TIME magazine on Chiropractors v. Vaccination (and alsoChiropractors v. Fluoridation)

TIME MAGAZINE ON CHIROPRACTORS V. VACCINATION

(and also TIME magazine on Chiropractors v. FLUORIDATION - see the very end
of this post)

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access at http://groups.google.com)

Leon Jaroff
TIME Magazine
Via

Leon,

How funny!

You concluded your article about two chiropractors expressing their
views/promoting vaccination by stating that both chiropractors believe that
chiropractors should not express their views about vaccination!
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/j...69538,00.html?

Be advised: Vaccination as it is currently performed - without obtaining
informed consent - is rather obvious mass battery.

Even GOOD medicine administered without consent is a battery.

See the California Supreme Court's 1993 THOR decision quoted at the end of
the long postscript below.

The fact that the vaccination mass battery isn't being prosecuted does not
mean it is not a crime.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon


PS DR. GASTALDO IS IN FAVOR OF VACCINATION

I am totally in favor of vaccination - as long as vaccination isn't
mandatory - and as long as MDs obtain truly informed consent.

But most MDs are NOT obtaining truly informed consent.

Plus, MDs falsely claim vaccination is mandatory...

So I temper my vaccination promotion with criticism of medicine's
FRAUDULENT vaccination promotion.

MDs openly ADMIT that they aren't obtaining informed consent...

Mark D. Fox, MD, PhD. wrote in Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:422-23:

"The thrust of the immunization spiel (as I learned it) is to elicit
*assent* from parents...[L]iterature provided does not disclose risks or
alternatives in sufficient depth to qualify as 'informed' consent.
Moreover, these machinations mimicking [obtaining informed] consent are
employed despite the fact that [vaccinations] are virtually mandatory.
Informed consent...requires not only sufficient information, but also the
presence of legitimate choice...[O]ne could argue we should dispense with
the consent charade..."
--Mark D. Fox, MD, PhD. Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:422-23

MDS have hijacked the power word "immunization" to promote their
vaccinations. (MDs are mostly anti-immunization - effectively denying
massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations by
concealing the fact that BREASTFEEDINGS are immunizations - more on this
below.)

Vaccinations are not immunizations. Vaccinations are ATTEMPTED
immunizations. Many children are not immunized by their vaccinations - yet
MDs behave as if their vaccinations are 100% effective.

It is a fraudulent vaccination promotion - a financial cattle prod. MDs are
telling parents seeking vaccine exemptions that only THEIR children will be
sent home during disease outbreaks - only THEY will have to bear the
financial burden of staying home from work and/or hiring tutors during
disease outbreaks.

CDC's maximum vaccination cheerleader Deborah Wexler, MD:

"What if you don't [vaccinate] your child?...During disease outbreaks,
[unvaccinated] children may be excluded from school or child care until the
outbreak is over...for their own protection...This causes hardship for the
child and parent."
--Wexler's Immunization Action Coalition/IAC
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d /p4017.htm

Here is the fraudulent vaccination promotion as stated by the largest
pediatric trade union:

"Parents should be advised of state laws...which may require that
[unvaccinated] children stay home from school during outbreaks."
--American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP^^^

^^^From Informing patients and parents. In: Pickering LK, ed. 2000 Red Book:
Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases, 25th ed. Elk Grove Villiage,
IL: American Academy of Pediatrics 2000:4. Quoted in Frederickson et al.
Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:401

Parents are asked to SIGN the obvious fraud:

"If my child does not receive the vaccine(s)...consequences may
include...the need for my child to stay out of daycare or school during
disease outbreaks."
--American Academy of Pediatrics 2002
http://www.cispimmunize.org/pr o/pdf/RefusaltoVaccinate2.doc


THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION Since many children are not immunized by their
vaccinations, ALL parents should be told that ALL children will be sent home
during disease outbreaks.

It is simply wrong for MDs to endanger vaccinated children not immunized by
their vaccinations in their fraudulent "disease outbreak" vaccination
promotion scenario.

I should note here that the "herd immunity" reply of Jeff P.Utz, MD to my
criticisms was good...Jeff usually doesn't come up with good replies...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3569

But MDs need to finally openly admit their vaccination promotion fraud - and
the fact that they are mostly anti-immunization.

MDs ARE MOSTLY ANTI-IMMUNIZATION - LYING BY OMISSION

As indicated above, organized medicing is lying by omission thereby denying
massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations.

Organized medicine is failing to inform pregnant women that if they
breastfeed they will automatically scan for pathogens and manufacture
specific IMMUNIZATIONS for their babies on a daily basis - and these
immunizations reportedly make MD-needle-vaccinations work better.

MDs are ignoring a SIMPLE way to make the breastfeeding (immunization) and
vaccination rates skyrocket.

What woman, informed that she can IMMUNIZE her baby daily and (reportedly)
make MD-needle-vaccinations work better is going to fail to at least ATTEMPT
to breastfeed/immunize her baby daily?

VACCINE SAFETY: TRULY BIZARRE FRAUDULENT VACCINATION PROMOTION BY MDs...

One of the saddest commentaries on organized medicine's attitude regarding
establishing vaccine safety is pediatrician Martin Smith's essay about the
passage of the "National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act,"
published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. [Pediatrics
1988;82(2):264-9]

In his essay, Smith [1988] wrote that "members should be informed of the
necessity that led to the inclusion of some of the provisions in the act as
they now exist."

Specifically, Smith [1988] noted that "many [vaccine] administrators have
not heretofore practiced" reporting adverse events; but that "these
requirements *had to be accepted* in the process of negotiations through the
years - because "Congress had *demanded* the inclusion of the reaction
reporting requirement as a condition to the legislation." (Emphasis added.)

In noting that Congress's adverse reaction reporting requirement will give
"a better epidemiologic store of information," Smith [1988] admitted a key
point: *No one knows "the real facts" about vaccine reactions/vaccine
safety! [Smith M. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act.
Pediatrics 1988;82(2):264-9]

According to the subsequent National Academy of Sciences vaccine safety
report mandated by the Act, "many gaps and limitations of knowledge
bear...directly and indirectly on the safety of
vaccines...[including]...limit ed capacity of existing surveillance systems
of vaccine injury..." [Howson CP, Howe CJ, Fineberg HV. Adverse effects of
pertussis and rubella vaccines. National Academy Press 1991]

How bad are existing physician surveillance systems of vaccine injury?

Hopefully they are better than they were in 1993 when former FDA
commissioner David Kessler, M.D. reported evidence that physicians fail to
report up to 99% of serious adverse events.
[Kessler DA. Introducing MEDWatch: a new approach to reporting medication
and device adverse effects and product problems. JAMA
(Jun2)1993;269(21):2765-68]

Kessler [1993] said that in spite of the fact that reports from health
professionals are "essential" to ensure safety of medicines, physicians "do
not think to report adverse events."

Also according to Kessler [1993], physician reporting of serious adverse
events "is not in the culture of US medicine" because, as of 1985, only 14%
of US medical schools had required courses in "therapeutic decision making."

The CDC's Vaccine Information Sheet for Measles, Mumps and Rubella
(MMR) states, "As with any medicine, there are very small risks," which
implies that "any medicine" carries "very small risks"

Given FDA commissioner Kessler's statement that one study found that
physicians fail to report 99% of serious adverse events, "any medicine"
might actually be quite risky. *And since the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet
compares vaccine risk with the risk of "any medicine," vaccines might be
just as risky as "any medicine." *Thus the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet
"warning" (that vaccines carry "very small risks") is worthless.

Incidentally, although the courts claim that parents are "warned" about
vaccines, the word "warning" does not appear anywhere on the CDC MMR Vaccine
Information Sheet; nor, incidentally, does the MMR Vaccine Information Sheet
state that some states have "religious" and "philosophical" exemptions.

FDA Commissioner Kessler's 1993 report states, "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."

SORRY TO REPEAT MYSELF BUT...

It bears repeating that, given that American physicians are refusing to
report serious adverse events (Congress had to DEMAND that MDs report!); and
given that risk can be calculated only if physicians report serious adverse
events, the CDC has no business claiming, as it does in its MMR Vaccine
Information Sheet, that, "The risks from the vaccine are *much smaller*
[original italics] than the risks from the diseases if people stopped using
vaccine."

In fact, we just don't know that vaccine risks are "much smaller" than the
risks of natural disease. *More importantly, we will never know - as long as
M.D.s refuse to report as many as 99% of serious adverse events.

Here is Leon Jaroff/TIME magazine quoting the College of Chiropractors of
Ontario Standard of Practice - the view endorsed by the two chiropractors
expressing their views about vaccination:

"Chiropractors may not, in their professional capacity express views about
immunization/vaccination as it is outside their scope of practice"...

This is about as sensible as chiropractors not expressing their views about
back surgery because back surgery is outside their scope of practice.

With MDs being mostly anti-immunization - with MDs fraudulently promoting
their vaccinations, I don't think ANYONE should surrender his/her right to
express views about immunization/vaccination - professionally or otherwise.

That said - I am in favor of vaccination - as long as it isn't mandatory.


TIME MAGAZINE ON CHIROPRACTORS v. FLUORIDATION

A friend just called my attention to an April 27, 2005 Leon Jaroff/TIME
magazine hit piece sub-titled: "Taking on the anti-fluoridators"

Leon Jaroff writes in TIME that "anti-fluoridators" - including
chiropractors - say that fluoridation is "tantamount to medicating the
entire city population without its consent."
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/j...054993,00.html

The California Supreme Court wrote in the 1993 case of Daniel
Thor v. The Superior Court of Solano County 93 C.D.O.S. 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]

Medication without consent is a battery - a CRIME - even if GOOD medicine is
used.

Leon Jaroff forgot to mention this.

Leon also forgot to mention (or someone hasn't yet told him):

1. The cumulative poison fluoride may not prevent cavities all that well (if
at all) see Paul Connett, PhD's www.fluoridealter.org website; and,

2. Both CDC and the American Dental Association/ADA now acknowledge that the
cumulative poison fluoride works TOPICALLY, thus in effect admitting that
the poison should never have been put in the water/aimed at bloodstreams in
the first place. Again, see Connett's website.

Because of these facts, I recently urged the State of New Jersey Public
Health Council to lead the nation in getting the cumulative poison fluoride
out of the water...

See LAUGH it out of the water! (Robert Pallay, MD and fluoride, a cumulative
poison)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3637

Again, the poison should never have been put in the water/aimed at
bloodstreams in the first place.

It works TOPICALLY - if it works at all.

Many (most?) EPA scientists are opposed to fluoridation. One
EPA scientist wrote back in 1998...

"Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe the EPA should
act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data but on
the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects."
*- Dr. William Marcus, PhD, EPA scientist writing in the Food and Water
Journal, Summer, 1998
http://aquasafe.us/AquaSafe-Action.htm

I hope someone at TIME magazine will urge Leon to use his TIME magazine
column to help get the cumulative poison fluoride out of America's water
supply.

He might also rethink his blind promotion of vaccinaton.

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon


My thanks to Richard Rogovin, DC of the Dubin/Zaleski censored version of
chiro-list for calling attention to the Leon Jaroff/TIME magazine article.

This post in reply to Leon Jaroff/TIME magazine will be posted for global
access in the Google usenet archive.

Search http://groups.google.com for "TIME magazine on Chiropractors v.
Vaccination"

The fact that the vaccination mass battery isn't being prosecuted does not
mean it is not a crime.

COMMENT:

Without enforcement, there is no law. Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you.

SBH

ARROGANT MD (HE'S RIGHT THOUGH - BABIES BE DAMNED)

See below.


in article , Todd Gastaldo at
wrote on 6/12/05 2:39 PM:

TIME MAGAZINE ON CHIROPRACTORS V. VACCINATION

(and also TIME magazine on Chiropractors v. FLUORIDATION - see the very end
of this post)

OPEN LETTER (archived for global access at http://groups.google.com)

Leon Jaroff
TIME Magazine
Via

Leon,

How funny!

You concluded your article about two chiropractors expressing their
views/promoting vaccination by stating that both chiropractors believe that
chiropractors should not express their views about vaccination!
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/j...69538,00.html?

Be advised: Vaccination as it is currently performed - without obtaining
informed consent - is rather obvious mass battery.

Even GOOD medicine administered without consent is a battery.

See the California Supreme Court's 1993 THOR decision quoted at the end of
the long postscript below.

The fact that the vaccination mass battery isn't being prosecuted does not
mean it is not a crime.


Steve B. Harris, MD replied: "COMMENT...Without enforcement, there is no
law. Without law, there is no crime...These are elementary principles. Get
an adult to explain them to you."

Steve,

You make a good point.

I am learning only late in life that MDs can blithely commit crime because
law enforcement doesn't prosecute it.

I just don't think it fair (for example) that babies have to pay with their
lives and limbs for such MD arrogance.

I am particularly concerned that MD-obstetricians are closing birth canals
up to 30% and lying to cover-up.

For the Four OB Lies (they are whoppers)...

See ACOG's 2005 edition: How NOT to birth
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3606

Maybe petitioning the judicial branch for Writs of Mandamus will work - but
MDs and their attorneys likely also have that base covered.

According to the Jan. 27, 1989 issue of American Medical News, ACOG
attorney Kenneth V. Heland told M.D.'s and medical lobbyists that in order
to accomplish tort reform they must develop data showing a malpractice
litigation crisis: *"If you have to develop that data yourself...do it,"
said Heland. (They did it. *See Obstet Gynecol (Apr)1990;75(4):705.)

ACOG attorney Heland also told medical lobbyists that tort reform
legislation wouldn¹t work unless judges went along with the gag. *Heland
reportedly told everyone present that judges get elected ³by being
political² and recommended that medical societies work to to defeat judges
who are unsympathetic to tort reform.

Judicial reform is sorely needed.

The following is from the web:
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/chapter10.htm

Claire Wolfe writes:

....The various justice-system reformers have seen some victories, some
defeats. The record is inconclusive. But the very existence of these
challengers threatens the security of the powers-that-be. Recently, those
powers have been taking harsh steps to fight back:

....In the Team Viper cases in Arizona (and many others) the judge refused to
allow defendants to question the constitutionality of the laws they were
charged with violating, even though the Supreme Court declared in one of its
most famous cases: "All laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are
null and void" and have no force from the moment they are passed (Marbury v.
Madison, 5 U.S. (2 Cranch) 137 (1803)). The judges shrug, "Take it up on
appeal," knowing all the while that, by then, an innocent person may have
spent years in prison and be bankrupt.

Fearful of the power of minority opinions on juries, the state of Oregon
changed its laws to enable conviction on an 11-1 vote. The U.S. Supreme
Court decreed that states may authorize conviction on a 10-2 vote.

In Albany, New York, a juror refused to convict a defendant in a drug case,
saying the law under which the defendant was charged was wrong. Instead of
declaring a mistrial, as has been done in the past, the judge simply fired
the juror and granted the rest of the jury the spurious power to convict
11-0.

In Washington, Republican state representative Karen Schmidt circulated a
memo warning fellow members of government they might be "victims" of a type
of "organized crime" committed by "extremists...distributing the extremist
Citizens Handbook (sic) to foster jury nullification"...

The Attack on the Jury

An increasing number of judicial power plays involve attempts to curb jury
nullification. Nullification is the historic, common-law practice by which
jurors pass judgment on the law, as well as the facts of the case before
them.[Note 4] Today, trial judges habitually inform jurors that they may
deliberate on the facts only -- that they may never ask, "Is the law just?"
or, "Is the law justly applied to this defendant?"

....In the Washington State Militia case, what did the judge and prosecutors
excise from the evidence? The jury-rights section of The Citizen's Rulebook.

END excerpt of Claire Wolfe's judicial reform info from the web.
http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/chapter10.htm

Steve B. Harris, MD is arrogant - but he is right - babies be damned...

MDs control the executive, legislative and judicial branches.

The jury may be the last best hope.

Todd

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon


PS DR. GASTALDO IS IN FAVOR OF VACCINATION

I am totally in favor of vaccination - as long as vaccination isn't
mandatory - and as long as MDs obtain truly informed consent.

But most MDs are NOT obtaining truly informed consent.

Plus, MDs falsely claim vaccination is mandatory...

So I temper my vaccination promotion with criticism of medicine's
FRAUDULENT vaccination promotion.

MDs openly ADMIT that they aren't obtaining informed consent...

Mark D. Fox, MD, PhD. wrote in Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:422-23:

"The thrust of the immunization spiel (as I learned it) is to elicit
*assent* from parents...[L]iterature provided does not disclose risks or
alternatives in sufficient depth to qualify as 'informed' consent.
Moreover, these machinations mimicking [obtaining informed] consent are
employed despite the fact that [vaccinations] are virtually mandatory.
Informed consent...requires not only sufficient information, but also the
presence of legitimate choice...[O]ne could argue we should dispense with
the consent charade..."
--Mark D. Fox, MD, PhD. Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:422-23

MDS have hijacked the power word "immunization" to promote their
vaccinations. (MDs are mostly anti-immunization - effectively denying
massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations by
concealing the fact that BREASTFEEDINGS are immunizations - more on this
below.)

Vaccinations are not immunizations. Vaccinations are ATTEMPTED
immunizations. Many children are not immunized by their vaccinations - yet
MDs behave as if their vaccinations are 100% effective.

It is a fraudulent vaccination promotion - a financial cattle prod. MDs are
telling parents seeking vaccine exemptions that only THEIR children will be
sent home during disease outbreaks - only THEY will have to bear the
financial burden of staying home from work and/or hiring tutors during
disease outbreaks.

CDC's maximum vaccination cheerleader Deborah Wexler, MD:

"What if you don't [vaccinate] your child?...During disease outbreaks,
[unvaccinated] children may be excluded from school or child care until the
outbreak is over...for their own protection...This causes hardship for the
child and parent."
--Wexler's Immunization Action Coalition/IAC
http://www.immunize.org/catg.d /p4017.htm

Here is the fraudulent vaccination promotion as stated by the largest
pediatric trade union:

"Parents should be advised of state laws...which may require that
[unvaccinated] children stay home from school during outbreaks."
--American Academy of Pediatrics/AAP^^^

^^^From Informing patients and parents. In: Pickering LK, ed. 2000 Red Book:
Report of the Committee on Infectious Diseases, 25th ed. Elk Grove Villiage,
IL: American Academy of Pediatrics 2000:4. Quoted in Frederickson et al.
Pediatric Annals. (Jul)2001;30:401

Parents are asked to SIGN the obvious fraud:

"If my child does not receive the vaccine(s)...consequences may
include...the need for my child to stay out of daycare or school during
disease outbreaks."
--American Academy of Pediatrics 2002
http://www.cispimmunize.org/pr o/pdf/RefusaltoVaccinate2.doc


THE OBVIOUS SOLUTION Since many children are not immunized by their
vaccinations, ALL parents should be told that ALL children will be sent home
during disease outbreaks.

It is simply wrong for MDs to endanger vaccinated children not immunized by
their vaccinations in their fraudulent "disease outbreak" vaccination
promotion scenario.

I should note here that the "herd immunity" reply of Jeff P.Utz, MD to my
criticisms was good...Jeff usually doesn't come up with good replies...
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3569

But MDs need to finally openly admit their vaccination promotion fraud - and
the fact that they are mostly anti-immunization.

MDs ARE MOSTLY ANTI-IMMUNIZATION - LYING BY OMISSION

As indicated above, organized medicing is lying by omission thereby denying
massive numbers of babies massive numbers of free daily immunizations.

Organized medicine is failing to inform pregnant women that if they
breastfeed they will automatically scan for pathogens and manufacture
specific IMMUNIZATIONS for their babies on a daily basis - and these
immunizations reportedly make MD-needle-vaccinations work better.

MDs are ignoring a SIMPLE way to make the breastfeeding (immunization) and
vaccination rates skyrocket.

What woman, informed that she can IMMUNIZE her baby daily and (reportedly)
make MD-needle-vaccinations work better is going to fail to at least ATTEMPT
to breastfeed/immunize her baby daily?

VACCINE SAFETY: TRULY BIZARRE FRAUDULENT VACCINATION PROMOTION BY MDs...

One of the saddest commentaries on organized medicine's attitude regarding
establishing vaccine safety is pediatrician Martin Smith's essay about the
passage of the "National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act,"
published in the journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics. [Pediatrics
1988;82(2):264-9]

In his essay, Smith [1988] wrote that "members should be informed of the
necessity that led to the inclusion of some of the provisions in the act as
they now exist."

Specifically, Smith [1988] noted that "many [vaccine] administrators have
not heretofore practiced" reporting adverse events; but that "these
requirements *had to be accepted* in the process of negotiations through the
years - because "Congress had *demanded* the inclusion of the reaction
reporting requirement as a condition to the legislation." (Emphasis added.)

In noting that Congress's adverse reaction reporting requirement will give
"a better epidemiologic store of information," Smith [1988] admitted a key
point: *No one knows "the real facts" about vaccine reactions/vaccine
safety! [Smith M. National Childhood Vaccine Injury Compensation Act.
Pediatrics 1988;82(2):264-9]

According to the subsequent National Academy of Sciences vaccine safety
report mandated by the Act, "many gaps and limitations of knowledge
bear...directly and indirectly on the safety of
vaccines...[including]...limit ed capacity of existing surveillance systems
of vaccine injury..." [Howson CP, Howe CJ, Fineberg HV. Adverse effects of
pertussis and rubella vaccines. National Academy Press 1991]

How bad are existing physician surveillance systems of vaccine injury?

Hopefully they are better than they were in 1993 when former FDA
commissioner David Kessler, M.D. reported evidence that physicians fail to
report up to 99% of serious adverse events.
[Kessler DA. Introducing MEDWatch: a new approach to reporting medication
and device adverse effects and product problems. JAMA
(Jun2)1993;269(21):2765-68]

Kessler [1993] said that in spite of the fact that reports from health
professionals are "essential" to ensure safety of medicines, physicians "do
not think to report adverse events."

Also according to Kessler [1993], physician reporting of serious adverse
events "is not in the culture of US medicine" because, as of 1985, only 14%
of US medical schools had required courses in "therapeutic decision making."

The CDC's Vaccine Information Sheet for Measles, Mumps and Rubella
(MMR) states, "As with any medicine, there are very small risks," which
implies that "any medicine" carries "very small risks"

Given FDA commissioner Kessler's statement that one study found that
physicians fail to report 99% of serious adverse events, "any medicine"
might actually be quite risky. *And since the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet
compares vaccine risk with the risk of "any medicine," vaccines might be
just as risky as "any medicine." *Thus the CDC Vaccine Information Sheet
"warning" (that vaccines carry "very small risks") is worthless.

Incidentally, although the courts claim that parents are "warned" about
vaccines, the word "warning" does not appear anywhere on the CDC MMR Vaccine
Information Sheet; nor, incidentally, does the MMR Vaccine Information Sheet
state that some states have "religious" and "philosophical" exemptions.

FDA Commissioner Kessler's 1993 report states, "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."

SORRY TO REPEAT MYSELF BUT...

It bears repeating that, given that American physicians are refusing to
report serious adverse events (Congress had to DEMAND that MDs report!); and
given that risk can be calculated only if physicians report serious adverse
events, the CDC has no business claiming, as it does in its MMR Vaccine
Information Sheet, that, "The risks from the vaccine are *much smaller*
[original italics] than the risks from the diseases if people stopped using
vaccine."

In fact, we just don't know that vaccine risks are "much smaller" than the
risks of natural disease. *More importantly, we will never know - as long as
M.D.s refuse to report as many as 99% of serious adverse events.

Here is Leon Jaroff/TIME magazine quoting the College of Chiropractors of
Ontario Standard of Practice - the view endorsed by the two chiropractors
expressing their views about vaccination:

"Chiropractors may not, in their professional capacity express views about
immunization/vaccination as it is outside their scope of practice"...

This is about as sensible as chiropractors not expressing their views about
back surgery because back surgery is outside their scope of practice.

With MDs being mostly anti-immunization - with MDs fraudulently promoting
their vaccinations, I don't think ANYONE should surrender his/her right to
express views about immunization/vaccination - professionally or otherwise.

That said - I am in favor of vaccination - as long as it isn't mandatory.


TIME MAGAZINE ON CHIROPRACTORS v. FLUORIDATION

A friend just called my attention to an April 27, 2005 Leon Jaroff/TIME
magazine hit piece sub-titled: "Taking on the anti-fluoridators"

Leon Jaroff writes in TIME that "anti-fluoridators" - including
chiropractors - say that fluoridation is "tantamount to medicating the
entire city population without its consent."
http://www.time.com/time/columnist/j...054993,00.html

The California Supreme Court wrote in the 1993 case of Daniel
Thor v. The Superior Court of Solano County 93 C.D.O.S. 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]

Medication without consent is a battery - a CRIME - even if GOOD medicine is
used.

Leon Jaroff forgot to mention this.

Leon also forgot to mention (or someone hasn't yet told him):

1. The cumulative poison fluoride may not prevent cavities all that well (if
at all) see Paul Connett, PhD's www.fluoridealter.org website; and,

2. Both CDC and the American Dental Association/ADA now acknowledge that the
cumulative poison fluoride works TOPICALLY, thus in effect admitting that
the poison should never have been put in the water/aimed at bloodstreams in
the first place. Again, see Connett's website.

Because of these facts, I recently urged the State of New Jersey Public
Health Council to lead the nation in getting the cumulative poison fluoride
out of the water...

See LAUGH it out of the water! (Robert Pallay, MD and fluoride, a cumulative
poison)
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group...t/message/3637

Again, the poison should never have been put in the water/aimed at
bloodstreams in the first place.

It works TOPICALLY - if it works at all.

Many (most?) EPA scientists are opposed to fluoridation. One
EPA scientist wrote back in 1998...

"Fluoride is a carcinogen by any standard we use. I believe the EPA should
act immediately to protect the public, not just on the cancer data but on
the evidence of bone fractures, arthritis, mutagenicity and other effects."
*- Dr. William Marcus, PhD, EPA scientist writing in the Food and Water
Journal, Summer, 1998
http://aquasafe.us/AquaSafe-Action.htm

I hope someone at TIME magazine will urge Leon to use his TIME magazine
column to help get the cumulative poison fluoride out of America's water
supply.

He might also rethink his blind promotion of vaccinaton.

Thanks for reading.

Sincerely,

Todd

Dr. Gastaldo
Hillsboro, Oregon


My thanks to Richard Rogovin, DC of the Dubin/Zaleski censored version of
chiro-list for calling attention to the Leon Jaroff/TIME magazine article.

This post in reply to Leon Jaroff/TIME magazine will be posted for global
access in the Google usenet archive.

Search http://groups.google.com for "TIME magazine on Chiropractors v.
Vaccination"

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" wrote in message

Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you.

SBH

Nice in theory, but it depends who makes the laws, as someone said, we hang
the petty thieves and elect the best ones to high office, and they make the
laws to suit themselves. Medical laws are some of the best, I like the one
where you have to be over 80% vaccine damaged to get compensation. It is
great also to be living in a fascist state where most folk think it's a
democracy.

Depends also how you define crime, the 3rd definition in my book is "evil
act". It is a crime in my book that you lot have a monopoly.

"john" wrote in message
...

"Sbharris[atsign]ix.netcom.com" wrote in message

Without law, there is no crime.
These are elementary principles. Get an adult to explain them to you.

SBH

Nice in theory, but it depends who makes the laws, as someone said, we
hang
the petty thieves and elect the best ones to high office, and they make
the
laws to suit themselves. Medical laws are some of the best, I like the
one
where you have to be over 80% vaccine damaged to get compensation.

Like what happened here?
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article...061838,00.html



It is
great also to be living in a fascist state where most folk think it's a
democracy.

Depends also how you define crime, the 3rd definition in my book is "evil
act". It is a crime in my book that you lot have a monopoly.