| Donald Hathway | | Print | |
|
D. L. Hathway
Bethesda, MD February 1979 Dear Sister Mary Donald, The mandatory immunization of my daughter, Josephine, with measles vaccine is contrary to my most fundamental religious belieif and practice as a Christian. First I will present the basis for this belief, and then I will offer some practical considerations which are not in conflict with my deepest religious convictions and my Faith. Life is a most precious gift from God. The design, beauty, and functioning of the human body is likewise a marvelous gift of God which reflects His Excellence and His great love. Good health can be abused, can be lost, and sometimes can be recovered because of the amazing healing mechanism that God has designed in the body. The "body is indeed the hero.” Although doctors and medication can help the body in its healing processes, no amount of money or technology can guarantee continuing good health, anymore than they can assure any of us a given number of years to live. To maintain otherwise is to adopt a secular outlook in which medical science and medical agencies attempt to 'play' God. This is the same secular religion that views pregnancy as a disease, that views abortion as a medical procedure comparable to appendectomy, and that assured members of the armed forces participating in nuclear weapons detonations that there was no threat to their health because of radiation exposure. Recent disclosures indicate otherwise on this latter point. Incidentally the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in Atlanta Georgia has a unit that deals with issues of conception, contraception, population control, and abortion. When Our Lord Jesus was at dinner in Matthew's home, He responded to the Pharisses as follows: "People who are in good health do not need a doctor; sick people do". (Matthew 9:11-13N- Luke 5:31: Mark 2:17) Jesus was using this example to make a point about the spiritual order but as in numerous other instances the example was based on a sound perception and conviction about truth in the natural order. The modern medical bureaucracy would respond that Jesus was naive about human health and the workings of the body. My belief is contrary to this position. Jesus cured the paralyzed, the blind, the dead, the dumb, the lepers, and other ailments without medication. To me, those who promise with medication, sustained health to the healthy are naive and domineering in that they force us to accept their 'God-like' role. It is typical of this secular mentality to say on the one hand: that the decision as to whether to snuff a life in the womb should be a matter for the pregnant woman and her doctor; and on the other hand to say that the health consideration of a live child is no longer a matter for parents and the family doctor. Mass immunization programs are promoted with great zeal and with repression of dissent even 'in house" at times. These false christs however, are careful to conceal or play down the uncertainties and the disaster potential of their programs. Since Vatican II there has been in the Catholic Church increased emphasis on following one's conscience providing it is properly informed. Part of having an informed conscience is to listen to the teaching authority of the church. In matters where the Church is silent or vague we are duty bound to inform our consciences and to follow them. The Church is opposed to man trying to be God and to apply a secular criteria to the things of God. Our bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit and if we have good health it is from Jesus Christ and not from medical agencies. As one who attempts, despite moral defects, to follow Jesus Christ it is contrary to my belief and my Faith to subject a healthy and injury-free human body to any form of medication, medical drug, or injection. To be forced to do this is as abhorrent to my religious convictions and my conscience as would be the burning of incense before the stone image of a false god. Spiritual beliefs and practices may be above the natural order but that does not mean they have to be incompatible with logic or with the natural order. Thus I wish to present a few practical considerations about mass immunization programs. The purpose of these few observations (there are many more that could be made) is to shed a bit of light on uncertainties and dangers of several programs which have been played-down to the general public. My interest in these matters was born when I came down with Poliomyelitis and nearly died. The cause and effect relationship between government vaccination programs to which I was subjected at the time and my illness was not definitely resolved. However, the many weeks in the hospital offered much time for prayer and reflection about life, health, and death. Through the goodness of God, I recovered with only a slight residual impairment of my right leg. Where are we today with respect to the prevention of poliomyelitis? Dr. Sabin (inventor of the oral attenuated polio vaccine) is opposed to the Salk vaccine because he says it is ineffective. Dr. Salk is against the Sabin inactivated polio vaccine due to safety considerations and observes that, in the last few years, the majority of polio cases in the United States are linked to the Sabin vaccine. The record bears him out. Mr. Bruce Bobbitt, a health official, stated in November, 1977, that all polio cases which have appeared in Maryland in recent years and a majority that appeared nationally are related in some way to taking of the vaccine. And yet the program rolls on unchallenged. The Swine Flu program provides another example from which much can be learned. A clear analysis of this tragedy is presented in a study by Richard E. Neustadt and Harvey V. Finebere, M.D., both of Harvard University, who were commissioned by Joseph Califano of HEW. The study is entitled, The Swine Flu Affair (Decision-Making On A Slippery Disease), published by the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare, 1978. This study provides many insights into the kind of thinking, the bureaucratic in-fighting, the decision process, and the non-scientific factors and biases that, in one form or another, enter into mass government inoculation programs; these are presented to the public under the mantle of undisputed objective science. The first shots were given in October, 1976. In December, 1976 the program was suspended after some 40 million civilians were inoculated. Today the claims against the government because of adverse effects are nearing one billion dollars. A few points made in the study are instructive within the context of this letter. The authors characterize the program with certain distinctive features in their summary. Two of these are: (1) Overconfidence by specialists in theories spun from meager evidence, and (2) Insufficient questioning of scientific logic. The authors appear to support several of the points made by Harry Schwartz in an editorial in the New York Times, which they quote: "The sorry debacle of the swine flu vaccine program provides a fitting end point to the misunderstandings and misconceptions that have marked Government approaches to health care during the last eight years... The excessive confidence of the Government's medical bureaucracy and its outside experts in urging the vaccination program on the country while playing down the uncertainties arising from the fact that medical science still knows comparatively little about the origin and spread of influenza epidemics." The authors make a devastating point toward the end of their study. "Whether side effects such as Guillain-Barre syndrome are related only to swine flu vaccines, or to any influenza vaccine, or to any vaccine of any kind, is, not now known. It is also of interest to note that, in the February, 1, 1979 testimony before the Senate Human Resources Health Subcommittee, both Dr. Sabin and Dr. Salk have challenged the validity of the Administration's program of immunization against influenza. It is true that measles is not as 'slippery' a disease as influenza at least over a short time cycle, but, what about measles? In January, 1977 there were twelve confirmed cases of measles (rubeola) at a middle school in Vienna, Virginia. According to Dr. John Einarson, assistant director of health at the health department, all but one of the students was inoculated against the disease. Einarson said that while inoculation is non-absolute guarantee against measles, it probably would result in a less severe case. This brings into focus the question of 'proof of immunity.’ Is the presence or absence of antibodies circulating in the blood stream proof of Immunity or must they be present at other local sites and how is this verified? In his letter of 31 October, 1977, Charles M. Bernardo states, "One person in a million who is vaccinated may develop a serious complication, including disorders of the nervous system." Then there is the question of slow virus infections which result from modified 'viruses which become dormant and which result in a long-term degenerative processes. The measles virus in modified form is implicated in multiple sclerosis. Dr. J. Anthony Morris (fired in July 1976 from the Food and Drug Administration for, among other things, his opposition to the swine flu program) and his collaborators, among them, Dr. Harold Hoffstrand of the University of Minnesota, have suggested that the measles vaccine may act as a trigger mechanism for subacute sclerosing panencephalitis (SSPE). It is a deadly brain disease that kills. There are other factors about measles. The measles virus can depress the production of antibodies against other antigens. According to Robert M. Fauve, Professor at the Pasteur Institute in Paris (IMMUNOLOGY, pace 443, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1978): "Vaccination may lead to a hypersensitive state with IgE production or delayed hypersensitivity. A subsequent infectious contact may then induce clinical hypersensitivity, sometimes more significant than the normal clinical infection (e.g. respiratory syncytial virus and measles virus." It appears to me that it is time for the Maryland legislature to restudy and investigate all aspects of the measles immunization program in Maryland. This program was pushed by Dr. Solomon while in office. He also pushed state payment for abortions, another indication of his secular approach to humanity. In view of the above and many other factors, my Christian belief and faith about the gift of life and good health are not incompatible with prudence, certainly a Christian virtue. It requires an act of secular faith to accept these mass programs which are loaded with uncertainties. I put my faith in Jesus Christ. All praise, honor, and glory be to Him without Whom we can do nothing and in Whom we live and have our being. I have no desire to cause difficulties for anyone nor embarrassment for Josephine, whose life and health have been God's gift to us. Thus, I request that, in so far as possible, my privacy in this matter be respected. We can never thank you enough for all that you and your staff have done over the years. May God's richest blessings be yours now and forever. Respectfully, Don Hathway Associate Professor of Physics United States Naval Academy Copy to Monsignor Martin W. Christopher [Published with the permission of Mr. Hathway's daughter, Elizabeth. The letter was written for her sister Josie, Mr. Hathway's eleventh and youngest child.] |
 |
 |
What's Your IQ?
|
 |
 |
Swine Flu Alert
|
 |
Professionals Only
|
| Quote of the week |
"Life and health are about choices." - Suzanne Somers, Knockout, page 5 |
|