Guest guest Posted April 28, 2009 Report Share Posted April 28, 2009 Karen, I am with you, and appreciate your frustration as well. My father is addicted to sweets and salami and is in total denial. Yet whatever his MD tells him to do or whatever drugs he gives him he is completely accepting and submissive. My folks are very supportive of my studies and are thrilled that I am making a good living--as long as what I suggest doesn't involve them. --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Karen Adams <turusachan wrote: Karen Adams <turusachan Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Chinese Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009, 6:59 PM Dear Yehuda - I absolutely agree. It is also a conventional pro-vaccine argument to draw attention to the good of the group, and I wanted to add that to the mix of the discussion. Because it is true that, in the 1918 flu epidemic as an example, we have had very large numbers of people getting ill at once, which can strain resources to the point that it appears more people die than might otherwise. Another, smaller example: I just got to witness that GI 'woops and poops' illness go through my granddaughter' s class like wildfire. That put tremendous strain on the caregivers of those children - and teachers, and then parents! A pro-vaccine advocate might argue that developing a vaccine that would prevent that illness would have great benefit for a community. So if we want to argue against vaccines (which I do), I think it's useful to be able to counter the argument for using vaccines as a way to safeguard public health (meaning large populations) - and perhaps also think about how acupuncture could be used in the event of large numbers of people getting ill. For instance: my 78 yo mother diligently gets the flu vaccine every year, despite many conversations about the uselessness and danger of vaccines. She's a very healthy 78, and she's still in the population that is at greater risk of getting secondary infections after the flu has worn her down. (These, by the way even according to the CDC, are what kill people, not the flu.) So if her town gets a high percentage of flu cases (and I'm not sure what is considered to be 'high'; I do know that my local hospital has no extra beds to even put in emergency clinics, so once the hospital is full that's it), the community's resources can get pushed to the point beyond which it can adequately care for it's members, and the death rate will climb. Please, everyone, understand that I am not advocating for the flu vaccine. I am trying to put forward the public health argument so that we can generate counter-arguments - and maybe also think about how acupuncturists could help in such a scenario. k Karen R. Adams, Lic Ac, Dipl Ac 25 - 27 Bank Row Greenfield, MA 01301 413-768-8333 Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ____________ _________ _________ __ > Friday, April 24, 2009 9:18:09 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Dear Karen, I respectfully disagree. It concerns me when I see my colleagues eating chips and drinking coke (and I do!) It concerns me when I hear people using poor quality herbs or formulas that might be tainted. And it also concerns me when immune deficient and auto-immune illnesse s are attributed to chance. We need to be whole people and whole practitioners. We need to practice what we preach and educate those who depend upon us, our students and our patients so that they can empower and heal themselves, building up and balance their Wei and Ying Qi. I tell you, I am absolutely certain that illness does not occur in a vacuum, and if we don't use the extensive tools at our disposal to protect ourselves and those who depend upon us, well then, shame on us! Don't get me wrong, it does take work, and not just knowledge. But I believe that that should be our mission. And if we follow it, then illness will become less and less and less (just as will Western MDs). Vaccines go completely against this approach, and until such a time as they can be administered without mercury, putrified protein, formaldehyde, and (is that right?) anti-freeze, we should be articulate, passiionate and vigilant against their dissemination. www.traditionaljewi shmedicine. net www.traditionaljewi shmedicine. blogspot. com --- On Fri, 4/24/09, Karen Adams <turusachan> wrote: Karen Adams <turusachan> Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Friday, April 24, 2009, 2:59 PM Another thing to toss in the pot is the risk analysis for populations, the public health issues. It's not just about personal choices, but what are the risks to the population of these diseases? For instance, I might choose against a vaccine for preventing cervical cancer for all the reasons stated so far, on a personal level, and if I get cervical cancer I'm not putting my neighbors at risk. A (effective) flu vaccine, on the other hand, could prevent whole populations from getting ill. (and please, that was just the best global example I could think of, I know we currently don't have such a thing) karen Karen R. Adams, Lic Ac, Dipl Ac 25 - 27 Bank Row Greenfield, MA 01301 413-768-8333 Do or do not. There is no try. Yoda, The Empire Strikes Back ____________ _________ _________ __ " Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. " <angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) net> Friday, April 24, 2009 4:03:02 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Exactly, we need to make differentiated decisions, there is no polio in the US right now, and if the vaccine is needed is questionable, and yes, there may be risks to receiving the vaccine, however, that doesn't mean that vaccines are a bad idea. It all depends, when? for whom? where do they live and travel? Are they at risk for contracting the disease? How much risk is there? I guess I don't understand why this issue is so charged with emotion? The evidence about benefits and risks is controversial, yes. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) net www.InnerhealthSale m.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Everett Churchill Friday, April 24, 2009 12:21 PM RE: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? Random? Are you kidding? That seems to be the very nature of discussion groups! Maybe you mean " poorly focused " ? I think a major point that Patricia brings up is one of withheld information that prevents Joe-Schmoe Parent from making informed decisions regarding this topic. The idea of whether to vaccinate or not is highly charged with emotion, and while I am whole-heartedly invested in TCM I also realize that the issue is more complicated than it may seem. I myself have seen enough better science lately to justify dissuading most people away from vaccinations than to encourage them. And that includes the polio example. -Everett Churchill, L.Ac. _____ Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine [Traditional _ Chinese_Medicine ] On Behalf Of Angela Pfaffenberger, PH.D. Friday, April 24, 2009 12:35 PM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? I think the problem with the discussion is that it is a bit too random. Right after world war 2 there was a polio epidemic in Germany and I went to school with many crippled children who are probably today suffering from post polio symptom, I was immunized, and I am grateful that I was. Are we overdoing it a bit now with the vaccicines, maybe yes. It all depends. If there was a Hep B vaccine available, I think I would get it, if I had a daughter I would vaccine her against HPV. Sometimes vaccines offer protection, just think how many millions of people in Africa could be saved if we had a HIV vaccine. I think we need to think about this issue in a more differentiated way. It seems some people on this listserv have a soapbox they want to stand on, and that can get tiring for others. Regards, Angela Pfaffenberger, Ph.D. angelapfa (AT) comcast (DOT) <angelapfa% 40comcast. net> net www.InnerhealthSale m.com Phone: 503 364 3022 - Mark Milotay Traditional_ <Traditional _Chinese_ Medicine% 40. com> Chinese_Medicine Friday, April 24, 2009 9:27 AM Re: Vaccination - Whom can we trust? As the ListMaster (is that like being the key master?) I whole heartedly approve the prolonged conversation on this, as it is relevant to us as practitioners, and as a parent of 2 ( & IY'H a third on the way) children who have not been vaccinated I find this discussion by my peers quite useful and fascinating. As practitioners we need to be able to provide our patients with all of the information possible when they are trying to make a decision about something like not vaccinating, and this discussion has already identified a number of good resources for this. Please, with my blessing, continue this discussion. - Mark On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 6:59 AM, <@ tinet. <% 40tinet.ie> ie> wrote: > > > Hi All, & Patricia & Yehuda, > > This list may not be an appropriate forum for prolonged discussion on > the pros and cons of vaccination. > > We need guidance from the ListMaster on whether or not to continue > this thread here. Meanwhile, here are a few comments. > > 1. Our youngest daughter (a trainee surgeon with a brilliant truth- > seeking mind) with whom I had expressed reservations about the wisdom > of mass vaccination, texted me yesterday: > > " [Dad, re the pros and cons of vaccination] ... in the past two > weeks, I have admitted 3 cases of severe mumps in non-immunised men. > Case #1is in ICU, brain-dead due to mumps encephalitis; > Case #2 lost both testicles due to mumps orchitis; > Case #3 is very ill with mumps pancreatitis ... " > > Like most young doctors and vets whom I know, my daughter has no > doubt that the benefits of vaccination against serious diseases > outweigh the risks of not vaccinating. However, she is not an expert > immunologist, so SHE TRUSTS the conclusions of her teachers / peers. > > 2. DE FACTO, the vaccine industry (manufacturers, wholesalers and > retailers) and those who administer vaccines (doctors, nurses, > healthcare workers, vets, vet techs, etc) have a vested financial > interest in promoting vaccination. Without vaccination, they would > lose turnover / income. > > However, IMO, most vaccinators are not evil people in a diabolical > conspiracy to corrupt the human or animal genomes. Neither are they > stupid people. They BELIEVE that vaccines confer more benefit than > harm to the recipients. > > 3. Professionals' beliefs and practices arise mainly from their > culture, professional training, interaction with peers, practical > experience and brainwashing (commercial brochures, seminars, courses, > etc). > > We (busy practitioners) simply have not the time to research in depth > the pros and cons of every action that we take. Therefore, MUCH of > what we do is because we have been trained to do it, or we rely > heavily on / TRUST the advice of peers / authorities whom we trust. > > We TRUST our pastors / rabbis; we trust our Governments; we trust our > academics / National Health Authorities, WHO, national Banks, etc. > > For me, the main question is: are we RIGHT to place our trust in > those authorities? > > It is obvious from recent international scandals that INDIVIDUALS in > the Churches, national Governments, Banks, etc criminally betrayed > our trust. Can we trust ANY authority now? > > 4. Some opponents of mass vaccination, especially with simultaneous > use of multi-antigens, say that there is no (or inadequate) proof of > safety and / or efficacy. > > Having worked as a professional researcher for >41 years, my > experience is that the vast majority of my research colleagues are > decent and intelligent people who seek the truth in their areas of > expertise. > > Though I am not expert in immunology, thousands of highly trained > people work to the best of their professional ability in that > specialised area. Medline has many papers on the safety and efficacy > of vaccines. Unless the authors of those papers are liars or stupid, > THEY believe their conclusions. > > But safety and efficacy are relative terms. > > What is safe? For example, is it safe if 1 vaccinee per 100,000 dies? > Is it safe if 1 in 1000 develops cancer or autoimmune disease. Were > the deaths / diseases in vaccinees due to the vaccine, or due to > coincidental factors? > > For how many years must vaccinees be monitored BEFORE ANY conclusions > on safety can be drawn? > > What is the definition of efficacy? Should it be based on titers of > specific antibodies, or on the incidence rate of the specific disease > in the vaccinees versus a similar unvaccinated group over a > predetermined follow-up period (1 year?, 2 years? what?) > > For example [see abstract below]: The incidence of diarrhoea in the > group vaccinated with WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine (n=321) was 17.4%, > compared with 39.7% in the non-vaccinated group (n=337) (adjusted > risk ratio 0.40). The first episode was significantly shorter in the > vaccinated group (mean 2.3 days) than in the non-vaccinated group > (mean 3.8 days) (p<0.001). > > Efficacy here was far short of 100%. But can we ever expect 100% > efficacy from anything? > > Whom am I to believe? > > Most, if not all, medical and surgical interventions carry some risk. > IMO, an impartial comment on the pros and cons of vaccination MUST > try to assess the risk-benefit of vaccinating versus not vaccinating. > Both options carry risks and benefits. > > We should aim to fulfil the principle of " the greatest good for the > greatest number " . > > Meanwhile, whom should I believe? > > Best regards, > > > Torrell JM, Aumatell CM, Ramos SM, Mestre LG, Salas CM. Reduction of > travellers' diarrhoea by WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine in young, high- > risk travellers. Vaccine. 2009 Apr 16. [Epub ahead of print]. Intnl > Vaccination Center. Hospital Universitario de Bellvitge, Feixa Llarga > s/n 08907 Hospitalet. Barcelona, Spain. AIMS: A bidirectional cohort > study investigates whether pre-travel vaccination with whole > cell/recombinant B subunit inactivated, killed oral cholera vaccine > reduces the incidence of diarrhoea in young adult travellers to > highrisk areas. SCOPE: Risk of travellers' diarrhoea was assessed > according to destination and reason for travel in high risk > travellers of a travel clinic in Barcelona, Spain. Those at high-risk > between January and December 2005 were advised on water/food safety > and hygiene. High-risk travellers between January and December 2006 > were additionally vaccinated with WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine. Data > regarding diarrhoea were gathered by structured telephone interview > or emailed questionnaire following the travellers' return. The > incidence of diarrhoea in the group vaccinated with WC/rBS oral > cholera vaccine (n=321) was 17.4%, compared with 39.7% in the non- > vaccinated group (n=337) (adjusted risk ratio 0.40). The first > episode was significantly shorter in the vaccinated group (mean 2.3 > days) than in the non-vaccinated group (mean 3.8 days) (p<0.001). > CONCLUSIONS: The protective effect of the WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine > was 57% in the young, highrisk travellers. Vaccination with the > WC/rBS oral cholera vaccine as well as food safety and hygiene advice > could offer effective means of reducing the risk of diarrhoea while > abroad. PMID: 19376179 [PubMed - as supplied by publisher] > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.