Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Tests are done specifically and only by the very manufacturing plants that are making the ahh " product " . FDA accepts the studies from those invested companies. Now the FDA has even stpped third party contamination studies (those contamination sudies were never done here in the US, they were only done for out of country production....and now it is no longer done.)My colleagues worried that China could not seem to even make safe dog and cat food, were concerned when China now has the bulk of flu vaccine manufacture.Read up on the whistleblower interview theat John Rappaport did with one vaccine manufacturer who gave his experience on what was going on for the decalde or more he was there.Even FDA recalls are guarded and we just never get to hear about what is really going on. i can tell you this is where speculation and assumption really play a large role. Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology > Chinese Traditional Medicine > naturaldoc1 > Sun, 26 Apr 2009 20:02:14 +0000 > RE: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > > > John, > I am afraid that I have seen photos of the vaccine packaging from several different mfg since 2001. I cannot tell you whether or not it is widespread but logically it would make sense. I believe that all drugs are batch tested. Maybe someone else can respond to that point. I am grateful for our moderator allowing us to each learn more about this issue as it directly affects us and our patients health. We need to become more knowledgeable about this issue so that we can educate our patients. > > Michael W. Bowser, LAc > > > Chinese Medicine > > johnkokko > > Sun, 26 Apr 2009 07:07:47 -0700 > > Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > > > > Mike, > > I didn't know that some vaccine companies were getting away with having > > unlabeled mercury in the vaccines. > > I wonder if they are tested by batch? and by whom? Is this an isolated > > case or wide-spread? > > > > K > > > > > > > > > > On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 5:58 AM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1wrote: > > > >> > >> John, > >> We seem to have a belief that if they tell us that it is not in there > >> anymore, then it must be true. I wish that was the case as there would be a > >> lot fewer damaged children. > >> First, long after the vaccine manufacturers told us they stopped using > >> mercury in their vaccines, it was still on the vaccine labels, so we must > >> assume it was in there. > >> Second, when I attended Dr. Geier's lecture, he mentioned that he had many > >> such vaccines tested for contents and found that even without the mention of > >> mercury on their label, as mandated by the FDA, mercury was still present. > >> The truth in labeling law violation should have us all mad. > >> Third, a number of the vaccines you mention, still are used on children and > >> still have mercury. > >> Fourth, no amount of mercury has been found to be safe according to OSHA. > >> It is a neurotoxin of the highest order and this point should be stressed > >> with all parents of small children. > >> The immune system is not just about reactions to microbes and chemicals but > >> also must be created and thus it needs nourishment to produce. I see a lot > >> of people with immunity issues and use Kiiko Matsumoto's treatment ideas (or > >> rather her teacher Nagano)to help them. I found it necessary to not > >> underestimate the influence of the immune system and yes it can be treated > >> with acupuncture and moxibustion. > >> > >> Michael W. Bowser, LAc > >> > >>> Chinese Medicine > >>> johnkokko > >>> Fri, 24 Apr 2009 21:02:31 -0700 > >>> Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > >>> > >>> Mike, > >>> I read this article: > >>> > >> http://www.progressiveconvergence.com/An%20Assessment%20of%20the%20Impact%20of%2\ 0Thimerosal%20on%20Childhood%20Neurodevelopmental%20Disorders.pdf > >>> > >>> It made me think of the compounded methylmercury intravenously shot into > >>> babies when > >>> thiomersal was still in vaccines... but for the most part that wouldn't > >> be > >>> a large consideration today, > >>> since... > >>> > >>> " In the U.S., the European Union, and a few other affluent countries, > >>> thiomersal is no longer used as a preservative in routine childhood > >> vaccination > >>> schedules <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_schedule>. > >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_note-drugsaf-0>In the > >> U.S., > >>> the only exceptions among vaccines routinely recommended for children are > >>> some formulations of the inactivated influenza vaccine for children older > >>> than two years. > >>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_note-4>Several vaccines > >>> that are not routinely recommended for young children do > >>> contain thiomersal, including DT > >>> (diphtheria<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diphtheria>and > >>> tetanus <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetanus>), Td (tetanus and > >>> diphtheria), and TT (tetanus toxoid); other vaccines may contain a trace > >> of > >>> thiomersal from steps in manufacture. " > >>> > >>> Just because thiomersal is not in the vaccines, doesn't mean that people > >>> should be less cautious. > >>> That was the biggest argument from our first pediatrician.... " there > >> were > >>> some complications before with mercury and vaccines and whole cell > >> pertussis > >>> etc... but those have been remedied (sic).. " > >>> > >>> 1. ^ *a* < > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-drugsaf_0-0> * > >>> b* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-drugsaf_0-1> > >> Bigham > >>> M, Copes R (2005). " Thiomersal in vaccines: balancing the risk of > >> adverse > >>> effects with the risk of vaccine-preventable disease " . *Drug Saf* > >>> *28*(2): 89?01. > >>> doi <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier>: > >>> 10.2165/00002018-200528020-00001< > >> http://dx.doi.org/10.2165%2F00002018-200528020-00001>. > >>> PMID 15691220 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15691220>. > >>> 2. *^ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-1>* > >> " Thimerosal > >>> in Vaccines: Frequently Asked > >>> Questions " <http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimfaq.htm>. > >>> Food and Drug > >>> Administration< > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration_%28United_States%29 > >>>. > >>> http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimfaq.htm. Retrieved on 2008-03-09. > >>> 3. ^ *a*< > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-T-in-vaccines_2-0> > >>> *b* < > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-T-in-vaccines_2-1> > >>> *c* < > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-T-in-vaccines_2-2> > >>> *d* < > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-T-in-vaccines_2-3> > >>> " Thimerosal > >>> in vaccines " <http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm>. Center > >> for > >>> Biologics Evaluation and Research, U.S. Food and Drug Administration. > >>> 2008 <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008>-06-03< > >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/June_3>. > >>> http://www.fda.gov/cber/vaccine/thimerosal.htm. Retrieved on > >> 2008-07-25. > >>> 4. ^ *a* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-Baker_3-0> > >>> *b*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-Baker_3-1> > >>> *c* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-Baker_3-2> > >>> *d*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-Baker_3-3> > >>> *e* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-Baker_3-4> > >>> *f*<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-Baker_3-5> > >>> *g* <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-Baker_3-6> > >> Baker JP > >>> (2008). " Mercury, vaccines, and autism: one controversy, three > >> histories " . > >>> *Am J Public Health* *98* (2): 244?3. > >>> doi<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_object_identifier> > >>> :10.2105/AJPH.2007.113159 < > >> http://dx.doi.org/10.2105%2FAJPH.2007.113159>. > >>> PMID 18172138 <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18172138>. > >>> 5. *^ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thiomersal#cite_ref-4>* > >> Coordinating > >>> Center for Infectious Diseases (2007-10-26). " Thimerosal in seasonal > >>> influenza vaccine " <http://cdc.gov/FLU/ABOUT/QA/thimerosal.htm>. > >> Centers > >>> for Disease Control and Prevention. > >>> http://cdc.gov/FLU/ABOUT/QA/thimerosal.htm. Retrieved on 2008-04-02. > >>> > >>> K > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 8:14 PM, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 > >>>wrote: > >>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> 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 > >> <Chinese Medicine%40> > >>>> johnkokko <johnkokko%40gmail.com> > >>>> 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 > >> <alonmarcus%40wans.net>> > >>>> 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 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Angela, I would like to ask you where you got your idea that " there is no polio in the US right now " ? Maybe you meant naturally occurring polio, not really sure that we can actually separate one from the other anymore. Here is a recent news story from the MN Dept of Health that admits that people are still getting this illness although they are quick to deny any public danger or vaccine limitations. http://www.health.state.mn.us/news/pressrel/2009/polio041409.html Michael W. Bowser, LAc > Chinese Traditional Medicine > coastalcatclinic > Sun, 26 Apr 2009 15:59:22 -0400 > RE: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > > > And so certainly you would do all the homework involved in understanding that HERD IMMUNITY does not work, and that each dsease is different on if this reasoning for jabbing everyone with chronic disease would establish a tight role for miracles on a short term scale? > > The chicken pox vaccine is only and soley for the economics of saving parents from missing work taking care of a sick child, yet it not only denies the child to fully come into his capable immune system through expression of the disease fully, you also lose the second introduction older parents would recieve to prevent immunity waning and later Shingles infection Ops, thats right they have that covered by making a Shingle vaccine for older folks..... > > Quarantine and decreasing social gatherings would be more effective along with optimal nutrition, etcetc than shooting mercury up to the brain and along with it who knows what else contaminants or deliberants protein sequences. if you think the vaccines are safe, show me the data, and not from a profiteer. Herd Immunity......like tha does anything but rise up more mutations of even stronger strains.Herd Immunity was a concept that came up before mathematical models were developed that proved quite a different scenario. All epidemics are now being traced back to the very research and mad scientist manipulations of the pathogens, the 1918 flu was AMERICAN MADE with swine thyphus vaccine materials mixed with avian flu strains and then injected into our soldiers to carry around the world in the war.Patient zero was a soldier in Kansas. calling it the Spanish flu, a smoke screen, curious why our government would pay to resurect it though just last year and prior to this new Swine flu outbreak in Mexico. For economical understanding that our pharmacuetical compnies get futures and BIG payments from the government to be working on this ridiculous attempt at feigning health care, realize that the CDC gets its money from every vaccine made, they own the patent, or steal the intellectual property from whomever they wish, indidivudal states only get federal funds if they jab their children with CDC recomendations and the same perverses the WHO......Bill gates paid his penance with the Justice Dept for avoiding a monopoly charge by financing the destruction of world health through funding the world vaccine program and then what goes round comes round for the entire herd.Just up today, Baxter international wants to get those mexico virus strain samples.....they want to make us a vaccine.....if you haven't heard of the recent Baxter International Disaster, don't be surprized it was only covered well in OTHER COUNTRIES. Seriously learn to question everything you have been told about vaccines, efficacy, and safety. > > Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology > > > > > > Chinese Medicine > turusachan > Fri, 24 Apr 2009 14:59:34 -0700 > 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...
Guest guest Posted April 26, 2009 Report Share Posted April 26, 2009 Yes, a good idea truth is. Sounds like we need a truth commission as much of the research is done by those with a financial interest and we do hear many issues related to omission of the facts in order to get it out on the market. Michael W. Bowser, LAc Chinese Medicine lotuskarma Sat, 25 Apr 2009 17:52:31 -0400 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Hello to all of you, I am new to this group and was excited to join in time to read all of the responses pertaining to this topic. I just have a small thing to say. I have two children, 11 and 14 whom have never been vaccinated. My youngest has epilepsy and brain damage from hypoglycemia shortly after he was born. We were given a vaccine handbook when we were in the hospital with our son and it clearly stated that children with CNS disorders were contraindicated for vaccines. That didn't stop the doctors however from continually demanding that we vaccinate our children. I have read a lot about vaccines both pros and cons and expected such arguments from such a controversial subject. What I have difficulty with is the fear factor that our doctors tried to instill in us. There was no urging of us to educate ourselves of our choice but a feeling that this was mandatory. This is what I feel is very wrong. We are in a different era than when the vaccines were first produced, mainly to put an end to epidemics brought about by poor sanitation and ignorance. What I instill in my patients is that they have a choice. And that we have the power to seek alternative means if we choose not to vaccinate. My hats off to all of you who continue to seek the truth and to empower our patients with it. Anne Biris L.Ac The Lotus Center On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:33 PM, Patricia Jordan < coastalcatclinic wrote: > > > > Also the part that koprowski plays in the fruad of science and the beLIEf > that vaccines are effective. Koprowski was the Director of Wistar for 35 > years and was resonsible for the very detrimonious vaccine research, truth > be known, Wistar was the forefront of this nations vaccine research and is > now a NATIONAL CANCER CENTER........if you understand the REAL TRUTH, most > of the integrity of that scam of his polio vaccine and the work done on > vaccnating the areas in Africa that first broke with HIV with CHAT Wistar > vaccines (polio contaminated with HIV), look into the work Koprowski has > done in genetic engineering of rabies with cowpox and then without the > consent of the Argentice Government had people drink milk from cows > innoculated with his frankenstine vaccine.Koprowski is still being heralded > despite his " termination " from Wistar following his escapades upon which he > felt he had sovernity to experiment as he wished, look into the works of him > and Schnell at Jefferson university where they have accomploished > weaponizing the rabies virus.Koprowski was involved with Gallo and the very > well footnoted and referenced of Ed hooper in the RIver is more accurate > then you could ever expect vested interest to be.I know now enough history > of the CDC from their very own pages of historical review to never trust > anything coming from them all you have to do is FOLLOW THE MONEY, 30 pieces > of silver and Dr. Paul Offit's agenda becomes clear. > > Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > magisterium_magnum <magisterium_magnum%40comcast.net> > Fri, 24 Apr 2009 20:29:13 -0700 > Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > > 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<coastalcatclinic%40hotmail.com> >> > " traditional chinese med " < > Chinese Traditional Medicine <Chinese Traditional Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> >> > 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 > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > angelapfa <angelapfa%40comcast.net> > 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 <angelapfa%40comcast.net> > > www.InnerhealthSalem.com <http://www.innerhealthsalem.com/> > > Phone: 503 364 3022 > - > Mark Milotay > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > 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, <<%40tinet.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 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 Soap. Washing hands. Showers. That has changed the industrial revolution. That's when all these diseases waned just before vaccines. --- On Sat, 4/25/09, Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: Hugo Ramiro <subincor Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Chinese Medicine Saturday, April 25, 2009, 9:40 PM Hi Mike: --Mike B- Curious as to what you might consider effective for small pox, when it apparently was on its way out prior to any serious vaccine scheduling. Similarly, many other childhood illnesses were on a decline prior to vaccines as well. So how do we consider this data? I hear little discourse on the historical data and maybe we need to look at this stuff a bit further before we pat them on the backs for vaccinations. Just a thought. --- Woah, who's patting who on the back? Reinterpreting data that has already been interpreted and entered into the doctrine is difficult, and I can understand why some emotions are running high. I am not interested in wholesale rejections of anything, honestly. I believe in the genius of human beings and I've found that there's at least a grain of truth in everything and anything. I'm not sure there's anything that's entirely garbage. We'd have to go into some fairly involved buddhist doctrine which I am not sure I really grasp in order for me to be able to discuss this further, so: I work off two data points here, the first being a recent article in CMAJ where the conclusion was: " Pneumococcal vaccination does not appear to be effective in preventing pneumonia, even in populations for whom the vaccine is currently recommended. " Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis CMAJ 2009;180(1): 48-58 The other is Cuba. Being an island with the ability to carry out massive vaccination gives it some special significance. ..I think. One study in 1999 compared pre and post vaccination invasive meningococcal disease in young children. The results in a very short time span (pre=1984-88, post=1989-94) were large. Unless the analysis is totally wrong, I cannot see how that happened except that the vaccination campaign was effective. (Impact of Antimeningococcal B vaccination in Cuba, Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 94, 1999) A second more recent observational study (2005) concluded that meningitis cases in Cuba were on the decline after massive immunisation campaigns since the late 80s and early 90s. There was an earlier " massive campaign " in 1979 that did not have any real effects. (Bacterial meningitis in children and adolescents: an observational study based on the national surveillance system, BMC, Infectious Diseases, 2005, 5:103) I think both sides raise good questions and issues, and I personally would like to avoid throwing babies out with bath water. Apart from plain stupid things like using mercury as a preservative and so on, I believe we might keep in mind that the vaccination debacle may be more about the complexity of health and disease meeting an obsessively linear intervention. Vaccination likely has it uses, and yet, like much of modern medicine, is used in a brute, short-sighted, and one-dimensional manner.. I know, Mike, that you are questioning whether polio vaccination has done anything, but what accounts for a nearly 60% decline of polio cases in China in 2 years (1989-1991)? I am sure that the polio vaccine has behaved differently in different parts of the world, and I find it entirely believable that certain areas of the world were experiencing a decline in polio cases before vaccination started. After all, it is basic CM that there are many things that make a human being susceptible to the penetration of a microbe to deep levels, such as stress, climactic environs, adequate food, age and so on. Sheltering, feeding and nurturing peope is likely to decrease the incidence and mortality of any disease. Vaccination may be helpful in decreasing incidence and mortality in some situations where adequate food and shelter are not easily available, for instance. Thoughts? I'd like to finish off by saying that I am not a representative of the western medical-industrial complex counterculture. I am a junior representative of a lineage CM tradition. Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.chinesem edicaltherapies. org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 2009 Report Share Posted April 27, 2009 So, does this change our minds then about vaccine efficacy? Or do we simply buy into the peer-reviewed trade journals with their apparent reporting bias? Michael W. Bowser, LAc Chinese Medicine ykcul_ritsym Sun, 26 Apr 2009 21:06:57 -0700 Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Soap. Washing hands. Showers. That has changed the industrial revolution. That's when all these diseases waned just before vaccines. --- On Sat, 4/25/09, Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: Hugo Ramiro <subincor Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Chinese Medicine Saturday, April 25, 2009, 9:40 PM Hi Mike: --Mike B- Curious as to what you might consider effective for small pox, when it apparently was on its way out prior to any serious vaccine scheduling. Similarly, many other childhood illnesses were on a decline prior to vaccines as well. So how do we consider this data? I hear little discourse on the historical data and maybe we need to look at this stuff a bit further before we pat them on the backs for vaccinations. Just a thought. --- Woah, who's patting who on the back? Reinterpreting data that has already been interpreted and entered into the doctrine is difficult, and I can understand why some emotions are running high. I am not interested in wholesale rejections of anything, honestly. I believe in the genius of human beings and I've found that there's at least a grain of truth in everything and anything. I'm not sure there's anything that's entirely garbage. We'd have to go into some fairly involved buddhist doctrine which I am not sure I really grasp in order for me to be able to discuss this further, so: I work off two data points here, the first being a recent article in CMAJ where the conclusion was: " Pneumococcal vaccination does not appear to be effective in preventing pneumonia, even in populations for whom the vaccine is currently recommended. " Efficacy of pneumococcal vaccination in adults: a meta-analysis CMAJ 2009;180(1): 48-58 The other is Cuba. Being an island with the ability to carry out massive vaccination gives it some special significance. ..I think. One study in 1999 compared pre and post vaccination invasive meningococcal disease in young children. The results in a very short time span (pre=1984-88, post=1989-94) were large. Unless the analysis is totally wrong, I cannot see how that happened except that the vaccination campaign was effective. (Impact of Antimeningococcal B vaccination in Cuba, Mem Inst Oswaldo Cruz, Rio de Janeiro, Vol. 94, 1999) A second more recent observational study (2005) concluded that meningitis cases in Cuba were on the decline after massive immunisation campaigns since the late 80s and early 90s. There was an earlier " massive campaign " in 1979 that did not have any real effects. (Bacterial meningitis in children and adolescents: an observational study based on the national surveillance system, BMC, Infectious Diseases, 2005, 5:103) I think both sides raise good questions and issues, and I personally would like to avoid throwing babies out with bath water. Apart from plain stupid things like using mercury as a preservative and so on, I believe we might keep in mind that the vaccination debacle may be more about the complexity of health and disease meeting an obsessively linear intervention. Vaccination likely has it uses, and yet, like much of modern medicine, is used in a brute, short-sighted, and one-dimensional manner.. I know, Mike, that you are questioning whether polio vaccination has done anything, but what accounts for a nearly 60% decline of polio cases in China in 2 years (1989-1991)? I am sure that the polio vaccine has behaved differently in different parts of the world, and I find it entirely believable that certain areas of the world were experiencing a decline in polio cases before vaccination started. After all, it is basic CM that there are many things that make a human being susceptible to the penetration of a microbe to deep levels, such as stress, climactic environs, adequate food, age and so on. Sheltering, feeding and nurturing peope is likely to decrease the incidence and mortality of any disease. Vaccination may be helpful in decreasing incidence and mortality in some situations where adequate food and shelter are not easily available, for instance. Thoughts? I'd like to finish off by saying that I am not a representative of the western medical-industrial complex counterculture. I am a junior representative of a lineage CM tradition. Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.chinesem edicaltherapies. org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 for those that say vaccines do not work see http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/147825.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 Now we saw this side, which is indeed positive, does anyone have info on side effects of these immunizations worldwide, if there is quality data? It is interesting that even the scientific community only ever presents one side of the story in their press releases. David Molony On May 6, 2009, at 10:02:13 PM, alonmarcus2003 <alonmarcus wrote: for those that say vaccines do not work see http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/147825.php Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 7, 2009 Report Share Posted May 7, 2009 What news articles you take your information from tells alot of the foundation of your education for speaking to anything in medisin. Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology Chinese Medicine alonmarcus Thu, 7 May 2009 02:02:13 +0000 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? for those that say vaccines do not work see http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/147825.php _______________ Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_St\ orage1_052009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 I guess we should only pay attention to conspiracy theorists. If you were referring to my education then you have no idea what it entails and i would not assume anything about yours or your psychological tendencies and their belief systems which looks to me are not very balanced on this issue. A couple of days ago i had a conversation with a Chinese Dr that worked in public health in rural china. Its interesting to note that it sounds like they feel vaccination played a huge role in reducing diseases in rural china were sanitation has not changed as much as it did in the west in the last 50 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 8, 2009 Report Share Posted May 8, 2009 The Bloomberg School of Public health and the Stanford university are not conspiracy sites, that is whom has the information that vaccines do not work and played no part in the fall of infectious disease, and that small pox is not known what was actually being injected......however, the Medical News agency with prepped material written directly for the mass medial propaganda by medical Science writers whatever they are.......is that where you are taking your information on the always reported famously successful pharmaceutical products? Really......that report didn't show the 2 .3 million of recalled meningitis vaccines that were contaminated, nor the fact that often vaccinated individuals are the ones that come down and DIE from that very disease, Medical News reports hwat they are paid to put out there for those wo would believe that. Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology Chinese Medicine alonmarcus Fri, 8 May 2009 08:43:41 -0700 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? I guess we should only pay attention to conspiracy theorists. If you were referring to my education then you have no idea what it entails and i would not assume anything about yours or your psychological tendencies and their belief systems which looks to me are not very balanced on this issue. A couple of days ago i had a conversation with a Chinese Dr that worked in public health in rural china. Its interesting to note that it sounds like they feel vaccination played a huge role in reducing diseases in rural china were sanitation has not changed as much as it did in the west in the last 50 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 David, I look at PubMed Central at mostly review articles. PMC also has good articles with open access text that proposes research models such as: http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2396207 & tool=pmcentrez In the U.S. the actual practice of WM does not necessarily follow scientific reporting as it does outside of the U.S. For example Breast Conserving Therapy is the primary response to breast cancer outside the U.S. But in the U. S. that is the last modern industrialized nation without national healthcare, we do radical mastectomies with elaborate reconstructive surgeries that are available only to those with commercially purchased healthcare insurance. My own shattered elbow would not be treated at any major San Francisco Bay area hospital in 2005 without healthcare insurance. Fortunately I knew an excellent orthopedic surgeon who happily rented out a private operating room in the East Bay, and I got it successfully drilled, wired and set for under $5,000 total ... including all the follow-ups. At my age, the health insurance would have cost over $10,000/year and there would still have been many additional hidden costs. So medicine of any kind in the U.S. is not medicine off-the-grid in the U.S. or outside of the U.S. ... nor is its research or its reporting. My recommendation is to constantly read Pub Med Central review papers to make an informed opinion. Have you seen any presentation on this thread that resembles anything that could be found on PubMed Central ... or even something that would get a passing grade in a graduate seminar of research scientists? Look at http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2573905 & tool=pmcentrez Has there been any discussion of this sort of research yet? I might have missed it if there was. I've kept my head down and had to keep working. Thanks for keeping this thread going for so long. Gratefully, Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 I think there are a lot of alternatives. --- On Fri, 5/8/09, Emmanuel Segmen <mrsegmen wrote: Emmanuel Segmen <mrsegmen Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Chinese Medicine Friday, May 8, 2009, 7:48 PM David, I look at PubMed Central at mostly review articles. PMC also has good articles with open access text that proposes research models such as: http://www.pubmedce ntral.nih. gov/articlerende r.fcgi?artid= 2396207 & tool= pmcentrez In the U.S. the actual practice of WM does not necessarily follow scientific reporting as it does outside of the U.S. For example Breast Conserving Therapy is the primary response to breast cancer outside the U.S. But in the U. S. that is the last modern industrialized nation without national healthcare, we do radical mastectomies with elaborate reconstructive surgeries that are available only to those with commercially purchased healthcare insurance. My own shattered elbow would not be treated at any major San Francisco Bay area hospital in 2005 without healthcare insurance. Fortunately I knew an excellent orthopedic surgeon who happily rented out a private operating room in the East Bay, and I got it successfully drilled, wired and set for under $5,000 total ... including all the follow-ups. At my age, the health insurance would have cost over $10,000/year and there would still have been many additional hidden costs. So medicine of any kind in the U.S. is not medicine off-the-grid in the U.S. or outside of the U.S. ... nor is its research or its reporting. My recommendation is to constantly read Pub Med Central review papers to make an informed opinion. Have you seen any presentation on this thread that resembles anything that could be found on PubMed Central ... or even something that would get a passing grade in a graduate seminar of research scientists? Look at http://www.pubmedce ntral.nih. gov/articlerende r.fcgi?artid= 2573905 & tool= pmcentrez Has there been any discussion of this sort of research yet? I might have missed it if there was. I've kept my head down and had to keep working. Thanks for keeping this thread going for so long. Gratefully, Emmanuel Segmen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 9, 2009 Report Share Posted May 9, 2009 Hi Alon, I am not sure as to how the article you linked to proved anything, seeing as that correlation does not imply causation. The article comes from the presumption that vaccines increase immunity, which is what is being debated here. I really wish you would also stay away from the emotionally-charged term " conspiracy theorist " since that really is nothing more than an ad hominem attack and does not further this discussion in any meaningful way. Likewise, the term is grossly misused to simply smear anyone who disagrees with public opinion. I read on a forum where opposition to sodium fluoride granted one the title of " conspiracy theorist " , despite the mountain of evidence that shows that it is indeed harmful. Did you look through the sources I posted previously? If you did, then perhaps you could answer for me: 1) How does the article you linked to disprove them in any manner? 2) How is it that these respected doctors are now " conspiracy theorists " ? 3) Even if they also believed that the moon was made from green cheese, how does that affect in any manner their arguments against vaccination? In case you missed what I posted previously, here is the information again: *Dr. Gary Null's book Vacines: A Second Opinion (a preview of which can be found here: http://www.vaccinationnews.com/DailyNews/October2001/VaxASecondOpinion.htm (Should you be interested, the book in full can be purchased for $5 and downloaded as an e-book at the site below) *Dr. Gary Null's documentary Vaccine Nation: (http://www.vaccinenation.net/) (available for free viewing here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6531447125053615129) *Dr. Sherry J. Tenpenny's documentary (and book) Vaccines: The Risks, The Benefits, The Choices (the documentary can be watched for free here: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=7018835240451107552 & ei=oCLmSaD-Opuo_AGpj\ 7WHAQ) Thank you - Josh Barton, C.M.T., H.H.C. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Josh perhaps you are right, i should not have reacted to an obvious ignorant attach on my education. That said, all i am saying is that one has too look at the entire body of literature. Its very easy to take as gospel opinions that agree with one's belief systems and tendencies and ignore those that do not. And by the way i have read all the ref that you and others have posted. Just trying to bring a little balance to this argument 400 29th St. Suite 419 Oakland Ca 94609 alonmarcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Josh also, these discussion reminds me of the HIV discourse were several well known and respected Dr argued against HIV as cause of AIDS while in the mean time the vast majority of others have continued to work on HIV and came up with treatments that have saved many millions of people, even in areas were poor nutrition, the so called other cause of AIDS, continues. When assessing any scientific issue we need to look at all sides. When one thinks thousands of well meaning healthcare professionals all over the world are somehow willing to risk the entire world population to intervention that have NO benefit at all i do think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory type of thinking. 400 29th St. Suite 419 Oakland Ca 94609 alonmarcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 Hi Alon: While I generally agree with most of your points, and definitely agree with importance of becoming very well-informed on both sides of the issue and avoiding partisan relationships, I find the statement below to be an oversimplification: --Alon- When one thinks thousands of well meaning healthcare professionals all over the world are somehow willing to risk the entire world population to intervention that have NO benefit at all i do think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory type of thinking. --- We know that many well-meaning individuals have rejected because of its obvious uselessness for decades, and many continue to do so. There are many well-meaning professionals who would describe you as a nut because you actually consider that Xuan Bi Tang could actually affect joint inflammation in any way - or even worse, that it could be preferable to conventional treatments. It is a strawman argument to lump together huge groups of people when a conspiracy doesn't require that - it merely requires ignorance and inactivity by enough of the population and effective procedural smokescreens. I personally do not feel comfortable with partisan and entrenched viewpoints, and yet I wonder how it is that the 1997 NIH concensus statement on acupuncture transformed from a position of cautious support to merely an *historical document*. (http://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997Acupuncture107html.htm) I did not see any emphasis of that nature placed on any other NIH document, whether it was later superceded by new information or not. My understanding is that there were severe political fights as a result of the 1997 NIH statement. Check out the scientific statement " [...] simply wrong " in the nice scientific red scare lettering. All right all right, I get it you guys, we really have to be careful with acupuncture! Danger! The fact of the matter is that human beings of all stripes and in all places have struggled with bias (or as Buddhism would describe it, ignorance and misunderstanding) for all time. It is nothing new, and as much as peole proclaim that science fixes bias, it does not. It merely helps with certain types, and is largely subjected to bias anyway. Pubmed searches reveal very little research into bias. It is interesting to note that one has to delve into different fields (social science, bioethics and psychology) in order to access any significant body of research on the topic, and that these fields are largely ignored by medicine - even bioethics is often looked upon, in medicine, as an ugly cousin that one has to tolerate: " Potentially, [bioethics] bodies could be threatening to scientific institutions asked to defend their priorities and working practices on political, moral and ethical grounds. However, as Susan E. Kelly has examine int he case of the U.S. Human embryo research panel, this represents an area where the " co-constituyive nature of science ethics and publics is both veiled and engaged " (Kelly 2003). In particular, Kelly argues that bioethics bodies have been used as a means of appearing responsive to public concerns while protecting the autonomy of science. Specific ideas of " concensus building " have served to restrict the form and content of public challenges to scientific expertise. In that way, bioethics panels appear to serve as effective " border guards " protecting scientific institutions from wider scrutiny while presenting an apparently open posture int he face of external demands. " (Handbook of Science and Technologies Studies, 2008) To say that there are no worldwide, iron-clad conspiracies carried out by entire professions is correct. To say that there are no conspiracies is incorrect. They do occur, although they are certainly not as black and white as the entrenched groups make it seem. Rachel Macklin (Double Standards in Research in Developing Countries, 2004) has documented in excruciating detail the problems regarding drug company funding, experiments on poor populations that rich populations would never tolerate, and the resultant benefit for rich populations and immense damage to poor populations. I agree that there is no evil side and innocent side, but the situation is very complicated, and it is not accurate to say that there are no conspiracies. Money, by itself, easily creates bias, and if someone is going to lose money, this is all that is needed to start the breaches in ethics. I have personal experience of this occurring, as has anyone who worked for any period of time in a business. It, apparently, is hard, difficult work to remain upstanding and uncorrupted. Conspiracy 1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. The word conspiracy exists for a reason, and to claim that the medical profession is immune to conspiracies requries more evidential support than merely disparaging people who clearly are holding an extreme position. Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 10, 2009 Report Share Posted May 10, 2009 This discussion is very important for me because my baby is 1 year old and I think about it every day. I had all my vaccines done but my husband didn't have any and when he received his first one the tetanus shot then he developed very severe allergies until age 18 that he almost died from. So we decided not to give any vaccines to our daughter; we might decide to give her a polio one later or may be not. I believe that many diseases of modern age have to do with vaccine. I don't know if that is true but I don't deny such possibility. It is a very complex topic. Yuliya Jirnov L.Ac. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: Hugo Ramiro <subincor Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Chinese Medicine Sunday, May 10, 2009, 1:20 PM Hi Alon: While I generally agree with most of your points, and definitely agree with importance of becoming very well-informed on both sides of the issue and avoiding partisan relationships, I find the statement below to be an oversimplification: --Alon- When one thinks thousands of well meaning healthcare professionals all over the world are somehow willing to risk the entire world population to intervention that have NO benefit at all i do think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory type of thinking. --- We know that many well-meaning individuals have rejected because of its obvious uselessness for decades, and many continue to do so. There are many well-meaning professionals who would describe you as a nut because you actually consider that Xuan Bi Tang could actually affect joint inflammation in any way - or even worse, that it could be preferable to conventional treatments. It is a strawman argument to lump together huge groups of people when a conspiracy doesn't require that - it merely requires ignorance and inactivity by enough of the population and effective procedural smokescreens. I personally do not feel comfortable with partisan and entrenched viewpoints, and yet I wonder how it is that the 1997 NIH concensus statement on acupuncture transformed from a position of cautious support to merely an *historical document*. (http://consensus. nih.gov/1997/ 1997Acupuncture1 07html.htm) I did not see any emphasis of that nature placed on any other NIH document, whether it was later superceded by new information or not. My understanding is that there were severe political fights as a result of the 1997 NIH statement. Check out the scientific statement " [...] simply wrong " in the nice scientific red scare lettering. All right all right, I get it you guys, we really have to be careful with acupuncture! Danger! The fact of the matter is that human beings of all stripes and in all places have struggled with bias (or as Buddhism would describe it, ignorance and misunderstanding) for all time. It is nothing new, and as much as peole proclaim that science fixes bias, it does not. It merely helps with certain types, and is largely subjected to bias anyway. Pubmed searches reveal very little research into bias. It is interesting to note that one has to delve into different fields (social science, bioethics and psychology) in order to access any significant body of research on the topic, and that these fields are largely ignored by medicine - even bioethics is often looked upon, in medicine, as an ugly cousin that one has to tolerate: " Potentially, [bioethics] bodies could be threatening to scientific institutions asked to defend their priorities and working practices on political, moral and ethical grounds. However, as Susan E. Kelly has examine int he case of the U.S. Human embryo research panel, this represents an area where the " co-constituyive nature of science ethics and publics is both veiled and engaged " (Kelly 2003). In particular, Kelly argues that bioethics bodies have been used as a means of appearing responsive to public concerns while protecting the autonomy of science. Specific ideas of " concensus building " have served to restrict the form and content of public challenges to scientific expertise. In that way, bioethics panels appear to serve as effective " border guards " protecting scientific institutions from wider scrutiny while presenting an apparently open posture int he face of external demands. " (Handbook of Science and Technologies Studies, 2008) To say that there are no worldwide, iron-clad conspiracies carried out by entire professions is correct. To say that there are no conspiracies is incorrect. They do occur, although they are certainly not as black and white as the entrenched groups make it seem. Rachel Macklin (Double Standards in Research in Developing Countries, 2004) has documented in excruciating detail the problems regarding drug company funding, experiments on poor populations that rich populations would never tolerate, and the resultant benefit for rich populations and immense damage to poor populations. I agree that there is no evil side and innocent side, but the situation is very complicated, and it is not accurate to say that there are no conspiracies. Money, by itself, easily creates bias, and if someone is going to lose money, this is all that is needed to start the breaches in ethics. I have personal experience of this occurring, as has anyone who worked for any period of time in a business. It, apparently, is hard, difficult work to remain upstanding and uncorrupted. Conspiracy 1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. The word conspiracy exists for a reason, and to claim that the medical profession is immune to conspiracies requries more evidential support than merely disparaging people who clearly are holding an extreme position. Thanks, Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.chinesem edicaltherapies. org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Please read: http://www.therealessentials.com/vaccination-princ.html Principles of Vaccination, by Sylvie Simon, translated by Harry Clarke. The incidence of autism was 1 in 10,000 before the 1970s, and has steadily increased to 1 in 150 in 2008 with a male:female predominance of 4:1. The cause of this epidemic has remained unknown, but several hypotheses have been studied. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Yuliya Goldberg <ygold77 wrote: Yuliya Goldberg <ygold77 Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Chinese Medicine Sunday, May 10, 2009, 2:43 PM This discussion is very important for me because my baby is 1 year old and I think about it every day. I had all my vaccines done but my husband didn't have any and when he received his first one the tetanus shot then he developed very severe allergies until age 18 that he almost died from. So we decided not to give any vaccines to our daughter; we might decide to give her a polio one later or may be not. I believe that many diseases of modern age have to do with vaccine. I don't know if that is true but I don't deny such possibility. It is a very complex topic. Yuliya Jirnov L.Ac. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Hugo Ramiro <subincor > wrote: Hugo Ramiro <subincor > Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Sunday, May 10, 2009, 1:20 PM Hi Alon: While I generally agree with most of your points, and definitely agree with importance of becoming very well-informed on both sides of the issue and avoiding partisan relationships, I find the statement below to be an oversimplification: --Alon- When one thinks thousands of well meaning healthcare professionals all over the world are somehow willing to risk the entire world population to intervention that have NO benefit at all i do think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory type of thinking. --- We know that many well-meaning individuals have rejected because of its obvious uselessness for decades, and many continue to do so. There are many well-meaning professionals who would describe you as a nut because you actually consider that Xuan Bi Tang could actually affect joint inflammation in any way - or even worse, that it could be preferable to conventional treatments. It is a strawman argument to lump together huge groups of people when a conspiracy doesn't require that - it merely requires ignorance and inactivity by enough of the population and effective procedural smokescreens. I personally do not feel comfortable with partisan and entrenched viewpoints, and yet I wonder how it is that the 1997 NIH concensus statement on acupuncture transformed from a position of cautious support to merely an *historical document*. (http://consensus. nih.gov/1997/ 1997Acupuncture1 07html.htm) I did not see any emphasis of that nature placed on any other NIH document, whether it was later superceded by new information or not. My understanding is that there were severe political fights as a result of the 1997 NIH statement. Check out the scientific statement " [...] simply wrong " in the nice scientific red scare lettering. All right all right, I get it you guys, we really have to be careful with acupuncture! Danger! The fact of the matter is that human beings of all stripes and in all places have struggled with bias (or as Buddhism would describe it, ignorance and misunderstanding) for all time. It is nothing new, and as much as peole proclaim that science fixes bias, it does not. It merely helps with certain types, and is largely subjected to bias anyway. Pubmed searches reveal very little research into bias. It is interesting to note that one has to delve into different fields (social science, bioethics and psychology) in order to access any significant body of research on the topic, and that these fields are largely ignored by medicine - even bioethics is often looked upon, in medicine, as an ugly cousin that one has to tolerate: " Potentially, [bioethics] bodies could be threatening to scientific institutions asked to defend their priorities and working practices on political, moral and ethical grounds. However, as Susan E. Kelly has examine int he case of the U.S. Human embryo research panel, this represents an area where the " co-constituyive nature of science ethics and publics is both veiled and engaged " (Kelly 2003). In particular, Kelly argues that bioethics bodies have been used as a means of appearing responsive to public concerns while protecting the autonomy of science. Specific ideas of " concensus building " have served to restrict the form and content of public challenges to scientific expertise. In that way, bioethics panels appear to serve as effective " border guards " protecting scientific institutions from wider scrutiny while presenting an apparently open posture int he face of external demands. " (Handbook of Science and Technologies Studies, 2008) To say that there are no worldwide, iron-clad conspiracies carried out by entire professions is correct. To say that there are no conspiracies is incorrect. They do occur, although they are certainly not as black and white as the entrenched groups make it seem. Rachel Macklin (Double Standards in Research in Developing Countries, 2004) has documented in excruciating detail the problems regarding drug company funding, experiments on poor populations that rich populations would never tolerate, and the resultant benefit for rich populations and immense damage to poor populations. I agree that there is no evil side and innocent side, but the situation is very complicated, and it is not accurate to say that there are no conspiracies. Money, by itself, easily creates bias, and if someone is going to lose money, this is all that is needed to start the breaches in ethics. I have personal experience of this occurring, as has anyone who worked for any period of time in a business. It, apparently, is hard, difficult work to remain upstanding and uncorrupted. Conspiracy 1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. The word conspiracy exists for a reason, and to claim that the medical profession is immune to conspiracies requries more evidential support than merely disparaging people who clearly are holding an extreme position. Thanks, Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.chinesem edicaltherapies. org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Yuliya, What's the rush? Let your baby grow and flourish and give her immune system the opportunity to mature. When she's close to five years old, then consider your options carefully. Don't get stressed or think too much--it damages the Spleen. Strong mom's need strong Spleens! So... Be strong (and lay back!) --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Yuliya Goldberg <ygold77 wrote: Yuliya Goldberg <ygold77 Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Chinese Medicine Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:43 PM This discussion is very important for me because my baby is 1 year old and I think about it every day. I had all my vaccines done but my husband didn't have any and when he received his first one the tetanus shot then he developed very severe allergies until age 18 that he almost died from. So we decided not to give any vaccines to our daughter; we might decide to give her a polio one later or may be not. I believe that many diseases of modern age have to do with vaccine. I don't know if that is true but I don't deny such possibility. It is a very complex topic. Yuliya Jirnov L.Ac. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Hugo Ramiro <subincor > wrote: Hugo Ramiro <subincor > Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Sunday, May 10, 2009, 1:20 PM Hi Alon: While I generally agree with most of your points, and definitely agree with importance of becoming very well-informed on both sides of the issue and avoiding partisan relationships, I find the statement below to be an oversimplification: --Alon- When one thinks thousands of well meaning healthcare professionals all over the world are somehow willing to risk the entire world population to intervention that have NO benefit at all i do think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory type of thinking. --- We know that many well-meaning individuals have rejected because of its obvious uselessness for decades, and many continue to do so. There are many well-meaning professionals who would describe you as a nut because you actually consider that Xuan Bi Tang could actually affect joint inflammation in any way - or even worse, that it could be preferable to conventional treatments. It is a strawman argument to lump together huge groups of people when a conspiracy doesn't require that - it merely requires ignorance and inactivity by enough of the population and effective procedural smokescreens. I personally do not feel comfortable with partisan and entrenched viewpoints, and yet I wonder how it is that the 1997 NIH concensus statement on acupuncture transformed from a position of cautious support to merely an *historical document*. (http://consensus. nih.gov/1997/ 1997Acupuncture1 07html.htm) I did not see any emphasis of that nature placed on any other NIH document, whether it was later superceded by new information or not. My understanding is that there were severe political fights as a result of the 1997 NIH statement. Check out the scientific statement " [...] simply wrong " in the nice scientific red scare lettering. All right all right, I get it you guys, we really have to be careful with acupuncture! Danger! The fact of the matter is that human beings of all stripes and in all places have struggled with bias (or as Buddhism would describe it, ignorance and misunderstanding) for all time. It is nothing new, and as much as peole proclaim that science fixes bias, it does not. It merely helps with certain types, and is largely subjected to bias anyway. Pubmed searches reveal very little research into bias. It is interesting to note that one has to delve into different fields (social science, bioethics and psychology) in order to access any significant body of research on the topic, and that these fields are largely ignored by medicine - even bioethics is often looked upon, in medicine, as an ugly cousin that one has to tolerate: " Potentially, [bioethics] bodies could be threatening to scientific institutions asked to defend their priorities and working practices on political, moral and ethical grounds. However, as Susan E. Kelly has examine int he case of the U.S. Human embryo research panel, this represents an area where the " co-constituyive nature of science ethics and publics is both veiled and engaged " (Kelly 2003). In particular, Kelly argues that bioethics bodies have been used as a means of appearing responsive to public concerns while protecting the autonomy of science. Specific ideas of " concensus building " have served to restrict the form and content of public challenges to scientific expertise. In that way, bioethics panels appear to serve as effective " border guards " protecting scientific institutions from wider scrutiny while presenting an apparently open posture int he face of external demands. " (Handbook of Science and Technologies Studies, 2008) To say that there are no worldwide, iron-clad conspiracies carried out by entire professions is correct. To say that there are no conspiracies is incorrect. They do occur, although they are certainly not as black and white as the entrenched groups make it seem. Rachel Macklin (Double Standards in Research in Developing Countries, 2004) has documented in excruciating detail the problems regarding drug company funding, experiments on poor populations that rich populations would never tolerate, and the resultant benefit for rich populations and immense damage to poor populations. I agree that there is no evil side and innocent side, but the situation is very complicated, and it is not accurate to say that there are no conspiracies. Money, by itself, easily creates bias, and if someone is going to lose money, this is all that is needed to start the breaches in ethics. I have personal experience of this occurring, as has anyone who worked for any period of time in a business. It, apparently, is hard, difficult work to remain upstanding and uncorrupted. Conspiracy 1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. The word conspiracy exists for a reason, and to claim that the medical profession is immune to conspiracies requries more evidential support than merely disparaging people who clearly are holding an extreme position. Thanks, Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.chinesem edicaltherapies. org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Hugo, Great response. I would like to add that research and subsequent policies often fail to consider various theoretical considerations and their preference in the various situations. Grouping large numbers of subjects for a study often times fails to consider the individual uniqueness of the individuals and yet we know this exists. There has been a lot in the way of scrutiny of the medical/science complex, much of it overdue, and their failure to get up to speed in our 21st century (too much realiance on chemistry). This community continues to practice within the same mindset and they get the same results, yet fail to comprehend why this remains so and why they have become much less rellevent. As a point of interest, I want us to consider some of the research of the Bonghan channels in the context of how this discovery, should be one of the most interesting, and yet is barely even published in the so-called peer-reviewed anatomical journals. Kind of hard to argue with photographs of stained specimens. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc www.minneapolisacupuncture.net This email message is intended only for the personal use of the above named recipient(s). If you are not the intended recipient, you may not review, copy or forward this email message. If you have received this communication in error, please notify the sender immediately via email or phone and delete the message accordingly. Chinese Medicine subincor Sun, 10 May 2009 18:20:50 +0000 Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Hi Alon: While I generally agree with most of your points, and definitely agree with importance of becoming very well-informed on both sides of the issue and avoiding partisan relationships, I find the statement below to be an oversimplification: --Alon- When one thinks thousands of well meaning healthcare professionals all over the world are somehow willing to risk the entire world population to intervention that have NO benefit at all i do think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory type of thinking. --- We know that many well-meaning individuals have rejected because of its obvious uselessness for decades, and many continue to do so. There are many well-meaning professionals who would describe you as a nut because you actually consider that Xuan Bi Tang could actually affect joint inflammation in any way - or even worse, that it could be preferable to conventional treatments. It is a strawman argument to lump together huge groups of people when a conspiracy doesn't require that - it merely requires ignorance and inactivity by enough of the population and effective procedural smokescreens. I personally do not feel comfortable with partisan and entrenched viewpoints, and yet I wonder how it is that the 1997 NIH concensus statement on acupuncture transformed from a position of cautious support to merely an *historical document*. (http://consensus.nih.gov/1997/1997Acupuncture107html.htm) I did not see any emphasis of that nature placed on any other NIH document, whether it was later superceded by new information or not. My understanding is that there were severe political fights as a result of the 1997 NIH statement. Check out the scientific statement " [...] simply wrong " in the nice scientific red scare lettering. All right all right, I get it you guys, we really have to be careful with acupuncture! Danger! The fact of the matter is that human beings of all stripes and in all places have struggled with bias (or as Buddhism would describe it, ignorance and misunderstanding) for all time. It is nothing new, and as much as peole proclaim that science fixes bias, it does not. It merely helps with certain types, and is largely subjected to bias anyway. Pubmed searches reveal very little research into bias. It is interesting to note that one has to delve into different fields (social science, bioethics and psychology) in order to access any significant body of research on the topic, and that these fields are largely ignored by medicine - even bioethics is often looked upon, in medicine, as an ugly cousin that one has to tolerate: " Potentially, [bioethics] bodies could be threatening to scientific institutions asked to defend their priorities and working practices on political, moral and ethical grounds. However, as Susan E. Kelly has examine int he case of the U.S. Human embryo research panel, this represents an area where the " co-constituyive nature of science ethics and publics is both veiled and engaged " (Kelly 2003). In particular, Kelly argues that bioethics bodies have been used as a means of appearing responsive to public concerns while protecting the autonomy of science. Specific ideas of " concensus building " have served to restrict the form and content of public challenges to scientific expertise. In that way, bioethics panels appear to serve as effective " border guards " protecting scientific institutions from wider scrutiny while presenting an apparently open posture int he face of external demands. " (Handbook of Science and Technologies Studies, 2008) To say that there are no worldwide, iron-clad conspiracies carried out by entire professions is correct. To say that there are no conspiracies is incorrect. They do occur, although they are certainly not as black and white as the entrenched groups make it seem. Rachel Macklin (Double Standards in Research in Developing Countries, 2004) has documented in excruciating detail the problems regarding drug company funding, experiments on poor populations that rich populations would never tolerate, and the resultant benefit for rich populations and immense damage to poor populations. I agree that there is no evil side and innocent side, but the situation is very complicated, and it is not accurate to say that there are no conspiracies. Money, by itself, easily creates bias, and if someone is going to lose money, this is all that is needed to start the breaches in ethics. I have personal experience of this occurring, as has anyone who worked for any period of time in a business. It, apparently, is hard, difficult work to remain upstanding and uncorrupted. Conspiracy 1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. The word conspiracy exists for a reason, and to claim that the medical profession is immune to conspiracies requries more evidential support than merely disparaging people who clearly are holding an extreme position. Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Alon, I met an English investigative reporter that did a great presentation on AIDS and how this was the first major scientific discovery ever reported that bypassed the science community and since then the " discoverer " has been reprimanded for this work. Kind of interesting that this illness fails to meet the scientific standards of symptomology. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine alonmarcus Sun, 10 May 2009 10:25:51 -0700 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Josh also, these discussion reminds me of the HIV discourse were several well known and respected Dr argued against HIV as cause of AIDS while in the mean time the vast majority of others have continued to work on HIV and came up with treatments that have saved many millions of people, even in areas were poor nutrition, the so called other cause of AIDS, continues. When assessing any scientific issue we need to look at all sides. When one thinks thousands of well meaning healthcare professionals all over the world are somehow willing to risk the entire world population to intervention that have NO benefit at all i do think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory type of thinking. 400 29th St. Suite 419 Oakland Ca 94609 alonmarcus Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 It seems as though there is a consensus in Chinese medicine that the Right Qi (Zheng4 Qi4) needs to be strong in order to fend off (Xie2 Qi4). If the Zheng4 Qi4 is weak from the onset, this may contribute to chronic and wide-ranging illness throughout the rest of life. I'm lucky that my mom ate bone-stew throughout her pregnancy. It's still one of my favorite foods. It's called " Gom tang " in Korean (Ox-tail stew) and really nourishes your Jing1, which is a major component of Zheng4 Qi4. K On Mon, May 11, 2009 at 12:25 AM, wrote: > > > Yuliya, > > What's the rush? Let your baby grow and flourish and give her immune > system the opportunity to mature. When she's close to five years old, then > consider your options carefully. Don't get stressed or think too much--it > damages the Spleen. Strong mom's need strong Spleens! So... > > Be strong (and lay back!) > > > > > > > > --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Yuliya Goldberg <ygold77<ygold77%40>> > wrote: > > Yuliya Goldberg <ygold77 <ygold77%40>> > Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > Sunday, May 10, 2009, 12:43 PM > > This discussion is very important for me because my baby is 1 year old and > I think about it every day. I had all my vaccines done but my husband > didn't have any and when he received his first one the tetanus shot then he > developed very severe allergies until age 18 that he almost died from. So we > decided not to give any vaccines to our daughter; we might decide to give > her a polio one later or may be not. I believe that many diseases of modern > age have to do with vaccine. I don't know if that is true but I don't deny > such possibility. > It is a very complex topic. > Yuliya Jirnov L.Ac. > --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Hugo Ramiro <subincor > wrote: > > Hugo Ramiro <subincor > > Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? > > Sunday, May 10, 2009, 1:20 PM > > Hi Alon: > While I generally agree with most of your points, and definitely agree with > importance of becoming very well-informed on both sides of the issue and > avoiding partisan relationships, I find the statement below to be an > oversimplification: > > --Alon- > When one thinks thousands of well meaning > healthcare professionals all over the world are somehow willing to > risk the entire world population to intervention that have NO benefit > at all i do think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory type of thinking. > --- > > We know that many well-meaning individuals have rejected > because of its obvious uselessness for decades, and many continue to do so. > There are many well-meaning professionals who would describe you as a nut > because you actually consider that Xuan Bi Tang could actually affect joint > inflammation in any way - or even worse, that it could be preferable to > conventional treatments. > > It is a strawman argument to lump together huge groups of people when a > conspiracy doesn't require that - it merely requires ignorance and > inactivity by enough of the population and effective procedural > smokescreens. > > I personally do not feel comfortable with partisan and entrenched > viewpoints, and yet I wonder how it is that the 1997 NIH concensus statement > on acupuncture transformed from a position of cautious support to merely an > *historical document*. > (http://consensus. nih.gov/1997/ 1997Acupuncture1 07html.htm) I did not > see any emphasis of that nature placed on any other NIH document, whether it > was later superceded by new information or not. My understanding is that > there were severe political fights as a result of the 1997 NIH statement. > Check out the scientific statement " [...] simply wrong " in the nice > scientific red scare lettering. All right all right, I get it you guys, we > really have to be careful with acupuncture! Danger! > > The fact of the matter is that human beings of all stripes and in all > places have struggled with bias (or as Buddhism would describe it, ignorance > and misunderstanding) for all time. It is nothing new, and as much as peole > proclaim that science fixes bias, it does not. It merely helps with certain > types, and is largely subjected to bias anyway. Pubmed searches reveal very > little research into bias. It is interesting to note that one has to delve > into different fields (social science, bioethics and psychology) in order to > access any significant body of research on the topic, and that these fields > are largely ignored by medicine - even bioethics is often looked upon, in > medicine, as an ugly cousin that one has to tolerate: > > " Potentially, [bioethics] bodies could be threatening to scientific > institutions asked to defend their priorities and working practices on > political, moral and ethical grounds. However, as Susan E. Kelly has examine > int he case of the U.S. Human embryo research panel, this represents an area > where the " co-constituyive nature of science ethics and publics is both > veiled and engaged " (Kelly 2003). In particular, Kelly argues that bioethics > bodies have been used as a means of appearing responsive to public concerns > while protecting the autonomy of science. Specific ideas of " concensus > building " have served to restrict the form and content of public challenges > to scientific expertise. In that way, bioethics panels appear to serve as > effective " border guards " protecting scientific institutions from wider > scrutiny while presenting an apparently open posture int he face of external > demands. " > > (Handbook of Science and Technologies Studies, 2008) > > To say that there are no worldwide, iron-clad conspiracies carried out by > entire professions is correct. To say that there are no conspiracies is > incorrect. They do occur, although they are certainly not as black and white > as the entrenched groups make it seem. Rachel Macklin (Double Standards in > Research in Developing Countries, 2004) has documented in excruciating > detail the problems regarding drug company funding, experiments on poor > populations that rich populations would never tolerate, and the resultant > benefit for rich populations and immense damage to poor populations. > > I agree that there is no evil side and innocent side, but the situation is > very complicated, and it is not accurate to say that there are no > conspiracies. > > Money, by itself, easily creates bias, and if someone is going to lose > money, this is all that is needed to start the breaches in ethics. I have > personal experience of this occurring, as has anyone who worked for any > period of time in a business. It, apparently, is hard, difficult work to > remain upstanding and uncorrupted. > > Conspiracy > > 1. the act of conspiring. > 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in > secret by two or more persons; plot. > 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He > joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. > 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or > other wrongful act. > 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. > > The word conspiracy exists for a reason, and to claim that the medical > profession is immune to conspiracies requries more evidential support than > merely disparaging people who clearly are holding an extreme position. > > Thanks, > Hugo > > ____________ _________ _________ __ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com > http://www.chinesem edicaltherapies. org > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Hugo the problem with your arguments, as they relate to vaccinations, is that bodies such as NIH and other public health organizations are still run using the current accepted scientific paradigm (and i would agree there are many problems with it as it is currently practiced in medicine.) As much as i support acupuncture when reviewed from that lens the evidence for efficacy is very weak. That is a whole other discussion and judgments based on lack of understanding are a big problem. Vaccinations however easily fall within this system of evaluation and therefore, i believe, it would be impossible to have such a huge conspiracy. Is the evidence not all high quality YES, is there many troubling questions YES. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Also, find Dr. Viera Schneiber's books whom studied over 100,000 research papers on vaccinations, she has a very good 3 page article JUST on the what happens with adjuvants in the vaccines.... Sincerely, Patricia Jordan DVM,CVA,CTCVM & Herbology Chinese Medicine d1tarlo Sun, 10 May 2009 19:38:51 -0700 Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Please read: http://www.therealessentials.com/vaccination-princ.html Principles of Vaccination, by Sylvie Simon, translated by Harry Clarke. The incidence of autism was 1 in 10,000 before the 1970s, and has steadily increased to 1 in 150 in 2008 with a male:female predominance of 4:1. The cause of this epidemic has remained unknown, but several hypotheses have been studied. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Yuliya Goldberg <ygold77 wrote: Yuliya Goldberg <ygold77 Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Chinese Medicine Sunday, May 10, 2009, 2:43 PM This discussion is very important for me because my baby is 1 year old and I think about it every day. I had all my vaccines done but my husband didn't have any and when he received his first one the tetanus shot then he developed very severe allergies until age 18 that he almost died from. So we decided not to give any vaccines to our daughter; we might decide to give her a polio one later or may be not. I believe that many diseases of modern age have to do with vaccine. I don't know if that is true but I don't deny such possibility. It is a very complex topic. Yuliya Jirnov L.Ac. --- On Sun, 5/10/09, Hugo Ramiro <subincor > wrote: Hugo Ramiro <subincor > Re: Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Sunday, May 10, 2009, 1:20 PM Hi Alon: While I generally agree with most of your points, and definitely agree with importance of becoming very well-informed on both sides of the issue and avoiding partisan relationships, I find the statement below to be an oversimplification: --Alon- When one thinks thousands of well meaning healthcare professionals all over the world are somehow willing to risk the entire world population to intervention that have NO benefit at all i do think that is a bit of a conspiracy theory type of thinking. --- We know that many well-meaning individuals have rejected because of its obvious uselessness for decades, and many continue to do so. There are many well-meaning professionals who would describe you as a nut because you actually consider that Xuan Bi Tang could actually affect joint inflammation in any way - or even worse, that it could be preferable to conventional treatments. It is a strawman argument to lump together huge groups of people when a conspiracy doesn't require that - it merely requires ignorance and inactivity by enough of the population and effective procedural smokescreens. I personally do not feel comfortable with partisan and entrenched viewpoints, and yet I wonder how it is that the 1997 NIH concensus statement on acupuncture transformed from a position of cautious support to merely an *historical document*. (http://consensus. nih.gov/1997/ 1997Acupuncture1 07html.htm) I did not see any emphasis of that nature placed on any other NIH document, whether it was later superceded by new information or not. My understanding is that there were severe political fights as a result of the 1997 NIH statement. Check out the scientific statement " [...] simply wrong " in the nice scientific red scare lettering. All right all right, I get it you guys, we really have to be careful with acupuncture! Danger! The fact of the matter is that human beings of all stripes and in all places have struggled with bias (or as Buddhism would describe it, ignorance and misunderstanding) for all time. It is nothing new, and as much as peole proclaim that science fixes bias, it does not. It merely helps with certain types, and is largely subjected to bias anyway. Pubmed searches reveal very little research into bias. It is interesting to note that one has to delve into different fields (social science, bioethics and psychology) in order to access any significant body of research on the topic, and that these fields are largely ignored by medicine - even bioethics is often looked upon, in medicine, as an ugly cousin that one has to tolerate: " Potentially, [bioethics] bodies could be threatening to scientific institutions asked to defend their priorities and working practices on political, moral and ethical grounds. However, as Susan E. Kelly has examine int he case of the U.S. Human embryo research panel, this represents an area where the " co-constituyive nature of science ethics and publics is both veiled and engaged " (Kelly 2003). In particular, Kelly argues that bioethics bodies have been used as a means of appearing responsive to public concerns while protecting the autonomy of science. Specific ideas of " concensus building " have served to restrict the form and content of public challenges to scientific expertise. In that way, bioethics panels appear to serve as effective " border guards " protecting scientific institutions from wider scrutiny while presenting an apparently open posture int he face of external demands. " (Handbook of Science and Technologies Studies, 2008) To say that there are no worldwide, iron-clad conspiracies carried out by entire professions is correct. To say that there are no conspiracies is incorrect. They do occur, although they are certainly not as black and white as the entrenched groups make it seem. Rachel Macklin (Double Standards in Research in Developing Countries, 2004) has documented in excruciating detail the problems regarding drug company funding, experiments on poor populations that rich populations would never tolerate, and the resultant benefit for rich populations and immense damage to poor populations. I agree that there is no evil side and innocent side, but the situation is very complicated, and it is not accurate to say that there are no conspiracies. Money, by itself, easily creates bias, and if someone is going to lose money, this is all that is needed to start the breaches in ethics. I have personal experience of this occurring, as has anyone who worked for any period of time in a business. It, apparently, is hard, difficult work to remain upstanding and uncorrupted. Conspiracy 1. the act of conspiring. 2. an evil, unlawful, treacherous, or surreptitious plan formulated in secret by two or more persons; plot. 3. a combination of persons for a secret, unlawful, or evil purpose: He joined the conspiracy to overthrow the government. 4. Law. an agreement by two or more persons to commit a crime, fraud, or other wrongful act. 5. any concurrence in action; combination in bringing about a given result. The word conspiracy exists for a reason, and to claim that the medical profession is immune to conspiracies requries more evidential support than merely disparaging people who clearly are holding an extreme position. Thanks, Hugo ____________ _________ _________ __ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedici ne.wordpress. com http://www.chinesem edicaltherapies. org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 11, 2009 Report Share Posted May 11, 2009 Hi Alon, I see what you mean, and while there is definitely a difference when examinating CM versus vaccination, there is a common factor - the human body. There may be more connection than standard research can deal with, as has been discovered to be the case in many other situations. I agree that there is a lot of high quality evidence for (and against) vaccination. I posted my viewpoint and starting points on this issue recently, including articles on the clear positive effects of vaccination during national Cuban vaccination campaigns, as well as the startling finding that pneumococcal vaccine has been found to be completely without efficacy in a 2009 study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal. As you say, I think a lot of people are focussing on the " troubling questions " . We need to give due credit and not become paranoiacs. It is a difficult balance point to hit. I personally feel very troubled by mass, forced medication. Whether it is directly, such as flouride compounds in the water supply or potential forced vaccination, or indirectly via chemical contaminants in the water table from industrial or medical sources. This is a main stimulant for the paranoiacal resonses that we see from some camps. Freedom before (supposed) health. People perceive that forced medication may be on the horizon, and react defensively. Thoughts? Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.chinesemedicaltherapies.org ________________________________ Alon Marcus <alonmarcus Chinese Medicine Monday, 11 May, 2009 13:28:15 Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Hugo the problem with your arguments, as they relate to vaccinations, is that bodies such as NIH and other public health organizations are still run using the current accepted scientific paradigm (and i would agree there are many problems with it as it is currently practiced in medicine.) As much as i support acupuncture when reviewed from that lens the evidence for efficacy is very weak. That is a whole other discussion and judgments based on lack of understanding are a big problem. Vaccinations however easily fall within this system of evaluation and therefore, i believe, it would be impossible to have such a huge conspiracy. Is the evidence not all high quality YES, is there many troubling questions YES. www.integrativeheal thmedicine. com 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.