Anaphylactic children

Why............because John asked.....nicely.

Got a problem with that?

"JohnDoe" wrote in message
. ..
john wrote:

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...

Didn't read the papers, did you? There are several in the links that I
provided which compared people who never received vaccines to those who
did. Not that we're surprised, you tend to ignore inconvenient things.

Bryan


I did read some and they never specified 100% unvaccinated kids, so if
can actually prove from the text they are then do so

unvaccinated in their world doesn't mean 100% unvaccinated, it only means
unvaccinated with the particular vaccine they are studying

but I thought you could figure that out yourself

so if you have the studies that say this then post them or e mail them to
me, as you said you would

Why? Would you change your mind when you get evidence contrary to your
opinion?

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...


Several of those studies included groups which had never received
vaccines. As I've said a million times before, read the articles. Here's
a few more which look at groups who've never received any vaccine befo

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...ubmed_DocS um

Just provide 2 that prove they use 100% unvax as controls. That one above
was just a puff piece about polio vax

See above. I'd e-mail them directly, but you cower behind a fake e-mail.
Pretty hard to send you stuff without a valid addy

Cower? Any moron, even you, could go to whale.to and find it, but you don't
have any studies that show 100% unvax kids

In message , Mark Probert wrote:

Brian, do not fall into the "mortality trap" of the anti-vaccination
loons. The key thing is that vaccines have substantially reduced the
incidence of many diseases and, in some situations, made the infections
milder. These factors, in addition to the lowering of the already low
death rates, have also reduced the incidence of severe disability. The
loons would have you focus on the death rates and not the incidence rates.

Party pooper.

When you have a set of clear steps in a causal chain, it's
much more fun to look at only the end of the chain which
supports your position -- or at least can be made to do so.

Example: the auto industry has made a great deal of US DOT
research that found that accident mortality is lower in SUVs
than in smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles. That reputation
for safety is one reason that the behemoths are popular in
the soccer-Mom set.

Well, after a decade or more promoting them the DOT got to
looking a bit more at their own data and found that deaths
per passenger-mile are no lower for SUVs than any other type.
It seems that, yes, other things being equal you're better
off being in a Hummer than in the Accord the Hummer runs into.
(Of course, it doesn't help much when the other vehicle is
a semi.) However, the rate of accidents for SUVs makes up
for it -- the dang things don't avoid wrecks at all well
for various reasons.

Add in the fact that quite a few of the fatalities in smaller
vehicles are due to being impaled by the ladder frame of an
out-of-control SUV and the picture changes beyond recognition.

All things considered, it seems best to identify the contributing
factors in a chain of events so as to address each one. Modern
treatment has dramatically reduced the deaths from typhoid and
pneumonia, and that's a good thing. However, it seems best to
reduce the need for all that goodness by not getting them in
the first place, no?

--
begin signature.exe
A:*Because*it*messes*up*the*order*in*which*people* normally*read*text.
Q:*Why*is*top-posting*such*a*bad*thing?
A:*Top-posting.
Q:*What*is*the*most*annoying*thing*on*usenet?

In article .com,
wrote:
BULL to all your arguments.

First ask the vaccine industry to conduct all the tests we are asking
them to. Again ad infinitum,

1. Long term tests involving children of all constituent types, of all
countries, of all races. As per vaccine researchers such tests are
needed but would be expensive.

2. Tests comparing vaccinated children with a non vaccinated
population.

3. Tests with each vaccine component and also with all of them
together.

4. Tests for the effects of multiple vaccinations.

We all know how all thimerosal tests on mice have brought out the nerve
damaging effects. I bet it will be the same and more if the above tests
are conducted in a free and fair manner.

"Real" science says, till all the above studies are complete and
studied, the entire vaccination process should be IMMEDIATELY STOPPED.

It says nothing of the sort. Real science tells us of the damage done
by vaccine-preventable diseases. So we know that preventing them is
important.

"Herd immunity"? Yes, that is why children should be allowed to grow
normally with the inherent natural exposure to the environment and
other children. That is how children achieve "herd immunity".

You clearly have no idea what the term means.

Once the above tests are over we will know who the child killers are.

We already know. The anti-vaxers.

I do not like "child lovers" who let the children disintegrate into
autoimmune disorder wrecks on the pretext of "saving them" from
perfectly curable acute illnesses.

Not all acute illnesses are "perfectly curable." Unless you
homeopathy fans can cure death.

If they cannot cure acute illnesses
then let them sit at the feet of holistic healers and learn.

Yeah, right. The holistic healers never lose a patient.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth

I wish that everytime I looked at the Nursing Newsgroup I didn't hae to wade
through all the cross-posted stuff. Could we keep some of these discussions
in the alt health and kids health groups?? Take sci.med.nursing group off
when you reply to the posts. It is getting way too crowded in here.

Oh look, John failed to read the papers again...

Wouldn't want to challenge your dearly-held beliefs, now would we?

Bryan

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Oh look, John failed to read the papers again...

Oh look, Bryan is making the subject about *John*.

Wouldn't want to challenge your dearly-held beliefs, now would we?

Bryan

Dearly-held beliefs................

Certainly glad you don't have any.................

"Jan Drew" wrote in message
.. .

"Bryan Heit" wrote in message
...
Oh look, John failed to read the papers again...

Oh look, Bryan is making the subject about *John*.

Wouldn't want to challenge your dearly-held beliefs, now would we?

Bryan

Dearly-held beliefs................

Certainly glad you don't have any.................

LOL.