Vaccination - Whom can we trust?

[Guest guest]

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.

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>>

> >>>>

> >>>>>

[Guest guest]

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]

>>

>>

>

>

[Guest guest]

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]

 

>>

 

>>

 

>

 

>

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

for those that say vaccines do not work see

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/147825.php

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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.

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

>

>

[Guest guest]

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.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

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

 

 

[Guest guest]

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