Pro-Life Pediatrician Letter to the Editor...Please read!

[emma1325]

My husband publishes 2 weekly newspapers and plans to run the following letter next week.

I would love your honest thoughts and criticisms before it prints. Do you consider it inflammatory? Inappropriate? Counter-productive to the goal of promoting awareness of vaccine risks and the right to informed consent?

Anything look "off" to you? or incorrect?

How would you feel about this being printed in your local newspaper?

Thanks...

http://www.clarionledger.com/apps/pb...rionledger.com



Pro-Life Pediatricians and Ethical Vaccines


Working with families who are concerned about vaccines and vaccination rights has shown me that concerns regarding vaccines vary widely, and different people are interested in different kinds of changes in the vaccine program. Allow me to list a few of them for you:

- Some parents don't believe in the basic principles of vaccination...they think that interfering with Mother Nature isn't such a wise thing to do.

- Some parents believe vaccines are unsafe due to the chemical preservatives which have not been studied and confirmed as safe. Some would like to see a long-term study comparing the health of vaccinated vs. non-vaccinated individuals before assuming vaccines are completely safe.

- For some, vaccines are forbidden in their religion.

- Others believe in vaccination, but feel that we are giving too many vaccines, too soon, and also too many overall. These parents believe in using a selective/delayed schedule which they feel is much safer.

- Still others believe in vaccination, but do not want to use the vaccines which were derived from aborted human fetuses.

This last reason is one I'd like to discuss here.

There are about 16 vaccines which were derived from aborted human fetuses, some of which are on the CDC infant vaccine schedule. Visit the Mississippi Vaccine Information Center website at: http://parents.meetup.com/465/ for a full list of these vaccines. The fact that pediatricians rarely disclose the origins of these vaccines to parents is a violation of a parent’s right to informed consent and worthy of a separate letter all its own.

There is a group called the Nationwide Pro-life Physicians of America, which maintains a database of pro-life pediatricians all over America who refuse to use the vaccines which involve aborted human fetal cell lines. These doctors only give the vaccines grown on animal parts, such as monkey kidneys or chick embryos, and if a vaccine doesn't have an ethical alternative (such as the MMR and chickenpox) he or she does not offer it in his or her practice. Rather than have their children forgo the MMR vaccine entirely, many parents are requesting the single dose Measles and the single dose Mumps, which use chick embryos.

Notice, if you check out the database, that Mississippi does not have any doctors listed. I know Mississippi, being a very conservative state, MUST have some pediatricians who are pro-life and concerned about these 16 vaccines.

If you are interested in using only vaccines which were not grown on aborted human fetuses, please, bring it up with your doctor. It's an issue that deserves a lot of discussion. Your doctor may not even be aware that there are ethical alternatives to these vaccines. You may be the one to educate him or her...the ethical alternatives can be special ordered and given in place of the typically used versions.

[FernG]

Originally Posted by emma1325

derived from aborted human fetuses.

This last reason is one I'd like to discuss here.

This is being very nit-picky, but I think that any articles questioning vaccines need to be held to a very high standard for people to take them seriously...

The rubella vaccine was "derived from" an aborted fetus that had been exposed to rubella and had developed rubella antibodies, correct? Are the other vaccines (Hep A, Hep B, chicken pox, IPV, what others?) that use aborted fetal tissue cell lines in their manufacturing process "derived from" or "cultured in" human fetal tissue cell lines?

One of the arguments that I hear all the time is that the cell lines are then "filtered out," so the actual vaccine doesn't have any fetal cells left, and that "anti vaccers" are covering up this point. Is there a brief way to mention that the vaccines go through a filtering process?

Do you have space to list the cell lines that are listed in the ingredients on the package inserts? I've only been able to convince people that human fetal tissue cell lines are used in vaccine manufacturing when I show them that the cell lines are listed in the ingredients (and explain that cell lines are given specific letter-number code names).

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by FernG

This is being very nit-picky, but I think that any articles questioning vaccines need to be held to a very high standard for people to take them seriously...

The rubella vaccine was "derived from" an aborted fetus that had been exposed to rubella and had developed rubella antibodies, correct? Are the other vaccines (Hep A, Hep B, chicken pox, IPV, what others?) that use aborted fetal tissue cell lines in their manufacturing process "derived from" or "cultured in" human fetal tissue cell lines?

One of the arguments that I hear all the time is that the cell lines are then "filtered out," so the actual vaccine doesn't have any fetal cells left, and that "anti vaccers" are covering up this point. Is there a brief way to mention that the vaccines go through a filtering process?

Do you have space to list the cell lines that are listed in the ingredients on the package inserts? I've only been able to convince people that human fetal tissue cell lines are used in vaccine manufacturing when I show them that the cell lines are listed in the ingredients (and explain that cell lines are given specific letter-number code names).

I'll try to add in the cell lines.

As far as your first question, I believe all of the 16 vaccines on the list were cultured/grown in aborted human fetal cell lines...please someone correct me if I'm wrong here.

The filtering process, to me, is not really relevant because the vaccines started out on the aborted fetus. I didn't say anywhere in the letter that vaccines contained aborted fetal cells. So I'm not sure if it's necessary to mention the filtering or not, especially when there is some disagreements as to whether or not the filtering process can guarantee a fetal-cell-free vaccine.

[Deborah]

Actually that letter will have a double whammy! People who are concerned about animal rights will be unhappy about all the animals (huge numbers) who are killed to supply various body parts to grow vaccines. And some of us aren't crazy about possible viral contaminants from animals that have turned up in vaccines in the past and still could.

Aha, but new vaccines aren't using animal stuff, now they are using...Genetically Modified stuff. Whoopee!

[MeepyCat]

Did this letter arrive in response to news published in the paper, or to some recent local controversy? If not, it looks to me like an attempt by one pediatrician to advertise his own practice while discrediting other practices in the community. What is the newspaper's policy on endorsing products or services on the editorial page?

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

Did this letter arrive in response to news published in the paper, or to some recent local controversy? If not, it looks to me like an attempt by one pediatrician to advertise his own practice while discrediting other practices in the community. What is the newspaper's policy on endorsing products or services on the editorial page?

Which pediatrician are you speaking of?

My husband is the publisher, and he makes the policies, lol. He tries to get information out there regarding my organization frequently. (I'm involved with a group concerned about the right to informed consent in vaccination care.)

P.S. Also, I wrote the letter myself. It is in response to the ongoing controversy regarding Mississippi's lack of non-medical exemption. The issue has been covered in other news sources as well. (But not the human fetal issue.)

[emma1325]

Meepy,

There are NO pediatricians in Mississippi (that I have found yet, and I've been looking) willing to discuss this issue with parents.

Some of the parents who have brought it up with their peds have been told that vaccines are not EVER derived from aborted human fetuses, and that this is a myth.

I'm hoping to get more parents interested in this so that perhaps more and more parents will question what they are told regarding vaccines.

[FernG]

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

Did this letter arrive in response to news published in the paper, or to some recent local controversy? If not, it looks to me like an attempt by one pediatrician to advertise his own practice while discrediting other practices in the community. What is the newspaper's policy on endorsing products or services on the editorial page?

The newspaper she wrote the letter to just recently ran an article about MS not having exemptions. (The medical exemption is a joke).

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by FernG

The newspaper she wrote the letter to just recently ran an article about MS not having exemptions. (The medical exemption is a joke).

Actually, the article ran in the local daily, and my husband is running my letter in his 2 weekly papers. So it isn't in direct response to anything, I guess you could say.

[emma1325]

Guys,

Do you think I would do well printing my letter out and mailing it out to the leaders of Mississippi churches?

I wonder if I could get more people involved if they knew how some of the vaccines were made.

Does this sound like an appropriate course of action?

[MeepyCat]

Emma, I'm sorry, I was confused - I thought this was a letter written by someone else in the community, I didn't realize you had written it.

I'm not denying that the issue is important or that there isn't much that can and should be said, but I think your husband's position here isn't entirely compatible with the ethics of professional journalism. I'd be happier with it if the newspaper took this as an editorial position and published this writing as an editorial than I am with the idea of the publisher cherry-picking his wife's letter for space in the reader-response section of the editorial page. If he's not able to do that (because of pressure from owners or other community issues), I think you should approach other papers and other media.

If your opinion consistently appears in (and only in) newspapers that your husband controls, people will eventually notice, his and your motives will be assumed to be questionable, and your opinion is very likely to be discounted.

ETA: Emma, if some other paper published the article you're responding to, write to that paper. Your letter is well-written, likely to generate comment and circulation, and therefore a pretty good candidate for publication. And absolutely send it around to religious leaders.

[mommy2jonah]

I definately think you could mail it to the leaders of the churches in Mississippi. I was actually trying to find out if there was an organization that was pro-life that spoke out about this issue. This is one of the reasons we do not vaccinate. I would even it take it so far as to send it to the pro-life clinics in your area and see what they think.

[medusaatemydog]

How about this... no matter what... i dont' want to be forcibly or coerced or mandated to be injected with ANYTHING!!! I think that this is an idividual choice and NO doctor anywhere should have to power to destroy your life over an injection program. Considering i was told next to nothing about what was being injected into my child makes me LIVID. The fact that i feel threatened everyday that we may all wind up on mandatory pharmaceuticals makes me want to leave this country. What is happening with mandatory medicine is nothing less than a crime against humanity... freewill, freedom of choice, freedom to be in control of my own mortality.... why should i have to hide behind religion....??? I DO NOT FIND THIS ACCEPTABLE. THough the thought of all this whether cultured from fetal cells or animal... whatever and however clean they think thier process to be people in this proffession have obviously become desensitized, and corrupt. It is unethical to fire a patient because they refuse to participate in mandatory medicine...it is unethical for them to judge you or question you... it's your body... and if i had known about what these vaccines where made of, i would have definitely held back till i did more research.

i trust no doctor that practices as a PEDIATRICIAN... "unmentionable blurb" segment of the medical proffesion... they protect mandatory vaccine at the cost of childrens lives because the are not liable and without it they will be out of work... sorry but my child is worth more to me than their bank accounts

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by MeepyCat

Emma, I'm sorry, I was confused - I thought this was a letter written by someone else in the community, I didn't realize you had written it.

I'm not denying that the issue is important or that there isn't much that can and should be said, but I think your husband's position here isn't entirely compatible with the ethics of professional journalism. I'd be happier with it if the newspaper took this as an editorial position and published this writing as an editorial than I am with the idea of the publisher cherry-picking his wife's letter for space in the reader-response section of the editorial page. If he's not able to do that (because of pressure from owners or other community issues), I think you should approach other papers and other media.

If your opinion consistently appears in (and only in) newspapers that your husband controls, people will eventually notice, his and your motives will be assumed to be questionable, and your opinion is very likely to be discounted.

ETA: Emma, if some other paper published the article you're responding to, write to that paper. Your letter is well-written, likely to generate comment and circulation, and therefore a pretty good candidate for publication. And absolutely send it around to religious leaders.

You make very valid points, thank you.

He has published letters taking the opposing view in order to maintain balance and credibility. He doesn't often (in fact, he hasn't ever) cherry picked my writing and printed it. This will be the first time.

He has covered (in a balanced manner) my organization's events in articles (he sent his reporters to cover these events.)

I guess what I'm trying to say is that he has considered your very important and valid concerns. We don't want to lose credibility; and at the same time, we'd like to continue promoting awareness of vaccine rights to the public.

Thanks again.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by mommy2jonah

I definately think you could mail it to the leaders of the churches in Mississippi. I was actually trying to find out if there was an organization that was pro-life that spoke out about this issue. This is one of the reasons we do not vaccinate. I would even it take it so far as to send it to the pro-life clinics in your area and see what they think.

Thanks! I will.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by medusaatemydog

How about this... no matter what... i dont' want to be forcibly or coerced or mandated to be injected with ANYTHING!!! I think that this is an idividual choice and NO doctor anywhere should have to power to destroy your life over an injection program. Considering i was told next to nothing about what was being injected into my child makes me LIVID. The fact that i feel threatened everyday that we may all wind up on mandatory pharmaceuticals makes me want to leave this country. What is happening with mandatory medicine is nothing less than a crime against humanity... freewill, freedom of choice, freedom to be in control of my own mortality.... why should i have to hide behind religion....??? I DO NOT FIND THIS ACCEPTABLE. THough the thought of all this whether cultured from fetal cells or animal... whatever and however clean they think thier process to be people in this proffession have obviously become desensitized, and corrupt. It is unethical to fire a patient because they refuse to participate in mandatory medicine...it is unethical for them to judge you or question you... it's your body... and if i had known about what these vaccines where made of, i would have definitely held back till i did more research.

i trust no doctor that practices as a PEDIATRICIAN... unethical and corrupt segment of the medical proffesion... they protect mandatory vaccine at the cost of childrens lives because the are not liable and without it they will be out of work... sorry but my child is worth more to me than their bank accounts

I FEEL you! lol

And totally agree. I'm trying to think of ways to "get in," if you know what I mean. Questioning vaccines is regarded as quackery and foolishness in this state.

People here are completely indoctrinated. I just want to chip away at their confidence in the medical profession, and if I have to do so by exposing bits and pieces at a time, I'll do it!

[KimberlyD0]

You may want to be very careful about the wording around the aborted fetus information. You don't want people to discredit what your saying because the facts are destorted.

These are cultured cell lines (meaning grown artificially, these cells have NEVER been inside a human body) from embryos long gone. Long as in the 1060's.

It might be best to stick with the facts. I know some object to it because the cells line originated from abortions, regarless of the fact that NO actual fetal tissue being used.

Facts support though that in todays vaccines there is NO aborted fetal cells.

[emma1325]

Originally Posted by KimberlyD0

You may want to be very careful about the wording around the aborted fetus information. You don't want people to discredit what your saying because the facts are destorted.

These are cultured cell lines (meaning grown artificially, these cells have NEVER been inside a human body) from embryos long gone. Long as in the 1060's.

It might be best to stick with the facts. I know some object to it because the cells line originated from abortions, regarless of the fact that NO actual fetal tissue being used.

Facts support though that in todays vaccines there is NO aborted fetal cells.

Perhaps not in the finished product, but no one can deny that the 16 vaccines I listed were derived from aborted human fetuses.

I see what you're saying, though, and I'm trying to promote awareness of this concern without being inflammatory. Thanks. I'm going to continue thinking about it. It goes to print next week so I have a few days.

[Jadzia]

I am not pro-life, but I can appreciate their beliefs and how it would apply to vaccines. It is similar to how a vegan would evaulate using a product - it might not contain actual animal products, but if it was developed by testing on animals it would still make it unacceptable if those were your strongly held beliefs.

[KimberlyD0]

Originally Posted by emma1325

Perhaps not in the finished product, but no one can deny that the 16 vaccines I listed were derived from aborted human fetuses.

I see what you're saying, though, and I'm trying to promote awareness of this concern without being inflammatory. Thanks. I'm going to continue thinking about it. It goes to print next week so I have a few days.

The fact is that yes they were originally derived from aborted fetuses, however there is 0 aborted fetal cells in any vaccinations. Its all in how you word things, if you say their is, when there isn't, then it shines a bad light on you.

All I'm meaning is that the wording would have to be extreamly carefull and fully accurate. What many think because of how its represented is that there are aborted fetal cells in the vaccinations, which is not the case. In fact while derived from an aborted fetus, this was done nearly 50 years ago, so its not a current practice. Many things have changed since then.

In many states this is not even an exceptable religious exemption, because there are not direct links from aborted fetuses and vaccines used now.

I support someone not useing them on religious belief, but this in itself is faulty because the facts are distorted and missrepresented.