Monthly Archives: April 2012

History Repeats Itself: Lessons Vaccinators Refuse to Learn, by Jennifer Craig, PhD

The old English proverb, “history repeats itself” is never better illustrated than in the practice of vaccination, a practice that became widespread in the nineteenth century and is still carried on today. A number of nineteenth century books on vaccination raise issues that are remarkably similar to those of today. However, because we have failed to learn the lessons presented by earlier writers, mostly physicians, we are now repeating the same mistakes, with dire consequences for the health of the population.

The purpose of this article is to consider what some of the notable physicians of the time had to say about vaccination; it is not to provide data for their opinions, although that data is available but beyond the scope of an article.

Four issues raised in the nineteenth century will be described and compared with today. First, the article will look at the refusal to accept data about vaccination; second, it will discuss the scientific debate about vaccination; third, it will consider mass vaccination and its consequences and fourth, it will criticize compulsory vaccination.

1. Refusal to Accept Data
Edward Jenner, an English apothecary, believing a rumour amongst dairymaids that succumbing to cowpox, a mild disease, prevented smallpox, decided to test out this rumour by inserting cowpox pus under a human’s skin to induce a case of cowpox. If the subject got cowpox, he would then try and induce smallpox.

Despite Jenner’s reputation as being the first to try out cowpox inoculation he “cannot be accredited with original discovery in the matter of cowpox inoculation, since all the chroniclers name Benjamin Jesty—a Dorsetshire farmer—Plett, a teacher, and Jensen, a Holstein farmer, as “successful experimenters” in the field of cowpox vaccination several years before Jenner’s first inoculation.”1 Perhaps their names are not recorded in history because the procedure did not prevent smallpox?

The truth of the rumour that having had cowpox protected you from smallpox could have been tested by a simple survey; that is, recording how many people with smallpox had had cowpox. Anyhow, many people knew it was false. Walter Hadwen, JP, MD, LRCP, MRCS, LSA, said in an address to the public on January 25, 1896 “When he (Jenner) first heard the story of the cowpox legend he began to mention it at the meetings of the medico-convivial society, where the old doctors of the day met to smoke their pipes, drink their glasses of grog, and talk over their cases. But he no sooner mentioned it than they laughed at it. The cow doctors could have told him of hundreds of cases where smallpox had followed cowpox.”2 (A cow doctor was a vet.)

Even Jenner’s supporters acknowledged the falseness of the rumour. The second report of the Royal Jennerian Society, 1806, states, “The Committee admit to having seen a few cases of smallpox by persons who had passed through the cow-pox in the usual way.”3 Nevertheless, despite the underlying false premise, experimentation went ahead.

Jenner’s first experiment on 8-year old James Phipps took place on May 14, 1796. He then repeated the procedure on several other children. Convinced of the success of his experiments he promised the credulous George III that his vaccine would have “the singularly beneficial effect of rendering through life the person so inoculated perfectly secure from the infection of the smallpox.”4

The king conveyed to parliament his desire that Jenner be awarded a benefaction out of the public purse and the equivalent of half a million dollars was awarded. From then on vaccination spawned an army of paid vaccinators who enforced the practice with zeal.

Cases of smallpox following vaccination began to occur with alarming frequency. Winterburn cites numerous instances. For example, “The Smallpox Hospital, London, is believed to be a fair representative of English experience: the number of cases of smallpox after vaccination has steadily risen from about 5% at the beginning of this century to 44% in 1845, 64% in 1855, 78% in 1865, 90% in 1875, and is now (1885) about 96%.”5

Not only were there more cases of smallpox, there were more deaths from it. The report of Dr. William Farr, Compiler of Statistics of the Registrar General of London stated: “Smallpox attained its maximum mortality after vaccination was introduced. The mean annual mortality for 10,000 population from 1850 to 1869 was at the rate of 2.04, whereas after compulsory vaccination in 1871 the death rate was 10.24. In 1872 the death rate was 8.33 and this after the most laudable efforts to extend vaccination by legislative enactments.”6

Despite these figures and numerous others reported, pro-vaccinists continued to pronounce that vaccination prevented smallpox. They still do.

After a disastrous smallpox epidemic in 1872, a Royal Commission on Vaccination was appointed in 1889 to look into the whole matter. Seven years and 136 meetings later the Commission issued “five principal reports, consisting of closely printed matter, together with the eight bulky appendices, weigh altogether more than 14 lb. avoirdupois!” Despite this weighty contrary evidence, it failed “to make a dent in their triple-plate conviction that in spite of everything vaccination does prevent smallpox!”7

Dr. Maclean, a well-known medical authority of the time, offered an explanation for the “triple-plate conviction” when he said, in 1810, “It will be thought incumbent on the vaccinators to come forward and disprove the numerous facts decisive against vaccination stated on unimpeachable authority, or make the amende honorable by a manly recantation. But experience forbids us to expect any such fair and magnanimous proceeding, and we may be assured that, under no circumstances, will they abandon so lucrative a practice, until the practice abandons them.”8

Maclean’s words are still true. The same conviction that vaccines prevent disease persists today, a conviction accompanied by the same downplaying of any evidence to the contrary.

In 2012 research reported by Reuters reveals that whooping cough outbreaks are higher among vaccinated children compared with unvaccinated children. This conclusion is based on a study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the Kaiser Permanente Medical Center in San Rafael, California.

Witt reported that in early 2010, a spike in cases appeared at Kaiser Permanente in San Rafael, and it was soon determined to be an outbreak of whooping cough — the largest seen in California in more than 50 years. Witt had expected to see the illness target unvaccinated kids, thinking they are more vulnerable to the disease. “We started dissecting the data. What was very surprising was the majority of cases were in fully vaccinated children. That’s what started catching our attention.”9 Witt should be congratulated for admitting this fact.

We have figures from the 1800s showing that large percentages of smallpox cases had been vaccinated and we have figures from 2010 showing that the majority of pertussis cases had been vaccinated, yet people continue to believe that vaccination prevents disease. How many more lessons do we need?

Not only did cowpox pus not prevent smallpox, it fostered its spread and produced numerous adverse effects. In 1807, Mr. Birch, of St. Thomas Hospital and Surgeon Extraordinary to the then Prince of Wales, said, “It is no infrequent thing, however, to hear a public vaccinator say that he has vaccinated a certain number of thousands and has never seen the slightest evil resulting. Well, one need not see the sun, if he will only resolutely shut his eyes. Again, I am sorry to say, that many medical men who recognize evil results, imagine that they may be covered up by prevarication. As if any good was ever done by a lie.”10

Today, only a fraction of adverse events following vaccination are reported. In the US, Congress passed its National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act in 1986. The Act required all doctors who administer vaccines to report reactions to federal health officials. However, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) estimates that only 10% of doctors report such incidents.11

Former FDA Commissioner David Kessler estimated in a 1993 article in the Journal of the American Medical Association that although the FDA receives many reports of adverse events, these probably represent only a fraction of those encountered by providers.12

Only adverse events that present within a few days of vaccination are considered to be the result of the vaccine; more chronic effects, such as asthma, are not associated with vaccination by the Authorities. A comparative study of vaccinated and non-vaccinated children would answer many questions but for some reason Health Authorities refuse to do it.

Two small comparative studies have been done by parent groups: one in New Zealand [13] and one in California [14]. Both studies showed that chronic conditions, such as autism, asthma and eczema, were more prevalent in vaccinated children. Whatever the results, why should parent groups have to conduct research that should be done by Health Authorities?

Back in the 1800s the injection of cowpox pus under the skin caused many diseases: syphilis, tuberculosis, and leprosy in particular. Records of this secondary infection include, for example: in 1867, M. Depaul, the chief of the Vaccination Service of the French Academy of Medicine, published an essay on the danger of syphilitic infection through vaccination. He enumerated half a dozen outbreaks of vaccinal-syphilis, in the course of which 160 children had been infected.15

Dr. A. Wilder, Professor of Pathology and former editor of The New York Medical Times, went so far as to say in 1901, “Vaccination is the infusion of a contaminating element into the system, and after such contamination you can never be sure of regaining the former purity of the body. Consumption (TB) follows in the wake of vaccination as certainly as effect follows cause.”16

Today’s children will certainly never regain their former “purity of the body” after being assaulted with vaccines from Day One. Not only do they suffer from chronic diseases such as asthma, diabetes and eczema but in 2012 the autism rate was 1:88 children and, as boys are more affected than girls, their rate is 1:54.

Instead of a massive research effort to explore the reason for this epidemic governments and the corporate press go to extraordinary lengths to deny any link between autism and vaccination despite the proven fact that metals such as aluminum and mercury, used in vaccines, cause neurological damage.

But a $17 billion a year industry is threatened.

2. Scientific Debate About Vaccination
That people can discuss issues, basing their arguments on verifiable data, is crucial in all fields of endeavor but more so in issues affecting health and well-being. One has only to look at the discussion forums around vaccination, whether for or against, to quickly realize that ignorance, prejudice and ad hominem attacks prevail.

For example, from Rational (sic) Wiki, “Suzanne Humphries is a nephrologist (kidney doctor) who has recently become a vocal proponent of pseudoscience and quack medicine. Humphries has been involved with the International Medical Council on Vaccination, a front group for vaccine hysteria …”17 The author is anonymous and has repeatedly reversed sections of the webpage after Dr Humphries attempted to correct her credentials and other overtly false information about her publications.

That Dr. Humphries is an internist and board-certified nephrologist, who enjoyed a successful career until she spoke her truth about vaccination, and that the IMCV is composed of highly credentialed people may, of course, be discounted when it comes to vaccination. Furthermore, any zealot with computer access feels free to hurl abuse at our most educated citizens because they, presumably, are in possession of irrefutable knowledge relayed by Fox news and can follow the democratic principle that my ignorance is equal to your expertise.

This low level of discourse is not new. Winterburn writes in 1885, “It seems ludicrous that a question of so much import, and of so purely a scientific nature, should be a matter of partisan clamor, but it ceases to be comic, and becomes painfully embarrassing, when men cannot discuss a question of vital importance to themselves and the race without being accused of sinister motives or of mental unsoundness. And yet this is just what has happened ever since the earliest years of Vaccination.”18

Being accused of mental unsoundness if you question vaccination goes on today. For example, a January issue of Canada’s Maclean’s magazine [19] proclaims on its cover, “How Vaccine Cranks Put Your Kids at Risk P.50.” The article inside is a wonderful example of Public Health propaganda parroted by an ignorant journalist and without a shred of evidence to be seen.

Winterburn, an American MD, Ph.D, is quite clear about the cause of this decline in the standards of scientific discourse. “Jenner began it in his efforts to suppress every fact which told against his theory, and his mantle has passed with the passing years to men of like aptitude for the suppression of disagreeable truths.”20

3. Mass Vaccination
Vaccinating people was the first time that physicians treated, and billed, healthy people. Dr. Hadwen said in his address in 1896, “I declare that when a person is ill, the doctor, is justified in doing all he possibly can for his patient; but when a person is well he has no right whatever to interfere with the normal functions of the human body as he does when he introduces disease, especially the disease of an inferior animal.” 21

Hadwen’s warning is just as applicable today but is it incorporated in the current medical ethos?

In 1850, Sir James Paget warned, “I think it may be laid down as an invariable rule of practice, that no one should be vaccinated except after the most rigid scrutiny. The carelessness of the Health Authorities in this particular is amazing. Vaccination is performed, with the easy nonchalance of the impossibility of doing harm, upon multitudes without the slightest inquiry as to their physical condition or antecedents; and this among the very class, where the greatest danger always lurks – the tenement house population. Vaccination to be effective, pervades and alters the entire constitution.”22

Today’s equivalent of the “tenement house population” is the poor of Africa who not only suffer from chronic malnutrition, diarrhea, tuberculosis and parasites but gifts of vaccines from the West, which have added to their burden by increased chronic disease. The WHO admits its mass vaccination programs are causing epidemics of diseases that are no less serious than the ones third world populations are being vaccinated against. It admits that worldwide, the 16 billion injections administered either for vaccines or drugs in the developing world each year cause an estimated 21,000,000 cases of Hepatitis B, 2,000,000 cases of Hepatitis C, and 260,000 cases of HIV.[23]

Health Authorities are just as cavalier today. Once a vaccine schedule has been written it is observed like an edict from on high, particularly by nurses who are trained to follow orders. In many cases the notion that vaccines are harmful is simply absent. Not only that, the accepted ethical principle of informed consent does not apply to vaccination. Instead, coercion and guilt trips are laid on people, parents in particular, who refuse vaccination.

A recent example of administration of vaccines with “easy nonchalance” happened in Belgium in January, 2012. Nine-week old twins, born one month premature, were each given nine vaccines in one day. One of the twins had a cold on that day but apart from that, premature babies, with their immature organs, are extremely vulnerable. One week later, that twin died. Medical personnel denied a link to the vaccines.[24]

4. Compulsory Vaccination
As the British government failed to recognize that smallpox vaccination did not prevent the disease, it passed a compulsory vaccination act in 1856. Between 1870 and 1872 one of the worst smallpox epidemics took place.

Dr. Hadwen, that wise physician, quoted earlier, said, “The very moment you take a medical prescription and you incorporate it in an Act of Parliament, and you enforce it against the wills and conscience of intelligent people by fines, distraints and imprisonments, it passes beyond the confines of a purely medical question – and becomes essentially a social and political one.”25

Ironically, today, the most mandates for vaccination are passed in the Land of the Free. For example, Rick Perry, Governor of Texas, tried to mandate that Gardasil be given to all girls and boys in the state. Gardasil is a questionable vaccine that is given to adolescents purportedly to prevent cervical cancer in 30 years. Naturally, no one knows if that’s the case.

In September, 2011, the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) published figures of the side-effects of Gardasil, introduced in 2006. In those five years, there had been reports of 71 deaths. Other serious events, like paralysis, were not attributed to the vaccine by the CDC although they have been reported elsewhere.[26]

Cancer is not a communicable disease. Yet a politician signed an order compelling the vaccine to be given to Texas youngsters. Why? Could it be that days after Perry signed the order, the drug maker gave him a hefty campaign donation?[27]

Why does the medical profession allow politicians to order medical prescriptions? Are these politicians not practicing medicine without a licence?

Summary
George Santayana, in his Reason in Common Sense, The Life of Reason, Vol.1, wrote, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” We are, indeed, repeating past errors in the practice of vaccination.
There are many lessons from the past to be learned but the ones addressed in this article are:
The belief that vaccination prevented smallpox is now in the realm of myth. Until Medicine, (a term that includes all health professions), opens its eyes, examines the data of the past and, recognizes the facts, it will continue to believe the legend that cowpox prevented smallpox. The data clearly show that vaccinated people contracted smallpox and that increasing numbers died from it.
In 1807, Mr. Birch warned medical men to open their eyes and recognize the “evil results” of vaccination. In 1810, Dr. Maclean told us that it is incumbent on vaccinators to come forward to disprove the evidence against vaccination. Today adverse events are rarely reported.

In 1901, Dr. Wilder said that after vaccine contamination, the former purity of the body can never be regained. Today we have a generation of children whose health has been ruined by vaccines.

In 1885, Winterburn said that it ceases to be comic when a scientific matter cannot be rationally discussed without an educated questioner being accused of mental unsoundness. He attributed the decline in rational discourse to Jenner who ignored or suppressed the fact that cowpox did not prevent smallpox. The “partisan clamor” of today is noisy and nasty and adds nothing to the debate.

We have accepted that Medicine has the right to interfere with the normal functioning of the human body despite the warning of Dr. Hadwen in 1896. Sir James Paget expressed dismay in 1850 that individuals were vaccinated without undergoing a thorough medical examination. Today we see children being lined up for jabs with no questions asked.

In 1896, Dr. Hadwen noted that mandated vaccination is a political issue, not a medical one. Today, we have politicians not only denying parents the right to decide for themselves but they make vaccination compulsory. No questions are asked by Medicine when politicians mandate a medical prescription. In other circumstances they would be accused of practicing medicine without a licence.

Conclusion:
The idea that putting noxious substances under the skin will prevent disease is based on a false premise, the premise that cowpox prevented smallpox. Despite the huge volume of contrary evidence, this myth is still believed.
Dr. Maclean told us in 1810, “experience forbids us to expect fair and magnanimous proceedings and we may be assured that, under no circumstances, will vaccinators abandon so lucrative a practice, until the practice abandons them.” The growing numbers of parents with vaccine-damaged children are the only ones likely to alter the current state of affairs. As consumers they can exert their power and refuse the product and thus allow the practice to abandon the vaccine makers.

References:
1.Hale, A.R. The Medical Voodoo, Gotham House, Inc. 1935, p.30
2. http://whale.to/hadwen9.html
3. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.33
4. Jenner, E. Further Observations on the Variolae Vaccina, of Cowpox
5. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.32
6. McBean, The Poisoned Needle, Health Research, Pomeroy, WA, 1993
7. Hale, A.R. The Medical Voodoo, Gotham House, Inc. 1935, p.81
8. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.33
9. http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/04/03/us-whoopingcough-idUSBRE832…
10. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.56
11. Miller, N. Immunization: Theory vs. Reality. New Atlantean Press, 1995
12. Journal of the American Medical Association, June 2, 1993,vol.269, No.21, p.2785
13. Butler H & P, Just a Little Prick. Robert Reisinger Memorial Trust, New Zealand, 2006
14. IAS. Unvaccinated children are healthier. Waves, Spring/Summer, 2002
15. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.58
16. Wilder, A. History of Medicine, New England Eclectic Publishing Company, 1901
17. Rationalwiki.org/wiki/Suzanne_Humphries
18. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.3
19. Maclean’s, January 16, 2012
20. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.3
21. http://whale.to/hadwen9.html
22. Paget, Sir James. Lectures on Inflammation, Wilson & Ogilvy, 1850
23. VRAN Newsletter, Winter 2005
24. http://vactruth.com/2012/01/19/baby-dies-after-first-shots/
25. http://whale.to/hadwen9.html
26. http://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/Vaccines/HPV/gardasil.html
27. Gillman, T. http://trailblazersblog.dallasnews.com/archives/2011/08/perry-says-he-regrets-gardasil.html
28. Winterburn, GW. The Value of Vaccination, Boericke, 1885. Republished by General Books, 2009. p.33
About Dr. Jennifer Craig
In olden days Jennifer Craig was born in Yorkshire, England. She grew up in war time, trained as a nurse at Leeds Infirmary, emigrated to Canada, got married, had two children, went back to school, earned a Ph.D, became an academic and wrote academic twaddle. Enlightenment came when she moved to Nelson in 1994 and attended creative writing course. Her first book, Yes Sister, No Sister: a Leeds Nurse in the 1950s, a memoir about training as a nurse, was published in 2002 after 27 rejections. In 2010 it was re-published for the mass paperback market, moved straight into The Times bestseller list for 17 weeks and has sold 142,000 copies.

She has also published Jabs, Jenner & Juggernauts: a Look at Vaccination and has two finished novels waiting for perceptive publishers.

She lives in Nelson with a Bichon Frise and is fortunate to have two of her five grandchildren near by.

 

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/04/17/history-repeats-itself-lessons-the-vaccinationists-refuse-to-learn-by-jennifer-craig-phd/?

Advertisements

Vaccines have been based on medical fraud for over a hundred years

(Read Dr Zamora’s comments at the bottom of this article).

(NaturalNews) The concept of vaccinating to immunize began in 1796, when British apothecary (pharmacist) Edward Jenner inserted cowpox pus under the skin of an eight year old boy. Jenner based his experiment on an unsubstantiated rumor that anyone who had experienced cowpox would be immune to smallpox.

Over the next couple of years, Jenner vaccinated others with cowpox to immunize them against smallpox. Without any actual proof of efficacy and safety, Jenner impressed King George III enough with a bogus immunization guarantee that he was awarded the equivalent of today’s $500,000.

Thus, Jenner was the first medical professional to administer diseased matter as medication to a healthy person and receive a substantial financial award. He was also the first to constantly denounce vaccination detractors successfully. He was protecting both his ego and large public purse.

Many health professionals throughout the 19th Century knew that there had been several cases of smallpox among those with cowpox histories. Jenner’s premise was flawed.

This was actually the beginning of a tradition that is carried on by today’s vaccinators. Come up with a bogus solution to prevent a disease, make a bundle of cash, and shut down reasonable arguments from those who know immunization by vaccination doesn’t work safely or effectively.

England’s incidents of smallpox after vaccination rose steadily from five percent in the beginning to 95% by 1895. There was even a serious epidemic around 1872, one year after smallpox vaccinations were decreed mandatory in the UK. The mortality rate among smallpox victims also shot up five fold around that time.

Despite intelligent protests with obvious facts and figures disproving efficacy, and proving harm from toxic materials and viruses contained in vaccines that endanger natural immunity, the inoculation for immunization premise has been maintained.

Protecting the industry against truth by attacking reasonable dissenters viciously has resulted in vaccine industry revenue of $17 billion annually today. This doesn’t include revenue from doctors’ visits for vaccinations and resulting ill health from them.

The vaccinators’ tactics of suppressing scientific data from concerned professionals has become more mafia like. Sincere medical professionals who register health concerns over vaccines are severely punished and slandered by the medical mafia owned mainstream media.

The truth about vaccines and disease outbreaks -allhidden from public view

A 2012 study led by Dr. David Witt, an infectious disease specialist at the San Rafael, CaliforniaKaiser Permanente Medical Centerconcluded thatwhooping cough occurs more among vaccinated children than children not vaccinated.

In 2010, a mumps outbreak occurred among 1000 children in upper New Jersey and lower New York. Almost 80% of them had been vaccinated with the MMR (measles, mumps & rubella) vaccine.

Throughout the 1980s, official agencies reported several outbreaks of measles occurring among childrenwho had been vaccinatedin various locations including an Illinois junior high and high school, a Massachusetts high school, a region in France, and a rural area near Helisinki, Finland.

Both USA schools had well over 90% vaccinated against measles. The vaccinators claim a 90% vaccination rate among any specific populationguarantees herd immunity for that population. This bogus claim serves to create more revenue while blaming non-vaccinators for endangering humanity.

Meanwhile, despite the fact that only five percent of vaccine adverse events get reported to the “voluntary” FDA’s vaccine adverse event reporting system (VAERS), there are manyserious adverse eventsrecorded and many more that seep through the cracks to vaccine concerned internet sites.

Thank goodness for the few MDs and others who dare speak out despite the danger it potentially puts them in. It’s up to us to learn from them and just say no to vaccinations.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org

http://www.naturalnews.com/033399_vaccines_measles.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/028142_mumps_vaccines.html

http://www.naturalnews.com

http://www.naturalnews.com/023080.html

http://www.naturalnews.com/022400.html

Learn more:http://www.naturalnews.com/035715_vaccines_history_fraud.html#ixzz1tRwRbXoI

Mother Wins Top Environmental Award for Beating Monsanto

Anthony Gucciardi

NaturalSociety
April 28, 2012

soybean 220x137 Mother Wins Top Environmental Award for Beating MonsantoAfter experiencing the traumatizing death of her daughter to kidney failure just three days after her daughter was born, Sofia Gatica from Argentina became determined to find out what killed her daughter. Her conclusion? Monsanto’s genetically modified soy fields that surrounded her neighborhood, laced with damaging insecticides negatively affecting nearby neighborhood children and adults alike. Gatica began to detail how her small town was plagued with astronomically high birth defect rates, respiratory disease, and even infant mortality.

From this point, the courageous mother decided to take on Monsanto. Amazingly, she is not alone in her struggle against the biotechnology colossus when it comes to causing birth problems, as a large group of farmers — also from Argentina — have launched a lawsuit against Monsanto for causing ‘devastating birth defects‘ in children. Gatica was initially alone, however, when she first began her uphill battle. Forming a group of concerned mothers in her local area of Ituzaingó after hosting an event at her home to discuss her experiences, the mother would be one of the very few who has actually beat Monsanto.

After sharing her story with local mothers who were also concerned for the safety of their children and families as a whole, Gatica co-founded the Mothers of Ituzaingó — an action group of 16 mothers collaborating to end Monsanto’s rampant chemical usage. The team took to the streets, going door to door to create what was the first epidemiological study of the area, only to discover that the effects of Monsanto’s concoctions were dramatically affecting many families in the town of Ituzaingó. With cancer rates 41 times the national average, something had to be done.

As a result of the serious campaign to eradicate Monsanto, the mothers were rewarded. Argentina’s Supreme Court not only banned chemical spraying near populated areas, but demanded that the government as well as soy manufacturers now prove that these chemicals are safe. Sofia Gatica is now being honored for her great environmental work with the Goldman Environmental prize, a major environmental award given to activists. The story shows just how serious activism can take down most any threat — even Monsanto.

Read more: http://naturalsociety.com/mother-wins-top-environmental-award-for-beating-monsanto/#ixzz1tM8U4BFj

And the buck stops where, exactly?

April 20, 2012, 12:04 pm 0

 

Vera Resnick,

Also could be titled “Overprescribing, Monopoly Pieces and Reader-Bashing”

Last week I did not have time to write a blog.  I was too busy having a birthday.  So I’m now…er…let’s just say that 50 came and went a few years ago.  And I made an interesting discovery.  Although 50 is often touted as “the new 30”, in the eyes of most service providers, medical personnel, et al – 50 is more like “the new 95”…especially if you’re a woman.

Unless you look considerably younger than your age (which of course I do, anyone can tell you that), people start explaining things to you v-e-r-r-y  s-l-o-w-l-y.  If you’re older, you have to agree instantly, otherwise you’re losing your marbles.  If you’re younger you’re allowed to disagree, or ask for further explanation, without others assuming you are just too ga-ga to understand anyway.

This is true of a whole list of subjects, ranging from your own health to how to use “Word” on the computer.  I’ve noticed it frequently in my own practice – it starts at around 50, sometimes for women it even starts at around 40.  I ask them to tell me what medications they are on.  They produce a list.  I ask whether they know why they are taking these medications.  “I asked the doctor, but he/she wouldn’t explain,” is one answer.  “The doctor said – just take it, it’s good for you!” is another.

“Do you still have the problem?”
“No, it went away years ago…”
“So why are you still taking the drug…?”
“He said I should…he said it’s good for me…” (just assume the “he/she’s” willya, it’s too heavy on the keyboard to be constantly gender politically correct…)

The issue of chronic medications is particularly charged for those aged 40 and over, as the test results requiring chronic medications have changed.  Figures required for prescribing have been lowered to include risk factors.

Now don’t assume this blog piece is about bashing the system.  It’s not – although the system is eminently bashable.  This particular piece is about bashing you, dear reader…so read on, I will eventually make my point.

The issue of current overprescribing, especially in the US, was addressed by Cory Franklin  in The Guardian in June 2011, in an article entitled “America’s epidemic of over-prescribing”.  Franklin notes that “…in an effort to please their shareholders, pharmaceutical companies have done hugely effective marketing campaigns. Skilfully employing influential doctors as speakers and on advisory panels, the companies have expanded the markets for their products.”

It’s lucky Franklin is himself such a prestigious physician (which is why I included a link to his bio), otherwise we’d be hearing veiled – or not-so-veiled – accusations of conspiracy theory and the like.  Terminology invariably aimed at those taking potshots at the flourishing and obviously totally altruistic pharmaceuticals industry.  (Yes, I jest, I do, I do…)

Franklin does not hold his punches.  “These same doctors” he continues, “often write guidelines about who are candidates for drug treatment. The indication between “treating disease” and “expanding market share” blurs when candidates for therapy include not just the sick, but those with risk factors for future disease who might get sick.”

Part of what drives me crazy here is that the system encourages individuals to relinquish power and even responsibility in matters relating to their health.  You can’t possibly understand, the public is told, you didn’t go to med school, you don’t have training.  Just accept the pills I’m giving you, follow the instructions I’m giving you and do as you’re told.

But here’s the problem:  the average patient is caught up in many currents of interest when he goes to the doctor.  There are the drug companies – and I’m not going to go into demonization here (there are others who do it so much better) but I think everyone accepts that they are trying to make money.  There are the doctors who are following training as best they can, or those less pure souls who are following cupidity.  There is the system that wants to process the patient as quickly and cheaply as possible – something that’s only possible through following protocols and not individualizing the patient.  And that’s only the tip of the iceberg.

But through all this, the thing people are forgetting is where the ramifications of poor or inappropriate treatment will play themselves out.  Where will the pitfalls of over-medication become visible.  And to be direct here – the buck stops with you, with the patient, with anyone who puts their health in the hands of any practitioner.  The patient has to take ultimate responsibility for treatment because the patient is the one who will benefit or suffer from it.  The patient’s body is the playing field for the prescribing often based on speculative theories (or, possibly but improbably, greed…) that is being carried out today.

A leading self-help guru, who I won’t quote, wrote in a book several years ago that we should let our doctors take care of our health, that they know what is best for us and it is not our business to worry over.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  It’s our business, it’s our bodies, it’s our health, it’s our lives.  We are the monopoly pieces here.

It is true that the patient does not have the training of the practitioner.  In every field, medical or otherwise, we go to someone who knows more than we do.  So an element of trust will always be essential, otherwise we cannot enlist the help of more knowledgeable others in any field.  But considered trust is very different to blind faith.

It’s crucial to  be more demanding of your health practitioners, conventional and alternative.  It does make life harder for us (speaking as a practitioner) when a patient asks a lot of questions.  But it also keeps all us, conventional and otherwise, on our toes and I believe that is a good thing, however inconvenient.

So unless you enjoy dining out on dinner stories of botched operations, procedures and treatments (some people really love doing this – don’t squirm in your seat if you do, you are not alone…) – unless that’s your thing, ask questions.  Be involved with your health.  Don’t let anyone talk down to you.  Take supportive people with you to consultations if you feel there’s a risk that you will not be heard.  Decide when to trust – don’t be intimidated into it.  Because no law suit will return to you the health that you lose.  Because make no mistake, the buck stops with the patient, nowhere else.

Photo courtesy of Mike_fleming on flickr

http://blogs.timesofisrael.com/and-the-buck-stops-where-exactly/

How to take a case. General overview. part 1.

There are a number of parameters to define prior to comprehending the issues presented in casetaking. Hopefully the notes below will be of some benefit.

What is a Diagnosis?

In orthodox medicine, it is implied that detection of the site and nature of the lesion, with reference to a defined anatomical region, ie location, (internal organs, external organs, tissue, blood etc) , that this is the sole purpose of the investigation to name the disease or disorder. From here on in, an existing treatment regime will be allocated dependent on the name.

In doing so, the orthodox Diagnostic definition leans heavily on predetermined criteria which in itself is subject to negative critical evaluation.

First: it is assumed that the only reality is the Organism itself, and thus all phenomena are functions or effects of altered structures of the body. Further, it is assumed that 3 causal factors are involved in making changes to the organism, bacteria/virus, pathological events and functional events.

Secondly: there is a mechanical viewpoint towards the organism/body/structure that allows for the repair of any structure, organ, lesion by localised treatment, independent of any other system or part of the body. This is the current prevailing view and the reason why specialists exist and confine their area of expertise to one location or system, independent of the rest of the organism.

To a homoeopath, the above criteria for treatment is of little use, save for knowledge of the disease process, rather than the name of the disease. Given that a homoeopath views the organism as an interdependent living singular entity, intertwined with each system, and reliant on the whole, it does not help too much in forming a diagnosis for the real illness the patient is suffering, albeit not one that has a clinical name or observed pathology.

So what is the basis for a homoeopathic investigation to make a diagnosis?

Primarily, it is an evaluation of symptoms present in this individual Organism, that reflect the internal disorder, and express the nature of the disease. This is the MOST important part of casetaking and the sole pointer towards a remedial treatment plan that will cure the patient. The nature of the diagnosis method is purely clinical. Evaluation of the symptoms that are present in the disease state, will lead to a match with a medicine that has been clinically tested and found to produce similar symptoms. Is a pathological diagnosis in homoeopathy necessary? Yes it is.

A pathological investigation is necessary to discover as much information as possible regarding what is actually occurring within the body. What processes are happening, what organs are involved and what damage has ensued. This information will inform as to supportive treatments, ie diet, surgery or replacement. It is the homoeopaths knowledge of single medicine action on particular organs or disease states, that may aid in the selection of remedies where interaction between the patient and physician is not available or if individualising pertinent symptoms cannot be elicited during case taking.

Homoeopathic evaluation, will where required, look at an aetological connection. Combined with clinical observations, the precipitating factor or type of onset will have relation or indicate a certain medicine for curative action. Hahnemann instructed that this information, where of observable clinical usefulness, be included in the Materia Medica. There is no time limit placed on the causation of the illness, observing the singular fact that causation may be responsible for the onset, although perhaps not of the presenting symptoms noted. The factor may be in the distant past, of genetic inheritance, infection, environmental, psychological, mechanical, occupational etc etc.

There is also attention paid to the constitution of the patient. People are individuals and as such will respond uniquely to a medicine that matches the symptoms presented. Homeopathic schools today, do not teach the correct understanding of constitution, and try and push medicine pictures of what a “typical”  XXX “personality is like. Medicines do not have personalities. They have symptoms produced by ingesting the substance and reacting to the drug. When a symptom is produced, it will have a state of dis-ease to the economy, an altered dis-ordered exhibition of temporary derangement which will wear off in time. A drug can produce a “state” of being which is different from the patients normal constitution, or is similar to a patients constitution whilst ill.

It is worth noting that the miasmatic theory of diseases, which is really a study in disease types, the origins, the enhanced infecting agent of various types, be it of recent or generations of familial strains, this peculiar and unique form of diagnosis and acceptance that chronic disorders or disease may be the inceptor for a present illness, although not apparently related to it in terms of modern medicine acknowledgement of such.

It is not for the faint hearted individual to be a homoeopath. Diagnosis is no light or easy task. In addition to the search for clues under­lying pathology which is the obligation of every physician he must also track down the curative similar remedy from every possible angle—causal factor, symptom-picture, constitutional or bio-genetic type and deep-seated toxicosis or miasmatic condition.

gw

Recommended reading;

Dimitriadis, George. The Theory of Chronic Diseases. http://hahnemanninstitute.com/chronic_diseases.php $39.00

 

 

 

הרפרטורי הראשון בעברית יוצא לדרך בשבוע הבא

 

הרפרטורי הראשון בעברית יוצא לדרך בשבוע הבא

הנה זה בא – הרפרטורי הראשון בעברית יוצא לדרך ביום ב’ 23 לאפריל!

יש לכם כבר תוכנת סינופסיס של אופנרפ?  אתם מקבלים שידרוג חינם עם תוספת של שני רפרטוריס, ספרי מטריה מדיקה נוספים, שיפור במראה, ממשק בעברית, וכן שיפורי תוכנה פנימיים.

מה היתרונות של תוכנת “סינופסיס”?

אני עבדתי קודם עם תוכנות אחרות אבל כיום אני עובדת אך ורק עם הסינופסיס.  להלן חלק מהסיבות:

הסיבה הבולטת ביותר – הסינופסיס כולל גירסה אמינה, ברורה ויעילה לשימוש של הרפרטורי של בונינגהאוזן.  עם רפרטוריס אחרים נקלעתי יותר מדי פעמים ברובריקות לא ברורות, שמקורן לא ברור (פרווינג לפי איזה כללים? כללי הנמן? חלומות? מדיטציות?)  עבודה עם שיטת בונינגהאוזן נתן לי הרבה יותר ודאות ברפרטוריזציה של מקרים, ותוכנה זו איפשר לי לאמץ ולהשתמש בשיטה זו בצורה מהירה ויעילה.

בנוסף אני אישית אוהבת את הפורמט והמראה של הרפרטורי והדפדפנים.  תוכנת הסינופסיס מאפשרת לי לעבור בקלות בספרות בדפדפן מטריות מדיקה.   בגלל העבודה עם בונינגהאוזן אני עובדת הרבה עם פרווינגס של הנמן בדפדפן מטריה מדיקה – תוכנה זו מאפשרת למצוא מיד את מה שאני מחפשת, גם ע”י פתיחת הדפדפן, גם ע”י לחיצת כפתור ישר מטבלאות הרפרטוריזציה.

תוכנת סינופסיס גם כוללת את הרפרטורי של קנט.  הלימודים הראשונים שלי היו מבוססים על רפרטורי זה ועל הסינתסיס, וקיום רפרטורי של קנט בתוכנה נותן לי אפשרות להשוות ולבדוק מידע שרכשתי קודם.

אלה רק חלק מהיתרונות של תוכנת הסינופסיס.  בבלוג זה אני אוסיף קליפים ומאמרים בנושא יישום שיטת בונינגהאוזן כדי להבהיר יותר את הנושא.

  תרצו לקנות?  לדעתי כדאי.

מחיר הסינופסיס של חברת אופנרפ לא עלה בשנתיים האחרונות, ונשאר על $799.

מחיר תוספת של הרפרטורי של בונינגהאוזן בעברית למי שכבר יש לו תוכנת סינופסיס – $150.  (כאמור לעיל, אפשרות ממשק בעברית ניתנת חינם עם השידרוג)

מחיר מיוחד לסטודנטים – צרו קשר לפרטים נוספים.

לפרטים על רכישת התוכנה בעברית, שניתן לבצע אך ורק דרכי בשלב זה, נא ליצור קשר איתי למייל: vera.homeopath@gmail.com

Untested vaccines causing new wave of polio-like paralysis across India

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation is financially backing and publicly endorsing mass polio virus vaccinations in India. In case you didn’t hear him yourself, Bill Gates publicly announced that vaccines could help reduce the world population by 15%.

Gates also proclaimed that every newborn should be registered for vaccinations immediately to assure the goal of 90% of the population getting vaccinated for his “century of the vaccination.”

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation program in India was promoted as “The Last Mile: Eradicating polio in India.” The promotional video displayed numbers showing thousands of cases of polio in India decades ago, with the number of cases dropping to 42 by 2010. But it appears that wild polio virus stats have been traded for polio from vaccines and non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP).

In India, over 47,000 cases of NPAFP were reported in 2011. The paralysis symptoms of NPAFP are practically the same as what’s attributed to “eradicated” wild virus polio. Apparently, vaccine polio viruses also cause polio paralysis.

Some experts argue that wild virus polio rarely causes paralysis and was declining on its own before the Salk vaccine (http://www.vaclib.org/basic/polio.htm). Ironically, the Salk vaccine contained SV-40 (Simeon virus 40) associated with cancer’s surge since the 1950s.

In neighboring Pakistan during 2011, 136 children came down with polio. Yet 107 of them had been vaccinated multiple times with oral polio vaccines (OPVs). That’s over 78% of those supposedly “immunized” against polio getting that same disease (http://www.immunizationinfo.org/vaccines/polio).

Yet the Gates Foundation wants to vaccinate the world? Hmmm.

Explaining OPVs (oral polio vaccines)

OPVs have been phased out in western countries because of their high incidence of adverse side effects. This type of vaccine was developed by Dr. Albert Sabin and FDA approved in 1963. The viruses in this vaccine are not dead. They are merely “attenuated” but still alive.

What is done with OPVs that are produced but banned in the West? Dump them on third world countries with the humanitarian cover that they are less expensive and easier to administer to large groups simultaneously.

Outbreaks of paralysis using labels other than polio, such as NPAFP (non-polio acute flaccid paralysis), conveniently obscures polio outbreaks among vaccinated populations. Experts outside the vaccination dogma box point out there are other polio type maladies with different names, including NPAFP, Guillain-Barre Syndrome, and others.

Some incidents of vaccine-derived poliovirus (VDPV) from OPVs are reported, which is why OPVs were banned in the West. Those polio episodes can be vaccine-associated polio paralysis (VAPP). VAPP affects only those who had consumed the OPVs.

Yet there are other ways OPVs can spread polio. Family members, friends, even villagers associated with those who took OPVs can be infected from viral shedding.

Viral shedding is common among OPV vaccinated persons and those inoculated with attenuated live viruses. The attenuated viruses become more virulent after residing in the vaccinated person’s body. Upon excretion, water and materials exposed to the urine or stool has been known to spread this now more virulent polio virus to others.

Read more on case histories of OPVs’ causing polio in the USA and Nigeria, both to vaccine recipients and to others from rejuvenated viruses shed by those who were vaccinated: http://www.naturalnews.com/026951_vaccine_virus_vaccination.html.

This “Last Mile” campaign has caused many to walk their last mile. A lot of money has been spent for this campaign, money that could have been used more wisely on improving general basic living health conditions to minimize all diseases.

When millions are spent on vaccinations instead of improving basic sanitation and potable water in poorly developed regions, there is another agenda behind the humanitarian cover story.

Sources for this article include:

http://www.infowars.com

http://tribune.com.pk

http://www.infowars.com/video-vaccines-didnt-cure-polio-after-all/

http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity.com

http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120116/jsp/frontpage/story_15011108.jsp

2012 Edition of the SYNOPSIS Repertory Suite Program

 

Monday April 23rd we will release the new version of the SYNOPSIS suite. The P & W Therapeutic Pocket book 2012 edition has been edited to reflect better wording in about 5 rubrics, and a number of links have been added to similar symptoms.

2 new repertory’s added. Materia Medica upgrades. A cleaner brighter look, lots of internal software changes and best of all, a free upgrade for present version holders. Same price as last 2 years. No price increase $799.

For those wishing to purchase the SYNOPSIS with the first ever HEBREW repertory on computer (The P & W version of the original 1846 Therapeutic Pocket Book), please contact vera.homeopath@gmail.com where it can be purchased for $799. If you already have the SYNOPSIS program but wish to buy the Hebrew Repertory, it can be purchased for $150. The purchase of either includes the HEBREW language interface so all computer commands are in HEBREW.

Dont forget, if you are a student, we can offer you a discount.

http://homeopathyonline.org

Hebrew Blog

 

Is there a proper way to take a case?

Ok. As a practitioner, you have read the Organon, or… you have attended lessons where the Organon was read to you and the teacher explained what was required.

Now, given the variety of practices that are used under the banner of Homoeopathy, It seems that depending upon your teachers bent, you may or may not have been taught Hahnemannian case taking. So.. I ask again, is there a proper way to take a case, and if so, what is it.?

Your comments please.

 

Video

Hebrew Blog Video

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Polony-Weaver-OpenRep/151913658485