Pursuant to your letter of August 10, I would like to state briefly our position regarding the Administering of oral or other vaccines.
As you may know, we do believe thoroughly in the Bible doctrine of Divine Healing. We are not, however, a Church that unduly emphasizes healing, nor do we make it a primary part of our message to the world in our world-wide evangelistic effort.
Privately, however, and as a Church, we encourage members to trust in God for their protection and their healing should sickness or disease occur. If a member is weak in faith, there is no arbitrary decision made for him, nor is there coercion by any member of the Church upon any other member as to whether he seeks the aid of organized medicine.
We have in our possession, gathered by our world-wide news bureau, with wire services directly into Ambassador College campus, thick sheafs of statistical evidence which completely render as false some of the claims connected with the sabin oral vaccine. What is considered "satisfactory results" with this vaccine?
For example, in the Dallas Morning News, for July 13, this year, an article appeared which stated out of nine polio cases, six had received Salk shots, in some cases all three of them.
Meanwhile, in New York, where sabin vaccines were being administered, more polio victims were being counted. A clipping from the New York DailY News said, "Three of those stricken had received Sabin oral vaccine during a mass immunization program." Headlines in the Oregon Journal said recently, "5 in state get polio despite vaccine use." The article reported ALL of the cases followed administration of the second dose of Sabin oral polio vaccine. One of the stricken had also taken the Salk shot.
In the Springfield Daily News, on November 16, 1961, families were seriously warned that polio serum can infect unvaccinated persons. That is, that the vaccinated person becomes a carrier of the live virus, and that members of his own family can and actually HAVE contracted the disease simply from being in close contact with a vaccinated person.
In a clipping from Atlanta, September 15, last year, it was noted that eleven persons had been stricken who had just recently taken Sabin vaccine. In a world affairs conference in Colorado, a noted biologist said plainly (reported in the Rocky Mountain News) that the Salk vaccine may ultimately "kill millions of Americans." He said it particularly may "destroy the human kidney" and that it would be "ten years from the first use of the vaccine before anyone knows." Let me quote him further. His is not the stand of religion, but of his own profession. "The Salk vaccine is frankly a mess. We rushed into the program without any real reason to believe it was effective, and without taking precautions." Richard L. Meier, research associate in behavioral science at Michigan University, said those who decided to use the Salk vaccine knew not only the theoretical risks, but also the demonstrated risks.
This is only the beginning of the mass of evidence, some of it starkly frightening, all of it decidedly revealing. One frankly frightening article appeared in the Chicago American recently. It said, in part, "Children with four, five, and six shots have been known to develop polio. While such cases are few, their increasing number in the last few years—-national figures show that 23 percent of paralytic polio is now occurring in persons who have three or more doses of vaccine—-is of grave concern to health officials."
Just last year, Massachusetts' children, after 150,000 of them had been inoculated, had ten times the amount of polio than EVER BEFORE!
The statistics are endless, it seems—-and they are absolutely frightening in their implications. Health officials argue there is only a small risk. But the fact remains—-there IS A RISK! The final paragraph on the mimeographed form you enclosed should in itself be an acknowledgement of this fact, that "there is no responsibility on the part of the administering officials for any reactions."
I take the time to thoroughly explain our position on this particular point, Mr. Reardon, so you will understand. We are not "faith-healing fanatics." We thoroughly believe in "proving all things," however, and have seen clear proof from the medical profession itself that the risk involved in taking live virus from infected monkey kidneys into the human system can result in unpredictable ways. We, therefore, candidly lay these facts before Church members, and let them know of the dangers and risks involved.
I believe one more factor is important. The doctors have plainly said that vaccinated persons pose far more threat to UNvaccinated persons so far as possible carriers of the disease is concerned. Therefore, the people of Big Sandy will have nothing to fear whatsoever from our un-vaccinated Church members. We cannot recommend to our Church members that they join in the vaccination program.
Thank you very much for your candid letter. Please be assured this is our private belief and conviction, and that we do not engage in any active public condemnation of any vaccinations, nor attempt to thwart the free practice of others who, just as we do, enjoy the matchless privilege of living in the great country which guarantees complete freedom of religion! We have always had very happy and convivial relationships with our fine neighbors in Big Sandy and Upshur County.