Smallpox & Native Americans & vaccines

[Guest guest]

somebody posted a little info about smallpox and native americans. - i am very

interested in this, partly b/c my husband and i are discussing the vaccine

issue. i know they no longer vaccinate for smallpox, but he sees this an example

to support vaccination.

in light of the discussion " New Theory of Disease " i wonder how people would

explain the smallpox outbreak with native americans. (i haven't read all the

posts yet, so if this was addressed, i apologize).

also, i would really like to know - approximately, what percentage of native

americans exposed to smallpox 1) died, 2) experienced illness, or 3) did not

experience illness.

i have been told that only 30% of people exposed to smallpox actually die from

it - i honestly don't know if this is true.

one the vaccine note, although neither one of us is interested in vaccinating, i

still want to educate myself - plus i will need to address the concerns of

family members. i have found some books, but haven't selected any yet. if

anyone has a recommendation for a good book on this topic, i would appreciate

it.

thank you in advance,

deanna

[Guest guest]

Deanna,

The issue of what percentage of native americans died as a result of the

infectious wave that struck the americas when europeans first landed is one

of the most hotly debated issues in anthropological and archaeological

circles. The only definite answer is " a lot. " On the high end, some

experts believe that the all infectious cause death rate in the first

100-150 (1492-1650) years of contact with europeans was in the vicinity of

95%. Even if they can prove, however, that so many did indeed die, they

will not have any way of knowing how many were killed by each different

pathogen*(see below) and what the effect was of potentially compounded

simultaneous infectious waves...smallpox was only one of several pathogens

imported to the Americas by the europeans and their livestock.

It is the contention of these " high-ball " experts that their figures are

supported by the accounts of the unimaginably vast flocks of migratory

birds, bison and other wildlife in the ensuing years (1600-1800). It is a

known phenomenon that a severely disturbed ecosystem results in " breakout "

populations of species that are suddenly unchecked as a result of the

elimination of predators or competing feeders. They claim that the

pre-columbus population of the americas was far more vast than has been

previously supposed, and that the population greatly influenced the

ecosystem as the primary predators. They also cite early accounts by

conquistadors and others of heavily populated areas where 100-150 years

later, there were no settlements found...besides the obvious ones that they

directly helped to wipe out.

They *do* know that there were probably multiple factors that led to such

devastation. There was zero prior exposure level to the pathogens*(see

below) so there was no natural immunity. In addition many native american

cultures had customs that ran opposite to the european practice of

quarantine, as a result individuals who sickened were often tended to

closely by family and friends right up until death.

There is an exceedingly fascinating article on the topic of pre-columbus

american population and culture in this month's Atlantic Monthly. If even

10% of what is proposed therein has validity, it would still be a vast

departure from common suppositions about what american life was like before

Columbus landed. I just read this last Tuesday morning, and I can't

recommend the article highly enough to *everyone*. I'm not in a position to

evaluate the validity or plausibility of the various camps in the debate,

but it was some of the most interesting reading I've found in a long time.

It was also one of the few magazine articles ever that, despite being

several pages long, left me feeling disappointed that it was over when I was

done reading it.

On the vaccine topic specifically, I can't really be of any help. I still

have mixed feelings about them, myself. I definitely don't believe in

vaccinating against minor things like chickenpox and influenza...but I'm

less sure about some others...

* Pathos actually means feeling or emotion. Pathology refers to the

constellation of symptoms appearing in a patient...literally meaning " study

of the patient's feelings(symptoms). " Pathogen refers to that which

generates a symptom -- Pathos=feeling and Genesis=origin. So referring to

microbes as pathogens is valid regardless of the model of disease genesis

you subscribe to...as long as you still believe that the symptoms themselves

are generated by the microbes and their activity...

[Guest guest]

--- Deanna Buck <dbuck@...> wrote:

> somebody posted a little info about smallpox and

> native americans. - i am very interested in this,

> partly b/c my husband and i are discussing the

> vaccine issue. i know they no longer vaccinate for

> smallpox, but he sees this an example to support

> vaccination.

>

Perhaps,

http://www.soilandhealth.org/02/0201hyglibcat/020119hadwin/020119hadwin.toc.html

(The Hadwin Documents) will help you and your husband

make up your mind.

Roman

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

>On the vaccine topic specifically, I can't really be of any help. I >still

have mixed feelings about them, myself. I definitely don't >believe in

vaccinating against minor things like chickenpox and >influenza...but I'm less

sure about some others...

I have not given my children any vaccinations and I started out with some viable

enough reasons, but these have changed a little over time. I know one can get

homeopathic kits for kids who are going to go through vaccinations so they can

handle them better and I think I would definately do this just because I would

not like to have to go through any problems and I would really like be as sure

as I could. Nothing is 100% even driving in a car can kill you (I was in a bad

accident last week!)

We can argue the side effects and try to come up with scientific research that

points to what we want it to. I know these are the main reasons for me: These

cultures have been incubated in a species of some sort, can we be 100% sure that

the vaccination that is being put in my baby is free of any other pathogens

except what needs to be there to develop immunity? Can they be 100% sure there

are no additives? (I've heard mercury is one) and from a personal conviction

(not to get into any debate here)... Some were incubated human cells, Are they

100% positive it was not an aborted fetus.

Grace,

a Augustine

I wish you enough sun to keep your attitude bright.

I wish you enough rain to appreciate the sun more.

I wish you enough happiness to keep your spirit alive.

I wish you enough pain so that the smallest joys in life appear much bigger.

I wish you enough gain to satisfy your wanting.

I wish you enough loss to appreciate all that you possess.

I wish you enough ''Hello's " to get you through the final goodbye.

--anonymous

[Guest guest]

Deanna, I believe that the smallpox vaccine didn't do

anything to help wipe out the disease, but instead in

many populations actually worsened or started

outbreaks. It's documented that in some outbreaks,

ONLY vaccinated persons died from smallpox. I've read

that only 2% of the world's population was ever

vaccinated, and even if that figure is 10 times too

low, how could such a low coverage rate with a vaccine

do away with a disease? Not possible, IMO. I believe

the natural disease cycle, along with better

sanitation (personal and public) and less crowded

living conditions in cities, have far more to do with

wiping out smallpox than the (extremely dangerous)

vaccine. Before the birth of our child, I spent

literally many hundreds of hours reasearching

vaccines, reading info from both pro and con sides,

and have come to believe that vaccines in most cases

are useless and very often dangerous and detrimental

to the recipient's future health. This is a good

website, with links to many other good websites:

http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

Aubin

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Aubin, I just wanted to say that I couldn't have said it better

myself. About the only thing I would have said differently is that

the vaccines are always usless as opposed to most of the time and I

would also say that they are always dangerous and detrimental to the

recipients future health. It's always great to see people doing

there homework. You made me smile today, thanks.

DMM

> Deanna, I believe that the smallpox vaccine didn't do

> anything to help wipe out the disease, but instead in

> many populations actually worsened or started

> outbreaks. It's documented that in some outbreaks,

> ONLY vaccinated persons died from smallpox. I've read

> that only 2% of the world's population was ever

> vaccinated, and even if that figure is 10 times too

> low, how could such a low coverage rate with a vaccine

> do away with a disease? Not possible, IMO. I believe

> the natural disease cycle, along with better

> sanitation (personal and public) and less crowded

> living conditions in cities, have far more to do with

> wiping out smallpox than the (extremely dangerous)

> vaccine. Before the birth of our child, I spent

> literally many hundreds of hours reasearching

> vaccines, reading info from both pro and con sides,

> and have come to believe that vaccines in most cases

> are useless and very often dangerous and detrimental

> to the recipient's future health. This is a good

> website, with links to many other good websites:

> http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm

>

> Aubin

>

>

>

> __________________________________________________

>

[Guest guest]

At 02:17 PM 2/26/02 -0500, Deanna wrote:

>somebody posted a little info about smallpox and native americans.  - i am

very interested in this, partly b/c my husband and i are discussing the

vaccine

issue. i know they no longer vaccinate for smallpox, but he sees this an

example to support vaccination. 

From what I've learned its more a damned if you do vaccinate any native

population, Deanna. Just the exposure to anything not a part of that people's

previous existence creates a reaction in the body because adaptation is just

beginning.

>in light of the discussion " New Theory of Disease " i wonder how people would

explain the smallpox outbreak with native americans.  (i haven't read all the

posts yet, so if this was addressed, i apologize). 

There was never any prior exposure to domesticated livestock where many

diseases begin or to people overcrowding like in cities.

>

>also, i would really like to know - approximately, what percentage of native

americans exposed to smallpox 1) died, 2) experienced illness, or 3) did not

experience illness.

Entire tribes like the Massachusett were killed by smallpox. Believe they were

one of whats been termed the praying tribes that were brought together with

others for religious conversion. Smallpox was the major killer of the

eastern/mideast tribes. Tuberculosis more on the west coast because smallpox

had been subdued by the time settlement spread west.

Wish I knew half of what I know now a dozen years ago about vaccines. I did

refuse a new hepatitis vaccine required by the state for my daughter to enter

middle school. Its the one transferred by sex and drugs. Had seen that it was

given to Maori children in New Zealand and the incidence of juvenile diabetes

skyrocketed after even though their traditional diet was still intact. Its all

too common to test vaccines or medicines on populations that haven't

adapted to

get the worst possible side effects it seems. With some native ancestry and

diabetes in the family there was no way I was going to compromise my

daughter's

liver with a hepatitis vaccine. Luckily the state allowed exclusion for health

reasons.

Wanita