"Mark" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
...
"Mark" wrote in message
om...
"JG" wrote in message
...

[...]

Scaremonger. The likelihood of an infant/child who has diligent
parents
and is not subjected to to "high risk" persons--e.g., the
Malkins'
son--contracting hep B is no doubt so ridiculously small as to
be
laughable.

*I'm* the scaremonger? That's a laugh. The other vectors *aren't
identified*. How you know that you're being diligent in
protecting
your child against these vectors if you don't even know what they
are?

Hep B is transmitted via body fluids; ergo, diligent parents will
make
sure their infant/child isn't engaging in unprotected sex, sharing
needles, or
being exposed to the body fluids of others (of unknown hep B status)
in
other ways.


You missed (or ignored) my contention that 30-40% of childhood Hep B
infections are NOT found to be linked to blood or body fluid contact.

Not at all; see below.

It might be mosquitoes, but that hasn't been proven yet.

It might be a fecal-oral route, but that hasn't been proven yet.

It might be little green men with invisible hypodermic needles, but
that hasn't been proven yet.

The point is, about a third of childhood Hep B infections have no
identifiable vector, therefore the author's assertion, and yours, that
there is no need of protection is errant.

No *identified* vector; not "no *identifiable*" vector. I think it's
highly probable that infected infants/children were exposed, likely on a
regular basis, to an infected individual, and it's entirely possible
*that* individual was unaware that he/she was a carrier.