From: kludge@grissom.larc.nasa.gov (Scott Dorsey)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: Vaccinations?
Date: 4 Jan 1993 18:53:33 GMT
Organization: NASA Langley Research Center and Reptile Farm
NNTP-Posting-Host: grissom.larc.nasa.gov

In article <1993Jan4.075919.16904@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>In article <1993Jan2.192148.20043@spdcc.com> dyer@spdcc.com (Steve Dyer) writes:
>>In article <1993Jan2.144516.20037@rtf.bt.co.uk> traub@rtf.bt.co.uk (Michael Traub) writes:
>>>When  I  was  a child my mother regularly took me to see other children who
>>>had  measles,  mumps  and  chicken pox so that we could get the disease. In
>>>those  days  no  immunization existed. My father (a physician) did not seem
>>>at  all  concerned about complications. My sister and I managed a couple of
>>>weeks  off  school  and  I  have  a  scar in the middle of my forehead from
>>>ignoring  mum  and  scratching my chicken pox. Nowadays however measles and
>>>mumps  have  turned into life threatening diseases and the whole population
>>>requires immunization. Really???
>>
>>It is worth noticing Traub's sleight of hand here--he's conflating a mostly
>>innocuous disease of childhood (chicken pox) which has no vaccine with two
>>more dangerous diseases (mumps and measles) which do have vaccines.
>>Plus, he's arguing from a sample size of his family.  It is indeed lucky
>>that Traub's father's malpractice (exposing his children to measles)
>>didn't result in blindness, deafness or other complications.  Measles
>>is a very dangerous and contagious disease; it always has been.
>
>Don't display your ignorance Dyer:
>
>(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.

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.
--scott
   just adding fuel to the fire

Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative