Vaccination - Whom can we trust?

April 24, 2009

Hi All, & Patricia & Yehuda,

This list may not be an appropriate forum for prolonged discussion on

the pros and cons of vaccination.

We need guidance from the ListMaster on whether or not to continue

this thread here. Meanwhile, here are a few comments.

1. Our youngest daughter (a trainee surgeon with a brilliant truth-

seeking mind) with whom I had expressed reservations about the wisdom

of mass vaccination, texted me yesterday:

" [Dad, re the pros and cons of vaccination] ... in the past two

weeks, I have admitted 3 cases of severe mumps in non-immunised men.

Case #1is in ICU, brain-dead due to mumps encephalitis;

Case #2 lost both testicles due to mumps orchitis;

Case #3 is very ill with mumps pancreatitis ... "

Like most young doctors and vets whom I know, my daughter has no

doubt that the benefits of vaccination against serious diseases

outweigh the risks of not vaccinating. However, she is not an expert

immunologist, so SHE TRUSTS the conclusions of her teachers / peers.

2. DE FACTO, the vaccine industry (manufacturers, wholesalers and

retailers) and those who administer vaccines (doctors, nurses,

healthcare workers, vets, vet techs, etc) have a vested financial

interest in promoting vaccination. Without vaccination, they would

lose turnover / income.

However, IMO, most vaccinators are not evil people in a diabolical

conspiracy to corrupt the human or animal genomes. Neither are they

stupid people. They BELIEVE that vaccines confer more benefit than

harm to the recipients.

3. Professionals' beliefs and practices arise mainly from their

culture, professional training, interaction with peers, practical

experience and brainwashing (commercial brochures, seminars, courses,

etc).

We (busy practitioners) simply have not the time to research in depth

the pros and cons of every action that we take. Therefore, MUCH of

what we do is because we have been trained to do it, or we rely

heavily on / TRUST the advice of peers / authorities whom we trust.

We TRUST our pastors / rabbis; we trust our Governments; we trust our

academics / National Health Authorities, WHO, national Banks, etc.

For me, the main question is: are we RIGHT to place our trust in

those authorities?

It is obvious from recent international scandals that INDIVIDUALS in

the Churches, national Governments, Banks, etc criminally betrayed

our trust. Can we trust ANY authority now?

4. Some opponents of mass vaccination, especially with simultaneous

use of multi-antigens, say that there is no (or inadequate) proof of

safety and / or efficacy.

Having worked as a professional researcher for >41 years, my

experience is that the vast majority of my research colleagues are

decent and intelligent people who seek the truth in their areas of

expertise.

Though I am not expert in immunology, thousands of highly trained

people work to the best of their professional ability in that

specialised area. Medline has many papers on the safety and efficacy

of vaccines. Unless the authors of those papers are liars or stupid,

THEY believe their conclusions.

But safety and efficacy are relative terms.

What is safe? For example, is it safe if 1 vaccinee per 100,000 dies?

Is it safe if 1 in 1000 develops cancer or autoimmune disease. Were

the deaths / diseases in vaccinees due to the vaccine, or due to

coincidental factors?

For how many years must vaccinees be monitored BEFORE ANY conclusions

on safety can be drawn?

What is the definition of efficacy? Should it be based on titers of

specific antibodies, or on the incidence rate of the specific disease

in the vaccinees versus a similar unvaccinated group over a

predetermined follow-up period (1 year?, 2 years? what?)

For example [see abstract below]: The incidence of diarrhoea in the

group vaccinated with WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine (n=321) was 17.4%,

compared with 39.7% in the non-vaccinated group (n=337) (adjusted

risk ratio 0.40). The first episode was significantly shorter in the

vaccinated group (mean 2.3 days) than in the non-vaccinated group

(mean 3.8 days) (p<0.001).

Efficacy here was far short of 100%. But can we ever expect 100%

efficacy from anything?

Whom am I to believe?

Most, if not all, medical and surgical interventions carry some risk.

IMO, an impartial comment on the pros and cons of vaccination MUST

try to assess the risk-benefit of vaccinating versus not vaccinating.

Both options carry risks and benefits.

We should aim to fulfil the principle of " the greatest good for the

greatest number " .

Meanwhile, whom should I believe?

Best regards,

Torrell JM, Aumatell CM, Ramos SM, Mestre LG, Salas CM. Reduction of

travellers' diarrhoea by WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine in young, high-

risk travellers. Vaccine. 2009 Apr 16. [Epub ahead of print]. Intnl

Vaccination Center. Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, Feixa Llarga

s/n 08907 Hospitalet. Barcelona, Spain. AIMS: A bidirectional cohort

study investigates whether pre-travel vaccination with whole

cell/recombinant B subunit inactivated, killed oral cholera vaccine

reduces the incidence of diarrhoea in young adult travellers to

highrisk areas. SCOPE: Risk of travellers' diarrhoea was assessed

according to destination and reason for travel in high risk

travellers of a travel clinic in Barcelona, Spain. Those at high-risk

between January and December 2005 were advised on water/food safety

and hygiene. High-risk travellers between January and December 2006

were additionally vaccinated with WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine. Data

regarding diarrhoea were gathered by structured telephone interview

or emailed questionnaire following the travellers' return. The

incidence of diarrhoea in the group vaccinated with WC/rBS oral

cholera vaccine (n=321) was 17.4%, compared with 39.7% in the non-

vaccinated group (n=337) (adjusted risk ratio 0.40). The first

episode was significantly shorter in the vaccinated group (mean 2.3

days) than in the non-vaccinated group (mean 3.8 days) (p<0.001).

CONCLUSIONS: The protective effect of the WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine

was 57% in the young, highrisk travellers. Vaccination with the

WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine as well as food safety and hygiene advice

could offer effective means of reducing the risk of diarrhoea while

abroad. PMID: 19376179 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

April 24, 2009

Phil,

The main intelligent argument against vaccinations is that there are too

many vaccinations given

in such a short period of time (32 shots in the first 2 years of life)....

We were advised by our allopathic pediatrician from the birth of our son

that we should vaccinate him every 2 months for the 1st year of his life.

The other problem is the combination of vaccines (MMR etc), which has shown

to create inflammation in the brains and nervous system of infants and put

them into a sympathetic dominant state (possibly aggravating their immunity

further... potentially leading to higher incidences of asthma and allergies)

and hypothetically autism as well.

But there are so many factors... environmental toxins, lack of mother

contact first 2 years, lack of breast-feeding, poor diet (esp lacking

Essential Fatty acids) etc.

There are no long-term studies about the damage of vaccines. We have just

seen the rise of most chronic and autoimmune dz, but can't pin-point an

exact cause (or they don't want to tell us about it).

We live in a fear-based society. Vaccines were born out of the cold-war

fear of the " other " and the quick-fix of the microwave revolution. We want

order in the world, except when ordered chaos leads to more Order.

Some vaccines have done much good... polio, tetanus etc.

I agree that there's no world wide conspiracy to numb or dumb the public

with vaccines.

It might be in the water and the food though

My question is at what age (when the body is strong enough to handle

vaccines)

and at what frequency (scheduling) does vaccinating make sense?

What do the Europeans do? (European practitioners usually dose medications

lower than Americans, right?)

K

On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM, < wrote:

>

> Hi All, & Patricia & Yehuda,

>

> This list may not be an appropriate forum for prolonged discussion on

> the pros and cons of vaccination.

>

> We need guidance from the ListMaster on whether or not to continue

> this thread here. Meanwhile, here are a few comments.

>

> 1. Our youngest daughter (a trainee surgeon with a brilliant truth-

> seeking mind) with whom I had expressed reservations about the wisdom

> of mass vaccination, texted me yesterday:

>

> " [Dad, re the pros and cons of vaccination] ... in the past two

> weeks, I have admitted 3 cases of severe mumps in non-immunised men.

> Case #1is in ICU, brain-dead due to mumps encephalitis;

> Case #2 lost both testicles due to mumps orchitis;

> Case #3 is very ill with mumps pancreatitis ... "

>

> Like most young doctors and vets whom I know, my daughter has no

> doubt that the benefits of vaccination against serious diseases

> outweigh the risks of not vaccinating. However, she is not an expert

> immunologist, so SHE TRUSTS the conclusions of her teachers / peers.

>

> 2. DE FACTO, the vaccine industry (manufacturers, wholesalers and

> retailers) and those who administer vaccines (doctors, nurses,

> healthcare workers, vets, vet techs, etc) have a vested financial

> interest in promoting vaccination. Without vaccination, they would

> lose turnover / income.

>

> However, IMO, most vaccinators are not evil people in a diabolical

> conspiracy to corrupt the human or animal genomes. Neither are they

> stupid people. They BELIEVE that vaccines confer more benefit than

> harm to the recipients.

>

> 3. Professionals' beliefs and practices arise mainly from their

> culture, professional training, interaction with peers, practical

> experience and brainwashing (commercial brochures, seminars, courses,

> etc).

>

> We (busy practitioners) simply have not the time to research in depth

> the pros and cons of every action that we take. Therefore, MUCH of

> what we do is because we have been trained to do it, or we rely

> heavily on / TRUST the advice of peers / authorities whom we trust.

>

> We TRUST our pastors / rabbis; we trust our Governments; we trust our

> academics / National Health Authorities, WHO, national Banks, etc.

>

> For me, the main question is: are we RIGHT to place our trust in

> those authorities?

>

> It is obvious from recent international scandals that INDIVIDUALS in

> the Churches, national Governments, Banks, etc criminally betrayed

> our trust. Can we trust ANY authority now?

>

> 4. Some opponents of mass vaccination, especially with simultaneous

> use of multi-antigens, say that there is no (or inadequate) proof of

> safety and / or efficacy.

>

> Having worked as a professional researcher for >41 years, my

> experience is that the vast majority of my research colleagues are

> decent and intelligent people who seek the truth in their areas of

> expertise.

>

> Though I am not expert in immunology, thousands of highly trained

> people work to the best of their professional ability in that

> specialised area. Medline has many papers on the safety and efficacy

> of vaccines. Unless the authors of those papers are liars or stupid,

> THEY believe their conclusions.

>

> But safety and efficacy are relative terms.

>

> What is safe? For example, is it safe if 1 vaccinee per 100,000 dies?

> Is it safe if 1 in 1000 develops cancer or autoimmune disease. Were

> the deaths / diseases in vaccinees due to the vaccine, or due to

> coincidental factors?

>

> For how many years must vaccinees be monitored BEFORE ANY conclusions

> on safety can be drawn?

>

> What is the definition of efficacy? Should it be based on titers of

> specific antibodies, or on the incidence rate of the specific disease

> in the vaccinees versus a similar unvaccinated group over a

> predetermined follow-up period (1 year?, 2 years? what?)

>

> For example [see abstract below]: The incidence of diarrhoea in the

> group vaccinated with WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine (n=321) was 17.4%,

> compared with 39.7% in the non-vaccinated group (n=337) (adjusted

> risk ratio 0.40). The first episode was significantly shorter in the

> vaccinated group (mean 2.3 days) than in the non-vaccinated group

> (mean 3.8 days) (p<0.001).

>

> Efficacy here was far short of 100%. But can we ever expect 100%

> efficacy from anything?

>

> Whom am I to believe?

>

> Most, if not all, medical and surgical interventions carry some risk.

> IMO, an impartial comment on the pros and cons of vaccination MUST

> try to assess the risk-benefit of vaccinating versus not vaccinating.

> Both options carry risks and benefits.

>

> We should aim to fulfil the principle of " the greatest good for the

> greatest number " .

>

> Meanwhile, whom should I believe?

>

> Best regards,

>

> Torrell JM, Aumatell CM, Ramos SM, Mestre LG, Salas CM. Reduction of

> travellers' diarrhoea by WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine in young, high-

> risk travellers. Vaccine. 2009 Apr 16. [Epub ahead of print]. Intnl

> Vaccination Center. Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, Feixa Llarga

> s/n 08907 Hospitalet. Barcelona, Spain. AIMS: A bidirectional cohort

> study investigates whether pre-travel vaccination with whole

> cell/recombinant B subunit inactivated, killed oral cholera vaccine

> reduces the incidence of diarrhoea in young adult travellers to

> highrisk areas. SCOPE: Risk of travellers' diarrhoea was assessed

> according to destination and reason for travel in high risk

> travellers of a travel clinic in Barcelona, Spain. Those at high-risk

> between January and December 2005 were advised on water/food safety

> and hygiene. High-risk travellers between January and December 2006

> were additionally vaccinated with WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine. Data

> regarding diarrhoea were gathered by structured telephone interview

> or emailed questionnaire following the travellers' return. The

> incidence of diarrhoea in the group vaccinated with WC/rBS oral

> cholera vaccine (n=321) was 17.4%, compared with 39.7% in the non-

> vaccinated group (n=337) (adjusted risk ratio 0.40). The first

> episode was significantly shorter in the vaccinated group (mean 2.3

> days) than in the non-vaccinated group (mean 3.8 days) (p<0.001).

> CONCLUSIONS: The protective effect of the WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine

> was 57% in the young, highrisk travellers. Vaccination with the

> WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine as well as food safety and hygiene advice

> could offer effective means of reducing the risk of diarrhoea while

> abroad. PMID: 19376179 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher]

>

--

Turtle Island Integrative Health

TCM Review director

CA State Board Prep Courses

www.tcmreview.com

April 24, 2009

As the ListMaster (is that like being the key master?) I whole

heartedly approve the prolonged conversation on this, as it is

relevant to us as practitioners, and as a parent of 2 ( & IY'H a third

on the way) children who have not been vaccinated I find this

discussion by my peers quite useful and fascinating. As practitioners

we need to be able to provide our patients with all of the information

possible when they are trying to make a decision about something like

not vaccinating, and this discussion has already identified a number

of good resources for this.

Please, with my blessing, continue this discussion.

- Mark