Breastfeeding news from Sweden (also: Pediatrician 'responds' to Gastaldo)

On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:04:54 +0000 (UTC), (Hillary
Israeli) wrote:

Stop lying about what MDs say. Do you have every medical office in the
world bugged? How would you even know?

Please, please do not respond to Gastaldo, no matter how tempting it
is to try to trash his nonsense. It is absolutely futile, as he is
clearly a high-fuctioning delusional psychotic. While it is actually
interesting to read his posts to see just how his brain can adjust,
adapt to, and assimilate any information into his delusional world and
always manage to be "right," no matter how wrong he is, it only
encourages him when you actually reply.

PF

In ,
PF Riley wrote:

*On Tue, 18 May 2004 12:04:54 +0000 (UTC), (Hillary
*Israeli) wrote:
*
*Stop lying about what MDs say. Do you have every medical office in the
*world bugged? How would you even know?
*
*Please, please do not respond to Gastaldo, no matter how tempting it
*is to try to trash his nonsense. It is absolutely futile, as he is
*clearly a high-fuctioning delusional psychotic. While it is actually

But it's fun. Why deny me the fun? So he's a wack-job. But he's OUR
wack-job. You could always killfile him.



--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
. net...

Vaccine-exempt children are sent home (protected) during disease
outbreaks -
but vaccinated-but-not-immunized children are NOT so protected...

MDs are *endangering vaccinated children* as they IN EFFECT claim that
vaccination works 100% of the time!

If vaccine exempt children are worth protecting during disease outbreaks,
so
are *vaccinated* children not immunized by their vaccinations.

[ALL children must be sent home (protected) during disease outbreaks - not
just vaccine exempt children. The laws must be changed.]

Vaccination does NOT always work - vaccination is NOT immunization -
vaccination is ATTEMPTED immunization.

Failing to protect vaccinated children during disease outbreaks is
relatively minor child abuse/child neglect compared to other obvious MD
crimes.

There is some truth to this. For example, chickenpos: a certain percentage
of people who have chickenpox as a child do not become immune to it, and
catch it a second time in later life. Surely vaccines do not carry a
*higher* rate of true immunity than having, and recovering from, the disease
itself?

In the event of an outbreak of a dangerous communicable disease (such as
measles or whooping cough), *all* children who might be exposed, vaccinated
or not, ought really to be sent home. We have no way of knowing which
individuals in a vaccinated population are actually immune, and thus some
will inevitably be assumed immune - and will not be, thus endangering them.
Alas, in US culture at any rate, vaccination has apparently relegated the
concept of quarantine to those disease which cannot be vaccinated against,
even when vaccines are known to not be 100% effective. And though 'herd
immunity' and vaccination do truly appear to have reduced the spread of many
diseases, I think quarantine would go a long way toward protecting people in
the event of an actual outbreak.

--angela

Angela said:

*all* children who might be exposed, vaccinated
or not, ought really to be sent home. We have no way of knowing which
individuals in a vaccinated population are actually immune

This is so true. Two years ago my fully vaccinated 8-year-old caught whooping
cough and passed it along to my unvaccinated one-year-old, who gave it to his
unvaccinated cousins, one of whom was a newborn and thus suffered the most
(although it persisted the longest in my vaccinated child, who had
coughing/vomiting episodes for 10 weeks).

Leslie

In ,
Chotii wrote:

*Alas, in US culture at any rate, vaccination has apparently relegated the
*concept of quarantine to those disease which cannot be vaccinated against,
*even when vaccines are known to not be 100% effective. And though 'herd

I totally disagree. I think it's just a matter of separating people into
high risk and low risk groups. The unvaccinated who have never had the
disease are high risk, and should be kept away from potential exposure as
much as possible. The vaccinated and those who have already had the
disease are low risk and don't have to be isolated to such a great extent.
This isn't, IMO, child abuse, and it also isn't "claiming IN EFFECT that
vaccination is 100% effective."


--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

In ,
Leslie wrote:

*Angela said:
*
**all* children who might be exposed, vaccinated
*or not, ought really to be sent home. We have no way of knowing which
*individuals in a vaccinated population are actually immune
*
*This is so true. Two years ago my fully vaccinated 8-year-old caught whooping
*cough and passed it along to my unvaccinated one-year-old, who gave it to his
*unvaccinated cousins, one of whom was a newborn and thus suffered the most
*(although it persisted the longest in my vaccinated child, who had
*coughing/vomiting episodes for 10 weeks).

Well, the best pertussis vaccines are only having about 80-85% efficacy,
right? So it's to be expected some vaccinated kids catch it. This is
printed right on the standardized information sheet our ped gave us (and
my SIL recently got one from her ped with the same info on it, so it's not
just MY doc who is telling the truth). I just don't get why people act
like this is surprising.

--
hillary israeli vmd http://www.hillary.net
"uber vaccae in quattuor partes divisum est."
not-so-newly minted veterinarian-at-large

So it's to be expected some vaccinated kids catch it. This is
printed right on the standardized information sheet our ped gave us (and
my SIL recently got one from her ped with the same info on it, so it's not
just MY doc who is telling the truth). I just don't get why people act
like this is surprising.

Oh, I'm not surprised, just agreeing with Angela that quarantines would still
probably be an effective way of containing contagion, and that vaccinations
give the population a false sense of security. Not to mention that my
pediatrician had no idea what was wrong with my child, and prescribed a totally
useless course of antibiotics.

Leslie

VET HAS "FUN" ENCOURAGING MD FRAUD...

Veterinarian "Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
...
In ,
Leslie wrote:

*Angela said:
*
**all* children who might be exposed, vaccinated
*or not, ought really to be sent home. We have no way of knowing which
*individuals in a vaccinated population are actually immune
*
*This is so true. Two years ago my fully vaccinated 8-year-old caught
whooping
*cough and passed it along to my unvaccinated one-year-old, who gave it to
his
*unvaccinated cousins, one of whom was a newborn and thus suffered the
most
*(although it persisted the longest in my vaccinated child, who had
*coughing/vomiting episodes for 10 weeks).

Well, the best pertussis vaccines are only having about 80-85% efficacy,
right? So it's to be expected some vaccinated kids catch it. This is
printed right on the standardized information sheet our ped gave us (and
my SIL recently got one from her ped with the same info on it, so it's not
just MY doc who is telling the truth). I just don't get why people act
like this is surprising.



Hillary Israeli, VMD
Veterinarian

Hillary,

I don't think people are just "acting" surprised that some children are not
immunized by their vaccinations.

Hopefully, vaccination literature has improved since 1994 when Melman et al.
wrote:

"The vaccine information pamphlets require a reading level beyond the
capability of the vast majority of our [inner-city parent/caretaker]
population. Therefore, the goal of informed consent clearly is not being
met."
--Melman et al. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med. 1994 Jun;148(6):642-4. PubMed
abstract

In addition to possible reading comprehension problems in selected
populations, there is the fact that MDs are powerfully/FRAUDULENTLY sending
the message that vaccination is 100% effective.

State vaccination laws are commonly called "immunization" laws and most
(all?) fail to require that ALL children be sent home (protected) during
disease outbreaks.

Since we don't know which individuals were not immunized by their
vaccinations, ALL children - not just vaccine-exempt children - must be sent
home (protected) during disease outbreaks. (My thanks to Angela for echoing
this point and to Leslie for responding to Angela.)

I suspect that parents will not start to understand that vaccination is not
100% effective until we change the vaccination laws to protect children not
immunized by their vaccinations.

Our vaccination laws must be changed to clearly state that vaccination is
NOT immunization - that vaccination is only ATTEMPTED immunization -
therefore ALL children must be sent home during disease outbreaks...

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo


PS Hillary, you have publicly called me a "wack job" for pointing out the
MD fraud that understandably causes parents to assume that vaccinations are
100% effective.

You have encouraged people not to respond to me, suggesting that I am
mentally ill...

"Ignore Todd. I usually do. Sometimes I just can't help myself though. He's
such a wack job.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

When pseudonymous usenet pediatrician PF Riley, MD called me a
"high-fuctioning delusional psychotic" and urged YOU not to respond to me...
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm... utput=gplain

You replied:

"But it's fun. Why deny me the fun? So he's a wack-job. But he's OUR
wack-job. You could always killfile him."
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...&output=gplain

I do not see your logic.

How can it be fun to help MDs perpetuate the vaccination promotion fraud
that encourages parents to believe that vaccinations are 100% effective?

See again: 'To hell with vaccinated children during disease outbreaks' (MDs
say in effect)...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2545

Hillary Israeli wibbled
Chotii wrote:

*Alas, in US culture at any rate, vaccination has apparently
relegated the *concept of quarantine to those disease which cannot
be vaccinated against, *even when vaccines are known to not be
100% effective. And though 'herd

I totally disagree. I think it's just a matter of separating
people into high risk and low risk groups. The unvaccinated who
have never had the disease are high risk, and should be kept away
from potential exposure as much as possible. The vaccinated and
those who have already had the disease are low risk and don't have
to be isolated to such a great extent.

I don't think you're necessarily disagreeing with each other. :-)

The *concept* of quarantine does seem to have disappeared somewhat
here, too, to the point where the unvaccinated or non-responders who
should be kept away from exposure aren't getting the opportunity
because those with the diseases aren't being kept away from them or
letting them (their parents) know ("because we're all vaccinated,
aren't we?").

A mother at our baby group this morning was complaining that her
nephew's school is expecting her nephew back this week even though
he has chickenpox and doesn't feel well enough (he still has the
rash, which only came out on Friday so he's still contagious!). She
is keeping her 6-month-old daughter away from him for now, and *her
sister* is complaining that she is doing so. Sheesh!

Jac

Todd Gastaldo wrote:

(snip)

You're as entitled to your fringe beliefs as much as the next guy. But
your totally out of context header comes mighty close IMO to libel.

Steve


--
Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS
http://www.dentaltwins.com
Brooklyn, NY