Formaldehyde - Page 3

[ema-adama]

Perhaps I am missing something here - but contracting rubella does not cause an abortion. It is a choice that some women make.
The aurgument that the vaccine prevents abortions seems a little out of whack to me, to be honest.
You have to believe that every woman would choose to abort should she contract rubella while pregnant and that every woman is relying on other people to not pass rubella on to her (including all the health staff who may or may not be up to date with their boosters) while she is pregnant. Ie every woman takes absolutely no responsibility for her health and trusts that every person around her is immune to rubella while she might not be.

You would also have to assume that a child who develops a disability related to the mother having rubella when she was pregnant is a wasted life.

I find this aurgument arrogant and a little too tidy.

While this certainly in the case for many women, not all women rely on the rest of the population to protect them from exposure when they are pregnant. And not all women make the same choices, regardless of their personal stance on abortion.

To assume so is a mistake.

I personally would never leave my personal health in the hands of a stranger. I could not bring myself to rely on everyone in my environment to be 'safe' in order to protect me. That seems a little risky to be honest. My locus of control is very much 'out there' and I am not being responsible for myself or my family.

[gr8blessings]

Originally Posted by ema-adama

Perhaps I am missing something here - but contracting rubella does not cause an abortion.

Yes, rubella can directly cause spontaneous abortion as well as kill a fetus forcing an abortion. More importantly, many women choose to have an abortion after contracting the disease. My assumption is that some of these women would not choose the abortion if they were not infected with rubella. Or in other words, that some of the pregnancies were welcomed and would have been carried to full term if the woman did not get rubella. I do not think this is an unreasonable assumption.

It is a choice that some women make. You have to believe that every woman would choose to abort should she contract rubella while pregnant and that every woman is relying on other people to not pass rubella on to her (including all the health staff who may or may not be up to date with their boosters) while she is pregnant. Ie every woman takes absolutely no responsibility for her health and trusts that every person around her is immune to rubella while she might not be.

You have conceded that some women do make the choice to have abortions after contracting rubella, therefore abortions for that reason do happen. I've also provided data that women do indeed have abortions due to maternal rubella infection.

The vaccine predominately works by giving the vaccinated person immunity, but herd immunity is also important. That is why we vaccinate both women and men, so that herd immunity can protect pregnant women who may not be immune. Rubella is no longer endemic in the US because of the vaccine program providing both primary protection to the vaccinated person and indirect protection due to herd immunity.

You would also have to assume that a child who develops a disability related to the mother having rubella when she was pregnant is a wasted life.

No, because an abortion either happened or it didn't. A woman suffering from rubella during her pregnancy either chooses abortion or she doesn't. Whether that abortion was justified or not is irrelevant. My argument is that if the woman was not diagnosed with rubella in the first place, she would not have to decide whether to abort or not. Not having rubella would prevent an abortion because there would be no reason to have an abortion otherwise.

While this certainly in the case for many women, not all women rely on the rest of the population to protect them from exposure when they are pregnant. And not all women make the same choices, regardless of their personal stance on abortion.

No, the vaccine works regardless on what the personal beliefs of the vaccinated person is. Herd immunity would protect the unvaccinated. Rubella does not ask a mother "do you support abortion?" before the disease kills a fetus and if the answer is "no", spares that baby. Not all women have to choose abortion to validate my argument, as long as there is some women who choose abortion upon maternal rubella infection that wouldn't otherwise choose abortion, my argument that prevention of the disease prevents abortion is valid. My argument is that disease prevention does not prevent ALL abortions. My argument is that disease prevention prevents MORE abortions than not using a vaccine derived from 3 aborted babies (2 for the cell line, 1 for the vaccine strain). My assumption is that a person who is "anti-abortion" would agree that preventing abortions from occuring is desirable.

Since no more babies are or will be aborted due to the manufacture of the vaccine, the vaccine will always be associated with exactly 3 abortions. We can't know the EXACT number of abortions prevented from the rubella vaccine since we can't count what doesn't happen. However, given that a previous outbreak of rubella caused 12.5 million cases of rubella and resulted in 11,250 abortions and that rubella is no longer endemic in the US due to vaccination, I think assuming the number of abortions prevented by using the vaccine will be greater than 3 is not a huge stretch, especially when you consider this vaccine is used worldwide.

So, to refute this argument, one would have to show any of the following:
- there is a 3rd option to prevent rubella without using a vaccine derived from aborted fetuses since vaccination is presented here as the lesser of two evils
- that use of the vaccine promotes more abortions than it prevents
- that less than 3 abortions have occurred after the mother contracts rubella now and forever
- that ALL abortions occurring after the mother contracts rubella would have occurred anyways
- the vaccine does not prevent rubella
- that if we stopped using the rubella vaccine, outbreaks of rubella would not occur
- rubella does not cause spontaneous abortions AND all intentional abortions that occur after rubella infection would have occurred anyway
- preventing abortion would not be a goal of a person who is "anti-abortion"


gr8blessings

[cloak]

Originally Posted by gr8blessings

The aborted babies are still aborted whether the serology or presence of CRS justifies that abortion or not. The paper does not offer the reasons why the women aborted the babies beyond being told that they had rubella. Obviously the women thought that abortion was the best decision for them and there is no evidence that their doctor pressured them into that decision. So number of babies aborted due to an outbreak of rubella is still 11.

So you say we don't know why these babies were aborted but then you say they were aborted because of the rubella outbreak. Which is it? You can't have it both ways just to suit your argument.

Say these women aborted because they simply didn't want their babies. Then your argument that the vaccine would have prevented these abortions is false.

Then if we assume these women aborted because they were afraid their baby might be born with CRS, we are back to my argument from my other post. Doctors giving patients misinformation and scaring them into unnecessary abortions is not a reason to use an aborted fetal cell vaccine.

And the Japanese developed a rubella vaccine without using aborted fetal cells. The US could make an ethical vaccine, they just choose not to. I'm not going to compromise my morals because some pharmaceutical company is trying to bully me into it.

[emma1325]

{sigh}

I still stand by my original statement that claiming "vaccines do not contain aborted fetuses" is misleading people because aborted fetuses were used in the manufacturing process and the finished product is the result of what grew from them.

To many, many pro-lifers, this is unacceptable. It doesn't matter how you try to minimize it, or justify it by saying other abortions may be prevented because of it. It was wrong, in many pro-lifers' views, to make the vaccine in that manner to begin with. So any amount of good that may or may not have come because of it does not justify the use of it.

The ends do not always justify the means.

Now I'm not personally a strict anti-abortion person. However, I still find it repulsive that medical professionals actually expect me to inject my child with something that was grown on an aborted fetus. Gross. And all for some theoretical, unproven assumption that the vaccine will protect my child from a disease that my child may or may not ever be exposed to in the first place, and may or may not get sick from if exposed to.

It's absurd, and I really feel for those who are misled into thinking that it's a myth that aborted fetuses were used to create many vaccines, when so many would truly be religiously or philosphically opposed to using the product if they knew the truth. People are being lied to by the medical community, and are not given the crucial details needed to make a truly informed choice in the matter.

[Ianthe]

Originally Posted by emma1325

{sigh}

I still stand by my original statement that claiming "vaccines do not contain aborted fetuses" is misleading people because aborted fetuses were used in the manufacturing process and the finished product is the result of what grew from them.

To many, many pro-lifers, this is unacceptable. It doesn't matter how you try to minimize it, or justify it by saying other abortions may be prevented because of it. It was wrong, in many pro-lifers' views, to make the vaccine in that manner to begin with. So any amount of good that may or may not have come because of it does not justify the use of it.

The means do not always justify the ends.

Now I'm not personally a strict anti-abortion person. However, I still find it repulsive that medical professionals actually expect me to inject my child with something that was grown on an aborted fetus. Gross. And all for some theoretical, unproven assumption that the vaccine will protect my child from a disease that my child may or may not ever be exposed to in the first place, and may or may not get sick from if exposed to.

It's absurd, and I really feel for those who are misled into thinking that it's a myth that aborted fetuses were used to create many vaccines, when so many would truly be religiously or philosphically opposed to using the product if they knew the truth. People are being lied to by the medical community, and are not given the crucial details needed to make a truly informed choice in the matter.

: to everything

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by gr8blessings

Since no more babies are or will be aborted due to the manufacture of the vaccine, the vaccine will always be associated with exactly 3 abortions. -
gr8blessings

You actually think these cell lines will never run out??

Not true. They are not immortal. After over 30 years of research on these and hundreds of other aborted fetal cell lines, Leonard Hayflick concluded in another 1997 report that the effort to achieve immortality was “futile”.

L. Hayflick, The Limited In Vitro Lifetime of Human Diploid Cell Strains, Experimental Cell Research, 37, pg 629, 1965

the Coriell Institute for Medical Research signed an agreement with the National Institute on Aging to establish and bank new fetal cell lines for future replacement of existing fetal cell lines. It was the implicit intention of the researchers to establish this new fetal cell line for future vaccine production. Writes Dr. Christine Beiswanger, PhD, Assistant Director and Associate Professor for Coriell:
“The cell line developed at Coriell, identified as IMR-90 was the first of several lines planned in support of NIA research programs...IMR-90 was developed and characterized in such a way as to parallel WI-38 as closely as possible to minimize the variables in replacing WI-38 within ongoing laboratory programs ... The IMR-90 cell line, like WI-38 was derived from the lung tissue of a human female embryo following therapeutic abortion ...Since the goal of establishing this cell line was a replacement for WI-38 in vaccine production, virus yields were compared for IMR-90, WI-38 and MRC-5 for a number of different viruses including varicella zoster, herpes simplex, vesicular stomatitits virus and cytomegalovirus.

Coriell Institutes for Medical Research, Cell Collections, A Brief History of IMR-90, Christine Beiswanger, PhD, Associate Professor, 2003/2004 Edition

In fact, if the lifespan was not nearly at capacity for the present cell lines, one should question exactly why Merck and at least 50 other pharmaceutical companies would go to the trouble of buying licensing rights on an entirely new fetal cell line in the Spring and Summer of 2002, that is neither FDA approved, nor used in any other vaccine applications. At FDA hearings in May 2002, Dr. Van der Eb of Crucell, NV, the Dutch biomedical company that owns patented rights to the cell line, explained in great detail about this new martyr for the pharmaceutical industry:

http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/.../3750t1_01.pdf

[Deborah]

What I see is multiple layers of utilitarianism and seeing other human beings as means to an end.

First, using the abortions is okay because it is saving lives.
Second, forcing babies to undergo rubella vaccination to protect pregnant women from getting sick and affecting their unborn babies. The assumption here is that any harm to the already born babies is offset by the vast number of babies saved. Pure utilitarianism.
Third, having vast numbers of women reaching adulthood without immunity to rubella. These women are then dependent on babies being vaccinated. If the women had experienced rubella as small children they would, most likely, have lifelong immunity. As it is, many, many, many women discover that they aren't immune when they are pregnant. Then the shot is given to them in the hospital, thereby exposing their newborn infant (involuntarily) to rubella. More utilitarianism and in this case bizarre utilitarianism because it isn't working.

When the rubella shot was first developed it was given to girls at puberty who didn't have immunity to rubella. There was some point to this, as the shot had a good chance of being effective through at least some portion of the childbearing years. Further, the people being vaccinated were the people benefiting from the vaccine (mothers want healthy babies).

I disapprove of utilitarianism. I disapprove of people being treated as objects to be manipulated for the good of other people.

[anewmama]

Originally Posted by emma1325

They certainly can contain fragments of protein from aborted fetal cells...since many vaccines were cultured on aborted fetuses.

I think it is misleading to state that "vaccines do NOT contain aborted human fetuses" and leave it at that.

It is misleading to say they contain aborted human fetuses. The image that conjures is highly inflammatory. Fragments of a protein are much different.

Though where they come from is the same thing.... just the imagery and shock value are entirely different.

[michelleklu]

Originally Posted by wantingagirl2b#4

:: so back to the basics why would any of us need formaldehyde in our bath? Not a scientific person here as most of us consumers aren't, hence the reason all this is out of consumers control, but it just doesn't seem logical to me! It's not something I would choose or many others would choose if it was labled oh so clearly that all consumers knew what they were actually buying!: Our ah so busy world when most have to go to work to make a paycheck don't have the luxury alot of us mother's here on this board have of staying at home and raising our families and learning all we can to protect our families.

I've searched online about the topic and every article I've seen says there is no need for it in the bath products. I understand SLS helps with lathering and fragrances are cheaper than essential oils but why did they put formaldehyde? Does it just crop up there after the chemical process of making bath products because I sure hope my WAHM bath products don't contain formaldehyde.

[gr8blessings]

Originally Posted by cloak

So you say we don't know why these babies were aborted but then you say they were aborted because of the rubella outbreak. Which is it? You can't have it both ways just to suit your argument.

I said that the reason given for abortion was being told that they had rubella. There is no evidence that their doctor bullied them into it or gave them wrong information about CRS. If you are going to make that assertion, then you have to back it up with evidence.

Say these women aborted because they simply didn't want their babies. Then your argument that the vaccine would have prevented these abortions is false.

My argument isn't that the vaccine would prevent women having abortions unrelated to rubella. My argument is that the vaccine would prevent women diagnosed with rubella from having abortions i.e. the reason for abortion is the rubella infection and that vaccination would save more babies than not vaccinating would.

So if the women had a rubella infection AND didn't want their babies, would the vaccine prevent this? No, you're right. We would eliminate the rubella infection as a reason to abort, but we would still have women who didn't want their babies. But not using the vaccine wouldn't prevent abortion either since rubella infection was irrelevant to their decision to abort.

vaccinate - no rubella - abort anyway
no vaccine - rubella - abort anyway
no vaccine - no rubella - abort anyway

Then if we assume these women aborted because they were afraid their baby might be born with CRS, we are back to my argument from my other post. Doctors giving patients misinformation and scaring them into unnecessary abortions is not a reason to use an aborted fetal cell vaccine.

Again, the only reason the women would fear CRS is if they were diagnosed with rubella. Assuming that their doctor did scare them into an abortion (which you provide no evidence of and is just pure speculation on your part), they would not have had that conversation with their doctor if they were not diagnosed with rubella. Vaccination would have prevented them from getting rubella, no fear of CRS, no abortion. The reason to use the vaccine would be so that women wouldn't have to have that fear-mongering conversation with their doctor that you have fabricated in your mind.

And the Japanese developed a rubella vaccine without using aborted fetal cells. The US could make an ethical vaccine, they just choose not to. I'm not going to compromise my morals because some pharmaceutical company is trying to bully me into it.

Finally, this is something that has the potential to refute my argument. Praise God. I wasn't aware of this Japanese vaccine. This is the third option that I mentioned in previous post, a way of preventing rubella WITHOUT using material derived from aborted fetuses. This is the BEST choice. The only kicker, is what do we do until this vaccine is licensed in the US? Not vaccinate using the current vaccine and risk abortions due to a rubella outbreak? Or compromise our morals and use the vaccine? Since the vaccine has the potential to prevent MORE abortions than boycotting the vaccine does (especially since boycotting the vaccine can't undo the abortions that have already took place to make the vaccine), I think option 1 makes more sense for those of us that are against abortions. Darn, and we are back to square one again.

gr8blessings

[gr8blessings]

Originally Posted by emma1325

It's absurd, and I really feel for those who are misled into thinking that it's a myth that aborted fetuses were used to create many vaccines, when so many would truly be religiously or philosphically opposed to using the product if they knew the truth. People are being lied to by the medical community, and are not given the crucial details needed to make a truly informed choice in the matter.

Since the vaccines DO NOT contain aborted fetuses, this is NOT a myth. People are being misled by the assertion that vaccines contain aborted fetuses when they do not. The myth is that vaccines contain aborted fetuses.

I have provided you with the truth and you refuse to accept it. The
crucial details are easily obtained. The medical community is not lying. Lying is saying that vaccines contain aborted fetuses when they do not.

gr8blessings

[gr8blessings]

Originally Posted by Marnica

You actually think these cell lines will never run out??

Not true. They are not immortal. After over 30 years of research on these and hundreds of other aborted fetal cell lines, Leonard Hayflick concluded in another 1997 report that the effort to achieve immortality was “futile”.

Seed stock is frozen in liquid nitrogen indefinitely. As long as the seed stock is available the cells will not run out. The lack of seed stock, explains the need for IMR-90. So OK, +1. That would bring the vaccine total to 4 if IMR-90 does end up being used for vaccine production.

You still have a long way to go to show that abortions to make the vaccine is GREATER THAN the number of abortions prevented by the vaccine, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.

gr8blessings

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by gr8blessings

Since the vaccines DO NOT contain aborted fetuses, this is NOT a myth. People are being misled by the assertion that vaccines contain aborted fetuses when they do not. The myth is that vaccines contain aborted fetuses.

I have provided you with the truth and you refuse to accept it. The
crucial details are easily obtained. The medical community is not lying. Lying is saying that vaccines contain aborted fetuses when they do not.

gr8blessings

The myth is that aborted fetal cells are not involved in vaccine production.

You can continue to stretch and distort the issue, but the truth is that aborted fetuses WERE used and DO play a part in the vaccines we have today, and parents are NOT told this by their medical providers. It's a violation of a parent's right to informed consent.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by gr8blessings

Seed stock is frozen in liquid nitrogen indefinitely. As long as the seed stock is available the cells will not run out. The lack of seed stock, explains the need for IMR-90. So OK, +1. That would bring the vaccine total to 4 if IMR-90 does end up being used for vaccine production.

You still have a long way to go to show that abortions to make the vaccine is GREATER THAN the number of abortions prevented by the vaccine, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.

gr8blessings

Again, the ends do not always justify the means.

To some parents, such as yourself, in this case they do. (and that's perfectly fine if you feel that way.)

To other parents, they don't. But it should be up to the parent to make an informed decision for him or herself, not for the government, medical establishment, or you to tell him/her that 2 abortions justifies the possible prevention of future abortions.

[Marnica]

Originally Posted by gr8blessings

Seed stock is frozen in liquid nitrogen indefinitely. As long as the seed stock is available the cells will not run out. The lack of seed stock, explains the need for IMR-90. So OK, +1. That would bring the vaccine total to 4 if IMR-90 does end up being used for vaccine production.

You still have a long way to go to show that abortions to make the vaccine is GREATER THAN the number of abortions prevented by the vaccine, but it certainly is a step in the right direction.

gr8blessings

Im not trying to show that abortions to make the vaccine are greater than the numbers of abortions prevented by the vaccine...Pretty sure I never implied that either. Im just addressing your statement about the cell lines never running out.

[grisandole]

Just a reminder to keep this thread on topic...about formaldehyde please Thanks!
Kristi

[mamakah]

[QUOTE=gr8blessings;13485634]Since the vaccines DO NOT contain aborted fetuses, this is NOT a myth. People are being misled by the assertion that vaccines contain aborted fetuses when they do not. The myth is that vaccines contain aborted fetuses.

I have provided you with the truth and you refuse to accept it. The
crucial details are easily obtained. The medical community is not lying. Lying is saying that vaccines contain aborted fetuses when they do not.

gr8blessings[/QUOT

Hmmmm. You have interesting views on this. Just a question:
(Warning!!! Warning!!!! May turn your stomach)
If someone were to make a stock out of human remains, then strained it, added some chicken and noodles to it and tried to serve it to you, would you eat it? I mean technically it doesn't have human in it, it was just made with human right? I mean sure the human protiens and cells are present, but by your own interpretation, it would not contain human and it would be misleading to say otherwise wouldn't it?
****As far as the original topic goes, does anyone have any idea when they started useing Formaldehyde in these products?

[grisandole]

Closing temporarily as it has veered way off topic.