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

"Jacqui" wrote in message
. 7...
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!

There are those morons who would be visiting that sister for a infection
party, since they "think" that catching the wild virus is better and safer
than a vaccine.

"Mark & Steven Bornfeld DDS" wrote in message
...
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



Steve, you have to be one of the very few on this newsgroup that hasn't
killfiled that loonie yet.

HMc

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 17, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote in message
et...

"Jacqui" wrote in message
. 7...
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!

There are those morons who would be visiting that sister for a infection
party, since they "think" that catching the wild virus is better and safer
than a vaccine.

So who is the bigger moron: the parent who deliberately exposes one or two
children known to be non-immune, or the school who expects a
still-contagious child to return to a classroom full of children whose state
of immunity is unknown?

--angela

"Chotii" wrote in message
...

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 17, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote in message
et...

"Jacqui" wrote in message
. 7...
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!

There are those morons who would be visiting that sister for a infection
party, since they "think" that catching the wild virus is better and
safer
than a vaccine.

So who is the bigger moron: the parent who deliberately exposes one or two
children known to be non-immune, or the school who expects a
still-contagious child to return to a classroom full of children whose
state
of immunity is unknown?

If it is a public school, the children have been vaccinated, or have shown
proof of immunity, and the school i srelying on that. No one ever claims
that any vaccine is 100% effective.

However, having a kid return to school who is still infectious is just plain
dumb. If they do it, and there are kids who are infected and injured, the
school has opened itself up for some serious liability issues.

And, this does not make the parent any less a moron. I am aware of one such
situation which lead to the death of the breadwinner. The widow was pregnant
with twins, and there were eight children. The family was not eligible for
workers comp (although the guy died while working, his death was not job
related) and they had to live on $2800/mo in SS benefits.

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 17, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote in message
et...

There are those morons who would be visiting that sister for a infection
party, since they "think" that catching the wild virus is better and safer
than a vaccine.



Mark, please promise that you will not ever leave this NG. It would be very
difficult to find a clown of your stature to replace you.

Steven Bornfeld, DDS (http://www.dentaltwins.com) wrote:

"You're as entitled to your fringe beliefs as much as the next guy."


Todd D. Gastaldo, DC remarks:

"Fringe beliefs" are sometimes on the fringe because the main body of belief
is in error.

"Fringe" is a pejorative sometimes used by those wishing to conceal error.



Steven Bornfeld, DDS also wrote:

"...[Y]our totally out of context header comes mighty close IMO to libel."

Steve is apparently referrring to my subject line: "Vet has 'fun'
encouraging MD fraud."

Steve probably just didn't read my PS...

Here it is again:

BEGIN Gastaldo's PS...

[Veterinarian Hillary Israeli, VMD], 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

END Gastaldo's PS...

I'm still interested to know - how CAN it be fun for Hillary to help MDs
perpetuate vaccination promotion fraud?

To put all this in context...

Here is the sentence that stimulated my question of Hillary...

Hillary wrote:

"...it's to be expected some vaccinated kids catch [pertussis]...I just
don't get why people act like this is surprising."


I replied:

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...

END body of Gastaldo's post titled, "Vet has 'fun' encouraging MD
fraud...

Again...

"Fringe beliefs" are sometimes on the fringe because the main body of belief
is in error.

"Fringe" is a pejorative sometimes used by those wishing to conceal error.

I can only assume that Steve the dentist is unaware of the facts - or he
wishes to conceal MD error.

Either way, the dentist is now encouraging MD fraud - just like the vet -
albeit (perhaps) without having "fun."

When Hillary indicated that I am "uneducated" and "lying"...

I wrote...

I am the first to have pointed out that MDs are
claiming in effect that vaccination works 100% of the time - which may
explain why most state vaccination laws embody this rather obvious
vaccination promotion fraud...If you run across any other "uneducated"
persons "lying" about this - please
post the relevant cites and quotes so that all can see that I am not the
only "uneducated" person "lying" about the obvious MD vaccination promotion
fraud.

It SOUNDS crazy - "fringe" - but MDs *are* engaging in mass immunologic
child abuse/child neglect.

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

See Various MD crimes (obvious ones)...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2541

Thanks for reading,

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo

M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 17, 2004 wibbled
Chotii wrote

So who is the bigger moron: the parent who deliberately exposes
one or two children known to be non-immune, or the school who
expects a still-contagious child to return to a classroom full of
children whose
state
of immunity is unknown?

If it is a public school, the children have been vaccinated, or
have shown proof of immunity, and the school i srelying on that.

Uh, extra piece of information. I live in the UK. There is no
varicella vaccination here.

The school are definitely behaving like morons, but so is the
mother's sister, who is not respectful of her decision to keep a
six-month-old quarantined from her infectious cousin!

Jac

"Jacqui" wrote in message
. 7...
M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 17, 2004 wibbled
Chotii wrote

So who is the bigger moron: the parent who deliberately exposes
one or two children known to be non-immune, or the school who
expects a still-contagious child to return to a classroom full of
children whose
state
of immunity is unknown?

If it is a public school, the children have been vaccinated, or
have shown proof of immunity, and the school i srelying on that.

Uh, extra piece of information. I live in the UK. There is no
varicella vaccination here.

The school are definitely behaving like morons, but so is the
mother's sister, who is not respectful of her decision to keep a
six-month-old quarantined from her infectious cousin!

Agreed.

Todd Gastaldo wrote:

Yeah, he did. You are right--I'm slow, but even I eventually get it. ;-)

Steve


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

KEEPING VACCINATED CHILDREN IN SCHOOL DURING DISEASE OUTBREAKS

(thereby in effect claiming that vaccines are 100% effective)...

RAISES SERIOUS LIABILITY ISSUES...

See below.

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 17, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote in message
et...

"Chotii" wrote in message
...

"M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t-May 17, 2004" M.a.r.k P.r.o.b.e.r.t
wrote in message
et...

"Jacqui" wrote in message
. 7...
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!

There are those morons who would be visiting that sister for a
infection
party, since they "think" that catching the wild virus is better and
safer
than a vaccine.

So who is the bigger moron: the parent who deliberately exposes one or
two
children known to be non-immune, or the school who expects a
still-contagious child to return to a classroom full of children whose
state
of immunity is unknown?

If it is a public school, the children have been vaccinated, or have shown
proof of immunity, and the school i srelying on that. No one ever claims
that any vaccine is 100% effective.


##### It is false for Mark to say that "no one ever claims that any vaccine
is 100% effective."

##### Schools (with organized medicine's blessing) do this all the time IN
EFFECT.

##### I mention schools because Mark said that schools rely on children
"hav[ing] been vaccinated, or hav[ing] shown proof of immunity."

##### Mark forgot to mention two groups of children: **children who are
not immunized by their vaccinations** and children exempted from
vaccination - both of which groups of children are susceptible during
disease outbreaks.

##### During disease outbreaks, schools (with organized medicine's
blessing) send home (protect) vaccine exempt children - but do not so
protect children not immunized by their vaccinations.

##### Schools (with organized medicine's blessing) are claiming IN EFFECT
that vaccines work 100% of the time.

##### This is wrong. Vaccination is NOT immunization. Vaccination is
ATTEMPTED immunization. The "immunization" laws need to be changed so that
they are called "vaccination" laws - and until we start determining which
vaccinated children were not immunized - state vaccination laws need to
mandate that ALL children are sent home (protected) during disease
outbreaks.

However, having a kid return to school who is still infectious is just
plain
dumb. If they do it, and there are kids who are infected and injured, the
school has opened itself up for some serious liability issues. snip


#### Just as dumb: During official disease outbreaks, only sending home
vaccine exempt children and keeping everyone else at school, thereby
endangering children not immunized by their vaccinations.

#### Mark is right - there are serious liability issues to be considered.

#### Thanks for reading.

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo