[Foreword: Because I have strong opinions on vaccinations, my tone may sound harsh. But I believe it is a family’s choice and I have never criticized anyone either way. In addition to encouraging parental research, my purpose here is to defend those – like me – who decide to “opt out.” We have our reasons and don’t deserve to be told we’re abusing our children or endangering society. If you are pro-vaccine, that’s fine; if you feel the need to lecture or condemn me because I’m not, we have a problem.]
The vast majority of the US population religiously vaccinates themselves, their children, and their pets, but there is an emergent challenge of the mandate to inject these mysterious serums into our bodies – particularly the bodies of infants. The CDC has categorically denied every objection raised, and on the whole, physicians will defend with their last breath (and sincerely enough) the safety and necessity of vaccinations. So are dissenters taking life into their own hands on a tragic whim, or is there sufficient cause for bucking the trend? I am not a doctor or a scientist, and I don’t presume depth of knowledge in either field. That being said, I have no intention of letting “experts” in any subject wholly dictate my decisions. The Internet is both a blessing and a curse in this context: one can find compelling arguments for every imaginable viewpoint, so while “truth” is readily available, plucking it from the falsehoods will feel like a game of Russian roulette. Even the doctors and scientists can’t agree, so there are “experts” on every side as well. With complexities like these, it’s wise to identify “who’s who.” What do the naysayers have to gain by crying foul, and what do vaccine makers have to lose if the underlying truth is ugly? There is an intense battle over what the population believes about vaccinations. One side generally has nothing at heart but truth and human welfare. Suffice it to say that the other side has more than a few “tangled webs” possibly hindering its motives.
There are two main bases for opting out: safety and ethics. In the past few decades, deeper investigation has been made into the causal link between vaccine ingredients and other diseases (though sadly, when some of said research was labeled “fraudulent” and dismissed from consideration, it damaged public credibility of any study with similar findings). The CDC lists all ingredients on its website, but it’s quite cryptic and to most of us will be nothing but geek-speak without additional research. Yes, there is mercury in some vaccines. Yes, there is formaldehyde and aluminum. Yes, there are many curious chemicals and compounds that ought to at least raise some eyebrows. But try to do the research and the aforementioned roulette begins. “They’re toxic; they cause autism; they weaken the immune system.” Or, “they’re perfectly safe; these trace amounts are harmless; no links can be found between the vaccines and other diseases.” Pretty soon, your head is spinning. I won’t pronounce the truth, because frankly, I don’t know what it is. I do know there is more than a murmur of discontent when the government starts strong-arming parents, and there happens to be a billion dollar business in the global production and administration of vaccines. They are working as a team – the government and pharmaceuticals – and whether for our good or otherwise, they’ve got enough money and power between them to make us believe anything. Juxtaposed with growing evidence that many vaccine ingredients aren’t safe, resistance becomes rationally justifiable.
There are also valid reasons to question the morality of vaccine development, and this slope is no less slippery. It is an uncontested fact (even admitted on the CDC’s website) that many vaccines contain cell matter obtained from what were originally cells of two electively aborted fetuses. These two abortions – back in the 1960’s – were not performed for the purpose of collecting fetal tissue, and the CDC insists that they were the only abortions from which human cells were taken. It maintains that any additional “cell lines” have been cultured in labs from those original cells alone. At the very least, this means that vaccines contain genetically modified (human) organisms, the dangers of which are now undeniable. However, it seems impossible that cells could survive and replicate for over 50 years without sustenance from additional human tissue (query “biological immortality”) and therefore, there is an enduring market for freshly aborted fetuses. The logical conclusion is that the vaccine industry is thriving on the business of abortion, and even if it could be proven that no additional aborted cells are components of new vaccines, it is nonsense to claim that they aren’t involved in constant research and development in the field.
As a side note, people often try to assuage this dilemma by focusing on bringing some good out of evil. I’ve frequently heard the aborted-cell connection likened to receiving an organ from the death of a murder victim, but this is a flawed analogy. Murder is a terrible fact of life, and last I checked, it was illegal. No one would say they are glad murders occur because other lives can be saved from the residual organs, and every moral human being would rejoice were murder eradicated. Death, however, is not a crime and as far as we know, will continue to occur forever; moreover, if it were to cease, there would presumably be no further need for organ transplants. Rather, the use of aborted fetal cells for even progressive scientific purposes is more comparable to a doctor’s allowing a homicide in one room and taking the necessary parts next door to save another dying patient. The pharmaceutical industry enjoys a despicable commensalism with the abortionists, making profits that depend upon the perpetuation of fetal murder.
With so many legitimate concerns related to routine vaccinations, it’s surprising how doctors still react to a word of opposition. They will likely quote rhetoric from the CDC or the WHO or any of the myriads of studies – many of which have been conducted and funded by the drug companies themselves – demanding that you “Keep Calm and Vaccinate.” You may hear:
- “This is how we eradicate deadly diseases.” Yet there is substantial evidence showing such diseases were already declining due to better sanitation and dietary practices prior to the introduction of the vaccines.
- “You have an obligation to your community.” But if vaccines truly and permanently immunize, what risk is posed to anyone who has received them? And if the risk to society is so cataclysmic, why not mandatorily vaccinate everyone? (Think “Obamacare.”)
- “There is no proof that vaccines cause autism, sudden infant death syndrome, or any other serious conditions.” With billions of people, thousands of variables (diet, exercise, heredity, drug intake, etc.) over half a century, how could you definitively prove it? But it’s not paranoia to strongly suspect certain connections exist and to believe that the risk outweighs the benefit. (Fact: from 1980 to 1999, there were 162 cases of paralytic polio in the U.S. Eight cases were imported from other countries, but the remaining 154 cases were caused by the vaccine itself.)
- “Some vaccines do contain cell matter taken from aborted fetuses, but it was just the two abortions, a long time ago.” Well, there are viable indicators to the contrary, and my conscience is convicted by a host of very consequential “ifs” and a dearth of transparency all around.
- “Your unvaccinated child could contract one of these diseases and die.” My child could be hit by a bus tomorrow, but as his parent, I’ll do what I believe is necessary to prevent it. I plan to keep him from disease by allowing his immune system to develop with minimum chemical assistance. And “vaccination” isn’t guaranteed “immunization.”
Some people need drugs for a hangnail, and then there are cases of children with fatal heart defects whose parents refuse all medical attention. Those are extremes, but we each must decide where it is necessary versus unhelpful – even harmful – to inject foreign substances into the body. I believe we are marvelously designed to thrive in harmony with the rest of natural creation. I’m not opposed to modern science or medicine since God also gave us brains to solve problems, but it shouldn’t supplant a healthy lifestyle and the complements He provides through nature. It isn’t contradictory to normally strive for natural maintenance of our bodily systems and yet occasionally resort to western medicine. Even the cleverest scientists and doctors admit that we are far from a complete understanding of humanity’s inner-workings, so common sense must acknowledge the peril in over-tampering with the intricate unknown.
Imagine the government urging every household to own a pistol for protection. Many families would consider an accidental shooting far more likely than a home invasion and thus would view the handgun as an unacceptable risk. We could go back and forth, exchanging statistics and quoting studies, but both views are defensible – regardless of mainstream popularity or evidence – because people quantify “risk” very differently. It boils down to this: there is no infallible method of curing or preventing sickness. I respect the doctors I’ve chosen. They give their professional opinion and I usually proceed as advised. But doctors themselves get the flu, suffer heart attacks, develop arthritis and so forth; if they had all the answers, they would be without illness. Were my doctors personally responsible for vaccine production, I might consent. However, numerous (and nebulous) sources of ulterior motives, questionable ethics, and controversial ingredients render this equation unstable at best, and to me, downright terrifying. In general, there is rampant public suspicion of dishonest dealings between politicians and big business. We habitually distrust and scrutinize everything they say or do…with a few alarming exceptions, when all misgivings are forgotten and we cling to them as unimpeachable guardians. The government and the drug companies insist that we vaccinate because it is safe and ethical and necessary. I protest and suddenly am castigated as a fool or a heretic. “But children’s lives are at stake!” chant the masses. And on that, we are agreed.
I’m not interested in a “pro/con” war, so refuting my views would be wasting your time and missing my point. I don’t even aim to change anyone’s mind. There will always be volumes of conflicting information, so do your due diligence, but let faith, conscience and basic sense finalize the decision. If you conclude that there are too many variables to proceed comfortably, that doesn’t mean you are naïve or ignorant. You shouldn’t have to defend these deep convictions to anyone’s satisfaction, and it probably can’t be done. Whatever your choice, don’t allow yourself to bully or be bullied. After all, God gave you your children for a reason.