Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted 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] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted 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 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa www.InnerhealthSalem.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Mark Milotay Chinese Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? 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 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Random? Are you kidding? That seems to be the very nature of discussion groups! Maybe you mean " poorly focused " ? I think a major point that Patricia brings up is one of withheld information that prevents Joe-Schmoe Parent from making informed decisions regarding this topic. The idea of whether to vaccinate or not is highly charged with emotion, and while I am whole-heartedly invested in TCM I also realize that the issue is more complicated than it may seem. I myself have seen enough better science lately to justify dissuading most people away from vaccinations than to encourage them. And that includes the polio example. -Everett Churchill, L.Ac. _____ Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. Friday, April 24, 2009 12:35 PM Chinese Medicine Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) <angelapfa%40comcast.net> net www.InnerhealthSalem.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Mark Milotay Traditional_ <Chinese Medicine%40> Chinese_Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? 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 On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM, < (AT) tinet (DOT) <%40tinet.ie> ie> 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Exactly, we need to make differentiated decisions, there is no polio in the US right now, and if the vaccine is needed is questionable, and yes, there may be risks to receiving the vaccine, however, that doesn't mean that vaccines are a bad idea. It all depends, when? for whom? where do they live and travel? Are they at risk for contracting the disease? How much risk is there? I guess I don't understand why this issue is so charged with emotion? The evidence about benefits and risks is controversial, yes. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa www.InnerhealthSalem.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Everett Churchill Chinese Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 12:21 PM RE: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Random? Are you kidding? That seems to be the very nature of discussion groups! Maybe you mean " poorly focused " ? I think a major point that Patricia brings up is one of withheld information that prevents Joe-Schmoe Parent from making informed decisions regarding this topic. The idea of whether to vaccinate or not is highly charged with emotion, and while I am whole-heartedly invested in TCM I also realize that the issue is more complicated than it may seem. I myself have seen enough better science lately to justify dissuading most people away from vaccinations than to encourage them. And that includes the polio example. -Everett Churchill, L.Ac. _____ Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. Friday, April 24, 2009 12:35 PM Chinese Medicine Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) <angelapfa%40comcast.net> net www.InnerhealthSalem.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Mark Milotay Traditional_ <Chinese Medicine%40> Chinese_Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? 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 On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM, < (AT) tinet (DOT) <%40tinet.ie> ie> 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Koko you make many statements regarding effects of vaccines for which i would like to see supporting evidence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 And by the way there is not reduction in autism in kids vaccinated without Thimerosal vs those with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 My understanding is that they also make vaccines withouth Thimersol/mercury preservatives. These will still have recombinant virii and whatnot, but it's theoretically better than the original. - " " < <Chinese Medicine > Friday, April 24, 2009 6:59 AM Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > 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] > > > > > --- > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine > and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia > > > and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Alon, Can you provide the research to back this up? My understanding is that there has not been any research done to date, on a large enough sample to make this statement. Thanks, Mark On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:44 PM, Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote: > > > And by the way there is not reduction in autism in kids vaccinated without > Thimerosal vs those with it > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Polio is only diagnosed in cases where the virus is found, which is a small minority of cases. It's usually now called " aseptic meningitis " or " acute flaccid paralysis. " Cases that in the past would have been diagnosed as polio have actually increased since vaccination has been introduced. FEAR OF THE INVISIBLE by Janine Robers. As for HIV, there is no real evidence that it is caused by a virus, retrovirus or infectious pathogen of any sort. See: http://www.aliveandwell.org/ http://www.virusmyth.com/ " If there is evidence that HIV causes AIDS, there should be scientific documents which either singly or collectively demonstrate that fact, at least with a high probability. There is no such document. " Dr. Kary Mullis, Biochemist, 1993 Nobel Prize for Chemistry. " Up to today there is actually no single scientifically really convincing evidence for the existence of HIV. Not even once such a retrovirus has been isolated and purified by the methods of classical virology. " Dr. Heinz Ludwig Sanger, Emeritus Professor of Molecular Biology and Virology, Max-Planck-Institutes for Biochemy, Munchen. More controversial statements and citations can be found here http://www.virusmyth.com/aids/controversy.htm - " Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. " <angelapfa <Chinese Medicine > Friday, April 24, 2009 10:34 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? >I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. >Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to >school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from >post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we >overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If >there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a >daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer >protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved >if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a >more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a >soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. > > Regards, > Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. > > angelapfa > > www.InnerhealthSalem.com > > Phone: 503 364 3022 > - > Mark Milotay > Chinese Medicine > Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM > Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > > > > > > 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 > > 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] > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Does anyone on this list know what is in vaccines? know the effect of injecting that into the body? on the immune system? on the whole body? this is where i find the most ....uuugghhmmm, lack of knowledge.We had no clue what vaccines were doing and if you are confusing vaccination with immunity, there is the first big problem.Generating antibodies which you could get from injecting toilet water is not a fair or safe bet to equate with immunity. Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology Chinese Medicine angelapfa Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:03:02 -0700 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Exactly, we need to make differentiated decisions, there is no polio in the US right now, and if the vaccine is needed is questionable, and yes, there may be risks to receiving the vaccine, however, that doesn't mean that vaccines are a bad idea. It all depends, when? for whom? where do they live and travel? Are they at risk for contracting the disease? How much risk is there? I guess I don't understand why this issue is so charged with emotion? The evidence about benefits and risks is controversial, yes. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa www.InnerhealthSalem.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Everett Churchill Chinese Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 12:21 PM RE: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Random? Are you kidding? That seems to be the very nature of discussion groups! Maybe you mean " poorly focused " ? I think a major point that Patricia brings up is one of withheld information that prevents Joe-Schmoe Parent from making informed decisions regarding this topic. The idea of whether to vaccinate or not is highly charged with emotion, and while I am whole-heartedly invested in TCM I also realize that the issue is more complicated than it may seem. I myself have seen enough better science lately to justify dissuading most people away from vaccinations than to encourage them. And that includes the polio example. -Everett Churchill, L.Ac. _____ Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. Friday, April 24, 2009 12:35 PM Chinese Medicine Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) <angelapfa%40comcast.net> net www.InnerhealthSalem.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Mark Milotay Traditional_ <Chinese Medicine%40> Chinese_Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? 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 On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM, < (AT) tinet (DOT) <%40tinet.ie> ie> 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 All of the diseased animals are still getting thimerasol in their vaccines. the story on thimerasol was that even with them " saying " it was removed they are enabled to use up the sotres that still contain it. Also, thimerasol while being a potent neurotoxin and mutator is not the only metal involved, the aluminum salts used as adjuvants have an equally dark history now that we know and are a cuase of genetic mutation and CANCER, p53 mutations. Alum, enjoyed its success since 1920's they still do not know what it does, NATO knows, and the least of which is raise IgE levels, causing allergies, asthma and increases blood brain barreir permeability, allowing all the litttel protein sequences into the brain for reassortment.the aluminum conference weent on not too far from the mercury conference and the research was horrific. the added ingredients are often other chemical toxins like formalin or formadehyde which are carcinogens and the beast cells, like VERO kidney cells from monkeys, the grafting of man and beast is the worst in my research, how many of those vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue of humans? MORE THAN YOU WANT TO BELIEVE and so i ask, do you understand that when an injection takes place that the components of the vaccines, like SQUALENE, LECITHIN,fatty acids and compnents of our very own foundation structure, that the body then learns to see as a forign invader, make senstized cells against in order to destroy....ever wonder why kids got peanut allergies? Peanut oil and panut fermentatin products are used, there is a very good reason why pharmaceutical companies HIDE their " proprietary ingredient list " and it not because they are worried anyone will truthfully try and repeat the recipe.Contamination studies are you crazy/ We are lucky to find out few recalls are based on not only contamination but often as in the last two large human rabies vaccine recalls for FAILURE TO INACTIVATE THE VIRUS. If you are not sure what genetic reassortment and genetic damage vaccines arecapable of, spend a little time looking for the truth.If you don't think you should be afraid that the FDA does no studies, just accepts the very short term and highly specified study from the drug copany that totally stand to profit from the vaccine release, and understand, they all have get out of jail free cards, total indemnification.If anyone wants to try and get damges for the vaccine damage, get in line and realize it is next to imposible, is set up that way and the money if compensated coems from the very vaccine damage populations and certainly not from the pharmaceutical company. ever wonder why yeast is a problem now, ooopsss beside the yeast as a contaminant, so it is also a part of the recipe,like i said, this is not rocket science, they still DO NOT know the full effects of injecting anything except we now have incredible chronic chronic disease and bizarre unatural diseases and corrupted immune systems that can not even often times respond to the lesser diseases that a precrrupted immune system could have dealt with.Sure there are toxins, but dont forget the toxin that is injected into you and any hitchhikers along for the ride they wouldn't screen for if they knew to.Chimeras are being used and the genetic jeopardy being played out.....just getting a closer look. Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology Chinese Medicine magisterium_magnum Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:47:22 -0700 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? My understanding is that they also make vaccines withouth Thimersol/mercury preservatives. These will still have recombinant virii and whatnot, but it's theoretically better than the original. - " " < <Chinese Medicine > Friday, April 24, 2009 6:59 AM Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > 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] > > > > > --- > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine > and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia > > > and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Another thing to toss in the pot is the risk analysis for populations, the public health issues. It's not just about personal choices, but what are the risks to the population of these diseases? For instance, I might choose against a vaccine for preventing cervical cancer for all the reasons stated so far, on a personal level, and if I get cervical cancer I'm not putting my neighbors at risk. A (effective) flu vaccine, on the other hand, could prevent whole populations from getting ill. (and please, that was just the best global example I could think of, I know we currently don't have such a thing) karen Karen R. Adams, Lic Ac, Dipl Ac 25 - 27 Bank Row Greenfield, MA 01301 413-768-8333 Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ________________________________ " Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. " <angelapfa Chinese Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 4:03:02 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Exactly, we need to make differentiated decisions, there is no polio in the US right now, and if the vaccine is needed is questionable, and yes, there may be risks to receiving the vaccine, however, that doesn't mean that vaccines are a bad idea. It all depends, when? for whom? where do they live and travel? Are they at risk for contracting the disease? How much risk is there? I guess I don't understand why this issue is so charged with emotion? The evidence about benefits and risks is controversial, yes. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) net www.InnerhealthSale m.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Everett Churchill Friday, April 24, 2009 12:21 PM RE: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Random? Are you kidding? That seems to be the very nature of discussion groups! Maybe you mean " poorly focused " ? I think a major point that Patricia brings up is one of withheld information that prevents Joe-Schmoe Parent from making informed decisions regarding this topic. The idea of whether to vaccinate or not is highly charged with emotion, and while I am whole-heartedly invested in TCM I also realize that the issue is more complicated than it may seem. I myself have seen enough better science lately to justify dissuading most people away from vaccinations than to encourage them. And that includes the polio example. -Everett Churchill, L.Ac. _____ Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine [Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine ] On Behalf Of Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. Friday, April 24, 2009 12:35 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) <angelapfa% 40comcast. net> net www.InnerhealthSale m.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Mark Milotay Traditional_ <Traditional _Chinese_ Medicine% 40. com> Chinese_Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? 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 On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM, <@ tinet. <% 40tinet.ie> ie> 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2009 Report Share Posted April 24, 2009 Well the HPV vaccine will not work and it will most likely result in fertility issues. you can not inject a vaccine and develop cell mediated immunity which is what you need for the HPV. But it deosn't stop pharmaceutical companies for putting out bad science and bad vaccines, the animals have a injectible herpes vaccine and it won't work, we have one that will that is drops to be applied to the mucous membranes of the cats eyes or nasal tissue, what happens if you inject herpes you actually REACTIVATE latent herpes, no benefit at all comes from not understanding the disease and the immune system. Gardasil has killed 28 so far and delivered many with Gullian Barre so get in line, perhaps you can be one less..... HIV, Africa, you need to be brought into the circle of truth, HIV was an answer to the grants that paid for the development of a synthetic biological weapon that would destroy the human immune system. First place it was laced into polio vaccines delivered to areas of Africa were the first cases of HIV were found.......there are no coincidences in science.Read The River by Ed Hooper, 12 monkeys and the origin of Aids, Dro horowitz information adn the Special cancer project which when Congress wanted to know what was going on....had to go OUTSIDE our country for the copies of the records.We have been FOREVER experimenting on the third world countries, that is why we don't hear alot about the adverse effects of vaccines following administration and the New England journal of medicine just covered this problem, and the students of Harvard have just demanded a divorce of their instutuion from the pahrmacuetical industry, there is a reason. recently, they were so happy to announce they were finally able to get AIDS to infect a monkey.....do they think we are crazy? That was the smokescreen for where HIV came from in the first place OOOPPSSS again.Recently Dr. Gallo who was paid by our defense dept to find a synthetic biological agent to corrupt the human immune system, and credited with being the " discoverer of HIV " was panned by a group of scientists whol want retraction for Gallos work on HIV as they too know the real story of the origin of AIDS. Even gallo was spanked by the NIH and priviledges taken away from him with working on human subjects following the debacle with his vaccines he sent to Africa.Yes, the truthneeds to come out and go ahead get in line for the " bird Flu shot " Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology Chinese Medicine angelapfa Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:34:51 -0700 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa www.InnerhealthSalem.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Mark Milotay Chinese Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? 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 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Dear Karen, I respectfully disagree. It concerns me when I see my colleagues eating chips and drinking coke (and I do!) It concerns me when I hear people using poor quality herbs or formulas that might be tainted. And it also concerns me when immune deficient and auto-immune illnesses are attributed to chance. We need to be whole people and whole practitioners. We need to practice what we preach and educate those who depend upon us, our students and our patients so that they can empower and heal themselves, building up and balance their Wei and Ying Qi. I tell you, I am absolutely certain that illness does not occur in a vacuum, and if we don't use the extensive tools at our disposal to protect ourselves and those who depend upon us, well then, shame on us! Don't get me wrong, it does take work, and not just knowledge. But I believe that that should be our mission. And if we follow it, then illness will become less and less and less (just as will Western MDs). Vaccines go completely against this approach, and until such a time as they can be administered without mercury, putrified protein, formaldehyde, and (is that right?) anti-freeze, we should be articulate, passiionate and vigilant against their dissemination. --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Karen Adams <turusachan wrote: Karen Adams <turusachan Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Chinese Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009, 2:59 PM Another thing to toss in the pot is the risk analysis for populations, the public health issues. It's not just about personal choices, but what are the risks to the population of these diseases? For instance, I might choose against a vaccine for preventing cervical cancer for all the reasons stated so far, on a personal level, and if I get cervical cancer I'm not putting my neighbors at risk. A (effective) flu vaccine, on the other hand, could prevent whole populations from getting ill. (and please, that was just the best global example I could think of, I know we currently don't have such a thing) karen Karen R. Adams, Lic Ac, Dipl Ac 25 - 27 Bank Row Greenfield, MA 01301 413-768-8333 Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ____________ _________ _________ __ " Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. " <angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) net> Friday, April 24, 2009 4:03:02 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Exactly, we need to make differentiated decisions, there is no polio in the US right now, and if the vaccine is needed is questionable, and yes, there may be risks to receiving the vaccine, however, that doesn't mean that vaccines are a bad idea. It all depends, when? for whom? where do they live and travel? Are they at risk for contracting the disease? How much risk is there? I guess I don't understand why this issue is so charged with emotion? The evidence about benefits and risks is controversial, yes. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) net www.InnerhealthSale m.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Everett Churchill Friday, April 24, 2009 12:21 PM RE: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Random? Are you kidding? That seems to be the very nature of discussion groups! Maybe you mean " poorly focused " ? I think a major point that Patricia brings up is one of withheld information that prevents Joe-Schmoe Parent from making informed decisions regarding this topic. The idea of whether to vaccinate or not is highly charged with emotion, and while I am whole-heartedly invested in TCM I also realize that the issue is more complicated than it may seem. I myself have seen enough better science lately to justify dissuading most people away from vaccinations than to encourage them. And that includes the polio example. -Everett Churchill, L.Ac. _____ Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine [Traditional _ Chinese_Medicine ] On Behalf Of Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. Friday, April 24, 2009 12:35 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) <angelapfa% 40comcast. net> net www.InnerhealthSale m.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Mark Milotay Traditional_ <Traditional _Chinese_ Medicine% 40. com> Chinese_Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? 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 On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM, <@ tinet. <% 40tinet.ie> ie> 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Dear Yehuda - I absolutely agree. It is also a conventional pro-vaccine argument to draw attention to the good of the group, and I wanted to add that to the mix of the discussion. Because it is true that, in the 1918 flu epidemic as an example, we have had very large numbers of people getting ill at once, which can strain resources to the point that it appears more people die than might otherwise. Another, smaller example: I just got to witness that GI 'woops and poops' illness go through my granddaughter's class like wildfire. That put tremendous strain on the caregivers of those children - and teachers, and then parents! A pro-vaccine advocate might argue that developing a vaccine that would prevent that illness would have great benefit for a community. So if we want to argue against vaccines (which I do), I think it's useful to be able to counter the argument for using vaccines as a way to safeguard public health (meaning large populations) - and perhaps also think about how acupuncture could be used in the event of large numbers of people getting ill. For instance: my 78 yo mother diligently gets the flu vaccine every year, despite many conversations about the uselessness and danger of vaccines. She's a very healthy 78, and she's still in the population that is at greater risk of getting secondary infections after the flu has worn her down. (These, by the way even according to the CDC, are what kill people, not the flu.) So if her town gets a high percentage of flu cases (and I'm not sure what is considered to be 'high'; I do know that my local hospital has no extra beds to even put in emergency clinics, so once the hospital is full that's it), the community's resources can get pushed to the point beyond which it can adequately care for it's members, and the death rate will climb. Please, everyone, understand that I am not advocating for the flu vaccine. I am trying to put forward the public health argument so that we can generate counter-arguments - and maybe also think about how acupuncturists could help in such a scenario. k Karen R. Adams, Lic Ac, Dipl Ac 25 - 27 Bank Row Greenfield, MA 01301 413-768-8333 Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ________________________________ Chinese Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:18:09 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Dear Karen, I respectfully disagree. It concerns me when I see my colleagues eating chips and drinking coke (and I do!) It concerns me when I hear people using poor quality herbs or formulas that might be tainted. And it also concerns me when immune deficient and auto-immune illnesse s are attributed to chance. We need to be whole people and whole practitioners. We need to practice what we preach and educate those who depend upon us, our students and our patients so that they can empower and heal themselves, building up and balance their Wei and Ying Qi. I tell you, I am absolutely certain that illness does not occur in a vacuum, and if we don't use the extensive tools at our disposal to protect ourselves and those who depend upon us, well then, shame on us! Don't get me wrong, it does take work, and not just knowledge. But I believe that that should be our mission. And if we follow it, then illness will become less and less and less (just as will Western MDs). Vaccines go completely against this approach, and until such a time as they can be administered without mercury, putrified protein, formaldehyde, and (is that right?) anti-freeze, we should be articulate, passiionate and vigilant against their dissemination. www.traditionaljewi shmedicine. net www.traditionaljewi shmedicine. blogspot. com --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Karen Adams <turusachan > wrote: Karen Adams <turusachan > Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Friday, April 24, 2009, 2:59 PM Another thing to toss in the pot is the risk analysis for populations, the public health issues. It's not just about personal choices, but what are the risks to the population of these diseases? For instance, I might choose against a vaccine for preventing cervical cancer for all the reasons stated so far, on a personal level, and if I get cervical cancer I'm not putting my neighbors at risk. A (effective) flu vaccine, on the other hand, could prevent whole populations from getting ill. (and please, that was just the best global example I could think of, I know we currently don't have such a thing) karen Karen R. Adams, Lic Ac, Dipl Ac 25 - 27 Bank Row Greenfield, MA 01301 413-768-8333 Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ____________ _________ _________ __ " Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. " <angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) net> Friday, April 24, 2009 4:03:02 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Exactly, we need to make differentiated decisions, there is no polio in the US right now, and if the vaccine is needed is questionable, and yes, there may be risks to receiving the vaccine, however, that doesn't mean that vaccines are a bad idea. It all depends, when? for whom? where do they live and travel? Are they at risk for contracting the disease? How much risk is there? I guess I don't understand why this issue is so charged with emotion? The evidence about benefits and risks is controversial, yes. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) net www.InnerhealthSale m.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Everett Churchill Friday, April 24, 2009 12:21 PM RE: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Random? Are you kidding? That seems to be the very nature of discussion groups! Maybe you mean " poorly focused " ? I think a major point that Patricia brings up is one of withheld information that prevents Joe-Schmoe Parent from making informed decisions regarding this topic. The idea of whether to vaccinate or not is highly charged with emotion, and while I am whole-heartedly invested in TCM I also realize that the issue is more complicated than it may seem. I myself have seen enough better science lately to justify dissuading most people away from vaccinations than to encourage them. And that includes the polio example. -Everett Churchill, L.Ac. _____ Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine [Traditional _ Chinese_Medicine ] On Behalf Of Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. Friday, April 24, 2009 12:35 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) <angelapfa% 40comcast. net> net www.InnerhealthSale m.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Mark Milotay Traditional_ <Traditional _Chinese_ Medicine% 40. com> Chinese_Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? 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 On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM, <@ tinet. <% 40tinet.ie> ie> 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 My wife, also an TCM Doctor, after much research, have not vaccinated our three children; 8, 6, and 4. Our oldest had caught the mumps, which was cleared completely in a day and a half with a modified Yin Qiao San. We have never looked back, and would never do it differently. Douglas ________________________________ Mark Milotay <mark Chinese Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 12:27:08 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? 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 On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM, < (AT) tinet (DOT) ie> 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Alon, The CDC has a few vaccination schedules up... you can count the number of vaccination shots and this isn't even all of them... there's also smallpox, anthrax, Lyme Disease, typhoid, rabies, Japanese encephalitis, shingles and yellow fever just in case you want to collect them all. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/vaccines-list.htm Dont' believe me.... Here's a CDC recommended schedule: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2009/09_0-6yrs_schedu\ le_pr.pdf We did about six months of research before Bhakti was born, but still, more research needs to be done. As far as adverse reactions to vaccines, please read Randall Neustaedter's book, " the Vaccine Guide " , which has in-depth discussions of vaccine reactions for the following vaccines and 38 pages of medical journal references: pgs 297-335 Varicella pgs 152-154 Diphtheria pg. 158 Hep A pgs 165-166 Hep B pgs 173-178 Lyme dz pgs 182-184 Hib Meningitis pgs 191-193 Meningococcal pgs 196 Pneumococcal pg 199 Mumps pgs 213-215 Rubella pgs 218-221 Pertussis pgs 226-233 (longest evidence of reactions) Polio 240-243 Smallpox 251-253 Tetanus 258-260 (generally safe) If you really want to read these, I can let you borrow the book. Otherwise, I don't believe in the mercury argument for all of the problems and I don't tell any parent to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but to become more educated about it all. Not vaccinating Bhakti was a personal decision and we're sticking by it. Tetanus vaccination seems safe in most regards and we will vaccinate for travel and for Hep in a few years. The other diseases can be treated with acupuncture, herbs and a week of rest. Best, K On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote: > > > Koko you make many statements regarding effects of vaccines for which i > would like to see supporting evidence. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I would like to suggest some links for info about several vaccines and/or their constituents that have been studied. http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/mark-geier-research.htm http://fr.truveo.com/Dr-Mark-Geier-David-Geier-discuss-mercury/id/538123512 http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/encephalopathies.pdf I hope these are helpful. BTW, I attended a seminar by Dr. Geier and his son that really made sense about the autism issue. They found a connection with testosterone and mercury. Go figure. Michael W. Bowser, LAc Chinese Medicine johnkokko Fri, 24 Apr 2009 19:57:20 -0700 Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Alon, The CDC has a few vaccination schedules up... you can count the number of vaccination shots and this isn't even all of them... there's also smallpox, anthrax, Lyme Disease, typhoid, rabies, Japanese encephalitis, shingles and yellow fever just in case you want to collect them all. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac/vaccines-list.htm Dont' believe me.... Here's a CDC recommended schedule: http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/recs/schedules/downloads/child/2009/09_0-6yrs_schedu\ le_pr.pdf We did about six months of research before Bhakti was born, but still, more research needs to be done. As far as adverse reactions to vaccines, please read Randall Neustaedter's book, " the Vaccine Guide " , which has in-depth discussions of vaccine reactions for the following vaccines and 38 pages of medical journal references: pgs 297-335 Varicella pgs 152-154 Diphtheria pg. 158 Hep A pgs 165-166 Hep B pgs 173-178 Lyme dz pgs 182-184 Hib Meningitis pgs 191-193 Meningococcal pgs 196 Pneumococcal pg 199 Mumps pgs 213-215 Rubella pgs 218-221 Pertussis pgs 226-233 (longest evidence of reactions) Polio 240-243 Smallpox 251-253 Tetanus 258-260 (generally safe) If you really want to read these, I can let you borrow the book. Otherwise, I don't believe in the mercury argument for all of the problems and I don't tell any parent to vaccinate or not vaccinate, but to become more educated about it all. Not vaccinating Bhakti was a personal decision and we're sticking by it. Tetanus vaccination seems safe in most regards and we will vaccinate for travel and for Hep in a few years. The other diseases can be treated with acupuncture, herbs and a week of rest. Best, K On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 1:39 PM, Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote: > > > Koko you make many statements regarding effects of vaccines for which i > would like to see supporting evidence. > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Alon, I just sent some links to the group just before I got to your email. Actually, one of the links listed was a CDC analysis which looked at autism rates and the usage of mercury free vaccines. They did show a connection. Michael W. Bowser, LAc Chinese Medicine alonmarcus Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:44:49 -0700 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? And by the way there is not reduction in autism in kids vaccinated without Thimerosal vs those with it Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I dont have excess to it but have seen an article stating there is no reduction 400 29th St. Suite 419 Oakland Ca 94609 alonmarcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 SPECIAL VIRUS CANCER PROGRAM. That's in EMERGING VIRUSES by Len Horowitz. He says that HIV was developed as a " soft kill " biological agent that would reduce populations slowly. He says Ebola was also developed as a bioweapon, but that it is not practical, because it kills too efficiently, not permitting itself a chance to spread. The SPECIAL VIRUS CANCER PROGRAM was developed by Nixon and Kissinger primarily for the African continent. Robert Gallo's own history of academic and scientific fraud is also noteworthy. - " Patricia Jordan " <coastalcatclinic " traditional chinese med " <Chinese Traditional Medicine > Friday, April 24, 2009 3:00 PM RE: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Well the HPV vaccine will not work and it will most likely result in fertility issues. you can not inject a vaccine and develop cell mediated immunity which is what you need for the HPV. But it deosn't stop pharmaceutical companies for putting out bad science and bad vaccines, the animals have a injectible herpes vaccine and it won't work, we have one that will that is drops to be applied to the mucous membranes of the cats eyes or nasal tissue, what happens if you inject herpes you actually REACTIVATE latent herpes, no benefit at all comes from not understanding the disease and the immune system. Gardasil has killed 28 so far and delivered many with Gullian Barre so get in line, perhaps you can be one less..... HIV, Africa, you need to be brought into the circle of truth, HIV was an answer to the grants that paid for the development of a synthetic biological weapon that would destroy the human immune system. First place it was laced into polio vaccines delivered to areas of Africa were the first cases of HIV were found.......there are no coincidences in science.Read The River by Ed Hooper, 12 monkeys and the origin of Aids, Dro horowitz information adn the Special cancer project which when Congress wanted to know what was going on....had to go OUTSIDE our country for the copies of the records.We have been FOREVER experimenting on the third world countries, that is why we don't hear alot about the adverse effects of vaccines following administration and the New England journal of medicine just covered this problem, and the students of Harvard have just demanded a divorce of their instutuion from the pahrmacuetical industry, there is a reason. recently, they were so happy to announce they were finally able to get AIDS to infect a monkey.....do they think we are crazy? That was the smokescreen for where HIV came from in the first place OOOPPSSS again.Recently Dr. Gallo who was paid by our defense dept to find a synthetic biological agent to corrupt the human immune system, and credited with being the " discoverer of HIV " was panned by a group of scientists whol want retraction for Gallos work on HIV as they too know the real story of the origin of AIDS. Even gallo was spanked by the NIH and priviledges taken away from him with working on human subjects following the debacle with his vaccines he sent to Africa.Yes, the truthneeds to come out and go ahead get in line for the " bird Flu shot " Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology Chinese Medicine angelapfa Fri, 24 Apr 2009 10:34:51 -0700 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa www.InnerhealthSalem.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Mark Milotay Chinese Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? 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 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] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 Yes, they say they took " themerasol " out of their vaccines, but what they have really done is just changed it slightly and named it something different. That's my understanding anyway. What I had mentioned previously is that there are apparently vaccines made " without " the preservatives, which you can request, if you wish. From the women who I personally know who have had children recently, the nurses will very much pressure the parents to vaccinate. - " Patricia Jordan " <coastalcatclinic " traditional chinese med " <Chinese Traditional Medicine > Friday, April 24, 2009 2:44 PM RE: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? All of the diseased animals are still getting thimerasol in their vaccines. the story on thimerasol was that even with them " saying " it was removed they are enabled to use up the sotres that still contain it. Also, thimerasol while being a potent neurotoxin and mutator is not the only metal involved, the aluminum salts used as adjuvants have an equally dark history now that we know and are a cuase of genetic mutation and CANCER, p53 mutations. Alum, enjoyed its success since 1920's they still do not know what it does, NATO knows, and the least of which is raise IgE levels, causing allergies, asthma and increases blood brain barreir permeability, allowing all the litttel protein sequences into the brain for reassortment.the aluminum conference weent on not too far from the mercury conference and the research was horrific. the added ingredients are often other chemical toxins like formalin or formadehyde which are carcinogens and the beast cells, like VERO kidney cells from monkeys, the grafting of man and beast is the worst in my research, how many of those vaccines contain aborted fetal tissue of humans? MORE THAN YOU WANT TO BELIEVE and so i ask, do you understand that when an injection takes place that the components of the vaccines, like SQUALENE, LECITHIN,fatty acids and compnents of our very own foundation structure, that the body then learns to see as a forign invader, make senstized cells against in order to destroy....ever wonder why kids got peanut allergies? Peanut oil and panut fermentatin products are used, there is a very good reason why pharmaceutical companies HIDE their " proprietary ingredient list " and it not because they are worried anyone will truthfully try and repeat the recipe.Contamination studies are you crazy/ We are lucky to find out few recalls are based on not only contamination but often as in the last two large human rabies vaccine recalls for FAILURE TO INACTIVATE THE VIRUS. If you are not sure what genetic reassortment and genetic damage vaccines arecapable of, spend a little time looking for the truth.If you don't think you should be afraid that the FDA does no studies, just accepts the very short term and highly specified study from the drug copany that totally stand to profit from the vaccine release, and understand, they all have get out of jail free cards, total indemnification.If anyone wants to try and get damges for the vaccine damage, get in line and realize it is next to imposible, is set up that way and the money if compensated coems from the very vaccine damage populations and certainly not from the pharmaceutical company. ever wonder why yeast is a problem now, ooopsss beside the yeast as a contaminant, so it is also a part of the recipe,like i said, this is not rocket science, they still DO NOT know the full effects of injecting anything except we now have incredible chronic chronic disease and bizarre unatural diseases and corrupted immune systems that can not even often times respond to the lesser diseases that a precrrupted immune system could have dealt with.Sure there are toxins, but dont forget the toxin that is injected into you and any hitchhikers along for the ride they wouldn't screen for if they knew to.Chimeras are being used and the genetic jeopardy being played out.....just getting a closer look. Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology Chinese Medicine magisterium_magnum Fri, 24 Apr 2009 13:47:22 -0700 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? My understanding is that they also make vaccines withouth Thimersol/mercury preservatives. These will still have recombinant virii and whatnot, but it's theoretically better than the original. - " " < <Chinese Medicine > Friday, April 24, 2009 6:59 AM Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > 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] > > > > > --- > > Subscribe to the free online journal for TCM at Times > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com > > Help build the world's largest online encyclopedia for Chinese medicine > and acupuncture, click, http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com/wiki/CMTpedia > > > and adjust > accordingly. > > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group > requires prior permission from the author. > > Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely > necessary. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 25, 2009 Report Share Posted April 25, 2009 I'm very impressed with you all. Not only are you questioning vaccines, but you not only know what a SCENAR is but some of you are actually USING them! When I talk about that stuff at school, people look at me like I'm nuts. Anyway, my sources tell me that to kill viruses, use a Pyroenergen. http://www.pyroenergen.com/ Never tried it. I have tried electroherbalism, though. Killed my sister in law's MRSA in ONE treatment! (I told her she should do more, just to be safe, but she is stubborn.) - " Karen Adams " <turusachan <Chinese Medicine > Friday, April 24, 2009 2:59 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > Another thing to toss in the pot is the risk analysis for populations, the > public health issues. It's not just about personal choices, but what are > the risks to the population of these diseases? For instance, I might > choose against a vaccine for preventing cervical cancer for all the > reasons stated so far, on a personal level, and if I get cervical cancer > I'm not putting my neighbors at risk. A (effective) flu vaccine, on the > other hand, could prevent whole populations from getting ill. (and > please, that was just the best global example I could think of, I know we > currently don't have such a thing) > karen > > > > Karen R. Adams, > Lic Ac, Dipl Ac > 25 - 27 Bank Row > Greenfield, MA 01301 > 413-768-8333 > > > > Do or do not. > There is no try. > > Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back > ________________________________ > " Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. " <angelapfa > Chinese Medicine > Friday, April 24, 2009 4:03:02 PM > Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > > > > > > Exactly, we need to make differentiated decisions, there is no polio in > the US right now, and if the vaccine is needed is questionable, and yes, > there may be risks to receiving the vaccine, however, that doesn't mean > that vaccines are a bad idea. It all depends, when? for whom? where do > they live and travel? Are they at risk for contracting the disease? How > much risk is there? > I guess I don't understand why this issue is so charged with emotion? The > evidence about benefits and risks is controversial, yes. > > Regards, > Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. > > angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) net > > www.InnerhealthSale m.com > > Phone: 503 364 3022 > - > Everett Churchill > > Friday, April 24, 2009 12:21 PM > RE: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > > Random? Are you kidding? That seems to be the very nature of discussion > groups! Maybe you mean " poorly focused " ? > > I think a major point that Patricia brings up is one of withheld > information > that prevents Joe-Schmoe Parent from making informed decisions regarding > this topic. The idea of whether to vaccinate or not is highly charged with > emotion, and while I am whole-heartedly invested in TCM I also realize > that > the issue is more complicated than it may seem. I myself have seen enough > better science lately to justify dissuading most people away from > vaccinations than to encourage them. And that includes the polio example. > > -Everett Churchill, L.Ac. > > _____ > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine > [Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine ] On Behalf Of > Angela > Pfaffenberger, PH.D. > Friday, April 24, 2009 12:35 PM > > Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > > I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. > Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went > to > school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from > post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we > overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If > there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a > daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer > protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be > saved > if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a > more > differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox > they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. > > Regards, > Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. > > angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) <angelapfa% 40comcast. net> net > > www.InnerhealthSale m.com > > Phone: 503 364 3022 > - > Mark Milotay > Traditional_ <Traditional _Chinese_ Medicine% 40. > com> > Chinese_Medicine > Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM > Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > > 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 > > On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM, <@ tinet. > <% 40tinet.ie> ie> 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] >> >> > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.