"Hans-Georg Michna" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 8 Dec 2004 16:23:21 +0100, "riverman"
wrote:

Although the vaccine is not required, the WHO considers Kenya one of their
'at risk' countries**, and recommends a vaccine for anyone who enters
Kenya
and goes outside the urban area****, considering that there was a serious,
and unexpected, outbreak as recently as Sept 92-March 93***.

Riverman,

so how many tourists died from yellow fever then?

Probably none, and we still have no reasonable statistics at
all. It's all wild guesswork, except for the doctors and the
pharma industry. For them it works out well. (:-)

Hans-Georg


So thats your point? That the recommendation to have yellow fever
vaccinations, and the defination of 'at risk zones' is merely a conspiracy
by doctors and the pharma industry to pad their pockets, while in real life
the vaccine poses a measurable and inherent threat to the patients?

Then why would the WHO and CDC, who have no allegiences to pharma industries
(and in fact battle them constantly for affordable medications for AIDS,
etc), be taking their preventative stance about YF? Why would they risk
their entire organization by supporting saomething with no basis, that could
so completely discredit them?

Look at how many people have died from Yellow Fever before vaccinations were
made available, as opposed to how many people have died from the vaccine. If
your implications are correct, you're pretty much sitting on a time bomb,
with your fortune to be made. Not to mention the lawsuits for wrongful
death, personal injury, etc.

I'm waiting to see any evidence for your claims, as that would be
fascinating.

--riverman