Like vaccines, about 100 death claims are paid each year out of VAERS, former FDA head Kessler says probably 10,000 dead vaccine victims each year, my research independently agrees with Kessler.
Stan Lippmannof WA1:05PM September 28, 2009
A very typical, non-convincing argument against intentional infection. I personally have decided not to expose my child to the virus but believe anyone who advises against it is potentially doing more harm than good.
"Swine flu parties are a dangerous gamble and a big mistake. The novel H1N1 influenza virus is predicted to be the predominant circulating strain of flu in the country this winter."
All the more reason to get it now than to wait for a strong variant when our children may be fighting more than one winter flu/cold at a time.
"It is true that infection with an influenza virus can produce immunity to that strain—that's the principle by which vaccination works."
Exactly why I might want my child to be over it before other flu and cold infections more prevalent during winter months may complicate things.
"However, catching this novel H1N1 flu virus can be extremely dangerous."
So is waiting for a vaccine that seems to be coming too late anyway.
"More than 500 people have died already from the virus in the United States alone, and although in most healthy individuals the disease is mild, we don't know exactly which people will have more trouble with it."
500 is a big impressive number, but how many of those 500 had complications and how does that relate to death rates of past flu seasons? It appears from the following quote that to a large degree we do actually know...
"We do know that children under 5 years old, people with underlying illnesses such as asthma, and pregnant women are all at risk of complications from influenza."
So what does that have to do with whether they get it now or later?
So which is better? Now? Later? Can you tell us that? If not then all you have is a guess, and that is exactly what the parents are doing too. Either way, we parents have to take the information from our trusted officials (which is sadly lacking), try to see the future (which is impossible), and try to decide what is best for our children. Without a vaccine (or even a date that it will be available) parents must decide what course of action they feel is the least amount of risk to their children.
[sigh]of MN1:01PM September 28, 2009
50 kids may be ok, but your's could be the ONE that dies from the swine flu.
Your kid could have an unexpected reaction. In Milwaukee, an otherwise healthy teenager died from a mild case of the swine flu.
what if YOUR child is the ONE who gets the tamiflu resistant strain, and has no way to fight it?
What if out of all the kids, your kid not only gets the swine flu, but the regular flu, making it much harder to fight a viral pneumonia that could follow.
why would you put your children at that kind of risk intentionally? It's like playing russian roulette.
you'd be better off holding a "how to avoid the flu" party by teaching kids the proper way to cough into their shoulder, sneeze into a kleenex or their sleeve, wash their hands frequently, use sanitizer that's 60+% alcohol, and take nightly showers to wash off daily germs.
Mayuof CA12:46PM September 28, 2009
Are you kidding me??? What part of intentionally exposing your child to a life threatening disease seems like a good idea??? I would never put my children at risk of death just to avoid a vaccination! I find the whole idea repulsive and borderline child abuse.
Dan Ashline-Beaudetof NY12:44PM September 28, 2009
Ted, you have my exact thoughts. If people grow immunity to these mild diseases naturally, Dr. Judith is out of a job. Heh.
B.AKof UT12:44PM September 28, 2009
Yes Ted, because doctors can't make more money by treating outbreaks of swine flu than by vaccinating. /sarcasm
Mad at Anti-Scienceof PA12:43PM September 28, 2009
The old chickenpox parties and measles parties only made sense in the 1950's before vaccines existed for those diseases. It was a pretty sure thing that every schoolkid was going to catch those diseases eventually and the party was a way to catch it at a better time during the school year and get immunity. The parties make no sense at all when a vaccine exists. One inaccuracy in the above article is that infected people should stay home 24-hours after the fever ends. There have been many articles recently stating that studies have proven the H1N1 virus can be infectious for up to a week, and possibly longer. So if anyone is still planning to have an inane H1N1 party, please wait until sensible people have had a chance to gain immunity from a vaccination.
Aliceof PA12:41PM September 28, 2009
Dr. Judith doesn't like the idea of Swine Flu Parties...because she and the services that she has to offer are irrelevant if folks can boost their immunity from flu on their own.
Get answers to your health questions from 10 leaders in health and medical fields, from cardiology to integrative medicine and women's health to fitness and nutrition.
Reader Comments
Back to blog
Stan Lippmann of WA 1:05PM September 28, 2009
[sigh] of MN 1:01PM September 28, 2009
Mayu of CA 12:46PM September 28, 2009
Dan Ashline-Beaudet of NY 12:44PM September 28, 2009
B.AK of UT 12:44PM September 28, 2009
Mad at Anti-Science of PA 12:43PM September 28, 2009
Alice of PA 12:41PM September 28, 2009
Ted of TX 12:27PM September 28, 2009