Luvs Diapers has a hilarious set of commercials out about the marked difference between first-time moms … and what happens when #2 rolls around. You know—the hyper-sanitized, super safe, ultra-cautious little bubble we moms live in with our first kid? Yeah, we all chill out a little when we realize not to sweat the small stuff anymore.
And that’s ok. It’s ok if your diaper bag isn’t perfectly organized anymore; it’s ok to hand your kid a screen (yeah, I said it) playing cartoons so you can get through a long flight; it’s ok that sometimes all the kid will eat is boxed mac and cheese.
What’s not ok is the fact that quite a few of us are actively choosing to put our children (and other people’s children) in harm’s way, because we’ve been scared into believing vaccines are dangerous.
I get it. There are quite a few people out there claiming that vaccines can be more dangerous than the diseases they supposedly prevent.
Who in their right mind would ever subject their child to such Russian roulette?
As I sit here in a state and major metro area now plagued with 54 cases of measles and growing (the largest in decades and a direct result of unvaccinated children) I think about choices we parents must make for our children.
We need to make those decisions based on facts. Not fear.
I’m not claiming to be an expert. It’s precisely for that reason that I’m inclined to listen to those who ARE. And as I’ve done so, here are some things I’m begging you to consider, parent to parent. Let’s go through a few common questions:
Disease was already on the way down before vaccines, and now vaccines get all the credit?
When comparing medical care at the turn of the 20th century to that of 1800, or 1700—or even farther back, one thing is clear: we were learning how to take better care of the sick. And—living conditions, nutrition, and other core factors were simultaneously improving. As a result, yes—you could accurately make the claim that death rates were declining.
But here’s the thing: vaccines deal with the problem before it becomes a problem to treat. Discrediting the effect that vaccines have had (and the evidence is legion) on preventing death simply because death was declining prior to vaccines would be tantamount to discrediting a cure for cancer on the basis that cancer deaths had already been declining due to improving cancer treatment methods that occurred prior to the discovery.
Nearly everyone born before 1960 had measles and we didn’t have mass disabilities and death. What’s the big deal about a couple cases of measles?
Did you know that there are 15 complications associated with measles? From the simply uncomfortable (diarrhea) to the serious (liver infections) to the deadly (fatal brain complications), measles is hardly the common cold. And here’s a the scary thing: “Measles is so contagious that if one person has it, 90% of the people close to that person who are not immune will also become infected.” And while fatal brain complications are rare (though not as rare as once thought) … well, let me put it to you this way: would you let your kid eat out of a bowl of cereal where only a couple Cheerios may be laced with arsenic?
Ok, but autism is serious. I can’t be flippant about autism.
So here’s the claim: the MMR vaccine (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) causes autism and gastrointestinal disease. Who says? British scientist Andrew Wakefield and Jenny McCarthy (at least at first). Here’s what you need to know:
Wakefield and his 12 associates used just 12 children in his study (which means there were fewer participants than observers), was sloppy in his methods, fibbed about children developing symptoms after the vaccine despite records indicating they had already begun developing them prior to the vaccine, performed unnecessary and invasive tests on the children without parental consent, and—here’s the big one—was “getting money from lawyers planning on suing vaccine makers,” and “owned a patent on an alternative to the MMR vaccine.” Indeed, Dr. Wakefield is so credible that he was stripped of his medical license in 2010, and nearly all of his former colleagues “formally retracted their interpretation of the results in 2004.”
Pseudo-celebrity Jenny McCarthy then helped popularize the theory by publicly buying into the idea that the MMR vaccine caused her son’s autism.
Yes, vaccines CAN have side effects—just like any medication or treatment. The question—as examined by over 100 far more credible medical studies looking vaccine safety—is whether or not those side effects are devastating and common. Each one of these studies proves they’re not.
If we have to choose between 100+ verified, credible medical studies, and the poor workmanship of one man with a vested personal and financial interest in knocking the MMR vaccine out of the running … well, I’ll let you decide
Ok …but what about all the toxins?
Mercury. Aluminum. Formaldehyde. Not exactly things you’d sprinkle over junior’s banana purée, right? And yet, they’re part of our vaccines?! Here’s the thing: we have to go deeper than names simply sound menacing.
Mercury: There are actually several types. The variation that protects vaccines from contamination isn’t the same kind that can harm us at high exposures.
Aluminum: Yes, high levels of aluminum are very dangerous. Yet, as this article points out, not only is aluminum a commonly occurring substance in air, water and dirt—it’s also found in breast milk: “Exclusively breast-fed babies ingest over twice as much aluminum in the first six months of life as the sum of all routinely recommended vaccines combined.”
Formaldehyde: This smelly substance is used to “inactivate viruses so that they don’t cause disease (e.g., polio virus used to make polio vaccine) and to detoxify bacterial toxins” in the vaccine process. And, our bodies make it … all the time. In fact, “a healthy baby already has 10 times more natural formaldehyde in their system than any one vaccine dose contains.” Remember, this isn’t a core component of the vaccine; it’s a harmless, trace part of its preservation.
I’m pro-life and vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue. End of discussion.
So here’s the skinny on this. In 1960, lung cells that originated from two abortions in Sweden and England were sent to institutes in England and Pennsylvania, where they were later used to create “cell lines” in a petri dish. These cells replicate over and over and over again, and it’s the replications of these cells that are used to create some vaccines. Why? “Viruses can only grow inside cells, unlike bacteria. The creation of viral vaccines requires living cells. Human viruses are best supported in a culture of human cells. Fetal cells also have the advantage of being a sterile environment, free of any other viruses.”
So basically, the same cell line could have been created using cells from a born human being. It didn’t HAVE to come from abortions, and the abortions were not performed expressly for this purpose. It just so happened that they had access to these cells at that time … and they used them to start the cell line. No abortions are performed today to create more cell lines (they already exist) and no aborted “fetal tissue” is being injected into your children’s bodies.
To paraphrase Joseph Ratzinger (later Pope Benedict XVI), it’s unfortunate that those cells were chosen. But it’s done. Again, vaccines today are not created using cells from new abortions; abortions are not performed to provide these cells today. And the result of using those cells once to create that cell line has resulted in lifesaving measures that ultimately protect and preserve children—something we should embrace.
Moms, Dads—it’s our kids’ lives at stake here. And as we start to see a resurgence in deadly diseases that were once all but eradicated … what will you choose?
Mary Ramirez is a full-time writer, creator of www.afuturefree.com (a political commentary blog), and contributor to The Chris Salcedo Show (TheBlaze Radio Network, M-F, 3-5. ET). She can be reached at: firstname.lastname@example.org; or on Twitter: @AFutureFree