Re: Mothering Magazine/vaccines
From: Racheli&John (
Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 08:15:01 -0700 (MST)
** Reply to note from Fred H Olson <fholson [at]> Wed, 14 Nov 
2001 08:05:36 -0600 (CST)
>From Racheli

Hi Fred,
You wrote (Regarding Mothering mag):
> Their editorial policy seems (after a brief look at the web site) to
> tread a fine line between "conventional wisdom" and "alternatives.
> One example that caught my attention:
>   There are risks of ... vaccine reactions as well as risks of disease.
>   Risk:benefit ratios change over time. Parents can make informed choices
>   ...
> (I think a more 'rational' statement would acknowledge that risks of
> disease are much higher without vaccination and much greater than risks of
> reactions. )

It might not be always true.  I haven't read on the subject for over 
10 years, but when I did, it seemed to be the case that there were virtually
no long-range follow up studies on the effects of vaccines. Besides, there 
were serious questions regarding the effectiveness of some of them.

Another point worth mentioning is that since it's a very complex
issue,  different people could/would reach varying conclusion regarding the
desirability of vaccines (based on the same information).  I know 
my husband and I didn't agree, and had to reach some middle
ground. (But then, he is much more inclined to have faith in
scientific everything)...


Cohousing-L mailing list
Cohousing-L [at]  Unsubscribe  and other info:

  • (no other messages in thread)

Results generated by Tiger Technologies Web hosting using MHonArc.