[misspriss]

Cell strains were developed from the cells of aborted foetuses in the 60s (aborted because of high risks of birth defects due to rubella) and vaccines were made from these new cell strains. New foetal cells aren't added at all, the original cell strains are just kept going. Don't see what the fuss is about, the abortions would have happened anyway, and its much more effective and safer to use human cells to grow vaccines than animal cells which is the other alternative.

Edit: Oh, and those cells aren't actually present in the vaccine that is given to people, its cultured in them but the vaccines are purified so there are no actual human cells in the vaccine when you get it.

Except the shingles vaccines, they contain residual human DNA and proteins, according to the CDC.

 

[Natsku]

Cell strains were developed from the cells of aborted foetuses in the 60s (aborted because of high risks of birth defects due to rubella) and vaccines were made from these new cell strains. New foetal cells aren't added at all, the original cell strains are just kept going. Don't see what the fuss is about, the abortions would have happened anyway, and its much more effective and safer to use human cells to grow vaccines than animal cells which is the other alternative.

Edit: Oh, and those cells aren't actually present in the vaccine that is given to people, its cultured in them but the vaccines are purified so there are no actual human cells in the vaccine when you get it.

Except the shingles vaccines, they contain residual human DNA and proteins, according to the CDC.

Small parts of DNA might get into any of the vaccines from these cell lines but that's not anything to be concerned about. People don't freak out about getting a blood transfusion which has a hell of a lot of human DNA in.

 

[misspriss]

Cell strains were developed from the cells of aborted foetuses in the 60s (aborted because of high risks of birth defects due to rubella) and vaccines were made from these new cell strains. New foetal cells aren't added at all, the original cell strains are just kept going. Don't see what the fuss is about, the abortions would have happened anyway, and its much more effective and safer to use human cells to grow vaccines than animal cells which is the other alternative.

Edit: Oh, and those cells aren't actually present in the vaccine that is given to people, its cultured in them but the vaccines are purified so there are no actual human cells in the vaccine when you get it.

Except the shingles vaccines, they contain residual human DNA and proteins, according to the CDC.

Small parts of DNA might get into any of the vaccines from these cell lines but that's not anything to be concerned about. People don't freak out about getting a blood transfusion which has a hell of a lot of human DNA in.

True, but we usually only get blood transfusions when we need them to save our lives.

 

[Natsku]

Cell strains were developed from the cells of aborted foetuses in the 60s (aborted because of high risks of birth defects due to rubella) and vaccines were made from these new cell strains. New foetal cells aren't added at all, the original cell strains are just kept going. Don't see what the fuss is about, the abortions would have happened anyway, and its much more effective and safer to use human cells to grow vaccines than animal cells which is the other alternative.

Edit: Oh, and those cells aren't actually present in the vaccine that is given to people, its cultured in them but the vaccines are purified so there are no actual human cells in the vaccine when you get it.

Except the shingles vaccines, they contain residual human DNA and proteins, according to the CDC.

Small parts of DNA might get into any of the vaccines from these cell lines but that's not anything to be concerned about. People don't freak out about getting a blood transfusion which has a hell of a lot of human DNA in.

True, but we usually only get blood transfusions when we need them to save our lives.

The point is though, that the possible presence of DNA isn't something to worry about. It is not harmful. It is no reason to not vaccinate.

 

[misspriss]

Cell strains were developed from the cells of aborted foetuses in the 60s (aborted because of high risks of birth defects due to rubella) and vaccines were made from these new cell strains. New foetal cells aren't added at all, the original cell strains are just kept going. Don't see what the fuss is about, the abortions would have happened anyway, and its much more effective and safer to use human cells to grow vaccines than animal cells which is the other alternative.

Edit: Oh, and those cells aren't actually present in the vaccine that is given to people, its cultured in them but the vaccines are purified so there are no actual human cells in the vaccine when you get it.

Except the shingles vaccines, they contain residual human DNA and proteins, according to the CDC.

Small parts of DNA might get into any of the vaccines from these cell lines but that's not anything to be concerned about. People don't freak out about getting a blood transfusion which has a hell of a lot of human DNA in.

True, but we usually only get blood transfusions when we need them to save our lives.

The point is though, that the possible presence of DNA isn't something to worry about. It is not harmful. It is no reason to not vaccinate.

I have ethical objections to abortion. I won't go into it any further than that. If they used donated human cells, that would be different, or cord blood cells, or something.

 

[Natsku]

Cell strains were developed from the cells of aborted foetuses in the 60s (aborted because of high risks of birth defects due to rubella) and vaccines were made from these new cell strains. New foetal cells aren't added at all, the original cell strains are just kept going. Don't see what the fuss is about, the abortions would have happened anyway, and its much more effective and safer to use human cells to grow vaccines than animal cells which is the other alternative.

Edit: Oh, and those cells aren't actually present in the vaccine that is given to people, its cultured in them but the vaccines are purified so there are no actual human cells in the vaccine when you get it.

Except the shingles vaccines, they contain residual human DNA and proteins, according to the CDC.

Small parts of DNA might get into any of the vaccines from these cell lines but that's not anything to be concerned about. People don't freak out about getting a blood transfusion which has a hell of a lot of human DNA in.

True, but we usually only get blood transfusions when we need them to save our lives.

The point is though, that the possible presence of DNA isn't something to worry about. It is not harmful. It is no reason to not vaccinate.

I have ethical objections to abortion. I won't go into it any further than that. If they used donated human cells, that would be different, or cord blood cells, or something.

It was two abortions (if I remember right) that had to be done anyway. They weren't "choice" abortions but therapeutic ones.

And vaccinations save lives. They've saved millions of lives. If you want to think about it ethically, those two foetuses have saved millions of lives - that's amazing!

 

[misspriss]

It was two abortions (if I remember right) that had to be done anyway. They weren't "choice" abortions but therapeutic ones.

And vaccinations save lives. They've saved millions of lives. If you want to think about it ethically, those two foetuses have saved millions of lives - that's amazing!

Whatever helps you. I'm not here to have my ethical stance on abortion (for any reason) changed. I don't consider it therapeutic to take the life of another, for any reason.

 

[Tiff]

I have so many mixed feelings on this subject. It really annoys me when people say that vaccines are linked to Autism. My daughter has autism, and she showed the signs of it LONG before the MMR. Actually, because she was sick for a few of the times when she was due for her shots we ended up on a 'delayed' vax schedule. She didn't have her MMR until she was almost 2.

I'm conflicted because I get the whole being scared about something being injected into your baby. I fully stand behind doing your research and looking into things. But I question at times (IMHO) the sources people look into. Like, almost as if because you want to find something bad against vaccinations, you WILL find it.

I suppose my position on it is a bit biased, because almost EVERY person I know who doesn't vaccinate (and there are quite a few!) will admit partway through their argument that they are for 'some' vaccinations. Just not ALL of them. So it boggles my mind why some are okay, and some aren't.

 

[Tiff]

Side note - My mother was telling me about a girl she went to high school with, who had polio. Everyone made fun of her because one leg didn't develop normally due to polio and she was so unhappy. At times I feel we're a bit spoiled, we haven't actually in our lifetime seen the devastation that these diseases cause.... so its almost like the boogyman in a sense.

While there are measles scares here, I've yet to see someone who's kiddo actually has had measles. Ditto for rubella, polio, etc.

 

[Natsku]

We're a very lucky generation as we haven't been exposed to those diseases. Rubella and mumps were a huge problem here a few decades ago, they would spread like wildfire among the young men when they did their military service. The MMR made an amazing difference in a very short amount of time. I just can't understand anyone thinking they're unnecessary when they do something like that.

 

[Alyssa Drough]

Sorry but I don't see an issue with stem cells being used in any kind of medical research or treatment. Doesn't help when referred to as 'aborted foetal cells" though. Deliberate negative connotations.

 

[Alyssa Drough]

If a child was in hospital with some horrific disease and the doctor presents a needle saying here's the cure... I bet the parents wouldn't even think to pick apart every single ingredient. I'd say most wouldn't even ask what the thing is even called. They'd just say well give it to them already!

 

[Alyssa Drough]

True, but we usually only get blood transfusions when we need them to save our lives.

VACCINES SAVE LIVES! Millions and millions! And we're talking about residual proteins and dna in new cells that are so far removed from the original cells that it's such a moot point.

 

[staralfur]

The aborted fetal cell argument has always been suuuuuch a stretch. To me it's sort of like saying you're not going to sleep with or marry anyone because if we trace our family trees all the way back to the beginning we'll all be related. It's SO SO far removed that it's barely relevant at all.

 

[misspriss]

Misspriss - I am still curious about what another poster has said about the medicines used for some of these diseases

IF any of your children ever caught one of these diseases (and I pray they never do) would you refuse potensionally life saving treatment if you didn't approve of the ingredients ?

I know you say your confortable with your choice but from an outside point of view based on what you have said there's so many 'gaps' as such things that don't make sense or contradict what you have previously said

In case Wriggley makes it over....

If my children caught a disease, I would not hesitate to treat the disease. It goes back to my original assertion earlier in this thread:

Vaccination - risk of reaction or injury to an otherwise healthy child (guaranteed risk, albeit small)

Non-vaccination - risk of getting a disease with a small risk of permanent injury from disease in an otherwise healthy child (risk of risk)

If my child is sick, of course I will do everything that is necessary to heal them, but at that point we aren't talking about putting an otherwise healthy child at risk - the child is then already at risk, and it's about weighing and mitigating the risks then.

When you have 10 people picking at gaps in someone's forum posts, I guess it could appear that way. I don't feel like there are gaps in my thinking, I'm just not the most eloquent and well though out poster. I don't say everything that is on my mind, it doesn't all make it to the metaphorical paper.

You know how they say the non-vaxx in the US are upper middle class educated people? It's true. I hold a graduate degree and a professional certification, I'm not some lunatic who just listens to celebs talk about vaccines and autism. I do research.

Some have asserted, in the other thread, that the average person can't possible comprehend what vaccine ingredients are and why they are needed. I have a pretty good understanding of why they need to put ingredients in there, you don't have to go to school for 10 years to know what preservatives, antibiotics, growth mediums, and immune adjuvants are.

Just like I don't need a law degree to question why vaccine manufacturers can't be held liable for injuring people. Does that sound like a system that holds them accountable for the safety of their products? Encourages rigorous testing? Not to me.

 

[Larkspur]

If my children caught a disease, I would not hesitate to treat the disease. It goes back to my original assertion earlier in this thread:

Vaccination - risk of reaction or injury to an otherwise healthy child (guaranteed risk, albeit small)

Non-vaccination - risk of getting a disease with a small risk of permanent injury from disease in an otherwise healthy child (risk of risk)

Just because you haven't "done" anything, it doesn't mean you don't have a "guaranteed"/absolute risk.

You can break down the numbers to make it clearer what the absolute risk of a severe outcome from not vaccinating is, but the potential outcomes of catching a disease can't be separated from the risk of catching them in the first place (ie "risk of a risk"). It still breaks down to an absolute number in the end.

Whether that number is higher or lower than the risk of an equally severe reaction to a vaccine will depend on a huge number of factors, but it's not accurate to think that choosing inaction means there is not a guaranteed risk from that choice. It's not a matter of "putting an otherwise healthy child at risk". Your otherwise healthy child is BORN with the guaranteed risks of disease.

 

[misspriss]

If my children caught a disease, I would not hesitate to treat the disease. It goes back to my original assertion earlier in this thread:

Vaccination - risk of reaction or injury to an otherwise healthy child (guaranteed risk, albeit small)

Non-vaccination - risk of getting a disease with a small risk of permanent injury from disease in an otherwise healthy child (risk of risk)

Just because you haven't "done" anything, it doesn't mean you don't have a "guaranteed"/absolute risk.

You can break down the numbers to make it clearer what the absolute risk of a severe outcome from not vaccinating is, but the potential outcomes of catching a disease can't be separated from the risk of catching them in the first place (ie "risk of a risk"). It still breaks down to an absolute number in the end.

Whether that number is higher or lower than the risk of an equally severe reaction to a vaccine will depend on a huge number of factors, but it's not accurate to think that choosing inaction means there is not a guaranteed risk from that choice. It's not a matter of "putting an otherwise healthy child at risk". Your otherwise healthy child is BORN with the guaranteed risks of disease.

You do have a point, but without crunching every single number, there is no real way to know. And those risks change all the time. Like you said, huge number of factors. It's just a judgement call people make.

With that, you also have to remember that vaccines are not 100% effective, so even if you choose the risk of action instead of inaction, you still have some of the risk that you have with inaction (although in theory, a much smaller amount).

 

[Larkspur]

With that, you also have to remember that vaccines are not 100% effective, so even if you choose the risk of action instead of inaction, you still have some of the risk that you have with inaction (although in theory, a much smaller amount).

Well, not in theory. In practice. That's the whole point of vaccination.

 

[misspriss]

With that, you also have to remember that vaccines are not 100% effective, so even if you choose the risk of action instead of inaction, you still have some of the risk that you have with inaction (although in theory, a much smaller amount).

Well, not in theory. In practice. That's the whole point of vaccination.

Yeah, good point. I've really been thinking about this too long...lol.

 

[Larkspur]

With that, you also have to remember that vaccines are not 100% effective, so even if you choose the risk of action instead of inaction, you still have some of the risk that you have with inaction (although in theory, a much smaller amount).

Well, not in theory. In practice. That's the whole point of vaccination.

Yeah, good point. I've really been thinking about this too long...lol.

Haha, we all have. Here's a pretty interesting article breaking down some stats around measles.

https://shotofprevention.com/2013/0...es-outbreaks-despite-high-vaccination-status/

Something that may be relevant to you (though I know you're not changing your mind! ) is the issue of rapid spread through pockets of low vaccination, eg. communities that consider themselves safe.

In The Other Thread, someone suggested that they'd love to see a study showcasing vaccinated populations vs unvaccinated populations. Well, as the link above shows, we don't really need to do that study because we have already seen numerous examples of how infectious diseases blow up quickly when they hit a very low-vaccination community, like the religious group cited.

Here's an interesting breakdown of the figures for the year in which that outbreak occurred.

During January 1&#8211;August 24, 2013, a total of 159 cases were reported to CDC from 16 states and New York City (Figure 2). Patients ranged in age from 0 days to 61 years; 18 (11%) were aged <12 months, 40 (25%) were aged 1&#8211;4 years, 58 (36%) were aged 5&#8211;19 years, and 43 (27%) were aged &#8805;20 years. Among the 159 cases, 17 (11%) persons required hospitalization, including four patients diagnosed with pneumonia. No deaths were reported.

Among the 159 cases, 157 (99%) were import-associated, and two had an unknown source. Forty-two (26%) importations (23 returning U.S residents and 19 visitors to the United States) from 18 countries were reported, and 21 (50%) of the importations were from the WHO European Region. Genotypes identified to date are D8 (47 cases), B3 (six), H1 (four), D9 (three), and D4 (two).

Most cases were in persons who were unvaccinated (131 [82%]) or had unknown vaccination status (15 [9%]). Thirteen (8%) of the patients had been vaccinated, of whom three had received 2 doses of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine. Among 140 U.S. residents who acquired measles, 117 (84%) were unvaccinated, and 11(8%) had unknown vaccination status. Of those who were unvaccinated, 92 (79%) had philosophical objections to vaccination, six (5%) had missed opportunities for vaccination, 15 (13%) occurred among infants aged <12 months who were not eligible for vaccination, and for four (3%) the reason for no vaccination was unknown (Figure 3). Among the 21 U.S resident patients who traveled abroad and were aged &#8805;6 months, 14 (67%) were unvaccinated, five (24%) had unknown vaccination status, and two had received 1 dose of MMR vaccine.

To date in 2013, eight outbreaks have accounted for 77% of the cases, and outbreaks have ranged from three to 58 cases. The largest outbreak occurred in New York City (4). None of these patients had documentation of vaccination at the time of exposure, including 12 (21%) who were aged <12 months. Of those who were eligible for vaccination, 31 (67%) had objected or had parental objection to vaccination because of religious or philosophical beliefs (4). The second largest outbreak, in North Carolina (23 cases, including a California resident), occurred mainly among persons not vaccinated because of personal belief exemptions (5). In an ongoing outbreak in Texas, 20 confirmed cases have been reported as of August 24 among members of a church community. Nineteen (95%) cases were in patients aged >12 months, and 17 (85%) of the patients were unvaccinated. The index patient was an adult with unknown measles vaccination history who traveled to Indonesia.