PETITION AGAINST FORCED VACCINES

"Jeff" <kidsdoc2000.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%Z%2k.231$7A1.45@trndny04...
> 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 In
> other words, AAPS is an HONEST group. I understand that you, Jeff, have
> trouble with honest information.

"Mark Probert" <mark.probert.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jun 9, 6:57 am, Citizen Jimserac <Jimse....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.

http://neurodiver

Poor Mark S Probert, Merrick, NY


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

"Mark Probert" <mark.probert.DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:

>Many claims there, but not one scintilla of proof. YOUR claiming that
there are facts is not proof of validity.

There is Mark S Probert's proof of being a hypocrite

FACT. He is most guilty. What's more he is a proven liar, harasser and
despicable.

> >>>> 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.

Because I had the lab test a little over ten years ago.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.attn-deficit/msg/b47238df12888f43

Anecdotes are not facts. They are, at best interesting stories. At
worst, outright lies.

> In some Communist countries, preschool kids could go to summer camp,
> catch mumps or chickenpox and the personnel would not tell the parents.
> Was it the practice in the country where you were born?

Born in the USofA.

11/26 1946.

> And here in the USA, only some 200,000 or 300,000 cases of mumps were
> reported annually - a small fraction of actual cases. Most were not
> reported. I would not be surprised if some people think they were not
> exposed while this is not the case for them.

So? What has that got to do with the issue of herd immunity. You care
clearly diverting.

000000 the hypocrite strikes again
Fanous for just that

> >> Either you are lying or your parents did not tell you.
>
> > Or I am telling the truth and you cannot handle it. That is most
> > likely the correct answer.

Aha, no response.

lol. The above is a response. D U H.

> >> 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.

Merely pointing out your ILLogic.

Which is an insult.
Did NOT read Torah today AGAIN.

> And I did not even ASSume that you are
> lying, only that it is possible that you are lying or mistaken.
> Nothing to say, eh?

Plenty to say, when you provide some proof other than your idle
conjecture. Note, calling what you have posted "idle conjecture" is
not an ad hominem, since I a commenting directly on your lack of
factual proof.

Poor Mark S Probert.
Plenty of proof that you are a proven liar many times over.

> Anyway: even if you were not really exposed you are not in danger
> because you congregate mostly with people your age who are - yes! -
> immune.

Again, assuming. I have a child with special needs, who has friends
who are medically not permitted to have vaccinations.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.attn-deficit/msg/b47238df12888f43

Anecdotes are not facts. They are, at best interesting stories. At
worst, outright lies.

> Herd immunity in a small community. But if you had kids in
> college who could get infected on campus and come to your home before
> they knew about infection - then you could be in danger. Hint: an
> outbreak starts on a campus but not all the infected are college
> students, guess who might be the rest?

First, show that there are outbreaks like you claim.

PETITION AGAINST FORCED VACCINES


>
> >>>> 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).

I saw above, and your "problems" are idle conjecture.

ZZzz.

Groups View all web results » Results 1 - 10 of 179 for Mark Probert
idle conjecture

"Mark Probert" <mark.probert.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:

See the blog that agrees with him and his sick thinking.

Mark Probert wrote:
> On Jun 9, 12:25 am, Mike <m....TakeThisOut@xyz.com> wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>> On Jun 6, 1:02 am, Mike <m....TakeThisOut@xyz.com> wrote:
>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>> On Jun 4, 11:56 pm, Mike <m....TakeThisOut@xyz.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Mark Probert wrote:
>>>>>>> On Jun 3, 11:59 pm, Mike <m....TakeThisOut@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.
>
> No, it is NOT the same. They drop out of the herd, and thus impinge on
> herd immunity.

Herd immunity? You pretend not to understand.

>
>>>>> Besides, I bet
>>>>>> not sending a child to school is not an option, it will result in the
>>>>>> 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.
>
> No, it is neither an attempt at reading their minds or a moot point.
> The simple fact is that they want the benefits of the tax dollar, but
> do not want to play by the rules that their neighbors are. I call this
> freeloading.
>

Great! Let's take it one small step further: if a school tells parents
that they must give their child Ritalin or something else, they must
comply or lose tax credits and have their child kicked out of school.
Hey, they should play by the rules.

And here, boys and girls, comes Mark P. strongly in favor of this
proposal. How do I know? Simple. His undeclared motto is "What is good
for pharmaceutical industry is good for your kids".

Or maybe he will avoid the question by saying "there is no such proposal
yet, and I am not going to tell whether I would support it".

>> By the way, it has nothing to do with herd immunity? Herd immunity means
>> protecting those who are not immune, right? And these unvaccnated
>> children are not a danger, correct?
>
> Wrong. The unvaccinated children are a danger to those children who
> have valid medical reasons why they cannot be vaccinated.
>
>>>> How is that different from an annual fine?
>>> 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?
>
> Paying taxes are but one element of living in a community.
>
>> Oh, and by the way tetanus vaccine is not related to herd immunity at
>> all, since tetanus is not contagious. (Disclaimer: under no
>> circumstances should this statement be interpreted as disapproval or
>> approval of tetanus vaccinations.)
>
> So, it is an irrelevant point on your part.

No, it's not. I am against forced vaccinations, including tetanus.
You are for forced tetanus vaccination though it has nothing to do with
herd immunity.

>
>>>>> So the choice is: vaccinate or
>>>>>> lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate
>>>>>> 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 far, you have not submitted any proof that I can evaluate whether I
> should reject it or not.
>
>> So, let's reiterate the facts.
>
> Nice weasel.
>
>> 100% immune population is being replaced with 90% immune population.
>> Current immunity rate for mumps is above 90% because older immune people
>> 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.
>
> Many claims there, but not one scintilla of proof. YOUR claiming that
> there are facts is not proof of validity.

Claim: before vaccinations there was 100% immunity.
Claim: mumps vaccine is effective 90% after 2 shots.
Claim: there were no mumps outbreaks on college campuses before total
mumps vaccinations.
Claim: such outbreaks are occurring now, and almost all affected are
vaccinated.

I rest my case. Readers can make their minds.

>
>>>>>> The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children
>>>>>> born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps
>>>>>> 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.
>
> Because I had the lab test a little over ten years ago.
>

Then why did not YOU get a mumps shot and join the herd? Let's zip your
Social Security credits, you must play by the rules. Nah, I think you
are not guilty of that grave sin but only of a lesser sin of making
things up.

>> In some Communist countries, preschool kids could go to summer camp,
>> catch mumps or chickenpox and the personnel would not tell the parents.
>> Was it the practice in the country where you were born?
>
> Born in the USofA.
>
>> And here in the USA, only some 200,000 or 300,000 cases of mumps were
>> reported annually - a small fraction of actual cases. Most were not
>> reported. I would not be surprised if some people think they were not
>> exposed while this is not the case for them.
>
> So? What has that got to do with the issue of herd immunity. You care
> clearly diverting.

The issue here is that people do not always know if they had mumps.

>
>>>> Either you are lying or your parents did not tell you.
>>> Or I am telling the truth and you cannot handle it. That is most
>>> likely the correct answer.
>
> Aha, no response.
>
>>>> The fact that you were born abroad either is irrelevant (if you are
>>>> lying) or makes your argument irrelevant (if you do not).
>>> 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.
>
> Merely pointing out your ILLogic.
>
>> And I did not even ASSume that you are
>> lying, only that it is possible that you are lying or mistaken.
>> Nothing to say, eh?
>
> Plenty to say, when you provide some proof other than your idle
> conjecture. Note, calling what you have posted "idle conjecture" is
> not an ad hominem, since I a commenting directly on your lack of
> factual proof.
>
>> Anyway: even if you were not really exposed you are not in danger
>> because you congregate mostly with people your age who are - yes! -
>> immune.
>
> Again, assuming. I have a child with special needs, who has friends
> who are medically not permitted to have vaccinations.
>
>> Herd immunity in a small community. But if you had kids in
>> college who could get infected on campus and come to your home before
>> they knew about infection - then you could be in danger. Hint: an
>> outbreak starts on a campus but not all the infected are college
>> students, guess who might be the rest?
>
> First, show that there are outbreaks like you claim.
>

I posted a link from cdc.gov about outbreaks. I can post more but unlike
you I do not have as much time for posting.

>
>>>>>> The number of those infected is much smaller than before mass mumps
>>>>>> vaccination. But the problem is that mumps is much harder on adults than
>>>>>> 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).
>
> I saw above, and your "problems" are idle conjecture.
>
>>>> Who is more likely to get these problems: a child or an adult?
>>>> What about "a mumps shot gives orchitis a chance"?
>>> 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 -- Hide quoted text -
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>

On Jun 9, 11:56 pm, Mike <m... RemoveThis @xyz.com> wrote:
> Mark Probert wrote:

> > No, it is neither an attempt at reading their minds or a moot point.
> > The simple fact is that they want the benefits of the tax dollar, but
> > do not want to play by the rules that their neighbors are. I call this
> > freeloading.
>
> Great! Let's take it one small step further: if a school tells parents
> that they must give their child Ritalin or something else, they must
> comply or lose tax credits and have their child kicked out of school.
> Hey, they should play by the rules.

Your analogy sucks. Let me suggest a course in logic.

You cannot compare vaccination and medication since the child who is
vaccinated is adding to the overall protection of the school
community. The child who is prescribed methylphenidate is not adding
to the overall protection of the school community. You have
effectively compared apples and oranges.

> And here, boys and girls,

Try to write for adults.

comes Mark P. strongly in favor of this
> proposal. How do I know? Simple. His undeclared motto is "What is good
> for pharmaceutical industry is good for your kids".

No, asswipe, you are quite wrong. While I am a stong advocate for
proper medication when warranted, I do not advocate any school
official requiring the use of medication, and, as a parent advocate in
my community, have actively opposed any attempt to do so. The decision
to *medicate* a child is between the parent and the doctor. Period.

Note, I referred to you as "asswipe" since you raised a strawman
argument claiming that you know what I think. When you do that, you
get what I dish.

> Or maybe he will avoid the question by saying "there is no such proposal
> yet, and I am not going to tell whether I would support it".

More qualification for asswipe.

> >> By the way, it has nothing to do with herd immunity? Herd immunity means
> >> protecting those who are not immune, right? And these unvaccnated
> >> children are not a danger, correct?
>
> > Wrong. The unvaccinated children are a danger to those children who
> > have valid medical reasons why they cannot be vaccinated.

OOPS....no comment by asswipe.

> >>>> How is that different from an annual fine?
> >>> So, let's put it this way...you believe that a parent who is not
> >>> 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?
>
> > Paying taxes are but one element of living in a community.
>
> >> Oh, and by the way tetanus vaccine is not related to herd immunity at
> >> all, since tetanus is not contagious. (Disclaimer: under no
> >> circumstances should this statement be interpreted as disapproval or
> >> approval of tetanus vaccinations.)
>
> > So, it is an irrelevant point on your part.
>
> No, it's not. I am against forced vaccinations, including tetanus.
> You are for forced tetanus vaccination though it has nothing to do with
> herd immunity.

Have you ever seen anyone with tetanus?



> >>>>> So the choice is: vaccinate or
> >>>>>> lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate
> >>>>>> 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 far, you have not submitted any proof that I can evaluate whether I
> > should reject it or not.
>
> >> So, let's reiterate the facts.
>
> > Nice weasel.
>
> >> 100% immune population is being replaced with 90% immune population.
> >> Current immunity rate for mumps is above 90% because older immune people
> >> 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.
>
> > Many claims there, but not one scintilla of proof. YOUR claiming that
> > there are facts is not proof of validity.
>
> Claim: before vaccinations there was 100% immunity.

No facts to prove that.

> Claim: mumps vaccine is effective 90% after 2 shots.

So? No vaccine is 100% effective. Never claimed there was.

> Claim: there were no mumps outbreaks on college campuses before total
> mumps vaccinations.

Prove it.

> Claim: such outbreaks are occurring now, and almost all affected are
> vaccinated.

Prove it.

> I rest my case. Readers can make their minds.

Readers will be looking for your facts to support your claims. So far,
you are factually-challenged.

> >>>>>> The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children
> >>>>>> born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps
> >>>>>> 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.
>
> > Because I had the lab test a little over ten years ago.
>
> Then why did not YOU get a mumps shot and join the herd?

There was no need to as I have a low exposure profile, and I am way
past the dangers of puberty.

Let's zip your
> Social Security credits, you must play by the rules. Nah, I think you
> are not guilty of that grave sin but only of a lesser sin of making
> things up.

Nope. Do not impute YOU failings to others.

> >> In some Communist countries, preschool kids could go to summer camp,
> >> catch mumps or chickenpox and the personnel would not tell the parents.
> >> Was it the practice in the country where you were born?
>
> > Born in the USofA.
>
> >> And here in the USA, only some 200,000 or 300,000 cases of mumps were
> >> reported annually - a small fraction of actual cases. Most were not
> >> reported. I would not be surprised if some people think they were not
> >> exposed while this is not the case for them.
>
> > So? What has that got to do with the issue of herd immunity. You care
> > clearly diverting.
>
> The issue here is that people do not always know if they had mumps.

However, it is clear that you have no facts. That is not open for
dispute.

"Mark Probert" <mark.probert.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote

>asswipe

> When you do that, you get what I dish.

YOU and YOU alone are responsible for YOUR posts.

>asswipe.

>asswipe.

> Do not impute YOU failings to others.

Now, there is a keeper.

In message <ycmdnWo4xqGfANrVnZ2dnUVZ8tLinZ2d.TakeThisOut@bt.com>, JOHN wrote:

> Chickepox was recognised harmless in 1890 http://whale.to/v/chicken1.html

Compared to smallpox, diphtheria, etc. it was. In 1890
Great Britain "only" recorded 83 deaths from chicken pox.
The same number of deaths today from one infectious disease
would, I dare say, not pass without comment despite the
rather greater net population.

That "only" stands in relation to 6698 from scarlet fever,
5368 from diphtheria, 12225 from pertussis, 5011 from
"enteric fever," 18,434 from diarrheal disease, 1852 from
puerperal fever [1], 30 from rabies, 1566 from "dietetic
diseases" (primarily intemperance), etc.

Notable is the passage on cancer:
"Deaths ascribed to cancer, using that term as a general
designation for all malignant new growths, were 18,654
and in the proportion of 643 to a million persons living;
showing a further increase upon the ever growing rates
previously recorded."

Source: "Fifty-Second Annual Report of the Registrar-
General of Births, Deaths, and Marriages in England"

[1] Adding other "accidents of childbirth," maternal
deaths amounted to 4 per 1000 live births.

--
| "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.TakeThisOut@lumbercartel.com> ---------+

Mark Probert wrote:
> On Jun 9, 11:56 pm, Mike <m....TakeThisOut@xyz.com> wrote:
>> Mark Probert wrote:
>
>>> No, it is neither an attempt at reading their minds or a moot point.
>>> The simple fact is that they want the benefits of the tax dollar, but
>>> do not want to play by the rules that their neighbors are. I call this
>>> freeloading.
>> Great! Let's take it one small step further: if a school tells parents
>> that they must give their child Ritalin or something else, they must
>> comply or lose tax credits and have their child kicked out of school.
>> Hey, they should play by the rules.
>
> Your analogy sucks. Let me suggest a course in logic.
>
> You cannot compare vaccination and medication since the child who is
> vaccinated is adding to the overall protection of the school
> community. The child who is prescribed methylphenidate is not adding
> to the overall protection of the school community. You have
> effectively compared apples and oranges.

How about tetanus vaccine? Same thing.

>
>> And here, boys and girls,
>
> Try to write for adults.
>
> comes Mark P. strongly in favor of this
>> proposal. How do I know? Simple. His undeclared motto is "What is good
>> for pharmaceutical industry is good for your kids".
>
> No, asswipe, you are quite wrong. While I am a stong advocate for
> proper medication when warranted, I do not advocate any school
> official requiring the use of medication, and, as a parent advocate in
> my community, have actively opposed any attempt to do so. The decision
> to *medicate* a child is between the parent and the doctor. Period.
>
> Note, I referred to you as "asswipe" since you raised a strawman
> argument claiming that you know what I think. When you do that, you
> get what I dish.
>

Let's test your alleged beliefs for consistency.
1. Should a minor be able to get a prescription drug (say, Ritalin) from
a doctor without consent or knowledge of his / her parents? (And I do
not mean accidents or other emergency situations or even abortions)
2. Same question for a non-mandatory vaccine.
3. If the answers are different could you please kindly explain why.

>> Or maybe he will avoid the question by saying "there is no such proposal
>> yet, and I am not going to tell whether I would support it".
>
> More qualification for asswipe.
>
More insults.

>>>> By the way, it has nothing to do with herd immunity? Herd immunity means
>>>> protecting those who are not immune, right? And these unvaccnated
>>>> children are not a danger, correct?
>>> Wrong. The unvaccinated children are a danger to those children who
>>> have valid medical reasons why they cannot be vaccinated.
>
> OOPS....no comment by asswipe.

YOU are a danger to these children, dear Mark.

>
>>>>>> How is that different from an annual fine?
>>>>> So, let's put it this way...you believe that a parent who is not
>>>>> 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?
>>> Paying taxes are but one element of living in a community.
>>>> Oh, and by the way tetanus vaccine is not related to herd immunity at
>>>> all, since tetanus is not contagious. (Disclaimer: under no
>>>> circumstances should this statement be interpreted as disapproval or
>>>> approval of tetanus vaccinations.)
>>> So, it is an irrelevant point on your part.
>> No, it's not. I am against forced vaccinations, including tetanus.
>> You are for forced tetanus vaccination though it has nothing to do with
>> herd immunity.
>
> Have you ever seen anyone with tetanus?

You cannot tie tetanus vaccine to herd immunity, so you want to chnge
the topic.

>
>
>
>>>>>>> So the choice is: vaccinate or
>>>>>>>> lose your child to the state (and then the state will vaccinate
>>>>>>>> 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 far, you have not submitted any proof that I can evaluate whether I
>>> should reject it or not.
>>>> So, let's reiterate the facts.
>>> Nice weasel.
>>>> 100% immune population is being replaced with 90% immune population.
>>>> Current immunity rate for mumps is above 90% because older immune people
>>>> 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.
>>> Many claims there, but not one scintilla of proof. YOUR claiming that
>>> there are facts is not proof of validity.
>> Claim: before vaccinations there was 100% immunity.
>
> No facts to prove that.

Ok, the rate was like 99.99% but for CDC a birth date before 1956 is
considered a proof of mumps immunity. Any doubts?

>
>> Claim: mumps vaccine is effective 90% after 2 shots.
>
> So? No vaccine is 100% effective. Never claimed there was.

Sounds like a PR line, an excuse for a vaccine with leaves too many
people without immunity.

Heck, why does not measles affect vaccinated people? Or smallpox?
Yes, there are vaccines that are 100% or virtually 100% effective.
There are other vaccines that are not very effective and are not
promoted as 100% effective (flu). People taking them are informed that
they still can get sick.

And there are relatively lousy vaccines that are promoted as effective.
People find out that mumps vaccine is not 100% effective only when they
or someone they know gets sick.

>
>> Claim: there were no mumps outbreaks on college campuses before total
>> mumps vaccinations.
>
> Prove it.

Have you heard about any?
>
>> Claim: such outbreaks are occurring now, and almost all affected are
>> vaccinated.
>
> Prove it.
>

Oh, c'mon. Stop pretending to be in denial.
Here is the first page coming from googling for "mumps outbreak".
http://www.ama-assn.org/amednews/2008/04/28/hlsa0428.htm
***************************************************
Investigators who took a close look at the reasons behind the 6,584
cases of mumps that hit Midwestern states in March through May of 2006
found that a surprisingly large percentage of those who contracted the
illness had received the recommended two doses of the measles, mumps and
rubella vaccine.
***************************************************


>> I rest my case. Readers can make their minds.
>
> Readers will be looking for your facts to support your claims.

Agreed. Facts are very easy to find.

So far,
> you are factually-challenged.
>

Bwahaha.

>>>>>>>> The mumps vaccine was introduced in the USA in 1967. When the children
>>>>>>>> born at the time reached high school age there were first mumps
>>>>>>>> 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.
>>> Because I had the lab test a little over ten years ago.
>> Then why did not YOU get a mumps shot and join the herd?
>
> There was no need to as I have a low exposure profile, and I am way
> past the dangers of puberty.
>

You are past puberty and this is exactly why you can get mumps orchitis.
And even die from it. And you are a danger to justifiably unvaccinated.

> Let's zip your
>> Social Security credits, you must play by the rules. Nah, I think you
>> are not guilty of that grave sin but only of a lesser sin of making
>> things up.
>
> Nope. Do not impute YOU failings to others.

It seems very weird that one would do a lab test intending not to act on
its results. If you were not going to be vaccinated then why the test?
You are probably lying; if not then you believe that only others, and
not you, should play by the rules.

>
>>>> In some Communist countries, preschool kids could go to summer camp,
>>>> catch mumps or chickenpox and the personnel would not tell the parents.
>>>> Was it the practice in the country where you were born?
>>> Born in the USofA.
>>>> And here in the USA, only some 200,000 or 300,000 cases of mumps were
>>>> reported annually - a small fraction of actual cases. Most were not
>>>> reported. I would not be surprised if some people think they were not
>>>> exposed while this is not the case for them.
>>> So? What has that got to do with the issue of herd immunity. You care
>>> clearly diverting.
>> The issue here is that people do not always know if they had mumps.
>
> However, it is clear that you have no facts. That is not open for
> dispute.

You are afraid of facts and deny their very existence.

In message <G9n4k.2020$n9.1404@trndny01>, Mike wrote:

> Sounds like a PR line, an excuse for a vaccine with leaves too many
> people without immunity.

Immunity is not the be-all and end-all of epidemiology.
Freedom from disease is much closer.

If I understand your thesis correctly, you're in favor
of attaining 100% immunity at the cost of living forever
with the disease and its consequences.

> Heck, why does not measles affect vaccinated people? Or smallpox?

Smallpox *doesn't* affect vaccinated people -- any more.
That seems to me a very desirable objective, and one that
is reasonably attainable for measles, mumps, and several
other diseases. Measles is already gone from the western
hemisphere except for sporadic outbreaks triggered by
travelers.

Measles is extremely contagious -- why are those outbreaks
so small?

> Yes, there are vaccines that are 100% or virtually 100% effective.
> There are other vaccines that are not very effective and are not
> promoted as 100% effective (flu). People taking them are informed that
> they still can get sick.