HPV and Cancer link

[Judas Maccabeus]

I don't see this as standing for "righteousness" at all. I see it as someone who is an absolutist trying to push an opinion that we should refuse preventive care for children just so they can be more completely punished for their improbity. I see this as a subchristian position that should be called out for what it is. However can you come to the conclusion that YOU making people suffer for sin is an acceptable view. If that is your view, you are usurping God's prerogative to punish sin. That is not our place.

First, you are entitled to your opinion. The reason I object is not to punish my children. Don’t exaggerate my position.
You would have to have lived under a rock the last 20 years to not hear Christians objecting to the HPV vaccine. Some accepted it and some didn’t. Your position is mainstream, I agree. Conservative Mennonite is far far from mainstream on many issues and you of course know this so you can drop the dramatic language. This particular vaccine is objected to more broadly among the conservatives and I would speculate it’s close to at least a 70/30 against split.
General vaccines is likely a 80/20 for/against with fetal cell derived vaccines coming close to a 60/40 split.

And I very much think you are wrong on this one, and represents a teaching so radical that even the pope rejects it. You have been taking others to task for the last 5 pages. You have been condemning Ken all along, Give me a break

Really? I think you need to reread who the primary people arguing with Ken are. I stated my position, quibbled over very little points, conceded Ken was right on some aspects. I think you are just lumping everyone together and saying it’s me.

I represent only myself. The conference does not take a stand on this matter one way or another. I checked this out years ago before I joined, each individual it entitled to his own understanding based on Scripture. I, in fact, somewhat disagree with my Pastor on this.

Well thankfully you aren’t in charge then of the agreed standards.

It doesn't, as I have said, my views are my own and do not reflect the conference which has no position. But you call my stance hardline?

You can’t take communion with someone in rebellion or living in sin although if I had to guess, you do under your standards but for the sake of keeping peace they don’t talk to you

On what grounds? Because you don't like it? If it is not in the conferences guidelines do you think people will make things up on the spot? It simply does not work that way. Do you think my views are unique, if you do I think you would be quite surprised. I can defend my views both medically and Biblically. My views on antivaxism are quite well known, If someone does not want to hear my views don't engage me on the topic.

If you start making conflict with those who are not in favor of vaccination for almost any reason, it will eventually result in action being taken against you. Either you are living in peace with unvaccinated people in your church or you are not. Perhaps your aggressive actions has caused those who disagree with you to keep silent for it is a matter of conscience and they, not you, desire to live in peace with their brother.

you sure do not find space to accommodate Ken. I very much agree with most of his position on this.

Ken doesn’t identify as conservative Mennonite and as I already pointed out, you are twisting the responses into one entity.

My stance is the mainstream stance in most of the Bible believing Christian world. Understand you are the outlier.

Of course I am. For a very long time as it still is, those who follow God faithfully are walking the narrow road and many are walking the broad road regardless of what they call themselves.

Among the conservatives, I am not the outlier. Among medically trained, I only know a few but every nurse in the conservatives and doctors would make room for my views. In fact, the nurse in my community and my prior community agrees with me. Also as I’ve referenced before, so does the doctor who wrote that series of articles.
You referenced the pope, not that he actually is any special figure to us, but until they remove the official stance of personal convictions on vaccines and fetal cells, I think the Catholics would be on my side for “tolerance” of both sides.

I can speak for several churches, mostly from the west coast, but my statements basically line up with general views of the north west American churches of the conservative slant.

I don’t know who vaccinates and who does not, nor do I want or need to. We do not have to agree on every detail. I have my views, I believe them to be ethically and Biblically correct. They are well within the spectrum of views here.

As to avoidance of vaccination being the predominant view, inwould take exception to that. There are a variety of views out there, and the groups I interact with generally take no stand, and leave it up to individuals conscious. For the record, I know there are some who disagree with my views, and some who agree. This is not a test of fellowship, and generally is not even a topic of conversation.

In this case, as to Ken, believe his position correct. Is yours the group that will not allow nurses into membership? That is an outlier. Nurses are quite common out here, and nursing students receive encouragement.

Most moderate conservative groups in the east that I have interacted with, have no official stand, it is largely up to individuals conscious. I suspect you would very much be an outlier in these parts. In more conservative circles, like Nationwide, I would be the outlier. For the record we have no official stand on that matter. Therefore, if asked for advice, I will give the best advice I can. There are people who interact with me daily that disagree. That is their right. If asked for advice I will encourage them to follow the guidance of their doctor in this matter. If not asked for advice, I will not offer it.

I think you would find quite a difference in less conservative groups in the east.

[temporal1]

J.M.:
.. leave it up to individuals conscious ..

saying in one breath, “to leave it to individuals, AND, that choosing to pass is sin,” is hard to swallow.

[Judas Maccabeus]

Per one of my friends new in town, Hopkins peds. will not accept new patients for well child care unless the patient's parents are willing to vaccinate as per the CDC schedule. They apparently feel that these unvaccinated children are potential Measles vectors, and are choosing (rightly, I believe) to protect the majority of their patients.

Someone I know just enrolled their child with Hopkins Peds. That is the source of the info. A doctor does not HAVE to accept a patient wishing care on a non-emergent basis.

I’m glad the Cleveland Clinic respects parents and patients being able to make their own medical decisions, and doesn’t try to force the rather questionable modern CDC schedule on patients.

I suspect this may not be the norm, but if we have an outbreak, it may well be.

An outbreak of HPV among children? If that happens, I’d call the police, not Merck.

That is an individual decision each practice must take. My suspicion is that it will become more common.

In this case, I was thinking about measles. There is the beginning of an outbreak right now. Glad school is about to get out, or my wife would likely wind up at the Jewish school again.

[Judas Maccabeus]

J.M.:
.. leave it up to individuals conscious ..

saying in one breath, “to leave it to individuals, AND, that choosing to pass is sin,” is hard to swallow.

Ultimately, it is up to the individuals. But know I have seen the same rationale applied to Hep. B. vaccinations in the 90s, and know of a child that suffered lifelong consequences. This should not happen.

But willingly choosing not to prevent this horrible disease is, in my estimation sin. Ever interacted with someone with advanced squamous cell ca.? It is not a pleasant disease.

[Soloist]

I would take exception to that. There are a variety of views out there, and the groups I interact with generally take no stand, and leave it up to individuals conscious. For the record, I know there are some who disagree with my views, and some who agree. This is not a test of fellowship, and generally is not even a topic of conversation.

I’m not sure what you are objecting to here, I can agree with what you wrote and it agrees with what I wrote.

In this case, as to Ken, believe his position correct. Is yours the group that will not allow nurses into membership? That is an outlier. Nurses are quite common out here, and nursing students receive encouragement.

I was in Western Fellowship for several years, Charity (conservative) a BMA church for nearly 2 years (reverse travel order)
All of them would allow for different opinions and tolerated diversity. I generally didn’t overly get along with the radical vaccine pushers or the radical no vaccine group as I sort of sit in the middle but more on the no vaccine group. Vaccines don’t cause autism and that makes me less welcome in the no vaccine group. Vaccines with fetal cells are unethical and that makes me less welcome in pro vaccine groups. I do vaccinate my children with some vaccines but I primarily dictate that based on fetal cells with secondary considerations such as things like HPV.
From my experience, nursing is a lonely field for a guy to work in and it’s extremely limited for work based fellowship compared to the majority of CM job choices.

Most moderate conservative groups in the east that I have interacted with, have no official stand, it is largely up to individuals conscious. I suspect you would very much be an outlier in these parts. In more conservative circles, like Nationwide, I would be the outlier.

At the BMA church I would likely be the outlier. At the charity church, it was a mix, maybe 50/50, not positive.
The western fellowship church had one outspoken pro vaccine, several no vaccine and a few in the middle to some degree leaning on either side.
This Pilgrim church we are at now, my wife actually had a few people the other day expressing skepticism that my (dead) autistic son didn’t get autism from vaccines. I haven’t got a solid feel for the majority, but I know one family with multiple organ transplants and they did get the vaccines, I’m somewhat reluctant to go into details on my views with them as I don’t want them to feel judged for their choices to save their children’s lives.

For the record we have no official stand on that matter. Therefore, if asked for advice, I will give the best advice I can. There are people who interact with me daily that disagree. That is their right. If asked for advice I will encourage them to follow the guidance of their doctor in this matter. If not asked for advice, I will not offer it.

I was speaking the other day on a specific treatment with someone and they inquired if I knew it had fetal cell connections or not. That particular treatment I happened to know and I answered. They asked a few questions related to safety and I also answered what I had seen. I express my views but present data without regard to its connection. It’s very clear that fetal cell derived medication or treatments is predominantly safer and likely the way the future medical field will continue to head.

I think you would find quite a difference in less conservative groups in the east.

That may be. I’ve found I have no interest in the conservative groups in the north east either… too many in a tiny area hiding away from the world.

Ironically, if I had a work option, I’d likely be somewhere like Nationwide…

[temporal1]

J.M.:
.. leave it up to individuals conscious ..

saying in one breath, “to leave it to individuals, AND, that choosing to pass is sin,” is hard to swallow.

Ultimately, it is up to the individuals. But know I have seen the same rationale applied to Hep. B. vaccinations in the 90s, and know of a child that suffered lifelong consequences. This should not happen.

But willingly choosing not to prevent this horrible disease is, in my estimation sin. Ever interacted with someone with advanced squamous cell ca.? It is not a pleasant disease.

Sadly, does anyone not have experience with witnessing the ravages of cancer? i’ve seen too much.
i see going without sunscreen as ill-advised. tragic. not a sin.

[Ken]

J.M.:
.. leave it up to individuals conscious ..

saying in one breath, “to leave it to individuals, AND, that choosing to pass is sin,” is hard to swallow.

Ultimately, it is up to the individuals. But know I have seen the same rationale applied to Hep. B. vaccinations in the 90s, and know of a child that suffered lifelong consequences. This should not happen.

But willingly choosing not to prevent this horrible disease is, in my estimation sin. Ever interacted with someone with advanced squamous cell ca.? It is not a pleasant disease.

Legally it is up to the parents. The three states/jurisdictions that require HPV vaccine for school attendance (Virginia, Rhode Island, and DC) all have religious exemptions to school vaccine mandates. The 5 states that do not have religious exemptions to school vaccines (CA, NY, CT, ME, and MS) do not require the HPV vaccine. So there is no place in the US where you are legally required to vaccinate your child for HPV for school attendance or any other reason.

However if parents are making the decision for their children then that really isn't an individual decision is it? A true individual decision would be to let children make their own informed decisions about vaccines without the coercion/influence of their parents.

What? You think age 11-12 is too young for children to be making their own significant life decisions? In many churches, children are baptized and allowed to join the church at ages 11-12. If they are capable of making that life-changing decision, they are certainly old enough to make their own decisions about vaccines as well. Are they not? It seems to be to be entirely inconsistent to argue that a child at age 12 is old enough to make their own adult decision about faith, baptism and joining a church. And then argue that they are not old enough to make their own decisions about vaccines based on principles that flow from that faith.

[Soloist]

However if parents are making the decision for their children then that really isn't an individual decision is it? A true individual decision would be to let children make their own informed decisions about vaccines without the coercion/influence of their parents.

If down there road my child decides they want the vaccine, I’m not stopping them. If it was up to my children though, they wouldn’t get any vaccine.

What? You think age 11-12 is too young for children to be making their own significant life decisions? In many churches, children are baptized and allowed to join the church at ages 11-12. If they are capable of making that life-changing decision, they are certainly old enough to make their own decisions about vaccines as well. Are they not? It seems to be to be entirely inconsistent to argue that a child at age 12 is old enough to make their own adult decision about faith, baptism and joining a church. And then argue that they are not old enough to make their own decisions about vaccines based on principles that flow from that faith.

I personally think the majority of 12 year olds are not ready to make the commitment to join a church. I’m not sure when they are old enough and I’m not going to make that decision for other children then my own.

I would hazard a guess that any pro-vaccine parent isn’t going to let their children op out of a vaccine either.

[Soloist]

Wife: I actually find this hilarious, because our 12-year-old does not want their tetanus booster, and I suppose we are taking away the right not to be poked this summer. they take it like a champ though.

[Ken]

However if parents are making the decision for their children then that really isn't an individual decision is it? A true individual decision would be to let children make their own informed decisions about vaccines without the coercion/influence of their parents.

If down there road my child decides they want the vaccine, I’m not stopping them. If it was up to my children though, they wouldn’t get any vaccine.

What? You think age 11-12 is too young for children to be making their own significant life decisions? In many churches, children are baptized and allowed to join the church at ages 11-12. If they are capable of making that life-changing decision, they are certainly old enough to make their own decisions about vaccines as well. Are they not? It seems to be to be entirely inconsistent to argue that a child at age 12 is old enough to make their own adult decision about faith, baptism and joining a church. And then argue that they are not old enough to make their own decisions about vaccines based on principles that flow from that faith.

I personally think the majority of 12 year olds are not ready to make the commitment to join a church. I’m not sure when they are old enough and I’m not going to make that decision for other children then my own.

I would hazard a guess that any pro-vaccine parent isn’t going to let their children op out of a vaccine either.

I agree that 12 year-olds are not mature enough to join a church or make many other adult decisions. I do think we should be more consistent about when we decide children are old enough to make their own life decisions. We push it out to 21 for things like tobacco and alcohol. We set it at 18 for joining the military, being responsible as an adult for criminal acts, and the age of consent for sexual acts. In many states we set it at 16 for things like marriage, dropping out of school, working in many jobs, and driving a car.

I do think it is appropriate for parents to make medical decisions on behalf of their minor children. However I do also think it is appropriate for children of a certain age (maybe age 16) to have the ability to overrule their parent's medical decisions should they see fit. That would actually make it an individual decision.