If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Get flu, get spine adjusted? (also: college vaccination fraud)
GET FLU, GET SPINE ADJUSTED? My adjustment of a young child years ago
caused me to start getting MY spine adjusted whenever I feel the flu coming. I think adjusting helps in infectious disease - no proof - I think it does though. See below... "RELIGIOUS" VACCINATION EXEMPTION IN OREGON? IT'S EASY! See the very end of my 1995 Open Letter to FREDRICK C. COLLEY, MPH, PhD of Western States Chiropractic College below... OREGON COLLEGE STUDENTS - if you want a "religious" exemption - just sign your name! See the very end of this post... First this... In 1993, Leonard A. Kutnik, MD of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) received an interesting letter from an interesting chiropractic patient, Helen Rodriguez-Trias, M.D., president of the American Public Health Association (APHA)... In response to Dr. Kutnik's concern that "current law does not restrict chiropractors from performing spinal manipulations on very sick, febrile children," APHA president Rodriguez-Trias wrote to Dr. Kutnik: "Limitations of practice, especially when applied to common and impossible to monitor conditions such as 'infectious diseases' are at best only very partial safeguards against ignorance and at worst total hoaxes to the public." [May 22, 1993 letter Rodriguez-Trias to Kutnik, submitted to California's Office of Administrative Law] SPEAKING OF TOTAL HOAXES to the public... COLLEGE VACCINATION FRAUD: MITCH HASS, DC (Oregon Public Health Association): I haven't heard back yet regarding my recent request that you guys do something about the State of Oregon engaging in obviously fraudulent vaccination promotion that endangers some vaccinated persons during disease outbreaks... See Fraudulent college vaccine promotion by State of Oregon http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2461 MITCH HAAS, DC: Did Fred Colley, PhD, MPH (see below) ever show you a copy of my letter below? Please act to stop the obviously fraudulent vaccination promotion that endangers some vaccinated persons during disease outbreaks. Again Mitch, the vaccination promotion fraud isn't the only MD crime... Among other crimes, MDs are knowingly closing birth canals up to 30% - and KEEPING THEM CLOSED when babies' shoulders get stuck! See Difference between God and an MD? http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2438 See also: Criminal medical CAM at Hawai'i's John A Burns School of Medicine http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2256 And see: Helping baby open birth canal (Why obstetrics is criminal medical CAM)... http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2391 It's a matter of CHIROPRACTIC PREVENTION (non-spinal prevention) - saving tiny lives and tiny limbs and PREVENTING the putative chiropractic clinicial entity (vertebral subluxation)... GET FLU, GET SPINE ADJUSTED? Buddy Touchinsky apparently does not agree that the spine should be adjusted - maybe he's right... Buddy says: "Get the flu, go to an MD. Hurt your back, or have some type of joint pain, go see the chiro." Buddy is a student intern at New York Chiropractic College/NYCC, a subscriber to both the censored and uncensored versions of chirolist. I thought just like Buddy thinks when I graduated from Los Angeles College of Chiropractic/LACC... I thought spinal adjusting couldn't help in cases of infectious disease - chiros only help back pain, neck pain, headaches, etc. Knock on wood - I haven't had the flu in years. Nowadays though, whenever I suffer flu symptoms, I ALWAYS go for a chiropractic adjustment. I do so because of a young child that I RELUCTANTLY adjusted years ago... That child had symptoms of what looked to me like infectious disease - so I advised his mother to go to the MD-pediatrician - I told her that spinal adjusting likely would not help... She refused. She agreed to take her child to the MD-pediatrician AFTER I adjusted him... For the amazing thing that happened.. See the postcript of the following letter... NOTE #1: I am NOT saying here that spinal adjusting cures all febrile disease. I think my spinal adjusting of that child - or something related to the interaction I had with mother and child - DID cure this case - almost instantly. I would still recommend that mothers take their children to the MD-pediatrician in cases of febrile disease. Perhaps eventually chiropractic physicians and MD-pediatricians will be working together. NOTE #2: Fredrick C. Colley, MPH, PhD, the addressee below, co-authored with the abovementioned MITCH HAAS, DC a flawed paper on vaccination which is discussed... NOTE #3: The story of my adjustment of the young child is in the postscript... October 28, 1995 Fredrick C. Colley, MPH, PhD Professor Western States Chiropractic College 2900 NE 132nd Ave. Portland, OR 97230-3099 Dear Professor Colley, A belated thank you for your speedy reply some time ago to my telephone inquiry. I had called to request a copy of the San Diego Union immunization advertisement mentioned in your December 1994 JMPT article, "Attitudes on Immunization: A Survey of American Chiropractors" (co-authored with Mitch Haas, DC). Your package arrived the day after I telephoned. Incredible response time. I did indeed find interesting the two articles you enclosed, Nelson [1993] and Anderson [1990], which were referenced in your 1994 JMPT article, a reprint of which you also kindly enclosed. Regarding the San Diego Union immunization advertisement I requested, someday I hope to obtain it, as you did, by pursuing an interlibrary loan. Regarding your 1994 JMPT article, I invite your attention to several significant inaccuracies. On p. 587 you (and Dr. Haas) referred to "new regulations" that were proposed and passed in California; yet one of the "new regulations" to which you referred was never proposed, and another lapsed because it did not pass muster with California's Office of Administrative Law. You and Dr. Haas wrote (misleadingly): "The debate escalated into legislative action in the form of three emergency regulations adopted by the California Board of Chiropractic Examiners on July 29, 1993...These regulations were in direct response to a newspaper advertisement placed in a San Diego newspaper by a group of local chiropractors. The advertisment advised parents that it was not necessary to immunize their children...The new regulations make it unprofessional conduct for chiropractors practicing in California to advertise or to actually substitute a spinal manipulation for vaccination, to treat a patient for a communicable disease, or to advise parents not to immunize their children. According to the references section of your 1994 paper, the title of the San Diego Union advertisement in question was, "Is Immunization Mandatory?" This question would imply that the advertisement advised parents that according to California law it is not mandatory to immunize one's child - which statement is entirely correct. Your text, on the other hand (p. 587; quoted above), indicates that the advertisement advised parents that it was not necessary to immunize their children, an entirely different assertion, which to my mind constitutes the practice of medicine by the D.C.s who placed the ad - which is why I called to ask for a copy of the ad. Your text also states that in "direct response" to the advertisement, "legislative action" resulted in three new regulations. One of the new regulations, according to your text, made it unprofessional conduct to "advise parents not to immunize their children." No such regulation ever came into effect - emergency or otherwise. Indeed, no such regulation was ever proposed and publicly noticed for hearings, the probable reason for this being, as alluded to above, that D.C.s practice under a limited statutory exception to the medical practice statute. D.C.s who do not hold medical licenses are illegally practicing medicine when they advise parents not to submit their children to accepted medical practices. Nor is there a new regulation making it unprofessional conduct for California D.C.s to "treat a patient for a communicable or infectious disease." You and Dr. Haas apparently combined two separate emergency regulations - which did come into effect for a short time - but which ultimately did not pass muster with California's Office of Administrative Law (OAL). Your comment that, "The debate escalated into legislative action in the form of three emergency regulations," also needs clarification. California's Chiropractic Act is an initiative act of the People. It may be changed only at the ballot box. It may NOT be changed by the Legislature, via legislation or regulation. More pointedly, neither the Legislature nor medical trade unions (nor chiropractic trade unions) may pressure the Chiropractic Board into changing the Chiropractic Act by regulation - which is what was attempted. At a public meeting of the Health Committee of the California Assembly, Committee chair Assemblyman Burt Margolin held up a copy of the March 22, 1993 Wall Street Journal which, as you stated in your article, "described as unethical pediatric practices, including discouraging immunization, by some chiropractors." Assemblyman Margolin was outraged. He reportedly threatened to place a measure on the ballot to abolish the Chiropractic Board. He also reportedly agreed that he might be satisfied if the Chiropractic Board passed regulations. Margolin ignored testimony by Chiropractic Board executive director Vivian Davis that the Chiropractic Board had not received ANY complaints that D.C.s were purporting to substitute spinal adjustments for vaccinations. (Again, this is why I asked if you had a copy of the San Diego Union advertisement. If the D.C.s said in their ad that parents should not immunize children, it would seem fairly easy to prosecute them for practicing medicine without a license.) At a subsequent public meeting, the Chiropractic Board voted on - and passed - emergency regulations making it unprofessional conduct for D.C.s to treat infectious or communicable diseases, at which point Julia Bertschinger, a member of the public, spoke up to say she did not want the Board to deny her the right to use her chiropractor to treat infectious disease. Bertschinger said the board appeared to be caving in to Assemblyman Margolin's "blackmail" - his threat to pass legislation to place on the ballot a measure to abolish the Chiropractic Board. [Bertschinger J. Personal communication 1993] Board counsel and deputy attorney general Joel Primes agreed that it looked like blackmail and the Board immediately reversed itself, voting down the emergency infectious disease regulation it had just passed. [Bertschinger J. Personal communication 1993] At a subsequent meeting, after testimony from the California Chiropractic Association (CCA), the Board reversed itself (again) and passed the emergency regulation making it unprofessional conduct for D.C.'s to treat infectious diseases. Then the Board itself was reversed. As noted above, both the infectious disease regulation and a communicable disease regulation were reversed by the Office of Administrative Law (OAL); though OAL did allow the third regulation mentioned in your article (Section 317(w) of Title 16 of the California Code of Regulations), which states that "the offer, advertisment, or substitution of a spinal manipulation for vaccination" constitutes unprofessional conduct. Again, according to Vivian Davis, executive director of the Board of Chiropractic Examiners, there was never any evidence that California D.C.s were offering to substitute spinal adjustments in lieu of vaccinations. If the San Diego D.C.s offered spinal adjustments in lieu of vaccinations, then your article was correct. If San Diego D.C.s did not do this, your article was misleading on a key point - the very key point perhaps that made Assemblyman Margolin's antics look to you like "legislative action" instead of regulatory blackmail. In essence, Assemblyman Margolin subverted both the doctrine of informed consent (see below) and our Constitutional right to freedom of speech. That the Board of Chiropractic examiners and a chiropractic trade union caved-in and tried to placate this pro-medical legislator by regulatorily subverting an initiative act of the People is another concern. Fortunately, OAL was there. The system worked. Kind regards, Todd D. Gastaldo, D.C. P.S. I am not certain as to the specific reasons why OAL rejected the emergency infectious disease regulations. OAL was created because regulatory agencies were perceived to be regulatorily subverting legislative intent - drowning legislation with interminable regulations that sometimes contradicted legislative intent. The OAL legislation made it possible for any California citizen to request addition, modification or repeal of any regulation - and elicit a response from the relevant agency within 30 days. Perhaps OAL rejected the emergency infectious disease regulations because someone furnished OAL copies of correspondence between Dr. Leonard A. Kutnik of the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) and Helen Rodriguez-Trias, M.D., president of the American Public Health Association (APHA). In response to Dr. Kutnik's concern that "current law does not restrict chiropractors from performing spinal manipulations on very sick, febrile children," APHA president Rodriguez-Trias wrote to Dr. Kutnik: "Limitations of practice, especially when applied to common and impossible to monitor conditions such as 'infectious diseases' are at best only very partial safeguards against ignorance and at worst total hoaxes to the public." [May 22, 1993 letter Rodriguez-Trias to Kutnik] Kutnik had written to Dr. Rodriguez-Trias because she had written Assemblyman Burt Margolin to oppose his proposal to legislatively prohibit D.C.'s from treating infectious disease. Dr. Kutnik said in his letter that neither he nor any of his colleagues knew of any research in regard to treating infectious disease with spinal adjusting. Dr. Rodriguez-Trias responded by sending Dr. Kutnik two scholarly papers on the subject of treating infectious disease with spinal adjusting. She also sent Dr. Kutnik the address and telephone number of Anthony L. Rosner, Ph.D., director of research for the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER). I do not know if Dr. Kutnik ever responded to Dr. Rodriguez-Trias. My own personal experience accords with Dr. Rodriguez' response to Dr. Kutnik. I once adjusted a very sick, febrile child. The mother, a long-time patient, was desperate. Her baby was completely limp. Mucous was flowing copiously from his nose. Periodically, he would launch into high pitched screams. I have never forgotten those screams. Having been trained to focus primarily on possible orthopedic benefits of spinal adjusting, I told the mother that spinal adjustments probably would not help her baby. I advised her to go immediately to her pediatrician. She refused. I finally agreed to adjust the boy, but made the mother promise that she would take him to the pediatrician afterward - regardless of whether he got better. Within five minutes of his adjustment, this little boy, who had been alternately lethargic and screaming pitifully for hours, was running around the house playing. This is anecdote to be sure, but the mother was convinced that my adjustment had done wonders; and I must confess my own suspicion in this regard. Since fever is a physiological response, a fever would only "break" after an adjustment, spinal or otherwise - if what was being adjusted was noxiously irritating the nervous system. It is possible that the mother was noxiously irritating her infant's nervous system with her psyche, i.e., with her extreme concern and intense belief that the boy would only get better if I adjusted his spine. (Chiropractic adjusting to relieve noxious psychic irritation is usually thought to be a process of education - the founder called the only book he ever published The Chiropractor's Adjuster - but it is possible that mothers and children unconsciously communicate psychically through "anomolous cognition." ) By adjusting the baby's spine, I may have relieved noxious psychic irritation emanating from the mother. This hypothesis, however strange, is in accord with the central hypothesis of chiropractic, which holds that disease and vertebral subluxations (which latter have been hypothesized to exist and to perpetuate disease) are caused by environmental irritation of the nervous system by noxious mechanical, chemical and/or psychic irritants. (See the definition of chiropractic in the 1987 and 1994, 27th and 28th, editions of Dorland's Ilustrated Medical Dictionary.) Then again, perhaps it is more likely that my low amplitude, high velocity thrust at T12 (which resulted in a distinctly audible release) actually relieved noxious mechanical irritation of the baby's nervous system. Or perhaps my adjustment was itself a noxious mechanical irritant that "reset" the nervous system. Or perhaps noxious irritation of the nervous system by spinal structures or by spinal adjusting has nothing to do with disease. (Why did I use a low amplitude, high velocity thrust, and why did I direct it at T12? Because the founder of chiropractic adjusted similarly and wrote that T12 is the most frequently subluxated vertebra.) For that mother, mechanism didn't matter. Her baby got better soon after my attempts at psychically and mechanically adjusting them both. Again quoting Dr. Rodriguez-Trias' letter to Dr. Kutnik: "Limitations of practice, especially when applied to common and impossible to monitor conditions such as 'infectious diseases' are at best only very partial safeguards against ignorance and at worst total hoaxes to the public." [May 22, 1993 letter Rodriguez-Trias to Kutnik] BEGIN April 13, 2004 ADDENDUM Charles L. Blum, DC wrote on the Dubin-Zaleski censored version of chirolist: "I have seldom found a chiropractor who while attempting to find [vertebral subluxation] epidemiologically or attempting to give it standardization, still had no problem finding it on a patient, treating it, and having the patient have a positive outcome. "The research has not caught up yet but that will be approximately 10-20 years, as the foundation is built. I am not sure that we need to all throw our subluxation eggs in the chiropractic basket but the research has not shown that we should throw our subluxation eggs out with the baby's bathwater. Lack of evidence is not always evidence of lack. Something is going on and we need to be open and investigative. That means not being too closed so that we pigeon hole chiropractic or too open that we can't keep [a medically-oriented DC's] brains from falling out... a worthy, difficult, and noble task. I have some duct tape, just in case, that I carry around." Charles L. Blum, DC Santa Monica, CA www.soto-usa.org The abovementioned Buddy Touchinsky wrote: "What if the manipulation is the important part of the equation here, and not the removal of subluxations. If you think about it, it makes some sense. Why does so many different techniques 'work'? Why do studies showing the benefits of manipulation make no mention of being specific to subluxated segments? It may just be a matter of loosing up a general area of 'fixation'. Or maybe its sensory input from the manipulation that does the trick. Kinda like accupuncture, get the Qi flowing. "This may anger some chiros, but I don't see why. If the existence of subluxations is a possibility they wish to consider, than this must fall right up there as another possibility. Ignoring it would be admitting that you follow the dogma of the Palmers..." GASTALDO remarks - maybe "vertebral subluxation" will be seen as a heuristic - an aid to discovery of what is happening when the spine is manipulated. I do think something happens in the spine - I don't think it's "just" placebo - though that's a possibility - just like much of the work of drugs is "just" placebo - or so say some researchers. END April 13, 2004 ADDENDUM I must remark on the paper by C. Nelson [1993] a copy of which which you kindly enclosed with your letter. I found Dr. Nelson's analysis most interesting; though I do not agree with his exhortation that D.C.s should blindly promote vaccination (an exhortation which you and Dr. Haas seem to have echoed in the pages of JMPT). I do, however, agree with Dr. Nelson that that Argument #5 against vaccination is the strongest argument - not against vaccination - but against mandatory vaccination. Dr. Nelson's Argument #5 - "Any compulsory medical treatment is unacceptable...the freedom to refuse treatment...is a fundamental right" - is, of course, just a restatement of the now well-settled doctrine of informed consent restated by the California Supreme Court in the 1993 case of Daniel Thor v. The Superior Court of Solano County 93 C.D.O.S. 5658: "[O]ver two decades ago, Justice Mosk reiterated...'[A] person of adult years and in sound mind has the right, in the exercise of control over his body, to determine whether or not to submit to lawful medical treatment.' (Cobbs v. Grant (1972 8 Cal.3d 229, 242.)" [Thor at 5658]" "The common law has long recognized this principle: A physician who performs any medical procedure without the patient's consent commits a battery irrespective of the skill or care used." [Thor at 5659] "As a corollary, the law...has evolved the doctrine of informed consent": (See Cobbs v. Grant, supra, [citation]) "Under this doctrine, 'the patient must have the capacity to reason and make judgments, the decision must be made voluntarily and without coercion, and the patient must have a clear understanding of the risks and benefits of the proposed treament alternatives or non treatment, along with a full understanding of the nature of the disease and the prognosis.' [Citations.]" (Rasmussen v. Fleming, supra, 154 Ariz. 207 [741 P.2d at p. 683].) [Thor at 5659] This brings me back to the San Diego D.C.s mentioned in your article. I suspect they were advising parents of the fact that vaccination is not mandatory - and the reasons it might be beneficial to take advantage of this fact. Most D.C.s focus on the welfare of their patients. Some, however, focus on the welfare of the chiropractic profession, as in your statement that "[c]ontinued opposition to immunization...supported by scientific evidence may become a significant obstacle to the assimilation of the chiropractic profession into the revised health care system" (p. 589). Your statement is false for various reasons. First, your own survey indicated that most D.C.s continue their opposition to MANDATORY immunization. ("Eighty-one percent felt that immunization should be strictly voluntary." p. 585) This is quite different from opposing immunization. Second, continued chiropractic opposition to mandatory immunization is already an obstacle to assimilation into "the revised health care system." Most people agree that the key players in revising the health care system are the same key players that installed the previous health care system - unscientifically. Third, there is wide recognition in the chiropractic profession that the antigen-antibody reaction stimulated by vaccination mimics the same reaction stimulated by natural disease. Your own survey indicated that 66% of D.C.s did not agree that there is "no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease." You may be accurate in your perception that dogmatic support for universal immunization is the price D.C.s must pay for ensuring their incomes under managed care. But you are not accurate in your conclusion that D.C.s who oppose mandatory/universal immunization have taken a position that is not "consistent with the weight of scientific evidence." You and Dr. Haas might be interested to know that, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC/Skip Wolf) has, in writing, granted my request that the CDC put back in the CDC's Parents' Guide to Immunization the statement that the decision to vaccinate is for the parents, alone, to make. While it is nice that Skip Wolf agreed to change the Guide, I find it strange that the CDC believes it unnecessary to include this simple statement everywhere it advertises vaccination. As a result of the 1993 Omnibus Reconciliation Act, millions of "Vaccine Information Sheets" were shipped in October 1994, according to Sharon Humiston, M.D., author of the sheets. When I objected that the sheets don't mention that vaccination is an option in many states, Dr. Humiston inferred that no one had asked that such information be included on the sheets, assuring me that she composed the vaccine information sheets on behalf of the CDC - with input of many groups - including anti-vaccination groups. She told me that "15 attorneys" looked at the sheets; this in response to my point that Kathi Williams of Dissatisfied Parents Together had told me that her group had formally asked that the vaccine information sheets inform parents of the vaccine exemption laws, but had been denied. [The information in this paragraph came from personal communications with Judy Gant of CDC and Sharon Humiston, M.D. of the University of Rochester 1994, Dec. 11 and 13, respectively.] Kathi Williams' statement on behalf of Dissatisfied Parents Together - that CDC mention of vaccine exemptions had been requested - was verified by Kristine M. Severyn, R.Ph., Ph.D. of Ohio Parents for Vaccine Safety, 251 W. Ridgeway Dr., Dayton, OH 45459. According to Dr. Severyn's newsletter, as of July 5, 1994, the government's vaccine-injury and death compensation program (P.L. 99-660) had paid out $452.5 million dollars, with 2,600 cases backlogged - and only one in three persons received compensation. Since P.L. 99-660 prohibits U.S. citizens from suing drug companies until they have been denied compensation, it is interesting to note, says Dr. Severyn, that the two out of three persons who filed but did not receive compensation are at the mercy of case law that holds that people can't recover damages because vaccines are "unavoidably unsafe." Dr. Humiston's "15 attorneys" (see above) are up to no good. Perusal of the CDC/Humiston vaccine information sheet for measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) turns up this yet to be proved statement: "The risks from the vaccine are much smaller [original italics] than the risks from the diseases if people stopped using vaccine." The fact is, we just don't know that vaccine risks are "much smaller" than natural disease - and we will never know as long as M.D.s keep refusing to report serious adverse events. The MMR Vaccine Information Sheet also states that, "As with any medicine, there are very small risks." This implies that "any other medicine" carries "very small risks," which is yet another unsubstantiated "15 attorney" CDC claim. The FDA commissioner himself (David Kessler, M.D.) recently stated, "Only about 1% of serious events are reported to the FDA, according to one study" - which means that "any other medicine" might actually be quite risky. Since the CDC itself compared vaccine risk with the risk of "any other medicine," vaccines might be just as risky as "any other medicine" - which statement is just as worthless as the CDC/Humiston "very small risks" statement. We cannot possibly find out how much risk exists until physicians meet their obligation to report serious adverse reactions to ALL the noxious substances they foist onto the public. FDA Commissioner Kessler instructed physicians in 1993, "If an adverse event occurs in perhaps one in 5000 or even one in 1000 users, it could be missed in clinical trials but pose a serious safety problem when released to the market." [Kessler DA. Introducing MEDWatch: a new approach to reporting medication and device adverse effects and product problems. JAMA (Jun2)1993;269(21):2765-68] I could tell from my conversation with Dr. Humiston that she is very sincerely committed to vaccination - particularly to Hemophilus b influenza (Hib) vaccination. I noted that even if the Hib vaccine (or any other vaccine) has been proven safe and effective in outcome studies (I don't believe Hib has been proven safe and effective; see Scheibner [1993], cited below), American parents think that their children can't attend school without vaccination. I noted further that the doctrine of informed consent mandates that parents be informed that children CAN attend school without vaccination in many states. Dr. Humiston agreed that parents should be informed if their state has a vaccine exemption law, but she refused to write a letter to this effect - to me or anyone else. She said information about vaccine exemptions, "might be taken out of context and might ultimately hurt the vaccination effort." I have concluded from this mess that, for every Ph.D. there is an equal but opposite Ph.D.; and that parents should have access to the opinions of vaccine promoters like Dr. Humiston, as well as the opinions of those Ph.D.s who vehemently oppose vaccination. For instance, parents should have access to the opinion of Australian scientist Vera Scheibner, who writes: "[T]here is no evidence whatsoever that vaccines of any kind - especially those against childhood diseases - are effective in preventing the infectious diseases they are supposed to prevent. Further, adverse effects are amply documented and are far more significant to public health than any adverse effects of infectious diseases. "Immunisations, including those practiced on babies, not only did not prevent any infectious diseases, they caused more suffering and more deaths than has any other human activity in the entire history of medical intervention...All vaccination should cease forthwith and all victims of their side-effects should be appropriately compensated." [Schieber V. Vaccination Dr. Viera Scheibner, 178 Govetts Leap Road, Blackheath, NSW 2785 AUSTRALIA 1993] Immunization doesn't just harm children. Wolf and Gant's superior at CDC, Walter Orenstein, M.D., co-authored a 1981 rubella study in JAMA which reported that 90% of obstetricians refused to take their own rubella vaccine. Dr. Orenstein may be interested in the address of the Chronic Rubella Viremia Support Group, South 20655 Brown Rd., Cataldo ID 83810, (208) 689-3925, a group of over 200 health care professionals that submitted to rubella vaccination and ended up with chronic debilitating symptoms attributable to rubella vaccine. The founder of the group, Katy Fox, RN, suspects that many other health professionals were adversely affected by the rubella vaccine. When 20/20 did a story on the subject, over 600 people responded. Does the State of Oregon offer parents even minimal information necessary to give an informed consent? No. In fact, one of the state's vaccination promotion advertisment says, "Yes, School Law requires that they be immunized," but says nothing about the fact that the same School Law has an exemption which makes vaccination an option. [See "Some boo-boos, a kiss can 't fix" The Oregonian (Apr10)1995:A12] State epidemiologist David Fleming, M.D. agreed that at the very least, Oregon parents should be informed of the exemption to the "School Law" - whenever the "School Law" is used as a cattle prod in the vaccination effort, i.e., in newspaper ads or otherwise. Dr. Fleming did not seem concerned that Oregon's vaccine exemption is termed a "religious" exemption, and that most people erroneously believe they cannot exempt their children unless the church they attend is opposed to vaccination. So prevalent is this belief that Oregonian science writer Janet Filips failed to mention Oregon's exemption when she described "Exclusion Day - the day when students whose shot records are not up to date are barred from school..." [Filips J. More than books. The Oregonian (Sep6)1995:B1] THE OREGONIAN IS FAILING TO INFORM PARENTS HOW "EASY" IT IS TO EXEMPT THEIR CHILDREN FROM VACCINATION When I called Ms. Filips to point out that Oregon Health Division regulation OAR 333-19-021(23) defines "religion" broadly, as "any system of beliefs, practices or ethical values," Ms. Filips told me that she didn't mention the religious exemption in her article because school officials told her that people who can take the religious exemption "know who they are." She said she would mention the religious exemption in future articles, but that she would NOT tell readers that parents can use "any system of beliefs" to lawfully exempt their child from vaccination. She even refused to simply quote OAR 333-19-021(23) to assist parents in understanding what the state means by religion. At my request, Ms. Filips referred me to Oregonian editor Bob Caldwell, 1320 SW Broadway, Portland OR 97201, who repeated Ms. Filips's belief that it is reasonable for the Oregonian not to inform Oregon parents that they can lawfully exempt their children from vaccination using "any system of beliefs." [OAR 333-19-021(23)] ALL PARENTS HAVE TO DO IS SIGN THEIR NAME IN THE RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION BLOCK! END Open Letter to Fredrick C. Colley, MPH, PhD of Western States Chiropractic College COLLEGE STUDENTS CAN DO THE SAME THING... See again: Fraudulent college vaccine promotion by State of Oregon http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/2461 Thanks for reading, everyone. Sincerely, Todd Dr. Gastaldo |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Vagina-related insurance fraud (Dan Fitz. at The Hartford, you're removed) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | November 1st 03 04:20 PM |
Vaccination is NOT immunization/Breastfeeding *is* immunization! | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 30 | October 6th 03 09:16 PM |
VACCINATION SUBLUXATION! (Thimerosal: Sen Frist subluxating VICA) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | September 15th 03 09:19 PM |
Parents spoofed by school vaccination programs (also: Chiro and hypertension) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | September 11th 03 10:49 PM |
Exclusion Day vaccination fraud (Manzullo via [email protected]) | Todd Gastaldo | Pregnancy | 0 | August 25th 03 08:36 PM |