PDA

View Full Version : Good News/Bad News?


JG
November 9th 03, 11:18 AM
Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
mumps, or rubella!

Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!

from www.reutershealth.com, "Health eLine," 11/7/03:
One in three injections in poor nations is unsafe

Last Updated: 2003-11-07 9:03:41 -0400 (Reuters Health)

LONDON (Reuters) - People in developing countries receive too many
injections, often with unsterilized needles and syringes that can
transmit illnesses such as hepatitis and HIV, researchers said on
Friday.

In the British Medical Journal, Dr. Yvan Hutin and his colleagues at the
World Health Organization (WHO) in Geneva said one in three injections
given in developing countries was dangerous.

"In most developing countries, injections are considerably overused to
give medication and most of these injections are unsafe and become a
major vector of hepatitis B, hepatitis C and HIV," Hutin said in an
interview.

Re-use of needles was most common in south Asia, the Middle East and the
western Pacific, according to research by Hutin's team reported in the
British Medical Journal.

The researchers said people in developing countries were receiving too
many injections for illnesses that could be treated with oral medication
or no drugs at all.

Needles are often reused and not sterilized properly.

They called for changes in medical practices and better safety measures
to reduce the use of dirty needles that can transmit infections.

"There should be enough syringes and needles made available in each
clinic in the world. Dirty syringes and needles that have been used to
give injections should be destroyed so they cannot be used again," Hutin
added.

The WHO estimates that about 16 billion injections are given in
developing and transitional countries each year and as many as 70
percent are unnecessary. Nearly two percent of all new HIV cases, or
96,000 people, are infected through unsafe injections, according to the
WHO.

Dirty needles are also the most common cause of infection of hepatitis
C, a potentially deadly liver disease, and account for 33 percent of new
hepatitis B cases, another serious illness.

SOURCE: British Medical Journal, November 8, 2003.

Jeff
November 9th 03, 02:28 PM
"JG" > wrote in message
...
> Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
> mumps, or rubella!
>
> Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!

From the way I read the article, they are talking about needles used to give
medications, not vaccines.

BTW, the vast majority of the people who read this won't be in 3rd world
countries, so they won't danger.

All the best,

Jeff

< Copyrighted article illegally copied deleted>

Marko Proberto
November 9th 03, 03:28 PM
"JG" > wrote in message
...
> Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
> mumps, or rubella!
>
> Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!
>
> from www.reutershealth.com, "Health eLine," 11/7/03:
> One in three injections in poor nations is unsafe

In poor nations.

Shame on your scaremongering.

JG
November 9th 03, 04:58 PM
"Jeff" > wrote in message
...

> "JG" > wrote in message
> ...

> > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
> > mumps, or rubella!

> > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!

> From the way I read the article, they are talking about needles used
to give
> medications, not vaccines.

The article doesn't specify *what* is being injected. As you are
(probably? ....well, *maybe*) aware, there's been speculation for years
that AIDS, in Africa, has been spread by the use of contaminated needles
in the delivery of vaccines.

> BTW, the vast majority of the people who read this won't be in 3rd
world
> countries, so they won't danger.

Oh, so *now* you're dropping your liberal, "we're really *all*
brothers," "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
problem" mantel? Ooookaaaay. Whatever. <g>

> < Copyrighted article illegally copied deleted>

Adequate attribution was made. Get off your high horse.

JG
November 9th 03, 05:03 PM
"Marko Proberto" > wrote in message
t...

> "JG" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
> > mumps, or rubella!

> > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!

> > from www.reutershealth.com, "Health eLine," 11/7/03:
> > One in three injections in poor nations is unsafe

> In poor nations.

> Shame on your scaremongering.

Shame on your continual "me too-ing." Riding Jeff's coattails? Tsk.
You're capable of original thought. (Aren't you?)

CBI
November 9th 03, 05:08 PM
"JG" > wrote in message
...
>
> > From the way I read the article, they are talking about needles used
> to give
> > medications, not vaccines.
>
> The article doesn't specify *what* is being injected.

Yet you choose a vaccine rather than penicillin. Interesting.

JG
November 9th 03, 05:46 PM
"CBI" > wrote in message
hlink.net...

> "JG" > wrote in message
> ...

> > > From the way I read the article, they are talking about needles
used
> > to give
> > > medications, not vaccines.

> > The article doesn't specify *what* is being injected.

> Yet you choose a vaccine rather than penicillin. Interesting.

Not, I imagine, to those who know me!

JG

Hmmm.... I wonder how you say "I'm from the government; I'm here to help
you" in Swahili?

Roger Schlafly
November 9th 03, 06:11 PM
"Marko Proberto" > wrote
> > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
> > mumps, or rubella!
> > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!
> > One in three injections in poor nations is unsafe
> In poor nations.

Unfortunately, rich countries with loose immigration policies are also
affected. HBV is only common in countries like China that vaccinate
with dirty needles. Then immigrants from those countries flood into
the USA, where health authorities decided that it is more politically
correct to vaccinate all newborns, regardless of risk.

Vaccine Policy FAQ
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

Jeff
November 9th 03, 06:43 PM
"JG" > wrote in message
>...
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > "JG" > wrote in message
> > ...
>
> > > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
> > > mumps, or rubella!
>
> > > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!
>
> > From the way I read the article, they are talking about needles used
> to give
> > medications, not vaccines.
>
> The article doesn't specify *what* is being injected. As you are
> (probably? ....well, *maybe*) aware, there's been speculation for years
> that AIDS, in Africa, has been spread by the use of contaminated needles
> in the delivery of vaccines.

Speculation. now that is helpful. Ironically, according to the BMJ article,
injection practices in sub-Saharin Africa than parts of the middle-east and
south Asia. So regardless of whether AIDS was spread by contaiminated
needles in the delivery of vaccines in Africa, the use of contaminated
needles is much less. But it is still too high.

> > BTW, the vast majority of the people who read this won't be in 3rd
> world
> > countries, so they won't danger.
>
> Oh, so *now* you're dropping your liberal, "we're really *all*
> brothers," "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
> problem" mantel? Ooookaaaay. Whatever. <g>

Gee, I don't remember saying that.

However, the reality of this is that we can speak about needles and AIDS and
vaccines and whatever, and the people in Africa will be much less likely to
read this than the people in the US and other English speaking countries.
The vast majority of readers of this forum are unlikely to get used needles
during the injection of vaccines.

I don't see how realizing that most people in 3rd world countries,
especially in the places where contaminated needles would be reused, has
anything to do with my liberal views.

Besides, this does not hide the fact that the article was about
"medications," and not vaccines. I realize that this *may* apply to
vaccines, about the article clearly is not about that. Instead, the issue
was studied seperately by the WHO.

So you were caught fear-mongering. PERIOD.

> > < Copyrighted article illegally copied deleted>
>
> Adequate attribution was made. Get off your high horse.

Adequate attribution does not give you the right to copy something without
permission.

Get off your high horse.

Have a great day!

Jeff
November 9th 03, 06:49 PM
"JG" > wrote in message
...
> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in message
> t...
>
> > "JG" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
> > > mumps, or rubella!
>
> > > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!
>
> > > from www.reutershealth.com, "Health eLine," 11/7/03:
> > > One in three injections in poor nations is unsafe
>
> > In poor nations.
>
> > Shame on your scaremongering.
>
> Shame on your continual "me too-ing." Riding Jeff's coattails? Tsk.
> You're capable of original thought. (Aren't you?)

I believe Mark's came to the same conclusions I did. If you notice, I did
not use term "scaremongering." And it was clear from what you posted this
applied to poor nations. I have no doubt that Mark is not riding my
coattails, but often (but not always) comes to the same conclusion as I do.

Perhaps you should not be so surprised that smart people who think
independently often come to the same conclusions.

Interesting how you can attack Mark, but you chose not to defend yourself
against his comments. Attack which weasels are good at. (Please don't forget
to proof read what I have written and attack my spelling and use of English,
another useful diversionary tactic>)

Jeff

Jeff
November 9th 03, 09:28 PM
"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
> "Marko Proberto" > wrote
> > > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
> > > mumps, or rubella!
> > > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!
> > > One in three injections in poor nations is unsafe
> > In poor nations.
>
> Unfortunately, rich countries with loose immigration policies are also
> affected. HBV is only common in countries like China that vaccinate
> with dirty needles. Then immigrants from those countries flood into
> the USA, where health authorities decided that it is more politically
> correct to vaccinate all newborns, regardless of risk.

So, should we tighten our immigration policies? Who will cut our grass, pick
our fruit and vegetables, clean our offices and homes and watch our children
(you know, those meanial jobs that are usually done by immigrants)? And what
about all of the people in the US who are citizens whose ancestors
immigrated in say the last 500 years? Should they go back?

> Vaccine Policy FAQ
> http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

You should rename this a FMQ - frequently misanswered questions.

For example, you state that pediatricians usually do not know more than what
is stated on the label. Unlike you, pediatricians have taken care of kids
with vaccine preventable diseases, answered questions from parents about
vaccines before and after vaccines were given, and had training vaccination
during medical school and residency and read about vaccines in journals and
other good sources.

Another example is that you state that pediatricians are only following the
laws. THere is no law that says that a pediatrician has to vaccinate anyone.

Another example. You state that the AAP and other physician organizations
agreed to endorse schedules determined by the federal government. This is
bull****. They only endorse a schedule after they look at it and determine
that is is appropriate.

You state the feds do get some advice from pediatricians on the ACIP, and
the AAP usually sends a couple of non-voting observers, but that's all.

But that is not all. The last recommendation from the ACIP was for the live
Influenza vaccine. ACIP Influenza working group who is responsible for the
report included a member of the AAP, a member from the ACOG (the OB/GYN
group), a member from the ACP (intermal med), a member from the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufactuers of AMerica, a member from the
infectious diseases society of america, two from the AAFP, as well as other
members.

ACIP included as voting memebrs: the chairman, who is a pediatrician, and at
least one other pediatrician (in both cases, they were affiliated with a
children's hospital). The other voting members included people from other
hospitals, universities, and community organizations. With one exception,
they all have MDs. So your statement that pediatricians don't have input
into the vaccine policy, when at least one voting member and the chairman
are pediatricans is blatently false. In addition, the AAP has its own
committee of experts that reviews the ACIP recommendations. And, as you note
on your page of misanswered questions, the AAP can and does disagree with
the official recommendations.

You also state that physicians no longer take the Hiipocratic Oath. This is
wrong. I do not know if all medical schools have grads take the oath, but at
least the majority do. It may not be the oath that you would want them to
take, but it is a version of the Hippocratic Oath. Besides, the Hippocratic
Oath is an anacronism. It states that physicians may not take out bladder
stones (gee, many urologists would disagree with that).

You also state that all states have laws requiring children to be
vaccinated. This is false. NOt one state requires children to be vaccinated.

Your lies continue.

Jeff

CBI
November 9th 03, 09:54 PM
"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
t...
>
> Unfortunately, rich countries with loose immigration policies are also
> affected. HBV is only common in countries like China that vaccinate
> with dirty needles. Then immigrants from those countries flood into
> the USA, where health authorities decided that it is more politically
> correct to vaccinate all newborns, regardless of risk.

Impressive - So much misinformation crammed into so little space.

The US, and other developed countries, have plenty of Hep B. US adults are
doing a fine job of passing it around to each other without the help of
additional cases from China.

In third world countries the vast majority of hep B is passed during sex and
childbirth, not needles.

The semi-true fact that you are misstating is that NOW the US CHILDREN
mainly at risk are immigrants from countries, like China, with higher
infection rates. What you neglect to mention is that this has only come to
pass since the widespread childhood vaccination of US kids (before that
there was endemic transmission) and that it only applies to kids (it has
never been the case for adults).

--
CBI, MD

JG
November 9th 03, 11:22 PM
"Jeff" > wrote in message
...

> "JG" > wrote in message
> >...
> > "Jeff" > wrote in message
> > ...

> > > "JG" > wrote in message
> > > ...

> > > > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get
measles,
> > > > mumps, or rubella!

> > > > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!

> > > From the way I read the article, they are talking about needles
used
> > to give
> > > medications, not vaccines.

> > The article doesn't specify *what* is being injected. As you are
> > (probably? ....well, *maybe*) aware, there's been speculation for
years
> > that AIDS, in Africa, has been spread by the use of contaminated
needles
> > in the delivery of vaccines.

> Speculation. now that is helpful. Ironically, according to the BMJ
article,
> injection practices in sub-Saharin Africa than parts of the
middle-east and
> south Asia.

HUH? Care to restate this meaningless jibberish? ("Injections in
sub-Saharan Africa ..." *WHAT* "....than parts of the Middle East and
South Asia"?)

So regardless of whether AIDS was spread by contaiminated
> needles in the delivery of vaccines in Africa, the use of contaminated
> needles is much less. But it is still too high.

> > > BTW, the vast majority of the people who read this won't be in 3rd
> > world
> > > countries, so they won't danger.

For heaven's sake, don't you EVER proofread what you write before you
hit "send"?!?

> > Oh, so *now* you're dropping your liberal, "we're really *all*
> > brothers," "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
> > problem" mantel? Ooookaaaay. Whatever. <g>

> Gee, I don't remember saying that.

Oh, please. Your political leanings ("I like Howard Dean"**) are quite
clear.

> However, the reality of this is that we can speak about needles and
AIDS and
> vaccines and whatever, and the people in Africa will be much less
likely to
> read this than the people in the US and other English speaking
countries.
> The vast majority of readers of this forum are unlikely to get used
needles
> during the injection of vaccines.

Hey, with everything/everyone "just a plane ride away" (as the CDC loves
to point out), it's a GLOBAL problem, isn't it? We're all jes' one big,
happy planet/family now, ain't we? Are we not our brother's keeper?

> I don't see how realizing that most people in 3rd world countries,
> especially in the places where contaminated needles would be reused,
has
> anything to do with my liberal views.

Funny, I thought most liberals supported such organizations as WHO and
were proponents of the New World Order...

> Besides, this does not hide the fact that the article was about
> "medications," and not vaccines.

Again, the article didn't specify for WHAT the needles were used.

I realize that this *may* apply to
> vaccines, about the article clearly is not about that. Instead, the
issue
> was studied seperately by the WHO.

(Pssst, Jeff: Go to http://www.spellcheck.net or
http://spellcheck.freeurl.com before posting.)

> So you were caught fear-mongering. PERIOD.

No. That's Mark P.'s baseless accusation. (Now you're "me too-ing"
*him* ...too funny.) Nevertheless, are you asserting that rising HVB,
HVC, and AIDS cases/rates in Africa *shouldn't* concern those in the
"industrialized" world?

> > > < Copyrighted article illegally copied deleted>

> > Adequate attribution was made. Get off your high horse.

> Adequate attribution does not give you the right to copy something
without
> permission.

Feel free to report me to Reuters. (I rather think they'd appreciate my
directing people to their Web site.)

JG

**Put a Confederate flag in your pickup yet? <g>

JG
November 9th 03, 11:22 PM
"Jeff" > wrote in message
...

> "JG" > wrote in message
> ...
> > "Marko Proberto" > wrote in message
> > t...

> > > "JG" > wrote in message
> > > ...
> > > > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get
measles,
> > > > mumps, or rubella!

> > > > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!

> > > > from www.reutershealth.com, "Health eLine," 11/7/03:
> > > > One in three injections in poor nations is unsafe

> > > In poor nations.

> > > Shame on your scaremongering.

> > Shame on your continual "me too-ing." Riding Jeff's coattails?
Tsk.
> > You're capable of original thought. (Aren't you?)

> I believe Mark's came to the same conclusions I did. If you notice, I
did
> not use term "scaremongering." And it was clear from what you posted
this
> applied to poor nations. I have no doubt that Mark is not riding my
> coattails, but often (but not always) comes to the same conclusion as
I do.

> Perhaps you should not be so surprised that smart people who think
> independently often come to the same conclusions.

> Interesting how you can attack Mark, but you chose not to defend
yourself
> against his comments. Attack which weasels are good at. (Please don't
forget
> to proof read what I have written and attack my spelling and use of
English,
> another useful diversionary tactic>)

Your mangling of the language (words, grammar) speaks volumes. (I did
"attack" you in another post. Not terribly challenging; indeed, rather
like shooting fish in a barrel.)

JG

PF Riley
November 10th 03, 03:13 AM
On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:22:01 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

>"Jeff" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Speculation. now that is helpful. Ironically, according to the BMJ
>> article, injection practices in sub-Saharin Africa than parts of
>> the middle-east and south Asia.
>
>HUH? Care to restate this meaningless jibberish? ("Injections in
>sub-Saharan Africa ..." *WHAT* "....than parts of the Middle East and
>South Asia"?)

Reminds me of Jane Curtin on Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live in
the late 1970's (not a direct quote):

"The U.S. State Department today said that China, Russia, Lithuania,
Spain, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel."

>> Besides, this does not hide the fact that the article was about
>> "medications," and not vaccines.
>
>Again, the article didn't specify for WHAT the needles were used.

I'm just curious what your purpose for posting the article was in the
first place. You and Roger have a habit of posting articles without
saying outright your opinion. Should we stop immunizing in third-world
countries?

PF

Jeff
November 10th 03, 04:27 AM
"JG" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > "JG" > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > "Jeff" > wrote in message
> > > ...
>
> > > > "JG" > wrote in message
> > > > ...
>
> > > > > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get
> measles,
> > > > > mumps, or rubella!
>
> > > > > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!
>
> > > > From the way I read the article, they are talking about needles
> used
> > > to give
> > > > medications, not vaccines.
>
> > > The article doesn't specify *what* is being injected. As you are
> > > (probably? ....well, *maybe*) aware, there's been speculation for
> years
> > > that AIDS, in Africa, has been spread by the use of contaminated
> needles
> > > in the delivery of vaccines.
>
> > Speculation. now that is helpful. Ironically, according to the BMJ
> article,
> > injection practices in sub-Saharin Africa than parts of the
> middle-east and
> > south Asia.
>
> HUH? Care to restate this meaningless jibberish? ("Injections in
> sub-Saharan Africa ..." *WHAT* "....than parts of the Middle East and
> South Asia"?)

In parts of the Middle East and South Asia, the rate of reusing needles is
higher than in sub-Sahara Africa.
(...)

> > > Oh, so *now* you're dropping your liberal, "we're really *all*
> > > brothers," "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of the
> > > problem" mantel? Ooookaaaay. Whatever. <g>
>
> > Gee, I don't remember saying that.
>
> Oh, please. Your political leanings ("I like Howard Dean"**) are quite
> clear.

Please do not put words in my mouth. That I like Howard Dean does not mean
that I agree with everything he says or with every liberal position or
Democratic position. I have voted for many Republicans and will vote for
more.

> > However, the reality of this is that we can speak about needles and
> AIDS and
> > vaccines and whatever, and the people in Africa will be much less
> likely to
> > read this than the people in the US and other English speaking
> countries.
> > The vast majority of readers of this forum are unlikely to get used
> needles
> > during the injection of vaccines.
>
> Hey, with everything/everyone "just a plane ride away" (as the CDC loves
> to point out), it's a GLOBAL problem, isn't it? We're all jes' one big,
> happy planet/family now, ain't we? Are we not our brother's keeper?

Nice weasel move. Unfortunately, our most of our brothers and sisters in
Africa won't be able to read this. The people who will read this are almost
exclusively from the developed nations. The vast majority of the people who
will be reading this live in areas where needles are not reused.

> > I don't see how realizing that most people in 3rd world countries,
> > especially in the places where contaminated needles would be reused,
> has
> > anything to do with my liberal views.
>
> Funny, I thought most liberals supported such organizations as WHO and
> were proponents of the New World Order...

I support WHO. I do not know what you mean by New World Order.

> > Besides, this does not hide the fact that the article was about
> > "medications," and not vaccines.
>
> Again, the article didn't specify for WHAT the needles were used.
>
> I realize that this *may* apply to
> > vaccines, about the article clearly is not about that. Instead, the
> issue
> > was studied seperately by the WHO.
>
> (Pssst, Jeff: Go to http://www.spellcheck.net or
> http://spellcheck.freeurl.com before posting.)
>
> > So you were caught fear-mongering. PERIOD.
>
> No. That's Mark P.'s baseless accusation. (Now you're "me too-ing"
> *him* ...too funny.) Nevertheless, are you asserting that rising HVB,
> HVC, and AIDS cases/rates in Africa *shouldn't* concern those in the
> "industrialized" world?

No. I am saying that people in the developed world don't need to worry about
getting HBV, AIDS, etc. from contaminated needles because contaminated
needles are not used in the developed world for immunizations or other
medications.

> > > > < Copyrighted article illegally copied deleted>
>
> > > Adequate attribution was made. Get off your high horse.
>
> > Adequate attribution does not give you the right to copy something
> without
> > permission.
>
> Feel free to report me to Reuters. (I rather think they'd appreciate my
> directing people to their Web site.)

I don't know if they would or would not.I mean additional traffic can
require additonal hardware and bandwidth. And if they don't get paid for it,
they don't gain from it. That is not my call.

However, the law is that you may not copy copyrighted material without
permission.

Jeff

> JG
>
> **Put a Confederate flag in your pickup yet? <g>

No. I have a car. I will not put a flag of any type on my car. The flags
fade, get dirty, torn, etc., really fast. I think this is disrespectful to
the flag. If I had a house, I would put a flag pole up and shine a light on
it, so it would be displayed properly.

I find the Confederate flag disrespectful to human rights, therefore, I
would not display it anywhere.

Jeff

Roger Schlafly
November 10th 03, 06:46 AM
"Jeff" > wrote
> > Unfortunately, rich countries with loose immigration policies are also
> > affected. HBV is only common in countries like China that vaccinate
> > with dirty needles. Then immigrants from those countries flood into
> > the USA, where health authorities decided that it is more politically
> > correct to vaccinate all newborns, regardless of risk.
> So, should we tighten our immigration policies?

Yes.

> Who will cut our grass, pick
> our fruit and vegetables, clean our offices and homes and watch our
children

We don't need HBV+ illegal aliens doing those things.

Vaccine Policy FAQ
http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

Marko Proberto
November 10th 03, 04:00 PM
"JG" > wrote in message
...
> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in message
> t...
>
> > "JG" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
> > > mumps, or rubella!
>
> > > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!
>
> > > from www.reutershealth.com, "Health eLine," 11/7/03:
> > > One in three injections in poor nations is unsafe
>
> > In poor nations.
>
> > Shame on your scaremongering.
>
> Shame on your continual "me too-ing." Riding Jeff's coattails? Tsk.
> You're capable of original thought. (Aren't you?)

I post to original poster first, read replies second.

Marko Proberto
November 10th 03, 04:00 PM
"JG" > wrote in message
...
> "Marko Proberto" > wrote in message
> t...
>
> > "JG" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > Good news: With this vaccination, you (probably) won't get measles,
> > > mumps, or rubella!
>
> > > Bad news: You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B, or AIDS)!
>
> > > from www.reutershealth.com, "Health eLine," 11/7/03:
> > > One in three injections in poor nations is unsafe
>
> > In poor nations.
>
> > Shame on your scaremongering.
>
> Shame on your continual "me too-ing." Riding Jeff's coattails? Tsk.
> You're capable of original thought. (Aren't you?)

And, great minds can think alike.....

john
November 10th 03, 05:40 PM
(PF Riley) wrote in message
>
> I'm just curious what your purpose for posting the article was in the
> first place. You and Roger have a habit of posting articles without
> saying outright your opinion. Should we stop immunizing in third-world
> countries?
>
> PF

Yes, but how would you thin them out so well otherwise? And gain
plaudits as you do it.

You have to use disposable needles like we do here.

Doesn't this WHO man know what the real agenda is.

john

http://www.whale.to/m/genocide.html

" My final conclusion after forty years or more in this business
[medicine] is that the unofficial policy of the World Health
Organization and the unoffical policy of the 'Save the Children's
Fund' and ... [other vaccine promoting] organizations is one of murder
and genocide. . . . I cannot see any other possible explanation. . . .
You cannot immunize sick children, malnourished children, and expect
to get away with it. You'll kill far more children than would have
died from natural infection."--Dr Kalokerinos (International Vaccine
Newsletter June 1995)

"But, at the highest levels of the medical cartel, vaccines are a top
priority because they cause a weakening of the immune system. I know
that may be hard to accept, but it's true. The medical cartel, at the
highest level, is not out to help people, it is out to harm them, to
weaken them. To kill them. At one point in my career, I had a long
conversation with a man who occupied a high government position in an
African nation. He told me that he was well aware of this. He told me
that WHO is a front for these depopulation interests."--Jon Rappoport
interview

JG
November 10th 03, 08:17 PM
"Jeff" > wrote in message
...

> "JG" > wrote in message
> ...

[...]

> > > Speculation. now that is helpful. Ironically, according to the BMJ
> > article,
> > > injection practices in sub-Saharin Africa than parts of the
> > middle-east and
> > > south Asia.

> > HUH? Care to restate this meaningless jibberish? ("Injections in
> > sub-Saharan Africa ..." *WHAT* "....than parts of the Middle East
and
> > South Asia"?)

> In parts of the Middle East and South Asia, the rate of reusing
needles is
> higher than in sub-Sahara Africa.

Okay. Your point being...what? That rates of the diseases linked to
needle "sharing" are higher (or lower?) in the Middle East and South
Asia than in Africa? So? Either way, it's not relevant to the point I
was making.

> > > > Oh, so *now* you're dropping your liberal, "we're really *all*
> > > > brothers," "if you're not part of the solution, you're part of
the
> > > > problem" mantel? Ooookaaaay. Whatever. <g>

> > > Gee, I don't remember saying that.

> > Oh, please. Your political leanings ("I like Howard Dean"**) are
quite
> > clear.

> Please do not put words in my mouth. That I like Howard Dean does not
mean
> that I agree with everything he says or with every liberal position or
> Democratic position. I have voted for many Republicans and will vote
for
> more.

LOL. Yeah. And some of *my* best friends are Greenies...

> > > However, the reality of this is that we can speak about needles
and
> > AIDS and
> > > vaccines and whatever, and the people in Africa will be much less
> > likely to
> > > read this than the people in the US and other English speaking
> > countries.
> > > The vast majority of readers of this forum are unlikely to get
used
> > needles
> > > during the injection of vaccines.

Of course. It's beyond me why, and how, you got off on this
tangent--this erroneous inference--that my intent in posting the article
was to dissuade US citizens from getting vaccinated because needles used
IN AFRICA are often contaminated.

> > Hey, with everything/everyone "just a plane ride away" (as the CDC
loves
> > to point out), it's a GLOBAL problem, isn't it? We're all jes' one
big,
> > happy planet/family now, ain't we? Are we not our brother's keeper?

> Nice weasel move. Unfortunately, our most of our brothers and sisters
in
> Africa won't be able to read this. The people who will read this are
almost
> exclusively from the developed nations. The vast majority of the
people who
> will be reading this live in areas where needles are not reused.

Of course. SO? Do you understand (obviously you don't!) that
dissuading readers from getting vaccinated, if that's what they wish to
do, WASN'T my reason for posting the article? You've (not surprising)
made an erroneous conjecture.

> > > I don't see how realizing that most people in 3rd world countries,
> > > especially in the places where contaminated needles would be
reused,
> > has
> > > anything to do with my liberal views.

> > Funny, I thought most liberals supported such organizations as WHO
and
> > were proponents of the New World Order...

> I support WHO. I do not know what you mean by New World Order.

<Sigh> Google the term, Jeff.

> > > Besides, this does not hide the fact that the article was about
> > > "medications," and not vaccines.

> > Again, the article didn't specify for WHAT the needles were used.

> > I realize that this *may* apply to
> > > vaccines, about the article clearly is not about that. Instead,
the
> > issue
> > > was studied seperately by the WHO.

> > (Pssst, Jeff: Go to http://www.spellcheck.net or
> > http://spellcheck.freeurl.com before posting.)

> > > So you were caught fear-mongering. PERIOD.

> > No. That's Mark P.'s baseless accusation. (Now you're "me too-ing"
> > *him* ...too funny.) Nevertheless, are you asserting that rising
HVB,
> > HVC, and AIDS cases/rates in Africa *shouldn't* concern those in the
> > "industrialized" world?

> No. I am saying that people in the developed world don't need to worry
about
> getting HBV, AIDS, etc. from contaminated needles because contaminated
> needles are not used in the developed world for immunizations or other
> medications.

No, they're not. What people in the "developed world" should be
concerned about are: (1) the fact that a government, or
quasi-government, using THEIR money, is yet again(!), in its intervening
attempts to "solve" one problem, inadvertently creating another, likely
MORE SERIOUS problem; and (2) the fact that a dangerous, avoidable (at a
cost, to be sure) practice--the use of contaminated needles--is causing
many more cases of serious, often-fatal diseases, carriers of which,
thanks to lax enforcement of immigration laws, can potentially infect
citizens of "developed world" countries.

[...]

> > **Put a Confederate flag in your pickup yet? <g>

> No. I have a car. I will not put a flag of any type on my car. The
flags
> fade, get dirty, torn, etc., really fast. I think this is
disrespectful to
> the flag. If I had a house, I would put a flag pole up and shine a
light on
> it, so it would be displayed properly.

<SIGH> My comment was in jest. I forget you're humor-impaired. Sorry.

> I find the Confederate flag disrespectful to human rights, ...

Told Howard "We won't always have the strongest military" Dean this yet?
<g> (<---note grin, Jeff)

JG
November 10th 03, 08:19 PM
"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:22:01 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

> >"Jeff" > wrote in message
> ...

> >> Speculation. now that is helpful. Ironically, according to the BMJ
> >> article, injection practices in sub-Saharin Africa than parts of
> >> the middle-east and south Asia.

> >HUH? Care to restate this meaningless jibberish? ("Injections in
> >sub-Saharan Africa ..." *WHAT* "....than parts of the Middle East and
> >South Asia"?)

> Reminds me of Jane Curtin on Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live in
> the late 1970's (not a direct quote):

> "The U.S. State Department today said that China, Russia, Lithuania,
> Spain, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel."

Hehehe. Paraphrasing Dan Ackroyd ("Point/Counterpoint" segment):
"Jeff, you ignorant slug!"

> >> Besides, this does not hide the fact that the article was about
> >> "medications," and not vaccines.

> >Again, the article didn't specify for WHAT the needles were used.

> I'm just curious what your purpose for posting the article was in the
> first place.

Well, it certainly wasn't to instill fear in anyone reading it! (I'm
far from an alarmist/scaremonger.) I enjoy irony. Others (who shall
remain nameless) obviously do not. (Or, perhaps more likely, they just
don't "get it.") Here we are, via our tax dollars, intervening to
prevent (via vaccination) many diseases that are
usually--overwhelmingly, in reasonably healthy persons--benign, or to
treat (via injected pharmaceuticals) diseases/conditions of varying
gravity, yet the end result, apparently, is the transmission of often
fatal (at the very least, expensive-to-treat) diseases!

You and Roger have a habit of posting articles without
> saying outright your opinion. Should we stop immunizing in third-world
> countries?

It's worth considering, unless and until it can be done with more safety
(e.g., with single-use needles). At any rate, I don't like the idea of
coerced money--tax dollars--being used for *any* health programs, here
or abroad. I believe health care is best (= more effectively and
efficiently) handled by the private sector. ...but you knew that
already. <g>

Roger presented a valid point: Any increase, anywhere, in the
number/incidence of such diseases as HVB, HVC, and AIDS should be of
concern to everyone, everywhere, until health officials take realistic
measures (e.g., rigid enforcement of immigration laws) to prevent
infected individuals from transmitting the disease.

JG

PF Riley
November 11th 03, 07:18 AM
On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:19:33 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

>"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:22:01 GMT, "JG" > wrote:
>
>> Reminds me of Jane Curtin on Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live in
>> the late 1970's (not a direct quote):
>
>> "The U.S. State Department today said that China, Russia, Lithuania,
>> Spain, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel."
>
>Hehehe. Paraphrasing Dan Ackroyd ("Point/Counterpoint" segment):
>"Jeff, you ignorant slug!"

Thirty lashes to you! No more picking on Jeff for his spelling! It's
Dan AYkroyd, and the segment was called "Count/Pointercount."

>> I'm just curious what your purpose for posting the article was in the
>> first place.
>
>Well, it certainly wasn't to instill fear in anyone reading it! (I'm
>far from an alarmist/scaremonger.) I enjoy irony.

Fair enough. I found it absurd as well. Maybe Bill Gates can buy some
fresh needles for all of Africa.

>Others (who shall remain nameless) obviously do not.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Jeff is a goober.

PF

JG
November 11th 03, 06:13 PM
"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:19:33 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

> >"PF Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 09 Nov 2003 22:22:01 GMT, "JG" >
wrote:

> >> Reminds me of Jane Curtin on Weekend Update on Saturday Night Live
in
> >> the late 1970's (not a direct quote):
> >> "The U.S. State Department today said that China, Russia,
Lithuania,
> >> Spain, Lebanon, Syria, Jordan, Egypt, and Israel."

> >Hehehe. Paraphrasing Dan Ackroyd ("Point/Counterpoint" segment):
> >"Jeff, you ignorant slug!"

> Thirty lashes to you! No more picking on Jeff for his spelling! It's
> Dan AYkroyd, and the segment was called "Count/Pointercount."

I stand corrected. I guessed at the spelling and Googled "Dan Ackroyd";
22K+ sites have it wrong as well. <g> I'll take your word re:
"Point/Counterpoint" vs. "Count/Pointercount"; I'm not THAT anal. :-)
(What were you, like 5 or 6 when SNL first aired ['75]? I trust your
recall is based on reruns. <g>) As for Jeff, some of his manglings are
just too darn (unintentionally) funny to let pass. I mean, c'mon, he
could write for Yogi Berra!

> >> I'm just curious what your purpose for posting the article was in
the
> >> first place.

> >Well, it certainly wasn't to instill fear in anyone reading it! (I'm
> >far from an alarmist/scaremonger.) I enjoy irony.

> Fair enough. I found it absurd as well. Maybe Bill Gates can buy some
> fresh needles for all of Africa.

Maybe someone will forward the article to him. I imagine he'd willingly
do what he can to keep prospective MS customers (all what, 6.3+B?**)
alive...

> >Others (who shall remain nameless) obviously do not.

> I've said it before and I'll say it again: Jeff is a goober.

....in denial. So sad...<g>

JG

**Here's a cool site; you can watch the world's population figure
increase right before your eyes!:
http://www.census.gov/cgi-bin/ipc/popclockw (just keep clicking your
"refresh" button).

Jeff
November 12th 03, 03:38 AM
"JG" > wrote in message
...
> "Jeff" > wrote in message
(...)
>
> Of course. SO? Do you understand (obviously you don't!) that
> dissuading readers from getting vaccinated, if that's what they wish to
> do, WASN'T my reason for posting the article? You've (not surprising)
> made an erroneous conjecture.

What was your point in posting the article?


> > > > I don't see how realizing that most people in 3rd world countries,
> > > > especially in the places where contaminated needles would be
> reused,
> > > has
> > > > anything to do with my liberal views.
>
> > > Funny, I thought most liberals supported such organizations as WHO
> and
> > > were proponents of the New World Order...
>
> > I support WHO. I do not know what you mean by New World Order.
>
> <Sigh> Google the term, Jeff.

OK, I still do not know what *YOU* mean.

> > > > Besides, this does not hide the fact that the article was about
> > > > "medications," and not vaccines.
>
> > > Again, the article didn't specify for WHAT the needles were used.
>
> > > I realize that this *may* apply to
> > > > vaccines, about the article clearly is not about that. Instead,
> the
> > > issue
> > > > was studied seperately by the WHO.
>
> > > (Pssst, Jeff: Go to http://www.spellcheck.net or
> > > http://spellcheck.freeurl.com before posting.)
>
> > > > So you were caught fear-mongering. PERIOD.
>
> > > No. That's Mark P.'s baseless accusation. (Now you're "me too-ing"
> > > *him* ...too funny.) Nevertheless, are you asserting that rising
> HVB,
> > > HVC, and AIDS cases/rates in Africa *shouldn't* concern those in the
> > > "industrialized" world?
>
> > No. I am saying that people in the developed world don't need to worry
> about
> > getting HBV, AIDS, etc. from contaminated needles because contaminated
> > needles are not used in the developed world for immunizations or other
> > medications.
>
> No, they're not. What people in the "developed world" should be
> concerned about are: (1) the fact that a government, or
> quasi-government, using THEIR money, is yet again(!), in its intervening
> attempts to "solve" one problem, inadvertently creating another, likely
> MORE SERIOUS problem; and (2) the fact that a dangerous, avoidable (at a
> cost, to be sure) practice--the use of contaminated needles--is causing
> many more cases of serious, often-fatal diseases, carriers of which,
> thanks to lax enforcement of immigration laws, can potentially infect
> citizens of "developed world" countries.

The article did not address the issue of whether the founding from the
developed world is increasing or decreasing the misuse of needles. In fact,
I would think more funding, including funding for teaching people who to
clean needles or buy new needles, will help aleviate the problem.

Last time I checked, there was no requirement that immigrants and visitors
to developed nations be free of Hep B or AIDS.

[...]

Jeff

Jeff
November 12th 03, 03:45 AM
"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Jeff" > wrote
> > > Unfortunately, rich countries with loose immigration policies are also
> > > affected. HBV is only common in countries like China that vaccinate
> > > with dirty needles. Then immigrants from those countries flood into
> > > the USA, where health authorities decided that it is more politically
> > > correct to vaccinate all newborns, regardless of risk.
> > So, should we tighten our immigration policies?
>
> Yes.

I remember that our immigration policies were changed after WWI. They
excluded more people from eastern europe, including many Jews. Our
immigration policies, today, are excluding many scientists and others from
third world countries, often countries that don't treat all of their
citizens well. Being that I am a descendent of immigrants, I welcome
immigrants. Even if they don't speak English or have different colored skin
than I.

> > Who will cut our grass, pick
> > our fruit and vegetables, clean our offices and homes and watch our
> children
>
> We don't need HBV+ illegal aliens doing those things.

No, but we do need people to do these things. And having HBV+ people picking
our fruit, cleaning our offices and homes, etc., does not pose a threat to
us. HBV+ people have rights, too.

> Vaccine Policy FAQ
> http://www.mindspring.com/~schlafly/vac/vaccfaq.htm

I am not sure what your lies have to do with this.

You should rename this a FMQ - frequently misanswered questions.

For example, you state that pediatricians usually do not know more than what
is stated on the label. Unlike you, pediatricians have taken care of kids
with vaccine preventable diseases, answered questions from parents about
vaccines before and after vaccines were given, and had training vaccination
during medical school and residency and read about vaccines in journals and
other good sources.

Another example is that you state that pediatricians are only following the
laws. There is no law that says that a pediatrician has to vaccinate anyone.

Another example. You state that the AAP and other physician organizations
agreed to endorse schedules determined by the federal government. This is
bull****. They only endorse a schedule after they look at it and determine
that is appropriate.

You state the feds do get some advice from pediatricians on the ACIP, and
the AAP usually sends a couple of non-voting observers, but that's all.

But that is not all. The last recommendation from the ACIP was for the live
Influenza vaccine. ACIP Influenza working group who is responsible for the
report included a member of the AAP, a member from the ACOG (the OB/GYN
group), a member from the ACP (internal med), a member from the
Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, a member from the
infectious diseases society of America, two from the AAFP, as well as other
members.

ACIP included as voting members: the chairman, who is a pediatrician, and at
least one other pediatrician (in both cases, they were affiliated with a
children's hospital). The other voting members included people from other
hospitals, universities, and community organizations. With one exception,
they all have MDs. So your statement that pediatricians don't have input
into the vaccine policy, when at least one voting member and the chairman
are pediatricians is blatantly false. In addition, the AAP has its own
committee of experts that reviews the ACIP recommendations. And, as you note
on your page of misanswered questions, the AAP can and does disagree with
the official recommendations.

You also state that physicians no longer take the Hippocratic Oath. This is
wrong. I do not know if all medical schools have grads take the oath, but at
least the majority do. It may not be the oath that you would want them to
take, but it is a version of the Hippocratic Oath. Besides, the Hippocratic
Oath is an anachronism. It states that physicians may not take out bladder
stones (gee, many urologists would disagree with that).

You also state that all states have laws requiring children to be
vaccinated. This is false. Not one state requires children to be vaccinated.

Your lies continue.

Jeff

Roger Schlafly
November 12th 03, 05:23 AM
"Jeff" > wrote
> > > So, should we tighten our immigration policies?
> > Yes.
> I remember that our immigration policies were changed after WWI. They
> excluded more people from eastern europe, including many Jews. Our
> immigration policies, today, are excluding many scientists and others from
> third world countries, often countries that don't treat all of their
> citizens well.

We have a couple of million immigrants coming in every year to the USA.
How many of them are mistreated scientists? A dozen? The number is
so small as to be completely insignificant.

> Being that I am a descendent of immigrants, I welcome immigrants.

Would you welcome 50M from Mexico, 50M from China, and 50M
from India if they all came next year?

Roger Schlafly
November 12th 03, 05:40 AM
"Jeff" > wrote
> What was your point in posting the article?

The truth seems to be a little disturbing to you and Riley. If JG or I
post a news article, you want to know that our motives are
consistent with the objectives of the medical establishment.

Jeff
November 12th 03, 03:09 PM
"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...
> "Jeff" > wrote
> > What was your point in posting the article?
>
> The truth seems to be a little disturbing to you and Riley. If JG or I
> post a news article, you want to know that our motives are
> consistent with the objectives of the medical establishment.

No. I am curious why someone posted an article about vaccines supposedly
causing serious illness when the article does not apply to the kids of the
vast majority of readers of this forum. In fact, the original poster
commented "You're liable to get hepatitis C (or hep B or AIDS)." Not, third
world people are liable to get hep B or C or AIDS from used needles.

It seems rather misleasding, if you ask me. I am just wonder why the poster
did this.

Please don't try to read my mind, Roger. You seem to do a very poor job of
it. And please don't try to speak for me either.

Thanks.

Jeff

PF Riley
November 13th 03, 06:34 AM
On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:13:22 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

>"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:19:33 GMT, "JG" > wrote:
>
>> Thirty lashes to you! No more picking on Jeff for his spelling! It's
>> Dan AYkroyd, and the segment was called "Count/Pointercount."
>
>I stand corrected. I guessed at the spelling and Googled "Dan Ackroyd";
>22K+ sites have it wrong as well. <g> I'll take your word re:
>"Point/Counterpoint" vs. "Count/Pointercount"; I'm not THAT anal. :-)

The name "Count/Pointercount" was itself a joke. "Sixty Minutes" at
that time featured a segment called "Point/Counterpoint."

>(What were you, like 5 or 6 when SNL first aired ['75]? I trust your
>recall is based on reruns. <g>)

Close, but you have overestimated my age.

PF

JG
November 13th 03, 06:07 PM
"PF Riley" > wrote in message
...

> On Tue, 11 Nov 2003 17:13:22 GMT, "JG" > wrote:

> >"PF Riley" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Mon, 10 Nov 2003 19:19:33 GMT, "JG" >
wrote:

> >> Thirty lashes to you! No more picking on Jeff for his spelling!
It's
> >> Dan AYkroyd, and the segment was called "Count/Pointercount."

> >I stand corrected. I guessed at the spelling and Googled "Dan
Ackroyd";
> >22K+ sites have it wrong as well. <g> I'll take your word re:
> >"Point/Counterpoint" vs. "Count/Pointercount"; I'm not THAT anal. :-)

> The name "Count/Pointercount" was itself a joke. "Sixty Minutes" at
> that time featured a segment called "Point/Counterpoint."

Yes. Now that I think about it, "Point/Counterpoint" was probably(?)
copyrighted; I can't imagine any way CBS would let NBC use it... At any
rate, we could never watch "60 Minutes" again without shouting, "Shana
(Alexander), you ignorant slut!" every time she responded to/challenged
James Kilpatrick. Ah, memories! <g> (BTW, did anyone else think the
Clinton/Dole revived "P/Cp" was really, REALLY lame?)

> >(What were you, like 5 or 6 when SNL first aired ['75]? I trust your
> >recall is based on reruns. <g>)

> Close, but you have overestimated my age.

Sorrrrry, Doogie! ;-)

Roger Schlafly
November 13th 03, 07:22 PM
"JG" > wrote
> > The name "Count/Pointercount" was itself a joke. "Sixty Minutes" at
> > that time featured a segment called "Point/Counterpoint."
> Yes. Now that I think about it, "Point/Counterpoint" was probably(?)
> copyrighted; I can't imagine any way CBS would let NBC use it... At any

It is usual for parodies to modify the names.

> rate, we could never watch "60 Minutes" again without shouting, "Shana
> (Alexander), you ignorant slut!" every time she responded to/challenged
> James Kilpatrick. Ah, memories! <g> (BTW, did anyone else think the
> Clinton/Dole revived "P/Cp" was really, REALLY lame?)

<grin> Yes, the Clinton/Dole act was lame. The whole show needs
some fresh blood. It is the only show I know that is completely
dominated by old people. Can't CBS find some younger people
to put in front of the camera?

JG
November 13th 03, 09:45 PM
"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...

> "JG" > wrote
> > > The name "Count/Pointercount" was itself a joke. "Sixty Minutes"
at
> > > that time featured a segment called "Point/Counterpoint."
> > Yes. Now that I think about it, "Point/Counterpoint" was
probably(?)
> > copyrighted; I can't imagine any way CBS would let NBC use it... At
any

> It is usual for parodies to modify the names.

True. :-)

> > rate, we could never watch "60 Minutes" again without shouting,
"Shana
> > (Alexander), you ignorant slut!" every time she responded
to/challenged
> > James Kilpatrick. Ah, memories! <g> (BTW, did anyone else think
the
> > Clinton/Dole revived "P/Cp" was really, REALLY lame?)

> <grin> Yes, the Clinton/Dole act was lame. The whole show needs
> some fresh blood. It is the only show I know that is completely
> dominated by old people. Can't CBS find some younger people
> to put in front of the camera?

Maybe they're striving for Cronkite's** avuncular aura. I checked;
Steve Kroft, at 58, is the youngest "co-editor." (Mike Wallace, 85, is
the oldest.) I suspect Exec. Producer Don Hewitt (81) might have
something to do with it. (How do make yourself feel young? Surround
yourself with older people!) I actually eschew CBS news programming as
much as possible these days. Oh, I'll occasionally tune in to the
evening news to check out the current color/style of Rather's hair, but
that's about it. (Now how shallow is *that*? <g>)

JG

**I kept hearing "Uncle" Walter's voice emanating from the kitchen every
(weekday) afternoon. It turns out he's the voice of Ben Franklin on
PBS's "Liberty's Kids," an animated show that my daughter enjoys. The
show has a lot of celebrities contributing their voices--even Ah-nuld
and Norman Schwarzkopf!
(http://pbskids.org/libertyskids/bts_talent.html).

Roger Schlafly
November 14th 03, 12:36 AM
"JG" > wrote
> Steve Kroft, at 58, is the youngest "co-editor." (Mike Wallace, 85, is
> the oldest.) I suspect Exec. Producer Don Hewitt (81) might have
> something to do with it. (How do make yourself feel young? Surround
> yourself with older people!)

Then there is Andy Rooney.

> I actually eschew CBS news programming as
> much as possible these days.

I was ready to join the boycott if CBS broadcast the slanderous
docudrama on the Reagans. Here is the amazingly bad script.
http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/07/reagans_script/reagans.pdf

JG
November 14th 03, 02:02 AM
"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...

> "JG" > wrote
> > Steve Kroft, at 58, is the youngest "co-editor." (Mike Wallace, 85,
is
> > the oldest.) I suspect Exec. Producer Don Hewitt (81) might have
> > something to do with it. (How do make yourself feel young?
Surround
> > yourself with older people!)

> Then there is Andy Rooney.

<g> Wallace has him beat by half a year.

> > I actually eschew CBS news programming as
> > much as possible these days.

> I was ready to join the boycott if CBS broadcast the slanderous
> docudrama on the Reagans. Here is the amazingly bad script.
>
http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/07/reagans_script/reagans.pdf

Cool! Thanks! There was a news item last week (it's still available at
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031103/hl_nm/sitcoms_sex_dc_2)
about a "Pediatrics" article whose authors found that sitcoms
(specifically, "Friends") are a great source of information about
sex/sexual health for teens. Can you imagine how a whole generation
would perceive RWR if "The Reagans" aired on network TV? (Bad enough
it'll be on Showtime.) Enough with the "artistic/creative license"
crap!

JG
November 14th 03, 02:17 AM
"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...

> "JG" > wrote
> > Steve Kroft, at 58, is the youngest "co-editor." (Mike Wallace, 85,
is
> > the oldest.) I suspect Exec. Producer Don Hewitt (81) might have
> > something to do with it. (How do make yourself feel young?
Surround
> > yourself with older people!)

> Then there is Andy Rooney.

<g> Wallace has him beat by half a year.

> > I actually eschew CBS news programming as
> > much as possible these days.

> I was ready to join the boycott if CBS broadcast the slanderous
> docudrama on the Reagans. Here is the amazingly bad script.
>
http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/07/reagans_script/reagans.pdf

Cool! Thanks! There was a news item last week (it's still available at
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031103/hl_nm/sitcoms_sex_dc_2)
about a "Pediatrics" article whose authors found that sitcoms
(specifically, "Friends") are a great source of information about
sex/sexual health for teens. Can you imagine how a whole generation
would perceive RWR if "The Reagans" aired on network TV? (Bad enough
it'll be on Showtime.) Enough with the "artistic/creative license"
crap!

Roger Schlafly
November 14th 03, 04:34 AM
"JG" > wrote
> > I was ready to join the boycott if CBS broadcast the slanderous
> > docudrama on the Reagans. Here is the amazingly bad script.
> http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/07/reagans_script/reagans.pdf
> Cool! Thanks! There was a news item last week (it's still available at
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031103/hl_nm/sitcoms_sex_dc_2)
> about a "Pediatrics" article whose authors found that sitcoms
> (specifically, "Friends") are a great source of information about
> sex/sexual health for teens.

Sigh. Rachel probably got an abortion, thereby teaching teenagers
some more supposedly-valuable lessons.

> Can you imagine how a whole generation
> would perceive RWR if "The Reagans" aired on network TV? (Bad enough
> it'll be on Showtime.) Enough with the "artistic/creative license" crap!

The script seems amazingly bad. It is as if they tried everything to make
the Reagans look bad. But I think that the writers just assumed that
everyone hates Reagan anyway. I think that most viewers would have
thought that the show is stupid.

Yes, it is bad enough that it will be on Showtime. If it was too
inaccurate for CBS, it should be too inaccurate for Showtime also.

JG
November 14th 03, 04:58 AM
"Roger Schlafly" > wrote in message
et...

> "JG" > wrote
> > > I was ready to join the boycott if CBS broadcast the slanderous
> > > docudrama on the Reagans. Here is the amazingly bad script.


http://images.salon.com/news/feature/2003/11/07/reagans_script/reagans.pdf
> > Cool! Thanks! There was a news item last week (it's still
available at
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031103/hl_nm/sitcoms_sex_dc_2)
> > about a "Pediatrics" article whose authors found that sitcoms
> > (specifically, "Friends") are a great source of information about
> > sex/sexual health for teens.

> Sigh. Rachel probably got an abortion, thereby teaching teenagers
> some more supposedly-valuable lessons.

> > Can you imagine how a whole generation
> > would perceive RWR if "The Reagans" aired on network TV? (Bad
enough
> > it'll be on Showtime.) Enough with the "artistic/creative license"
crap!

> The script seems amazingly bad. It is as if they tried everything to
make
> the Reagans look bad. But I think that the writers just assumed that
> everyone hates Reagan anyway. I think that most viewers would have
> thought that the show is stupid.

Let's hope those who see it do. ...How seriously can anyone take James
Streis...er, Brolin, after all?

> Yes, it is bad enough that it will be on Showtime. If it was too
> inaccurate for CBS, it should be too inaccurate for Showtime also.

I wonder how strong any disclaimer ("The persons and events depicted in
the following presentation may be based on documented events, but more
likely they are the product of the writers' biased and fanciful
imaginations...") will be (assuming there IS one!).

CBI
November 15th 03, 07:43 PM
"JG" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> Cool! Thanks! There was a news item last week (it's still available at
>
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20031103/hl_nm/sitcoms_sex
_dc_2)
> about a "Pediatrics" article whose authors found that sitcoms
> (specifically, "Friends") are a great source of information about
> sex/sexual health for teens.

More accurately, they said, "Although the featured episode taught many teens
important lessons about sex, Collins conceded that, overall, television
presents a biased image of sex. "

That's probably about right.

--
CBI, MD

Wendy
November 24th 03, 04:37 PM
Jeff wrote:
> "JG" > wrote in message
> >...
>> The article doesn't specify *what* is being injected. As you are
>> (probably? ....well, *maybe*) aware, there's been speculation for years
>> that AIDS, in Africa, has been spread by the use of contaminated needles
>> in the delivery of vaccines.

> Speculation. now that is helpful. Ironically, according to the BMJ article,
> injection practices in sub-Saharin Africa than parts of the middle-east and
> south Asia. So regardless of whether AIDS was spread by contaiminated
> needles in the delivery of vaccines in Africa, the use of contaminated
> needles is much less. But it is still too high.

I read in an Economist magazine article last month that about 25% of the
HIV positive children in one African nation did NOT have HIV positive
mother. Do you suppose the babies got it from unprotected sex?

Wendy