be for another day.
The rest of my comment here:
The vitamin A protocol is not the only one, it's true, and might not be appropriate (though it's a bit contradictory to say it IS given and ALSO that it's not needed). I will add the vitamin C one as well.
But to be clear -- I am not giving advice, which is pretty well understood from the actual words of my post. The post is information, full stop.
I’m sorry this reads like a copy and paste post from some Pharma lobby website.
1 in 5 kids hospitalized for a measles infection is utter nonsense.
I challenge you to find a document claiming around a million parents who took their kids to the hospital in 1962 for a measles infection when only 400 people died that year from the infection.
The mumps vaccine was fraudulently presented as being effective, so now we have outbreaks on fully vaccinated Navy ships in adults.
https://protocol7.movie/thecase
https://amp.cnn.com/cnn/2019/03/13/politics/us-warship-quarantined-virus
Measles vaccine is obviously NOT 98% effective from two pediatric jabs if they are still recommending pregnant moms and adults to get boosters.
“The average waning rate after the second dose of MMR vaccine (ages 10–33 years) was significantly lower: 4.8% per year”
https://open.substack.com/pub/jbhandley/p/measles-is-a-con-job?r=pbkzb&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=false
I agree. I notice that the responses I get are always in this vein. Yet I posted a lot of info. I would love to see that info engaged.
The fact that no vaccines can claim they have not been tested for carcinogenic effect should be a red flag. If an intervention can alter your immune system then Cancer risk should absolutely be studied.
W.r.t. the plasmid DNA contamination in the COVID-19 mRNA shots given to 6 month olds:
“6.4.2.3 Activation of oncogenes. This is a special case of the preceding point, but it is important enough to be highlighted separately.
The occurrence of malignancies through DNA integration and activation of cancer-promoting genes (oncogenes) has been demonstrated in clinical trials with a retroviral vector for the genetic treatment of children with SCID-X1 (severe combined immune deficiency)”
https://doctors4covidethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/mRNA-Vaccine-Toxicity-v2-1.pdf#page127
This probably goes in the vaccines “eradicating” disease section. But impacts on mortality is worth discussing. Cheryl Atkinson’s piece on flu shots getting introduced to adults at the change point when mortality started to rise which resulted in them adding the two flu shots for 6 month olds!?
https://x.com/midwesterndoc/status/1889912541880672487?s=46&t=GTvhmxxdJl-JWzuAfMMv3A
Also check out Dennis Rancourt’s paper which debunks the claims that mass pediatric vaccinations have reduced mortality, he actually shows that the slopes change the wrong direction and slowed down the rate of mortality decline during two large roll outs.
https://x.com/nickkottenstet1/status/1888350556370219313?s=46&t=GTvhmxxdJl-JWzuAfMMv3A
This is so helpful.
Our own decision to not vaccinate was made nearly a decade ago and it’s fabulous to have a resource to point people to. Thank you thank you thank you!
You're welcome! Thank you for sharing!
I have one vaccine question that I don't seem to find a reassuring answer to. What to do about tetanus? There are many ways to boost the immune system and/or treat the other sicknesses they want us to vaccinate for. But when it comes to tetanus...I worry. My kids live on a homestead, and dirty cuts are common. I can't decide what to worry about more- tetanus or the Dtap vaccine?
I will see what I can turn up. I am pretty sure you can't get the tetanus one by itself?
The Dtap is a real attack on the immune system.
Do you follow Dr. Suzanne Humphries?
I don't...yet! I know who she is, and think she is brilliant.