Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

[bubbleguppy]

I'd really love to know how exactly the cells of aborted fetuses could be used in vaccines? I'm uneducated as to how that could even work.

 

[buddhist]

Hi everyone,
it's recently come to my attention that a number of common vaccinations contain cells from aborted fetuses. But I'm also aware that most people, including religious people, get vaccinated. I have a Christin friend who is a Pharmacist and who is anti-vax specifically because of this ingredient. But how common is it for religious people who are against abortion to get themselves and their children vaccinated?

Are you one of these people or are you a religious person who avoids vaccination for religious reasons?

Not everyone esteems the singular goal of the preservation of physical life (e.g. over the preservation of, perhaps, spiritual life), and I can see how some people might see view vaccines as an intrusion and desecration into the inner sanctum of their inner world.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I'd really love to know how exactly the cells of aborted fetuses could be used in vaccines? I'm uneducated as to how that could even work.

I do not think I've heard of that. My understanding was that they were a potential source of stem cells.

 

[whirlingmerc]

I think many vaccinations come from eggs of birds

These types of issues seem to me to belong to personal conscience
and Protestants believe in 'the priesthood of believers' in that regard where each lives up to their own conscience

Having said that as a rule I am not in favor of using pre-born parts for medical use of any sort

there was a vatican study on the issue and supported individual conscience
and mentioned the ones in question

Vaccines currently produced using human cell lines that come from aborted foetuses

To date, there are two human diploid cell lines which were originally prepared from tissues of aborted foetuses (in 1964 and 1970) and are used for the preparation of vaccines based on live attenuated virus: the first one is the WI-38 line (Winstar Institute 38), with human diploid lung fibroblasts, coming from a female foetus that was aborted because the family felt they had too many children (G. Sven et al., 1969). It was prepared and developed by Leonard Hayflick in 1964 (L. Hayflick, 1965; G. Sven et al., 1969)3 and bears the ATCC number CCL-75. WI-38 has been used for the preparation of the historical vaccine RA 27/3 against rubella (S.A. Plotkin et al, 1965)4. The second human cell line is MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) (human, lung, embryonic) (ATCC number CCL-171), with human lung fibroblasts coming from a 14 week male foetus aborted for "psychiatric reasons" from a 27 year old woman in the UK. MRC-5 was prepared and developed by J.P. Jacobs in 1966 (J.P. Jacobs et al, 1970)5. Other human cell lines have been developed for pharmaceutical needs, but are not involved in the vaccines actually available6.

The vaccines that are incriminated today as using human cell lines from aborted foetuses, WI-38 and MRC-5, are the following:7

A) Live vaccines against rubella8:

• the monovalent vaccines against rubella Meruvax®!! (Merck) (U.S.), Rudivax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Ervevax® (RA 27/3) (GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium);
• the combined vaccine MR against rubella and measles, commercialized with the name of M-R-VAX® (Merck, US) and Rudi-Rouvax® (AVP, France);
• the combined vaccine against rubella and mumps marketed under the name of Biavax®!! (Merck, U.S.),
• the combined vaccine MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) against rubella, mumps and measles, marketed under the name of M-M-R® II (Merck, US), R.O.R.®, Trimovax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Priorix® (GlaxoSmithKline UK).

B) Other vaccines, also prepared using human cell lines from aborted foetuses:

• two vaccines against hepatitis A, one produced by Merck (VAQTA), the other one produced by GlaxoSmithKline (HAVRIX), both of them being prepared using MRC-5;
• one vaccine against chicken pox, Varivax®, produced by Merck using WI-38 and MRC-5;
• one vaccine against poliomyelitis, the inactivated polio virus vaccine Poliovax® (Aventis-Pasteur, Fr.) using MRC-5;
• one vaccine against rabies, Imovax®, produced by Aventis Pasteur, harvested from infected human diploid cells, MRC-5 strain;
• one vaccine against smallpox, AC AM 1000, prepared by Acambis using MRC-5, still on trial.

 

[SkepticThinker]

http://www.drwile.com/lnkpages/render.asp?vac_abortion

 

[SkepticThinker]

I think many vaccinations come from eggs of birds

These types of issues seem to me to belong to personal conscience
and Protestants believe in 'the priesthood of believers' in that regard where each lives up to their own conscience

Having said that as a rule I am not in favor of using pre-born parts for medical use of any sort

there was a vatican study on the issue and supported individual conscience
and mentioned the ones in question

Vaccines currently produced using human cell lines that come from aborted foetuses

To date, there are two human diploid cell lines which were originally prepared from tissues of aborted foetuses (in 1964 and 1970) and are used for the preparation of vaccines based on live attenuated virus: the first one is the WI-38 line (Winstar Institute 38), with human diploid lung fibroblasts, coming from a female foetus that was aborted because the family felt they had too many children (G. Sven et al., 1969). It was prepared and developed by Leonard Hayflick in 1964 (L. Hayflick, 1965; G. Sven et al., 1969)3 and bears the ATCC number CCL-75. WI-38 has been used for the preparation of the historical vaccine RA 27/3 against rubella (S.A. Plotkin et al, 1965)4. The second human cell line is MRC-5 (Medical Research Council 5) (human, lung, embryonic) (ATCC number CCL-171), with human lung fibroblasts coming from a 14 week male foetus aborted for "psychiatric reasons" from a 27 year old woman in the UK. MRC-5 was prepared and developed by J.P. Jacobs in 1966 (J.P. Jacobs et al, 1970)5. Other human cell lines have been developed for pharmaceutical needs, but are not involved in the vaccines actually available6.

The vaccines that are incriminated today as using human cell lines from aborted foetuses, WI-38 and MRC-5, are the following:7

A) Live vaccines against rubella8:

• the monovalent vaccines against rubella Meruvax®!! (Merck) (U.S.), Rudivax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Ervevax® (RA 27/3) (GlaxoSmithKline, Belgium);
• the combined vaccine MR against rubella and measles, commercialized with the name of M-R-VAX® (Merck, US) and Rudi-Rouvax® (AVP, France);
• the combined vaccine against rubella and mumps marketed under the name of Biavax®!! (Merck, U.S.),
• the combined vaccine MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) against rubella, mumps and measles, marketed under the name of M-M-R® II (Merck, US), R.O.R.®, Trimovax® (Sanofi Pasteur, Fr.), and Priorix® (GlaxoSmithKline UK).

B) Other vaccines, also prepared using human cell lines from aborted foetuses:

• two vaccines against hepatitis A, one produced by Merck (VAQTA), the other one produced by GlaxoSmithKline (HAVRIX), both of them being prepared using MRC-5;
• one vaccine against chicken pox, Varivax®, produced by Merck using WI-38 and MRC-5;
• one vaccine against poliomyelitis, the inactivated polio virus vaccine Poliovax® (Aventis-Pasteur, Fr.) using MRC-5;
• one vaccine against rabies, Imovax®, produced by Aventis Pasteur, harvested from infected human diploid cells, MRC-5 strain;
• one vaccine against smallpox, AC AM 1000, prepared by Acambis using MRC-5, still on trial.

"As regards the diseases against which there are no alternative vaccines which are available and ethically acceptable, it is right to abstain from using these vaccines if it can be done without causing children, and indirectly the population as a whole, to undergo significant risks to their health. However, if the latter are exposed to considerable dangers to their health, vaccines with moral problems pertaining to them may also be used on a temporary basis. The moral reason is that the duty to avoid passive material cooperation is not obligatory if there is grave inconvenience. Moreover, we find, in such a case, a proportional reason, in order to accept the use of these vaccines in the presence of the danger of favouring the spread of the pathological agent, due to the lack of vaccination of children. This is particularly true in the case of vaccination against German measles15.

In any case, there remains a moral duty to continue to fight and to employ every lawful means in order to make life difficult for the pharmaceutical industries which act unscrupulously and unethically. However, the burden of this important battle cannot and must not fall on innocent children and on the health situation of the population - especially with regard to pregnant women.

To summarize, it must be confirmed that:

• there is a grave responsibility to use alternative vaccines and to make a conscientious objection with regard to those which have moral problems;
• 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;
• the lawfulness of the use of these vaccines should not be misinterpreted as a declaration of the lawfulness of their production, marketing and use, but is to be understood as being a passive material cooperation and, in its mildest and remotest sense, also active, morally justified as an extrema ratio due to the necessity to provide for the good of one's children and of the people who come in contact with the children (pregnant women);
• 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."

http://www.immunize.org/concerns/vaticandocument.htm

 

[whirlingmerc]

Unfortunately the cost of making a new drug in the US is about 2 billion
and so perhaps alternatives could be made but the costs would be prohibitive for drug companies...

I would leave it to conscience as I said

 

[SomeRandom]

Unfortunately the cost of making a new drug in the US is about 2 billion
and so perhaps alternatives could be made but the costs would be prohibitive for drug companies...

I would leave it to conscience as I said

Which would weigh more on the conscience I wonder.
Exposing children to terrible preventable illnesses. Or using a vaccine that used an already dead fetus' cells 40 years ago.
Even if you're against stem cell research how is there even a decision!
If your ethics leave a living child susceptible to contracting Hep A or Whooping Cough, I don't see how you can call yourself ethical at all. (Speaking generally of course.)

 

[paarsurrey]

Vaccination and Religious Beliefs

It is quite appropriate to get vaccination against diseases to remain healthy. It is one attribute of G-d that He cures from the diseases and have provided us with cures. Vaccination is not prohibited in my truthful religion. Right? Please

Regards

 

[Lighthouse]

Those who put their trust and faith in vaccines, so be it. Those who don't want vaccinations, so be it. There would be nothing to worry about or fear if one is vaccinated, with one who isn't vaccinated. If there is trust and faith in vaccinations. If one is vaccinated and still worries about those not vaccinated, why the doubt in them? Why get them if there is doubt they work?

 

[Lighthouse]

Which would weigh more on the conscience I wonder.
Exposing children to terrible preventable illnesses. Or using a vaccine that used an already dead fetus' cells 40 years ago.
Even if you're against stem cell research how is there even a decision!
If your ethics leave a living child susceptible to contracting Hep A or Whooping Cough, I don't see how you can call yourself ethical at all. (Speaking generally of course.)

Everyone is susceptible to disease, those vaccinated and those not vaccinated.

Rational ethics.

 

[Lighthouse]

Just because the article says that some claim that does not mean that the article itself is making that claim. Also, I do not believe that vaccines cause autism. That has been thoroughly debunked.

If it has been thoroughly debunked, why do you believe.... why not know?

 

[SomeRandom]

Everyone is susceptible to disease, those vaccinated and those not vaccinated.

Rational ethics.

Yes, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure any day.
Scientists have essentially handed people a prevention method on a silver platter. They reject it in favor of a cure which may or may not work depending on the specific disease. And then get all upset when people call them ****ing morons. Or rather unethical. I have no such sympathies for such people (unless they saw/experienced a bad reaction specifically.)

 

[Lighthouse]

Yes, but an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure any day.
Scientists have essentially handed people a prevention method on a silver platter. They reject it in favor of a cure which may or may not work depending on the specific disease. And then get all upset when people call them ****ing morons. Or rather unethical. I have no such sympathies for such people (unless they saw/experienced a bad reaction specifically.)

Why hold any judgement on those who receive them or those who don't receive them if there has been harm shown both ways?
People calling others "f'ing morons," getting upset, and emotion could likely cause more disease, be a disease itself and be of more harm than receiving vaccinations or not receiving them.

I personally withhold judgement on either party. If I or my children are vaccinated, I should trust and place faith in them that they work and not worry if anyone else is not vaccinated. If I doubt that they work, I wouldn't get them in the first place.

 

[SomeRandom]

Why hold any judgement on those who receive them or those who don't receive them if there has been harm shown both ways?
People calling others "f'ing morons," getting upset, and emotion could likely cause more disease, be a disease itself and be of more harm than receiving vaccinations or not receiving them.

I personally withhold judgement on either party. If I or my children are vaccinated, I should trust and place faith in them that they work and not worry if anyone else is not vaccinated. If I doubt that they work, I wouldn't get them in the first place.

Because that's not how vaccinations work.
Vaccines are not like some magical force field protecting you from danger. They work on the whole not individually.
The more percentage of the population is vaccinated, the better they work. Think of it like a bubble around the populous. The less holes you have in said bubble the better it works. People who do not vaccinate are those holes in the bubble.
A vaccine is sort of like giving information to your immune system about various diseases. But there's only so many strains it can account for realistically. If someone catches some variation of say the mumps and they are unvaccinated, they will get the full force. Because their immune system literally has to learn then and there what to do about it. A vaccinated person can still catch it, but the vaccine has already allowed the immune system a chance to figure out what to do about it. Thus they will either not contract it or only get mild symptoms.Many diseases that are vaccinated against will kill you the first time round, so to not vaccinate is essentially like signing your own death warrant.
If you have very large swathes of people not vaccinating, then the chance of diseases latching onto them as hosts and mutating are very very high. The more a disease has a chance to mutate (travelling host to host) the less effective the original vaccine is against it.
Because if it mutates a lot by the time it reaches a vaccinated person the strain might not be recognizable to the immune system anymore and the vaccinated person cops the full strength. So yeah, unvaccinated people can actually undo the huge strides made in medicine and even the mortality rate all because they have enough hubris to think they know better than the people who study this in depth for a living over decades. Pride. Talk about a deadly sin, sheesh.

Now there are certain reasonable allowances made in this bubble for holes. Like people who legitimately can't vaccinate like cancer patients or those born with immune disorders etc. These people quite literally rely on the protection given to them by the vaccinated public. Cause you know they can die from measles or chickenpox or what have you. So yeah, there is absolutely harm when people choose to not vaccinate. They can literally kill people. Or allow mutations to occur in diseases that render the original vaccination useless against it.

And the kicker? These people literally putting the greater public at risk also benefit from the protection given to them by the vaccinated public. So I'l be as upset as I flipping well please at these freeloading intellectually lazy ******** thank you very much. If they value the immune system so highly let them put their money where their mouth is and travel to locations where dying people are trying desperately to get their hands on a vaccine. Let's see how well they do without lazily relying on responsible people protecting them like a bunch of first word ungrateful spoilt brats.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those who put their trust and faith in vaccines, so be it. Those who don't want vaccinations, so be it. There would be nothing to worry about or fear if one is vaccinated, with one who isn't vaccinated. If there is trust and faith in vaccinations. If one is vaccinated and still worries about those not vaccinated, why the doubt in them? Why get them if there is doubt they work?

My ex's nephew can't have many vaccines because he's allergic to eggs. Unvaccinated people put him at risk.

Vaccination is both a "personal choice" and a public health issue in the same way that hand-washing is. And just as I have no issue with a workplace or school requiring their staff or students to wash their hands, I have no issue with them requiring vaccinations.

 

[Lighthouse]

My ex's nephew can't have many vaccines because he's allergic to eggs. Unvaccinated people put him at risk.

Vaccination is both a "personal choice" and a public health issue in the same way that hand-washing is. And just as I have no issue with a workplace or school requiring their staff or students to wash their hands, I have no issue with them requiring vaccinations.

I wonder what may have caused that allergy to eggs in the first place. I don't think about 20 different countries have spent billions over immunization harm by needing to sign an act for no reason. You also don't know short or long term health effects to be making any kind of rational judgements of who is putting who at risk. You don't know if any unvaccinated people in modern era sanitary environments put anyone at risk, if you were honest. You can guess but until you know, why use fear doctrine, blind faith with no evidence in place?

Your ex's nephew puts people at risk and would not be allowed in schools if they were required with that logic.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You don't know if any unvaccinated people in modern era sanitary environments put anyone at risk, if you were honest.

There have been many outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in communities with high rates of unvaccination but otherwise follow normal modern sanitary practices.

 

[Lighthouse]

Because that's not how vaccinations work.
Vaccines are not like some magical force field protecting you from danger. They work on the whole not individually.
The more percentage of the population is vaccinated, the better they work. Think of it like a bubble around the populous. The less holes you have in said bubble the better it works. People who do not vaccinate are those holes in the bubble.
A vaccine is sort of like giving information to your immune system about various diseases. But there's only so many strains it can account for realistically. If someone catches some variation of say the mumps and they are unvaccinated, they will get the full force. Because their immune system literally has to learn then and there what to do about it. A vaccinated person can still catch it, but the vaccine has already allowed the immune system a chance to figure out what to do about it. Thus they will either not contract it or only get mild symptoms.Many diseases that are vaccinated against will kill you the first time round, so to not vaccinate is essentially like signing your own death warrant.
If you have very large swathes of people not vaccinating, then the chance of diseases latching onto them as hosts and mutating are very very high. The more a disease has a chance to mutate (travelling host to host) the less effective the original vaccine is against it.
Because if it mutates a lot by the time it reaches a vaccinated person the strain might not be recognizable to the immune system anymore and the vaccinated person cops the full strength. So yeah, unvaccinated people can actually undo the huge strides made in medicine and even the mortality rate all because they have enough hubris to think they know better than the people who study this in depth for a living over decades. Pride. Talk about a deadly sin, sheesh.

Now there are certain reasonable allowances made in this bubble for holes. Like people who legitimately can't vaccinate like cancer patients or those born with immune disorders etc. These people quite literally rely on the protection given to them by the vaccinated public. Cause you know they can die from measles or chickenpox or what have you. So yeah, there is absolutely harm when people choose to not vaccinate. They can literally kill people. Or allow mutations to occur in diseases that render the original vaccination useless against it.

And the kicker? These people literally putting the greater public at risk also benefit from the protection given to them by the vaccinated public. So I'l be as upset as I flipping well please at these freeloading intellectually lazy ******** thank you very much. If they value the immune system so highly let them put their money where their mouth is and travel to locations where dying people are trying desperately to get their hands on a vaccine. Let's see how well they do without lazily relying on responsible people protecting them like a bunch of first word ungrateful spoilt brats.

Tons of negative emotion there, can't take you very rational with the rants.

I would think its the intellectual lazy who go with the herd blindly without doing their own due diligence with an open, non-biased, non-extremist attitude.

 

[Lighthouse]

There have been many outbreaks of vaccine-preventable diseases in communities with high rates of unvaccination but otherwise follow normal modern sanitary practices.

To each their own, as there are also many links and scientists who say communities have been infected due to vaccinated children.