PETITION AGAINST FORCED VACCINES

On Jun 6, 1:02 am, Mike <m... DeleteThis @xyz.com> wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:
> > On Jun 4, 11:56 pm, Mike <m... DeleteThis @xyz.com> wrote:
> >> Mark Probert wrote:
> >>> On Jun 3, 11:59 pm, Mike <m... DeleteThis @xyz.com> wrote:
> >>>> Jeff wrote:
> >>>>> JOHN wrote:
> >>>>>>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.
> >>>>> 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
> >>>> 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."
> >>> 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.
> >> 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.
>
> 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
> >> 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.

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
> >> 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.
>
> 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

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
> >> 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.
>
> 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
> >> 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.
>
> > Mumps can cause all sorts of problems. Look them up and educate
> > yourself. You need it.
>
> 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.
>
> >> 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.
>
> > 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.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:fL_1k.2503$v%.942@trndny04...

The author clearly shows no evidence of understanding science, medicine or
infectious disease.
http://whale.to/m/putz.html

In message <ac41da63-fe3c-447c-8a21-3ff608589b28.RemoveThis@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>, Mark Probert wrote:

> 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.RemoveThis@lumbercartel.com> ---------+

Mark S Probert was born in 1946. 11/26 in fact proven by his very own words.

From: Mark Probert - view profile
Date: Sun, Feb 11 2001 4:17 pm
Email: Mark Probert <markpr....RemoveThis@my-deja.com>
Groups: k12.chat.teacher

Noah has had one since 11/26/96 (my birthday).



"Mike" <mike.RemoveThis@xyz.com> wrote in message news:Rx32k.19026$b_.1539@trnddc02...
> Mark Probert wrote:
>> On Jun 4, 11:56 pm, Mike <m....RemoveThis@xyz.com> wrote:
>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>> On Jun 3, 11:59 pm, Mike <m....RemoveThis@xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>> JOHN wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>> 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
>>>>> 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."
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.
>>
>
> 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
>>> 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.
>
> 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
>>> 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.
>>
>
> 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
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.

"JOHN" <john RemoveThis @nospam.com> wrote in message
news:y86dnTTRU5J_RdXVnZ2dnUVZ8uydnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> "Jeff" <kidsdoc2000 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fL_1k.2503$v%.942@trndny04...
>
> The author clearly shows no evidence of understanding science, medicine
> or infectious disease.
> http://whale.to/m/putz.html
You need to update that to 2007 AND 2008.

"Mark Probert" <mark.probert.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:58fea757-b33a-4711-81a3-9708d2c37c0b@s50g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
On Jun 5, 7:35 pm, Jeff <kidsdoc2....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> JOHN wrote:
> > "Jeff" <kidsdoc2....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:1%I1k.2449$v%.1998@trndny04...
>
> >> Chicken pox killed something like 30 to 50 people a year before the
> >> vaccine.
>
> >> Jeff
>
> > lying with the truth.
>
> > What killed them really was mostly steroids that took out there immune
> > system
>
> What killed them was when they either got secondary infections or the
> virus spread directly to the brain.
>
> > Chickepox was recognised harmless in 1890http://whale.to/v/chicken1.html
>
> This is site is not recommended by thinking people. The author clearly
> shows no evidence of understanding science, medicine or infectious
> disease.
>
> Jeff

David Kirby, author of Evidence of Harm, and a recent speaker before a
crowd of 20 people at Parliament, has stated that he relied heavily on
John's site.
-----
Which means he is truthful, unlike you

Mark S Probert keeps asking others for proof, when he has a long list of
claims he has NEVER proven.
= hyprocrite.

<snippo>

On Jun 7, 5:46 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1... RemoveThis @sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> 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

Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> On Jun 7, 5:46 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1....DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> 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

You should also note that the AAPS does not represent mainstream
medicine. And, anyone, whether or not that person a doctor, may join.

Jeff

On Jun 8, 9:48 pm, Jeff <kidsdoc2....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 5:46 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1....DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> 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
>
> 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 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 Probert wrote:
> On Jun 6, 1:02 am, Mike <m... DeleteThis @xyz.com> wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> On Jun 4, 11:56 pm, Mike <m... DeleteThis @xyz.com> wrote:
>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 3, 11:59 pm, Mike <m... DeleteThis @xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Jeff wrote:
>>>>>>> JOHN wrote:
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>> 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
>>>>>> 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."
>>>>> 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.
>>>> 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.
>> 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.

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
>>>> 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.
>
> 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
>>>> 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.
>> 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
>
> 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
>>>> 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.
>> Being born before 1956 is considered to be a proof of mumps immunity.
>
> 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
>>>> 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.
>>> Mumps can cause all sorts of problems. Look them up and educate
>>> yourself. You need it.
>> 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.

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.
>>>> 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.
>>> 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.- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

On Jun 8, 6:18 pm, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 7, 5:46 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1....RemoveThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
> > 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

The AAPS is NOT a medical organization, but a political one. See:

http://neurodiversity.com/weblog/article/91/

On Jun 8, 9:48 pm, Jeff <kidsdoc2....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Citizen Jimserac wrote:
> > On Jun 7, 5:46 am, "Jan Drew" <jdrew1....DeleteThis@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >> 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
>
> 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.