From: traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Vaccinations?
Date: 5 Jan 93 09:32:44 GMT
Organization: BT Customer Systems, Brighton, UK

In article <1ia13dINN1qu@rave.larc.nasa.gov> kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey) writes:
>In article <1993Jan4.075919.16904@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>(1) Measles and mumps have always been innocuous diseases in the pre-pubescent.
>>(2) My father could hardly have been guilty of malpractice when the vaccines
>>    for measles and mumps were ***not even available*** in the 1950's.
>>(3) The measles complications you refer to are most prevalent in teenage
>>    children who have previously been immunized and have reached puberty. (*)
>
>Okay, I think we have a good point here.  Your father's behavior was probably
>good at the time, when vaccines were not available.  Exposing a child to the
>disease (which he would be sure to get at some time in his life anyway), so
>that he got it when young instead of when old is a good idea if the risks
>of the childhood disease are much less than those of catching the disease
>while an adult.  Granted.
>
>But, now that vaccines are available, why bother?  The risks of catching
>the disease from the vaccine are low but do exist.  However, catching the
>disease when exposed is much more certain.  If children are immunized, it
>will greatly reduce their chances of getting the disease.  And, more 
>importantly, it will surely and completely eliminate their chances of
>getting the disease while an adult.

See  point  3)  above.  While  getting measles naturally provides life-long
immunity,  taking  the  vaccine does not in any way guarantee it. If taking
the  vaccine  means  that  one is *more* likely to get the disease in later
years  during  an  epidemic then surely it would have been more sensible to
get  the  disease  earlier  in  life and not bother being vaccinated in the
first  place?  The references I gave in an earlier posting show that during
epidemics  many  of those that get the measles disease have been previously
immunized.

>Immunizing adults is another thing, and could be more dangerous.  The risks
>are greater, since while the chances of catching the disease from a live
>vaccine are low, the damage that could be done is great.  On the other hand,
>since the damage that can be done by the disease is so great, the benefits
>are also much greater.

There  is  very  little chance of catching the disease from a live vaccine.
It  is  more  common that *other* people (usually family members) catch the
disease  from  their  immunized  children.  There  are a number of reported
cases  of  parents  who  became paralysed after their children had received
polio  vaccine.  If  you  are  going  to have your child immunised with the
live  polio  vaccine then it is sensible to take booster shots yourself. Of
course  the  incidence  of  transmutation  of the live polio vaccine into a
virulent  form  is  incredibly small, but that won't be much comfort to you
if you are paralysed.



-- 
Michael Traub
BT Customer Systems, Brighton Systems Centre. traub@btcs.bt.co.uk

    JOE, taxi driver: Unemployment will rise and sooner or later the
    masses will revolt against it. There'll be civil disorder and the
    further breakdown of civil society. The end result I hope will be
    the triumph of the people over capitalism. I also wouldn't mind
    if a few more people used taxis this year - '92 was rotten.

(Taken from "Hopes and Fears" in The Guardian, December 31st 1992, a
section which looked at what people saw 1993 bringing)
Newsgroups: misc.education