Vaccine Dangers

Vaccination Myth 6: Polio was one of the clearly great vaccination success stories.

Six New England states reported increases in polio one year after the Salk vaccine was introduced, ranging from more than doubling in Vermont to Massachusetts' astounding increase of 642%. In 1959, 77.5% of Massachusetts' paralytic cases had received 3 doses of IPV (Injected Polio Vaccine). During 1962 U.S. Congressional hearings, Dr Bernard Greenberg, head of the Dept. of Biostatistics for the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, testified that not only did the cases of polio increase substantially after mandatory vaccinations (50% increase from 1957 to 1958, 80% increase from 1958 to 1959), but that the statistics were manipulated by the Public Health Service to give the opposite impression.[39]

According to researcher-author Dr Viera Scheibner, 90% of polio cases were eliminated from statistics by health authorities' redefinition of the disease when the vaccine was introduced, while in reality the Salk vaccine was continuing to cause paralytic polio in several countries at a time when there were no epidemics being caused by the wild virus. (For example, in the U.S., thousands of cases of viral and aseptic meningitis are reported each year - these were routinely diagnosed as polio before the Salk vaccine; the number of cases needed to declare an epidemic was raised from 20 to 35 and the requirement for inclusion in paralysis statistics was changed from symptoms for 24 hours to symptoms for over 60 days. It is no wonder that polio decreased radically after vaccines - at least on paper.) In 1985, the CDC reported that 87% of the cases of polio in the U.S. between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine and later declared that all but a few imported cases since were caused by the vaccine - and most of the imported cases occurredin fully immunized individuals.

Jonas Salk, inventor of the IPV (Injected Polio Vaccine), testified before a Senate subcommittee that nearly all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine. At a workshop on polio vaccines sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr Samuel Katz of Duke University cited the estimated 8-10 annual U.S. cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) in people who have taken the oral polio vaccine, and the [four year] absence of wild polio from the western hemisphere. Jessica Scheer of the National Rehabilitation Hospital Research Center in Washington, D.C., pointed out that most parents are unaware that polio vaccination in this country entails a small number of human sacrifices each year.' Compounding this contradiction are low adverse event reporting and the NVIC's experiences with confirming and correcting misdiagnoses of vaccine reactions, which suggest that the actual number of VAPP sacrifices' may be many times higher than the number cited by the CDC.
Vaccination Truth 6: Vaccines caused substantial increases in polio after years of sready declines, and they are the sole cause of polio in the U.S. today.

Success Rate

Just how effective are my homeopathic sessions? I have a 89% accuracy
rate, meaning there is a 89% probability I’ll choose the most appropriate remedy
right for you on my first attempt. Every patient that has remained to the end of my suggested course of
treatment and has not left their healing prematurely has seen a success.

Guaranteed Results: If you promise to put in the effort, follow my
directions in taking the remedies and spend at least 6 sessions in
homeopathic treatment, I will guarantee you’ll feel better and see an
improvement in your symptoms. If not, I’ll work with you at no cost until
you do get better. Fair enough?

Sincerely,
Elena Cecchetto DCH, CCH, RSHom(NA)
604-568-4663

vaccine Dangers

Vaccination Myth 7: My child had no short-term reaction to vaccination, so there is nothing to worry about.

The documented long term adverse effects of vaccines include chronic immunological and neurological disorders such as autism, hyperactivity, attention deficit disorders, dyslexia, allergies, cancer, and other conditions, many of which barely existed 30 years ago before mass vaccination programs. Vaccine components include known carcinogens such as thimersol, aluminum phosphate, and formaldehyde (the Poisons Information Centre in Australia claims there is no acceptable safe amount of formaldehyde which can be injected into a living human body). Medical historian, researcher and author Harris Couiter, Ph.D. explained that his extensive research revealed childhood immunization to be ...causing a low- grade encephalitis in infants on a much wider scale than public health authorities were willing to admit, about 15-20% of all children.' He points out that the sequelae [conditions known to result from a disease] of encephalitis [inflammation of the brain, a known side-effect of vaccination]: autism, learning disabilities, minimal and not-so-minimal brain damage, seizures, epilepsy, sleeping and eating disorders, sexual disorders, asthma, cot death, diabetes, obesity and impulsive violence, are precisely the disorders which afflict contemporary society. Many of these conditions were formerly relatively rare, but they have become more common as childhood vaccination programs have expanded. Coulter also points out that ...pertussis toxoid is used to create encephalitis in lab animals.'

A German study found correlations between vaccinations and 22 neurological conditions including attention deficit and epilepsy. The dilemma is that viral elements in vaccines may persist and mutate in the human body for years, with unknown consequences. Millions of children are partaking in an enormous, crude experiment; and no sincere, organized effort is being made by the medical community to track the negative side-effects or to determine the long term consequences.
Vaccination truth 7: The long term adverse effects of vaccinations have been virtually ignored, in spite of direct correlations with many chronic conditions

Classical Homeopath, Elena Cecchetto's vast experience

Our areas of focus include both pre & post-natal care, acute & chronic pain, whiplash, addictions
as well as pediatric care. Additionally, we offer a variety of
services beyond Homeopathic care including Herbs, Clinical Counseling, massage therapy and
nutritional counseling.

With Classical Homeopath, Elena Cecchetto's vast experience and many years of Professional Homeopathic training and education, we have treated many patients with conditions ranging from whiplash to sports injuries to infertility. We have had remarkable results with these conditions and many others. Patients seeking treatment are assured of receiving only the finest quality care, because we have a genuine concern for your health and wellness.

To find out more about how we can help you, feel free to contact us today to book your first appointment.

Vaccine Dangers

Vaccination Myth 5: Childhood diseases are extremely dangerous.

Most childhood infectious diseases have few serious consequences in today's modern world. Even conservative CDC (Centers for Disease Control) statistics for pertussis during 1992-94 indicate a 99.8% recovery rate. In fact, when hundreds of pertussis cases occurred in Ohio and Chicago in the fall 1993 outbreak, an infectious disease expert from Cincinnati Children's Hospital said, The disease was very mild, no one died, and no one went to the intensive care unit.'

The vast majority of the time, childhood infectious diseases are benign and self-limiting. They also may impart lifelong immunity, whereas vaccine- induced immunity is only temporary. In fact, the temporary nature of vaccine immunity can create a more dangerous situation in a child's future. For example, the new chicken pox vaccine has an effectiveness estimated at 6 - 10 years. If effective, it will postpone the child's vulnerability until adulthood, when death from the disease is 20 times more likely.

About half of measles cases in the late 1980s resurgence were in adolescents and adults, most of whom were vaccinated as children[35] and the recommended booster shots may provide protection for less than 6 months.[36] Furthermore, some healthcare professionals are concerned that the virus from the chicken pox vaccine may reactivate later in life in the form of herpes zoster (shingles) or other immune system disorders.' [37] Dr A.
Lavin of the Dept. of Pediatrics, St. Luke's Medical Center in Cleveland, Ohio, strongly opposed licensing the new vaccine, Until we actually know... the risks involved in injecting mutated DNA (herpes virus] into the host genome [children].'[38] The truth is, no-one knows, but the vaccine is now licensed and recommended by health authorities.

Not only are most infectious diseases rarely dangerous, but they can actually play a vital role in the development of a strong, healthy immune system. Persons who have not had measles have a higher incidence of certain skin diseases, degenerative diseases of bone and cartilage, and certain tumors, while absence of mumps has been linked to higher risks of ovarian cancer.
Vaccination truth 5: Dangers of childhood diseases are greatly exagerated in order to scare parents into complience with a questionable but profitable procedure.

Vaccine Dangers

Vaccination Myth 4: Vaccination is based on sound immunization theory and practice.

The clinical evidence for vaccinations is their ability to stimulate antibody production in the recipient, a fact which is not disputed. What is not clear, however, is whether or not such antibody production constitutes immunity. For example, agamma globulin-anaemic children are incapable of producing antibodies, yet they recover from infectious diseases almost as quickly as other children.[31] Furthermore, a study published by the British Medical Council in 1950 during a diphtheria epidemic concluded that there was no relationship between antibody count and disease incidence; researchers found resistant people with extremely low antibody counts and sick people with high counts. [32] Natural immunization is a complex phenomenon involving many organs and systems; it cannot be fully replicated by the artificial stimulation of antibody production.

Research also indicates that vaccination commits immune cells to the specific antigens involved in the vaccine, rendering them incapable of reacting to other infections. Our immunological reserve may thus actually be reduced, causing a generally lowered resistance.
[33]

Another component of immunization theory is herd immunity,' which states that when enough people in a community are immunized, all are protected. As Myth 2 revealed, there are many documented instances showing
just the opposite - fully vaccinated populations do contract diseases; with measles, this actually seems to be the direct result of high vaccination rates.[19] A Minnesota state epidemiologist concluded that the Hib vaccine increases the risk of illness when a study revealed that vaccinated children were five times more likely to contract meningitis than unvaccinated children.

Carefully selected epidemiological studies are yet another justification for vaccination programs. However, many of these may not be legitimate sources from which to draw conclusions about vaccine effectiveness. For example, if 100 people are vaccinated and 5 contract the disease, the vaccine is declared to be 95% effective. But if only 10 of the 100 were actually exposed to the disease, then the vaccine was really only 50% effective. Since no one is willing to directly expose an entire population to disease - even a fully vaccinated one - vaccine effectiveness rates may not indicate a vaccine's true effectiveness.

Yet another surprising concern about immunization practice is its assumption that all children, regardless of age, are virtually the same. An 8 pound 2 month old receives the same dosage as a 40 pound five year old. Infants with immature, undeveloped immune systems may receive five or more times the dosage (relative to body weight) as older children. Furthermore, the number of units' within doses has been found upon random testing to range from 1/2 to 3 times what the label indicates; manufacturing quality controls appear to tolerate a rather large margin of error. Hot Lots' - vaccine lots with disproportionately high death ~.nd disability rates - have been identified repeatedly by the NVIC but the FDA refuses to intervene to prevent further unnecessary injury and deaths. In fact, they have never recalled a vaccine lot due to adverse reactions. Some would call this infanticide.

Finally, vaccination practice assumes that all recipients, regardless of race, culture, diet, geographic location or any other circumstances, will respond the same. This was perhaps never more dramatically disproved than an instance a few years ago in Australia's Northern Territory, where stepped-up immunization campaigns resulted in an incredible 50% infant mortality rate in the native aborigines.[34] Researcher A. Kalokerinos, M.D. discovered that the aborigine's vitamin C deficient junk food' diet was a critical factor (studies had already shown that vaccination depletes vitamin C reserves; children in shock or collapse often recovered in a matter of minutes when given vitamin C injections). He considered it amazing that as many survived as did. One must wonder about the lives of the survivors, though, for if half died, surely the other half did not escape unaffected.

Almost as troubling was a very recent study in the New England Journal of Medicine which revealed that a substantial number of Romanian children were contracting polio from the vaccine, a less common phenomena in most developed countries. Correlations with injections of antibiotics were found: a single injection wiithin one month of vaccination raised the risk of polio 8 times, 2 to 9 injections raised the risk 27- fold, and 10 or more injections raised the risk 182 times [Washington Post, February 22. 1995].

What other factors not accounted for in vaccination theory will surface unexpectedly to reveal unforeseen or previously overlooked consequences? We will not begin to fully comprehend the scope of this danger until researchers begin looking and reporting in earnest. In the meantime, entire countries' populations are unwitting gamblers in a game that many might very well choose not to play if they were given all the rules' in advance.
Vaccination Truth 4: Many of the assumptions upon which immunization theory and practice are based have been proven false in their application.

Vaccine Dangers

Vaccination Myth 3: Vaccines are the main reason for low disease rates in the U.S. today.

According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. Infectious disease deaths in the U.S. and England declined steadily by an average of about 80% during this century (measles mortality declined over 97%) prior to vaccinations. [25] In Great Britain, the polio epidemics peaked in 1950, and had declined 82% by the time the vaccine was introduced in 1956. Thus, at best, vaccinations can be credited with only a small percentage of the overall decline in disease related deaths this century.

Yet even this small portion is questionable, as the rate of decline remained virtually the same after vaccines were introduced. Furthermore, European countries that refused immunization for small pox and polio saw the epidemics end along with those countries that mandated it. (In fact, both small pox and polio immunization campaigns were followed initially by significant disease incidence increases; during smallpox vaccination campaigns, other infectious diseases continued their declines in the absence of vaccines. In England and Wales, smallpox disease and vaccination rates eventually declined simultaneously over a period of several decades.[26])

It is thus impossible to say whether or not vaccinations contributed to the continuing decline in disease death rates, or if the same forces which brought about the initial declines- improved sanitation, hygiene, improvements in diet, natural disease cycles- were simply unaffected by the vaccination programs. Underscoring this conclusion was a recent World Health Organization report which found that the disease and mortality rates in third world countries have no direct correlation with immunization procedures or medical treatment, but are closely related to the standard of hygiene and diet. [27] Credit given to vaccinations for our current disease incidence has simply been grossly exaggerated, if not outright misplaced.

Supporters of vaccination point to incidence statistics rather than mortality as proof of vaccine effectiveness. However, statisticians tell us that mortality statistics can be a better measure of incidence than the incidence figures themselves, for the simple reason that the quality of reporting and record-keeping is much higher on fatalities.[28] For instance, a recent survey in New York City revealed that only 3.2% of pediatricians were actually reporting measles cases to the health department. In 1974, the CDC determined that there were 36 cases of measles in Georgia, while the Georgia State Surveillance System reported 660 cases.[29] In 1982, Maryland state health officials blamed a whooping cough epidemic on a television program, D.RT.
- Vaccine Roulette,' which warned of the dangers of DPT; however, when former top virologist for the U.S. Division of Biological Standards, Dr .1. Anthony Morris, analyzed the 41 cases, only 5 were confirmed and all had been vaccinated. [30] Such instances as these demonstrate the fallacy of incidence figures, yet those who support vaccination tend to rely on them indiscriminately.
Vaccination Truth 3: It is unclear what impact vaccines had on the infectious disease declines that occurred throughout this century.

Vaccine Dangers

Dispelling Vaccination Myths

Dispelling Vaccination Myths
An Introduction to the Contradictions between Medical Science & Immunization Policy
by Alan Phillips

Preface to This Edition
The following text is taken directly from the Prometheus edition as printed in the United Kindom in 1999. Any references and copyrights refer to that edition.
Introduction
When my son began his routine vaccination series at age two months, I did not know there were any risks associated with immunizations. But the clinic's literature contained a contradiction: the chances of a serious adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine were 1 in 1750, while his chances of dying from pertussis each year were 1 in several million. When I pointed this out to the physician, he angrily disagreed, and stormed out of the room mumbling, I guess I should read that sometime...' Soon thereafter I learned of a child who had been permanently disabled by a vaccine, so I decided to investigate for myself. My findings have so alarmed me that I feel compelled to share them; hence this report.

Health authorities credit vaccines for disease declines, and assure us of their safety and effectiveness. Yet these seemingly rock-solid assumptions are directly contradicted by health statistics, medical studies, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports, and reputable research scientists from around the world. In fact, infectious diseases declined steadily for decades prior to vaccinations, U.S. doctors report thousands of serious vaccine reactions each year including hundreds of deaths and permanent disabilities, fully vaccinated populations have experienced epidemics, and researchers attribute dozens of chronic immunological and neurological conditions to mass immunization programs.

There are hundreds of published medical studies documenting vaccine failure and adverse effects, and dozens of books written by doctors, researchers and independent investigators that reveal serious flaws in immunization
theory and practice. Ironically, most pediatricians and parents are completely unaware of these findings. However, this has begun to change in recent years, as a growing number of parents and healthcare providers around the world are becoming aware of the problems and starting to question the use of widespread, mandatory vaccinations.

My point it not to tell anyone whether or not to vaccinate, but rather, with the utmost urgency, to point out some very good reasons why everyone should examine the facts before deciding whether or not to submit to the procedure. As a new parent, I was shocked to discover the absence of a legal mandate or professional ethic requiring pediatricians to be fully informed, and to see first-hand the prevalence of physicians who are applying practices based on incomplete and in some cases, outright mis-information.

Though only a brief introduction, this report contains sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation by all concerned, which I highly recommend. You will find that this is the only way to get an objective view, as the controversy is a highly emotional one.

A note of caution: Be careful trying to discuss this subject with a pediatrician. Most have staked their identities and reputations on the presumed safety and effectiveness of vaccines and thus have difficulty acknowledging evidence to the contrary. The first pediatrician I attempted to share my findings with yelled angrily at me when I calmly brought up the subject. The misconceptions have very deep roots.

Index
(click on the links below to go directly to that section)
Preface to the Prometheus edition
Vaccination Myth 1: Vaccines are completely safe.
Vaccination Myth 2: Vaccines are very effective.
Vaccination Myth 3: Vaccines are the main reason for low disease rates in the U.S. today.
Vaccination Myth 4: Vaccination is based on sound immunization theory and practice.
Vaccination Myth 5: Childhood diseases are extremely dangerous.
Vaccination Myth 6: Polio was one of the clearly great vaccination success stories.
Vaccination Myth 7: My child had no short-term reaction to vaccination, so there is nothing to worry about.
Vaccination Myth 8: Vaccines are the only disease prevention option available.
Vaccination Myth 9: Vaccinations are a legal requirement and thus unavoidable.
Vaccination Myth 10:Public health officials always place health above all other concerns.
Summary
What You Can Do
Read...
Contact...
Use Alternatives
Boost Immunity
Spread the Word
References

Vaccination Myth 1: Vaccines are completely safe.

The Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. receives about 11,000 reports of serious adverse reactions to vaccination annually, some 1% (112+) of which are deaths from vaccine reactions.[1] The majority of these reports are made by doctors, and the majority of deaths are attributed to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, the F' in DPT, often known as the Triple Vaccine in Britain which also includes vaccines for Diptheria and Tetanus. This figure alone is alarming, yet it is only the tip of the iceberg.' The FDA estimates that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported,[2] a figure supportecLby two National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) investigations. [3] In fact, the NVIC reported that In New York, only one out of 40 doctors' offices [2.5%] confirmed that they report a death or injury following vaccination,' - 97.5% of vaccine related deaths and disabilities go unreported there. Implications about the integrity of medical professionals aside (doctors are legally required to report serious adverse events), these findings suggest that vaccine deaths actually occurring each year may be well over
1,000.

With pertussis, the number of vaccine-related deaths dwarfs the number of disease deaths, which have been about 10 annually for recent years according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), and only 8 in 1993, the last peak-incidence year (pertussis runs in 3-4 year cycles, though vaccination certainly doesn't). Simply put, the vaccine is 100 times more deadly than the disease. Given the many instances in which highly vaccinated populations have contracted disease (see Myth 2), and the fact that the vast majority of disease decline this century occurred before compulsory vaccinations (pertussis deaths declined 79% prior to vaccines - see Myth 3), this comparison is a valid one-and this enormous number of vaccine casualties can hardly be considered a necessary sacrifice for the benefit of a disease-free society.

Unfortunately, the vaccine-related deaths story doesn't end here. Both national and international studies have shown vaccination to be a cause of SIDS [4,5] (SIDS is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,' a catch-all' diagnosis given when the specific cause of death is unknown; estimates range from 5 - 10,000 cases each year in the U.S.). One study found the peak incidence of SIDS occurred at the ages of 2 and 4 months in the U.S., precisely when the first two routine immunizations are given,[4] while another found a clear pattern of correlation extending three weeks after immunization. Another study found that 3,000 children die within 4 days of vaccination each year in the U.S. (amazingly, the authors reported no SIDS/vaccine relationship), while yet another researcher's studies led to the conclusion that half of SIDS cases - that would be 2500 to 5000 infant deaths in the U.S. each year - are caused by vaccines.[4]

There are studies that claimed to find no SIDS-vaccine relationship. However, many of these were invalidated by yet another study which found that confounding' had skewed their results in favor of the vaccine.[6] Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? Shouldn't any credible correlation between vaccines and infant deaths be just cause for meticulous, widespread monitoring of the vaccination status of all SIDS cases? In the mid 70s Japan raised their vaccination age from 2 months to 2 years; their incidence of SIDS dropped dramatically. In spite of this, the U.S. medical community has chosen a posture of denial. Coroners refuse to check the vaccination status of SIDS victims, and unsuspecting families continue to pay the price, unaware of the dangers and denied the right to make a choice.

Low adverse event reporting also suggests that the total number of adverse reactions actually occurring each year may be more than 100,000. Due to doctors' failure to report, no one knc~ws how many of these are permanent disabilities, but statistics suggest that it is several times the number of deaths (see petitions' below). This concern is reinforced by a study which revealed that 1 in 175 children who completed the full DPT series suffered severe reactions' [7] and a Dr's report for attorneys which found that 1 in 300 DPT immunizations resulted in seizures.
[8]

England actually saw a drop in pertussis deaths when vaccination rates dropped from 80% to 30% in the mid 70s. Swedish epidemiologist B. Trollfors' study of pertussis vaccine efficacy and toxicity around the world found that pertussis-associated mortality is currently very low in industrialised countries and no difference can be discerned when countries with high, low, and zero immunisation rates were compared.' He also found that England, Wales, and West Germany had more pertussis fatalities in 1970 when the immunization rate was high than during the last half of 1980, when rates had fallen. [9]

Vaccinations cost us much more than just the lives and health of our children. The U.S. Federal Government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) has paid out over $724.4 million to parents of vaccine injured and killed children, in taxpayer dollars. The NVICP has received over 5000 petitions since 1988, including over 700 for vaccine-related deaths, and there are still some two thousand total death and injury cases pending that may take years to resolve. [10] Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies have a captive market: vaccines are legally mandated in all 50 U.S. states (though legally avoidable in most; see Myth 9), yet these same companies are immune' from accountability for the consequences of their products. Furthermore, they have been allowed to use gag orders' as a leverage tool in vaccine damage legal settlements to prevent disclosure of information to the public about vaccination dangers. Such arrangements are clearly unethical; they force a non-consenting American public to pay for vaccine manufacturer's liabilities, while attempting to ensure that this same public will remain ignorant of the dangers of their products.

It is interesting to note that insurance companies (who do the best liability studies) refuse to cover vaccine adverse reactions. Profits appear to dictate both the pharmaceutical and insurance companies' positions.
Vaccination Truth 1: Vaccination causes significant death and disability at an astounding personal and financil cost to families and taxpayers

Vaccination Myth 2: Vaccines are very effective.
The medical literature has a surprising number of studies documenting vaccine failure. Measles, mumps, small p ox, polio and Hib outbreaks have all occurred in vaccinated populations. [11, 12, 13, 14, 15] In 1989 the CDC reported:
Among school-aged children [measles] outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination levels of greater than 98 percent.[16][They] have occurred in all parts of the country, including areas that had not reported measles for years.' [17] The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100 percent vaccinated population. [18] A study examining this phenomenon concluded:
The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.' [19] A more recent study found that measles produces immune suppression which contributes to an increased susceptibility to other infections.'[19a]

These studies suggest that the goal of complete immunization is actually counterproductive, a notion underscored by instances in which epidemics followed complete immunization of entire countries. Japan experienced yearly increases in small pox following the introduction of compulsory vaccines in 1872. By 1892, there were 29,979 deaths, and all had been vaccinated. [20] Early in this century, the Philippines experienced their worst smallpox epidemic ever after 8 million people received 24.5 million vaccine doses; the death rate quadrupled as a result. [21] In 1989, the country of
Oman experienced a widespread polio outbreak six months after achieving complete vaccination. [22] In the U.S. in 1986, 90% of 1300 pertussis cases in Kansas were adequately vaccinated.' [23] 72% of pertussis cases in the 1993 Chicago outbreak were fully up to date with their vaccinations.[24]
Vaccination Truth 2: Evidence suggests that vaccination is an unreliable means of preventing disease.

Vaccine Dangers

Dispelling Vaccination Myths

Dispelling Vaccination Myths
An Introduction to the Contradictions between Medical Science & Immunization Policy
by Alan Phillips

Preface to This Edition
The following text is taken directly from the Prometheus edition as printed in the United Kindom in 1999. Any references and copyrights refer to that edition.
Introduction
When my son began his routine vaccination series at age two months, I did not know there were any risks associated with immunizations. But the clinic's literature contained a contradiction: the chances of a serious adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine were 1 in 1750, while his chances of dying from pertussis each year were 1 in several million. When I pointed this out to the physician, he angrily disagreed, and stormed out of the room mumbling, I guess I should read that sometime...' Soon thereafter I learned of a child who had been permanently disabled by a vaccine, so I decided to investigate for myself. My findings have so alarmed me that I feel compelled to share them; hence this report.

Health authorities credit vaccines for disease declines, and assure us of their safety and effectiveness. Yet these seemingly rock-solid assumptions are directly contradicted by health statistics, medical studies, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports, and reputable research scientists from around the world. In fact, infectious diseases declined steadily for decades prior to vaccinations, U.S. doctors report thousands of serious vaccine reactions each year including hundreds of deaths and permanent disabilities, fully vaccinated populations have experienced epidemics, and researchers attribute dozens of chronic immunological and neurological conditions to mass immunization programs.

There are hundreds of published medical studies documenting vaccine failure and adverse effects, and dozens of books written by doctors, researchers and independent investigators that reveal serious flaws in immunization
theory and practice. Ironically, most pediatricians and parents are completely unaware of these findings. However, this has begun to change in recent years, as a growing number of parents and healthcare providers around the world are becoming aware of the problems and starting to question the use of widespread, mandatory vaccinations.

My point it not to tell anyone whether or not to vaccinate, but rather, with the utmost urgency, to point out some very good reasons why everyone should examine the facts before deciding whether or not to submit to the procedure. As a new parent, I was shocked to discover the absence of a legal mandate or professional ethic requiring pediatricians to be fully informed, and to see first-hand the prevalence of physicians who are applying practices based on incomplete and in some cases, outright mis-information.

Though only a brief introduction, this report contains sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation by all concerned, which I highly recommend. You will find that this is the only way to get an objective view, as the controversy is a highly emotional one.

A note of caution: Be careful trying to discuss this subject with a pediatrician. Most have staked their identities and reputations on the presumed safety and effectiveness of vaccines and thus have difficulty acknowledging evidence to the contrary. The first pediatrician I attempted to share my findings with yelled angrily at me when I calmly brought up the subject. The misconceptions have very deep roots.

Index
(click on the links below to go directly to that section)
Preface to the Prometheus edition
Vaccination Myth 1: Vaccines are completely safe.
Vaccination Myth 2: Vaccines are very effective.
Vaccination Myth 3: Vaccines are the main reason for low disease rates in the U.S. today.
Vaccination Myth 4: Vaccination is based on sound immunization theory and practice.
Vaccination Myth 5: Childhood diseases are extremely dangerous.
Vaccination Myth 6: Polio was one of the clearly great vaccination success stories.
Vaccination Myth 7: My child had no short-term reaction to vaccination, so there is nothing to worry about.
Vaccination Myth 8: Vaccines are the only disease prevention option available.
Vaccination Myth 9: Vaccinations are a legal requirement and thus unavoidable.
Vaccination Myth 10:Public health officials always place health above all other concerns.
Summary
What You Can Do
Read...
Contact...
Use Alternatives
Boost Immunity
Spread the Word
References

Vaccination Myth 1: Vaccines are completely safe.

The Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. receives about 11,000 reports of serious adverse reactions to vaccination annually, some 1% (112+) of which are deaths from vaccine reactions.[1] The majority of these reports are made by doctors, and the majority of deaths are attributed to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, the F' in DPT, often known as the Triple Vaccine in Britain which also includes vaccines for Diptheria and Tetanus. This figure alone is alarming, yet it is only the tip of the iceberg.' The FDA estimates that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported,[2] a figure supportecLby two National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) investigations. [3] In fact, the NVIC reported that In New York, only one out of 40 doctors' offices [2.5%] confirmed that they report a death or injury following vaccination,' - 97.5% of vaccine related deaths and disabilities go unreported there. Implications about the integrity of medical professionals aside (doctors are legally required to report serious adverse events), these findings suggest that vaccine deaths actually occurring each year may be well over
1,000.

With pertussis, the number of vaccine-related deaths dwarfs the number of disease deaths, which have been about 10 annually for recent years according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), and only 8 in 1993, the last peak-incidence year (pertussis runs in 3-4 year cycles, though vaccination certainly doesn't). Simply put, the vaccine is 100 times more deadly than the disease. Given the many instances in which highly vaccinated populations have contracted disease (see Myth 2), and the fact that the vast majority of disease decline this century occurred before compulsory vaccinations (pertussis deaths declined 79% prior to vaccines - see Myth 3), this comparison is a valid one-and this enormous number of vaccine casualties can hardly be considered a necessary sacrifice for the benefit of a disease-free society.

Unfortunately, the vaccine-related deaths story doesn't end here. Both national and international studies have shown vaccination to be a cause of SIDS [4,5] (SIDS is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,' a catch-all' diagnosis given when the specific cause of death is unknown; estimates range from 5 - 10,000 cases each year in the U.S.). One study found the peak incidence of SIDS occurred at the ages of 2 and 4 months in the U.S., precisely when the first two routine immunizations are given,[4] while another found a clear pattern of correlation extending three weeks after immunization. Another study found that 3,000 children die within 4 days of vaccination each year in the U.S. (amazingly, the authors reported no SIDS/vaccine relationship), while yet another researcher's studies led to the conclusion that half of SIDS cases - that would be 2500 to 5000 infant deaths in the U.S. each year - are caused by vaccines.[4]

There are studies that claimed to find no SIDS-vaccine relationship. However, many of these were invalidated by yet another study which found that confounding' had skewed their results in favor of the vaccine.[6] Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? Shouldn't any credible correlation between vaccines and infant deaths be just cause for meticulous, widespread monitoring of the vaccination status of all SIDS cases? In the mid 70s Japan raised their vaccination age from 2 months to 2 years; their incidence of SIDS dropped dramatically. In spite of this, the U.S. medical community has chosen a posture of denial. Coroners refuse to check the vaccination status of SIDS victims, and unsuspecting families continue to pay the price, unaware of the dangers and denied the right to make a choice.

Low adverse event reporting also suggests that the total number of adverse reactions actually occurring each year may be more than 100,000. Due to doctors' failure to report, no one knc~ws how many of these are permanent disabilities, but statistics suggest that it is several times the number of deaths (see petitions' below). This concern is reinforced by a study which revealed that 1 in 175 children who completed the full DPT series suffered severe reactions' [7] and a Dr's report for attorneys which found that 1 in 300 DPT immunizations resulted in seizures.
[8]

England actually saw a drop in pertussis deaths when vaccination rates dropped from 80% to 30% in the mid 70s. Swedish epidemiologist B. Trollfors' study of pertussis vaccine efficacy and toxicity around the world found that pertussis-associated mortality is currently very low in industrialised countries and no difference can be discerned when countries with high, low, and zero immunisation rates were compared.' He also found that England, Wales, and West Germany had more pertussis fatalities in 1970 when the immunization rate was high than during the last half of 1980, when rates had fallen. [9]

Vaccinations cost us much more than just the lives and health of our children. The U.S. Federal Government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) has paid out over $724.4 million to parents of vaccine injured and killed children, in taxpayer dollars. The NVICP has received over 5000 petitions since 1988, including over 700 for vaccine-related deaths, and there are still some two thousand total death and injury cases pending that may take years to resolve. [10] Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies have a captive market: vaccines are legally mandated in all 50 U.S. states (though legally avoidable in most; see Myth 9), yet these same companies are immune' from accountability for the consequences of their products. Furthermore, they have been allowed to use gag orders' as a leverage tool in vaccine damage legal settlements to prevent disclosure of information to the public about vaccination dangers. Such arrangements are clearly unethical; they force a non-consenting American public to pay for vaccine manufacturer's liabilities, while attempting to ensure that this same public will remain ignorant of the dangers of their products.

It is interesting to note that insurance companies (who do the best liability studies) refuse to cover vaccine adverse reactions. Profits appear to dictate both the pharmaceutical and insurance companies' positions.
Vaccination Truth 1: Vaccination causes significant death and disability at an astounding personal and financil cost to families and taxpayers

Vaccine Dangers

Dispelling Vaccination Myths

Dispelling Vaccination Myths
An Introduction to the Contradictions between Medical Science & Immunization Policy
by Alan Phillips

Preface to This Edition
The following text is taken directly from the Prometheus edition as printed in the United Kindom in 1999. Any references and copyrights refer to that edition.
Introduction
When my son began his routine vaccination series at age two months, I did not know there were any risks associated with immunizations. But the clinic's literature contained a contradiction: the chances of a serious adverse reaction to the DPT vaccine were 1 in 1750, while his chances of dying from pertussis each year were 1 in several million. When I pointed this out to the physician, he angrily disagreed, and stormed out of the room mumbling, I guess I should read that sometime...' Soon thereafter I learned of a child who had been permanently disabled by a vaccine, so I decided to investigate for myself. My findings have so alarmed me that I feel compelled to share them; hence this report.

Health authorities credit vaccines for disease declines, and assure us of their safety and effectiveness. Yet these seemingly rock-solid assumptions are directly contradicted by health statistics, medical studies, Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) reports, and reputable research scientists from around the world. In fact, infectious diseases declined steadily for decades prior to vaccinations, U.S. doctors report thousands of serious vaccine reactions each year including hundreds of deaths and permanent disabilities, fully vaccinated populations have experienced epidemics, and researchers attribute dozens of chronic immunological and neurological conditions to mass immunization programs.

There are hundreds of published medical studies documenting vaccine failure and adverse effects, and dozens of books written by doctors, researchers and independent investigators that reveal serious flaws in immunization
theory and practice. Ironically, most pediatricians and parents are completely unaware of these findings. However, this has begun to change in recent years, as a growing number of parents and healthcare providers around the world are becoming aware of the problems and starting to question the use of widespread, mandatory vaccinations.

My point it not to tell anyone whether or not to vaccinate, but rather, with the utmost urgency, to point out some very good reasons why everyone should examine the facts before deciding whether or not to submit to the procedure. As a new parent, I was shocked to discover the absence of a legal mandate or professional ethic requiring pediatricians to be fully informed, and to see first-hand the prevalence of physicians who are applying practices based on incomplete and in some cases, outright mis-information.

Though only a brief introduction, this report contains sufficient evidence to warrant further investigation by all concerned, which I highly recommend. You will find that this is the only way to get an objective view, as the controversy is a highly emotional one.

A note of caution: Be careful trying to discuss this subject with a pediatrician. Most have staked their identities and reputations on the presumed safety and effectiveness of vaccines and thus have difficulty acknowledging evidence to the contrary. The first pediatrician I attempted to share my findings with yelled angrily at me when I calmly brought up the subject. The misconceptions have very deep roots.

Index
(click on the links below to go directly to that section)
Preface to the Prometheus edition
Vaccination Myth 1: Vaccines are completely safe.
Vaccination Myth 2: Vaccines are very effective.
Vaccination Myth 3: Vaccines are the main reason for low disease rates in the U.S. today.
Vaccination Myth 4: Vaccination is based on sound immunization theory and practice.
Vaccination Myth 5: Childhood diseases are extremely dangerous.
Vaccination Myth 6: Polio was one of the clearly great vaccination success stories.
Vaccination Myth 7: My child had no short-term reaction to vaccination, so there is nothing to worry about.
Vaccination Myth 8: Vaccines are the only disease prevention option available.
Vaccination Myth 9: Vaccinations are a legal requirement and thus unavoidable.
Vaccination Myth 10:Public health officials always place health above all other concerns.
Summary
What You Can Do
Read...
Contact...
Use Alternatives
Boost Immunity
Spread the Word
References

Vaccination Myth 1: Vaccines are completely safe.

The Vaccine Adverse Effects Reporting System (VAERS) of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the U.S. receives about 11,000 reports of serious adverse reactions to vaccination annually, some 1% (112+) of which are deaths from vaccine reactions.[1] The majority of these reports are made by doctors, and the majority of deaths are attributed to the pertussis (whooping cough) vaccine, the F' in DPT, often known as the Triple Vaccine in Britain which also includes vaccines for Diptheria and Tetanus. This figure alone is alarming, yet it is only the tip of the iceberg.' The FDA estimates that only about 10% of adverse reactions are reported,[2] a figure supportecLby two National Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) investigations. [3] In fact, the NVIC reported that In New York, only one out of 40 doctors' offices [2.5%] confirmed that they report a death or injury following vaccination,' - 97.5% of vaccine related deaths and disabilities go unreported there. Implications about the integrity of medical professionals aside (doctors are legally required to report serious adverse events), these findings suggest that vaccine deaths actually occurring each year may be well over
1,000.

With pertussis, the number of vaccine-related deaths dwarfs the number of disease deaths, which have been about 10 annually for recent years according to the CDC (Centers for Disease Control), and only 8 in 1993, the last peak-incidence year (pertussis runs in 3-4 year cycles, though vaccination certainly doesn't). Simply put, the vaccine is 100 times more deadly than the disease. Given the many instances in which highly vaccinated populations have contracted disease (see Myth 2), and the fact that the vast majority of disease decline this century occurred before compulsory vaccinations (pertussis deaths declined 79% prior to vaccines - see Myth 3), this comparison is a valid one-and this enormous number of vaccine casualties can hardly be considered a necessary sacrifice for the benefit of a disease-free society.

Unfortunately, the vaccine-related deaths story doesn't end here. Both national and international studies have shown vaccination to be a cause of SIDS [4,5] (SIDS is Sudden Infant Death Syndrome,' a catch-all' diagnosis given when the specific cause of death is unknown; estimates range from 5 - 10,000 cases each year in the U.S.). One study found the peak incidence of SIDS occurred at the ages of 2 and 4 months in the U.S., precisely when the first two routine immunizations are given,[4] while another found a clear pattern of correlation extending three weeks after immunization. Another study found that 3,000 children die within 4 days of vaccination each year in the U.S. (amazingly, the authors reported no SIDS/vaccine relationship), while yet another researcher's studies led to the conclusion that half of SIDS cases - that would be 2500 to 5000 infant deaths in the U.S. each year - are caused by vaccines.[4]

There are studies that claimed to find no SIDS-vaccine relationship. However, many of these were invalidated by yet another study which found that confounding' had skewed their results in favor of the vaccine.[6] Shouldn't we err on the side of caution? Shouldn't any credible correlation between vaccines and infant deaths be just cause for meticulous, widespread monitoring of the vaccination status of all SIDS cases? In the mid 70s Japan raised their vaccination age from 2 months to 2 years; their incidence of SIDS dropped dramatically. In spite of this, the U.S. medical community has chosen a posture of denial. Coroners refuse to check the vaccination status of SIDS victims, and unsuspecting families continue to pay the price, unaware of the dangers and denied the right to make a choice.

Low adverse event reporting also suggests that the total number of adverse reactions actually occurring each year may be more than 100,000. Due to doctors' failure to report, no one knc~ws how many of these are permanent disabilities, but statistics suggest that it is several times the number of deaths (see petitions' below). This concern is reinforced by a study which revealed that 1 in 175 children who completed the full DPT series suffered severe reactions' [7] and a Dr's report for attorneys which found that 1 in 300 DPT immunizations resulted in seizures.
[8]

England actually saw a drop in pertussis deaths when vaccination rates dropped from 80% to 30% in the mid 70s. Swedish epidemiologist B. Trollfors' study of pertussis vaccine efficacy and toxicity around the world found that pertussis-associated mortality is currently very low in industrialised countries and no difference can be discerned when countries with high, low, and zero immunisation rates were compared.' He also found that England, Wales, and West Germany had more pertussis fatalities in 1970 when the immunization rate was high than during the last half of 1980, when rates had fallen. [9]

Vaccinations cost us much more than just the lives and health of our children. The U.S. Federal Government's National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (NVICP) has paid out over $724.4 million to parents of vaccine injured and killed children, in taxpayer dollars. The NVICP has received over 5000 petitions since 1988, including over 700 for vaccine-related deaths, and there are still some two thousand total death and injury cases pending that may take years to resolve. [10] Meanwhile, pharmaceutical companies have a captive market: vaccines are legally mandated in all 50 U.S. states (though legally avoidable in most; see Myth 9), yet these same companies are immune' from accountability for the consequences of their products. Furthermore, they have been allowed to use gag orders' as a leverage tool in vaccine damage legal settlements to prevent disclosure of information to the public about vaccination dangers. Such arrangements are clearly unethical; they force a non-consenting American public to pay for vaccine manufacturer's liabilities, while attempting to ensure that this same public will remain ignorant of the dangers of their products.

It is interesting to note that insurance companies (who do the best liability studies) refuse to cover vaccine adverse reactions. Profits appear to dictate both the pharmaceutical and insurance companies' positions.
Vaccination Truth 1: Vaccination causes significant death and disability at an astounding personal and financil cost to families and taxpayers

Reiki has been recreated in Japan from an ancient Tibetan metho

Reiki is a system of subtle vibrational healing that has been recreated
in Japan from an ancient Tibetan method.By moving energy in and around the
human form, through the biofield encapsulating the entire body, a current
projected from the practitioners hands can be established to promote a
natural flow of energy in the subject.Strategic stationary hand positions
are applied to specific regions of the body's electromagnetic field in
order to locate minute disruptions.These disruptions,the true root source
of the discomfort afflicting an individual may be perceived as an absence
or overdose of energy in a region of the energy system or a sign that
somewhere within the energy pathways of the body, the flow of energy has
been blocked.The energy projected then acts as a catalyst, improving
overall health by triggering the body's natural ability to heal itself
through the body's own innate wisdom.This form of non evasive healing is
initiated at a subatomic level and in the case of chronic illnesses, is
geared towards uncovering sources of negative patterns of thought,in turn
releasing these cellular memories and or emotions that may have been
compounding for a life time.This powerful method of projecting pure energy
is based on the same energetic principles of Tai Chi and acupuncture
making it capable of attaining the desired positive effect regardless of
whether it's recipient has belief in it's capabilities or not.


Regards,

Laurence Frederick
Access Natural Healing
Suite 101 - 1416 Commercial Drive
Vancouver, BC V5L 3X9
604-568-4663

Homeopathy and CBC Marketplace: The Real Truth

Dear Dhiru Nathwani:

Thank you for your correspondence to the Canadian Radio-television and
Telecommunications Commission regarding the CBC MARKETPLACE story on
homeopathy which aired on January 14, 2011. It is "blatantly false and
misleading", you wrote further suggesting that the content may have been
influenced by "powerful Big Pharma interests."

CBC prides itself on the excellence of its journalism. We take very
seriously any assertion that our journalism is inaccurate, biased or unfair,
or in any way fails to meet the rigorous criteria set out in the CBC's
*Journalistic
Standards and Practices.*Where criticisms are justified, we take immediate
corrective action.

With respect, your assessment of the program is not one that we share. You
wrote about a number of specific shortcomings you find in "Cure or Con?" and
we want to respond to them in turn.

First, you questioned "Why did MARKETPLACE use the wrong and inappropriate
technology to analyze homeopathic dilutions? The correct and appropriate
technology is RAMAN spectroscopy, not MASS spectroscopy.

"

As a consumer program, MARKETPLACE regularly tests products available to
the general public. The program approached the testing of over-the-counter
homeopathic remedies, available to the general public, in the same manner as
it would any other consumer product that can be bought off the shelf.

MARKETPLACE began with the basic premise, as would most consumers, that
these products contain at least some level of active ingredient. With this
assumption in mind, that there is indeed an active ingredient, it set out to
determine if said ingredient could be identified and, in fact, be detected.
Two products, Ipeca and Belladonna were selected for analysis. Each are
well-known to be derived from natural sources (yielding the compounds
emetine and atropine, respectively) for which both have known
pharmacological effects in humans.

Liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) is the most
appropriate analytical method for identification and quantitation of these
compounds. Mass spectrometry provides superior sensitivity and specificity
than any other accepted analytical technique for the analysis of emetine and
atropine in sugar pellets. This technique allowed those conducting the tests
to detect far lower levels of the ingredients (analytes) than can be
achieved via alternative analytical methods such as Raman spectroscopy, IR
spectroscopy, NMR spectroscopy or UV/Visible spectroscopy.

It has been suggested that Raman spectroscopy might be the 'correct'
analytical technique to distinguish homeopathic remedies having excessive
dilution factors (i.e. those in excess of 10^24 such as the 30C
formulation). That the use of Raman Spectroscopy in this application is
appropriate would be predicated first on accepting the scientific validity
of the theory of the "memory of water". Despite the controversy and debate
surrounding this issue, there is neither a known nor plausible
physical/chemical explanation for the memory of water.

Second, you asked "Why did MARKETPLACE not show the correct two-step
dilution process? Swirling dilution in open unstoppered bottles (like
swirling wine in a wine glass) without mechanical shocks and without the
correct quantity of the diluting medium was intended to make homeopathy look
ridiculous."

By "two-step dilution process," we believe you are referring to the actual
diluting process (dilution) coupled with vigorous shaking between each
dilution (succussion). The programs' presentation did show both steps and
did explain the reasoning behind each step. The process depicted was not
intended to be an exact "how-to" but rather an illustrative representation
of the basic steps and philosophies involved. It was meant to serve a wide
television audience whose members were, for the most part, completely
unfamiliar with the manufacture of homeopathic remedies.

Third, you asked "Why did MARKETPLACE not interview medical doctors who
practice homeopathy at various homeopathic hospitals in the U.K. and also
scientists?"

MARKETPLACE made a point of seeking out comment from Canadian homeopaths.
This story focused on pending federal regulation of the homeopathic
profession, as well as the efficacy of the medicines used. Since the story
concerned the profession, we wanted to talk to someone who could speak on
behalf of one of the organizations representing Canadian homeopaths. Our
view was and remains that this is a popular treatment in this country, and
there are professional organizations in this country which should be able to
speak to the issues. The program contacted the Ontario Homeopathic
Association, the Canadian Society of Homeopaths and Nupath. We asked each of
those organizations if we could speak with a representative in an on-camera
interview. All declined.

MARKETPLACE's producers thought, as we believe our viewers would, that the
program should not have to go outside Canadian borders in order to find a
suitable spokesperson. As you may recall, the Homeopathic Medical Council of
Canada did agree to speak on air, and we spoke with their representative,
Ranvir Sharda, on the program. And the producers of MARKETPLACE are well
aware of Peter Gold; he has contacted the program and its researchers on
numerous occasions.

Another of your questions was: "What was MARKETPLACE trying to establish
when it asked a group of people to take contents of whole tubes of
homeopathic pills? That the pills don't work? If so, why was this experiment
not properly done and carried to its conclusion?"

As part of the program, CBC filmed members of the organization Centre for
Inquiry Canada, a group dedicated to, in their words, "reason, science,
secularism and freedom of inquiry" taking multiple doses of common and
popular homeopathic preparations. The aim of this organization is create
debate on issues including alternative medical therapies, like homeopathy.
The program did provide an opportunity for this organization to express
their opinion on the claims made by proponents of homeopathy. While
laboratory experiments and results are useful in explaining the veracity of
a remedy's claims (and the program did undertake a number of tests and duly
reported the findings), television is a visual medium. For many viewers,
seeing a test like the one conducted by CFI provides information in the same
way that showing regular users of homeopathy taking the remedies does:
provide a wide spectrum of opinions from which viewers are able to make
their own determination on a subject.

Lastly, you asked "Why did MARKETPLACE not post a link [to] the British
Government's response to the report of the Science and Technology
Committee?"

CBC MARKETPLACE posted a link on its show's website to the report filed by
the British House of Commons' Science and Technology Committee titled
"Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy" to provide our audience with an additional
resource on this subject. As the report states, the purpose of the committee
is to "examine how the Government uses evidence to formulate and review its
policies." This specific report was an examination of the reasoning behind
the decision by the National Health Service, the publicly funded health
service, to fund homeopathy and to license homeopathic products. To
investigate this issue, the committee sought out scientific evidence on
homeopathic evidence, based in part on the fact that "scientific evidence
was not used" to create the guidelines surrounding the licensing of
homeopathic products.

The government's response provided no new information in relation to the
findings of the report, that is, it did not support or deny the findings of
the committee. Rather, it reiterated that as a policy, funding would
continue through the NHS for homeopathic remedies because it provided
patients with "choice."

CBC had no preconceptions approaching this story. We set out to look at
homeopathy from a consumers' point of view. In fact, CBC MARKETPLACE prides
itself on its tests, which are neutral and objective.

While we regret that you take issue with the presentation, we hope we have
addressed some of the issues that you raise. Please note that we have made
your concerns known to the senior producers of MARKETPLACE as well as senior
staff in CBC News, and senior management at CBC, including the President and
CEO of CBC.

It is also our responsibility to tell you that if you are not satisfied
with this response, you may wish to submit the matter for review by the CBC
Ombudsman. The Office of the Ombudsman, an independent and impartial body
reporting directly to the President, is responsible for evaluating program
compliance with the CBC's journalistic policies. The Ombudsman may be
reached by mail at the address shown below, or by fax at (416) 205- 2825, or
by e-mail at ombudsman@...<http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeoworks/post?postID=qXx-JzyxWgNNZYVQvstZ6q2EtySLGXAHquT3ip5_Tf2O3h-QwvkFPvdGhT1HM-JUHcTbCdJ6i3Mi-y0>
.

Sincerely,

Denis Andrychuk

Communications Officer

CBC Audience Relations

Side-by-Side Homeopathy has been a wonderful addition to Onsite's ­recovery programming

Homeopathic Healing in Vancouver's Downtown Eastside

by Julie Cheng
Source: Health Action, Winter 2010

There's a real sense of belonging here, where people greet each other by name, look out for each other and are by turns kind and dysfunctional―just like in any community. But unlike any community, this is the heart of the Vancouver's poorest neighbourhood, the Downtown Eastside, and to walk these streets you sense you have to be one those who dare―or those who care.

Elena Cecchetto and Krista Leonard are two of those who care. Leaving the hubbub of the street, they enter the Portland Hotel and go up the stairs, past a message painted on the wall, "Give your best to those who matter the most."

They run into Shane B., who greets them warmly. "I don't know what you gave me, but it worked," he says.

Side by Side Homeopathy
What they gave Shane were homeopathic remedies, and Elena and Krista are volunteers with Side by Side ­Homeopathy.

Elena, known simply as El, is a certified homeopath and a founding member of Side by Side Homeopathy, which ­started in 2009. The society put out a call to homeopaths, saying they wanted to help people in the Downtown Eastside. Today Side-by-Side Homeopathy is a non-profit whose purpose is to help people who wouldn't be able to regularly ­access homeopathy.

What inspired El to start Side by Side Homeopathy? When she was going to­­ ­homeopathy school, someone close to her struggled with addiction. Later, El helped people with addictions in her fourth-year project. The Portland Hotel, which runs a detox centre on the second floor and ­houses clients on the third floor, asked her to start a program, and Side-by -Side ­Homeopathy was born as part of the hotel's Onsite Transitional Housing ­Program.

From the Portland Hotel, the project expanded to include Ranier Hotel and then the Life Skills Centre. Currently 30 volunteer homeopaths visit these three sites once to twice a week for approximately three-hour sessions. On a typical visit, the homeopaths will meet with three to four patients.

The gift of giving--and receiving
Together with Krista, a fourth-year student at the Vancouver ­Homeopathic Academy, El volunteers weekly at the Portland Hotel to help residents with a history of drug use.
"We treat the core thing that's lead them to the addiction, and that allows them to heal themselves," says El. "Homeopathy treats every single person differently; we're treating the person, not the disease. That's why I love homeopathy so much."

El gets back just as much as she gives. For her, it's a new adventure every time she sees a new patient. "This is another reason I love homeopathy--I'm always learning from every person, especially in the Downtown Eastside. The amount of generosity and heart in this community is amazing."

A student volunteer for one and a half years now, Krista feels the same way. "You see so many people and learn so many different remedies. I feel it's advanced my learning tremendously and I'm more comfortable working with patients. I feel like I get a lot from it as well as contributing to it."

"As much as you help them, you're always learning. I knew homeopathy was the profession for me, because of the lifelong learning. People feel there are others who care about them―and care about them being well. It's been amazing for me to be part of Side-by-Side."

Positive results
"Side-by-Side Homeopathy has been a wonderful addition to Onsite's ­recovery programming," says Jeanine LeDuc, manager of Onsite Transitional Housing. "They have helped many of our clients find alternative ways to deal with their addictions and health issues."

Phil Misquitta, mental health care worker at the Portland Hotel for three years, sees the benefits first-hand. "One of the best things about the Side by Side program is people are given an alternative to pharmaceutical options," he says. "So many of our clients are entrenched in pharmaceuticals. With Side by Side, they're given an opportunity to take something natural to help their health. It's an eye-opener for them." Clients have experienced relief from nausea, digestive complaints, chronic physical pain, insomnia, anxiety and nightmares.

Phil sees an added benefit: "The whole process, sitting down with two homeopaths--just that one-on-one attention from people who care--really has an ­effect. The homeopaths are asking them questions no one has ever asked them ­before."

Clients find they're able to express themselves freely and do a lot of soul searching, often coming to a deeper understanding of themselves―all part of the healing process. "Trauma, grief, addiction. It's no coincidence that if one doesn't get sorted out, the other doesn't get sorted out," says El.

Portland Hotel resident Shane B. certainly gives El and Krista credit for contributing, mentally and physically, to his recovery. "They asked a lot of hard questions, but it was worth the time and effort. It was a lengthy interview process, really in-depth--they cared," he says. "I'm doing extremely well partly because of them. I haven't done this well for 12 years."

Abdominal Pain

Abdominal pain:

I came into work feeling quite sick with a pain in my left abdomen. I felt a bit cold and unwell but any sudden movement was agonizing and sent a sharp burning pain into my left side of my lower abdomen. I was too out of it to figure out what to take and so limped round to my homoeopathic doctor around the corner from my pharmacy. He asked me to hop up on the couch for an examination and prodded around the painful area. I screamed out in pain as he hit the sensitive spot. He nearly had to scrape me off the ceiling. Then he declared that I had an acute inflammation of my sigmoid flexure. Great I said, get rid of it. He smiled and produced a bottle of Belladonna 10M granules from his desk drawer and gave me a capful on my tongue whilst I was recovering from the physical examination. I was aware that the pain felt like a marble-sized spot imbedded in my left side. I felt sick, cold and generally unwell. Within 30 seconds of the granules I experienced what can only be described as a nuclear explosion of this burning marble in my side. The localized burning sensation suddenly spread outward and turned into a warm sensation and sweat over my entire body. The pain went instantly and did not return. I felt quite well and went back to a full day’s work.
Tony Pinkus

Reiki Chakras

If love is the product of the heart chakra, then expression is the product of the throat chakra. Many practitioners of the vibrational healing arts have long considered the throat chakra sacred because it holds within it the information from all the chakras. Energies from the crown & third eye chakra move down through the throat on their way to the trunk of the body. Energy from the perineum, womb, solar plexus & heart chakras move up through the throat on their way to the head. Within the sacred container of the throat chakra, all of the energy is metabolized broken down & put back together before it manifests as ones own unique self expression. The two basic behavioral difficulties some people may have that are connected with the throat chakra are excessive vocal expression or minimal vocal expression. Speaking up is an anabolic process(putting things together & expressing them)Keeping quiet is a catabolic process.(receiving and assimilating)If there is too much energy in the chambers the person has difficulties speaking up. If their is too much energy in the anabolic chambers, one will have difficulty knowing when to remain quiet. The flow of this energy system is very important because unexpressed or blocked feelings can become physicalized as tension in the surrounding muscle groups eventually affecting the Temporomandibular Joint. Dysfunction in this joint may cause headaches, back pain or more serious functional problems throughout the body if the blocked energy is long standing. In a case such as this as specific methods are applied directly to the throat chakra & Temporomandibular Joint the energy pathways will gradually begin to open as the increased energy is directed to the area by not just the Reiki practitioner but the individuals body as well. As the energy revitalizes the throat, all muscles in the surrounding area will release their held tension and return to a more relaxed state, in turn counteracting any other byproduct of the blockage. As this treatments continues, more positive vocal self expression will also be realized. Regards, Laurence Frederick Access Natural Healing Suite 101 - 1416 Commercial Drive Vancouver, BC V5L 3X9 604-568-4663