Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Informed Choice

1 view
Skip to first unread message

Fancy Nelson

unread,
Jul 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/4/99
to
don't use live polio vaccine here either......


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

unread,
Jul 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/4/99
to
Radha wrote in message <377FD97B...@thumper.microboss.com.au>...

>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

unread,
Jul 4, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/4/99
to
Radha wrote:
>
> 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.

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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
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
>


Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

Karla

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
> 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
>

baj...@my-deja.com

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
In article <7lp51h$8e3$1...@nnrp1.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-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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
In article <MPG.11e9caaad09782cd989766@news>,
> > 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
> >
> 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.
>
The polio vaccine has been the cause of most of the reported cases in
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.

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
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

Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
Radha wrote in message <3780BFD1...@thumper.microboss.com.au>...

>
>"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.
>
>Of course :)

>
>> 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
>
>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?
>
>Radha

I don't know. maybe 2 or 3 months. not sure.

Jeff

Fancy Nelson

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
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!

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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
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!

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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
I Still wouldn't be willing to take the risk with my son.....oh well we all
differ

G03090103

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
Fancy Nelson <6148...@3web.net> wrote:

>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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
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.

>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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
pretty much yup......

Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to

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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
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. 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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to

> 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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to

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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to

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.

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
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


G03090103

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
"Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D." <ut...@auhs.edu> scribbled:

>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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
In article <BM8g3.1099$yV3....@typhoon.nycap.rr.com>, "Lesa"
<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

unread,
Jul 5, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/5/99
to
In article <Cl9g3.456$D5.1...@news1.epix.net>, "Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D."
<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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
In article <3780BFD1...@thumper.microboss.com.au> (15:23:13, Mon,
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.

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
hamilton wrote in message ...

>In article <BM8g3.1099$yV3....@typhoon.nycap.rr.com>, "Lesa"
><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.

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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
W/all the rules about vaccination and school how do you get an unvaccinated
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-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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to

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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
All the information Carrie lists below is provided in the US (at least its
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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
In article <3780BBB2...@thumper.microboss.com.au>,
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.

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
G03090103 wrote in message <19990705193241...@ng-fo1.aol.com>...

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.

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
>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.

>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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
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

**** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ****

G03090103

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
"Lesa" <lsch...@nospam.nycap.rr.com> wrote:

>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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
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

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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
In article <cMog3.12$db....@news1.epix.net>, posted to
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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
In article <cMog3.12$db....@news1.epix.net>, "Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D."
<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.

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
None. I am trained in pediatrics, but presently doing brain research. Even
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.

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
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

Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D.

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to

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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
In misc.kids.pregnancy Radha <Ra...@thumper.microboss.com.au> wrote:

> 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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to

"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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to

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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
In article <3782537F...@thumper.microboss.com.au>, Radha
<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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
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

> >"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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99
to
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.

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

unread,
Jul 6, 1999, 3:00:00 AM7/6/99