Informed Choice
Fancy Nelson
Karla wrote:
> In article <377FD97B...@thumper.microboss.com.au>,
> Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au says...
> >
> > In-depth information re: vaccines written by various doctors:
> >
> > http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115immun/020115immun.toc.html
> >
> > http://whale.to/vaccines.html
> >
> > Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
> > playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
> > the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
> > Anyone thinking the same thing?
> >
> > Radha
> >
> Maybe some education wouldn't hurt you....
> I know where I live they don't use live vaccines.
> It'll sure be a shame when all your unvaccinated children bring back
> polio.
Roger Schlafly
>Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
>playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
>the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
>Anyone thinking the same thing?
One of the advantages of using live vaccines that is occasionally
cited is that they often cause secondary infections in unvaccinated
children. No matter how rigidly vaccination laws are applied,
some kids will slip thru, and the authorities don't want that.
IOW, yes, you child is at risk of infection, and the authorities
want it that way.
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
>
> In-depth information re: vaccines written by various doctors:
>
> http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115immun/020115immun.toc.html
>
> http://whale.to/vaccines.html
>
> playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
> the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
Which virus? Or are you thinking that the virus used in vaccines
is the same one that causes the wild infection (come to think of
it that would explain a lot)?
> Anyone thinking the same thing?
Oh, THAT is almost certain. Usenet being what it is, and all.
--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
+---------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <sess...@primenet.com> ----------+
johndz
should keep your child away from everyone.
Isn't your childs health a bit important to be experimenting with
holistic approaches to common disease prevention. Shame on you.
Once again the children lose, this time to a silly conspiracy theory.
In article <377FD97B...@thumper.microboss.com.au>,
Radha <Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:
>
> In-depth information re: vaccines written by various doctors:
>
>
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115imm
un/020115immun.toc.html
>
> http://whale.to/vaccines.html
>
> Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
> playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
> the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
> Anyone thinking the same thing?
>
> Radha
>
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Karla
>
> http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115immun/020115immun.toc.html
>
> http://whale.to/vaccines.html
>
> Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
> playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
> the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
> Anyone thinking the same thing?
>
> Radha
>
baj...@my-deja.com
johndz <john...@my-deja.com> wrote:
> Yes, I would deduce that your child could be at risk. Perhaps you
> should keep your child away from everyone.
>
> Isn't your childs health a bit important to be experimenting with
> holistic approaches to common disease prevention. Shame on you.
You actually think that vaccines are not experimental in nature?
> Once again the children lose, this time to a silly conspiracy theory.
The only conspiracy is on the part of doctors and school officials who
never inform parents of the exemptions to vaccination, there by
promoting and influencing their agenda.
> In article <377FD97B...@thumper.microboss.com.au>,
> Radha <Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > In-depth information re: vaccines written by various doctors:
> >
> >
>
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115imm
> un/020115immun.toc.html
> >
> > http://whale.to/vaccines.html
> >
> > Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
> > playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
> > the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
> > Anyone thinking the same thing?
> >
> > Radha
> >
>
baj...@my-deja.com
ksmcc...@home.com (Karla) wrote:
> In article <377FD97B...@thumper.microboss.com.au>,
> Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au says...
> >
> >
> >
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115imm
un/020115immun.toc.html
> >
> > http://whale.to/vaccines.html
> >
> > Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
> > playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
> > the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
> > Anyone thinking the same thing?
> >
> > Radha
> >
> I know where I live they don't use live vaccines.
> It'll sure be a shame when all your unvaccinated children bring back
> polio.
>
the U.S. for many years now. Even a simi-conscious person would know
better than to attribute a disease to an unvaccinated child. You must
have a twisted mind if you think an unvaccinated child could be
responsible for bringing back polio. Do you really believe that? You
must be a product of the state indoctrination system. I suggest you do
a little reasearch and educate yourself about the true nature of health
and disease. The medicine doctor might not like it but you will save
lots of money and live longer. Stop the fear mongering and live in
peace.
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>
>http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115immun/
020115immun.toc.html
>
>http://whale.to/vaccines.html
>
>Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
>playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
>the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
>Anyone thinking the same thing?
>
>Radha
I am not, as you would guess.
To avoid getting the vaccines by contact (this is effectively what you are
talking about), only live vaccines would qualify, obviously. OPV is spread
by fecal oral route. So kids who got the vaccine could spread it to your kid
for a period of time. For MMR, this type of spread is theoretically
possible, but unlikely. For CP, I do not know.
Jeff Utz
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>
>"Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D." wrote:
>
>> Radha wrote in message <377FD97B...@thumper.microboss.com.au>...
>
>> >In-depth information re: vaccines written by various doctors:
>
>>
>http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115immun/
>> 020115immun.toc.html
>
>> >http://whale.to/vaccines.html
>
>> >Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
>> >playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
>> >the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
>> >Anyone thinking the same thing?
>
>> >Radha
>
>> I am not, as you would guess.
>
>
>> To avoid getting the vaccines by contact (this is effectively what you
are
>> talking about), only live vaccines would qualify, obviously. OPV is
spread
>> by fecal oral route. So kids who got the vaccine could spread it to your
kid
>> for a period of time. For MMR, this type of spread is theoretically
>> possible, but unlikely. For CP, I do not know.
>
>> Jeff Utz
>
>from his grandson simply by picking him up for a photo (no nappy
>changing, kisses etc.). It's probably easier for an older man to
>contract the disease.
>
>How long would you say this infectious period of time goes on for?
>
>Radha
I don't know. maybe 2 or 3 months. not sure.
Jeff
Fancy Nelson
would certainly come back. My MIL had this as a child and now has a
paralyzed face...she is lucky..she didn't DIE!!!!! Would you want this for
society again???? I wouldn't!
baj...@my-deja.com wrote:
> In article <MPG.11e9caaad09782cd989766@news>,
> ksmcc...@home.com (Karla) wrote:
> > In article <377FD97B...@thumper.microboss.com.au>,
> > Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au says...
> > >
> > > In-depth information re: vaccines written by various doctors:
> > >
> > >
> http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115imm
> un/020115immun.toc.html
> > >
> > > http://whale.to/vaccines.html
> > >
> > > Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
> > > playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
> > > the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
> > > Anyone thinking the same thing?
> > >
> > > Radha
> > >
Colette
>
> If everyone didn't vaccinate their children to this disease (polio) then it
> would certainly come back. My MIL had this as a child and now has a
> paralyzed face...she is lucky..she didn't DIE!!!!! Would you want this for
> society again???? I wouldn't!
That is not necessarily so. For example, there are a few countires that
never introduced the Small Pox vaccine yet Small Pox is still
(thankfully) completely gone except for some samples in a few labs
around the world. Diseases sometimes die off on their own, and you do
not know that polio would return if they stopped producing weakened and
dead versions in the lab. Aside from the vaccine, things like improved
public sanitation helped contribute to the drop in polio. Even Saulk
questioned the safety and efficacy of how own vaccine. Also, after the
vaccine was introduced suddely the reporting standards for polio were
made very strict. So the rates before the vaccine and the rates after
the vaccine are actually apples and oranges (i.e. to quote them is
absurd since the differences would be extremely distorted). In the U.S.
there have been no cases of wild polio in many many years. It's quite
possible the polio vaccines will eventually be stopped like the Small
Pox vaccine was discontinued.
--
Colette, mom to 2 beautiful homebirthed children
The remarkable 4 year old Amy
and the magnificent 2 year old Jake
Come visit my updated site!
Home Birth and Midwives Support Network for Illinois
http://www.geocities.com/Wellesley/5510
Fancy Nelson
differ
G03090103
>If everyone didn't vaccinate their children to this disease (polio) then it
>would certainly come back.
Really? Please enlighten us. What organism (other than man, of course) serves
as a host for the polio virus? When do *you* think it will be safe to declare
polio eradicated? (Never?)
JG
G03090103
>Aside from the vaccine, things like improved
>public sanitation helped contribute to the drop in polio.
Actually, it was improved sanitation that led to polio becoming the scourge it
was. Before "modern" sewage disposal systems, virtually all infants/children
contracted polio, which is spread by a fecal-oral route. (Virtually all thier
mothers had developed immunity as well, and thus could pass along protective
antibodies via breast milk.) Fortunately, in only a (very) small percentage did
paralytic polio develop. With widespread improvements in waste disposal,
routine infection became rather rare. When a person did encounter the polio
virus, he/she did not have the benefit of having been repeatedly exposed as
his/her ancestors had; he/she had no "natural" immunity and consequently the
results could be devastating.
>In the U.S.
>there have been no cases of wild polio in many many years.
Twenty, actually; the last case of "wild" polio was reported in 1979.
>It's quite
>possible the polio vaccines will eventually be stopped like the Small
>Pox vaccine was discontinued.
That's the plan, though I'd bet the farm it won't be next year, the "target"
date established, I believe, in 1988. Indeed, there's been a lot of debate as
to just when we can stop vaccinating; one question that has to be answered
conclusively is how long the virus can survive (e.g., there's been discussion
regarding how long certain individuals excrete the virus).
JG
Fancy Nelson
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
G03090103 wrote in message <19990705151045...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
>Colette <lnrp...@ripco.com> wrote:
>
>>Aside from the vaccine, things like improved
>>public sanitation helped contribute to the drop in polio.
>
>Actually, it was improved sanitation that led to polio becoming the scourge
it
>was. Before "modern" sewage disposal systems, virtually all
infants/children
>contracted polio, which is spread by a fecal-oral route. (Virtually all
thier
>mothers had developed immunity as well, and thus could pass along
protective
>antibodies via breast milk.) Fortunately, in only a (very) small percentage
did
>paralytic polio develop. With widespread improvements in waste disposal,
>routine infection became rather rare. When a person did encounter the
polio
>virus, he/she did not have the benefit of having been repeatedly exposed as
>his/her ancestors had; he/she had no "natural" immunity and consequently
the
>results could be devastating.
>
HA HA. I find this hypothesis interesting, but implausable. What evidence do
you have?
>>In the U.S.
>>there have been no cases of wild polio in many many years.
>
>Twenty, actually; the last case of "wild" polio was reported in 1979.
>
>>It's quite
>>possible the polio vaccines will eventually be stopped like the Small
>>Pox vaccine was discontinued.
>
>That's the plan, though I'd bet the farm it won't be next year, the
"target"
>date established, I believe, in 1988. Indeed, there's been a lot of debate
as
>to just when we can stop vaccinating; one question that has to be answered
>conclusively is how long the virus can survive (e.g., there's been
discussion
>regarding how long certain individuals excrete the virus).
>
>JG
One problem is modern sewage disposal. Apparently, polio virus has been
found in sewage that has been barried at sea after several years. That
sewage could be washed up again and the polio virus infect people many years
from now.
Jeff Utz
Colette
>
> I Still wouldn't be willing to take the risk with my son.....oh well we all
> differ
Please note I did not say you should or should not vaccinate for polio.
I just wanted to clear up what I found to be a speculative statement
that was erroneously presented as fact.
_________________begin previous posts_____________
======Fancy Nelson wrote:
> > >
> > > If everyone didn't vaccinate their children to this disease (polio) then it
> > > would certainly come back. My MIL had this as a child and now has a
> > > paralyzed face...she is lucky..she didn't DIE!!!!! Would you want this for
> > > society again???? I wouldn't!
======Colette wrote:
> > That is not necessarily so. For example, there are a few countires that
> > never introduced the Small Pox vaccine yet Small Pox is still
> > (thankfully) completely gone except for some samples in a few labs
> > around the world. Diseases sometimes die off on their own, and you do
> > not know that polio would return if they stopped producing weakened and
> > dead versions in the lab. Aside from the vaccine, things like improved
> > public sanitation helped contribute to the drop in polio. Even Saulk
> > questioned the safety and efficacy of how own vaccine. Also, after the
> > vaccine was introduced suddely the reporting standards for polio were
> > made very strict. So the rates before the vaccine and the rates after
> > the vaccine are actually apples and oranges (i.e. to quote them is
> > absurd since the differences would be extremely distorted). In the U.S.
> > there have been no cases of wild polio in many many years. It's quite
> > possible the polio vaccines will eventually be stopped like the Small
> > Pox vaccine was discontinued.
--
hamilton
> Fancy Nelson wrote:
> >
> > I Still wouldn't be willing to take the risk with my son.....oh well we all
> > differ
>
>
> Please note I did not say you should or should not vaccinate for polio.
> I just wanted to clear up what I found to be a speculative statement
> that was erroneously presented as fact.
>
> _________________begin previous posts_____________
>
>
> ======Fancy Nelson wrote:
> > > >
> > > > If everyone didn't vaccinate their children to this disease
(polio) then it
> > > > would certainly come back. My MIL had this as a child and now has a
> > > > paralyzed face...she is lucky..she didn't DIE!!!!! Would you want
this for
> > > > society again???? I wouldn't!
>
> ======Colette wrote:
>
> > > That is not necessarily so. For example, there are a few countires that
> > > never introduced the Small Pox vaccine yet Small Pox is still
> > > (thankfully) completely gone except for some samples in a few labs
> > > around the world. Diseases sometimes die off on their own, and you do
> > > not know that polio would return if they stopped producing weakened and
> > > dead versions in the lab.
don't be silly -- smallpox was systematically eliminated through
vaccinations and isolation of remaining cases. Polio is still wild in
the world and there have been several epidemics in third world countries
this year. Thus it isn't 'just dying out' and it doesn't need any more
resources to 'return' than someone incubating it getting on a plane and
coming to the US.
Aside from the vaccine, things like improved
> > > public sanitation helped contribute to the drop in polio. Even Saulk
> > > questioned the safety and efficacy of how own vaccine.
Salk vaccine uses killed virus and does not lead to infection; Sabin oral
vaccine which produces better immunization may cause the disease in the
immunosuppressed and thus given the low risk in the US, the trend is to
use the less powerful Salk vaccine for its greater safety.
Also, after the
> > > vaccine was introduced suddely the reporting standards for polio were
> > > made very strict. So the rates before the vaccine and the rates after
> > > the vaccine are actually apples and oranges (i.e. to quote them is
> > > absurd since the differences would be extremely distorted). In the U.S.
> > > there have been no cases of wild polio in many many years. It's quite
> > > possible the polio vaccines will eventually be stopped like the Small
> > > Pox vaccine was discontinued.
sure but not while there is wild polio a short flight away.
Polio could arrive here just as incurable TB has.
Tricia
Radha <Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote in message
news:377FD97B...@thumper.microboss.com.au...
>
> In-depth information re: vaccines written by various doctors:
>
>
http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115i
mmun/020115immun.toc.html
>
> http://whale.to/vaccines.html
>
> Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
> playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
> the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
> Anyone thinking the same thing?
>
> Radha
Butting in headfirst on a subject I'm not qualified to discuss. OK?
Recent, confined, outbreaks of polio have occurred in Holland in a
small religious community which is opposed many things, including
vaccination. The beliefs of this community are respected, and all
possible help is available. There have been problems at some schools
attended by the children of this group.
Where does choice and responsibility begin, and end?
Tricia
Lesa
hamilton <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message >
> Polio could arrive here just as incurable TB has.
I have a comment to add to this that has nothing to do w/ the vaccinate or
not debate.
Your statement needs some clarification. The incurable TB currently found
in some areas (and which is increasing in veracity) is not due to
non-vaccination. In fact it is due to quite the opposite. This is a highly
virulant mutation of the virus caused by vaccines--wether due to inproper
iuse, being ineffective, or being overused-- not completey destorying the
organism, and subsequently creating a "super virus".
This is the same type of situation which has occured with antibiotics being
overused and misued in the treatment of abactierial infections, and teh
subsequent creation of "super bacteria".
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>
>hamilton <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message >
>> Polio could arrive here just as incurable TB has.
>
>I have a comment to add to this that has nothing to do w/ the vaccinate or
>not debate.
>
>Your statement needs some clarification. The incurable TB currently found
>in some areas (and which is increasing in veracity) is not due to
>non-vaccination. In fact it is due to quite the opposite. This is a
highly
>virulant mutation of the virus caused by vaccines--wether due to inproper
>iuse, being ineffective, or being overused-- not completey destorying the
>organism, and subsequently creating a "super virus".
TB is caused by bacteria (Mycobacterium tubuculus), not viruses.
Furthermore, TB is not a disease for which vaccines are commonly given for
prevention in the US. Instead, the resistance is from people failing to
complete their course of treatment with stand anti-TB antibiotics. TB
bacteria evolved into bacteria that were resistant to the commonly used
antibiotics.
As far as I know, there is no cases where resistance to abtibiotics resulted
from misuse of vaccination.
Jeff utz
G03090103
>G03090103 wrote in message <19990705151045...@ng-ck1.aol.com>...
[snipped for brevity's sake]
>HA HA. I find this hypothesis interesting, but implausable. What evidence do
>you have?
Get your head out of your ass, Jeff, and go to
http://cumicro2.cpmc.columbia.edu/PICO/Chapters/History.html (part of PICO, the
Polio Information Center Online). The PICO site (opening page URL:
http://cumicro2.cpmc.columbia.edu/PICO/PICO.html ) has links to lots of
polio-related stuff, if anyone's interested.
JG
P.S. Jeff, are you *really* an M.D.? Hmmmm....
hamilton
<lsch...@nospam.nycap.rr.com> wrote:
> hamilton <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message >
> > Polio could arrive here just as incurable TB has.
>
> I have a comment to add to this that has nothing to do w/ the vaccinate or
> not debate.
>
> Your statement needs some clarification. The incurable TB currently found
> in some areas (and which is increasing in veracity) is not due to
> non-vaccination. In fact it is due to quite the opposite. This is a highly
> virulant mutation of the virus caused by vaccines--wether due to inproper
> iuse, being ineffective, or being overused-- not completey destorying the
> organism, and subsequently creating a "super virus".
>
> This is the same type of situation which has occured with antibiotics being
> overused and misued in the treatment of abactierial infections, and teh
> subsequent creation of "super bacteria".
I didn't say [or I believe imply] that TB results from lack of
vaccination. It does however arrive primarily through immigration.
The point I was making is that because polio is not wild in the US
does not mean that US citizens are not potentially at risk since there
have been outbreaks in both Europe and the third world in the past year
or so. It is not, as is smallpox, an extinct bug in the wild. Most
incurable TB has arrived with asian immigrants many of whom abuse
antibiotics as a culture -- and of course has developed among HIV
positive populations and drug abusers.
hamilton
<ut...@auhs.edu> wrote:
> Lesa wrote in message ...
> >
> >hamilton <hami...@dnvln.com> wrote in message >
> >> Polio could arrive here just as incurable TB has.
> >
> >I have a comment to add to this that has nothing to do w/ the vaccinate or
> >not debate.
> >
> >Your statement needs some clarification. The incurable TB currently found
> >in some areas (and which is increasing in veracity) is not due to
> >non-vaccination. In fact it is due to quite the opposite. This is a
> highly
> >virulant mutation of the virus caused by vaccines--wether due to inproper
> >iuse, being ineffective, or being overused-- not completey destorying the
> >organism, and subsequently creating a "super virus".
>
> TB is caused by bacteria (Mycobacterium tubuculus), not viruses.
> Furthermore, TB is not a disease for which vaccines are commonly given for
> prevention in the US. Instead, the resistance is from people failing to
> complete their course of treatment with stand anti-TB antibiotics. TB
> bacteria evolved into bacteria that were resistant to the commonly used
> antibiotics.
>
> As far as I know, there is no cases where resistance to abtibiotics resulted
> from misuse of vaccination.
>
> Jeff utz
and no one said it did.
Carrie
5 Jul 1999), Radha <Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> writes:
<snip>
>I was talking with a lady who told me of her father contracting polio
>from his grandson simply by picking him up for a photo (no nappy
>changing, kisses etc.). It's probably easier for an older man to
>contract the disease.
>
>How long would you say this infectious period of time goes on for?
I think it goes on for about six weeks. The UK Department of Health
admitted that 41% of cases of children catching polio in Britain derive
from infection either during vaccination or from contact with other
children who have recently been vaccinated. (Of course, the total
numbers are small). I don't have the source to hand - I found it when
researching the vaccination issues in order to form a view on whether or
not my child should be vaccinated. In the end the only vaccinations we
thought worthwhile were those against diptheria and tetanus. The polio
vaccine used in the UK should be banned. A distant relative of mine
caught polio from being vaccinated 'against' polio. The pertussis
(whooping cough) vaccine used in the UK should also be banned. It is not
used in Sweden. A different (cellular) vaccine is used in Japan.
Moreover, the UK government has already paid out millions of pounds
worth of compensation to victims of the pertussis vaccine. It still
however operates a system where GPs are paid bonuses for 'achieving'
more than a certain level (98%) of coverage. That means that only three
or four parents who are sussed about vaccines can stop the GP getting
his money unless he fiddles his figures. The MMR vaccine is also a load
of rubbish.
The one you should avoid most of all, however, is definitely the
pertussis one. Mention to your GP that you know about the scandal, I
don't think he'll bother trying to encourage you to allow your child to
have it. He himself will almost certainly have not allowed his own
children to have it (just as his family probably won't eat much red
meat, if they eat it at all, nor will they smoke cigarettes). He will
know how it has caused many cases of brain damage.
Whenever a vaccine has its own 'victims group', forget it, don't touch
it with a barge-pole! On the list, we have got: pertussis vaccine, AZT
the 'anti-AIDS' drug, routine ultrasound during pregnancy, and so on,
probably now MMR too.
Re. polio, it is more harmful in adults than in young children. It is
usually not especially harmful in young children at all. It is one of
the extremely few diseases in world history that for a time hurt the
rich more than the poor. The poor all got it when they were young
children, and built up immunity. The rich didn't, and if they got it
when they were adults, it was usually disabling.
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>> > Polio could arrive here just as incurable TB has.
>>
>> I have a comment to add to this that has nothing to do w/ the vaccinate
or
>> not debate.
>>
>> Your statement needs some clarification. The incurable TB currently
found
>> in some areas (and which is increasing in veracity) is not due to
>> non-vaccination. In fact it is due to quite the opposite. This is a
highly
>> virulant mutation of the virus caused by vaccines--wether due to inproper
>> iuse, being ineffective, or being overused-- not completey destorying the
>> organism, and subsequently creating a "super virus".
>>
being
>> overused and misued in the treatment of abactierial infections, and teh
>> subsequent creation of "super bacteria".
>
>
>I didn't say [or I believe imply] that TB results from lack of
>vaccination. It does however arrive primarily through immigration.
>The point I was making is that because polio is not wild in the US
>does not mean that US citizens are not potentially at risk since there
>have been outbreaks in both Europe and the third world in the past year
>or so. It is not, as is smallpox, an extinct bug in the wild. Most
>incurable TB has arrived with asian immigrants many of whom abuse
>antibiotics as a culture -- and of course has developed among HIV
>positive populations and drug abusers.
While immigrants certainly bring TB into the US, there are two other groups
where TB is often found, those with AIDS (if you are infected with HIV and
have TB disease, that, I believe, makes the illness AIDS by CDC definition)
and people who are poor, especially those who abuse alcohol or live on the
streets. TB is partly a disease of poverty and poor nutrition, even though
everyone is capable of getting it.
I remember when I was a 3rd year medical student, I had a pateint who was
getting ready to die from his AIDS. He had come from a hospital that treated
a lot of guys with AIDS, and the hospital was one of those with an outbreak
of multiple drug-resistant TB. He also was positive for TB.
Jeff Utz
Anna Walker
kid in school? Just curious.
johndz wrote:
> Yes, I would deduce that your child could be at risk. Perhaps you
> should keep your child away from everyone.
>
> Isn't your childs health a bit important to be experimenting with
> holistic approaches to common disease prevention. Shame on you.
>
> Once again the children lose, this time to a silly conspiracy theory.
>
> In article <377FD97B...@thumper.microboss.com.au>,
> Radha <Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:
> >
> > In-depth information re: vaccines written by various doctors:
> >
> >
> http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115imm
> un/020115immun.toc.html
> >
> > http://whale.to/vaccines.html
> >
> > Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
> > playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
> > the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
> > Anyone thinking the same thing?
> >
> > Radha
> >
>
Lesa
Anna Walker <glry...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
news:3781ADF7...@spiritone.com...
> W/all the rules about vaccination and school how do you get an
unvaccinated
> kid in school? Just curious.
Most school districts allow for this circumstance based on two criteria:
1) allergic reaction to an immunization. For example, my duaghter did not
recieve her full series of pertusis vaccinations--after the first one she
had an extreme allergic reacation which included extreme swelling (to the
point that her diaper cut off the circualtion in her leg), extreme pain (to
the point that she did not eat or sleep for two full days due to constant
crying, and high fever which caused febrile seizures. The Dr determined
that risk to her health from the vaccination was more severe than her risk
of catching pertusis. We simply provided a note from him to that effect.
2) personal/religious belief. A statement must be presented to the school
distsrict explaining why such a belief is held. The district (at least in
our area) cannot force someone to vaccinate a child based on such beliefs,
nor can they ban a child from the public school based on such beliefs.
Lesa
Lesa
supposed to be) in a discalimer which parents are told to read and sign
before the vaccination is given. Most parents either don't read this
disclaimer, or don't question after they read.
Dr;s can also downplay the risks invovled. We've had three different dr's
since my oldest was born (changes in insurance coverage necessitated changes
in dr) and all three have presented this info differently. The first just
siad it was a forrm the state required us to sign, but really wasn't a big
deal--and got very angry when I took time to read it and spent almost 15
minutes aksing him questions. The second took the time to explain, but
dimsissed my questions as being of no import. The third mailed the forms to
me at home before the appt, and talked them over, seriously addressing my
concerns before giving vaccinations--he was the only one who discussed
procedures for changing diapers for the next month to insure that no one
acquired polio from the vaccination given, or questioned which type of polio
vaccination I wanted based on the risk factors of each.
Lesa
Carrie <carrie@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >
johndz
Radha <Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:
You call going to http://www.soilandhealth.org investigation? How can you
claim that this is a reliable source of information. It is clearly
pushing a political agenda ( influenced by Karl Marx).
And 4000 pages of documentation? I wonder how many pages it would be if
the mainstream medical community rejected immunization?
Betting that Un-vaccinated children are healthier? Prove it.
> Shame? I do not feel ashamed that I investigate the reality of
> vaccination, discover that it is, in fact, detrimental to a child's
> health and decide to protect my child from this evil.
>
> > Once again the children lose,
>
> I would most certainly bet that unvaccinated children are By *far*
> healthier than vaccinated children so, again, the majority of the
> children lose because their parents are too blind to see the reality.
>
> > this time to a silly conspiracy theory.
>
> Do you think the adverse reactions reported are a conspiracy?
> I have over 4,000 pages of reports of adverse reactions (an
> FOI request was made to get hold of this data) including death,
> paralysis and *many* other unfortunate effects. This does not
> surprise me seeing as a virus (live, dead, distorted, is being
> injected into a small child's body). The reality is not conspiracy.
>
> Have you already had your child vaccinated? I can understand you
> being completely pro-vax if this is the case. I would not want to
> think that I had willingly harmed my child either.
>
> Radha
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
I am not yet convinced. It now sounds plausible. However, it does not make
much difference from a practical point of view, for I doubt that we will go
back to a no-sewage system. But it does show a way technology can hurt as
well as help. Of course, the atomic bomb did that.
What is inappropriate of course, is your personal attack on me.
Jeff Utz
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>basically the same. A friend of mine was hassled by her daughter's
>school in order to sign something saying she didn't want her daughter to
>take part in that particular year's mass vaccination camapign. Of
>course, you don't have to sign anything to withhold consent - if there
>is no consent, there is no consent, and the officials/doctors/nurses
>would then be acting illegally if they vaccinated the child. But the
>idea is to make sure that the people with the sense to check things out
>for themselves and form their own opinions, the people who don't believe
>that 'doctor knows best' or even 'nursy knows best', remain a minority
>and if possible a shunned minority, or at least a minority that doesn't
>open its collective mouth too often.
>
An informed choice is the best choice.
>Just a few other points. Re. mass vaccination campaign, there is quite a
>lot of this in Britain, millions of people also get an annual flu jab -
>God only knows what effect this is going to have in the long term,
>probably it will lead to very strong strains of influenza becoming more
>prevalent.
This conclusion is based on what evidence?
You obviously want to make an informed choice, so I wish to know what
evidence so I can read for myself.
>Getting flu, colds etc., is actually good for you because it
>builds up your immunity *and* your body's *ability to build up immunity*
>- which, like most abilities, grows with practice - it's like once
>you've learnt one musical instrument, it's easier to learn another, but
>this basic common sense goes by the wayside when the megabucks of the
>medical-industrial complex are involved.
>
Your proof of this for the flu?
If this is true, wouldn't the vaccine be better for you, because you are
exposed to antigens from three different flu strains in the US vaccine?
>Other point: Viagra has just been banned in Israel, because of the
>deaths it is thought to have caused. I just wanted to ask, how well
>known is this piece of information in the US?
>
I did not know about Viagra being banned. I know, of course, physicians got
warnings about the dangerous side effects of Viagra.
Jeff Utz
Lynne Murnane
because you post something about them every few weeks. Which
are you most concerned about -- your daughter contracting
diseases from vaccinated children, or from ordinary
"wild" outbreaks? The only way you can keep her absolutely
safe is if you don't ever take her out -- there are plenty
of germs everywhere as you well know -- colds, flu, TB,
pneumonia, and so on -- and you cannot tell by looking at
people whether or not they are carrying or incubating a
communicable illness. You suffer the same risks every time
you go out, too. Unless I am missing something here, this is
just something you are going to have to learn to deal with.
I mean, your daughter is either going to have to be
gradually exposed to the possibility of illness (when she is
older and her immune system has strengthened) or you will
have to try to avoid it entirely by limiting contact with
other people.
Lynne
**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****
G03090103
>Anna Walker <glry...@spiritone.com> wrote...
>> W/all the rules about vaccination and school how do you get an
>unvaccinated
>> kid in school? Just curious.
>Most school districts allow for this circumstance based on two criteria:
>
>1) allergic reaction to an immunization.
Medical exemptions are undoubtedly the least challenged/questioned by school
and/or public health authorities. Actually, it isn't necessary for a child to
have had a bad reaction to an inoculation to qualify; conscientious physicians
won't vaccinate a child for whom a vaccine is contraindicated (e.g., a child
who has exibited an allergy to a vaccine component). (A statement of
explanation from the physician is still necessary, of course.)
>2) personal/religious belief.
Actually, I believe most, if not all, states differentiate between "personal"
(or, in some states, "philosophical") belief and "religious" belief.
Forty-eight states (all except Mississippi and West Virginia) currently allow
exemptions based on religious tenets; only about a third accept
personal/philosophical beliefs as a basis for granting an exemption. Religious
exemptions are usually granted only if the person (parent) requesting the
exemption can demonstrate that he/she is a member of an organized/recognized
(by the state) church. (I think most states require a letter of explanation
from a church official.) States that grant exemptions for
personal/philosophical beliefs shouldn't have any requirements that parents
produce a statement of explanation (yeah, like they'd have any basis for
challenging it!), but I believe some do.
Problems obviously arise for parents who wish to forgo one or more vaccinations
but (1) find their children don't qualify for medical exemption; (2) aren't
adherents of a recognized religion that forbids vaccination; and (3) don't live
in one of the states where personal/philosophical exemptions are available. It
would be a shame to have to "join" a church that forbids vaccination (they--the
entire family--would have to adhere *all* of the church's tenets, some which
they might find unreasonable/intolerable; besides, this wouldn't be an option
for those who aren't opposed to all vaccines.)
JG
Carrie
uk.education.home-education and stamped "06:55:53, Tue, 6 Jul 1999",
Lynne Murnane <mur...@my-dejanews.com> writes
Patronising bitch. The issue is one of relative risks, as you should
well know if you stopped playing your superior role. With the above
logic, you could justify puffing tobacco smoke into children's faces,
because they'll inhale it anyway when they walk along the street. We
can't be absolutel safe, can we?
Study basic logic maybe?
--
Carrie
Carrie
uk.education.home-education and stamped "14:54:00, Tue, 6 Jul 1999",
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. <ut...@auhs.edu> writes
>>Great post Lesa! It is superficially slightly different in the UK, but
>>basically the same. A friend of mine was hassled by her daughter's
>>school in order to sign something saying she didn't want her daughter to
>>take part in that particular year's mass vaccination camapign. Of
>>course, you don't have to sign anything to withhold consent - if there
>>is no consent, there is no consent, and the officials/doctors/nurses
>>would then be acting illegally if they vaccinated the child. But the
>>idea is to make sure that the people with the sense to check things out
>>for themselves and form their own opinions, the people who don't believe
>>that 'doctor knows best' or even 'nursy knows best', remain a minority
>>and if possible a shunned minority, or at least a minority that doesn't
>>open its collective mouth too often.
>>
>
>An informed choice is the best choice.
Also, doing stuff that's bad for you is inadvisable - which I consider
to be a more helpful statement, speaking as socially responsible person.
>>Just a few other points. Re. mass vaccination campaign, there is quite a
>>lot of this in Britain, millions of people also get an annual flu jab -
>>God only knows what effect this is going to have in the long term,
>>probably it will lead to very strong strains of influenza becoming more
>>prevalent.
>
>This conclusion is based on what evidence?
>
>You obviously want to make an informed choice, so I wish to know what
>evidence so I can read for myself.
I understand the reason why vested interests promulgate positions that
rest on the assumption that the pyramidal medical-industrial complex
can, by means of drugs and vaccines, win lasting victories on behalf of
humanity against other species, namely species of bacteria. That reason
is called 'profit', which also determines their encouragement and build-
up of an ideology of 'our all being in the same boat', which is one of
the needs that the rulers have, now that they have introduced means of
mass communication. Prima facie, one should mistrust it. Once upon a
time in China the rulers decided that all sparrows should be killed,
then the country was overrun by caterpillars! Unfortunately in these
times even a rudimentary understanding of social relations and the
nature of this exploitative society in which we live is rare. One does
not criticise 'science' in its own terms - or indeed anything in its own
terms. The leading scientific journals are controlled by a very few
people, and of course large sums of money are involved. Again, mistrust
as a matter of course.
En passant, need one recall that the imposition of the scientific
ideology - see Francis Bacon's declared aim of 'making Nature our slave'
- and in particular of its medical side, involved the killing of
millions of people who had a less objectivistic, more holistic view -
including by burning them at the stake?
For a comparison, imagine Europe 200 years on if Hitler had won.
The shape of the medical industrial complex was largely determined,
consciously, by big corporate interests around the turn of the century.
I'm talking AMA, BMA involvement. One should put the proliferation of
chemical medicine in the same category as the proliferation of
candy/biscuits/sweet things (think of the enormous empires built on
these markets), the killer drug called tobacco, etc. It's all *profit*.
It would be ludicrous to suppose that different rules apply to medicines
as to sweets or tobacco. It's the same thing going on: big corporations
encouraging the build-up of a home market. The governing ethics, as I
think Lesa has made clear, are the ethics of cover your back.
>>Getting flu, colds etc., is actually good for you because it
>>builds up your immunity *and* your body's *ability to build up immunity*
>>- which, like most abilities, grows with practice - it's like once
>>you've learnt one musical instrument, it's easier to learn another, but
>>this basic common sense goes by the wayside when the megabucks of the
>>medical-industrial complex are involved.
>>
>
>Your proof of this for the flu?
>If this is true, wouldn't the vaccine be better for you, because you are
>exposed to antigens from three different flu strains in the US vaccine?
This year anyway. Maybe next year it will be three different strains, or
four, or two, and everybody will be told that that's best.
'Whatever the market will bear'.
--
Carrie
chelp
<ut...@auhs.edu> wrote:
> >Other point: Viagra has just been banned in Israel, because of the
> >deaths it is thought to have caused. I just wanted to ask, how well
> >known is this piece of information in the US?
> >
>
> I did not know about Viagra being banned. I know, of course, physicians got
> warnings about the dangerous side effects of Viagra.
>
> Jeff Utz
Just out of curiousity Jeff, how many Viagra prescriptions do you
write, typically? :-)
Lisa
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
if I were still practicing pediatrics, I do not think providing this drug
for pediatric patients is a good idea. The answer would still be none.
Jeff Uz
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>
>Lynne Murnane wrote:
>
>> Radha, obviously you are very concerned about vaccinations
>> because you post something about them every few weeks. Which
>> are you most concerned about -- your daughter contracting
>> diseases from vaccinated children, or from ordinary
>> "wild" outbreaks?
>
>a very strong immune system and, as such, will be unlikely that
>she will suffer from a disease. I am not concerned about "wild
>outbreaks" though I would exercise caution when allowing other
>vaccinated children who are still contaminated (2-3mths after
>vax).
>
How do you know that your daughter has a strong immune system?
Jeff Utz
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
There is a problem with this idea. At least in the US, vaccines are given at
2, 4, and 6 months. Do you mean to say that you are not going to let your
kid near any kids her age for a total of 10 months? I think the other
parents would think you are nuts.
You are avoiding kids infectious with which vaccines?
Jeff Utz
naomi pardue
> This goes without saying. I *do* take her out and about but,
> at the same time, I would not take her to a play group with
> infectious (from vaccine) children. I think that is simply a
> silly risk to take.
> I am not losing sleep by I am exercising caution as others *think*
> they are by vaccinating their children.
However, the ONLY vaccine that involves the use of live viruses is the
oral polio vaccine. DPT and MMR do not result in the child becoming
infectious in any way. (If they did, then surely there would be constant
outbreaks of these diseases in daycare centers, where newly vaccinated
children tend to congregate...)
And the risk from the OPV is very small. According to PDR, there were 274
million doses of OPV given between 1973 and 1994 in the U.S. There 105
cases of polio connected to the vaccine. (1 per 2.6 million doses.) 35 of
the cases were in the vaccine recipient himself, the rest in household or
non-household contacts.
So, while it would be wise to keep Isabella's hands out of her playmates
diapers, (since polio is spread via feces) I don't see this as
something you need to be overwhelmingly concerned about.
Naomi
Karrie E. Comatas
"Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D." wrote:
>
> How do you know that your daughter has a strong immune system?
> Jeff Utz
Good question, because obviously she doesn't know too much about
immunity.
Karrie
Fancy Nelson
Radha wrote:
<snip>
> This goes without saying. I *do* take her out and about but,
> at the same time, I would not take her to a play group with
> infectious (from vaccine) children. I think that is simply a
> silly risk to take.
>
> I am not losing sleep by I am exercising caution as others *think*
> they are by vaccinating their children.
so instead you are denying her the right to play with other children and
learn about people? This seems silly to me!!!!
hamilton
<Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:
> Lynne Murnane wrote:
>
> > Radha, obviously you are very concerned about vaccinations
> > because you post something about them every few weeks. Which
> > are you most concerned about -- your daughter contracting
> > diseases from vaccinated children, or from ordinary
> > "wild" outbreaks?
>
> I'm not really concerned about either. I know my daughter has
> a very strong immune system and, as such, will be unlikely that
> she will suffer from a disease. I am not concerned about "wild
> outbreaks" though I would exercise caution when allowing other
> vaccinated children who are still contaminated (2-3mths after
> vax).
My grandmother thought her 'never sick' 2 year old had a very
good immune system too -- but diptheria killed him nevertheless.
The kid down the street from me growing up had no more illnesses
than the rest of us -- but he ended up brain damaged and retarded
from measles. My brothers best friend who died of polio was not
a sickly kid -- didn't help him. Where did you get the idea that
germs skip over the children of mothers like yourself? The last
big breakouts in the US of measles were at enclaves of Christian
Scientists.
Your child is safe because you are a free rider, depending on other
responsible parents to vaccinate their kids and thus not expose her
to measles, mumps, diptheria, pertussis etc.
hamilton
<carrie@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <9312729...@www.remarq.com>, posted to
> uk.education.home-education and stamped "06:55:53, Tue, 6 Jul 1999",
> Lynne Murnane <mur...@my-dejanews.com> writes
> >Radha, obviously you are very concerned about vaccinations
> >because you post something about them every few weeks. Which
> >are you most concerned about -- your daughter contracting
> >diseases from vaccinated children, or from ordinary
> >"wild" outbreaks? The only way you can keep her absolutely
> >safe is if you don't ever take her out -- there are plenty
> >of germs everywhere as you well know -- colds, flu, TB,
> >pneumonia, and so on -- and you cannot tell by looking at
> >people whether or not they are carrying or incubating a
> >communicable illness. You suffer the same risks every time
> >you go out, too. Unless I am missing something here, this is
> >just something you are going to have to learn to deal with.
> >I mean, your daughter is either going to have to be
> >gradually exposed to the possibility of illness (when she is
> >older and her immune system has strengthened) or you will
> >have to try to avoid it entirely by limiting contact with
> >other people.
> >Lynne
> >
>
> Patronising bitch. The issue is one of relative risks, as you should
> well know if you stopped playing your superior role. With the above
> logic, you could justify puffing tobacco smoke into children's faces,
> because they'll inhale it anyway when they walk along the street. We
> can't be absolutel safe, can we?
>
> Study basic logic maybe?
> --
> Carrie
a little basic logic wouldn't hurt. the diseases for which we
vaccinate are far more dangerous to our children than the vaccinations.
The only way your sanctimonious choice for the 'good of my child and to
hell with everyone else' works is if others take the risk thus reducing
your child's exposure to measles, diptheria, pertussis etc and thus
allowing them to grow up at low risk. Millions of kids in the third
world died of measles until mass vaccination programs a little over a
decade ago -- the death rate dropped immediately and dramatically.
you are a free rider. if everyone else adopted your position and
failed to vaccinate, then the risks would go up maybe even high enough
to be obvious to your ideologically blinded self.
Carrie
uk.education.home-education and stamped "19:55:06, Tue, 6 Jul 1999",
naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> writes
>And the risk from the OPV is very small. According to PDR, there were 274
>million doses of OPV given between 1973 and 1994 in the U.S. There 105
>cases of polio connected to the vaccine. (1 per 2.6 million doses.) 35 of
>the cases were in the vaccine recipient himself, the rest in household or
>non-household contacts.
Out of interest, the figures in the UK are similar, 41% of cases result
from vaccination. The US figures indicate 38%, as near as makes no
difference.
Most of the other cases, IIRC, are of people returning from abroad,
having visited areas where polio is rife, or of people who have caught
it from such people.
The long and the short of it is,
a) don't go to places where polio is rife, or hang out with people
who have just come back from such places; and
b) don't get vaccinated.
Then you can be fairly sure you won't catch polio.
>So, while it would be wise to keep Isabella's hands out of her playmates
>diapers, (since polio is spread via feces) I don't see this as
>something you need to be overwhelmingly concerned about.
Yes, the risk is indeed low. But high enough to indicate that one
shouldn't get vaccinated, IMO.
(Compare the risk from the diphtheria vaccine, which is considerably
lower, I don't have the figures to hand).
--
Carrie
Carrie
uk.education.home-education and stamped "19:41:28, Tue, 6 Jul 1999",
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. <ut...@auhs.edu> writes
<snip>
>>I'm not really concerned about either. I know my daughter has
>>a very strong immune system and, as such, will be unlikely that
>>she will suffer from a disease. I am not concerned about "wild
>>outbreaks" though I would exercise caution when allowing other
>>vaccinated children who are still contaminated (2-3mths after
>>vax).
>>
>
>How do you know that your daughter has a strong immune system?
Often when I get asked a wind-up question about how I know something, I
reply 'I read it on the back of a bus'.
Most human beings do have a very strong immune system. One sign of not
having one would be falling ill all the time, especially catching
anything that's going round, and appearing generally sickly and weak. If
a child doesn't fall ill all the time, doesn't catch everything that's
going round, and appears robust and healthy, then, unless it is kept
isolated in a sterile place the whole time, it probably has a very
strong immune system.
HTH
--
Carrie
Circe
>In article <7ltmuq$st5$2...@flotsam.uits.indiana.edu>, posted to
>uk.education.home-education and stamped "19:55:06, Tue, 6 Jul 1999",
>naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> writes
>
>>And the risk from the OPV is very small. According to PDR, there were 274
>>million doses of OPV given between 1973 and 1994 in the U.S. There 105
>>cases of polio connected to the vaccine. (1 per 2.6 million doses.) 35 of
>>the cases were in the vaccine recipient himself, the rest in household or
>>non-household contacts.
>
>Out of interest, the figures in the UK are similar, 41% of cases result
>from vaccination. The US figures indicate 38%, as near as makes no
>difference.
>
>Most of the other cases, IIRC, are of people returning from abroad,
>having visited areas where polio is rife, or of people who have caught
>it from such people.
>
>The long and the short of it is,
>
>a) don't go to places where polio is rife, or hang out with people
> who have just come back from such places; and
>
>b) don't get vaccinated.
>
vaccinated"? There is absolutely zero risk of contracting polio from the
injectable, killed virus vaccine that I'm aware of. In the US, they are now
recommending 4 IPV doses rather than the 2 IPV, 2 OPV doses that used to be
standard for precisely this reason.
I'm fully in support of parents who choose not to vaccinate; I believe every
parent has the right to make these decisions based on his or her own
research and conscience. If you have another problem with the injectable
polio vaccine, that's fine by me. I simply hope you haven't chosen not to
vaccinate against polio because you believe that there is no vaccine that
doesn't present a risk of infection, as that is certainly not the case.
Be well, Barbara (Julian's and ?'s mom)
hamilton
<carrie@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
And will probably catch measles, mumps, pertussis etc etc if exposed.
G03090103
>I am not yet convinced.
Fine; I'd encourage you to do more research. I think you'll find most
epidemiologists concur with the info presented by PICO, i.e., that the
"advancement" of separating water teeming with human waste from water used for
drinking actually led to polio's becoming a "more deadly" disease.
>However, it does not make
>much difference from a practical point of view, for I doubt that we will go
>back to a no-sewage system.
No, nor should we, of course. Many deadly diseases (e.g., cholera) are still
attributable to inadequate sewage treatment. Nevertheless, I think it's
important to acknowledge that "improvements" in living conditions often have a
downside. I hope I'm still around in thirty (or so) years to see the
consequences of mandating routine (US) varicella vaccination...
>What is inappropriate of course, is your personal attack on me.
View it as a *counterattack* (to your "HA HA"). I'm not into first strikes.
People can attack/criticize/challenge my *opinions* at will, but when they
assail factual information I've presented, especially with a thinly veiled
implication that I'm crackpot, I *will* respond in kind. Your possessing a
medical degree, IMO, is even greater justification for showing little mercy (in
this instance, at least).
JG
hamilton
<Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:
> "Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D." wrote:
>
> > Radha wrote in message <3782537F...@thumper.microboss.com.au>...
>
> > >Lynne Murnane wrote:
>
> > >> Radha, obviously you are very concerned about vaccinations
> > >> because you post something about them every few weeks. Which
> > >> are you most concerned about -- your daughter contracting
> > >> diseases from vaccinated children, or from ordinary
> > >> "wild" outbreaks?
>
> > >I'm not really concerned about either. I know my daughter has
> > >a very strong immune system and, as such, will be unlikely that
> > >she will suffer from a disease. I am not concerned about "wild
> > >outbreaks" though I would exercise caution when allowing other
> > >vaccinated children who are still contaminated (2-3mths after
> > >vax).
>
> > How do you know that your daughter has a strong immune system?
> > Jeff Utz
>
> I guess I do not *know* for *sure* but I figure she will have a
> strong immune system since she has been around people with colds,
> she has breastmilk only, I have a health diet now and did throughout
> pregnancy. She did not have any detrimental ultrasounds or the like
> etc. On account of this, I am confident that her immune system is
> strong.
>
> Radha
If wishful thinking protected children from germs than the epidemics that
killed kids routinely before vaccinations were possible would not have
been so deadly. Most of those kids were breastfed and there is no
reason to think that most of them were not well nourished etc.
Of course BF and nutrition etc etc give a child an edge against illness, but
in the case of contagious diseases like measles, pertussis etc etc everyone
exposed is at risk.
naomi pardue
>> million doses of OPV given between 1973 and 1994 in the U.S. There 105
>> cases of polio connected to the vaccine. (1 per 2.6 million doses.) 35 of
>> the cases were in the vaccine recipient himself, the rest in household or
>> non-household contacts.
> Vaccinations contain risks for the vaccinated child and those who
> may come into contact with a vaccinated child. For example, I
> was just speaking with someone on another list who's dad contracted
> polio from holding his grandson for a photo (no kisses, no nappy
> changes).
> I didn't think you would see anything to be concerned about but
> there are risks if someone is carrying a live virus for a few
> months. They should all be quarantined!
Quarentine someone for a disease which has only about a 1 in 4 million
chance of being spread to anyone? Sounds like overkill to me.
It seems pretty obvious that, even with the OPV, the risk of transmission
is VERY, VERY low; far lower than you would find with the wild virus.
PDR did note that in a few of the cases, there was no known contact with
a recently immunized person. However, we are still talking about a very
remote risk indeed. If you don't want to get Isabella immunized, that
is your choice, and you will eliminate the microscopic risk of her catching
the disease from the vaccine. (Though, as was noted, the injectable
vaccine is not a live virus and so has 0 risk to the recipient.) However,
keeping her isolated from every other human child to avoid her getting
the virus seems like an extreme measure. The harm she will suffer from
being locked away in your house for the next 20 years is probably far greater
than any possible harm from disease exposure. (After all, it's not just
her playmates you would have to worry about, but babies in the park, in
restaurants, in stores, on the bus....)
Naomi
hamilton
<Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:
> hamilton wrote:
> >
> > In article <F7X4XIAp...@borve.demon.co.uk>, Carrie
> > <carrie@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <9312729...@www.remarq.com>, posted to
> > > uk.education.home-education and stamped "06:55:53, Tue, 6 Jul 1999",
> > > Lynne Murnane <mur...@my-dejanews.com> writes
> > > >Radha, obviously you are very concerned about vaccinations
> > > >because you post something about them every few weeks. Which
> > > >are you most concerned about -- your daughter contracting
> > > >diseases from vaccinated children, or from ordinary
> Have you ever got a list of the adverse reactions reported to the CDC.
> I did and it's thousands of pages long. Take a look at the webpage
> I posted, look at the reported adverse reactions (only 10% reported
> is the estimate of the CDC). You only think the benefits outweigh
> the risks because you are coming from a point of ignorance.
No I actually experienced a time when most of these vaccinations were
not available. Unlike you I don't think that if I really really feel
something strong, it is so.
naomi pardue
> I am confident that my child has a strong immune system. I am also
> confident that if she did get infected she would recover quickly.
I'm sure that if confidence had medicinal uses, it would be bottled and sold.
>> The last big breakouts in the US of measles were at enclaves of
>> Christian Scientists.
> epidemics have occurred in fully vaccinated societies.
ARE there any fully vaccianted societies? I know of none.
Naomi
Anna Walker
Anna :)
Lesa wrote:
> Anna Walker <glry...@spiritone.com> wrote in message
> news:3781ADF7...@spiritone.com...
> > W/all the rules about vaccination and school how do you get an
> unvaccinated
> > kid in school? Just curious.
>
> Most school districts allow for this circumstance based on two criteria:
>
> 1) allergic reaction to an immunization. For example, my duaghter did not
> recieve her full series of pertusis vaccinations--after the first one she
> had an extreme allergic reacation which included extreme swelling (to the
> point that her diaper cut off the circualtion in her leg), extreme pain (to
> the point that she did not eat or sleep for two full days due to constant
> crying, and high fever which caused febrile seizures. The Dr determined
> that risk to her health from the vaccination was more severe than her risk
> of catching pertusis. We simply provided a note from him to that effect.
>
> 2) personal/religious belief. A statement must be presented to the school
> distsrict explaining why such a belief is held. The district (at least in
> our area) cannot force someone to vaccinate a child based on such beliefs,
> nor can they ban a child from the public school based on such beliefs.
>
> Lesa
G03090103
>you [as a nonvaccinator] are a free rider.
So, too, are those individuals who don't develop immunity despite being
vaccinated ("primary" vaccine failure). But bless their li'l hearts they
*tried* (so let's give 'em their gold stars and not shun 'em).
JG
Carrie
.net>, posted to uk.education.home-education and stamped "16:21:51, Tue,
6 Jul 1999", hamilton <hami...@dnvln.com> writes
<snip>
>Your child is safe because you are a free rider,
What an obnoxious person you must be.
--
Carrie
Carrie
.net>, posted to uk.education.home-education and stamped "16:17:51, Tue,>> In article <9312729...@www.remarq.com>, posted to
>> uk.education.home-education and stamped "06:55:53, Tue, 6 Jul 1999",
<snip>
>a little basic logic wouldn't hurt. the diseases for which we
>vaccinate are far more dangerous to our children than the vaccinations.
Are you actually trying to present an argument there?
Some children who are not vaccinated against pertussis either a) never
contract the illness, or b) contract the illness but are caused no
lasting harm. Some who do get vaccinated are caused brain damage by the
vaccine.
>The only way your sanctimonious choice for the 'good of my child and to
>hell with everyone else' works
You're full of shit. If you knew anything about the history of
vaccinations in the world, you'd know that the incidence of the major
diseases vaccinated against was declining anyway, and there is no good
reason to think that the vaccinations kept the graph going in the same
direction. Why do you think the people who control medical testing and
licencing are the same people who make money out of the drugs and
vacciens themselves?
>is if others take the risk thus reducing
>your child's exposure to measles, diptheria, pertussis etc and thus
>allowing them to grow up at low risk. Millions of kids in the third
>world died of measles until mass vaccination programs a little over a
>decade ago -- the death rate dropped immediately and dramatically.
You're talking out of your arse. It was not a dramatic drop and it
wasn't caused by the vaccine. Turn off your TV and think for yourself.
>you are a free rider. if everyone else adopted your position and
>failed to vaccinate, then the risks would go up maybe even high enough
>to be obvious to your ideologically blinded self.
Bollocks.
Addressing the grown-ups here for a moment, has anyone else noticed how
the official medical doctrine is one doctrine that, as soon as it gets
attacked, attracts fanatical defenders who scream 'anti-social' at its
attackers? Meanwhile the big drug corporations bank billions and
dominate 'health' systems in practically every country. Go figure.
It is *you* who have the ideology, the official medical ideology - that
what they say on TV and teach in the schools and what the doctors and
corporate-bankrolled licencing authorities and academics say is for the
good of us all, and must be so, ontologically. I have no ideology
whatsoever.
--
Carrie
G03090103
>The last
>big breakouts in the US of measles were at enclaves of Christian
>Scientists.
Could you (please) supply a reference (e.g., medical journal article) for this?
Thanks.
>Your child is safe because you are a free rider, depending on other
>responsible parents to vaccinate their kids and thus not expose her
>to measles, mumps, diptheria, pertussis etc.
"Free rider" is a rather emotion-laden term, don't you think? (Or was that
your intent? :o)) I think, too, that perhaps you meant to leave out the
"other" before "responsible"; from your previous posts, I gather that you view
nonvaccinators as being extremely *irresponsible*.
JG
hamilton
>
> > My grandmother thought her 'never sick' 2 year old had a very
> > good immune system too -- but diptheria killed him nevertheless.
> > The kid down the street from me growing up had no more illnesses
> > than the rest of us -- but he ended up brain damaged and retarded
> > from measles. My brothers best friend who died of polio was not
> > a sickly kid -- didn't help him. Where did you get the idea that
> > germs skip over the children of mothers like yourself?
>
> confident that if she did get infected she would recover quickly.
My God -- you really do believe that if you say something REALLY
LOUD AND REALLY REALLY BELIEVE IT that it is so.
>
> > The last big breakouts in the US of measles were at enclaves of
> > Christian Scientists.
>
> epidemics have occurred in fully vaccinated societies.
The scientific evidence on the effectiveness of vaccines is solid and
was tested as recently as the past decade when vaccines dramatically
reduced the death rate in Africa from measles. No vaccine is 100% effective,
but when populations are vaccinated there are usually too few vulnerable
people for an epidemic to take root. In fact virtually all recent epidemics
in the US and Europe have spread in populations with low vaccinations rates --
either because of religious scruples as in the recent polio epidemic in
Europe or measles on a Christian Science campus or from ignorance as in
several epidemics in inner cities with low vac. rates.
>
> > Your child is safe because you are a free rider, depending on other
> > responsible parents to vaccinate their kids and thus not expose her
> > to measles, mumps, diptheria, pertussis etc.
>
> You are speculative and you are applying circular logic.
No you are confused.
hamilton
<carrie@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> wrote:
potty mouth and paranoia. What a treat you must be to live with.
Mikki
like an alarmist, and it is really annoying. I am not trying to demean you
and your opinion, but I cannot understand what you are trying to prove. You
have posted your stuff on vax a couple times on here. And you never get
anything close to a favorable response. Are you trying to be a troll? Just
wondering. Why don't you let other people decide whether or not to vax
their own children? Hmmm?
I have two kids, one has all his shots, and the other doesn't. Both are
happy children. My son (the one vaccinated) has NEVER been sick. he is two
and a half years old. My daughter (non vaccinated) has been sick more often
than she has been healthy. She is one year old. Now tell me which child is
healthier.
And one more thing, you are talking about adverse reactions and increased
risks of getting diseases if you do get vaccinated. Well, everyone in my
family (except of course my daughter) have been vaccinated their whole
lives. And guess what? No one has any disease! So I believe that is all
the "research" I will be needing. thanks anyway.
--
Blue skadoo, I can too!!
Mikki
jsq...@primenet.com
Radha wrote in message <3780BBB2...@thumper.microboss.com.au>...
>
>johndz wrote:
>
>> Yes, I would deduce that your child could be at risk. Perhaps you
>> should keep your child away from everyone.
>
>No, but I will exercise caution with children who are of inoculatable
>age (for the 60-90 days that they are contamintated and should be
>quarantined) unless I know that they have not been injected.
>
>> Isn't your childs health a bit important to be experimenting with
>
>That's EXACTLY what *you* are doing.... participating in experimentation
>with the health and lives of *your* children.
>
>> holistic approaches to common disease prevention.
>
>It is *you* who experiments.
>
>> Shame on you.
>
>Shame? I do not feel ashamed that I investigate the reality of
>vaccination, discover that it is, in fact, detrimental to a child's
>health and decide to protect my child from this evil.
>
>> Once again the children lose,
>
>I would most certainly bet that unvaccinated children are By *far*
>healthier than vaccinated children so, again, the majority of the
>children lose because their parents are too blind to see the reality.
>
>> this time to a silly conspiracy theory.
>
>Do you think the adverse reactions reported are a conspiracy?
>I have over 4,000 pages of reports of adverse reactions (an
>FOI request was made to get hold of this data) including death,
>paralysis and *many* other unfortunate effects. This does not
>surprise me seeing as a virus (live, dead, distorted, is being
>injected into a small child's body). The reality is not conspiracy.
>
>Have you already had your child vaccinated? I can understand you
>being completely pro-vax if this is the case. I would not want to
>think that I had willingly harmed my child either.
>
>Radha
>
>> In article <377FD97B...@thumper.microboss.com.au>,
>> Radha <Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:
>
>> > In-depth information re: vaccines written by various doctors:
>
>> http://www.soilandhealth.org/02healthlibrary/0201hygienlib cat/020115imm
>> un/020115immun.toc.html
>
>> > http://whale.to/vaccines.html
>
>> > Now, I' been thinking about the risks of my unvaccinated child
>> > playing with vaccinated children and contracting the virus since
>> > the vaccine remains active for around 2-3mths after the shot.
>> > Anyone thinking the same thing?
>
>> > Radha
Roger Schlafly
>>> The last big breakouts in the US of measles were at enclaves of
>>> Christian Scientists.
I'd be surprised if this were true.
>> epidemics have occurred in fully vaccinated societies.
>
>ARE there any fully vaccianted societies? I know of none.
The US comes close. According to the CDC, immunization levels among
children are at their highest ever. At time of school entry, 98% of kids
have DTP and polio vaccines, and 99% have MMR.
http://www.cdc.gov/od/nvpo/people.htm
(Those numbers are for 1995, but I believe I read something recently
that said the rates are still increasing.)
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
>
> "Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D." wrote:
>
> > Radha wrote in message <3782537F...@thumper.microboss.com.au>...
>
> > >Lynne Murnane wrote:
>
> > >> because you post something about them every few weeks. Which
> > >> are you most concerned about -- your daughter contracting
> > >> diseases from vaccinated children, or from ordinary
> > >> "wild" outbreaks?
>
> > >a very strong immune system and, as such, will be unlikely that
> > >she will suffer from a disease. I am not concerned about "wild
> > >outbreaks" though I would exercise caution when allowing other
> > >vaccinated children who are still contaminated (2-3mths after
> > >vax).
>
> > How do you know that your daughter has a strong immune system?
> > Jeff Utz
>
> I guess I do not *know* for *sure* but I figure she will have a
> strong immune system since she has been around people with colds,
> she has breastmilk only, I have a health diet now and did throughout
> pregnancy. She did not have any detrimental ultrasounds or the like
> etc. On account of this, I am confident that her immune system is
> strong.
Sounds a lot like the regime practiced by our ancestors a few
hundred years back. No ultrasound, breastmilk, no artificial
preservatives, fresh air, exercise, primarily or exclusively
organic vegetables, etc.
It must be very comforting to know that she has as much immunity
to infection as those fortunate souls before the advent of disease
in this century.
--
| Microsoft: "A reputation for releasing inferior software will make |
| it more difficult for a software vendor to induce customers to pay |
| for new products or new versions of existing products." |
+---------- D. C. & M. V. Sessions <sess...@primenet.com> ----------+
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
> Carrie wrote:
> > In article <37829BF2...@futurecorp.co.uk>, posted to
> > uk.education.home-education and stamped "01:14:42, Wed, 7 Jul 1999",
> > Radha Stirling <Ra...@futurecorp.co.uk> writes
> > >Really? Considering there have been numerous proposals that society
> > >sends all unvaccinated individuals to some deserted island away from
> > >'society'. I thought I was being generous.
>
> > Can you say some more about those proposals - I haven't heard of them
> > before. (Serious question).
It's a gedankenexperiment. WRT elimination efforts for diseases
like polio and measles, those who don't object to vaccination
could set up an enclave and be free of pressure to do so, while
also being safe from RS' fear that a HepB shot will make one
capable of somehow transmitting HepB to people on the street.
> That's pretty much it :) but it's a comment that is used fairly
> often in the sci.med group. Generally, it's get the 'others' who
> carry the 'germs' (which they shouldn't be worried about anyway
> because they are supposedly immune) away from civilisation. Pretty
> funny when you think that it is rare for an unvaccinated child to
> be carrying the disease whereas *all* vaccinated children carry
> the virus.
Now THERE is an interesting theory. Just how *do* you come to
the conclusion that a HepB jab turns one into a HepB carrier?
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
> naomi pardue wrote:
> > ARE there any fully vaccianted societies? I know of none.
>
> 90%+ Have you actually read my recent postings? The people
> who were vaccinated still came down with the disease and there
> were 4 times more deaths than before vaccination (check my
> "the truth revealed" post.
What you posted didn't say anything at all of the sort, although
if you were told it did and expected it to you might have missed
that little detail.
D. C. & M. V. Sessions
> hamilton wrote:
> You truly have a warped view on inoculation. Did you ever really
> investigate it? Do you know that epidemics have occurred in 1st
> world vaccinated societies?
Please give an example. Note that 'epidemic' isn't the same
as "large increase in case rate," so that the jump in pertussis
in Japan during the seventies and in the UK in the eighties
following immunization lapses weren't epidemics.
Of course, to support your thesis that vaccines don't provide
meaningful protection against the disease you'd also have to
present the relative case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated
populations, or compare the vaccination rate in the case population
to the general population.
We are, we believe, quite safe in speaking for the rest of the
"pro-vaccination" people on these groups when we tell you that
we would be VERY impressed if you did that. REALLY, REALLY,
impressed.
> Your faith in the benefits of vaccination is sad.
If it makes you happier to believe that this is a religious matter,
or that we're all on the Pharmaceutical Cartel payroll, then who
are we to deny you that comfort?
Michelle Haines
On Mon, 5 Jul 1999, Lesa wrote:
> non-vaccination. In fact it is due to quite the opposite. This is a highly
> virulant mutation of the virus caused by vaccines--wether due to inproper
^^^^^^^
> iuse, being ineffective, or being overused-- not completey destorying the
> organism, and subsequently creating a "super virus".
You mean antibiotics, I hope.
Michelle
Flutist
Michelle Haines
On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, hamilton wrote:
> My grandmother thought her 'never sick' 2 year old had a very
> good immune system too -- but diptheria killed him nevertheless.
> The kid down the street from me growing up had no more illnesses
> than the rest of us -- but he ended up brain damaged and retarded
> from measles. My brothers best friend who died of polio was not
> a sickly kid -- didn't help him. Where did you get the idea that
> germs skip over the children of mothers like yourself? The last
> big breakouts in the US of measles were at enclaves of Christian
> Scientists.
hell, my son was perfectly healthy until he contracted an ear infection
and roseola from his sister (strep pneumo bacteria in the ear infection,
for which there is a vaccine that's not currently in wide-spread use. He
got meningitis and lived for 10 weeks before dying a rather slow death,
ending up gasping in my arms for breathe while his heart slowly quit. If
I could turn back the clock and vaccinate him for pneumococcus, I'd do it
in a heartbeat.
Michelle
Fluitst
Roger Schlafly
>Your child is safe because you are a free rider, depending on other
>responsible parents to vaccinate their kids and thus not expose her
>to measles, mumps, diptheria, pertussis etc.
Now we get to the root of your hostility. You agree that the child is
safe without vaccines. But you want vaccines to be mandatory
because free riders in our society upset you. Are there other free
riders that you would like to root out? How about the free riders
who watch TV but don't buy advertised products? Those who don't
earn enough income to pay income taxes? Those who enjoy world
peace but don't do their share of military service?
Roger Schlafly
> Why don't you let other people decide whether or not to vax
>their own children? Hmmm?
I think that is the point. Some people want to be able to make that
choice, but are forced by laws and school regulations.
>I have two kids, one has all his shots, and the other doesn't. ...
>... So I believe that is all
>the "research" I will be needing. thanks anyway.
Glad you have the info you needed to make your decision.
apparently you are not convinced that vaccines are so wonderful
in all situations.
tecia
<carrie@REMOVE_THIS.borve.demon.co.uk> writes
>Just a few other points. Re. mass vaccination campaign, there is quite a
>lot of this in Britain, millions of people also get an annual flu jab -
>God only knows what effect this is going to have in the long term,
>probably it will lead to very strong strains of influenza becoming more
>prevalent. Getting flu, colds etc., is actually good for you because it
>builds up your immunity *and* your body's *ability to build up immunity*
Well, certainly at my doctors, you are only allowed the flu jab if you have
a genuine reason for needing it. Lumping colds and flu together is
misleading - they are completely different illnesses. While it never did
anyone any harm catching a cold, there are people who would easily
*die* from catching influenza - those are the people for whom the
vaccine is recommended. Thousands of people die from influenza each
year. It's not a lot of good your body "building up immunity" to next
year's virus if you're already dead from pneumonia.
I'd be interested to know how flu vaccines could "lead to very strong
strains of influenzea becoming more prevalent". Are you not mixing this
up with the overprescription of antibiotics leading to antibiotic-resistant
bacteria? I've heard many arguments against vaccination (not effective,
side effects, unknown long term effects, unnecessary etc) but never one
that implies that vaccination *strengthens* a virus.
--
C
Mama to Peter (2y 10m), Isabel (15 months)
Georgia and Anna (5 months)
Carrie
uk.education.home-education and stamped "01:14:42, Wed, 7 Jul 1999",
Radha Stirling <Ra...@futurecorp.co.uk> writes
<snip>
>> Quarentine someone for a disease which has only about a 1 in 4 million
>> chance of being spread to anyone? Sounds like overkill to me.
>
>Really? Considering there have been numerous proposals that society
>sends all unvaccinated individuals to some deserted island away from
>'society'. I thought I was being generous.
Can you say some more about those proposals - I haven't heard of them
before. (Serious question).
<snip>
>> However, keeping her isolated from every other human child
>
>Not *all* 'human' children (there isn't really any other type
>in this context), just recently vaccinated one's. Incidental
>contact is unavoidable but I would not send her to child minding
>or anything of the like for that reason and many others (planning
>on home schooling so do not want to start her in the system).
I'm on your side, Radha, don't let them wind you up.
--
Carrie
G03090103
"D. C. & M. V. Sessions" <sess...@primenet.com> wrote:
>Radha Stirling wrote:
>> hamilton wrote:
>
>> You truly have a warped view on inoculation. Did you ever really
>> investigate it? Do you know that epidemics have occurred in 1st
>> world vaccinated societies?
>
>Please give an example. Note that 'epidemic' isn't the same
>as "large increase in case rate," so that the jump in pertussis
>in Japan during the seventies and in the UK in the eighties
>following immunization lapses weren't epidemics.
See "Pertussis in the Netherlands: an Outbreak Despite High Levels of
Immunization with Whole-Cell Vaccine";
http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol3no2/melker.htm
>...you'd also have to
>present the relative case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated
>populations...
From the above-mentioned article:
"...It appears that an unexpectedly large number of pertussis cases was
reported (18 per 100,000) in 1996. The reports came from all over the country.
No geographic clustering was observed, even in regions with pockets of low
vaccination coverage or at the borders of the country (close to Germany, where
vaccination coverage for pertussis is low)..."
JG
Diana Galletly
naomi pardue <npa...@indiana.edu> wrote:
>In misc.kids.pregnancy Radha <Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:
>
>> at the same time, I would not take her to a play group with
>> infectious (from vaccine) children. I think that is simply a
>> silly risk to take.
>
>> I am not losing sleep by I am exercising caution as others *think*
>> they are by vaccinating their children.
>
>
>However, the ONLY vaccine that involves the use of live viruses is the
>oral polio vaccine. DPT and MMR do not result in the child becoming
>infectious in any way. (If they did, then surely there would be constant
>outbreaks of these diseases in daycare centers, where newly vaccinated
>children tend to congregate...)
Hmm, I start to wonder precisely how it was that I caught whooping
cough when no-one else I came into contact with had it. That was a
mystery at the time, but ....
--
+ Diana Galletly <dag...@eng.cam.ac.uk> <gall...@mat.ensmp.fr> +
+ WWW: http://earthquake.eng.cam.ac.uk/~galletly +
+Lois on-line: http://earthquake.eng.cam.ac.uk/~galletly/lois.html+
naomi pardue
In misc.kids.pregnancy Radha Stirling <Ra...@futurecorp.co.uk> wrote:
> naomi pardue wrote:
>> Quarentine someone for a disease which has only about a 1 in 4 million
>> chance of being spread to anyone? Sounds like overkill to me.
> Really? Considering there have been numerous proposals that society
> sends all unvaccinated individuals to some deserted island away from
> 'society'. I thought I was being generous.
But an unvaccinated person has a far higher than 1 in 4 million chance of
spreading whatever disease he catches to someone else.
>> It seems pretty obvious that, even with the OPV, the risk of transmission
>> is VERY, VERY low; far lower than you would find with the wild virus.
> Are you sure? There is no way to verify this.
When wild polio was rampant, it attacked well over 1 in 4 million people.
It was so dreaded because not only was it serious and often fatal, but
it spread widely. (Does the term 'epidemic' mean anything to you.) Yet
today, with virtually EVERYONE recieving a dose of the vaccine, and,
therefore, carrying the virus around, the number of annual cases in the U.S.
is negligble. I am very sure that there were MANY more than an average of
5 cases of polio per year in the U.S. before the vaccine was developed.
>
>> PDR did note that in a few of the cases, there was no known contact with
>> a recently immunized person. However, we are still talking about a very
>> remote risk indeed.
> Unknown.
How? We know how many cases there are. We know the source of all the cases,
(vaccine itself, exposure to vaccinated child, unposure to vaccintaed child+
damaged immunity and 'unknown.' The number that fall into the unknown
catagory is small, and is, logically due to an unrecognized exposure, of
the type I discuss below. [Babies in the park/on the bux.]
>> If you don't want to get Isabella immunized, that is your choice, and you
>> will eliminate the microscopic risk of her catching the disease from the > vaccine.
> Microscopic??? Hmmm, it *may* be a small risk that you will contract
> the disease itself but it has many other *drastic* effects.
Yes, we are well familiar with your paranoia about modern medicine. So,have
you started giving her her daily doses of 100% safe and harmless, 100%
effective against all known ills colloidial silver yet?
>> to avoid her getting the virus seems like an extreme measure.
> Not really. If children are infected for a few months, then I
> see it as responsible to keep her away from them.
Though,as has been noted, since vaccines are given every several months
during the first year, to be safe you will have to keep her isolated from
ALL children under the age of about one year.
>> The harm she will suffer from being locked away in your house
> Get real Naomi!!! Who said anything about 'locking away in my
> house?'
You are the one who needs to get real. Perhaps you need to work on your
level of paranoia...
Naomi
naomi pardue
> or that we're all on the Pharmaceutical Cartel payroll, then who
> are we to deny you that comfort?
And Gosh, I haven't gotten my PC paycheck in YEARS. Who do I write to
to complain?
Naomi
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>
>It actually appears the the pro-vax group is the 'paranoid' one...
>playing on people's fears of contracting the disease, dying, epidemics,
>brain damage, bad parent etc. etc.
How are we paranoid? By giving vaccines, we reduce the chances that a child
will die of the complications of a disease (including the complications of
the vaccines). Sounds like good medicine to me. We are not paranoid because
we base our choices on the best statistics available. The risks of the
vaccines are small, and through technology and epidemiological studies even
smaller.
Now, not getting a vaccine because of risks of a vaccine when the risks of
the disease are worse, then sheltering a child from exposed children when
they pose no risks vs decreasing the risks of illness by vaccination
(including the risk of side effects from the vaccines). . . you can decide
which is paranoid
Jeff Utz
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>Have you ever got a list of the adverse reactions reported to the CDC.
>I did and it's thousands of pages long. Take a look at the webpage
>I posted, look at the reported adverse reactions (only 10% reported
>is the estimate of the CDC). You only think the benefits outweigh
>the risks because you are coming from a point of ignorance.
As usual, your figures are misleading in four ways:
1) The list of adverse events include events related to the vaccinations and
events that are coincidental. Without well-controlled studies, there is no
way to know if the events are related to the vaccinations or coincidental,
and therefore, if the vaccinations are safe. The controlled studies that are
done show the vaccines are safe.
2) The list if adverse events include both major and minor events over many
years. Millions of doses of vaccines have been given out over the years.
Children get sick all the time, so there will be adverse events reported,
just because children would have gotten sick anyway. This does not mean
there is a causal relationship between the vaccines and the illnesses.
3) You do not include the diseases prevented by the vaccines, like the near
disappearance of meninigitis caused by Heamopholis influenza b since the
introduction of this vaccine.
4) While only about 10% of the events are reported, the more severe events
are more likely to be reported than the less severe events. So chances are
we know about most of the major events, like hospitalizations, that occur
around the time the vaccines were given. It is the minor ones we know less
about.
You reporting of the adverse events without an understanding of the diseases
that have been prevented is quite misleading, especially when you do not
seem to understand the meaning of adverse event, the statistics or the risk
of the illnesses prevented by vaccines.
This only spreads ignorance.
Jeff utz
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>> How do you know that your daughter has a strong immune system?
>
>I guess I do not *know* for *sure* but I figure she will have a
>strong immune system since she has been around people with colds,
>she has breastmilk only, I have a health diet now and did throughout
>pregnancy.
Breastmilk provides antibodies that protect her against illness. It is the
best form of nutrition for her. However, it will also prevent the strength
of her immune system from coming through.
The breast milk, BTW, is essential passive immunization.
>She did not have any detrimental ultrasounds or the like
>etc. On account of this, I am confident that her immune system is
>strong.
>
I never knew ultrasounds were detrimental. Where did you get this
information? As far as I know, ultrasounds have been shown to be safe. And
even if ultrasounds are deterimental, is this the only thing that could lead
to a weak immune system? What about immunoglobin deficencies and other
causes of immune system disfunction?
Jeff Utz
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>
>All vaccines have side effects and risks. Some can be short term and
>some can be long term. Even if the risk is not catching the virus
>itself does not mean that you should automatically presume that the
>benefits outweigh the risks.
Of course.
But the illnesses have risks too. You must weigh the benefits and the risks.
It seems to me that you are only weighing the risks.
Jeff Utz
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>You truly have a warped view on inoculation. Did you ever really
>investigate it? Do you know that epidemics have occurred in 1st
>world vaccinated societies?
>
Although vaccine-preventable illness will rarely be completely eliminated
(except for small pox and most likely polio), the incidence and severity of
vaccine preventable disesaes will be greatly lowered. For example. Hib
menigitis is very rare in kids these days in vaccinated populations.
>Your faith in the benefits of vaccination is sad.
The faith in the benefits of vaccination is from scientific studies. Have
you a better idea on how to decrease death and suffering from
vaccine-preventable diseases?
Jeff Utz
naomi pardue
In misc.kids.pregnancy Radha Stirling <Ra...@futurecorp.co.uk> wrote:
> naomi pardue wrote:
>
>> ARE there any fully vaccianted societies? I know of none.
> 90%+ Have you actually read my recent postings?
Fully immunized would mean 100%. And in any case, while most kids get
caught up with their immunizations by the time they have to start school,
in most states in the U.S., younger kids tend to lag way behind in the
recommended shots.
The people
> who were vaccinated still came down with the disease
Occassionally. No vaccine is 100% effective. However, when most people
are immunized, the overall incidence of the disease is MUCH lower.
(Pre-measles vaccine, measles was considered to be a routine childhood
dissease that virtually EVERYONE got. Today, measles is very uncommon.
and there
> were 4 times more deaths than before vaccination (check my
> "the truth revealed" post.
4 times more deaths? Wow! Seems to me I ran across a bit of data a while
back that talked about the causes of death is Carlisle England in the late
18th century. 15% of the deaths were from smallpox. Just how common is
Smallpox today? Just how common was it a few decades ago when most people
were immunized against it? Thought so...
Naomi
mur...@my-deja.com
Radha <Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:
> All vaccines have side effects and risks. Some can be short term and
> some can be long term. Even if the risk is not catching the virus
> itself does not mean that you should automatically presume that the
> benefits outweigh the risks.
>
>
No, you should not; neither should you imply that the
illnesses in question either are not catchable or have
no side effects themselves, which you seem to be doing.
People your age have no knowledge of what it was like
when nearly everyone came down with measles, mumps,
rubella, chicken pox, and there were frequent
outbreaks of polio.
While most people seemed to come through their bouts
with the then-standard childhood illnesses pretty well,
(mumps, by the way, is not a 3-day illness, nor is the
measles -- we were sick for at least a week to 10 days
and that was if there were no complications) a small
minority did not, either contracting much more serious
secondary illnesses or actually dying. And polio was feared
for a good reason: it has permanent side effects
(fortunately, polio may eventually go the way
of smallpox, where even the vaccine is not needed.)
Yes, vaccines do not provide complete protection, make some
people very sick and are not suitable for certain folks.
They should be studied carefully. But you seem to be waving
away the possibility that anything bad could happen to
someone who actually gets whooping cough or measles,
and that's just not true.
Lynne
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.
Anna Walker
and everything when someone takes a strong stand against you. I could care
less whether people vaccinate just like most other parental choices, but I
do care that you are using fowl language in what should be a friendly
debate! Maybe if you can't talk to people in a decent manner you shouldn't
post here? Just a thought.
Anna
G03090103
>Now we get to the root of your [hamilton's] hostility. You agree that the
child is
>safe without vaccines. But you want vaccines to be mandatory
>because free riders in our society upset you. Are there other free
>riders that you would like to root out? How about the free riders
>who watch TV but don't buy advertised products? Those who don't
>earn enough income to pay income taxes? Those who enjoy world
>peace but don't do their share of military service?
I (vaguely :o)) recall a theory discussed in Psych 101 (or was it 102?
hmmm...); I believe it was called something like "positive affirmation." At any
rate, the gist of the theory was that an individual, having made a choice
(e.g., to have his/her child vaccinated), will start to feel a kinship with
those who've made the same decision. The fact that others made the same choice
in essence "affirms" (validates, corroborates), in the individual's mind, that
he/she did, in fact, make the "correct" decision. Not only do they get "warm
fuzzies" from this sense of affinity, but they'll tend to actually *ignore* (or
rationalize away) any "evidence" that their decision might possibly have been
wrong. (Of course, this theory would hold for nonvaccinators as well.) You do
have to wonder, though, when someone gets as perturbed as "hamilton" seems to
be. (Lots of dissonance/"buyer's remorse" goin' on?)
JG
Circe
<snip>
>
>> I'm fully in support of parents who choose not to vaccinate; I believe
every
>> parent has the right to make these decisions based on his or her own
>> research and conscience. If you have another problem with the injectable
>> polio vaccine, that's fine by me. I simply hope you haven't chosen not to
>> vaccinate against polio because you believe that there is no vaccine that
>> doesn't present a risk of infection, as that is certainly not the case.
>
>All vaccines have side effects and risks. Some can be short term and
>some can be long term. Even if the risk is not catching the virus
>itself does not mean that you should automatically presume that the
>benefits outweigh the risks.
>
>Radha
>
reason a parent was choosing not to vaccinate against polio was fear of a
risk of contracting polio from the vaccine, he or she could be reassured
that this risk does not exist with the injected form of the vaccine. If the
parent has *other* reasons, that's another story.
I don't automatically assume that the benefits of a vaccine outweigh its
risks. On the other hand, I do know that many people carry mistaken ideas
about what the actual risks of particular vaccines are, and a failure to
recognize the difference between the oral and injectable polio vaccines *is*
a fairly common one.
Be well, Barbara (Julian's and ?'s mom)
Don
wrote:
>When wild polio was rampant, it attacked well over 1 in 4 million people.
>It was so dreaded because not only was it serious and often fatal, but
>it spread widely. (Does the term 'epidemic' mean anything to you.)
I grew up in the era prior to the availability of polio vaccine.
As a child, every summer I dreaded the possibility of catching
polio because every summer someone I knew did. They might get
over it without any apparent, serious damage, they might become
paralyzed for life, they might have to live the rest of their
lives in an "iron lung" (in order to breathe) or they might die.
It was really frightening.
At the time, there were warnings on the radio and in the
newspapers to avoid crowds. This meant that we were supposed to
say away from the beaches or the swimming pools on a nice, summer
day; we were to avoid the amusement park; in other words, the fun
things that kids liked to do in the summer put one at risk for
polio.
>Yet today, with virtually EVERYONE recieving a dose of the vaccine, and,
>therefore, carrying the virus around, the number of annual cases in the U.S.
>is negligble. I am very sure that there were MANY more than an average of
>5 cases of polio per year in the U.S. before the vaccine was developed.
[snip]
In the early 40s, there were more than five cases per year in a
city the size of Lafayette, IN.
Don
[uk.education.home-education snipped]
---------
Sorry for the inconvenience, but in an effort to eliminate spam,
I do not post my e-mail address in the header. To e-mail me,
reassemble the following into a normal e-mail address:
secular at earthling dot net
[please note that it is earthling, not earthlink]
--------
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
>completely destoryed by an antagagonistic agent (be it a vaccination,
>antibodies, or simply white blood cells) will grow stronger and more
>resistant to these antagonistic agents.
>
I know of no evidence that any resistance to vaccinations has developed.
None what so ever.
I would be very interested in reading about this. Thanks.
JEff utz
>The same is true with plants and herbicides, and insects and insecticides
>(but that's a whole different matter and I'm not going to go there now).
>
>Lesa
>
>
Lesa
>
> > non-vaccination. In fact it is due to quite the opposite. This is a
highly
> > virulant mutation of the virus caused by vaccines--wether due to
inproper
> ^^^^^^^
>
> > iuse, being ineffective, or being overused-- not completey destorying
the
> > organism, and subsequently creating a "super virus".
>
> You mean antibiotics, I hope.
>
> Michelle
> Flutist
>
Acutally, either one would be appropriate. Any infectious agent when not
completely destoryed by an antagagonistic agent (be it a vaccination,
antibodies, or simply white blood cells) will grow stronger and more
resistant to these antagonistic agents.
The same is true with plants and herbicides, and insects and insecticides
Lesa
> >>
> >> > non-vaccination. In fact it is due to quite the opposite. This is a
> >highly
> >> > virulant mutation of the virus caused by vaccines--wether due to
> >inproper
> >> ^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> > iuse, being ineffective, or being overused-- not completey destorying
> >the
> >> > organism, and subsequently creating a "super virus".
> >>
> >> You mean antibiotics, I hope.
> >>
> >> Michelle
> >> Flutist
> >>
> >
> >Acutally, either one would be appropriate. Any infectious agent when not
> >completely destoryed by an antagagonistic agent (be it a vaccination,
> >antibodies, or simply white blood cells) will grow stronger and more
> >resistant to these antagonistic agents.
> >
>
> None what so ever.
>
> I would be very interested in reading about this. Thanks.
>
> JEff utz
>
>
Exucse me, but I never said there was reisitance to vaccinations. I simply
stated that any organisms which are not completely destroyed--whether by
vaccination, antibodies, or antibiotics--emerge stronger and are more
difficult to destroy.
I was not commenting on the effectivenes of vaccinations. I was continuing
a comment started by Hamilton on the super strain of TB which can currently
be found in some areas, and discussing how such a strain had formed.
Lesa
Lesa
> people very sick and are not suitable for certain folks.
> They should be studied carefully. But you seem to be waving
> away the possibility that anything bad could happen to
> someone who actually gets whooping cough or measles,
> and that's just not true.
> Lynne
This is a very good point, Lynne, and should be the ground on which this
whole issue is based. Some of these diseases are horrible things and we
should do everything possible to attempt to insure that our children will
never experience them. However, there are certain factors in which the
vaccination itself can pose serious hazards for a child. The doctor needs
to compleley and honestly infrom the parent of the entire situation and all
factors invovled, and the dr & parents together need to discuss these
factors and make an intelligent, informed choice which is in the best
interest of the child.
One must never assume that either full vaccination or no-vaccination are the
absolutes for any child.
Lesa
Davidson
The real problem here is the uncertainty. You can't predict who will
have a reaction to the vaccine or who may contract the wild disease and
what the possible consequences can be. However, if you ever plan for
your child (even as an adult) to travel to any third world contries, I
strongly suggest vaccination, as the odds of contracting most of the
wild diseases that North America, Japan and Europe vaccinate against go
up considerably once you leave those areas. When you have a 5 year old,
it is hard to predict whether they are going to go on a work-study
program in South America of Africa when they are in college.
Does anyone know whether there is a difference in reaction to adult vs
childhood vaccination. In other words, is it better or worse to get the
vaccines as a child or and adult?
mvd...@dds.nll
>Just butting in :o) ...
>
>"D. C. & M. V. Sessions" <sess...@primenet.com> wrote:
>
>>Radha Stirling wrote:
>>> hamilton wrote:
>>
>>> You truly have a warped view on inoculation. Did you ever really
>>> investigate it? Do you know that epidemics have occurred in 1st
>>> world vaccinated societies?
>>
>>Please give an example. Note that 'epidemic' isn't the same
>>as "large increase in case rate," so that the jump in pertussis
>>in Japan during the seventies and in the UK in the eighties
>>following immunization lapses weren't epidemics.
>
>See "Pertussis in the Netherlands: an Outbreak Despite High Levels of
>Immunization with Whole-Cell Vaccine";
>http://www.cdc.gov/ncidod/EID/vol3no2/melker.htm
>
>>...you'd also have to
>>present the relative case rates in the vaccinated and unvaccinated
>>populations...
>
>From the above-mentioned article:
>
>"...It appears that an unexpectedly large number of pertussis cases was
>reported (18 per 100,000) in 1996. The reports came from all over the country.
>No geographic clustering was observed, even in regions with pockets of low
>vaccination coverage or at the borders of the country (close to Germany, where
>vaccination coverage for pertussis is low)..."
First, the epidemic was not very large compared to backgrounsd
incidence. The number of pertussis cases reported is approximately
200-400 annually, in 1996 it was 2771 and in 1997 it was 4000-odd,
after that it fell again to 400-odd reported cases annually.
Most important is however that the epidemic has been linked to the
emergence of new strains of B. pertussis in The Netherlands. It has
been shown that some strains have a modified variant of the protein
pertactin, and it is presumed that the dutch pertussis vaccine does
not protect sufficiently against these new strains of B. pertussis
that contain the mutated pertactin.
So the vaccine works, but against the old bacterium. They should
outlaw mutations in bacteria:-)
References:
Infect Immun 1999 Jun;67(6):3133-4 (Mooi-FR et al.)
J Infect Dis 1999 Apr;179(4):915-23 (van Loo-IH et al.)
Infect Immun 1998 Feb;66(2):670-5 (Mooi FR et al.)
Jennifer Bales
<Pine.SOL.3.95.990706...@isis.netherworld.com>, Michelle
Haines <mha...@netherworld.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 6 Jul 1999, hamilton wrote:
>
> > My grandmother thought her 'never sick' 2 year old had a very
> > good immune system too -- but diptheria killed him nevertheless.
> > The kid down the street from me growing up had no more illnesses
> > than the rest of us -- but he ended up brain damaged and retarded
> > from measles. My brothers best friend who died of polio was not
> > a sickly kid -- didn't help him. Where did you get the idea that
> > germs skip over the children of mothers like yourself? The last
> > big breakouts in the US of measles were at enclaves of Christian
> > Scientists.
>
> hell, my son was perfectly healthy until he contracted an ear infection
> and roseola from his sister (strep pneumo bacteria in the ear infection,
> for which there is a vaccine that's not currently in wide-spread use. He
> got meningitis and lived for 10 weeks before dying a rather slow death,
> ending up gasping in my arms for breathe while his heart slowly quit. If
> I could turn back the clock and vaccinate him for pneumococcus, I'd do it
> in a heartbeat.
>
My condolences. How heartbreaking.
--
Regards,
Jennifer Bales
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.
I think the reactions to pertussus in adults are worse, and pertussus is not
a recommended vaccine for adults. Another vaccine that is not given to
adults and kids over 1 year is rotavirus, for the same reason. You can read
more about adult vaccinations at
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/schedule/adult/default.htm.
Jeff Utz
Michelle Haines
On Wed, 7 Jul 1999, Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. wrote:
> a recommended vaccine for adults. Another vaccine that is not given to
> adults and kids over 1 year is rotavirus, for the same reason. You can read
> more about adult vaccinations at
It's not really necessary for anyone over one year. The risk of
dehydration and serious illness is more pronounced for young children with
rotavirus.
Michelle
Flutist
Roger Schlafly
Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. wrote in message ...
>Some vaccines are not given to adults because of the reactions. For
example,
>I think the reactions to pertussus in adults are worse, and pertussus is
not
>adults and kids over 1 year is rotavirus, for the same reason. You can read
>more about adult vaccinations at
I never heard that the pertussis vaccine is any worse on adults
than children. It is suspected of causing brain damage in rare
cases for either. The reason it is not given to anyone over age 7
is that pertussis is very mild in older children and adult. The vaccine
is not worth the risk.
Likewise with rotavirus. The disease is an infant problem.
Roger Schlafly
and
>events that are coincidental. Without well-controlled studies, there is no
>way to know if the events are related to the vaccinations or coincidental,
>and therefore, if the vaccinations are safe. The controlled studies that
are
>done show the vaccines are safe.
No. If the studies really showed that the vaccines were safe, then we
wouldn't need VAERS. In reality, the studies only look for certain
short term effects. They also find a lot of adverse effects that may or
may not be acceptable to a given person.
>4) While only about 10% of the events are reported, the more severe events
>are more likely to be reported than the less severe events. So chances are
>we know about most of the major events, like hospitalizations, that occur
>around the time the vaccines were given. It is the minor ones we know less
>about.
The minor events are also significant. All other things being equal, I'd
rather not have my kids crying for a week with sore arm, fever, etc.
Roger Schlafly
>>whether effects are true or coincidental? Didn't look very coincidental
>>to me. Anyway, I am not prepared to take the risk.
>
>You are willing to take a bigger risk that your child will come down with a
>deadly disease. Good for her.
You frequently say or imply that vaccination has lower risk than the risk
of being harmed by a corresponding disease. What is the basis for
this belief? Personal experience? Published papers? Presumption?
If you give me a citation for this, then I can study the analysis to see if
it applies to my child. But I cannot find a scientific paper that even makes
the claim. I cannot even find drug company literature that makes the claim.