Hi everyone, I heard on TV that by early next year there will be smallpox vaccine available to all Americans. I also read that "some" vaccines contain fetal tissue(?) and am concerned about what to do if mass immunizations will take place. I checked out http://www.cogforlife.org/ and still am confused. I don't want to go against my Catholic religion and want to do what is right with God. What are your opinions? What would you do if the time came when you had to decide? I am hoping by next year there will be a smallpox vaccine that is made from something other than fetal tissue. Thank you everyone, MaryAnn

-- maryann (maryann.parker@citicorp.com), July 10, 2002

Answers

My opinion? Not if a baby had to die for it, no way.

But that is even further than the most immediate issue for me. I aint gonna take no vaccine if they force it on me... and they do have plans to make it mandatory. Uhuh. They can torture me and I won't give in. It is called freedom and I'll die for it.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 10, 2002.

They managed to make it for years and years without using fetal tissue - why are they talking about that now?

Maybe it's just one of those "urban myths". We'll just have to keep our eyes & ears open ... (and our pores shut!)

Love, :-)

-- Christine L. (christinelehman@hotmail.com), July 10, 2002.

Many common vaccines are made using fetal tissue. Smallpox, to my knowledge, is not one of them. It can be made using animal tissue. Most pro-lifers are shocked to find out that vaccines routinely given to children are made using cells from aborted babies. There are animal and synthetic alternatives.

Here's mor e.

-- jake (jake__@msn.com), July 10, 2002.

A lot of people used to *die* from smallpox, if the vaccine becomes available, I will definitely get the kids immunized (I have been). People will get sick with it though.

Vaccines are good for you. How often in this country do you see a young person crippled by polio, or dead from measles? Actually, there are so *few* cases of measles, I'd bet many medical students get out of med school without ever seeing a case. If you're a vaccine objecter and come down with them, good luck.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 11, 2002.

Oh, I've never heard of fetal tissue being used in vaccines, but will look into it when I have time. I wonder if they mean tissue per se or a malignant cell line?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 11, 2002.

On a next thought, I don't suppose I'd stop vaccinating even if it is straight fetal tissue from an established cell line. For example, if an innocent man is murdered, we don't think it unethical to use his organs to save someone else, similarly I don't think it'd be unethical to use *already obtained* cell lines to save other lives.

Note to the hotheads I'm NOT saying that fetal research is acceptable, but in this case the damage has already been done, why not obtain benefit from it?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 11, 2002.

Frank, You asked, but in this case the damage has already been done, why not obtain benefit from it?

My point would be if we gain benefit from "already done damage", won't this encourage us to continue to do the damage in order to continue to gain the benefit?

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), July 11, 2002.

Glenn,

Would you then ALSO recommend murdering adult innocents for their organs, (saving more lives than you were taking) or at least recommend approving social policies you KNEW would be ineffective and would result in higher murder rates so as to benefit from the increased organ supply? I wouldn't think so, and similarly would not expect that in this case recommending vaccinating children would imply recommending killing children for their tissue.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 11, 2002.

Frank,

Not sure where the correlation between encouraging more killings for more organs and my view against fetal research is. However, I'll simply reiterate my views on President Bush's decision to allow the research on the existing strains. I was against it then and still am. Simply because once these strains are used up, someone or some group will claim they are close enough to a solution to a problem that they must get more samples.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), July 11, 2002.

Glenn,

Am posting between doing things, sorry if this is too scattered to be comprehensible. I was trying to show a similarity between deriving benefit from the murder of an adult which had already occurred (harvesting organs is not immoral IMO, although the murder itself was) and using the tissue from the murder of fetuses which had already occured as not being immoral to use, although the original abortion was.

I next was attempting to show that just because we are willing to take the organs out of an adult victim, this does NOT mean that society condones MORE murders to obtain more organs, and similarly, just because we derive a benefit from vaccines, this does NOT mean that we condone MORE abortions to continue research.

Here's a W.H.O. Link on polio, a disease which used to have over a quarter million infections a year leaving thousands paralyzed, and occasionally dead. Measles would show the same story. Due to vaccines, the disease is nearly gone, and for all practical purposes IS gone in the U.S. There is a very real benefit to using vaccines, and MY point would be, if you're going to recommend not using them, you'd better be able to in clear conscience tell the parents of the dead and paralyzed children that result that you were really doing for them what was in their best interests. And no, I'm not being melodramatic, but there's absolutely no reason to think that a contagious disease won't rebound to its former state if given a chance.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 11, 2002.

Frank,

I was going to say the exact same thing Glenn had said!

In defense of Glenns point: He is not recommending that we kill to obtain a benefit from murdered adults. The issue is still deeper with the fetus, because some still feel that this is not a human. Using the aborted fetus' tissue will only encourage and quite possibly benefit their cause. Although the damage has already been done, foreseeing the advantages of this "damage", abortionists, and pro-Choicers will most certainly use this to further their cause! For example: If there is a mandatory vaccination, then that is to say, there must be fetal tissue readily available for all possible vaccination patients. What happens? All of a sudden the demand for fetal tissue sky-rockets! Then, what happens? Ignorant people, who would do anything for a buck, might start selling their aborted fetus'. It is a very messy situation we put ourselves in when we say that the "damage is already been done". We would like to mitigate the cause of the damage, not merely say that what’s done is done. There are already penalties for the murder of adults; unfortunately as we speak there is no such discouragement for the murder of unborn children. We are still fighting to make it illegal, let alone assign penalties for it!

If a vaccine cannot be made without the use of fetal tissue (with all the technology that we have) then I would rather die then to support it. I will lay down my life for the innocent unborn, please join me in this pledge.

Thank you.

IN Christ.

-- Jake Huether (jake.huether@lamrc.com), July 11, 2002.

Jake,

It's my understanding that these are established cell lines, and so reproduce themselves if not ad infinitum, at least for a long time. We therefore do NOT need to abort more babies to keep producing vaccines. If there is a time when these cell lines die out, then we'd be in a different ethical situation, but for now, we *aren't* in that situation, and so I can't join in your pledge.

Frank

-- someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 11, 2002.

Using the tissues of aborted fetuses is an additional revenue stream which further supports the abortion industry in the marketplace. Many other competitive industries derive their entire profit margin from the additional revenue streams created by the original enterprise.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 11, 2002.

Oh I see your point, Frank. Sorry. I don't know the answer in that situation.

-- Emerald (emerald1@cox.net), July 11, 2002.

Frank,

Thanks for the clarification. I now understand your comparison. Perhaps I just don't understand how the existing cell lines can be used without being consumed. Which eventually will have people clamoring for more stem cell lines.

-- Glenn (glenn@excite.com), July 11, 2002.

Here's a Link to a Catholic World Report article (wherein they sound to me like they oppose the use of the cell line) but do show that this particular cell line has been in use since it was obtained in 1970.

One of the differences between adult tissue and tumors/*some* fetal tissue is that cell lines can be produced from the latter tissues, meaning one group of cells keeps dividing over and over pretty much indefinitely. This forms an effectively unchanging population of cells to experiment on (such as to infect with a virus and let more virus be produced), but does NOT require any additional fetuses to maintain the cell line. All that takes is nutrients.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 11, 2002.

Jmj

Frank, you and others may find surprising and helpful this article about a June, 2002, Centers for Disease Control forum on smallpox.

Jake-MSN, you stated: "Many common vaccines are made using fetal tissue. Smallpox, to my knowledge, is not one of them."
Smallpox is one of them. The following table [it will be a miracle if it comes out looking right] is taken from the linked site:

"Dr. Margolis provided the following information regarding the current and projected supply of the vaccine stock:"

Vaccine Name	Manufacturer	Source	Number of Doses
Dryvax	Wyeth	Calf Lymph	15-75 Million (unsure)
Accum 1000	Acambis	MRC-5 Fetal Tissue	54 Million
Accum 2000	Acambis/Baxter	Vero cell line	155 Million
Frozen Vaccine	Aventis	Not published	70-90 Million

Has anyone else heard what I think I've heard -- namely, that the courts have ruled that, in the case of an epidemic, the U.S. government has the power forcibly to administer vaccines (regardless of source [fetal, etc.]) to the populace? I guess that the idea is to prevent a catastrophe like the spread of a plague.

God bless you.
John

-- J. F. Gecik (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 11, 2002.

Oops

Hope that closes the link. Sorry. Anyway, Emerald, since the cell line (as long as it's fed) probably won't die out, there really shouldn't be a big push to sell fetal tissue for this type of thing, although God help us if someone figures out a way to prevent a heart attack by sacrificing a fetus.

Glenn, the cell line is really like a giant organism, spread out in labs across the world. New cells are being produced by division all the time, just like self-replicating facories. So individual cells ARE consumed by the trillions, but they don't let more die than are produced. We maintain hundreds if not thousands of tumor and animal cell lines which can be purchased for research use. I do agree that if a good use is seen and none of the existing lines can meet the use's needs, some people will clamor for more cell lines. Also, tissue from a misscarriage probably isn't too good as (believe it or not) you don't know if the cells are healthy.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 11, 2002.

John,

I read the entire article you linked, but have some serious reservations about recommending it to anyone else. The most serious is that the author notes that less than one person is generally infected from a person with the disease. If this were *always* true, how would there be any outbreaks at all? The disease should have withered out on its own. Contrast this with this article I pulled from the NIH: Link

...Two outbreaks of smallpox in Europe during the 1970's hint gravely at its danger, said Henderson. The first occurred when a German electrician returned from Pakistan. Treated at Meschede Hospital, the man never left his room but managed to infect others throughout the facility, including patients one and two floors above, and a person who only briefly opened a door some 30 feet from the patient's room to ask directions.

"This is what an aerosol would do," forecast Henderson, who said the man had a cough that helped spread the virus. Appearing first as severe flu and rash, smallpox then raises extremely painful sores and high fever; 30 percent of those infected die — survivors are left with scabs and pitting scars. There is no treatment.

The second outbreak occurred in Yugoslavia in 1972; it was the first case in that country since 1927. In this instance, a pilgrim returned from Mecca, and had been previously vaccinated against smallpox, but came back with a mild case. This patient managed to infect 11 others within a few days; those in turn infected 135 more. By the time the small epidemic had been contained, 175 cases had been found.

This implies that the disease does NOT need close contact for more than 7 days as the author suggests. Also, the paper states,

He noted that Maryland has only 80 or so negative-pressure hospital beds, which are the kind a smallpox patient would occupy. "If you figure that 10 or 20 people get infected from each person with smallpox, and consider the succeeding generation of cases, the scenario is not a pleasant one."

indicating that not just less than one, but possibly 10-20 people will be infected from each infected person. This is not something I would feel comfortable dealing lightly with.

It is also true though that one of the reasons smallpox was erradicated in the wild is that there is no carrier state, everyone exposed expresses the disease, so eventually we'd get it under control regardless, but at what cost? One thing your author does note is the large number of immunosuppressed patients running around today. Just like AIDS patients can catch weird bugs that don't affect people with normal immune systems, they'd likely be sitting ducks for this, and would also likely be great sources of spreading the disease to others.

I just don't believe that reintroducing a disease that can be lethal to people who have no antibodies to it can be expected to NOT have a large number of people dying. Although medical care has improved a great deal, (and perhaps one of our Latin posters can correct me on this :-) ) I seem to remember that Mexico's population dropped from about 30 million to about 3 million in the 1500-1600s from small pox and measles, brought over to an unexposed population from the Spaniards. If our current medicines prevented 90% of those deaths, would it really be worth the remaining 10%?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 11, 2002.

Frank,
Thanks for that critical review of the article I linked.
I notice that you also linked an article from the "www.cogforlife.org" site. I would recommend that you send a copy of your review to cogforlife (along with the NIH URL), so that they can decide whether or not they should remove (or modify) the article that I linked.
God bless you.
John

-- (jfgecik@hotmail.com), July 13, 2002.

Hi! haven't visited in a while, but here are my thoughts on this issue. Vaccines, IN THEORY, can be good. But in their present form, are not a good thing, in my opinion. I have done much research on this subject, and read many books. I have not vaccinated my children, due to this research. visit for more information on vaccines. Also, read a book entitled "Immunization Theory vs. Reality: An Expose on Vaccinations" by Neil Z. Miller. It is very informative. Dr. Robert Mendhelson has good books on this issue, as well. He was a pediatrician. There is not enough scientific fact that immunizations work well enough, if at all, to inject them into my body. Most vaccines contain carcinogens and toxins. The DPT vaccine has been associated with the rise of SIDS. Japan outlawed the DPT vaccine and SIDS has virtually disappeared there. The mortality rate in infants in the US has drastically increased since the introduction of mass inocculations. Besides the fact that now they may be using fetal tissue!!!!!!!!! For all these reasons above, please, if you have children, do some deep research into this, so that you can make a more informed decision. At least then, even if you decide to still have them vaccinated, you can make a more educated decision.

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), July 13, 2002.

the website i tried to list above did not post. here it is:

www.mercola.com

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), July 13, 2002.

Isabel,

I'm glad you are concerned enough about your childrens' welfare to read so much on the subject, but let me make one recommendation: read an equal number of books that SUPPORT the use of vaccines before you decide not to innoculate your kids. One trouble with reading something you are concerned about is that people tend to read what goes along with their opinions. Read the other side of the issue too, then decide.

One other thing is that kids who aren't vaccinated who are around a bunch of kids who ARE benefit from their "halo effect" in other words, the non-immunized kid doesn't get sick because no one around him is sick to pass it to him. When they take a vacation to a place where vaccines aren't given, his risk of infection goes way up.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 14, 2002.

Frank,

I agree with what you have said, and I have read things on both sides of the "argument". I have to say that the most compelling, with the most references pointing to actual statistics and actual data, are the ones saying not to innoculate. I had every intention of getting my children all their vaccinations, as I was given, and even started the first round of shots on my eldest when things of this nature were brought to my attention. After doing all the research that I deemed necessary, I decided in the negative. Believe me, as a working mother with the constant challenge of finding babysitting, it would be much easier to vaccinate them. My children are not allowed to go to daycares, YMCA after school care or anything of the sort because they are not fully vaccinated, even though it is my right to decide not to. I have to rely on family and close friends (which is better for them anyway as these people are of the Catholic faith), but it is oftentimes an inconvenience to these people.

Your argument that the reason my children don't get sick because they are around those who are vaccinated MIGHT make sense except for the fact that 90-98% of those who contract measles have been vaccinated. I myself had measles in kindergarten, even though I was fully inocculated. Yes, I know you may say that that percentage is because almost everyone is inocculated. Maybe, maybe not. In Australia, I think it is around 50% or more of the population that does not receive vaccinations, and still the majority of those contracting childhood diseases are those that ARE vaccinated. I would have to look up the exact numbers again, it has been a while. It has also been proven that outbreaks of measles have been known to happen after booster shots have been given. And besides the fact that most childhood diseases are not life threatening, especially in children (because for some reason children can run the course of these diseases much easier than adults)and the added fact that your body develops a natural immunity from having it, (which has not been proven with the vaccinations) then why inject you or your childs body with all those carcinogens, animal and fetal tissues, and toxins?

While I can totally respect your point of view, as it used to once be my own, I feel confident that I have made the right choice for the health of my children. The only childhood disease they have had is chicken pox, which they came through with flying colors, other than a few scars from scratching. :) My older two were exposed to measles in kindergarten (there was an outbreak at school) and they did not catch them, while other mothers that I spoke to whose children did contract them, told me they were fully innoculated. (Maybe it was because I had measles as a child and passed on some of that immunity through breastfeeding.)??????

Isabel

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), July 14, 2002.

Isabel,

I haven't forgotten about this, but the forum's been down, and I'm rather busy at present, will try and post back this weekend.

Best,

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 18, 2002.

thank you. i will be watching

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), July 18, 2002.

Isabel,

Sorry this took so long to get back, but sometimes... Anyway, you said,

Your argument that the reason my children don't get sick because they are around those who are vaccinated MIGHT make sense except for the fact that 90-98% of those who contract measles have been vaccinated. I myself had measles in kindergarten, even though I was fully inocculated. Yes, I know you may say that that percentage is because almost everyone is inocculated. Maybe, maybe not. In Australia, I think it is around 50% or more of the population that does not receive vaccinations, and still the majority of those contracting childhood diseases are those that ARE vaccinated

The CDC (Center for Disease Control) has pretty good information on dang near everything :-) ) One *good* example of something done with taxes. Here's a link for a Measles page that shows that with most kids vaccinated, since 1993, less than 1000 cases of measles have occured per year Throughout the U.S you probably live in L.A. if your kids had a recent outbreak in school, they had the last big one, having many unvaccinated immigrants to bring in the disease.

A better link on measles might be Link CDC One thing I don't believe is entirely true is your statement that most people who contract measles are vaccinated. Looking at numbers from the early 90s there were school outbreaks, and is why a booster shot was added. Now, the only outbreaks that occur are small and among groups who *refuse* vaccinations for one reason or another. Instead of an outbreak of 20,000 cases a year when vaccination rate was 70%, the last U.S. outbreak in 2000 had NINE cases. If you figure that historically (as well as in the most recent 89 outbreak) 2 out of every one thousand people who get measles died of it, to me this makes no sense whatsoever not to vaccinate your kids, as their risk of DYING is so much higher without vaccination. Do you have any official numbers on the vaccination rate in Australia and those who contract measles? I'm sorry, but I can't find that information, and it just doesn't ring true to me. I'd find out the source that someone pulled that from, there's a lot of "junk" on the internet. Oops, I did find it the rate of vaccination in Australia is now ~80-90% Link although I couldn't find info on which groups were contracting measles there.

Back to the measles outbreaks, if you don't mind a longish read, you can pretty much see that the numbers of measles cases were being cut down, people quit vaccinating their kids in the 80s, and they went back up. They started vaccinating again with a vengeance AFTER this outbreak, and cases have decreased to less than 1000 per year and have stayed there.

MEASLES RESURGENCE IN 1989-1991 In 1989 through 1991, a dramatic increase in cases occurred. During these 3 years a total of 55,622 cases were reported (18,193 in 1989; 27,786 in 1990; 9,643 in 1991). In addition to the increased number of cases, a change in age distribution of cases occurred. Prior to the resurgence, school-aged children had accounted for the largest proportion of reported cases. During the resurgence, 45% of all reported cases were in children <5 years of age. In 1990, 48% of patients were in this age group, the first time that the proportion of cases in children <5 years of age exceeded the proportion of cases in 5-19-year-olds. Thirty-five percent of cases were among school-aged persons (5-19 years old). Overall incidence rates were highest for Hispanics and blacks and lowest for non-Hispanic whites. Among children <5 years of age the incidence of measles among blacks and Hispanics was four to seven times higher than among non-Hispanic whites. A total of 123 measles-associated deaths were reported (death-tocase ratio = 2.2 per 1,000 cases). Forty-nine percent of deaths were among children <5 years of age. ***Ninety percent of fatal cases had no history of vaccination***. (Frank's emphasis added) Sixty-four deaths were reported in 1990, the largest annual number of deaths from measles since 1971. The most important cause of the measles resurgence of 1989-1991 was low vaccination coverage. Measles vaccine coverage was low in many cities, including some that experienced large outbreaks among preschool-aged children throughout the early to mid-1980s. Surveys in areas experiencing outbreaks among preschool-aged children indicated that as few as 50% of children had been vaccinated against measles by their second birthdays, and that black and Hispanic children were less likely to be age-appropriately vaccinated than white children.

Also, note that in kids who DIED from measles (2 out of every 1000 that contract it) 9 out of 10 of them were in kids who were NOT vaccinated. That would be my main point to you, vaccines should be expected to *decrease* the severity of an infection, and if they prevent it so much the better. If you have data showing that vaccinating kids is a waste of time, please post it, but for now, I can't say that it's a good idea, as you are putting your children at risk of DYING from diseases that can either be mostly controlled or prevented.

I'll leave you with a quote from the Australians link ,

Although indigenous measles has been virtually eliminated from the Americas, measles is still responsible for the deaths of at least 10% of children under the age of 5 years in the world today, and for 10% of childhood blindness in Africa.

I don't know what else to say, other than that I'd rather have MY kids be among the group that is basically not at risk than the one that is at risk of dying or blindness (or brain damage). The story for other vaccines is pretty much the same, a disease has to have serious or life-threatening risks to warrant a vaccine, but then they are worth doing. A kid getting a fever for a few days from a vaccine is trivial if they are going to get better compared to many people actually dying from getting the disease itself.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 26, 2002.

Ahhh, screwed up a link. Oh well, that will hopefully get corrected. I think that you can still tell what I quoted from what I wrote, and the link still works to see the source.

[tags corrected above. Moderator]

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 26, 2002.

See, this is why one shouldn't post at 3am. I was going to bed and realized I forgot the most important part: Before vaccination in the U.S. the number of infections is recorded as being around 500,000 per year (and estimated as really being 1-2 million with many cases just not reported) whereas now it is less than 1000 per year, a change which took place in only a couple of decades. Considering that 2 out of every 1000 people who contract the disease DIE from it, that doesn't seem worth doing to you?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 26, 2002.

Hey, Frank, thanks for your research. I will post some things, as well, I may get it done today, but it may be Sunday before I get a chance. Am having a huge yard sale tomorrow. If not today, check back Sunday.

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), July 26, 2002.

Isabel,

Obviously, I won't be upset if it takes a few days, how could I be?

:-D

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 26, 2002.

Frank,

Thank you for all the time and effort you put into your post. I just have one thing for you to think about before I post my answers to your post. The CDC is a government run agency, is it not? (I could be wrong on that.) So, if the government wants you to get immunizations, then it only makes sense that they will provide you with the statistics they want you to see. While I pulled my information off of a different website, and I realize that one cannot believe everything they read, I find it more likely that a government (pushing for a "new world order') will lie, than a doctor concerned for the well being of humanity. I mean, after all, why would a doctor spend so much time on his website, if he did not see something flawed in the system? In my earlier research, I got my information from many different sources, but will just be posting information from Netscape for this post. This website is a wealth of information on a variety of different health/medical topics. You see, I always try and heal things naturally, at first, if at all possible.

Before vaccination in the U.S. the number of infections is recorded as being around 500,000 per year (and estimated as really being 1-2 million with many cases just not reported) whereas now it is less than 1000 per year, a change which took place in only a couple of decades. Considering that 2 out of every 1000 people who contract the disease DIE from it, that doesn't seem worth doing to you?

MEASLES RESURGENCE IN 1989-1991 In 1989 through 1991, a dramatic increase in cases occurred……..the rest of paragraph.

Although I can see your point here, it is the statistics I wonder about. Vaccinations are 'big business'. Think of the loss of income for pediatricians if vaccines were stopped. Think of all the people that would lose their jobs, laboratories that would go out of business, etc. Concerning you first paragraph, I did read, (although I could not find it again at this time, but will keep looking) that most diseases were declining even before the introduction of the vaccine. But credit is always given to the vaccine. If you think about it, diseases in history (before vaccines), always ran a course, then would decline of their own. Here is a piece of an article I found:

INCOMPLETE STATISTICAL REPORTING

Selectively slanted and incomplete reporting of the true statistical picture is not an infrequent problem in the promotive oriented reporting. The following comment is made with respect to the expansion of the measles vaccination program, ". . . the immunization coverage for measles has increased from 6 percent in 1984 to 63 percent in 1988, leading to a reduction in measles prevalence from 93.7/100,000 in 1984 to 37.1/100,000 in 1986." What the report fails to indicate though is that although the 1986 immunization coverage of 44% had increased by 1987 to 60%, the measles infection rate in the same period actually more than doubled, with an increase from 37.1 to 87.1 per 100,000.

It is also noteworthy that the culminating maximum immunization coverage of 63% achieved in 1988, correlates with a 1988 infection report rate of 59.1 /100,000--which in fact poses higher level of measles infection than the 1982 reported infection rate of 57.1 /100,000, which was a time when measles immunization was not being provided in Thailand. (The higher per capita infection rate--after five years of expanding coverage--obviously reflects very negatively on the assumed efficacy of the vaccine, and may have been deliberately obfuscated in the reporting. No evidence was seen to suggest that the post-immunization increases in disease rates were attributable to case reporting improvements.)

Do you have any official numbers on the vaccination rate in Australia and those who contract measles?

Not at this point. I lent the book I read this in to my sister (as she is expecting her first right now). The statement in the book was referenced as to where it came from, thought. I will see if she is finished with the book, and bring it to me on Sunday, if she is.

…..as you are putting your children at risk of DYING from diseases that can either be mostly controlled or prevented.

But this is what I found concerning this:

Epidemiological science is largely predicated on the reality that changes in morbidity and mortality in populations are necessarily linked to a whole series of contributive factors. (Noted authority George Dick states that: "Many infectious diseases can be prevented without immunization, because once the natural history of the disease is understood, the source may be eliminated or transmission prevented [e.g.,] When it was discovered that cholera and typhoid epidemics were regularly transmitted by fecal contamination of water, the provision of clean water supplies nearly eradicated these diseases from many countries without recourse to immunization.")

It is widely acknowledged that factors such as: nutrition, sanitation, potable water; the natural and social environments (e.g., agricultural practices, food supply, education and income), all play vital roles in determining the onset, severity, and eradication of both infectious and degenerative diseases. Diseases such as cholera and typhoid, have been strongly linked to water and sanitation, whereas evidence continues to accumulate that nutrition remains likely the most critical determinant factor in the full range of infectious and degenerative human diseases.

I did read that the majority of those who contract diseases during outbreaks are those who have more unsanitary living conditions or a poorer diet. I realize this is not going to be the case all the time, there will always be exceptions.

Although indigenous measles has been virtually eliminated from the Americas, measles is still responsible for the deaths of at least 10% of children under the age of 5 years in the world today, and for 10% of childhood blindness in Africa.

You posted this quote, but when they say it has been virtually eliminated from the Americas, they did not state where the majority of that 10% came from. Was it third world countries, where living conditions, sanitation, and diet are well below where ours are? Just something to think about. It is possible.

I don't know what else to say, other than that I'd rather have MY kids be among the group that is basically not at risk than the one that is at risk of dying or blindness (or brain damage).

But your children run the exact same risk getting the vaccine. There are many toxins known to be put in vaccines that can cause these things or worse.

"For decades, half of all childhood vaccines contained a chemical preservative called Thimerosal.

It is made from mercury, one of the most poisonous substances on Earth…………...

Before the 1990s, 1 in 10,000 children were diagnosed with autism. But in the past decade, as the government has increased the number of mandatory vaccines, some recent studies suggest the rate of autism has risen to 1 in about 250 children.

Some say the cause may be mercury poisoning."

I got the above news article from the following website. It is a good one as well:

Netscape

Just some more pertinent info:

IS IMMUNIZATION EFFECTIVENESS A CERTAINTY?

We are thus confronted with an unenviable situation where in the general absence of verifiable multifactored and controlled studies, immunization remains today--scientifically speaking--as a basically unproven program intervention. In fact, there is a substantive and growing body of data that call into serious question the soundness and effectiveness of mass immunization programs. This data not only calls into question immunizations's effectiveness, but further details adverse side effects and potential long term dangers of this widely implemented medical intervention.

And

This primal theory of disease prevention originated by Paul Ehrlich--from the time of its inception--has been subject to increasing abandonment by scientists of no small stature. For example not long after the Ehrlich theory came into vogue, W.H. Manwaring, then Professor of Bacteriology and Experimental Pathology at Leland Stanford University observed: "I believe that there is hardly an element of truth in a single one of the basic hypothesis embodied in this theory. My conviction that there was something radically wrong with it arose from a consideration of the almost universal failure of therapeutic methods based on it. Twelve years of study with immuno-physical tests have yielded a mass of experimental evidence contrary to, and irreconcilable with the Ehrlich theory, and have convinced me that his conception of the origin, nature, and physiological role of the specific 'antibodies' is erroneous."

To afford us with a continuing historical perspective of events since Manwaring's time, we can next turn to the classic work on auto-immunity and disease by Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which indicates that since the middle of this century the place of antibodies at the centre stage of immunity to disease has undergone "a striking demotion." For example, it had become well known that children with agammaglobulinaemia--who consequently have no capacity to produce antibody--after contracting measles, (or other zymotic diseases) nonetheless recover with long-lasting immunity. In his view it was clear "that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are functioning effectively without benefit of actively produced antibody."

And

In the early 70's we find an article in the Australian Journal of Medical Technology by medical virologist B. Allen (of the Australian Laboratory of Microbiology and Pathology, Brisbane) which reported that although a group of recruits were immunized for Rubella, and uniformly demonstrated antibodies, 80 percent of the recruits contracted the disease when later exposed to it. Similar results were demonstrated in a consecutive study conducted at an institution for the mentally disabled. Allen--in commenting on her research at a University of Melbourne seminar--stated that "one must wonder whether the decision to rely on herd immunity might not have to be rethought.

And, lastly:

The articulate view of physiologist H.M. Shelton is that: "To interfere with the all-important composition of the blood in the haphazard manner serologists do, results in incalculable disturbance of its physiological equilibrium health depends, not upon killing bacteria [& viruses] but upon building up the soundness, integrity [and] functional vigor of our own tissues and organs. Normal resistance can be achieved only by use of the same means by which it was originally built and maintained. Nature makes no mistakes and violates no laws. She is uniformly governed by fixed principles and all her actions harmonize with [nature's governing] laws. The best, indeed the only method of promoting public health is to teach people the laws of nature and how to preserve health. Immunization programs are futile, and are based on the delusion that the law of cause and effect can be annulled. Vaccines and serums are employed as substitutes for right living; they are intended to supplant obedience to the laws of life. Such programs are slaps in the face of law and order."

I guess what it all boils down to is that we will find the information that best suits our gut instincts. Mine is 'be wary', yours is 'this is a good thing.' And both those decisions should be respected.

But what mine also stems from is this: Our body has very natural way of defending itself and healing itself. While we cannot escape all things that come our way, by having a healthy diet, being sanitary and clean, getting plenty of rest, etc., I think we can deter a lot of things that we may get without those conditions. Also, I say, God's will be done. This is nature, He created nature. It is my choice to decide on vaccinations or not, but it is His choice as to whether they will contract something regardless of immunization (as I did with measles). And if God so chooses to let my children contract one of those diseases, then I have a book written by a pediatrician telling how to treat each and every childhood disease. I still find it better to keep vaccines out of my childrens' bodies, for regardless of what I do, God will decide how they will be called from this world and what crosses they must bear while they are here.

Granted, by my above statement, you will say, "Then why treat anything? Why not leave it to God if they get better or not?" But I feel like on most things have been proven in the medical field, that their intervention has been proven. But I don't feel like, with the research I have done, that vaccines have been proven, and I am not willing to take that chance.

Isabel

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), July 26, 2002.

OOPS! I forgot the change the word 'Netscape' on my links above. But that is the first time I have done that, and it worked! If you click it will still take you to the sights I was intending.

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), July 26, 2002.

Isabel,

So, if the government wants you to get immunizations, then it only makes sense that they will provide you with the statistics they want you to see. While I pulled my information off of a different website, and I realize that one cannot believe everything they read, I find it more likely that a government (pushing for a "new world order') will lie, than a doctor concerned for the well being of humanity

I share your concern with some of the goals of the government, but there's a *very* important difference here in that ALL of the CDC's scientific information is taken from peer reviewed journals, whereas something found on the internet can be from anywhere or anyone with who knows what motive, unless they quote their sources. Mercola D.O. states his bias in believing in natural remedies, does this make him wrong for representing one side of an issue? Also, I don't think many doctors lie to their patients, most are pretty good people. They can be mistaken however, or have twisted agendas of their own that interfere with them helping their patients. For example, an abortion provider IS a physician, but IMO is not doing a service to their patients by killing one of them and killing the child of the other. Similarly, Dr. Mercola may *believe* he is helping people, whether he is or not is a different question. In this respect I think that the CDC is far more balanced in what they publish in that they have so many critics who are VERY vocal. If some nut says crystals cures cancer on the internet, who cares enough to stop them?

You see, I always try and heal things naturally, at first, if at all possible.

Nothing wrong with that, but *most* people realize there's a time to go to the doctor, such as when you need to have an appendix removed or die. Even then a few people would rather let their children die than be treated, and this makes the paper now and then. I'd say though that modern medicine has saved more people than it has harmed, and so is worthwhile in it's place.

Although I can see your point here, it is the statistics I wonder about. Vaccinations are 'big business'. Think of the loss of income for pediatricians if vaccines were stopped. Think of all the people that would lose their jobs, laboratories that would go out of business, etc.

I don't think there'd be much of a long-term loss. The people who make vaccines would just make something else. Kids always get sick, and with the number of kids on HMO plans pediatricians don't make much off vaccine visits anyway. They are already the lowest paid physicians, how much lower could they go? In fact, if you got rid of all the junk they "have" to do, they could probably make more doing things that should be done.

most diseases were declining even before the introduction of the vaccine. But credit is always given to the vaccine

Let's stick with measles now, so we don't get distracted. Increase the size of the graph on page 100 of the second CDC article I linked, you'll see that the average number of cases prior to the vaccine use in the late 60's may have been declining a bit, (~600,000 to ~500,000) but in the next couple years after the vaccine was introduced it fell to damn near nothing. Unless some other concurrent change can be shown that could also account for this, it would be unreasonable to attribute this to anything other than the use of the vaccine, especially since in countries where the vaccine is not used, the disease continued. There are definite cycles to how bad a disease outbreak is, but there is no way to explain a continued and dramatic change like this without having had *something* cause it. If it's not the vaccine, what do you think it is?

INCOMPLETE STATISTICAL REPORTING

In regards to this paragraph, could you post its source? If you'll notice they only chose the years in the U.S. when an outbreak was occuring, and not a long-term view (all in the mid-80's). This to me seems to me to be a VERY biased sample, and I'd like to see if the rest of the article it came from showed what happened with the onset of vaccine use until now, or if it just covers that one slice of the pie. Think about it with the stock market, would you believe an investment advisor who showed you data from just 86-89 and said, "see the market's going nowhere but up, invest every cent!" I hope not, and the same applies here, you have to look at the whole timeline to make sense of it.

Many infectious diseases can be prevented without immunization, because once the natural history of the disease is understood, the source may be eliminated or transmission prevented [e.g.,] When it was discovered that cholera and typhoid epidemics were regularly transmitted by fecal contamination of water, the provision of clean water supplies nearly eradicated these diseases from many countries without recourse to immunization

This whole paragraph is 100% true, and if you wanted to argue that good sanitation did more for the public health than medicine, I'd have a hard time arguing with you. I'm not suggesting you quit good hygiene, but that vaccination is worth doing even in countries who have good hygiene. (You know though, I've heard a few "yuppie" parents not want to stress to their kids to wash their hands because they just thought it was to keep them from being dirty, whereas the REAL purpose is to keep from spreading disease. These same parents don't want to "scare" little Johnny with that. How keeping a kid from getting sick is too scary for them is beyond me.

I did read that the majority of those who contract diseases during outbreaks are those who have more unsanitary living conditions or a poorer diet. I realize this is not going to be the case all the time, there will always be exceptions

This is universally true, it's pretty much never good to be poor and malnourished when it comes to health issues, but measles and other childhood diseases can affect everyone.

You posted this quote, but when they say it has been virtually eliminated from the Americas, they did not state where the majority of that 10% came from. Was it third world countries, where living conditions, sanitation, and diet are well below where ours are? Just something to think about. It is possible

Of course third world countries are most heavily represented here, my question to you would be don't you think that part of the reason is that wealthy industrialized countries vaccinate their kids?

I don't know what else to say, other than that I'd rather have MY kids be among the group that is basically not at risk than the one that is at risk of dying or blindness (or brain damage).

But your children run the exact same risk getting the vaccine

No they don't. Please show me ANY study showing that more kids die, contract encephalitis or go blind from vaccination than they do from contracting the disease itself. Will a tiny amount of kids die from a vaccine? Yes, just like 1 in 50000 kids can die from penicillin. Is it still worth saving 50000 lives for every one potentially lost from penicillin? Yes, of course it is. In the same fashion, having an occasional child die from a vaccine is worth having several thousand die from not using it, not to mention the other serious morbidities caused by the disease.

For decades, half of all childhood vaccines contained a chemical preservative called Thimerosal

Hey, I hear you, I was given an eye drop with thimerisol and my eye swelled up like a watermelon. Never had trouble with the vaccine though. Anyway, this looks like it's written in the past tense, do they still use thimerisol today? Also, I've seen the autism data, and as far as I can tell at this point no one's ever proven it to be more than someone's concern.

We are thus confronted with an unenviable situation where in the general absence of verifiable multifactored and controlled studies, immunization remains today--scientifically speaking--as a basically unproven program intervention

Baloney. It would be UNETHICAL for scientists to withold something that worked from all of the kids in one city to prove it worked by watching them get sick. The only studies that are done randomizing things like this are done when we *don't know* which of two treatments are better. In this case, I think only a few nuts in the scientific community would say vaccination isn't effective, although if you can prove this assertion of mine wrong, I won't mind ;- ) . "Scientifically speaking" like the author does above, again, if you can attribute the decrease in U.S. measles cases to anything other than vaccines, given the case data in the CDC article I've referenced above, I'd like to know what it is.

Sir MacFarlane Burnett, which indicates that since the middle of this century the place of antibodies at the centre stage of immunity to disease has undergone "a striking demotion." For example, it had become well known that children with agammaglobulinaemia--who consequently have no capacity to produce antibody--after contracting measles, (or other zymotic diseases) nonetheless recover with long- lasting immunity. In his view it was clear "that a variety of other immunological mechanisms are functioning effectively without benefit of actively produced antibody."

Isabel, this is a perfect example of what I mean when I say you can't trust things on the internet. It's well known NOW that B-cells which are absent or non-functional in agammaglobulinemia are NOT responsible for mounting an immune response to virual infections, that is the job of T-cells! One wouldn't expect someone with agammaglobulinemia to have a decreased response to fighting off viral attacks, but would expect them to become profoundly sick from bacterial infections (fought off by B-cells). This is what happens. In short, someone is quoting out of date information. Dr. Burnett won the Nobel Prize in the 60's, but seriously, he was born in 1899! His work was all done before much of what we know of the immune system was even discovered. Please don't get me wrong, I have a tremendous respect for everyone who advances our knowledge of the world, but anyone who quotes him on modern immunology is either ignorant, or being purposefully deceitful. He just didn't have the information then that exists now.

Similarly, with Allen's partial quote on Rubella, we aren't getting the full story: Did any of the recruits get encephalitis or other serious side effects from the disease? How was the vaccine adminitered, and why are they quoting 30 YEAR OLD DATA for a disease that should be continuing today? Again, with rubella there used to be 20,000 to 50,000 cases per year, now there are less than 100. What do you attribute this drop in U.S. cases to if not the vaccine?

Immunization programs are futile, and are based on the delusion that the law of cause and effect can be annulled. Vaccines and serums are employed as substitutes for right living; they are intended to supplant obedience to the laws of life. Such programs are slaps in the face of law and order

I'm tempted to call this guy a bonehead. In fact, I will. Hey, if you think that it's good to let people die to maintain the natural balance, good for you. Personally, I think it's a good think to prevent needless suffering and death, to each his own. Vaccines should be used to supplement healthy living, not in place of it. I would have thought that would be evident to anyone.

I guess what it all boils down to is that we will find the information that best suits our gut instincts. Mine is 'be wary', yours is 'this is a good thing.' And both those decisions should be respected.

I also believe one should be wary. Especially if one doesn't fully understand something. I can tell you though that I believe vaccines are good because I understand (to some degree ;-) ) the science that they are based on. I think a lot of the scare-mongering done on the internet is garbage because it's based on half-truths, mis-applied truths, or outright falsehoods.

Our body has very natural way of defending itself and healing itself

Exactly! A vaccine doesn't fight off an infection FOR you, it stimulates YOUR OWN BODY to fight it off itself. A vaccine is really a homeostatic thing if you think about it.

Also, I say, God's will be done. This is nature, He created nature. It is my choice to decide on vaccinations or not, but it is His choice as to whether they will contract something regardless of immunization (as I did with measles). And if God so chooses to let my children contract one of those diseases, then I have a book written by a pediatrician telling how to treat each and every childhood disease

Yes, God created man and nature, and it is truly His choice as to what we contract. OTOH, Jesus also told the Devil "do not put the Lord your God to the test"! I wouldn't expect you to think it made sense to walk out in front of a speeding bus saying to yourself, "if it's God's will I live, He'll stop the bus in time". Similarly, if you have the power as a parent to in all likelihood prevent the serious and possibly fatal complications of disease from striking your children, I think you have the obligation to them to do so, and not trust to God to protect them. God COULD stop the bus from hitting you, but since buses don't generally magically stop all over town, He seems to want you to stop yourself from getting into trouble. The same would seem applicable with vaccines.

But I don't feel like, with the research I have done, that vaccines have been proven, and I am not willing to take that chance.

Research more. Read current publications from ***peer-reviewed*** scientific journals, and not internet nuts quoting things 30 years out of date to say something is worthless. Hey, you should put me into the category of internet nut too, and not take what I'm saying at face value. Whatever you read, look at the source it came from, is it based on numbers, or just good sounding mumbo-jumbo. All this has been studied extensively, and continues to be so by people who are NOT in some giant conspiracy, and are not dumb. Why do you think all the scientists out there vaccinate THEIR kids if it's some big political cover-up?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 26, 2002.

One last thing, on

then I have a book written by a pediatrician telling how to treat each and every childhood disease

The point is you won't get the chance. By the time the serious manifestations occur, it's too late for you to do anything but pray, really. Your time to make a decision is now, to prevent them, or not.

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 26, 2002.

Isabel,

One other thing, I was reading the new American Medical News and they said that the .gov was considering increasing physician payments for vaccines from $5.80 to $8. When you consider paying for nurses, secretaries, keeping records, etc., not to mention *seeing* the patient, pediatricians aren't getting rich giving vaccines, imo.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), July 29, 2002.

This is not an answer but a comment to one of your listers. I was browsing and came across all your comments. I have a child who is autistic. He was not autistic before his MMR. I am also a mother who received rhogam shots because I have negative blood. Those shots as well as many of the shots our children receive have thimerisol in them. My child was genetically predisposed to not be able to handle the shot schedule, and as a very educated mother I believe this to be true. Whether the Rhogam shots in the womb caused his immune system to not regulate correctly or other immune system factors, He was not able to handle 3 live viruses at once. His immune system broke down and at 18 months he became fully autistic after the DaPT and Hib (both contain thimerisol). Be aware that this is real and happening all around you. I've spoken to 100s of mothers with the exact same story. Thimerisol is poisoning our children. My son is doing mercury detox as we speak and Hg is pouring out of his body. I pray for all our kids and hope that the Gov't stops destroying an entire generation. FYI: newest stats say 1 in 83 boys are now autistic-- interesting that men are more susceptible to Hg poisoning than woman. Good Luck Listers

-- Jen (cdjlarson@attbi.com), September 23, 2002.

I'm sorry to hear about your son's condition, and thank you for reading this thread. Not that many people will. If you are interested, here is a Link to a CDC link page on autism and the MMR.

Also, you note that 1 in 83 males is autistic, do you have any reference for this? I was under the impression that the number of affected children is somewhere between 1 in 500 and 1 in 1000, depending on the definition of autism used.

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 23, 2002.

Dear Maryann, I am very sorry to hear of your son's condition. Your letter troubles me though, because there is a lot of mis-information and scare stories on the internet.

The number of children affected by autism is now standing at 1 in 1000 or 2-10 in 10,000 depending on which set of diagnostics you use. It occurs 4 times more often in boys than girls. It hasn't been proven that thimerosal causes this. It could be. But what is the alternative? Let the kids get measles or munps again? Do you have any idea of what the death rate for those diseases were? Or the lifelong side effects? Have you ever seen a child with meningitis writhing in agony from just the sheet touching their skin? They don't all recover and some of them die. I've never seen a person with tetanus but I did see my sister-in-laws horse die of it when she failed to get him his shots. He rubbed his back on a barbed wire fence and got some deep scratches. He was literally in agony and the only thing to stop his pain was a well placed bullet.

I am glad that we live in a time and place where we have immunizations for our children and the only way to keep diseases that they prevent at bay is for all children to get them. I have a son whose innoculations had no effect on him and he has contracted pertussis (whooping cough) more than once. Now if I had sent him to school in this infectious state and there were a number of other kids there whose parents had not had their shots up to date, how many kids would now have whooping cough? A number of years ago when I lived in Ontario, there were some Mennonites living on an ajoining farm. Somebody there got polio and the mother died and two of her kids were permanently affected. At that time I had 6 kids who played and contacted these kids on a regular basis. How many of mine would have been lost to a preventable disease if I had not used common sense to prevent it? Let me say again that I am very sorry about your son. I know that there are things in vaccinations like mercury and aluminum that can do harm. However, in this case the good far outweighs the bad and the number of people saved from a lifetime of suffering is far greater than the ones who suffer from adverse affects. Life is full of risks and we will never be given a 100% guarantee on any medical procedure or preventative. People say that we don't have to worry about childhood diseases because they are wiped out. Immunizations can take the credit for that and the moment that we don't keep them up, the diseases will return. Ellen

PS- If any parents are afraid of the effects of immunizations on their kids, you can have them administered in smaller doses like 1/2 or even 1/4 at a time. This is a lot more work on your part in the driveing the child to the clinic or whatever but it is another option rather than spinning the roulette wheel.

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), September 24, 2002.

Ellen,

"a well placed bullet"

You sound like a real animal lover.

-- Shooting the horse was cruel (Animals@deservebetter.deaths.com), September 24, 2002.

Actually I am an animal lover and kind enough to know that waiting 2 hours for a vet to show up with the "death needle" is far crueller than the "well placed bullet." And if my cat got hit by a car and there was no hope, but it was still alive and writhing in pain, you'd better belileve that I'd end it's suffering real fast. It would be far easier for some to box it up and go to the vets, I suppose, but how much time would have elapsed by then as the vet is not just around the corner? By the way, I did sit with my dog as the vet gave him the needle and it wasn't pretty. The vet warned me that it wasn't like the movies where the animal just drifts off to sleep, but I didn't believe him. I do now. Ellen

-- Ellen K. Hornby (dkh@canada.com), September 24, 2002.

Ellen

"Actually I am an animal lover and kind enough to know that waiting around 2 hours for a vet to show up."

If the horse had tetanus than this wasn't like 2 more hours was the difference. The difference was careless animal owners!! If you people would get your animals properly vacinated than this wouldn't happen Ellen.

I hope you people are not as careless gun owners as you are animal owners.

-- Shooting the horse was cruel (Animals@deservemorehumane.deaths.com), September 24, 2002.

This is what gets me. You can find some yahoo who's willing to criticize someone over the death of an animal, but (apparently) couldn't care less that people are putting their children at risk in the same fashion. Unbelievable.

Ellen,

Good for you in being humane with the horse. Most farmers would have done the same. Out where we are the sheriffs put down deer the same way and for the same reason when they get hit by cars.

Vaccines have saved many more lives than they have caused side effects, why do you think we (as a society) USE them?

Frank

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 24, 2002.

I have a son whose innoculations had no effect on him and he has contracted pertussis (whooping cough) more than once. Now if I had sent him to school in this infectious state and there were a number of other kids there whose parents had not had their shots up to date, how many kids would now have whooping cough?

???? Is this what your doctor told you? That his innoculations had no effect on him, or was this your conclusion? And so if you sent him to school in that infectious state, there is nothing to worry about if everyone is vaccinated, right? I mean, if the vaccinations work so well as they say, then who cares if you are around someone with whooping cough, measles or mumps? Your protected, right? But if you are so protected after receiving the shots, then why did your son get whooping cough....more than once? With all due respect for your opinion, I would think a little more common sense is due here. Think about it. If your son's vaccinations did not serve him well, how many other kids are they failing? Do you think your son is the only one who has contracted a contagious disease even though he was fully innoculated? I did. Fully innoculated and still got measles. Got the flu shot one year a while ago and still got the flu, too. So many other kids innoculated still contract the diseases. And so they have received all those harmful toxins into their body for no reason. Please read on both sides of the spectrum. The book I recommended above by Neil Z. Miller is by far the most compelling one I have read, and a very quick read, too. It doesn't cost that much on Amazon.com.

Frank,

why do you think we (as a society) USE them?

Maybe kind of like the same reason most people don't think sex outside of marriage is a mortal sin that will lead to hell, because it had been pounded into everyone's head to think it is OK.

Research more. Read current publications from ***peer-reviewed*** scientific journals, and not internet nuts quoting things 30 years out of date to say something is worthless.

And I have done this. Believe me. It was pounded into my head that shots were a must. It was hard to accept anything else, because it was not 'normal' thinking. But a statement of this sort made 30 years ago still holds water today, because 30 years ago, many of the same shots were 'mandatory' as they are today. And if you use the reasoning that the shots or the shot schedules were ineffective then, and that they know more know, how can we be so sure, since they *thought* they were so sure then?

Why do you think all the scientists out there vaccinate THEIR kids if it's some big political cover-up?

And are so sure of this? Do you know that your pediatrician gives their children the vaccines? Mine totally respects my decision not to, and understands why I don't. She has admitted to me that there are many things left unproven with vaccinations, and that there are many dangerous substances used in them.

Like I said, I still respect your opinion. But I see that you do not respect mine. That is fine. I have done my homework and am completely comfortable with my decision. I prayed over it much while I was in the midst of my research.

Isabel.

-- Isabel (isabel1492@yahoo.com), September 27, 2002.

Isabel,

Thank you for reading my prior post. I must say I'm a bit suprised that you still feel comfortable with the articles you've read after I pointed out clearly that one of your scientist's opinions was *wrong* by today's knowledge, but was appropriate for his time.

Why do you think all the scientists out there vaccinate THEIR kids if it's some big political cover-up?

And are so sure of this? Do you know that your pediatrician gives their children the vaccines? Mine totally respects my decision not to, and understands why I don't. She has admitted to me that there are many things left unproven with vaccinations, and that there are many dangerous substances used in them.

In my particular case, I know for a fact that my kids' family practioner vaccinates their kids, as I've seen them give them some of their shots :-) . I doubt that this will change your mind though, as you'll rightly say "that's just one doc," which makes one wonder why you brought it up. Make no mistake, I understand your decision, I just think that it is not a wise one. In any event, you and your children have to live with it, as I and mine have to live with my decisions. There will *always* be unknown things in science, and even water is a "dangerous substance" if you are in over your head. The big question is, with the knowledge we have, what saves more lives, vaccinating, or NOT vaccinating kids? You can go to any national database and see the answer, quite clearly vaccinating saves lives and decreases morbidity. If you don't want this for your children, that's your business.

You know, one final thing about your pediatrician totally respecting your decision, make sure she/he **really** does. Doctors can get quite busy, and on occasion I have known some to kind of agree with a patient they considered opinionated or a "crank" just to get them out of the office. Unfortunately, while they may be getting home to dinner on time, they are also causing kids to have decisions made for them which may not be in their best interests. Think about it, when you went in to your MD's office, were you *telling* them that vaccines weren't for you, and seeing if they agreed, or were you going in so open minded that if they recommended them, you would have had your kids vaccinated that day? What your doctor might have decided was that they could argue with you for an hour and you'd not vaccinate your kids, or they could say "yes, it's debateable" and you'd not vaccinate your kids. The same result, with the second one saving them an hour. It's understandable why they would sometimes do that, if not really *acceptable or correct*. Why not go back to your pediatrician and ask them how many times they RECOMMEND that parents don't vaccinate their kids? (note that there may be a few, such as with immunosuppressed kids and live viruses, I'm talking about otherwise healthy kids) If the answer is "never", shouldn't that tell you something?

Frank

P.S. On the financial side, one more thing. I think now the reimbursement rate for vaccines is like 8 bucks. A day in the hospital is at least 600 or so. Believe me, vaccinating kids makes much less money for the medical community than not vaccinating them and treating them later would. Just something else to think about...

-- Someone (ChimingIn@twocents.cam), September 28, 2002.