vaccination

Giovanni Maga maga at vetbio.unizh.ch
Tue Feb 13 05:13:04 EST 1996


In article <4fpdic$p3l at newsbf02.news.aol.com>, wwater1 at aol.com (WWATER1) wrote:


> I pray your children (if you plan to have or do have any) never suffer a
> reaction so you would have to tell them or their siblings that their brain
> damage is the "price we have to pay"  Read the horror of your words here. 
> Hitler must have felt that the Jews were an invading organism and that he
> must vaccinate the populace to prevent "infection".  YOU SCARE ME, RICH.  

The actual incidence of vaccine adverse effects is extremely lower than
the incidence of infections (and following deaths) in the pre-vaccination
era. This seems to me an improvement in public health. In another post you
were referring to something about 30,000 requests of remuneration by
families of vaccine damaged kids. I do not know where you took that figure
from or if it is true. Given it is, it should be noted that it is actually
very difficult to determine in most cases what was the actual cause of
damage, thus not all these cases are probably due to vaccinations. The
fact that a fund for such cases is provided,anyway, means that such
effects are possible (even if rare). The current status of vaccines is not
perfect. It represents a step along the way we should go in order to
eradicate the infections. Nothing can relieve from the tragedy of a baby
permanently damaged or killed, but stopping vaccination will drive us back
to a situation in which millions of people can be permanently damaged or
killed by infections like polio. In developed countries, the risk for
unvaccinated people to contract the infection is really small, due to the
fact that most of others are vaccinated. But with time, when most will be
not vaccinated, the risk to contract the infection will be enormously
higher and the same people, who are worried today by vaccinations, will
ask back for a shot at any price. Isn't it a good reason not to stop
vaccinations? Shouldn't it be a real nightmare for a woman knowing that
she can contract rubella during pregnancy, since not only she but also
most of the other people living nearby weren't vaccinated, thus offering a
natural reservoir for the virus to spread in?
Hitler does not seem IMO an appropriate term of comparison, since the
reasons that moved him and the actions he took are quite different from
what we are talking about. If you are not convinced about that, you could
spend some time in reading history books also, together with CDC reports.
A note: I do not consider appropriate crossposting to 8 or 9 groups (with
doubtful relation to the topic). I am posting thus this letter to
bionet.virology and bionet.immunology only.
My worthless opinion, of course. G.Maga.



More information about the Immuno mailing list