 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Alternative / July 2008PETITION AGAINST FORCED VACCINES
http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html Dear All Please sign this petition and/or please pass this on for others to sign:- http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/forcedvaccines/ The government does not guarantee that your child, children or grandchildren will not have a severe reaction to vaccines nor develop long term chronic illness as a result. If your child does suffer harm, you can guarantee your child and your family will be dumped by the Department of Health and our government just like all the other children and their families in the past. There is also no provision to screen out and protect children at high risk of harm. Vaccines are like all medicines. They do cause harm and our government fails to monitor the extent of that harm and covers it up. To check out the real risks of not being vaccinated and the real risk of autism and the truth about vaccination:- Risk to Children & Government Scaremongering Autism - 19 Kids A Day - 4 in 5 is a Boy Mumps Vaccine "Unnecessary" Says BMA Rubella Vaccine Unnecessary for Children Measles - The Official Statistics Tetanus - Pointless Vaccination The Diphtheria Vaccine Myth -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- > http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > will not have a severe reaction to vaccines nor develop long term chronic > illness as a result. Your government does not guarantee that your child, children or grandchildren will not die from a vaccine preventable illness, either. However, getting them vaccinated is the best guarantee that is available. Jeff "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> Real one on HealthFraud list: Jeffrey Peter Joseph Utz, M.D. jeff...@juno.com [2007] "Robert Watson" kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com Jeff Utz jtest-u...@juno.com Jeff Utz, M.D. jeff...@juno.com Jeffrey P. Utz, M.D. jeff...@softhome.net Hence "Putz" http://www.msu.edu/~utz/ u...@pilot.msu.edu Jeffrey Peter, M.D. kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com Wyle E. Coyote wyle_e_coyot...@hotmail.com Jeff Utz kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com (Jan 2003) Jeff jef...@pacbell.net Jeff j...@hotmail.com (2007-2008) wrote in message news:Tdl1k.2186$Yx.1172@trndny08... >> http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jeff As noted above Jeffery Peter Joseph Utz is not to be believe. He is fooled by *organized medicine*. Below is the truth about vaccinations, the government, the CDC, FDA and *organized medicine*. http://www.nvic.org/ > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000@hotmail.com> <...> >> Your government does not guarantee that your child, children or >> grandchildren will not die from a vaccine preventable illness, either. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > As noted above Jeffery Peter Joseph Utz is not to be believe. Learn English: The word is "Believed." > He is fooled by *organized medicine*. > > Below is the truth about vaccinations, the government, the CDC, FDA and > *organized medicine*. > > http://www.nvic.org/ ROTFL. Are you really that stupid to believe this organization? Right on the top is a tab called "Lawyer Referral." That says more about the site than anything else, IMHO. Much more accurate information is available from www.cdc.gov the Children's Hospital of Philadelphia's Vaccine Information center, www.vaccine.chop.edu. Unlike you, they are the people who have to treat the kids injured by vaccine-preventable diseases. Jeff >> http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Jeff The petition is to reject a proposal by a certain member of British parliament to FORCE vaccinations in the UK. A quote: "A Labour MP has recently suggested forcing all children to be vaccinated otherwise they cannot attend school and parents should not receive child benefits." > >>http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > vaccinated otherwise they cannot attend school and parents should not > receive child benefits." While I am adamantly pro-vaccine, no child should be forced, in the sense that they are physically made to be vaccinated. What you describe is NOT force. It is giving the parents choices. The parent can choose to vaccinate their child, or not be able to send them to school or live off the other taxpayers. Remember, refusing vaccination is made easier because of herd immunity, and this makes being a freeloader more attractive. John wrote: last forced vaccination in UK they had to get rid of when it became obvious to the people it made things worse, and the rule of law was going to break down with most people refusing to obey it eg. smallpox epidemics followed high vaccination levels, over 90% had been vaccinated, and it was killing 25,000 babies under 5 every year http://whale.to/a/deathssmallpox.html be interesting to see if this MP http://whale.to/vaccine/creagh_h.html is at David Kirby's lecture this afternoon. The BAN against my responses to Valdeprobert remains in effect but John's words are overwhelming refutation of Valdepropbert's unsound position on this. Once the ban expires Valdeprobert will have the opportunity of attempting to refute this and attempt to counter the unrelenting logic of Citizen Jimserac, not before. Excluding any additional ad hominems, insults or emotional outbursts the current ban expires in two days (...maybe). Sorry! Citizen Jimserac > John wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > and attempt to counter the unrelenting logic > of Citizen Jimserac, not before. Whoi cares, dipwad? If John Scudamore, the owner of the internet's largest suppository of bullshit information is your source, then you truly prove you are a moron. > Excluding any additional ad hominems, > insults or emotional outbursts the current > ban expires in two days (...maybe). Who cares when it expires. You will still be a moron who does not understand ad hominem. >>>> http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html >>>> Dear All [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > vaccination is made easier because of herd immunity, and this makes > being a freeloader more attractive. How about that: vaccinate your kid or pay an annual fine? It's a choice, isn't it? Effectively not different from that proposal. Besides, I bet not sending a child to school is not an option, it will result in the child being taken away from the parents. So the choice is: vaccinate or lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate him/her). Well, I am not a British lawyer, maybe I am missing some options. Regarding herd immunity: certain vaccines, like mumps, DESTROY herd immunity. The pre-vaccine population was 100% immune. It is being replaced with 100% vaccinated, 90% immune population. The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps outbreaks in high schools. When they went to college, mumps outbreaks on college campuses started - for the first time in history of university campuses. Everybody was vaccinated, of course. The number of those infected is much smaller than before mass mumps vaccination. But the problem is that mumps is much harder on adults than on small children. There are fewer infected people but for them the risks are greater. For example, catching mumps early in the childhood is a 100% guarantee against mumps-related orchitis later in life. Getting mumps vaccine instead gives orchitis a chance. It would be interesting to find hard absolute numbers: how many people had mumps complications (e.g. orchitis) then and now. I suspect that there is no health benefit from mumps vaccine. It seems likely to me that the "benefits" are negative. In the meantime, mumps herd immunity is being eroded as older immune people are replaced with 90% immune people. The chickenpox vaccine was introduced in 1995. Here is a prediction. About 2010 there will be chickenpox outbreaks in high schools. About 2013 there will be chickenpox outbreaks in college campuses. When mumps-vac generation enters nursing homes there will be mumps outbreaks in nursing homes and mumps complications will become a noticeable cause of death. But maybe something will be done about that matter before. > >>>>http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html > >>>> Dear All [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > How about that: vaccinate your kid or pay an annual fine? It's a choice, > isn't it? Effectively not different from that proposal. Wrong. I would explain it to you, but anti-vax merchants of disease, disability and death have a problem understanding simple explanations. Besides, I bet > not sending a child to school is not an option, it will result in the > child being taken away from the parents. In the US, a parent is allowed to homeschool. I understand that this is also an option in the UK. So the choice is: vaccinate or > lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate > him/her). Well, I am not a British lawyer, maybe I am missing some options. See above. > Regarding herd immunity: certain vaccines, like mumps, DESTROY herd > immunity. The pre-vaccine population was 100% immune. It is being > replaced with 100% vaccinated, 90% immune population. Do prove that. > The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children > born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps > outbreaks in high schools. When they went to college, mumps outbreaks on > college campuses started - for the first time in history of university > campuses. Everybody was vaccinated, of course. Not so. I was never vaccinated for mumps nor did I have it. > The number of those infected is much smaller than before mass mumps > vaccination. But the problem is that mumps is much harder on adults than [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > there is no health benefit from mumps vaccine. It seems likely to me > that the "benefits" are negative. Mumps can cause all sorts of problems. Look them up and educate yourself. You need it. > In the meantime, mumps herd immunity is being eroded as older immune > people are replaced with 90% immune people. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > About 2010 there will be chickenpox outbreaks in high schools. > About 2013 there will be chickenpox outbreaks in college campuses. Sure. > When mumps-vac generation enters nursing homes there will be mumps > outbreaks in nursing homes and mumps complications will become a > noticeable cause of death. But maybe something will be done about that > matter before. So you say, Idle conjecture. SUPPORT ALERT!!!!! > > >>>>http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html > > >>>> Dear All [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>>>>> http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html >>>>>> Dear All [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > disability and death have a problem understanding simple > explanations. You cannot explain, so you resort to insults. > Besides, I bet >> not sending a child to school is not an option, it will result in the >> child being taken away from the parents. > > In the US, a parent is allowed to homeschool. I understand that this > is also an option in the UK. Not so fast. One needs a permit, and I do not think the boards of education are permit mills. I am not a lawyer but I guess there are some income requirements (for the single breadwinner) and educational requirements (for stay-at-home parent). But for most parents homeschooling is a heavy financial burden even if they can get a permit. How is that different from an annual fine? > So the choice is: vaccinate or >> lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Do prove that. Sure. "One dose of mumps vaccine prevents approximately about 80% of mumps and two doses approximately about 90% of cases." Source: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/mumps/outbreak/faqs-outbreak.htm >> The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children >> born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Not so. I was never vaccinated for mumps nor did I have it. Being born before 1956 is considered to be a proof of mumps immunity. Either you are lying or your parents did not tell you. The fact that you were born abroad either is irrelevant (if you are lying) or makes your argument irrelevant (if you do not). >> The number of those infected is much smaller than before mass mumps >> vaccination. But the problem is that mumps is much harder on adults than [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Mumps can cause all sorts of problems. Look them up and educate > yourself. You need it. Another insult. Who is more likely to get these problems: a child or an adult? What about "a mumps shot gives orchitis a chance"? >> In the meantime, mumps herd immunity is being eroded as older immune >> people are replaced with 90% immune people. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > So you say, Idle conjecture. > >>>>>>http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html > >>>>>> Dear All [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > You cannot explain, so you resort to insults. I was merely commenting on you lack of logic and poor analytical skills. Paying a fine is not the same as freeloading off of parents who have their child vaccinated. > > Besides, I bet > >> not sending a child to school is not an option, it will result in the [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > requirements (for stay-at-home parent). But for most parents > homeschooling is a heavy financial burden even if they can get a permit. Quite different. The parents are not willing to do the work of homeschooling but want to have the benefit of herd immunity. > How is that different from an annual fine? So, let's put it this way...you believe that a parent who is not willing to have their child vaccinated has the right to have their kid attend school at the public's expense, while they do not contribute their share to herd immunity? > > So the choice is: vaccinate or > >> lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > two doses approximately about 90% of cases." > Source:http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/mumps/outbreak/faqs-outbreak.htm Prove that mumps vaccination DESTROYS herd immunity. That is the basis of your claim. Now, prove it. > >> The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children > >> born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Being born before 1956 is considered to be a proof of mumps immunity. But I was never exposed. Never. > Either you are lying or your parents did not tell you. Or I am telling the truth and you cannot handle it. That is most likely the correct answer. > The fact that you were born abroad either is irrelevant (if you are > lying) or makes your argument irrelevant (if you do not). Why do you ASSume I am lying? Oh, that's right, I do not fit into your warped scheme of things. Too bad. > >> The number of those infected is much smaller than before mass mumps > >> vaccination. But the problem is that mumps is much harder on adults than [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Another insult. No, a statement of fact that you took as insulting. YOU claimed that there is no benefit from the vaccine. However, not getting mumps may prevent a whole host of problems. > Who is more likely to get these problems: a child or an adult? > What about "a mumps shot gives orchitis a chance"? When a teen gets mumps, bad things happen. Look them up. > >> In the meantime, mumps herd immunity is being eroded as older immune > >> people are replaced with 90% immune people. [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > Prove that mumps vaccination DESTROYS herd immunity. That is the basis > of your claim. Now, prove it. Mark, I'm sure you remember the phrase "destroying the village to save it." Well, his thesis is that if everyone got natural mumps, we'd have perfect herd immunity. Boggle. Pause. The fact that that is what has given us periodic epidemics throughout history seems to have escaped his notice. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ >> Prove that mumps vaccination DESTROYS herd immunity. That is the basis >> of your claim. Now, prove it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The fact that THAT is what has given us periodic epidemics > throughout history seems to have escaped his notice. What kind of illiterate nonsense is this statement? Please elaborate. What is "THAT" (capitals mine for clarity) that gave us periodic epidemics throughout history - resistance to vaccines? And what were the epidemics? >>> Prove that mumps vaccination DESTROYS herd immunity. That is the basis >>> of your claim. Now, prove it. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > What kind of illiterate nonsense is this statement? Yours? You seem to be operating on the idea that you can protect a forest from fire by doing a Rodeo-Chedeski to it. > Please elaborate. What is "THAT" (capitals mine for clarity) that gave > us periodic epidemics throughout history - resistance to vaccines? And > what were the epidemics? Basic high-school biology: epidemic diseases (including measles, mumps, and smallpox) are periodic because it takes a while for non-immunes to accumulate to the point where the "gain" of a case is greater than unity. Once it does, an epidemic goes through the population reducing the number of susceptibles to a non-sustaining level again. That is *not* "herd immunity" since the non-immunes are slated for actually getting the disease. No protection at all for those who don't get it; quite the opposite since they're scheduled to get hit the next time it comes around. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ >>>> Prove that mumps vaccination DESTROYS herd immunity. That is the basis >>>> of your claim. Now, prove it. [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > since they're scheduled to get hit the next time it comes > around. Avoiding the question. Repeating: what gave those epidemics - resistance to the vaccines? Oh, and what was the terrible consequence of mumps epidemics? >>>>> Prove that mumps vaccination DESTROYS herd immunity. That is the basis >>>>> of your claim. Now, prove it. [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > to the vaccines? Oh, and what was the terrible consequence of mumps > epidemics? Epidemics have been around a lot longer than vaccines. Take your pick -- smallpox, plague, measles, polio, influenza -- it's a long list. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > In message <ac41da63-fe3c-447c-8a21-3ff608589...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > village to save it." Well, his thesis is that if everyone > got natural mumps, we'd have perfect herd immunity. I see. I have trouble thinking that way, except when it comes to destroying villages infested with bugs that carry Y. Pestis. > Boggle. Pause. > > The fact that that is what has given us periodic epidemics > throughout history seems to have escaped his notice. It escapes the notice of many of the merchants of disease, disability and death. Mark S Probert keeps asking others for proof, when he has a long list of claims he has NEVER proven. = hyprocrite. <snippo> > Mark S Probert keeps asking others for proof, when he has a long list of > claims he has NEVER proven. > = hyprocrite. > > <snippo> Here is a link to the American Association of Physicians and Surgeons. This organization does NOT accept corporate funding. To their profound CREDIT, they have a press release taking a stand AGAINST forced vaccination! The heading is: November 16, 2007 For Immediate Release: DOCTORS OPPOSE MARYLAND VACCINE ROUNDUP: Expect dangerous reactions when children are treated like cattle http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nr-11-16-07.php Citizen Jimserac >> Mark S Probert keeps asking others for proof, when he has a long list of >> claims he has NEVER proven. [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Citizen Jimserac You should also note that the AAPS does not represent mainstream medicine. And, anyone, whether or not that person a doctor, may join. Jeff > >> Mark S Probert keeps asking others for proof, when he has a long list of > >> claims he has NEVER proven. [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Jeff The AAPS does NOT accept corporate donations. That is a policy which OTHER medical organizations might learn from. I will mention that (I've forgotten where I saw this) the AMA is the SECOND largest lobbyist funding organization and their lobbyist related expenditures are in the HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS of dollars. Citizen Jimserac > > >> Mark S Probert keeps asking others for proof, when he has a long list of > > >> claims he has NEVER proven. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > The AAPS does NOT accept corporate donations. http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/ > That is a policy which OTHER medical organizations > might learn from. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - On Jun 9, 6:57 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jun 8, 9:48 pm, Jeff <kidsdoc2...@hotmail.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > The AAPS does NOT accept corporate donations. http://neurodiver Poor Mark S Probert, Merrick, NY > That is a policy which OTHER medical organizations > might learn from. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > - Show quoted text - > >> Mark S Probert keeps asking others for proof, when he has a long list of > >> claims he has NEVER proven. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > You should also note that the AAPS does not represent mainstream > medicine. And, anyone, whether or not that person a doctor, may join. Jeff, the AAPS does not represent mainstream anything. http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/ Their attorney is Andrew Schlafley. >>> Mark S Probert keeps asking others for proof, when he has a long list of >>> claims he has NEVER proven. [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > other words, AAPS is an HONEST group. I understand that you, Jeff, have > trouble with honest information. > > Mark S Probert keeps asking others for proof, when he has a long list of > > claims he has NEVER proven. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > http://www.aapsonline.org/press/nr-11-16-07.php The AAPS is NOT a medical organization, but a political one. See: http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/ See the blog that agrees with him and his sick thinking. >>>>>>>> http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html >>>>>>>> Dear All [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Paying a fine is not the same as freeloading off of parents who have > their child vaccinated. Paying a fine IS the same as not getting a public benefit to which a family would be qualifying. >>> Besides, I bet >>>> not sending a child to school is not an option, it will result in the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Quite different. The parents are not willing to do the work of > homeschooling but want to have the benefit of herd immunity. An idle attempt at reading their minds. Most are unable to homeschool. What they want is a moot point. By the way, it has nothing to do with herd immunity? Herd immunity means protecting those who are not immune, right? And these unvaccnated children are not a danger, correct? >> How is that different from an annual fine? > > So, let's put it this way...you believe that a parent who is not > willing to have their child vaccinated has the right to have their kid > attend school at the public's expense, while they do not contribute > their share to herd immunity? See below about herd immunity. By the way, they pay taxes for the school, why should they be robbed of their share? Oh, and by the way tetanus vaccine is not related to herd immunity at all, since tetanus is not contagious. (Disclaimer: under no circumstances should this statement be interpreted as disapproval or approval of tetanus vaccinations.) >>> So the choice is: vaccinate or >>>> lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Prove that mumps vaccination DESTROYS herd immunity. That is the basis > of your claim. Now, prove it. I think you will not accept ANY proofs at all. Maybe you can give an idea what kind of proof could be sufficient. So, let's reiterate the facts. 100% immune population is being replaced with 90% immune population. Current immunity rate for mumps is above 90% because older immune people are still around. But it is slowly diminishing. At college campuses it is about 90%. Mumps outbreaks on college campuses would be unthinkable before mass vaccinations. Now they are an inevitable fact of life. It should be noted that the lower immunity rate is not the only risk factor on campuses. Others are more crowded living, more, let's put it this way, physical contacts etc. >>>> The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children >>>> born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > But I was never exposed. Never. How do you know? Only a lab test could show. In some Communist countries, preschool kids could go to summer camp, catch mumps or chickenpox and the personnel would not tell the parents. Was it the practice in the country where you were born? And here in the USA, only some 200,000 or 300,000 cases of mumps were reported annually - a small fraction of actual cases. Most were not reported. I would not be surprised if some people think they were not exposed while this is not the case for them. >> Either you are lying or your parents did not tell you. > > Or I am telling the truth and you cannot handle it. That is most > likely the correct answer. >> The fact that you were born abroad either is irrelevant (if you are >> lying) or makes your argument irrelevant (if you do not). > > Why do you ASSume I am lying? Oh, that's right, I do not fit into your > warped scheme of things. Too bad. Another barrage of insults. And I did not even ASSume that you are lying, only that it is possible that you are lying or mistaken. Nothing to say, eh? Anyway: even if you were not really exposed you are not in danger because you congregate mostly with people your age who are - yes! - immune. Herd immunity in a small community. But if you had kids in college who could get infected on campus and come to your home before they knew about infection - then you could be in danger. Hint: an outbreak starts on a campus but not all the infected are college students, guess who might be the rest? >>>> The number of those infected is much smaller than before mass mumps >>>> vaccination. But the problem is that mumps is much harder on adults than [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > there is no benefit from the vaccine. However, not getting mumps may > prevent a whole host of problems. Or introduce some (see above). >> Who is more likely to get these problems: a child or an adult? >> What about "a mumps shot gives orchitis a chance"? > > When a teen gets mumps, bad things happen. Look them up. Yep. If he gets mumps before becoming a teen these things will not happen. If he gets a vaccine then they may happen. So, yes, it makes sense to get a vaccine if he did not get mumps by, say, start of school. >>>> In the meantime, mumps herd immunity is being eroded as older immune >>>> people are replaced with 90% immune people. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - > >>>>>>>>http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html > >>>>>>>> Dear All [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Paying a fine IS the same as not getting a public benefit to which a > family would be qualifying. No, it is NOT the same. They drop out of the herd, and thus impinge on herd immunity. > >>> Besides, I bet > >>>> not sending a child to school is not an option, it will result in the [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > An idle attempt at reading their minds. Most are unable to homeschool. > What they want is a moot point. No, it is neither an attempt at reading their minds or a moot point. The simple fact is that they want the benefits of the tax dollar, but do not want to play by the rules that their neighbors are. I call this freeloading. > By the way, it has nothing to do with herd immunity? Herd immunity means > protecting those who are not immune, right? And these unvaccnated > children are not a danger, correct? Wrong. The unvaccinated children are a danger to those children who have valid medical reasons why they cannot be vaccinated. > >> How is that different from an annual fine? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > See below about herd immunity. By the way, they pay taxes for the > school, why should they be robbed of their share? Paying taxes are but one element of living in a community. > Oh, and by the way tetanus vaccine is not related to herd immunity at > all, since tetanus is not contagious. (Disclaimer: under no > circumstances should this statement be interpreted as disapproval or > approval of tetanus vaccinations.) So, it is an irrelevant point on your part. > >>> So the choice is: vaccinate or > >>>> lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I think you will not accept ANY proofs at all. Maybe you can give an > idea what kind of proof could be sufficient. So far, you have not submitted any proof that I can evaluate whether I should reject it or not. > So, let's reiterate the facts. Nice weasel. > 100% immune population is being replaced with 90% immune population. > Current immunity rate for mumps is above 90% because older immune people [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > on campuses. Others are more crowded living, more, let's put it this > way, physical contacts etc. Many claims there, but not one scintilla of proof. YOUR claiming that there are facts is not proof of validity. > >>>> The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children > >>>> born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > How do you know? Only a lab test could show. Because I had the lab test a little over ten years ago. > In some Communist countries, preschool kids could go to summer camp, > catch mumps or chickenpox and the personnel would not tell the parents. > Was it the practice in the country where you were born? Born in the USofA. > And here in the USA, only some 200,000 or 300,000 cases of mumps were > reported annually - a small fraction of actual cases. Most were not > reported. I would not be surprised if some people think they were not > exposed while this is not the case for them. So? What has that got to do with the issue of herd immunity. You care clearly diverting. > >> Either you are lying or your parents did not tell you. > > > Or I am telling the truth and you cannot handle it. That is most > > likely the correct answer. Aha, no response. > >> The fact that you were born abroad either is irrelevant (if you are > >> lying) or makes your argument irrelevant (if you do not). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Another barrage of insults. Merely pointing out your ILLogic. > And I did not even ASSume that you are > lying, only that it is possible that you are lying or mistaken. > Nothing to say, eh? Plenty to say, when you provide some proof other than your idle conjecture. Note, calling what you have posted "idle conjecture" is not an ad hominem, since I a commenting directly on your lack of factual proof. > Anyway: even if you were not really exposed you are not in danger > because you congregate mostly with people your age who are - yes! - > immune. Again, assuming. I have a child with special needs, who has friends who are medically not permitted to have vaccinations. > Herd immunity in a small community. But if you had kids in > college who could get infected on campus and come to your home before > they knew about infection - then you could be in danger. Hint: an > outbreak starts on a campus but not all the infected are college > students, guess who might be the rest? First, show that there are outbreaks like you claim. > >>>> The number of those infected is much smaller than before mass mumps > >>>> vaccination. But the problem is that mumps is much harder on adults than [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Or introduce some (see above). I saw above, and your "problems" are idle conjecture. > >> Who is more likely to get these problems: a child or an adult? > >> What about "a mumps shot gives orchitis a chance"? [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > - Show quoted text - >>>>>>>>>> http://whale.to/vaccine/petition_against_forced_vaccines.html >>>>>>>>>> Dear All [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > No, it is NOT the same. They drop out of the herd, and thus impinge on > herd immunity. Herd immunity? You pretend not to understand. >>>>> Besides, I bet >>>>>> not sending a child to school is not an option, it will result in the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > do not want to play by the rules that their neighbors are. I call this > freeloading. Great! Let's take it one small step further: if a school tells parents that they must give their child Ritalin or something else, they must comply or lose tax credits and have their child kicked out of school. Hey, they should play by the rules. And here, boys and girls, comes Mark P. strongly in favor of this proposal. How do I know? Simple. His undeclared motto is "What is good for pharmaceutical industry is good for your kids". Or maybe he will avoid the question by saying "there is no such proposal yet, and I am not going to tell whether I would support it". >> By the way, it has nothing to do with herd immunity? Herd immunity means >> protecting those who are not immune, right? And these unvaccnated [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > So, it is an irrelevant point on your part. No, it's not. I am against forced vaccinations, including tetanus. You are for forced tetanus vaccination though it has nothing to do with herd immunity. >>>>> So the choice is: vaccinate or >>>>>> lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Many claims there, but not one scintilla of proof. YOUR claiming that > there are facts is not proof of validity. Claim: before vaccinations there was 100% immunity. Claim: mumps vaccine is effective 90% after 2 shots. Claim: there were no mumps outbreaks on college campuses before total mumps vaccinations. Claim: such outbreaks are occurring now, and almost all affected are vaccinated. I rest my case. Readers can make their minds. >>>>>> The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children >>>>>> born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Because I had the lab test a little over ten years ago. Then why did not YOU get a mumps shot and join the herd? Let's zip your Social Security credits, you must play by the rules. Nah, I think you are not guilty of that grave sin but only of a lesser sin of making things up. >> In some Communist countries, preschool kids could go to summer camp, >> catch mumps or chickenpox and the personnel would not tell the parents. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > So? What has that got to do with the issue of herd immunity. You care > clearly diverting. The issue here is that people do not always know if they had mumps. >>>> Either you are lying or your parents did not tell you. >>> Or I am telling the truth and you cannot handle it. That is most [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > First, show that there are outbreaks like you claim. I posted a link from cdc.gov about outbreaks. I can post more but unlike you I do not have as much time for posting. >>>>>> The number of those infected is much smaller than before mass mumps >>>>>> vaccination. But the problem is that mumps is much harder on adults than [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] >> >> - Show quoted text - > > No, it is neither an attempt at reading their minds or a moot point. > > The simple fact is that they want the benefits of the tax dollar, but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > comply or lose tax credits and have their child kicked out of school. > Hey, they should play by the rules. Your analogy sucks. Let me suggest a course in logic. You cannot compare vaccination and medication since the child who is vaccinated is adding to the overall protection of the school community. The child who is prescribed methylphenidate is not adding to the overall protection of the school community. You have effectively compared apples and oranges. > And here, boys and girls, Try to write for adults. comes Mark P. strongly in favor of this > proposal. How do I know? Simple. His undeclared motto is "What is good > for pharmaceutical industry is good for your kids". No, asswipe, you are quite wrong. While I am a stong advocate for proper medication when warranted, I do not advocate any school official requiring the use of medication, and, as a parent advocate in my community, have actively opposed any attempt to do so. The decision to *medicate* a child is between the parent and the doctor. Period. Note, I referred to you as "asswipe" since you raised a strawman argument claiming that you know what I think. When you do that, you get what I dish. > Or maybe he will avoid the question by saying "there is no such proposal > yet, and I am not going to tell whether I would support it". More qualification for asswipe. > >> By the way, it has nothing to do with herd immunity? Herd immunity means > >> protecting those who are not immune, right? And these unvaccnated > >> children are not a danger, correct? > > > Wrong. The unvaccinated children are a danger to those children who > > have valid medical reasons why they cannot be vaccinated. OOPS....no comment by asswipe. > >>>> How is that different from an annual fine? > >>> So, let's put it this way...you believe that a parent who is not [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > You are for forced tetanus vaccination though it has nothing to do with > herd immunity. Have you ever seen anyone with tetanus? > >>>>> So the choice is: vaccinate or > >>>>>> lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Claim: before vaccinations there was 100% immunity. No facts to prove that. > Claim: mumps vaccine is effective 90% after 2 shots. So? No vaccine is 100% effective. Never claimed there was. > Claim: there were no mumps outbreaks on college campuses before total > mumps vaccinations. Prove it. > Claim: such outbreaks are occurring now, and almost all affected are > vaccinated. Prove it. > I rest my case. Readers can make their minds. Readers will be looking for your facts to support your claims. So far, you are factually-challenged. > >>>>>> The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children > >>>>>> born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Then why did not YOU get a mumps shot and join the herd? There was no need to as I have a low exposure profile, and I am way past the dangers of puberty. Let's zip your > Social Security credits, you must play by the rules. Nah, I think you > are not guilty of that grave sin but only of a lesser sin of making > things up. Nope. Do not impute YOU failings to others. > >> In some Communist countries, preschool kids could go to summer camp, > >> catch mumps or chickenpox and the personnel would not tell the parents. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > The issue here is that people do not always know if they had mumps. However, it is clear that you have no facts. That is not open for dispute. "Mark Probert" <mark.probert@gmail.com> wrote >asswipe > When you do that, you get what I dish. YOU and YOU alone are responsible for YOUR posts. >asswipe. >asswipe. > Do not impute YOU failings to others. Now, there is a keeper. >>> No, it is neither an attempt at reading their minds or a moot point. >>> The simple fact is that they want the benefits of the tax dollar, but [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > to the overall protection of the school community. You have > effectively compared apples and oranges. How about tetanus vaccine? Same thing. >> And here, boys and girls, > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > argument claiming that you know what I think. When you do that, you > get what I dish. Let's test your alleged beliefs for consistency. 1. Should a minor be able to get a prescription drug (say, Ritalin) from a doctor without consent or knowledge of his / her parents? (And I do not mean accidents or other emergency situations or even abortions) 2. Same question for a non-mandatory vaccine. 3. If the answers are different could you please kindly explain why. >> Or maybe he will avoid the question by saying "there is no such proposal >> yet, and I am not going to tell whether I would support it". > > More qualification for asswipe. More insults. >>>> By the way, it has nothing to do with herd immunity? Herd immunity means >>>> protecting those who are not immune, right? And these unvaccnated [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > OOPS....no comment by asswipe. YOU are a danger to these children, dear Mark. >>>>>> How is that different from an annual fine? >>>>> So, let's put it this way...you believe that a parent who is not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Have you ever seen anyone with tetanus? You cannot tie tetanus vaccine to herd immunity, so you want to chnge the topic. >>>>>>> So the choice is: vaccinate or >>>>>>>> lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > No facts to prove that. Ok, the rate was like 99.99% but for CDC a birth date before 1956 is considered a proof of mumps immunity. Any doubts? >> Claim: mumps vaccine is effective 90% after 2 shots. > > So? No vaccine is 100% effective. Never claimed there was. Sounds like a PR line, an excuse for a vaccine with leaves too many people without immunity. Heck, why does not measles affect vaccinated people? Or smallpox? Yes, there are vaccines that are 100% or virtually 100% effective. There are other vaccines that are not very effective and are not promoted as 100% effective (flu). People taking them are informed that they still can get sick. And there are relatively lousy vaccines that are promoted as effective. People find out that mumps vaccine is not 100% effective only when they or someone they know gets sick. >> Claim: there were no mumps outbreaks on college campuses before total >> mumps vaccinations. > > Prove it. Have you heard about any? >> Claim: such outbreaks are occurring now, and almost all affected are >> vaccinated. > > Prove it. Oh, c'mon. Stop pretending to be in denial. Here is the first page coming from googling for "mumps outbreak". http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/04/28/hlsa0428.htm *************************************************** Investigators who took a close look at the reasons behind the 6,584 cases of mumps that hit Midwestern states in March through May of 2006 found that a surprisingly large percentage of those who contracted the illness had received the recommended two doses of the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine. *************************************************** >> I rest my case. Readers can make their minds. > > Readers will be looking for your facts to support your claims. Agreed. Facts are very easy to find. So far, > you are factually-challenged. Bwahaha. >>>>>>>> The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children >>>>>>>> born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > There was no need to as I have a low exposure profile, and I am way > past the dangers of puberty. You are past puberty and this is exactly why you can get mumps orchitis. And even die from it. And you are a danger to justifiably unvaccinated. > Let's zip your >> Social Security credits, you must play by the rules. Nah, I think you >> are not guilty of that grave sin but only of a lesser sin of making >> things up. > > Nope. Do not impute YOU failings to others. It seems very weird that one would do a lab test intending not to act on its results. If you were not going to be vaccinated then why the test? You are probably lying; if not then you believe that only others, and not you, should play by the rules. >>>> In some Communist countries, preschool kids could go to summer camp, >>>> catch mumps or chickenpox and the personnel would not tell the parents. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > However, it is clear that you have no facts. That is not open for > dispute. You are afraid of facts and deny their very existence. > Sounds like a PR line, an excuse for a vaccine with leaves too many > people without immunity. Immunity is not the be-all and end-all of epidemiology. Freedom from disease is much closer. If I understand your thesis correctly, you're in favor of attaining 100% immunity at the cost of living forever with the disease and its consequences. > Heck, why does not measles affect vaccinated people? Or smallpox? Smallpox *doesn't* affect vaccinated people -- any more. That seems to me a very desirable objective, and one that is reasonably attainable for measles, mumps, and several other diseases. Measles is already gone from the western hemisphere except for sporadic outbreaks triggered by travelers. Measles is extremely contagious -- why are those outbreaks so small? > Yes, there are vaccines that are 100% or virtually 100% effective. > There are other vaccines that are not very effective and are not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > People find out that mumps vaccine is not 100% effective only when they > or someone they know gets sick. Looking at the incidence of mumps over the years, it sure looks to me like the vaccine is effective. Do you want absolute, guaranteed, no two ways about it, cast iron, don't bother calculating the odds certainty? Death. Taxes. Everything else is a gamble. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ > > Sounds like a PR line, an excuse for a vaccine with leaves too many > > people without immunity. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | > +-------- D. C. Sessions <d...@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ No good D.C., your position has more holes in it than an old fashioned chicken wire fence. Why not start reading up on an INTELLIGENT and rational theory of disease and immunity, one that takes into account the ENTIRE PERSON, such as the theory that Homeopathy has developed. Vaccination, is an accident that seemed to work - UNTIL the grave consequences of even successful vaccinations are gradually coming to be known. That's not to mention the "unsuccessful ones, the ones that "don't take". Citizen Jimserac > Why not start reading up on an INTELLIGENT and > rational theory of disease and immunity, one > that takes into account the ENTIRE PERSON, > such as the theory that Homeopathy has > developed. Homeopathy has a theory of disease? Not according to Hahnemann -- he was quite clear that root causes aren't worth pursuing. Immunity is also no part of homeopathy, because again it relates to causes. Per Hahnemann, a disease is nothing more nor less than a collection of symptoms. > Vaccination, is an accident that seemed to work - > UNTIL the grave consequences of even > successful vaccinations are gradually coming > to be known. That's not to mention > the "unsuccessful ones, the ones that "don't take". "Grave consequences" such as the extinction of /varicella/ ? | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ >> Sounds like a PR line, an excuse for a vaccine with leaves too many >> people without immunity. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > of attaining 100% immunity at the cost of living forever > with the disease and its consequences. No, you do not understand my thesis correctly. My thesis is: for SOME diseases, like mumps, vaccines, or more precisely, aggressive vaccination schedule do more harm than good. With mumps, there is a confluence of two important factors. First, mumps is harder on adults than children. For example, only adults can get mumps orchitis. Another factor is that the vaccine is only 90% effective (80% after a single shot). Yet the people do not know that, they think they are immune, and it affects their behavior. Outbreaks become inevitable, and the disease affects mostly vaccinated adults. I am not advocating skipping all vaccinations, like measles vaccination. As for mumps, I am not advocating skipping it either but delaying it until school. This way, most kids will catch the disease and become immune. Those who do not should get a mumps shot, so they will be less likely to catch it in adult life. >> Heck, why does not measles affect vaccinated people? Or smallpox? > > Smallpox *doesn't* affect vaccinated people -- any more. Any more? Do you mean it DID affect vaccinated people? That's news. These days, smallpox does not affect non-vaccinated people either, it is confined to bio-weapons labs. > That seems to me a very desirable objective, and one that > is reasonably attainable for measles, mumps, and several > other diseases. Measles is already gone from the western > hemisphere except for sporadic outbreaks triggered by > travelers. The vaccination does not deserve all the credit. Cholera is also gone, and so is bubonic plague, and no vaccine can be credited for that. > Measles is extremely contagious -- why are those outbreaks > so small? Maybe because the measles vaccine is effective. And mumps vaccine is not. >> Yes, there are vaccines that are 100% or virtually 100% effective. >> There are other vaccines that are not very effective and are not [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Looking at the incidence of mumps over the years, it sure > looks to me like the vaccine is effective. What matters is not incidence of mumps but incidence of serious complications. Mumps without complications is not a public health problem even if 100% of children catch it. The question is: do more complications result from existing vaccination policy? For the reasons stated above it seems likely. Admittedly, this is speculation, hard numbers are needed to prove or disprove it. > Do you want absolute, guaranteed, no two ways about it, > cast iron, don't bother calculating the odds certainty? > Death. Taxes. Everything else is a gamble. When gambling is inevitable one needs to know real risks in real numbers and not get fear mongering instead. >>> Sounds like a PR line, an excuse for a vaccine with leaves too many >>> people without immunity. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > With mumps, there is a confluence of two important factors. First, mumps > is harder on adults than children. Relatively, yes. All in all, though, "no mumps at all" is best. > For example, only adults can get > mumps orchitis. Wrong -- it happens in kids, too -- just less often than in adults. > Another factor is that the vaccine is only 90% effective > (80% after a single shot). Yet the people do not know that, they think > they are immune, and it affects their behavior. Outbreaks become > inevitable, and the disease affects mostly vaccinated adults. When was the last smallpox outbreak? As for "mostly vaccinated adults," I present to you the number of US soldiers hospitalized for disease. Mumps was third after influenza and gonorrhea. I suspect that very few of them were either children or vaccinated. Again, the best protection for adults is to not be exposed to the virus in the first place. > I am not advocating skipping all vaccinations, like measles vaccination. The exact argument you are making with regard to mumps is also applied by others to measles: it's better to have lifelong immunity from the wild virus than to have less long-lasting immunity from the vaccine, outbreaks are inevitable, etc. > As for mumps, I am not advocating skipping it either but delaying it > until school. This way, most kids will catch the disease and become > immune. Those who do not should get a mumps shot, so they will be less > likely to catch it in adult life. In other words, you want to restore wild mumps to the Western Hemisphere, just as it was prior to the vaccine. That way, we can have all the joys that we had prior to the vaccine, including meningitis, deafness, myocarditis, etc. >>> Heck, why does not measles affect vaccinated people? Or smallpox? >> >> Smallpox *doesn't* affect vaccinated people -- any more. I recall that I meant to write "unvaccinated" but it works both ways. In any case, measles vaccination isn't perfect, but measles outbreaks in the Western Hemisphere don't get very far. > Any more? Do you mean it DID affect vaccinated people? That's news. > These days, smallpox does not affect non-vaccinated people either, it is > confined to bio-weapons labs. Sure, smallpox affected vaccinated people. Nothing is perfect in an imperfect Universe. It just was /less/ /likely/ to affect them, and when it did it was less severe. You think maybe that it voluntarily limited itself to those lab samples? Maybe that vaccination had no part in that? (After all, that's what we hear a lot from the whale.to gang.) Now, wouldn't it be nice if we could do the same with mumps? >> That seems to me a very desirable objective, and one that >> is reasonably attainable for measles, mumps, and several [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The vaccination does not deserve all the credit. Cholera is also gone, > and so is bubonic plague, and no vaccine can be credited for that. Cholera is not gone from (to name one) Chile. Bubonic plague is far from gone -- we had a death from it in my home State last year and will have more. It's endemic on the Colorado Plateau. In both cases we mostly interrupted its mechanism of transmission (fecal-oral and fleas, respectively.) In the case of measles and mumps, that "mode of transmission" is susceptible human beings. >> Measles is extremely contagious -- why are those outbreaks >> so small? > > Maybe because the measles vaccine is effective. And mumps vaccine is not. By all means propose another reason for the drop in mumps cases from 1968 to present. >>> Yes, there are vaccines that are 100% or virtually 100% effective. >>> There are other vaccines that are not very effective and are not [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > stated above it seems likely. Admittedly, this is speculation, hard > numbers are needed to prove or disprove it. Those numbers are available if you look. Mumps mortality from 1979-1998 by age group: 10-14 years 1 15-19 years 1 25-34 years 2 35-44 years 2 55-64 years 1 65-74 years 1 75-84 years 8 85+ years 5 Note that the mortality was *not* highest in the adults who might be expected to have been vaccinated. >> Do you want absolute, guaranteed, no two ways about it, >> cast iron, don't bother calculating the odds certainty? >> Death. Taxes. Everything else is a gamble. > > When gambling is inevitable one needs to know real risks in real numbers > and not get fear mongering instead. Which is what epidemiology is all about. It's just remotely possible that not all epidemiologists are drooling idiots and one or two might actually have learned a thing or two. | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ >>>> Sounds like a PR line, an excuse for a vaccine with leaves too many >>>> people without immunity. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Relatively, yes. All in all, though, "no mumps at all" > is best. Yes. But it is not likely to happen. That requires eradicating mumps worldwide. It requires cooperation from the third world but there the health ministers have much more important things to worry about. >> For example, only adults can get >> mumps orchitis. > > Wrong -- it happens in kids, too -- just less often than > in adults. Correction: only adults can have mumps orchtitis with long term consequences, like a dysfunctional testicle. >> Another factor is that the vaccine is only 90% effective >> (80% after a single shot). Yet the people do not know that, they think >> they are immune, and it affects their behavior. Outbreaks become >> inevitable, and the disease affects mostly vaccinated adults. > > When was the last smallpox outbreak? Did I say smallpox vaccine is 90% effective? No, I did not. > As for "mostly vaccinated adults," I present to you the > number of US soldiers hospitalized for disease. Mumps > was third after influenza and gonorrhea. I suspect that > very few of them were either children or vaccinated. I am talking about these times, after introduction of the vaccine. Outbreaks become inevitable - and not on the front lines where sanitation conditions are poor, but on college campuses. > Again, the best protection for adults is to not be exposed > to the virus in the first place. Good in theory. What about reality? >> I am not advocating skipping all vaccinations, like measles vaccination. > > The exact argument you are making with regard to mumps is > also applied by others to measles: it's better to have lifelong > immunity from the wild virus than to have less long-lasting > immunity from the vaccine, outbreaks are inevitable, etc. I am not aware of any vaccinated people catching measles. Or about higher rate of complications for adults. >> As for mumps, I am not advocating skipping it either but delaying it >> until school. This way, most kids will catch the disease and become [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > In other words, you want to restore wild mumps to the Western > Hemisphere, just as it was prior to the vaccine. Important correction: with vaccination of those who did not get the disease by a certain age (e.g. 6 years) > That way, > we can have all the joys that we had prior to the vaccine, > including meningitis, deafness, myocarditis, etc. Do you have any numbers? >>>> Heck, why does not measles affect vaccinated people? Or smallpox? >>> Smallpox *doesn't* affect vaccinated people -- any more. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > but measles outbreaks in the Western Hemisphere don't get > very far. Isn't perfect? I haven't heard of vaccinated people getting measles. All the outbreaks affect exclusively unvaccinated people. >> Any more? Do you mean it DID affect vaccinated people? That's news. >> These days, smallpox does not affect non-vaccinated people either, it is >> confined to bio-weapons labs. > > Sure, smallpox affected vaccinated people. I mean vaccinated against smallpox. If you have any corroborating evidence I would like to see it. > Nothing is perfect > in an imperfect Universe. It just was /less/ /likely/ to > affect them, and when it did it was less severe. Evidence please. Was it 99.99% effective? > You think maybe that it voluntarily limited itself to those > lab samples? Maybe that vaccination had no part in that? > (After all, that's what we hear a lot from the whale.to gang.) > > Now, wouldn't it be nice if we could do the same with mumps? In theory, yes. But smallpox is deadly, and winning cooperation of the third world was easy. Mumps is usually a mild disease. Do you know that a particular MMR vaccine that was not used in the West but was exported to Brazil was causing meningitis there in 1992? Events like this do not help gaining trust and cooperation. Also, mumps can easily become a terrorist's weapon. It will be safe to handle. Not many bodies if any but some visible economic damage. >>> That seems to me a very desirable objective, and one that >>> is reasonably attainable for measles, mumps, and several [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > far from gone -- we had a death from it in my home State last > year and will have more. It's endemic on the Colorado Plateau. Let's say "mostly gone", or dramatically reduced. Without vaccines. > In both cases we mostly interrupted its mechanism of transmission > (fecal-oral and fleas, respectively.) In the case of measles and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > By all means propose another reason for the drop in mumps cases > from 1968 to present. Drop in mumps cases is the result of vaccination. A new phenomenon - outbreaks in high school and on college campuses - is also the result of vaccination and the Law of Unintended Consequences. The jury is out on what is the lesser evil because we did not see the full extent of the abovementioned law yet. Once the vaccinated people reach age at which they are more susceptible to death from mumps we will see. >>>> Yes, there are vaccines that are 100% or virtually 100% effective. >>>> There are other vaccines that are not very effective and are not [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Note that the mortality was *not* highest in the adults who > might be expected to have been vaccinated. It is simply highest in the older adults! The majority of people between 75-84 were immune, those that were not immune could die. Once this group has 10% of people that are not immune there will be more deaths. >>> Do you want absolute, guaranteed, no two ways about it, >>> cast iron, don't bother calculating the odds certainty? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > possible that not all epidemiologists are drooling idiots and > one or two might actually have learned a thing or two. Sometimes, everybody is missing something obvious (like total exposure to thimerosal that was gradually increasing). And sometimes, prevailing scientific opinions change. >>>>> Sounds like a PR line, an excuse for a vaccine with leaves too many >>>>> people without immunity. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > worldwide. It requires cooperation from the third world but there the > health ministers have much more important things to worry about. You've just explained why smallpox couldn't be eradicated and why measles couldn't be eradicated in the western hemisphere. >>> For example, only adults can get >>> mumps orchitis. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Correction: only adults can have mumps orchtitis with long term > consequences, like a dysfunctional testicle. Once again, not so. >>> Another factor is that the vaccine is only 90% effective >>> (80% after a single shot). Yet the people do not know that, they think [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Did I say smallpox vaccine is 90% effective? No, I did not. You stated that "only 90% effective" leads to inevitable outbreaks. The smallpox vaccine, like any vaccine, is only about that effective. >> As for "mostly vaccinated adults," I present to you the >> number of US soldiers hospitalized for disease. Mumps >> was third after influenza and gonorrhea. I suspect that >> very few of them were either children or vaccinated. > > I am talking about these times, after introduction of the vaccine. You're not thinking here. Your thesis is that the vaccine produces *less* immunity in college age adults than the wild virus does. I present to you that the wild virus, when common, causes so little immunity in adults of the same age that mumps was right up there with the 1918 flu epidemic and gonorrhea among soldiers. Your proposed "solution" to the problem of young-adult mumps has been tried. It doesn't work. > Outbreaks become inevitable - and not on the front lines where > sanitation conditions are poor, but on college campuses. Mumps has nothing to do with sanitation -- just like gonorrhea. >> Again, the best protection for adults is to not be exposed >> to the virus in the first place. > > Good in theory. What about reality? The reality is that it is working. Have a look at the reported cases of mumps in the USA -- most people never get near one. If there were fewer idiots who insisted on keeping their little precious darlings safe from the horrors of MMR, there would be a lot fewer, since the unvaccinated tend to cluster together. >>> I am not advocating skipping all vaccinations, like measles vaccination. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I am not aware of any vaccinated people catching measles. Or about > higher rate of complications for adults. You're not listening to Meryl Dorey or the other antivaccination types -- they'll tell you that measles mostly happens to the vaccinated. As for the relative case mortality from measles, "measles case mortality rates decline sharply with age in the first few months and early years of life, but then increase again towards adult years so that by early adulthood the risk is of a similar order to that seen in infants only a few months old and case mortality rates appear to continue to increase towards old age." -- /Handbook of Models for Human Aging/, P. Michael Conn, 2006. >>> As for mumps, I am not advocating skipping it either but delaying it >>> until school. This way, most kids will catch the disease and become [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Important correction: with vaccination of those who did not get the > disease by a certain age (e.g. 6 years) A distinction without a difference. You still want to greatly increase the population exposure to wild mumps -- and thus go right back to the WW I consequences to young adults. >> That way, >> we can have all the joys that we had prior to the vaccine, >> including meningitis, deafness, myocarditis, etc. > > Do you have any numbers? Long list in the Pink Book. >>>>> Heck, why does not measles affect vaccinated people? Or smallpox? >>>> Smallpox *doesn't* affect vaccinated people -- any more. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Isn't perfect? I haven't heard of vaccinated people getting measles. > All the outbreaks affect exclusively unvaccinated people. See above. >>> Any more? Do you mean it DID affect vaccinated people? That's news. >>> These days, smallpox does not affect non-vaccinated people either, it is [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I mean vaccinated against smallpox. If you have any corroborating > evidence I would like to see it. Oh, heavens -- that's one thing that the antivaccination types have at least partly right. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/smallpox.pdf >> Nothing is perfect >> in an imperfect Universe. It just was /less/ /likely/ to >> affect them, and when it did it was less severe. > > Evidence please. Was it 99.99% effective? More like 95%, with immunity waning over time. The Boston smallpox epidemic actually produced some reasonable statistics. >> You think maybe that it voluntarily limited itself to those >> lab samples? Maybe that vaccination had no part in that? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Also, mumps can easily become a terrorist's weapon. It will be safe to > handle. Not many bodies if any but some visible economic damage. Let me understand this: you state that spreading mumps would be a useful terrorist tactic, and then turn around and propose making it nearly universal among children. Boggle. Your arguments against mumps cooperation apply equally to measles -- but the western hemisphere, Brazil included, has been free of native measles for quite a while. >>>> Measles is extremely contagious -- why are those outbreaks >>>> so small? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A new phenomenon - outbreaks in high school and on college campuses - is > also the result of vaccination and the Law of Unintended Consequences. Those outbreaks are nothing new; what's new is that the background of much higher rates in the rest of the population is not hiding them. See WW I again. > The jury is out on what is the lesser evil because we did not see the > full extent of the abovementioned law yet. Once the vaccinated people > reach age at which they are more susceptible to death from mumps we will > see. When the US gets as many young-adult cases (in a vastly larger population) as it did in 1918, you can start to worry. >>>>> Yes, there are vaccines that are 100% or virtually 100% effective. >>>>> There are other vaccines that are not very effective and are not [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > Once this group has 10% of people that are not immune there will be more > deaths. Not if they aren't exposed. Those numbers above are from a population with almost no circulating wild virus, and the absolute best protection for anyone is to NOT BE EXPOSED. You want to expose more people. >>>> Do you want absolute, guaranteed, no two ways about it, >>>> cast iron, don't bother calculating the odds certainty? [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > And sometimes, prevailing scientific opinions change. And you somehow know, just *know*, that this is one of those times? | "Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against | | unintelligible propositions. Ideas must be distinct | | before reason can act on them" -- Thomas Jefferson | +-------- D. C. Sessions <dcs@lumbercartel.com> ---------+ >>> Relatively, yes. All in all, though, "no mumps at all" >>> is best. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and why measles couldn't be eradicated in the western > hemisphere. Wrong. Third world governments do not think much about mumps but they did think about smallpox, and were eager to cooperate. And the vaccine was sufficiently effective. As for measles: measles vaccine is sufficiently effective to prevent outbreaks. Not so with mumps. >>>> For example, only adults can get >>>> mumps orchitis. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Once again, not so. Once again, it is so. From http://www.immune.org.nz/?t=754: "Up to 50% of post-pubertal males experience "orchitis," or testicular inflammation, as a complication of mumps". If you have information about children getting orchitis with a permanent damage to a testicle I want to see it. >>>> Another factor is that the vaccine is only 90% effective >>>> (80% after a single shot). Yet the people do not know that, they think [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > outbreaks. The smallpox vaccine, like any vaccine, is > only about that effective. Source please. >>> As for "mostly vaccinated adults," I present to you the >>> number of US soldiers hospitalized for disease. Mumps [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > was right up there with the 1918 flu epidemic and gonorrhea > among soldiers. First: the wild mumps virus leaves 100% lifetime immunity, and nobody is disputing that. Second: there were 230356 cases of mumps among US soldiers in WW1. That number was exceeded only by flu and "venereal disease". That was 5.58% of all soldiers. They did not have mumps in the childhood. Assuming that most who was not immune to mumps got it (a reasonable assumption for the crowded conditions in the trenches), this is how many were not immune, and 94% were immune. Delaying vaccination until 6 could increase this number to 99%. > Your proposed "solution" to the problem of young-adult mumps > has been tried. It doesn't work. No, it was not tried. >> Outbreaks become inevitable - and not on the front lines where >> sanitation conditions are poor, but on college campuses. > > Mumps has nothing to do with sanitation -- just like gonorrhea. It has to do with crowded living. It is more crowded in the trenches than elsewhere. >>> Again, the best protection for adults is to not be exposed >>> to the virus in the first place. >> Good in theory. What about reality? > > The reality is that it is working. Have a look at the reported > cases of mumps in the USA -- most people never get near one. How about complications? There are fewer cases of mumps but the complications after infections are more likely than before. I would like to see the absolute numbers. > If there were fewer idiots who insisted on keeping their little > precious darlings safe from the horrors of MMR, there would be > a lot fewer, since the unvaccinated tend to cluster together. This is nonsense. Most infected were vaccinated. With MMR. Twice. Here is a link: http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/04/28/hlsa0428.htm >>>> I am not advocating skipping all vaccinations, like measles vaccination. >>> The exact argument you are making with regard to mumps is [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > types -- they'll tell you that measles mostly happens to the > vaccinated. I do not know who she is and do not care what she says. I doubt she said that however. Got a link? > As for the relative case mortality from measles, > "measles case mortality rates decline sharply with age in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > towards old age." -- /Handbook of Models for Human Aging/, > P. Michael Conn, 2006. Sounds plausible and may well be true. So? >>>> As for mumps, I am not advocating skipping it either but delaying it >>>> until school. This way, most kids will catch the disease and become [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > increase the population exposure to wild mumps -- and thus go > right back to the WW I consequences to young adults. Young adults would be vaccinated if not naturally immune. >>> That way, >>> we can have all the joys that we had prior to the vaccine, >>> including meningitis, deafness, myocarditis, etc. >> Do you have any numbers? > > Long list in the Pink Book. Got a link? Would be nice. >>>>>> Heck, why does not measles affect vaccinated people? Or smallpox? >>>>> Smallpox *doesn't* affect vaccinated people -- any more. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > See above. ??? Measles outbreaks affect exclusively unvaccinated people, is there evidence to the contrary? This is not the case with mumps. >>>> Any more? Do you mean it DID affect vaccinated people? That's news. >>>> These days, smallpox does not affect non-vaccinated people either, it is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > have at least partly right. > http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/smallpox.pdf Let's see. Epidemiologic studies demonstrated that a high level of protection (nearly 100%) against smallpox persists for up to 5 years after primary vaccination, and substantial but waning immunity for 10 years or more. >>> Nothing is perfect >>> in an imperfect Universe. It just was /less/ /likely/ to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > More like 95%, with immunity waning over time. The Boston > smallpox epidemic actually produced some reasonable statistics. 95% after waning, right? >>> You think maybe that it voluntarily limited itself to those >>> lab samples? Maybe that vaccination had no part in that? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > be a useful terrorist tactic, and then turn around and propose > making it nearly universal among children. Mumps among adults gets headlines. Mumps among children does not. > Boggle. > > Your arguments against mumps cooperation apply equally to > measles No, they do not because the measles vaccine is much more effective. Otherwise, why would we have mumps outbreaks and not measles outbreaks? It is an undeniable fact. > -- but the western hemisphere, Brazil included, has > been free of native measles for quite a while. >>>>> Measles is extremely contagious -- why are those outbreaks >>>>> so small? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message