Truth: Hep-B

[Jan Drew]

Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
all
new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.

http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm


Warning: New Hepatitis Vaccine Recs Can Devastate Newborn's Health


The newly released 2002 immunization schedule encourages the routine use of
hepatitis B vaccine for all infants before hospital discharge to


Safeguard against maternal hepatitis B testing errors and test reporting
failures


Protect neonates discharged to households in which hepatitis B chronic
carriers
other than the mother may reside


Enhance the completion of the childhood immunization series
The annual "Recommended Childhood Immunization Schedule" of the American
Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the Advisory Committee on Immunization
Practices
(ACIP) of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), and the
American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP) is issued in January of each
year.


Pediatrics Vol. 109 No. 1 January 2002, pp. 162


--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------


DR. MERCOLA'S COMMENT:


Folks I am outraged. We need to take action now. These recommendations are
inexcusable.


There is no possible logical recommendation for this action. All of these
arguments are fatally flawed.


If you are new to the site these may sound like lunatic ramblings of some
quack, but before you come to that, or a similar conclusion, I challenge you
to
examine the facts.


The central fact, and the one that helps to explain these insane
recommendations, is that the maker of the hepatitis B vaccine, Merck, makes
about $1 billion a year from vaccine sales.


A billion dollars a year goes a long way toward influencing public policy.


Who is Behind This?


The group that is pushing this through is called The Hepatitis B coalition.
Part of the Immunization Action Coalition, this group was started by a
$750,000
grant from the CDC. It is supported by the World Health Organization, World
Bank, Rockefeller Foundation and ongoing funding from Smith-Kline, Merck,
Aventis and Johnson & Johnson.


Let us not forget that it has been less than three years since the federal
government asked the drug companies to take mercury out of this vaccine, and
they still haven't complied.


I have seen many dozens of children who were given this vaccine on the first
day of life and subsequently developed autism. Others, like Michael Belkin's
daughter, weren't as lucky and died immediately after the vaccine.


Michael is a successful Wall Street Financial analyst with his own company,
and
has testified to Congress on this issue and regularly forwards news health
stories to me.


Well in the single dose hepatitis B vials, the drug companies have replaced
the
mercury with aluminum, which is another potent neurotoxin that has been
associated with Alzheimer's. But who knows what damage it will do to the
immature central nervous system of a one-day old infant.


The multi dose hepatitis B vials still contain mercury.


Folks, hepatitis B is about as difficult to catch as AIDS. Namely, you
nearly
always need to have blood or sexual contact of some sort. That is why the
main
risk factors are IV drug abusers and those who engage in sex with multiple
partners.


Is Hepatitis Vaccine Safe?


The Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) was developed by the
government to report vaccine reactions. Many experts believe that only 10%
of
the adverse reactions are reported though as reporting is not mandated by
law.


Even with only 10% of the problems being reported there were nearly 25,000
VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31, 1998, showing 439
deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room visits,
hospitalization, disablement or death.


The presence of findings such as brain edema in healthy infants who die very
soon after receiving hepatitis B vaccine is profoundly disturbing,
especially
in view of the frequency of neurologic symptoms in the VAERS.


Does this make any sense?


Is Hepatitis B Vaccine Effective in Newborns?


Vaccine derived immunity is thought to be short lived. Between 30-50% of
vaccinated individuals lose their antibiodies within 7 years.


Up to 60% of persons who initially respond will lose detectable antibodies
within 12 years.. So that means that these vaccines will provide little to
no
protection to the real risks of acquiring hepatitis B, promiscuous sexual
behavior and IV drug abuse.


Does this make any sense?


How Many Children Are Hurt or Helped By Hepatitis B Vaccine?


Hepatitis B is a rare, mainly blood-transmitted disease. In 1996 only 54
cases
of the disease were reported to the CDC in the 0-1 age group. There were 3.9
million births that year, so the observed incidence of hepatitis B in the
0-1
age group was just 0.001%. In the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS), there were 1,080 total reports of adverse reactions from hepatitis
B
vaccine in 1996 in the 0-1 age group, with 47 deaths reported.


Let us put this in simpler terms. For every child with hepatitis B there
were
20 that were reported to have severe complications. Let us also remember
that
only 10% of the reactions are reported to VAERS, so this means:


Traditional medicine is harming 200 children to protect one from hepatitis
B.

[Mark]

Jan Drew wrote:
> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
> all
> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.


Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is given.
Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.

Mark, MD

[Robert1]

Mark wrote:
> Jan Drew wrote:
> > Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
> > all
> > new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>
>
> Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is given.
> Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.
>
> Mark, MD

I wish somebody had told me that as we have to get out HBsAg testing
out within 12 hours of delivery with mothers who have no documented
test on file as those without no prenatal care testing. If we don't
have testing done in time or a mother is HBsAG positive then the
vaccine is recommended.

Hopefully in the future a vaccine for HCV will be developed and add to
the complaints of these people. There is an epidemic of HCV compared to
HBV because of the vaccine and decreased incidence of HBV with the
complications of chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis and hepatic carcinoma.

[Jan Drew]

"Mark" > wrote in message
oups.com...
> Jan Drew wrote:
>> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure
>> that
>> all
>> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>
>
> Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is given.
> Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.
>
> Mark, MD

You wish.

Actually, that was posted:

Aug 11 2003

And....

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/2f3347dc8284cf38?hl=en&

Jul 9 2004

It is now standard proceedure to give babies the first shot withn 12 hours
of
birth, no questions asked.


http://digestive.niddk.nih.gov/ddiseases/pubs/hepb_ez/index.htm


The hepatitis B vaccine is given through three shots. All babies should get
the
vaccine. Infants get the first shot within 12 hours after birth. They get
the
second shot at age 1 to 2 months and the third shot between ages 6 and 18
months.


http://groups.google.com/group/misc.health.alternative/msg/331bb4057541ca05?hl=en&

Mon, Jun 17 2002

My granddraughter was given a Hep B shot,,,,,,,,and NO QUESTIONS WERE
ASKED!!!!

[Robert1]

Jan Drew wrote:
>
> It is now standard proceedure to give babies the first shot withn 12 hours
> of
> birth, no questions asked.
>

That is not correct. It is not standard practice and that is why
testing is now presently required as I stated above. It has been
recommended that it be changed to include all babies and that is not
standard right now.

[Jeff]

"Jan Drew" > wrote in message
y.net...
>
> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
> all
> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>
> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm

A parent may refuse to have any vaccine given to a child. There is no legal
requirement that any vaccine be given. And many states have religious
exemptions from their requirements for vaccination before school.

<garbage deleted>

jeff

[Jan Drew]

"Robert1" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Jan Drew wrote:
>>
>> It is now standard proceedure to give babies the first shot withn 12
>> hours
>> of
>> birth, no questions asked.
>>
>
> That is not correct. It is not standard practice and that is why
> testing is now presently required as I stated above. It has been
> recommended that it be changed to include all babies and that is not
> standard right now.

Why do you think I posted the dates??


>

[Jason Johnson]

In article . com>, "Mark"
> wrote:

Jan Drew wrote:
> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
> all
> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.


Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is given.
Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.

Mark, MD

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
It's my GUESS that the majority of parents o new born babies just sign off
the forms without reading them and do whatever their doctors or medical
staff advises them to do. The end result is that most all babies receive
the Hep-B vaccine. If anyone knows the percentage of newborn babies that
receive the Hep-B vaccine, please post that percentage. I have only been
in a hospital one time and recall that I had to sign lots of forms and did
not bother to read all of the information on every form.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Jan Drew]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
ink.net...

Jeff has been asked....Prove you are a kidsdoc.

He has NOT answered. Go figure

> "Jan Drew" > wrote in message
> y.net...
>>
>> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure
>> that all
>> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>>
>> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm
>
> A parent may refuse to have any vaccine given to a child. There is no
> legal requirement that any vaccine be given. And many states have
> religious exemptions from their requirements for vaccination before
> school.
>
> <garbage deleted>
>
> jeff

It is noted, you did not address any consent form, back in the following
years.

Parts of Not garbage Restored:

The newly released 2002 immunization schedule encourages the routine use of
hepatitis B vaccine for all infants before hospital discharge to

Iatrogenic exposure to mercury after hepatitis B vaccination in preterm
infants.


Stajich GV, Lopez GP, Harry SW, Sexson WR.


Mercer University, Southern School of Pharmacy, Atlanta, Georgia 30341, USA.


Thimerosal, a derivative of mercury, is used as a preservative in hepatitis
B
vaccines. We measured total mercury levels before and after the
administration
of this vaccine in 15 preterm and 5 term infants. Comparison of pre- and
post-vaccination mercury levels showed a significant increase in both
preterm
and term infants after vaccination. Additionally, post-vaccination mercury
levels were significantly higher in preterm infants as compared with term
infants. Because mercury is known to be a potential neurotoxin to infants,
further study of its pharmacodynamics is warranted.


Scientific Review of Vaccine Safety Datalink Information By The US
Centre for Disease Control, Simpsonwood Retreat Center, Norcross,
Georgia, June 7th-8th 2000.
This meeting was convened by the US CDC to discuss the findings of Dr.
Verstraeten in relation to the positive statistical association
between thiomersal-containing vaccines and neurodevelopmental
disorders (thiomersal is a mercury-based preservative that has been
extensively used in the UK and US, and elsewhere).
The confidential version of the study reviewed at this meeting clearly
demonstrated that an exposure to more than 62.5 micrograms of mercury
within the first three months of life significantly increased a
child's risk of developing autism. Specifically, the study found a
2.48 times increased risk of autism.
In the US, courts of law have held that a relative increased risk of
2.0 or higher is sufficient to substantiate that a given exposure
causes disease (in the case of Cook v. United States, 545 F. Supp.
306, at 308, Northern District, California, 1982, the Court stated
that "in a vaccine case, a relative risk greater than 2.0 establishes
that there is greater than a 50% chance that the injury was caused by
the vaccine").
The key findings of the Vaccine Safety Datalink analysis were that
there was a statistically significant association between:
A cumulative exposure to thiomersal-containing vaccines at 2 months of
age and unspecified developmental delay
A cumulative exposure at three months of age and tics
A cumulative exposure at six months of age and attention deficit
disorder
A cumulative exposure at 1, 3 and 6 months of age and language and
speech delay
A cumulative exposure at 1, 3 and 6 months of age and
neurodevelopmental delays in general
The report noted that "the consultants were unanimous in their opinion
that further investigations should be pursued with a degree of
urgency".
These are some extracted comments from some of the key participants:
Dr. Weil: "There are just a host of neurodevelopmental data that would
suggest that we've got a serious problem"
Dr. Verstraeten: "We have found statistically significant
relationships between the exposures and outcomes for these different
exposures and outcomes. First, for two months of age, an unspecified
developmental delay which has its own specific ICD9 code. Exposure at
three months of age, Tics. Exposure at six months of age, an attention
deficit disorder. Exposure at one, three and six months of age, the
entire category of neurodevelopmental delays, which includes all of
these plus a number of other disorders."
"Now for speech delays, which is the largest single disorder in this
category of neurologic delays. The results are suggestive of a trend
with a small dip. The overall test for trend is highly statically
significant above one".
"After excluding this speech group, the trend is also apparent in this
group (developmental delays, less those with speech delays) and the
test for trend is also significant for this category excluding
speech".
Dr. Davis: "In terms of a search for pre-disposing factors.....serious
and chronic otitis media by history, being mentioned by the
pediatrician or the specialist, was present 38% of the time". (US
parents' note: doesn't this sound familiar to all of you parents with
autistic children?)
Dr. Johnson: "This association leads me to favour a recommendation
that infants up to two years old not be immunised with
thiomersal-containing vaccines if suitable alternative preparations
are available......there are probably implications for this
internationally".
Congress also ordered the Institute of Medicine (IoM) to investigate
the autism/MMR link, or identify another cause(s). The IoM is a
division of the National Academy of Sciences, whose members serve as
advisers to Congress. The IoM met in 2001, and also looked at eight
other vaccine-related safety concerns.

Does this make any sense?

How Many Safety Studies Have Been Done On Hepatitis B Vaccine?

None.

A manufacturer's representative was asked in a 1997 Illinois Board of Health
hearing to show evidence that the hepatitis B vaccine is safe for a 1-day
old infant. The representative stated:

"We have none. Our studies were done on 5- and 10-year-olds."

-- The Congressional Quarterly, August 25, 2000, pg. 647


[all of the links have disappeared,,what a surprise...NOT].

http://64.41.99.118/vran/vaccines/hepatitis/vaccine_hep.htm

VACCINES HEPATITIS-B
HEP-B VACCINE, an UNJUSTIFIED HEALTH HAZARD


Across Canada each year, thousands of school children are lined up and
injected
with hepatitis B vaccine. Parents are not adequately informed of the risks
associated with the vaccine nor are they told that children in Canada have
an
extremely low risk of contracting the disease. Hepatitis B is not a common
childhood disease. The risk according to recent statistics from Health
Canada
is minute, with only 25 cases reported in 1998 in children under the age of
14
in the entire country, yet thousands of children every year are exposed to
the
hazards of the vaccine. Parents are not told that hepatitis B vaccine is
genetically engineered, that it contains thimerosal a known neurotoxin, and
that no long term follow up for adverse reactions has been done.
Pre-marketing
clinical trials lasted only 4-5 days, not long enough to determine
automimmune
reactions that can take weeks and months to emerge.


According to vaccine researcher, Dr. Bonnie Dunbar, "The pathologies that
are
common to hepatitis B virus infections are the same types of symptoms that
are
associated with both the plasma derived (old vaccine) and the new yeast
derived
recombinant hepatitis B vaccine. These include rheumatoid arthritis type
symptoms, optic neuritis, multiples sclerosis like symptoms, demyelinating
disorders and a variety of vascular disorders and chronic fatigue syndrome."
Dr. Dunbar reports that "we re finding there are 3 basic categories of
adverse
reactions. When you look at the published reports in the literature we have
a
majority of neurological type of symptoms, rheumatic/rheumatology,
autoimmune
types of symptoms and a variety of others vascular, etc."


In a resolution voting against mandatory childhood vaccines, members of the
Association of American Physicians and Surgeons stated that "children under
the
age of 14 are three times more likely to suffer adverse effects -- including
death -- following the hepatitis B vaccine than to catch the disease
itself."
While Canadian statistics are sparse on vaccine associated adverse events,
the
VAERS adverse events reporting system in the United States offers the
following
statistics. To be sure, a similar trend would be expected in Canada.


http://www.aapsonline.org/aaps/


Overall, VAERS has received a total of 17,497 reports of adverse reactions
to
the hepatitis B vaccine, reactions that occurred after people received the
vaccine alone, rather than in combination with other vaccines, during the
period between July 1, 1990 and October 21, 1998. Moreover, fully 5,983 of
these reports chronicled such serious events as hospitalizations, while 146
of
them told of deaths. VAERS, furthermore, is a passive system, not a
mandatory
one. This suggests that only a fraction of adverse events are actually
reported, a fraction estimated by FDA officials to be as low as 1% to 10%.


http://www.biospace.com/articles/111199.cfm


Until recently the vaccine was given in a three dose schedule - the first
dose
usually started in the fall at the begining of the new school term, a second
injected dose about a month later, and the third dose approximately 6 months
later. In July 2000, The National Advisory Committee on Immunization (NACI)
announced a revised schedule under the heading "The Statement on Alternate
Adolescent Schedule for Hepatitis B Vaccine", published in the Canada
Communicable Diseases Report - Vol. 26 (ACS-5), July 1, 2000. This brief
report
announces that children age 11-15 will have available a two dose schedule to
be
given in the school setting, and identifies the vaccine as Merck Frosst's
Recombivax HB, but omits pertinent product information and does not disclose
details of how the new 2 dose hepatitis B vaccine differs from the old 3
dose
vaccine. The NACI statement can be viewed online at:


http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/publicat/ccdr/00vol26/26sup/acs5.html


The timeline of the hepatitis B vaccine program varies from province to
province. Some provinces start injecting children in Grade 3, others start
in
grade 4, 5, 6, or 7, and high schools offer catch up campaigns for students
who
missed their shots in elementary school.


New Brunswick, and the North West Territories routinely inject newborn
infants
within hours of birth with hepatitis B vaccine, while also offering it with
the
early infant shots starting at two months. Prince Edward Island includes it
in
the infant shots and also offers it in schools. British Columbia recently
also
has added hepatitis B vaccine to its routine infant vaccination program,
starting at two months.


According to the Canadian Immunization Guide - Fifth edition (1998), " HBV
infection is usually associated with exposure to blood or infectious bodily
fluids. Common means of transmission include heterosexual and homosexual
contact, injection drug use, and perinatal transmission (mother to infant).
The
risk of transfusion-related hepatitis B is extremely low because of routine
HBsAg screening of donated blood and rejecting of donors at risk of
infection.
Infections also occur in settings of close personal contact through
unrecognized contact with infective fluids." People at high risk for getting
hepatitis B disease are intravenous drug users who share contaminated
needles,
prostitutes, prisoners, sexually promiscuous persons and babies born to
infected mothers.


Canada offers prenatal blood screening (which includes testing for hepatitis
B
infection) to all pregnant women, and in rare cases of maternal infection,
newborn infants are immeditely treated with hepatitis B immune globulin
(HBIG),
which offers immediate short term passive immunity. Immune globulin is
prepared
from pooled human plasma from selected donors wth high level of anti-HBs who
are seronegative for bloodborne infections. This screening and treatment
insures that vulnerable, at risk infants are protected from acquiring
hepatitis
B and effectively reduces their risk of becoming lifelong carriers of the
disease. The majority of adults, and older children who might rarely
contract
the disease usually recover, and develop lifelong immunity. Only a small
percentage of people who contract hepatitis B go on to become carriers of
the
disease and/or develop degenerative liver disease.


Health Canada reports "an encouraging picture of declining incidence of HBV
infection in Canada in recent years. The reasons for this apparent decline
remain speculative. A high-risk group approach to the use of hepatitis B
vaccine has been in place in Canada since 1982 (3) and prenatal screening,
at
first targeted at high-risk pregnant women and later at all pregnant women,
has
also been in place since 1982..........A downward trend for the incidence of
HBV in the early 1990s has also been reported in the United States and has
been
partly ascribed to declining transmission among injection drug users,
possibly
as a result of safer needle-using"


http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/hpb/lcdc/publicat/ccdr/97vol23/dr2307eb.html

[Jim Manson]

"Jan Drew" > wrote:

>
>"Robert1" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Jan Drew wrote:
>>>
>>> It is now standard proceedure to give babies the first shot withn 12
>>> hours
>>> of
>>> birth, no questions asked.
>>>
>>
>> That is not correct. It is not standard practice and that is why
>> testing is now presently required as I stated above. It has been
>> recommended that it be changed to include all babies and that is not
>> standard right now.
>
>Why do you think I posted the dates??


I'll probably regret this but I'll try anyway.

The webpage you posted says "All babies should get the
vaccine."

What part of "should" do you read to be mandatory and not just a
recommendation?

Nothing you posted ( except unverifiable anecdotes ) supports your
contention that any vaccinations are given "no questions asked".

[Mark Probert]

Jim Manson wrote:

> I'll probably regret this but I'll try anyway.
>
> The webpage you posted says "All babies should get the
> vaccine."
>
> What part of "should" do you read to be mandatory and not just a
> recommendation?
>
> Nothing you posted ( except unverifiable anecdotes ) supports your
> contention that any vaccinations are given "no questions asked".


Hi Jim.

[Mark Probert]

Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article . com>, "Mark"
> > wrote:
>
> Jan Drew wrote:
> > Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
> > all
> > new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>
>
> Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is given.
> Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.
>
> Mark, MD
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Mark,
> It's my GUESS

That seems to be common...you guessing...you assuming...

that the majority of parents o new born babies just sign off
> the forms without reading them and do whatever their doctors or medical
> staff advises them to do. The end result is that most all babies receive
> the Hep-B vaccine. If anyone knows the percentage of newborn babies that
> receive the Hep-B vaccine, please post that percentage. I have only been
> in a hospital one time and recall that I had to sign lots of forms and did
> not bother to read all of the information on every form.

Does your personal experience extrapolate to the majority?

Doubtful. New parents tend to research everything.

[Jan Drew]

"Jim Manson" > wrote in message
...
> "Jan Drew" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Robert1" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>
>>> Jan Drew wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It is now standard proceedure to give babies the first shot withn 12
>>>> hours
>>>> of
>>>> birth, no questions asked.
>>>>
>>>
>>> That is not correct. It is not standard practice and that is why
>>> testing is now presently required as I stated above. It has been
>>> recommended that it be changed to include all babies and that is not
>>> standard right now.
>>
>>Why do you think I posted the dates??
>
>
> I'll probably regret this but I'll try anyway.
>
> The webpage you posted says "All babies should get the
> vaccine."
>
> What part of "should" do you read to be mandatory and not just a
> recommendation?

None. Where did you see *me* mention manadatory??
>
> Nothing you posted ( except unverifiable anecdotes ) supports your
> contention that any vaccinations are given "no questions asked".

You are free to believe what you wish.

My anecdote was true.

Care to address other points I posted?




>
>

[Jan Drew]

"Jason Johnson" > wrote in message
...
> In article . com>, "Mark"
> > wrote:
>
> Jan Drew wrote:
> > Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure
> > that
> > all
> > new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>
>
> Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is given.
> Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.
>
> Mark, MD
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Mark,
> It's my GUESS that the majority of parents o new born babies just sign off
> the forms without reading them and do whatever their doctors or medical
> staff advises them to do. The end result is that most all babies receive
> the Hep-B vaccine. If anyone knows the percentage of newborn babies that
> receive the Hep-B vaccine, please post that percentage. I have only been
> in a hospital one time and recall that I had to sign lots of forms and did
> not bother to read all of the information on every form.
> Jason
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Exactly. Parents do not know the risks.

American way. Trust the doctor.

[Jason Johnson]

In article >, Mark Probert
> wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article . com>, "Mark"
> > wrote:
>
> Jan Drew wrote:
> > Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
> > all
> > new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>
>
> Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is given.
> Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.
>
> Mark, MD
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Mark,
> It's my GUESS

That seems to be common...you guessing...you assuming...

that the majority of parents o new born babies just sign off
> the forms without reading them and do whatever their doctors or medical
> staff advises them to do. The end result is that most all babies receive
> the Hep-B vaccine. If anyone knows the percentage of newborn babies that
> receive the Hep-B vaccine, please post that percentage. I have only been
> in a hospital one time and recall that I had to sign lots of forms and did
> not bother to read all of the information on every form.

Does your personal experience extrapolate to the majority?

Doubtful. New parents tend to research everything.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
Good points. Since you do not believe me, visit the room in any hospital
where new patients check in and count the number of people that read every
form before they sign it. If anyone that reads this post has ever been in
an hospital, did you read every form before you signed it?
Believe it or not--most patients have faith their doctors and therefore
sign any forms that needs to be signed. They know that if they don't sign
the forms, it may cause delays or problems or arguments.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Jan Drew]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> Jim Manson wrote:
>
>> I'll probably regret this but I'll try anyway.
>>
>> The webpage you posted says "All babies should get the
>> vaccine."
>>
>> What part of "should" do you read to be mandatory and not just a
>> recommendation?
>>
>> Nothing you posted ( except unverifiable anecdotes ) supports your
>> contention that any vaccinations are given "no questions asked".
>
>
> Hi Jim.

Bless. Defended of Joe Parsons. Phone sex.

He often likes to mock anonymous cowards, it's amusing.

Like Mark.......

[Jan Drew]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> Jason Johnson wrote:
>> In article . com>,
>> "Mark"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Jan Drew wrote:
>> > Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure
>> that
>> > all
>> > new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>> Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is given.
>> Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.
>> Mark, MD
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Mark,
>> It's my GUESS
>
> That seems to be common...you guessing...you assuming...
>
> that the majority of parents o new born babies just sign off
>> the forms without reading them and do whatever their doctors or medical
>> staff advises them to do. The end result is that most all babies receive
>> the Hep-B vaccine. If anyone knows the percentage of newborn babies that
>> receive the Hep-B vaccine, please post that percentage. I have only been
>> in a hospital one time and recall that I had to sign lots of forms and
>> did
>> not bother to read all of the information on every form.
>
> Does your personal experience extrapolate to the majority?
>
> Doubtful. New parents tend to research everything.

lol....

What is Mark's proof of this??

Oh, that's right. He don't need no steeken proof.

[Jeff]

"Jason Johnson" > wrote in message
...

(...)

> Mark,
> Good points. Since you do not believe me, visit the room in any hospital
> where new patients check in and count the number of people that read every
> form before they sign it.

And whose fault is it if they sign something before they read it?

> If anyone that reads this post has ever been in
> an hospital, did you read every form before you signed it?
> Believe it or not--most patients have faith their doctors and therefore
> sign any forms that needs to be signed. They know that if they don't sign
> the forms, it may cause delays or problems or arguments.

Parents are always told their kids are going to get vaccines. They have an
oppurtunity to decline and/or ask questions.

Jeff


> Jason
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe]

Jason Johnson wrote:
<snipped>
> If anyone that reads this post has ever been in
> an hospital, did you read every form before you signed it?


I'm not sure about other people, but I usually *skim* the forms. If
it's a new form, I go over it carefully. If it's the same ol' same
ol', I skim it for any new/changed text. <shrug> But then, I grew up
around the medical field.


> Believe it or not--most patients have faith their doctors and therefore
> sign any forms that needs to be signed. They know that if they don't sign
> the forms, it may cause delays or problems or arguments.


I only have faith in the medical folks I know and trust, or that my
family in the medical profession knows and trusts. Medical
professionals are people, too, with all the flaws and foibles the rest
of us have.

Kitten

[Jan Drew]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
ink.net...

So..you have decided to get lying kidsdoc2000.
>
> "Jason Johnson" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> (...)
>
>> Mark,
>> Good points. Since you do not believe me, visit the room in any hospital
>> where new patients check in and count the number of people that read
>> every
>> form before they sign it.
>
> And whose fault is it if they sign something before they read it?
>
>> If anyone that reads this post has ever been in
>> an hospital, did you read every form before you signed it?
>> Believe it or not--most patients have faith their doctors and therefore
>> sign any forms that needs to be signed. They know that if they don't sign
>> the forms, it may cause delays or problems or arguments.
>
> Parents are always told their kids are going to get vaccines. They have an
> oppurtunity to decline and/or ask questions.
>
> Jeff

Oh? Proof...please.
>
>
>> Jason
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>

[Jim Manson]

"Jan Drew" > wrote:

>
>"Jim Manson" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jan Drew" > wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Robert1" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Jan Drew wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It is now standard proceedure to give babies the first shot withn 12
>>>>> hours
>>>>> of
>>>>> birth, no questions asked.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That is not correct. It is not standard practice and that is why
>>>> testing is now presently required as I stated above. It has been
>>>> recommended that it be changed to include all babies and that is not
>>>> standard right now.
>>>
>>>Why do you think I posted the dates??
>>
>>
>> I'll probably regret this but I'll try anyway.
>>
>> The webpage you posted says "All babies should get the
>> vaccine."
>>
>> What part of "should" do you read to be mandatory and not just a
>> recommendation?
>
>None. Where did you see *me* mention manadatory??
>>
>> Nothing you posted ( except unverifiable anecdotes ) supports your
>> contention that any vaccinations are given "no questions asked".
>
>You are free to believe what you wish.
>
>My anecdote was true.
>
>Care to address other points I posted?

Since you just admitted that they do not give the vaccinations on a
required basis the rest of your points aren't really relevant.

Parents can choose to allow it or not allow it. It's their choice, not
mine.

[Jim Manson]

Mark Probert > wrote:

>Jim Manson wrote:
>
>> I'll probably regret this but I'll try anyway.
>>
>> The webpage you posted says "All babies should get the
>> vaccine."
>>
>> What part of "should" do you read to be mandatory and not just a
>> recommendation?
>>
>> Nothing you posted ( except unverifiable anecdotes ) supports your
>> contention that any vaccinations are given "no questions asked".
>
>
>Hi Jim.


Hi Mark.

[john]

"Jan Drew" > wrote in message
y.net...
>
> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
> all
> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>
> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm
>
>

another great pharma hoax http://www.whale.to/vaccine/point.html

[Jeff]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jan Drew" > wrote in message
> y.net...
>>
>> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure
>> that all
>> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>>
>> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm
>>
>>
>
> another great pharma hoax http://www.whale.to/vaccine/point.html

Considering that NO ONE got small pox last year and very few people in the
US get measles, mumps, rubella (and rubella related birth defects), vaccines
have save thousands of lives. There are far fewer cases of meningitis each
year from Hib. There is less liver cancer becaue of the Hep B vaccine.

Saving lives is no hoax.

The only hoax here is the whale.to site.

Jeff

[Mark Probert]

john wrote:
> "Jan Drew" > wrote in message
> y.net...
>> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
>> all
>> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>>
>> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm
>>
>>
>
> another great hoax http://www.whale.to

John gets one right

[Jason Johnson]

In article om>,
"Caitriona Mac Fhiodhbhuidhe" > wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
<snipped>
> If anyone that reads this post has ever been in
> an hospital, did you read every form before you signed it?


I'm not sure about other people, but I usually *skim* the forms. If
it's a new form, I go over it carefully. If it's the same ol' same
ol', I skim it for any new/changed text. <shrug> But then, I grew up
around the medical field.


> Believe it or not--most patients have faith their doctors and therefore
> sign any forms that needs to be signed. They know that if they don't sign
> the forms, it may cause delays or problems or arguments.


I only have faith in the medical folks I know and trust, or that my
family in the medical profession knows and trusts. Medical
professionals are people, too, with all the flaws and foibles the rest
of us have.

Kitten

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Kitten,
As you stated, you grew up around the medical field so as a result you
have an excellent understanding of the forms and about other medical
issues. The typical person (including parents of newborn babies) have
NEVER before had to fill out and sign medical forms. They trust their
doctors and the medical staff. If the doctors and medical staff advise
them to sign forms authorizing them to give their newborn babies the Hep-B
vaccines, in most cases they would sign those forms. Most doctors and
medical staff would advise them to have their newborn babies vaccinated. I
challenge anyone to find the statistics related to the percentage of
newborn babies that have received the Hep-B vaccine.
Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Jan Drew]

"Jim Manson" > wrote in message
...
> "Jan Drew" > wrote:
>
>>
>>"Jim Manson" > wrote in message
...
>>> "Jan Drew" > wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"Robert1" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Jan Drew wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is now standard proceedure to give babies the first shot withn 12
>>>>>> hours
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> birth, no questions asked.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That is not correct. It is not standard practice and that is why
>>>>> testing is now presently required as I stated above. It has been
>>>>> recommended that it be changed to include all babies and that is not
>>>>> standard right now.
>>>>
>>>>Why do you think I posted the dates??
>>>
>>>
>>> I'll probably regret this but I'll try anyway.
>>>
>>> The webpage you posted says "All babies should get the
>>> vaccine."
>>>
>>> What part of "should" do you read to be mandatory and not just a
>>> recommendation?
>>
>>None. Where did you see *me* mention manadatory??
>>>
>>> Nothing you posted ( except unverifiable anecdotes ) supports your
>>> contention that any vaccinations are given "no questions asked".
>>
>>You are free to believe what you wish.
>>
>>My anecdote was true.
>>
>>Care to address other points I posted?
>
> Since you just admitted that they do not give the vaccinations on a
> required basis the rest of your points aren't really relevant.

#1. It is noted you did not answer my question.

#2. I admitted no such thing.
>
> Parents can choose to allow it or not allow it. It's their choice, not
> mine.

Not if they are not informed, or presented with a consent form.

American way. Trust the doctor.

[Jan Drew]

"john" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Jan Drew" > wrote in message
> y.net...
>>
>> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure
>> that all
>> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>>
>> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm
>>
>>
>
> another great pharma hoax http://www.whale.to/vaccine/point.html

Excellent work.

Thanks, John.

Keep up the good work. Exposing the lies and fraud of both conventional
and organized medicine.
>
>

[Jan Drew]

"Jeff" > wrote in message
.net...
>
> "john" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
>> "Jan Drew" > wrote in message
>> y.net...
>>>
>>> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure
>>> that all
>>> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>>>
>>> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> another great pharma hoax http://www.whale.to/vaccine/point.html
>
> Considering that NO ONE got small pox last year and very few people in the
> US get measles, mumps, rubella (and rubella related birth defects),
> vaccines have save thousands of lives. There are far fewer cases of
> meningitis each year from Hib. There is less liver cancer becaue of the
> Hep B vaccine.
>
> Saving lives is no hoax.
>
> The only hoax here is the whale.to site.
>
> Jeff

Points Jeff notkidsdoc would like to overlook.

VAERS reports show numerous deaths and serious reactions.

"The total 24,775 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31,
1998 show 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room
visits, hospitalization, disablement or death.........The hep B adverse
event cover-up is way bigger then the AHP diet-drug cover up."--Michael
Belkin

Don't forget that doctors only report from 2-10% of adverse reactions.



1997, that there were 43 deaths following the vaccine in children under the
age of 2.

4. Neither Dr. Margolis nor Dr. Ellenberg would answer the question as
to whether the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits from the
vaccine.
5. When Dr. Margolis was asked whether there was any warning policy of
the risks associated with vaccines, such as now exist with cigarette
advertising or prescription or non-prescription medicine his answer was
incredible. He stated that the CDC has NO WARNING POLICY on the risks
associated with vaccines. Rather they rely on the vaccine package
insert, which from personal experience many parents don't even know
exists.
6. Incredibly, Dr. Margolis stated that the CDC does not know how long
the Hep B Vaccine is effective for. They have apparently followed the
vaccine for 15 years but they have no idea the length of immunity from
the vaccine. The vaccine package insert from the pharmaceutical company
describes the length of protection as "undetermined". In the country of
India they vaccinate EVERY FOUR YEARS. Yet, the new CDC vaccine sheet
that parents receive now states that, "All three doses are needed for
full and lasting immunity." Parents now think their child can not get
Hepatitis B because they received 3 doses of the vaccine yet it clearly
conflicts with what the CDC official said at the hearing, what the
vaccine package insert states and what the country of India is currently
doing.
7. This Subcommittee overseas the CDC. Amazingly, this was the FIRST
oversight hearing in 10 years!
8. Due to Secretary of Health and Human Services changing the definition
of a reaction to DPT from several days to just 4 hours after the vaccine
there is some money that has accumulated in the Vaccine Compensation
Program Fund. Rather than paying the victims, the government argues and
says if the child had the reaction 6 hours after the vaccine it is not a
reaction but rather ONLY if it is within four hours of receiving the DPT
vaccine. The sad part is there are children who have been severely
disabled with seizures, autism, etc. with doctors who have identified
the vaccine as the cause but do to bureaucracy an arbitrary number has
been picked because too many claims were getting filed. Instead of
doing research and making a safer vaccine they just changed the
definition of a reaction.
9. Dr. Waisbren, Sr., a clinical investigator from Milwaukee,
representing the FACP (I cannot locate what the initials stand for)
noted some interesting facts. First, he noted no one hears of adverse
reactions because dozens of cases against pharmaceutical companies have
been settled out of court for large sums of money and with the
stipulation that no one can discuss the settlement. He also noted that
the CDC reports are NOT peer reviewed. Which means that there is no one
questioning the CDC's findings as to whether they are valid.
10. Dr. Bonnie Dunbar, who was profiled in the January 1999 20/20 report
on Hepatitis B, also spoke. She has always done vaccine research with
more of a pro-vaccine twist until recently. Her brother and a student
of her's both suffered serious reactions to the Hepatitis B vaccine.
Her brother is completely paralyzed and unable to care for himself. He
used to be a Doctor also. Her student suffered partial blindness along
with other adverse reactions from the Hepatitis B vaccine. She also
noted some interesting facts. When Dr. Dunbar contacted the FDA
regarding the Hepatitis B vaccine an individual told her that "this
vaccine is a problem and it is a big one." She also explained how
medical students come crying to her because they see a child have a
reaction and they are told by medical staff to be quiet about it. They
are told not to report the reaction.
11. During the hearing a pattern developed. The pattern is that ALL the
reported Hepatitis B vaccine reactions occurred in Caucasians. This
does not mean that other groups of people do not react it simply means
that all the vaccine adverse reaction reports occurred in Caucasians.
Approximately 70% of the reactions occurred in girls/women. None of
these patterns have yet to be researched by the CDC or the FDA.
12. EVERY person/family who had experienced a Hepatitis B vaccine
reaction, that I met, had experienced some sort of problems with their
respiratory system. Some had difficulty breathing, wheezing,
congestion, etc. In fact, the new CDC sheet lists these symptoms as
serious allergic reactions! If you or your child has had this symptom
following the Hepatitis B vaccine I strongly encourage caution and
research before getting another vaccine.

[Jan Drew]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> john wrote:
>> "Jan Drew" > wrote in message
>> y.net...
>>> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure
>>> that all
>>> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>>>
>>> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm
>>>
>>>
>>
>> another great hoax http://www.whale.to
>
> John gets one right

Actually. What John posted:

another great pharma hoax http://www.whale.to/vaccine/point.html

[Jeff]

"Jan Drew" > wrote in message
t...
>
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> .net...
>>
>> "john" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>>
>>> "Jan Drew" > wrote in message
>>> y.net...
>>>>
>>>> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure
>>>> that all
>>>> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> another great pharma hoax http://www.whale.to/vaccine/point.html
>>
>> Considering that NO ONE got small pox last year and very few people in
>> the US get measles, mumps, rubella (and rubella related birth defects),
>> vaccines have save thousands of lives. There are far fewer cases of
>> meningitis each year from Hib. There is less liver cancer becaue of the
>> Hep B vaccine.
>>
>> Saving lives is no hoax.
>>
>> The only hoax here is the whale.to site.
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Points Jeff notkidsdoc would like to overlook.
>
> VAERS reports show numerous deaths and serious reactions.
>
> "The total 24,775 VAERS hepatitis B reports from July 1990 to October 31,
> 1998 show 439 deaths and 9673 serious reactions involving emergency room
> visits, hospitalization, disablement or death.........The hep B adverse
> event cover-up is way bigger then the AHP diet-drug cover up."--Michael
> Belkin

Yet, that does not mean that an adverse event in the VAERS reports is caused
by vaccines. Many are caused by things that are not related to the vaccines.
The system is designed so that any event that could be caused by vaccination
is reported, so that no events are missed.
>
> Don't forget that doctors only report from 2-10% of adverse reactions.

And doctors are more likley to report serious events than events that are
not serious.

> 1997, that there were 43 deaths following the vaccine in children under
> the age of 2.

And if there were not vaccinations, how many of these deaths would have
still occurred? About 43.

> 4. Neither Dr. Margolis nor Dr. Ellenberg would answer the question as
> to whether the risks of the vaccine outweigh the benefits from the
> vaccine.

The benefits of the vaccine clearly outweigh the risks of the vaccine.

> 5. When Dr. Margolis was asked whether there was any warning policy of
> the risks associated with vaccines, such as now exist with cigarette
> advertising or prescription or non-prescription medicine his answer was
> incredible. He stated that the CDC has NO WARNING POLICY on the risks
> associated with vaccines. Rather they rely on the vaccine package
> insert, which from personal experience many parents don't even know
> exists.

Parents are required to give consent before the vaccine is given.

> 6. Incredibly, Dr. Margolis stated that the CDC does not know how long
> the Hep B Vaccine is effective for.

Incorrect. The CDC knows that the vaccine is good for at least 15 years.


<...>

jeff

[Mark Probert]

Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article >, Mark Probert
> > wrote:
>
> Jason Johnson wrote:
> > In article . com>, "Mark"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Jan Drew wrote:
> > > Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
> > > all
> > > new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
> >
> >
> > Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is given.
> > Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.
> >
> > Mark, MD
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Mark,
> > It's my GUESS
>
> That seems to be common...you guessing...you assuming...
>
> that the majority of parents o new born babies just sign off
> > the forms without reading them and do whatever their doctors or medical
> > staff advises them to do. The end result is that most all babies receive
> > the Hep-B vaccine. If anyone knows the percentage of newborn babies that
> > receive the Hep-B vaccine, please post that percentage. I have only been
> > in a hospital one time and recall that I had to sign lots of forms and did
> > not bother to read all of the information on every form.
>
> Does your personal experience extrapolate to the majority?
>
> Doubtful. New parents tend to research everything.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Mark,
> Good points. Since you do not believe me, visit the room in any hospital
> where new patients check in and count the number of people that read every
> form before they sign it.

We were not discussing that. We were discussing new parents and the
HepB. New parents know for months (can you figure out how many?) that
they will be having a child. In areas where there are numerous doctors,
new parents often interview several different ones, before selecting the
one that will help them care for their child.

When we were looking, we interviewed several based on recommendations
from friends and others. At every interview, we were given various forms
and handouts of information.

We finally selected two, and have been with them for over 23 years.
Turns out that one of them is the son of my HS bio teacher. There is
another interesting coincidence regarding him, but, alas, the harassers
and stalkers have made it impossible for me to mention it.

You, or anyone, can email me if you wish to learn about this at

mark*dot*probert*at*gmail*dot*com.

If anyone that reads this post has ever been in
> an hospital, did you read every form before you signed it?

I was hospitalized last year and read everything. The TV stunk, and it
was the most interesting thing to read.

> Believe it or not--most patients have faith their doctors and therefore
> sign any forms that needs to be signed.

Many patients know their doctors for years and have developed a trusting
professional relationship with them because they know them. Their doctor
did not suddenly beam down from Haley's Comet.

They know that if they don't sign
> the forms, it may cause delays or problems or arguments.

They know that they can ask questions. However, if you are correct, it
is the patient's fault, not the doctor's.

[Jim Manson]

"Jan Drew" > wrote:

>>
>> Since you just admitted that they do not give the vaccinations on a
>> required basis the rest of your points aren't really relevant.
>
>#1. It is noted you did not answer my question.
>
>#2. I admitted no such thing.

Actually you did when you admitted that the vaccinations are not
mandatory.

I quote:

"None. Where did you see *me* mention mandatory??"

i.e. not mandatory means not required.

>> Parents can choose to allow it or not allow it. It's their choice, not
>> mine.
>
>Not if they are not informed, or presented with a consent form.

You haven't established that occurs. You have prvided a few personal
anecdotes, which hardly qualifies as proof of anything regarding the
thousands and thousands of births that we don't have anecdotes for.

As a matter of fact, someone has posted that they work in a place that
does require consent. So why are your sources to be believed without
question and other sources to be disregarded?


>
>American way. Trust the doctor.
>

Couldn't tell it by me, I question most things and read everything
that I sign.

[Jan Drew]

"Jim Manson" > wrote in message
...
> "Jan Drew" > wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Since you just admitted that they do not give the vaccinations on a
>>> required basis the rest of your points aren't really relevant.
>>
>>#1. It is noted you did not answer my question.
>>
>>#2. I admitted no such thing.
>
> Actually you did when you admitted that the vaccinations are not
> mandatory.
>
> I quote:
>
> "None. Where did you see *me* mention mandatory??"

Learn to read. I asked you a question.

It is noted...AGAIN. You did not answer my question.
Why?


>
> i.e. not mandatory means not required.

LOL. No, it does not.

[ ]

[Jan Drew]

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...
> Jason Johnson wrote:
>> In article >, Mark Probert
>> > wrote:
>>
>> Jason Johnson wrote:
>> > In article . com>,
>> "Mark"
>> > > wrote:
>> > > Jan Drew wrote:
>> > > Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard
>> procedure that
>> > > all
>> > > new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>> > > > Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is
>> given.
>> > Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.
>> > > Mark, MD
>> > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> > > Mark,
>> > It's my GUESS That seems to be common...you guessing...you assuming...
>> that the majority of parents o new born babies just sign off
>> > the forms without reading them and do whatever their doctors or
>> medical
>> > staff advises them to do. The end result is that most all babies
>> receive
>> > the Hep-B vaccine. If anyone knows the percentage of newborn babies
>> that
>> > receive the Hep-B vaccine, please post that percentage. I have only
>> been
>> > in a hospital one time and recall that I had to sign lots of forms and
>> did
>> > not bother to read all of the information on every form.
>> Does your personal experience extrapolate to the majority?
>> Doubtful. New parents tend to research everything.
>>
>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Mark,
>> Good points. Since you do not believe me, visit the room in any hospital
>> where new patients check in and count the number of people that read
>> every
>> form before they sign it.
>
> We were not discussing that.

Translation:

I don't want to check.

We were discussing new parents and the
> HepB. New parents know for months (can you figure out how many?) that they
> will be having a child.

Poor Mark.

Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...

A snide remark deserves scorn.


In areas where there are numerous doctors,
> new parents often interview several different ones, before selecting the
> one that will help them care for their child.

So you say. Got any proof?
>
> When we were looking, we interviewed several based on recommendations from
> friends and others. At every interview, we were given various forms and
> handouts of information.
>
> We finally selected two, and have been with them for over 23 years. Turns
> out that one of them is the son of my HS bio teacher. There is another
> interesting coincidence regarding him, but, alas, the harassers and
> stalkers have made it impossible for me to mention it.

LOL.

*Anecdotes can be made up. They teach how in the P.T. Barnum School Of
Internet Marketing, Scamming and MLMing.*

*Anecdotes are Bull****...*

02-06-06

"Mark Probert" > wrote in message
...

Anecdotes are bull**** and prove nothing.
>
> You, or anyone, can email me if you wish to learn about this at
>
> mark*dot*probert*at*gmail*dot*com.
>
> If anyone that reads this post has ever been in
>> an hospital, did you read every form before you signed it?
>
> I was hospitalized last year and read everything. The TV stunk, and it was
> the most interesting thing to read.
>
>> Believe it or not--most patients have faith their doctors and therefore
>> sign any forms that needs to be signed.
>
> Many patients know their doctors for years and have developed a trusting
> professional relationship with them because they know them. Their doctor
> did not suddenly beam down from Haley's Comet.
>
> They know that if they don't sign
>> the forms, it may cause delays or problems or arguments.
>
> They know that they can ask questions. However, if you are correct, it is
> the patient's fault, not the doctor's.
>

[Jason Johnson]

In article >, Mark Probert
> wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article >, Mark Probert
> > wrote:
>
> Jason Johnson wrote:
> > In article . com>, "Mark"
> > > wrote:
> >
> > Jan Drew wrote:
> > > Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard
procedure that
> > > all
> > > new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
> >
> >
> > Hooey! Consent is required before the first dose of Hep B is given.
> > Written, signed consent. Again, Jan Drew, you lied.
> >
> > Mark, MD
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> >
> > Mark,
> > It's my GUESS
>
> That seems to be common...you guessing...you assuming...
>
> that the majority of parents o new born babies just sign off
> > the forms without reading them and do whatever their doctors or medical
> > staff advises them to do. The end result is that most all babies receive
> > the Hep-B vaccine. If anyone knows the percentage of newborn babies that
> > receive the Hep-B vaccine, please post that percentage. I have only been
> > in a hospital one time and recall that I had to sign lots of forms and did
> > not bother to read all of the information on every form.
>
> Does your personal experience extrapolate to the majority?
>
> Doubtful. New parents tend to research everything.
>
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Mark,
> Good points. Since you do not believe me, visit the room in any hospital
> where new patients check in and count the number of people that read every
> form before they sign it.

We were not discussing that. We were discussing new parents and the
HepB. New parents know for months (can you figure out how many?) that
they will be having a child. In areas where there are numerous doctors,
new parents often interview several different ones, before selecting the
one that will help them care for their child.

When we were looking, we interviewed several based on recommendations
from friends and others. At every interview, we were given various forms
and handouts of information.

We finally selected two, and have been with them for over 23 years.
Turns out that one of them is the son of my HS bio teacher. There is
another interesting coincidence regarding him, but, alas, the harassers
and stalkers have made it impossible for me to mention it.

You, or anyone, can email me if you wish to learn about this at

mark*dot*probert*at*gmail*dot*com.

If anyone that reads this post has ever been in
> an hospital, did you read every form before you signed it?

I was hospitalized last year and read everything. The TV stunk, and it
was the most interesting thing to read.

> Believe it or not--most patients have faith their doctors and therefore
> sign any forms that needs to be signed.

Many patients know their doctors for years and have developed a trusting
professional relationship with them because they know them. Their doctor
did not suddenly beam down from Haley's Comet.

They know that if they don't sign
> the forms, it may cause delays or problems or arguments.
`````````````````````````````````````````````````` ```````````


They know that they can ask questions. However, if you are correct, it
is the patient's fault, not the doctor's.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
You done the same thing that I done. You assumed that your experiences in
the hospital are identical to the experieces of everyone that has ever
been in a hospital. I agree with your last point--is this the first time
we have ever agreed related to anything?

>>They know that they can ask questions. However, if you are correct, it
>>is the patient's fault, not the doctor's.

I agree that it is the patient's fault when they sign forms authorizing hospital
staff to inject a vaccine containing mercury or aluminum into their
newborn babies.

Jason
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[Mark Probert]

Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article >, Mark Probert
> > wrote:

>>> They know that they can ask questions. However, if you are correct, it
>>> is the patient's fault, not the doctor's.
>
> I agree that it is the patient's fault when they sign forms authorizing hospital
> staff to inject a vaccine containing mercury or aluminum into their
> newborn babies.

Do not ever put words into my mouth like you did here, again. One free
pass. You used it.

[Jim Manson]

"Jan Drew" > wrote:

>
>"Jim Manson" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jan Drew" > wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>>> Since you just admitted that they do not give the vaccinations on a
>>>> required basis the rest of your points aren't really relevant.
>>>
>>>#1. It is noted you did not answer my question.
>>>
>>>#2. I admitted no such thing.
>>
>> Actually you did when you admitted that the vaccinations are not
>> mandatory.
>>
>> I quote:
>>
>> "None. Where did you see *me* mention mandatory??"
>
>Learn to read. I asked you a question.
>
>It is noted...AGAIN. You did not answer my question.
>Why?

Was that the question about why I didn't answer your other points?

If so, I did answer. I said that the points were irrelevant if
vaccinations weren't required.

Since you've admitted they aren't required ( see below ) the points
are meaningless and answering them serves no purpose.

Parents can choose to vaccinate or not vaccinate. I personally don't
care either way. I wouldn't presume to make the choice for them, as
you seemed inclined to do.


>
>
>>
>> i.e. not mandatory means not required.
>
>LOL. No, it does not.

Really?


From the Merriam-Webster thesaurus:
__________________________________________________ ______
Entry Word: mandatory

Function: adjective

Text: forcing one's compliance or participation by or as if by law
<the tests are mandatory for all students wishing to graduate>

Synonyms: compulsory, forced, imperative, incumbent, involuntary,
necessary, nonelective, obligatory, peremptory, required.
__________________________________________________ ______

__________________________________________________ ______

Entry Word: required

Function: adjective

Text: 1 forcing one's compliance or participation by or as if by law
<formal instruction in driving is required in this state before you
can get your driver's license> -- see MANDATORY
__________________________________________________ ______


So, according to Merriam-Webster "required" is a synonym of
"mandatory".

I guess you're wrong, not mandatory means not required.

Based on your rather irrational stubbornness over something so
patently incorrect I can see that further discussion would serve
little or no purpose.

Ta............

[Steven Bornfeld]

Robert1 wrote:
>
> I wish somebody had told me that as we have to get out HBsAg testing
> out within 12 hours of delivery with mothers who have no documented
> test on file as those without no prenatal care testing. If we don't
> have testing done in time or a mother is HBsAG positive then the
> vaccine is recommended.
>
> Hopefully in the future a vaccine for HCV will be developed and add to
> the complaints of these people. There is an epidemic of HCV compared to
> HBV because of the vaccine and decreased incidence of HBV with the
> complications of chronic hepatitis, cirrhosis and hepatic carcinoma.
>


As someone who knows several folks with chronic active HCV (including a
nurse who I'm sure picked it up occupationally), I fervently share your
hope.

Steve

[Jason Johnson]

In article >, Mark Probert
> wrote:

Jason Johnson wrote:
> In article >, Mark Probert
> > wrote:

>>> They know that they can ask questions. However, if you are correct, it
>>> is the patient's fault, not the doctor's.
>
> I agree that it is the patient's fault when they sign forms authorizing
hospital
> staff to inject a vaccine containing mercury or aluminum into their
> newborn babies.

Do not ever put words into my mouth like you did here, again. One free
pass. You used it.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Mark,
I apologize if I offended you--that was NOT my intention. I was under the
impression that we were still discussing the Hep-B vaccine. One version of
the vaccine contains mercury and the newest version contains aluminum. The
title of the thread is "Re: Truth: Hep-B". Some of the other posts in the
thread discussed whether or not parents of new babies had to sign forms
authorizing
hospital staff to vaccinate babies with the Hep-B vaccine.
Jason

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

[David Wright]

In article >, john > wrote:
>
>"Jan Drew" > wrote in message
y.net...
>>
>> Truth is parents are not given a choice, it is now standard procedure that
>> all
>> new all new born babies have the hep-B shot, no questions asked.
>>
>> http://www.mercola.com/2002/jan/23/hepatitis_vaccine.htm
>>
>another great pharma hoax http://www.whale.to/vaccine/point.html


Wow -- this web page is even more ludicrous than most of the whale.to
follies, and that, my friends, is saying something.

Title claims it's about hep B, but mentions many other unrelated
vaccines despite that.

Claims that the hep C virus does not exist. Of course, that's not hep
B, and the person the page is quoting also thinks that HIV exists and
causes AIDS, and that the hep B virus exists. Well, john is never
worried about consistency. In any event, that was 1999, and things
have moved along since then, and we have a hep C virus genome now.
But john likes old sources, the older the better. That way, he
doesn't have to worry about new information blowing up his old info.

Claims that intravenous vitamin C can cure hepatitis (not at all clear
that the source is talking about hep C anyway, could well be hep A).

Claims that hep B vaccine causes multiple sclerosis. Does leave one
wondering how anyone got MS before the vaccine was available.

Claims hep B was the source of the AIDS virus. But since john doesn't
believe in AIDS being caused by a virus, one does wonder how a vaccine
could cause it anyway.

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If you can't say something nice, then sit next to me."
-- Alice Roosevelt Longworth