Herbs:

Books:

Articles:

WHY VACCINE CHOICE SHOULD CONCERN YOU

Every state in America has exemptions written into their immunization policy that allow parents to choose whether to vaccinate their children and themselves. Those exemptions may include medical, religious and/or philosophical reasons for delaying or refusing immunizations. Additionally, the US Supreme Court has provided legal support for those choosing a religious exemption.

Unfortunately, most parents are never told they have an option and, for many of them, it never occurs to them to look at the issue. Many parents are unaware of the possible side effects of immunizations, toxic substances included in the immunizations, contraindications for various immunizations, or what after effects may appear. Additional concerns may include: how the immune system works, what effects immunizations have on the immature immune systems of babies, at what age the immune system is mature and how that maturing occurs, how reliable immunization efficacy and safety studies are, and how decisions about what vaccines to recommend are made. Every time I hear a parent express remorse for vaccinating because they didn't have all the facts or because their child was one of the unlucky ones to suffer a serious side effect, it makes me mad that more parents aren't being informed about their choice. I do not believe anyone should live in fear - either of vaccine side effects or disease side effects and complications. Part of my motivation on this web site and in much of my writing and workshop presentations is to provide as much information as I can to as many people as I can.

I often talk to parents who are reluctant to immunize, but feel that they have no options. These parents deserve to be told that they have options, what they are, and how to take advantage of those options. One way of accomplishing this task is to provide parents some ideas about how to find out what the law in their state says and how to fulfill the legal requirements of whatever exemption they may choose to use.

Another way of accomplishing this is to help parents who are willing to take the harder road of vaccine refusal and help them learn what rights they have. Many parents are given erroneous information when they decide to take a religious or philosophical exemption. They may be told that they have to fill out an approved form when there is no such form. They may be told they must submit their religious exemption on church letterhead or with their pastor's signature when they law does not require it. They may be told that they can't take the exemption unless they belong to a specific faith group or if they have ever vaccinated this child or any other child in their home. Generally, none of these things are true, although some states may offer pre-printed immunization exemption wavers if asked. Some parents who have chosen to vaccinate in the past decide after education to refuse some or all of the vaccines or to pick and choose which vaccines their children will get. Many parents believe it's "an all or nothing" deal. Current religious and philosophical immunization exemptions allow parents to choose to refuse some immunizations while accepting others. These exemptions also allow parents to delay immunizations for a time and allow their children's immune system to mature before joining the ranks of the immunized.

Additionally, as pharmaceutical companies work to create more and more vaccines, the number of shots children are likely to receive increases every couple of years. Guidelines on approved vaccines may change to target a different population to increase the number of possible recipients. So, parents may be confronted with decisions for their own health and that of their aging parents. The possible number of immunizations a person could receive over a lifetime may surpass 100, including original doses, boosters, new recommendations, and annual immunizations like the flu shot.

Most parents don't realize how experimental some of these vaccines are. Most parents would not choose to enroll their children in a treatment that is not adequately tested. They assume these vaccines are proven safe and effective. The controversy over side effects and removal of some vaccines from the recommendation list in the last two years proves that parents aren't getting the whole story. Couple that with the ridicule and pressure that many parents get when they decide to either refuse or delay vaccines, and the support they get from most of the medical community is sadly lacking.

So why is there such furor over the right to choose? Surely if the medical community and the government believe that all vaccines are 100% safe and 100% effective in stopping all incidences of a specific disease in the immunized individual, the only person at risk is the person who is not immunized. Right?? Wrong!! The medical community and the government admit that there are side effects to vaccines, although they would have you to believe that these almost never happen. They also admit that some individuals who have been immunized contract the very disease they have been immunized against. In fact, most of the individuals who contract a "vaccine preventable disease" during an outbreak have been immunized.

As a parent, I am aware of the risk I take in not vaccinating my children or myself! I've researched the data, checked out the risks of both the disease and the vaccine, prayed about it, talked it over with my husband and my children, discussed the issue with more than one family doctor, and finally reached a decision I can live with. We have even had a "where the rubber meets the road" experience where our children have contracted a "vaccine preventable disease." We've also had experience with vaccine side effects from the years before we decided not to vaccinate. I have a much easier time living with the way we experienced the disease than with the way we live with the aftermath of vaccine damage!

And, that really is the final issue! If after all is said and done, can I live with the consequences of my decision? Yes, some people die from disease and some die from the vaccines. Some people sustain life-long damage from the disease and many more sustain life-long damage from the vaccine. As a parent, and as a health-care professional, I have to decide if I can live with the decision I have made when I or my child becomes ill with any of the diseases that currently have vaccines. Each parent should have the same right to choose. Medical professionals should respect a parent's right to choose and not treat them like they have no brain or like they are trying to hurt their child. Each parent should be provided with both sides of the issue and encouraged to do their own research. Each individual who makes an informed choice to refuse should get the same courtesy given to the individual who decides to vaccinate. And, each individual seeking information on how to claim an exemption should be given accurate information instead of rhetoric and, in some cases, outright lies.

If you decide to fully immunize your child according to the recommended schedule, it's important to realize everyone deserves the right to choose. Whatever consequences, good or bad, occur because of your decision are yours. You, and your child, will be the ones to live with the consequences. Neither your doctor, the pharmaceutical companies, the CDC, the policy makers at the FDA or the officials at your state and local health departments will have to live with the outcome of your choice. Therefore, the choice needs to lie with those who will most experience the benefits and risks of whatever choice made. There is a quote from World War II in Nazi Germany that seems appropriate here.

In Germany, they came first for the communists, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a communist. Then they came for the Jews, and I didn't speak up because I wasn't a Jew. Then they came for the trade unionists but I didn't speak up because I was not a trade unionist. Then they came for the Catholics, and I didn't speak up because I was a Protestant. Then they came for me, and by that time nobody was left to speak up. --Martin Niemoeller, Dachau, 1944

WHEN IMMUNIZATIONS BECOME A PRO-LIFE ISSUE

I can still remember the day I found out that there were vaccines that used aborted babies as part of the process. I really couldn't believe it! I thought there had to be some mistake. I was sure that the person who told me about it had gotten their facts confused. But no, they were right. And, the first vaccine to use aborted babies occurred back before abortion was legal in the United States. The baby wasn't aborted here, but the FDA allowed this vaccine to be licensed despite the illegal status of abortion.

To date, there are 5 vaccines that use aborted babies as part of the manufacturing process: Rubella, as found in the M-M-R®II, the M-R-Vax®II, the Meruvax®II, and the Biavax®II; Poliovax® inactivated vaccine for Polio; Varivax® Varicella Virus Vaccine Live, for Chicken Pox; Imovax® Rabies ID, Wistar Rabies Virus Strain PM-1503-3M Vaccine (and the rabies immune globulin); and the newly recommended Havrix® Inactivated for Hepatitis A. Some of this information is fairly easy to find and some of the information needs some history and medical information to detect.

Rubella The Rubella Vaccine was the first vaccine to use aborted babies as a part of the process. Today this strain of Rubella Vaccine is present in 4 different combinations used in the United States. These include: BiaVax®II - Rubella and Mumps Live Vaccine M-M-R®II - Measles, Mumps and Rubella Live Vaccine M-R-Vax®II - Measles and Rubella Live Vaccine Meruvax®II - Rubella Live Vaccine

The information in the PDR sounds simple enough: "...sterile lyophilized preparation of the Wistar Institute RA 27/3 strain of live attenuated rubella virus, grown in human diploid cell (WI-38) culture..." Physician's Desk Reference (PDR), 50th Edition, Medical Economics,1996, p. 1613

You have to do some digging to find the history of this vaccine before the terms "RA 27/3" and "human diploid cell (WI-38)" tie in with aborted babies. Fortunately, the digging is not difficult and the original documentation was very forthcoming about the source and manner in which this vaccine was created.

Here are some excerpts from medical journals which provided specifics about the cell cultures for the Rubella vaccine: Gamma Globulin Prophylaxis; Inactivated Rubella Virus; Production and Biological Control of Live Attenuated Rubella Virus Vaccines ; Amer J Dis Child Vol 118 Aug 1969

Dr. K McCarthy: It seems to me that there are two things that we worry about in regards to WI-38 cell substrate. First of all, presence of extraneous viral agents; secondly, the possibility of there being human genetic material passed over into the vaccine. I wonder if there is any information about the reasons for aborting that particular embryo that gave rise to WI-38; and if it was from a family, whether we have any information about siblings from the family and whether they are normal?

Dr.S Plotkin, Philadelphia: I should like to answer Dr. McCarthy's question. This fetus was chosen by Dr. Sven Gard, specifically for this purpose. Both parents are known, and unfortunately for the story, they are married to each other, still alive and well, and living in Stockholm, presumably. The abortion was done because they felt they had too many children. There were no familial diseases in the history of either parent, and no history of cancer specifically in the families; I believe this answers Dr. McCarthy's question.

Attenuation Of RA 27/3 Rubella Virus in WI-38 Human Diploid Cells; Amer J Dis Child vol 118 Aug 1969 Explant cultures were made of the dissected organs of a particular fetus aborted because of rubella, the 27th in our series of fetuses aborted during the 1964 epidemic. The third explant, which happened to be from kidney, was selected arbitrarily for further study.

Studies of Immunization With Living Rubella Virus ; Arch J Dis Child vol 110 Oct 1965 This fetus was from a 25 year old mother exposed to rubella 8 days after last menstrual period. 16 days later she developed rubella. The fetus was surgically aborted 17 days after maternal illness and dissected immediately. Explants from several organs were cultured and successful cell growth was achieved from lung, skin, and kidney. It was then grown on WI-38. This new vaccine was tested on orphans in Philadelphia.

Twenty-seven babies aborted because of rubella exposure before they could isolate the rubella virus in any tissue. And, a baby was aborted, not because of rubella in the mom, but because this couple felt they had too many children. Some would say that at least some good came out of it, but I would ask, "Wasn't this too high a price to pay? Couldn't tissue have been taken from a living person instead?" Many have asked why manufacturers wanted fetal tissue. This article attempts to answer that question.

Production and Testing of Rubella Virus Vaccine prepared on WI-38 cell cultures; Amer J Dis Child vol 118 Aug 1969 Methods Virus Production --Hoskins and Plotkin have shown that human diploid cell strains are readily susceptible to chronic infection without cytopathic effects by rubella virus. The infected cells resemble control cells morphologically, but the ability to multiply may be inhibited.

In other words, the cells gained from aborted children take the infection readily without causing damage to the virus. Another concern also addressed in the use of aborted babies is the ability to prevent other disease strains from contaminating the sample and the ability to avoid the cross-species jumping of diseases that occurs when animal tissues are used.

A final note before leaving Rubella: This vaccine was tested on orphans in Philadelphia. Therefore there were no living parents to object to the testing and raise concern over children being used as test subjects. This is one of many times in medical history when those who had no voice or who were not given the right to refuse were used to further the gains of the drug companies. More about this issue later.

Imovax® Rabies ID The human rabies vaccine was produced by the same company that produced the Rubella vaccine, Wistar. The description in the PDR says "The virus is harvested from infected human diploid cells, MRC-5 strain..." You will notice the same description of "human diploid cells" from the Rubella vaccine.

Wistar Institute had discovered that human aborted children made good cell medium, so they decided to repeat the procedure for human rabies. There is no proof that the Rabies virus was introduced into the mother prior to the abortion, so we assume that her life was not in danger. The Immune Globulin, the same serum we give to humans bitten by a suspected or confirmed rabid animal, was prepared by taking blood plasma from individuals who had been immunized with the Imovax® vaccine. Therefore, the immune globulin has been tainted with the same use of aborted children.

Poliovax® Poliovax is an inactivated or killed version of the Polio vaccine. It contains three different types of polio virus: Type 1 (Mahoney), Type 2 (M.E.F.1), and Type 3 (Saukett) which have been grown in human diploid cell cultures MRC-5. Note, these are the same cell cultures obtained for the rabies vaccine.

Under the heading Clinical Pharmacology, this explanation follows as to why human aborted babies were used: This inactivated poliovirus is produced using cells from a human diploid cell line, MRC-5 cells, grown on microcarriers in suspension culture such that infection results in a production of high titer poliovirus. The virus is concentrated and purified prior to inactivation, then quantitative potency measurements are made prior to formulation of the trivalent vaccine. In these respects this vaccine differs from the inactivated poliovirus of monkey kidney cell origin. Because this vaccine is more consistently immunogenic than that which was previously available, it is intended to replace the monkey kidney cell derived Poliovirus Vaccine Inactivated (formerly Poliomyelitis Vaccine).

Monkey kidney cells had been proven to carry SV-40, a form of AIDS present in monkeys. This same SV-40 is showing up in human cancer tumors found in children who's parents were vaccinated with the tainted vaccine. Concern that the SV-40 was also causing immune-deficiency problems in humans led to it's removal from the list of acceptable vaccines.

According to the manufacturers of Poliovax®, using human cells makes a more potent vaccine and therefore creates a higher immunologic response without the danger of cross-species transfer of diseases. Add that to the information provided with the Rubella vaccine that it was easier to infect the tissue without causing damage to the virus, and you have some compelling reasons why drug companies might consider aborted children to be good medium for vaccines.

Varivax® The chicken pox vaccine is an interesting study in the use of aborted human babies. The following is the description of the vaccine found in the PDR: Varivax® [Varicella Virus Vaccine Live (Oka/Merck)] is a preparation of the Oka/Merck strain of live, attenuated varicella virus. The virus was initially obtained from a child with natural varicella, then introduced into human embryonic lung cell cultures, adapted to and propagated in embryonic guinea pig cell cultures and finally propagated in human diploid cell cultures (WI-38). Further passage of the virus for varicella vaccine was performed at Merck Research Laboratories (MRL) in human diploid cell cultures (MRC-5) that were free of adventitious agents.

Please note how many children, live and aborted were used to make this vaccine! One live child with natural chicken pox, one aborted child's embryonic lung cells, and a second human aborted child from the same cell cultures used for the Rubella, WI-38, and then a third pass into the same aborted cell cultures used for the rabies and polio vaccines. If you count the embryonic guinea pig, that's 3 aborted human babies and at least one aborted guinea pig and one live child! What in the world is Merck thinking??!!

All this for a vaccine that was marketed as a way to save thousands of parents from having to take a week or so off work to stay home with their sick child. All this for a disease that is generally mild in children and far more debilitating in adults who often evidence symptoms as shingles. and, since the vaccine doesn't provide life-long immunity, one must either get boosters every 5 - 10 years or contract chicken pox or shingles later in life. What a wonderful trade-off!

Havrix® Havrix is the Hepatitis A vaccine. The PDR description for this vaccine includes the following: Harvix (Hepatitis A Vaccine, Inactivated) is a noninfectious Hepatitis A vaccine developed and manufactured by Smith-Kline Beecham Biologicals. The virus (strain HM175) is propagated on MRC-5 human diploid cells. Note the use of MRC-5 cell cultures again as found in the chicken pox, rabies and polio vaccines.

The Bottom Line Drug companies that make vaccines have discovered the tissue from aborted babies make good cell medium in which to grow viruses they want to use to make vaccines. They assume that the use of human aborted tissue causes fewer problems in the long run and higher immune titers. And, they believe that parents either don't know or don't care that they are doing it. I would agree that most parents don't know. I would not agree that most don't care!

There are a growing number of parents who are investigating vaccines and finding out about the use of aborted tissue. Many of these parents are opting to take religious and philosophical exemptions to prevent the administration of these vaccines to their children. This may not be the only reason they choose not to vaccinate, but for many, it is a contributing factor.

Religious and philosophical exemptions allow parents the right to selectively vaccinate their children. This may mean that they choose only to avoid vaccines using aborted children. The exemption laws don't require parents to explain their reasoning. If You Thought The Other Was Bad...

I wish I could say that the only pro-life immunization issue was the use of aborted children. However, it isn't! Vaccination programs in some third world countries have been used to create a "population control vaccine" by using a Tetanus vaccine that has been "enhanced."

The following news article appeared several years ago and explains this vaccine strategy: Unknowing Women Victims of Hidden Birthcontrol Vaccine: During the early 1990's the WHO (World Health Organization) has been overseeing massive vaccination campaigns against Tetanus in a number of countrie, including Mexico, Nicaragua, and the Philippines . In 1994 suspicion of these campaign protocols began. The vaccine protocols called for three injections in three months and five total within a year's time . These tetanus vaccines were given only to woman age 12-49; children and men were excluded. More alarm bells went off when many of the pregnant women who were given the tetanus vaccine began to experience bleeding and early miscarriages.

When several vials of this tetanus vaccine were analyzed by chemists, many of the vials contained Human Chorionic Gonadotrophin (hCG) which the body uses to maintain pregnancy. So what does this all mean? Well when hCG is injected into the body with a tetanus toxoid carrier (a tetanus toxoid is used because the human body does not attack it's own naturally occurring hormone hCG), the body will then begin to produce antibodies to hCG. So when a woman becomes pregnant and a sufficient amount of anti-hCG antibodies is built up in her system, she then becomes unable to maintain a pregnancy and she will miscarry.

Here are a few journal articles on anti-fertility vaccines utilizing tetanus toxoids as a carrier (many written by WHO researchers): (Contraception Feb. 1976, pp. 253-268) "Clinical profile and Toxicology Studies on Four Women Immunized with Pr-B-hCG-TT." (The Lancet June 1988, pp.1295-1298) "Phase 1 Clinical Trials of a World Health Organization Birth Control Vaccine." (Fertility and Sterility Oct. 1980, pp. 328-335) "Observations on the antigenicity and clinical effects of a candidate antipregnancy vaccine: B-subunit of human chorionic gonadotropin linked to tetanus toxoid." (Scandinavian Journal of Immunology Vol. 36, 1992, pgs. 123-126) "Anti-hCG Vaccines are in Clinical Trials."

Here are a few newspaper articles:

The Philippine Star, April 4, 1995 "3 DOH vaccines untested by BFAD," Ottawa Citizen, April 4, 1995 Ottawa got blood tainted by HIV."A communiqué from Tanzania tells about tetanus toxoid vaccinations, five in all, given only to women aged 15-45. Nigeria, too, may have been a victim to this hCG vaccine ( see also The Lancet June 4, 1988, p. 1273)

The following is a copy of one of the articles that appeared once the information became public: Philippine Medical Association study indicates that women were injected with contaminated tetanus vaccine FRONT ROYAL, VA Have women in the Philippines, and possibly elsewhere, surreptitiously been used as guinea pigs in an international anti-fertility campaign?

A new medical study in the Philippines suggests that may well be the case. A recent study conducted by the Philippine Medical Association on behalf of the Philippine Department of Health revealed that almost 20 percent of the tetanus vaccine sampled positive for the hormone human chorionic gonadotrophin (hCG), according to Human Life International. Vaccines containing the hormone immunize women not only against tetanus but also against pregnancy by inducing the body's immune system to attack the hormone needed to bring an unborn child to term."

This study lends credence to what Human Life International (HLI) and some other groups have suspected all along," said Father Matthew Habiger, president of the international pro-life/family organization. "We first began to hear reports last year about tetanus vaccination campaigns in the developing world that targeted only women of child-bearing or pre-child bearing years, and that they required multiple injections. The vaccination program is sponsored by the World Health Organization, an agency with a 20-year history of researching anti-fertility vaccines," Fr. Habiger said. "We brought our suspicions to the world's attention. This new study greatly heightens our concerns."

The WHO and certain feminist organizations that claim to care about the health of women publicly attacked HLI after it called for an investigation of the widespread allegations about contaminated vaccine. "In light of the new Philippine study, it appears that these groups have squandered their credibility," Fr. Habiger said. The Philippine Medical Association reported that nine of the 47 vaccine samples tested were found to contain hCG, and released a letter signed by the three Philippine physicians who actually tested the vaccines. The PMA president attested to the veracity of the letter and the testing process. All the vaccines sampled were taken from various health centers in Luzon and Mindanao. Almost all of them were labeled by one of two Canadian firms, Connaught or Intervax. All the samples were tested with an immunoassay-based method developed by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

The Philippine Medical Association report closes the first stage of a two-part investigation of contaminated vaccines in the Philippines. The protocol for the second stage of the test testing the women vaccinated for antibodies to hCG has been submitted the Philippine Department of Health and is awaiting funding. In a letter to the Philippine Department of Health, HLI urged immediate approval of the second stage to uncover the full dimensions of this scandal.

The tetanus vaccine tested in the Philippines was imported as part of a program against neonatal tetanus sponsored by the WHO. Similar vaccination protocols have also been observed in WHO programs administered in Mexico and Nicaragua. Tests of the vaccine in Mexico yielded similar results but none of those tests was performed as part of an actual investigation into the contamination.