Vaccine Mandates Cause Unnecessary Risk
baj...@my-deja.com
systems, be subjected to multiple vaccine cocktails required in most
states?
According to the government and pharmaceutical companies the answer is
an unqualified yes. Most states have some mandated vaccines for
children, from hepatitis B to chickenpox, among other diseases. And the
mainstream media has become the most vocal cheerleader for these
government-mandated vaccines.
A growing number of physicians and informed parents are concerned that
they aren't getting the complete story about the pros and cons of these
vaccines. In fact, parents may be putting their children at great risk
if they follow government vaccine mandates without taking into
consideration the individual medical needs of their children.
But many public health officials and politicians are distorting these
legitimate concerns. In their eyes, anyone who questions vaccine
mandates is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal putting every child at risk.
Just this week, the Houston Chronicle ran an opinion piece criticizing
a national physician group that recently voted to oppose mandatory
vaccines without parental consent. The article accused the group of
having a hidden agenda, while completely ignoring the motives of the
drug companies who make billions on the vaccines.
Take the case of the hepatitis B vaccine. According to the government's
own statistics, children under the age of 14 are at least three times
more likely to suffer adverse effects -- including death -- following
the hepatitis B vaccine than to catch the disease itself. Children are
in an extremely low-risk group for this disease, which is usually
transmitted between multiple sex partners, drug abusers or adults who
work in health-care professions. In recent months, parents in Utica,
N.Y., were threatened by Child Protective Services with possible loss
of custody if their children did not get the hepatitis B vaccine.
So why require hepatitis B shots for young children as a condition for
attending public schools? And why give it to newborn infants?
Answer: Public health officials took a "get 'em when we've got 'em"
attitude rather than recommending the vaccine for those at significant
risk. In contrast, vaccination for yellow fever and prophylaxis for
malaria are recommended when people are at risk for these diseases --
for example, when people plan to travel where these diseases occur and
are active. Pre-treatment is not recommended when the risk is much
less. The same principle should apply to hepatitis B and other
immunizations, with patient and doctor balancing the severity and
likelihood of the disease risk against the severity and likelihood of
vaccine complications.
A number of public health officials have admitted that vaccines for
illnesses such as chickenpox are required because government officials
calculated that the cost and inconvenience of parents' lost time from
work taking care of children was greater than the costs of chickenpox
vaccination. Why should children whose parents are concerned about the
exposure to adverse effects be subject to mandated vaccines just
because a government bureaucrat has crunched a cost-benefit ratio
between the dollars and health risk?
Instead of government officials, shouldn't parents decide if chickenpox
vaccination is worth it -- or not -- to them and their children?
The public health argument, for the greater good, goes that if some
children are vaccinated against chickenpox, other children are
partially protected because the likelihood of the spread of chickenpox
is decreased. This is called "herd immunity," in that all members of
the group, e.g., children, are protected to some degree, even if only
some of the group are vaccinated. On the other hand, if exposed to the
infectious agent, the non-vaccinated children are more likely to suffer
the infection.
But in America we value the rights of the individual above those of the
herd. Some people are more comfortable having as many vaccinations as
possible because of the unpredictability and severity of the possible
disease. Others people are more comfortable having as few vaccinations
as possible because of the possible complications, as well as religious
objections.
Vaccines can and do save lives. But we are concerned that vaccine
mandates pressure -- or even force -- physicians to violate their
responsibility to keep the patient's benefit uppermost. If the
government mandates a vaccine, some physicians will give the vaccine
routinely and consider parents' concerns and questions impertinent;
these physicians may feel that the government mandate overrules their
desire to individualize treatment. As a result, vaccine mandates put a
significant number of children at unnecessary risk in addition to
violating the patient-physician relationship.
We'll say it one more time to make sure everyone understands. Opposing
vaccine mandates is not a stand against vaccines. Both of our children
received "all of their shots." But that was the 1970s -- this is now!
Then there were about six vaccines; now there are 22 or more!
Physicians and parents who sincerely question the efficacy of vaccine
mandates should not be castigated for their legitimate concerns. We
believe that parents, with the advice of their doctors, should make
decisions about their children's medical care -- not government
agencies.
We think the safety of every child and patient's civil rights should be
the first considerations.
Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., of Newport Beach, Calif., writes
extensively on medical, legal, disability and mental health reform
issues.
Robert J. Cihak, M.D., of Aberdeen, Wash., is currently President of
the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21485
Sent via Deja.com
http://www.deja.com/
Mark Probert
baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
> Should all children, even those with fragile and undeveloped immune
> systems, be subjected to multiple vaccine cocktails required in most
> states?
Nice strawman. What a great way to start off. At least those readers
who use their grey cells for something other than keeping their hair
off their shoulders will know that this post is political, not factual.
It is immunizations that are required. If the child gets the M and then
the M and then the R, the 'mandate' is satisfied.
> According to the government and pharmaceutical companies the answer is
> an unqualified yes. Most states have some mandated vaccines for
> children, from hepatitis B to chickenpox, among other diseases. And
the
> mainstream media has become the most vocal cheerleader for these
> government-mandated vaccines.
Always a good idea to add conspiracists. Removing a conspiracist may
show that there is no conspiracy.
> A growing number of physicians and informed parents are concerned that
> they aren't getting the complete story about the pros and cons of
these
> vaccines. In fact, parents may be putting their children at great risk
> if they follow government vaccine mandates without taking into
> consideration the individual medical needs of their children.
And, there are those informed parents who, with good reason, have their
kids immunized. Those parents know how to separate lies from facts.
> But many public health officials and politicians are distorting these
> legitimate concerns. In their eyes, anyone who questions vaccine
> mandates is a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal putting every child at
risk.
No, just the ones who use lies, scare tactics and conspiracy theory to
prove their points.
> Just this week, the Houston Chronicle ran an opinion piece criticizing
> a national physician group that recently voted to oppose mandatory
> vaccines without parental consent.
~3000 or so memebrs in that group if I am not mistaken.
The article accused the group of
> having a hidden agenda, while completely ignoring the motives of the
> drug companies who make billions on the vaccines.
Yep. Nothing like a good conspiracy. However, isn't that groups leader
a well known anti-vac?
> Take the case of the hepatitis B vaccine. According to the
government's
> own statistics, children under the age of 14 are at least three times
> more likely to suffer adverse effects -- including death -- following
> the hepatitis B vaccine than to catch the disease itself. Children are
> in an extremely low-risk group for this disease, which is usually
> transmitted between multiple sex partners, drug abusers or adults who
> work in health-care professions.
And at birth?
In recent months, parents in Utica,
> N.Y., were threatened by Child Protective Services with possible loss
> of custody if their children did not get the hepatitis B vaccine.
But, they worked it out, didn't they?
> So why require hepatitis B shots for young children as a condition for
> attending public schools? And why give it to newborn infants?
Peri-natal transmission?
> Answer: Public health officials took a "get 'em when we've got 'em"
> attitude rather than recommending the vaccine for those at significant
> risk. In contrast, vaccination for yellow fever and prophylaxis for
> malaria are recommended when people are at risk for these diseases --
> for example, when people plan to travel where these diseases occur and
> are active.
A good idea. When was the last time malaria or yellow fever was found
in Alaska?
Pre-treatment is not recommended when the risk is much
> less.
Try non-existent.
The same principle should apply to hepatitis B and other
> immunizations, with patient and doctor balancing the severity and
> likelihood of the disease risk against the severity and likelihood of
> vaccine complications.
A sweeping generalization based on an incorrect premise.
> A number
1? 2?
of public health officials have admitted that vaccines for
> illnesses such as chickenpox are required because government officials
> calculated that the cost and inconvenience of parents' lost time from
> work taking care of children was greater than the costs of chickenpox
> vaccination. Why should children whose parents are concerned about the
> exposure to adverse effects be subject to mandated vaccines just
> because a government bureaucrat has crunched a cost-benefit ratio
> between the dollars and health risk?
Because there are also complications of the diseases.
> Instead of government officials, shouldn't parents decide if
chickenpox
> vaccination is worth it -- or not -- to them and their children?
Ask the parent of a kid who developed a serious consequence of chicken
pox.
> The public health argument, for the greater good, goes that if some
> children are vaccinated against chickenpox, other children are
> partially protected because the likelihood of the spread of chickenpox
> is decreased. This is called "herd immunity," in that all members of
> the group, e.g., children, are protected to some degree, even if only
> some of the group are vaccinated. On the other hand, if exposed to the
> infectious agent, the non-vaccinated children are more likely to
suffer
> the infection.
Yep.
> But in America we value the rights of the individual above those of
the
> herd.
Not when the individuals are detrimental to the herd.
Some people are more comfortable having as many vaccinations as
> possible because of the unpredictability and severity of the possible
> disease. Others people are more comfortable having as few vaccinations
> as possible because of the possible complications, as well as
religious
> objections.
>
> Vaccines can and do save lives.
First truly rational thing you typed.
But we are concerned that vaccine
> mandates pressure -- or even force -- physicians to violate their
> responsibility to keep the patient's benefit uppermost. If the
> government mandates a vaccine, some physicians will give the vaccine
> routinely and consider parents' concerns and questions impertinent;
> these physicians may feel that the government mandate overrules their
> desire to individualize treatment. As a result, vaccine mandates put a
> significant number of children at unnecessary risk in addition to
> violating the patient-physician relationship.
The logic is circular. In fact, it is not logic.
> We'll say it one more time to make sure everyone understands.
Repeating a lie does not make it true.
Opposing
> vaccine mandates is not a stand against vaccines. Both of our children
> received "all of their shots." But that was the 1970s -- this is now!
> Then there were about six vaccines; now there are 22 or more!
> Physicians and parents who sincerely question the efficacy of vaccine
> mandates should not be castigated for their legitimate concerns. We
> believe that parents, with the advice of their doctors, should make
> decisions about their children's medical care -- not government
> agencies.
>
> We think the safety of every child and patient's civil rights should
be
> the first considerations.
>
> Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., of Newport Beach, Calif., writes
> extensively on medical, legal, disability and mental health reform
> issues.
> Robert J. Cihak, M.D., of Aberdeen, Wash., is currently President of
> the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
Yep, that the so small to be insignificant group I was thinking it was.
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21485
A great source of factual information.
> Sent via Deja.com
> http://www.deja.com/
>
--
Mark Probert
Make sure your vote counts--DO NOT vote from the Banana Republic of
Florida!
Roger Schlafly
> A growing number of physicians and informed parents are concerned that
> they aren't getting the complete story about the pros and cons of these
> Instead of government officials, shouldn't parents decide if chickenpox
> vaccination is worth it -- or not -- to them and their children?
> http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=21485
These MDs are right on the money. Informed choice is the way to go,
for a lot of different reasons. Medical ethics, epidemiology,
economic incentives, freedom, gubmnt regulation, vaccine R&D,
minimizing corruption, etc. all point to informed choice.
Vaccine Policy FAQ
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm
baj...@my-deja.com
Choice is freedom. Take away the power to choose and you lose.
CBI
>
> Choice is freedom. Take away the power to choose and you lose.
>
Death from a preventable illness does not enhance one's freedom much (or
maybe it grants complete freedom -different discussion).
--
CBI, MD
Roger Schlafly
> > These MDs are right on the money. Informed choice is the way to go,
> > for a lot of different reasons. Medical ethics, epidemiology,
> > economic incentives, freedom, gubmnt regulation, vaccine R&D,
> > minimizing corruption, etc. all point to informed choice.
> > Vaccine Policy FAQ
> > http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm
> Choice is freedom. Take away the power to choose and you lose.
And choice is good medicine also. Coercive policies are to the
detriment of medicine and society as a whole.
baj...@my-deja.com
> systems, be subjected to multiple vaccine cocktails required in most
> states?
> We think the safety of every child and patient's civil rights should
be
> the first considerations.
>
> Michael Arnold Glueck, M.D., of Newport Beach, Calif., writes
> extensively on medical, legal, disability and mental health reform
> issues.
> Robert J. Cihak, M.D., of Aberdeen, Wash., is currently President of
> the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons.
E-NEWS FROM THE NATIONAL VACCINE INFORMATION CENTER
Vienna, Virginia http://www.909shot.com
"Protecting the health and informed consent rights of children since
1982."
===============
BLFisher Note: This refreshing commentary by two courageous and
principled physicians, comes at a time when the National Vaccine
Information Center is receiving more reports from parents that they are
being threatened by physicians, public health and school officials that
they will be charged with child neglect and their children taken from
them and injected with multiple vaccines without their consent.
Legally filed religious exemptions that have been in place for many
years in New York are being pulled without explanation and children
kicked out of school as their terrorized parents are forced to choose
between violating their faith and conscience or losing their children.
In Texas, pediatricians are screaming at mothers and throwing sick
children out of their offices, denying them medical care, when they
discover child with a high fever or throat infection has not been
vaccinated with every ne of the 33 doses of 10 different vaccines the
CDC and AAP insist all children must get.
Doctors, who used to be among the most beloved of all professionals,
are becoming among the most feared and distrusted by educated health
care consumers, who are simply asking for the human right to make
informed, voluntary decisions about using a product that can cause
injury or death. NVIC thanks these two physicians for reminding us what
the ethical practice of medicine is all about.
Peter Bowditch
>In Texas, pediatricians are screaming at mothers and throwing sick
>children out of their offices, denying them medical care, when they
>discover child with a high fever or throat infection has not been
>vaccinated with every ne of the 33 doses of 10 different vaccines the
>CDC and AAP insist all children must get.
Considering the source of the above, it can reasonably be assumed to
be untrue. Would there actually be any proof of this happening?
No, I didn't think so.
-------------------------------------
Peter Bowditch pet...@ratbags.com
Mad - Quintessence of the Loon http://www.ratbags.com/loon
Bad - The Millenium Project http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
Sad - Full Canvas Jacket http://www.ratbags.com/ranters
Janet
I wanted to comment on the above. The largest Pediatric group in our
area, consisting of 17 doctors, will not see a child, well or sick,
that has not been vaccinated. They did not adapt this policy until one
year ago when they began to see a "trend", parents wanting the choice
to not vaccinate.
I was one of those parents who chose not to vaccinate and refused the
MMR vaccine. We now have a son, five months old, who has not had any
vaccinations who is seen by a very small practice that does not badger
or harass parents to vaccinate.
Enjoy reading the discussions here,
Janet
--
Throwing Stones
http://www.suburbanmagic.com/journal
Roger Schlafly
> I wanted to comment on the above. The largest Pediatric group in our
> area, consisting of 17 doctors, will not see a child, well or sick,
> year ago when they began to see a "trend", parents wanting the choice
> to not vaccinate.
This happens in a lot of areas, and is scandalous. Would a physician
refuse to see a patient unless he stops smoking? Even assuming the
vaccines are good for the kid, the physician should understand that
it is the patient/parent who makes the decision.
> I was one of those parents who chose not to vaccinate and refused the
> MMR vaccine. We now have a son, five months old, who has not had any
> vaccinations who is seen by a very small practice that does not badger
> or harass parents to vaccinate.
Good for you. You are better off with a pediatrician who respects
your wishes. You don't really want peds who are trying to force
you into medical treatment you don't want anyway.
Janet
>
> Good for you. You are better off with a pediatrician who respects
> your wishes. You don't really want peds who are trying to force
> you into medical treatment you don't want anyway.
>
It was hard finding a pediatrician like this. I was shocked at how
ignorant doctors are. When we went to adopt our son I wanted to
breastfeed and was told by several doctors it would be nearly
impossible to do so. Even though I had lactated for two years, eighteen
months earlier. A well known, local pediatrician told me that I would
not produce any milk at all and I was literally laughed out of her
office. Sad.
Once our son was home a local newspaper did a full page article with
photos about adoptive breastfeeding, with comments by our new
pediatrician. That was the "talk" of the town. <grin>
PF Riley
OK, so can I choose not to stop at a red light if I want to?
CBI
news:95qkdi$jek$1...@nnrp1.deja.com...
> In article <95q3ic$hnr$2...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "CBI" <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> > The parent makes the decision on whether or not to give it. The doc
> does not
> > have to treat every person who walks through the door. The doc's
> perception
> > that the parent is being unreasonable and mistreating the child is
> just as
> > valid as the parent's decision not to give the immunizations.
> >
>
> I have never been told that I was mistreating my children by not
> vaccinating them or by delaying vaccinations.
Perhaps, I assume to much but that is how I would interpret the pediatrician
refusing to treat your family.
> Yes, doctors can
> refuse to see a patient for whatever reason but I think not vaccinating
> shouldn't be one of them.
Why? Can't the doctor make that decision for himself. People here are proud
to state what they believe and why. When others question those beliefs they
are frequently chastised for not allowing people to make their own
decisions. Why not extended the same courtesy to the doctors?
> You have parents feeding their kids bad food,
> blowing smoke in their face, etc. which I think is much worse than not
> vaccinating.
You have a right to that opinion.
> I think part of the reason some doctors refuse to see
> patients that are not vaccinated is because if the child did contract
> the disease they probably wouldn't know how to recognize or treat it.
I think you are wrong. Why are you trying to turn this around into some
shortcomming of the doctor? Maybe he is just convinced that the
immunizations are for the benefit to the child and objects to withholding
them on moral grounds. Maybe he feels he would be party to this mistreatment
of he does not do all he can to have the child vaccinated. Why do you think
the parent should be able to have complete freedom of choice but the doctor
should be compelled to provide services he is not comfortable rendering?
> I
> actually asked our family physician if he had ever treated anyone with
> M, M or R and he said "no". He had seen whopping cough though.
This might be relevant as to whether or not to give the immunizations (I
doubt it though) but I don't see what it has to do with a discussion about
whether the doc should be compelled to treat certain patients.
--
CBI, MD
cnha...@my-deja.com
Janet <suburb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
..> > '>
..> .> vaccinating. I think part of the reason some doctors refuse to
see
> patients that are not vaccinated is because if the child did contract
> the disease they probably wouldn't know how to recognize or treat it.
I
> M, M or R and he said "no". He had seen whopping cough though.
..
If you feel your doctor is unfamiliar with the now uncommon but vaccine
preventable diseases, familiarize him with this site:
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d/pict001.htm
It has photos and a click onto a PDF file with descriptions to with the
photos.
Janet
pfr...@watt-not.com (PF Riley) wrote:
>
> That's because whooping cough is alive and well, and still kills
> unvaccinated infants.
>
Just so you know, it also kills the vaccinated ones too, and the
numbers between the two are not all that different.
Janet
"CBI" <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> Why? Can't the doctor make that decision for himself. People here are
proud
> to state what they believe and why. When others question those
beliefs they
> are frequently chastised for not allowing people to make their own
> decisions. Why not extended the same courtesy to the doctors?
Because of the oath they took.
Should a doctor refuse to see patients based on race, color, sexual
orientation, religion, I could go on but you see my point.
>
> I think you are wrong. Why are you trying to turn this around into
some
> shortcomming of the doctor? Maybe he is just convinced that the
> immunizations are for the benefit to the child and objects to
withholding
> them on moral grounds. Maybe he feels he would be party to this
mistreatment
> of he does not do all he can to have the child vaccinated. Why do you
think
> the parent should be able to have complete freedom of choice but the
doctor
> should be compelled to provide services he is not comfortable
rendering?
I think most doctors are not well informed and in fact ignorant on many
subjects. For example, breastfeeding and relactation. Many doctors said
relactation could not be done and that one WOULD have to supplement
because a woman even who had previously breastfed could not get a full
milk supply. Dumb, Dumb, Dumb. I'm sorry, I do not think because you
have MD behind your name that you are an "authority" or "gods". Also
see the above for the latter question.
PF Riley
wrote:
>In article <3a80e87f....@news.nwlink.com>,
> pfr...@watt-not.com (PF Riley) wrote:
>>
>> That's because whooping cough is alive and well, and still kills
>> unvaccinated infants.
>
>Just so you know, it also kills the vaccinated ones too, and the
>numbers between the two are not all that different.
Wrong. The numbers are quite different. Vaccine efficacy is 70-90%,
whereas attack rates among unimmunized individuals is near 100%.
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/pert.pdf
PF
Roger Schlafly
> Janet <suburb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >> That's because whooping cough is alive and well, and still kills
> >> unvaccinated infants.
> >Just so you know, it also kills the vaccinated ones too, and the
> >numbers between the two are not all that different.
> Wrong. The numbers are quite different. Vaccine efficacy is 70-90%,
> whereas attack rates among unimmunized individuals is near 100%.
> http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/pert.pdf
Janet's statement was ambiguous. Yes, pertussis vaccine will
decrease the likelihood of getting pertussis until the vaccine
wears off in 5 or 10 years. But many vaccinated kids do get
pertussis. As vaccines go, it is one of the less effective ones.
Pertussis is contagious, but the large majority of unvaccinated kids
never get it.
Peter Bowditch
>In article <3a80e87f....@news.nwlink.com>,
> pfr...@watt-not.com (PF Riley) wrote:
>>
>> That's because whooping cough is alive and well, and still kills
>> unvaccinated infants.
>>
>
>Just so you know, it also kills the vaccinated ones too, and the
>numbers between the two are not all that different.
>Janet
This is one of the things that the anti-vaccination liars trot out all
the time. As it has been explained many times and is quite simple to
understand, the only reasonable assumption is that they know they are
lying.
If you have a population of 1000 children, 95% of whom are vaccinated
with a 90% effective vaccine, you would expect the numbers of infected
children to be 50 unvaccinated ones and 95 vaccinated ones. Yes, more
vaccinated children that unvaccinated get the disease. An assumption
of a common death rate will give more deaths in the vaccinated group
than in the unvaccinated.
People with knowledge of arithmetic can see why it is a strawman
argument to compare absolute numbers of infections or deaths. Liars
and ideologues don't care.
Roger Schlafly
> Janet <suburb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> >In article <3a80e87f....@news.nwlink.com>,
> > pfr...@watt-not.com (PF Riley) wrote:
> >> That's because whooping cough is alive and well, and still kills
> >> unvaccinated infants.
> >Just so you know, it also kills the vaccinated ones too, and the
> >numbers between the two are not all that different.
> If you have a population of 1000 children, 95% of whom are vaccinated
> with a 90% effective vaccine, you would expect the numbers of infected
> children to be 50 unvaccinated ones and 95 vaccinated ones. Yes, more
> vaccinated children that unvaccinated get the disease. An assumption
> of a common death rate will give more deaths in the vaccinated group
> than in the unvaccinated.
Explain this to Riley. Janet was only clarifying Riley's potentially
misleading statement.
The effectiveness of pertussis vaccine is more like 80%.
Peter Bowditch
Roger, please talk to a mathematician who will explain to you that
100% of 5% of something is always less than 20% of the other 95%. Then
you will realise how specious any argument based on absolute numbers
is.
CBI
> In article <95ssj9$pmt$1...@slb4.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "CBI" <nos...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> > Why? Can't the doctor make that decision for himself. People here are
> proud
> > to state what they believe and why. When others question those
> beliefs they
> > are frequently chastised for not allowing people to make their own
> > decisions. Why not extended the same courtesy to the doctors?
>
> Because of the oath they took.
> Should a doctor refuse to see patients based on race, color, sexual
> orientation, religion, I could go on but you see my point.
>
I do see it. I just think you are mixing apples and oranges.
If a doc discriminated on those criterion I would be the first to condemn
him (or her). The oath says nothing about treating every Tom, Dick, and
Harry who requests service. There is no violation of "the oath," morals,
ethics, or law if a doc decides not to take patients based on such criterion
as smoking or immunization status.
Docs limit their practices all the time. Usually it is based on staus as a
present patient (closed panels), disease (specialists), or insurer. Some
docs might be genrlaists but just decide they do not provide certain
services or treat certain groups of patients. Taking the Hippocratic oath
does not turn the doc into the slave of whoever walks through the door.
--
CBI, MD
PF Riley
<roger...@my-dejanews.com> wrote:
>PF Riley wrote:
>> Janet <suburb...@my-deja.com> wrote:
>> >> That's because whooping cough is alive and well, and still kills
>> >> unvaccinated infants.
>> >Just so you know, it also kills the vaccinated ones too, and the
>> >numbers between the two are not all that different.
>> Wrong. The numbers are quite different. Vaccine efficacy is 70-90%,
>> whereas attack rates among unimmunized individuals is near 100%.
>> http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/pert.pdf
>
>Janet's statement was ambiguous. Yes, pertussis vaccine will
>decrease the likelihood of getting pertussis until the vaccine
>wears off in 5 or 10 years. But many vaccinated kids do get
>pertussis. As vaccines go, it is one of the less effective ones.
And if you get pertussis after 5 or 10 years when it wears off, you
don't die like you do if you are an infant.
>Pertussis is contagious, but the large majority of unvaccinated kids
>never get it.
So is this statement supposed to prove that pertussis vaccine is
unnecessary? The large majority of unrestrained kids in automobiles
don't get killed in car wrecks, either. Therefore, car seats are not
necessary?
PF
Roger Schlafly
> >> Wrong. The numbers are quite different. Vaccine efficacy is 70-90%,
> >> whereas attack rates among unimmunized individuals is near 100%.
> >never get it.
> So is this statement supposed to prove that pertussis vaccine is
> unnecessary?
No, I am just trying to provide accurate info. Your statement above
that the "attack rate" is "near 100%" is very misleading at best,
and apparently a scare tactic to promote your vaccination ideology.
> The large majority of unrestrained kids in automobiles
> don't get killed in car wrecks, either. Therefore, car seats are not
> necessary?
The stats on accidents are facts. Whether car seats are "necessary"
is a judgment and a policy decision that is based on many subjective
factors.
Janet
pfr...@watt-not.com (PF Riley) wrote:
Janet wrote> >
> >Just so you know, it also kills the vaccinated ones too, and the
> >numbers between the two are not all that different.
>
> Wrong. The numbers are quite different. Vaccine efficacy is 70-90%,
> whereas attack rates among unimmunized individuals is near 100%.
>
> http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/pert.pdf
>
> PF
>
I was speaking about DEATH, not contracting the disease. Re-read what I
wrote.
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
I know. But this applies only where most of the people have been
vaccinated. However, if most people were not vaccinated, there would be
outbreaks.
Roger, you are a sorry excuse for a scientist. You are really a
politician trying to make a point and using what facts you can to
bolster your position without looking at the big picture. How sad.
Jeffrey Peter, M.D.
Yeah, and whether children should should be vaccinated or not is
dependent on all the facts. Not just the few roger wishes to share with
us.
> Vaccine Policy FAQ
> http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm
>
D. C. Sessions
>
> In article <3a82b448....@news.nwlink.com>,
> pfr...@watt-not.com (PF Riley) wrote:
> Janet wrote> >
> > >Just so you know, it also kills the vaccinated ones too, and the
> > >numbers between the two are not all that different.
> >
> > Wrong. The numbers are quite different. Vaccine efficacy is 70-90%,
> > whereas attack rates among unimmunized individuals is near 100%.
> >
> > http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/pert.pdf
> >
> > PF
> >
>
> I was speaking about DEATH, not contracting the disease. Re-read what I
> wrote.
Supposing for the moment that case mortality is similar for vaccinated
and unvaccinated[*], doesn't it still make sense to reduce the total
number of cases by the available means, such as vaccination?
[*] The available data strongly suggest that case severity, including
mortality, is reduced by vaccination. Because immunocompromised
individuals make up a disproportionate percentage of cases among
the vaccinated, the aggregate case mortality is inflated.
--
| I'm old enough that I don't have to pretend to be grown up.|
+----------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ----------+
PF Riley
wrote:
>In article <3a82b448....@news.nwlink.com>,
> pfr...@watt-not.com (PF Riley) wrote:
>Janet wrote> >
>> >Just so you know, it also kills the vaccinated ones too, and the
>> >numbers between the two are not all that different.
>>
>> Wrong. The numbers are quite different. Vaccine efficacy is 70-90%,
>> whereas attack rates among unimmunized individuals is near 100%.
>>
>> http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/pert.pdf
>
>I was speaking about DEATH, not contracting the disease. Re-read what I
>wrote.
You have to contract the disease in order to die from it.
PF