Right to refuse and responsibility to research medical options

In a recent post on Opposing Views post, this lovely quote came up,

"Women should not have to go armed with a lot of research when looking for a physician or pharmacist in the community," Burkhart said.”

This was in regard to being able to find morning after pills, aka Plan B, but pro-abortion groups may indicate this can be more broad, (but we all have our views, and skewing can happen either way). But, I ask, how much should a family have aligning points of views on various medical topics? How supportive MUST a medical professional be to their training?

Should this medical research requirement apply to vaccines? What about breastfeeding? Should a person be required to research which pharmacists are "Plan B friendly" like parents have to research doctors who are "delayed vax friendly" or "breastfeeding friendly"?

It is legal in almost all states to not vaccinate, even if you send your kids to public schools. Almost all states allow religious freedom exemptions (West Virginia does not), and most allow for other exemptions outside of “medical” exemptions. It is also legal to breastfeed, but not all medical doctors are supportive of infant breastfeeding, much less extended breastfeeding.

So, if both Plan B is legal AND not vaccinating is legal, should we have the same fight for medical rights? If a medical doctor believes and is trained to give out vaccines, should they be allowed to not serve a family who chooses to delay or not use vaccines? If you say yes, then pharmacists should also be allowed to not to fill a prescription. I am pro-life (pro-choice too, you choose to have sex (for the most part)), but I am torn on this topic.

I do think a religious facility should have the right to choose what they do based on religious beliefs, but I also believe a parent should research to find the best service providers, whether it is a breastfeeding friendly family doctor, a naturopath who researches and recommends a vaccine schedule based on the individual child’s medical issues, exposures as well as the vaccine brands with fewer toxins, or a medical doctor who sits down and talks through pending issues with a family.

It is sad that not all medical professionals are as gung-ho on breastfeeding as they are on vaccinations. It is sad that we have medical professionals who choose not to even breastfeed for the minimum. Of course, there is no maximum, but at least support for breastfeeding by medical professionals would be appreciated. According to the AAP, some pediatricians actually do not even recommend breastfeeding and instead prefer to recommend formula. It is one thing for a pediatrician to “be okay” with someone trying to breastfeed and then it not working and finding a formula (even though AAP and WHO recommend expressed breast milk (milk sharing) over formula), but it apparently is more difficult to find a pediatrician who would say “do not vaccinate, ever.” More on this topic later J

Medical professionals MUST remain positive to breastfeeding at minimum. According to, “Mothers were much less likely to discontinue breastfeeding at 12 weeks postpartum if they reported (during the 12-week interview) having received encouragement from their clinician to breastfeed (OR: 0.6; 95% CI: 0.4–0.8),” (Taveras, et al, 2003). Medical professionals also need to have breastfeeding knowledge built into their curriculum, (Feldman-Winter, 2010). More on this topic as well, soon, I promise!

Just as I believe it is a family’s right to not breastfeed, I believe it is in a family’s right to not vaccinate.  Of course an unvaccinated, non breastfed baby will not get antibodies without other exposure to the disease, the fact is that as parents, we must research and do the best for our kids. We cannot expect to be able to blindly follow one “guru.” We are in the information age and we need to look at information available and weigh risks with benefits and ensure that we decide on something that we find most appropriate.

1.    AAP recommendation on breastfeeding: “Pediatricians and parents should be aware that exclusive breastfeeding is sufficient to support optimal growth and development for approximately the first 6 months of life‡ and provides continuing protection against diarrhea and respiratory tract infection.^{30,34,128,178–184} Breastfeeding should be continued for at least the first year of life and beyond for as long as mutually desired by mother and child.¹⁸⁵

1.    There is no upper limit to the duration of breastfeeding and no evidence of psychologic or developmental harm from breastfeeding into the third year of life or longer. ^{Cited by AAP as} ↵

Dettwyler KA. A time to wean: the hominid blueprint for the natural age of weaning in modern human populations. In: Stuart-Macadam P, Dettwyler KA, eds. Breastfeeding: Biocultural Perspectives. Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter; 1995:39– 73

Dear Daily Mining Gazette - Articles should report the news, not be free advertisement

One of the local papers from "back home" always has "articles" that are from the local health department. Basically, they're advertisement reminders to get vaccines, which are disguised as articles. Most of the time, I write a note to whomever wrote the article via email, but I never get a response. I'm sure I'm known as the crazy who responds to their "articles" asking them to do a balanced/fair or show more than one perspective.

So, I do not have a child with autism, but I still worry about vaccines and many diseases, not just autism. Yes I know kids with autism. Yes I used to work in a direct care environment with adults with autism. No I don't know the cause of autism. Yes I am worried about the overall affect of vaccines on young children. No I don't think every doctor is out to compromise the immune system of children. Yes I do believe that major drug companies know that vaccines are not the cure all. Yes I know when drug manufacturers cause another illness, they later make money when patients need to be treated. Yes my children have received vaccinations. No I don't expect them to have full immunity. Yes I hope they work. Yes I realize that SV-40 is likely still in our polio vaccines and now most cancer has this contamination. No I don't think we'll see true freedom from medical bullying of individuals. Yes I do wish we really had true freedom to choose whether or not to jab our children with items we know have toxic chemicals (and possibly cancer) right in them. Yes I wish we had more awareness to the issues, rather than just articles in papers with quotes from people paid to talk positively about drugs. At least get someone on the other side of the stance rather than just the viewpoint that vaccines are absolutely essential and are full of benefits and immune boosters, because they aren't immune boosters - they (may or may not) help trick our body into thinking we've already had a disease so we don't get it... but we may get the disease from the vaccine, or the vaccine may damage us. Or we may be perfectly fine (or so we think). 

So here's my latest rant/email to the author of an article in the Daily Mining Gazette:

Thank you for being a source of news for the Copper Country. I do have to ask if we can get a balanced article rather than an advertisement for Merck and other drug companies.

My issue with this line from your article entitled, "Autism on the Rise," "The possibility that autism is caused by chemicals used in vaccinations has been debunked by numerous subsequent studies." is that it likely is not fully true. The "debunked" doctor actually has been un-debunked and is challenging the whole issue. http://www.naturalnews.com/034974_Andrew_Wakefield_BMJ_lawsuit.html Wakefield actually filed suit against the British Medical Journal (which has their own ties to drug companies) http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2012/jan/05/andrew-wakefield-sues-bmj-mmr and no one actually has "proven false" which is actually impossible and no one gives any other REASON for these increases. Did you think to ask that question in your interview? When she indicated its been proven again and again that vaccines don't cause autism... the natural next question seems to be "well ... what does cause autism?" Right?

To make matters worse... we test primates with almost all drugs, but not the vaccines we give babies and toddlers. Want to know why? http://www.ageofautism.com/2008/05/sick-monkeys-st.html I am not saying testing primates is right or wrong, but why NOT in this case?

And for a mainstream news article... same thing. Monkeys given hep b vaccine (mostly known to be an STD, but the vaccine is given to babies at birth, even when both parents are known to be Hep B negative) http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-500690_162-5369814.html develop autism-like issues...

http://vactruth.com/2012/01/13/andrew-wakefield-autism/

If you get the chance to interview the same pediatrician, perhaps ask her how much her office/hospital has made off of vaccines in the past 12 months and any bonuses they receive for having a higher rate of "compliant" families.

The typical argument is that they don't use mercury as the adjuvant any more in most vaccines, yet autism is still rising... But they still use aluminum, another neurotoxin!

I don't expect things to change with the local paper, but it sure would be nice to see an actual article... one that digs for answers rather than just advertisements that unsuspecting individuals see as fact. It just boggles me that a news article can have just one side of the story. Doesn't that just make it free advertisement?

As of today now there's now a reported link between obesity during pregnancy and autism. Hmm, well all these toxins in our body are stored in our fat, so perhaps it is "our" generation that started getting more vaccines and it is stuck in our bodies that's helping that link? Or, perhaps the women who got flu vaccines during pregnancy may that as well. Maybe that's the next study that needs to be done? Whatever the cause of autism, basic science tells us a hypothesis cannot disprove something, you can only "confirm or fail to confirm" a hypothesis. Either way we must continue to wonder and be aware of what it is we're putting into our body.

If so many non-supportive studies can be debunked for conflict of interest, why can't all these doctors who are paid kickbacks for vaccines be debunked for making statements that affect their pay? Now I'm not saying all doctors do it for the money. I'm sure they've seen babies die from the craziest of things, but I do think that we need to make sure that, as parents, we know what the potential issues are when our child has something injected in them. Do I think parents should just drop vaccinating without researching? NO! But, I do think that if you choose not to vaccinate, you better do your best to get that baby breastmilk for a year or two. If you can't breastfeed, find someone who will share milk. As much as Nestle tries to mimic breastmilk's properties... it just ain't happening. I also think if you choose not to vaccinate you should be wary of where your children go - going into a public day care, not necessarily a good idea. Really, a parent should research their decision and weigh benefits and risks.

Make their own decision... but this blog isn't research and neither is a small-town newspaper article.

Alert, Alert! Measles is encroaching...

Ask around about measles and most will either indicate it is something extremely scary or something that they aren't at all worried about. Not all know what measles actually is and how the disease is spread. I'm by no means an expert but I like to research. This is written not as any sort of advice, especially for those who may face measles on a more regular basis than those of us in the US.

With a confirmed case of measles in 'my' city, and children not vaccinated for the disease, I decided to double check some facts. According to the World Health Organization, measles is a very contagious disease "transmitted via droplets from the nose, mouth or throat of infected persons. Initial symptoms, which usually appear 8–12 days after infection, include high fever, runny nose, bloodshot eyes, and tiny white spots on the inside of the mouth. Several days later, a rash develops, starting on the face and upper neck and gradually spreading downwards."

Doesn't sound that bad, really, right? Of course no one really wants to get sick, and no parent wants their child to suffer.

Plus, with any disease there are potential complications. Measles has them as well (encephalitis is one and that can and even cause death (.3 percent *yes, .3, as in 3 per 1000, in the developed world, according to the always *reliable* wikipedia). One thing the WHO does not stress is how many diseases, including Measles, can be circumvented for many in the "developed" world, through sanitation, proper nutrition, and if the mother has immunity, breastfeeding. Young children/babies have immunity from their mother until around a year and a half from being in the womb.

There have been "recent" outbreaks of the disease in the US, but not all have been among unvaccinated individuals. According to research, dose of MMR vaccine produces immunity to measles (95–98%), mumps (97%), and rubella (95%). The second dose of MMR is intended to produce immunity in those who did not respond to the first dose, but a very small percentage of people may not be protected even after a second dose.

For those who choose to vaccinate, know that your child (and you) still can get measles, so still be diligent about washing up and eating properly. Also, I won't stress it again in this post... breastfeed if you can, especially if you are immune:

From the CDC: Why is MMR vaccine given after the first birthday?

"Most infants born in the United States will receive passive protection against measles, mumps, and rubella in the form of antibodies from their mothers. These antibodies can destroy the vaccine virus if they are present when the vaccine is given and, thus, can cause the vaccine to be ineffective. By 12 months of age, almost all infants have lost this passive protection."

For measles, it is important to have adequate Vitamin A. Vitamin A is found in milk fats (look for organic cow's milk, raw if you can get it and you trust your source). It is also readily available in many fresh fruits, such as cantaloupe and chard.

A few random posts from the internet, because we can trust everything we read :)

What side effects have been reported with this vaccine?
Fever is the most common side effect, occurring in 5%–15% of vaccine recipients. About 5% of people develop a mild rash. When they occur, fever and rash usually appear 7–12 days after vaccination. About 25% of adult women receiving MMR vaccine develop temporary joint pain, a symptom related to the rubella component of the combined vaccine. Joint pain only occurs in women who are not immune to rubella at the time of vaccination. MMR vaccine may cause thrombocytopenia (low platelet count) at the rate of about 1 case per 30,000–40,000 vaccinated people. Cases are almost always temporary and benign. More severe reactions, including allergic reactions, are rare. Other severe problems (e.g., deafness, permanent brain damage) occur so rarely that experts cannot be sure whether they are caused by the vaccine or not.

Can the live virus in the vaccine cause measles, mumps, and/or rubella?
Because the measles, mumps, and rubella viruses in the MMR vaccine are weak versions of the disease viruses, they may cause a very mild case of the disease they were designed to prevent; however, it is usually much milder than the natural disease and is referred to as an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

Here's a nice link regarding keeping healthy with the use of herbs.

And you, what are you doing or not doing? Is your daily life impacted at all?

Vaccines, choice, insurance and parenting

In the past few weeks we've seen a few 'hits' to a parents' choice to inject or not inject a child with vaccines. First we had the additional discredit to the MMR and Autism link via the shellacking of Dr. Andrew Wakefield. What few people realize about the anti- or tentative- vaxing parents is that this does little to our fight/plight of vaccine decision making.

But, then, we have the CNN article indicating that parents who are anti-vaccine should pay higher insurance premiums. Insurance is about risk. But there are risks associated with vaccines, one of which in the news lately is seizures.

To insurance companies risk is with the parent who decides to not vaccinate on schedule. To parents it might be the risk of issues associated with vaccines to an otherwise healthy child. To others it might be being overweight, smoking or not breastfeeding. Perhaps a pediatrician should write a CNN article about the financial risks of not breastfeeding a child?

The risks of vaccinating? Always debunked? Always not true? Now in the news are seizures in infants/children after a specific flu vaccine.

http://newyorkcity.injuryboard.com/fda-and-prescription-drugs/cdc-fda-investigating-reports-of-seizures-in-young-children-after-flu-vaccine.aspx?googleid=287752

This is something that for years many have seen with DTP vaccine as well as MMR. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC320893/ Since NIH has indicated no long-term effects, we continue to have these shots recommended. However, other countries' health boards have indicated all seizures are risky so we have to determine which risk is more risky and then allow the bean counters to determine which one is more costly, resulting in higher insurance cost.

Minor encephalitis is a common side effect that many children have to DTP vaccine. We were told to "expect" this when we had our delayed vaccine visit for our daughter - guess what, her crying for hours on end is a "minor" side effect of the vaccine. What we didn't know/realize at the time is what exactly was causing the crying/screaming that couldn't be consoled. We teetered back and forth on doing the same for our son and we did do one for him as well, he didn't scream, but before every visit to the pediatrician I wonder what to do - risk the diseases or risk the potential side effects of the shots.

And then we throw in the missing/dead scientists/microbiologists/chemists who study environment (including vaccines) and disease in the pool and then we have a few more reasons to question what real risk is....

So those are the reasons I am willing, and happily able to at this point, pay more if necessary to delay/select the vaccines for my children. Since insurance companies define risk in this instance, those who define risk in another way will be penalized. Hopefully those who will be penalized have the means to pay the difference

Perhaps I need a disclaimer at play dates that indicates that my child is not fully vaccinated, so come to play at your own risk.

Catholic Stance on Vaccines

While browsing through and looking at some information on vaccines, I came across this information which made me question vaccines even further.(Note, this is a post I wrote originally 2.5 years ago)

"Human Fetal Diploid Cells

Two different strains of human diploid cell cultures made from fetuses have been used extensively for vaccine production for decades. One was developed in the United States in 1961 (called WI-38) and the other in the United Kingdom in 1966 (called MRC-5).
WI-38 came from lung cells from a female fetus of 3-months gestation and MRC-5 was developed from lung cells from a 14-week-old male fetus. Both fetuses were intentionally aborted, but neither was aborted for the purpose of obtaining diploid cells. (6-8). The fetal tissues that eventually became WI-38 and the MRC-5 cell cultures were removed from fetuses that were dead. The cellular biologists who made the cell cultures did not induce the abortions.
Human diploid cells are batches of human cells that are grown in a laboratory. Unlike cancer cells, they have the same number of chromosomes as normal human cells.
Certain diploid cell strains are valuable in vaccine manufacture because these cells can be used for a very long period of time in the laboratory and are a reliable means by which many viruses that infect humans can be successfully and easily grown. Vaccines prepared in human diploid cells have proven to be very safe over the past several decades.
These two cell strains have been growing under laboratory conditions for more than 35 years. The cells are merely the biological system in which the viruses are grown. These cell strains do not and cannot form a complete organism and do not constitute a potential human being. The cells reproduce themselves, so there is no need to abort additional fetuses to sustain the culture supply. Viruses are collected from the diploid cell cultures and then processed further to produce the vaccine itself.
The WI-38 and MRC-5 cell cultures have been used to prepare hundreds of millions of doses of vaccines, preventing millions of cases of rubella, hepatitis A, varicella and rabies. . In the United States, only one of these diseases can be prevented with an FDA-licensed vaccine not grown in human diploid cells. This is the RabAvert brand of rabies vaccine manufactured by Chiron Corporation. (9)
Some of the vaccines that are produced in human diploid cells might now be able to be prepared in alternative types of cell cultures. Some of these cell cultures were not available or were not considered suitable for use in vaccines when the original vaccines were developed. However, there is no guarantee that vaccines grown in these alternative cell lines would be as safe and effective as currently licensed vaccines and development is likely to be extremely costly. Thus, there is little incentive for vaccine manufacturers to develop and test new vaccines when an existing licensed vaccine is known to be both safe and effective.
I changed the order of the paragraphs, but other wise this came directly from National Network for Immunization Information.
Here are the known vaccines which contain HDC.

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.

Here is the Vatican’s statement on such, basically stating that for those vaccines which do not have a morally acceptable alternative, one should be made, but since this is passive formal cooperation of this sin by the vaccine manufacturers, and not by you, the recipient, it is more okay (if that’s okay?) since the alternative to not vaccinating can be more harmful, especially since many people have been saved.

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.

In the mean-time, if you consider this wrong, put pressure on your elected officials (houseand senate) to find alternatives. I am sure there are some out there..."