Hi Ken,
The reason that those companies stopped was because it was found
that there was mercury in the formulation of the vaccine. The mercury
had no other use other than stabilization. The mercury is known to
cause brain damage. Prior to around 1980, DPT was not given to infants.
The rise in autism has correlated with the increased use of the infant
vaccines.Those companies were also found to have poor process control
that allowed too much of a live virus in their vaccines causing a
so-called 'hot batch'. The company that is left doesn't have mercury in
their formulation and has superior process control. I would much rather
see my child suffer through a virus than be permanently brain
damaged(usually undetectably)
BTW, whooping cough and pertusis are the same thing. the D stands
for Diptheria.
Jim Freeman
Ken Javor wrote:
> My take on it is that rather than appease ridiculous demands, a
> company ought to look at the profit vs. risk vs. cost to consumer and
> decide, heck, it ain't worth it. Case in point on the news today I
> heard that DPT shots are in short supply, because two companies quit
> making it. They quit making it because there were a very small number
> of bad reactions to it and there were lawsuits or gov't action. Well,
> my kids are beyond that stage but I sure feel sorry for the people out
> there whose infants are at risk for whooping cough, diphtheria and
> pertussis. The only thing worse than watching your child become
> seriously ill is knowing it was easily preventable.
>
>
> S on 1/4/02 7:37 AM, cherryclo...@aol.com at cherryclo...@aol.com
> wrote:
>
>
> Hey, Ken, let's try to be realistic here!
>
> Sure - we should try to get laws we don't like changed, but
> that isn't going to happen overnight and in the meantime we
> have to operate within the law as it stands.
>
> Or are you suggesting immediate insurrection by product
> manufacturers?
> (Outlaw manufacturers roaming the wild wild west - an
> interesting concept!)
>
> The IEE's guide on EMC and Functional Safety is concerned
> with such legal aspects, but is also concerned with saving
> lives in a world where electronic control of safety-related
> functions is proliferating madly.
>
> As my paper at the IEEE's EMC Symposium in Montreal and my
> recent article in ITEM UPDATE 2001 show - at present EMC
> standards don't address safety issues, and most safety
> standards don't address EMC-related functional safety
> issues.
>
> Regards, Keith Armstrong
>
> In a message dated 03/01/02 17:24:42 GMT Standard Time,
> ken.ja...@emccompliance.com writes:
>
>
> Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues
> Date:03/01/02 17:24:42 GMT Standard Time
> From: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor)
> Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Reply-to: ken.ja...@emccompliance.com (Ken Javor)
>
> To: c...@dolby.co.uk (James, Chris),
> acar...@uk.xyratex.com ('acar...@uk.xyratex.com'),
> emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>
>
>
>
> There is an inherent contradiction in this
> anti-profit, anti-technology point-of-view that I
> cannot and will not defend. All I am saying is
> that people who feel this is wrong should stand up
> and say so, not write guides for how to go along
> with it.
>
