New AANP position paper on vaccines 1

AANP Immunization Position - a commentary
Expand Messages
Jared Zeff, ND
Message 1 of 4 , Aug 1 9:42 AM
View Source
I served on the AANP House of Delegates Immunization committee for a time recently. I was a representative from Washington state several years ago when the current position papers were being voted upon, for posting to the AANP web site for public view. A reasonable position paper on immunization, reflecting the old position of "informed consent" had been drafted. It had gone through much revision and vetting, for a number of years. We voted to post several papers, including this one. But the immunization paper was the most controversial, and the vote was close. So Pamela Snider and I proposed that, due to the close vote, we hold back that immunization paper, with which I agreed, in the spirit of collegiality, not wanting to force through a controversial paper. We all voted to hold that paper back for more work, until there could be greater consensus on the wording. So a new committee was formed just to work on that issue. A survey of the profession was undertaken to really understand where the profession was at regarding this issue. There were two general positions, the older position that we would support our patients with information, and facilitate their decision regarding the immunization of their children, including the use of alternative schedules, homeopathic prophylaxis, no immunization, etc., all based upon informed consent. The alternative position was that for political purposes we needed to support the CDC schedule, to present ourselves as acceptable to the larger medical community, and because some of us truly supported the CDC approach; this was the minority opinion, but favored by the Board "leadership".
The results of the profession-wide survey have never been published, presumably because they overwhelmingly supported the first position, which the "leadership" considered politically dangerous. After several more years, this new paper was presented, which supports the CDC position, and informs us that as a profession we favor immunization. This lie is the result of the "leadership elite" stacking the committee and disregarding the opinions of the majority of our profession for the sake of perceived political safety and expediency, in the face of growing information about the inherent dangers of immunization and the lack of safety research. I am totally opposed to the position paper. It disregards the general opinions of the majority of our profession, as our "leadership elite" decides for us what they consider to be politically expedient. In the past our position was one of "informed consent", in which we would serve the informed decision of parents regarding immunization: a position neither "for" or "against" immunization. The AANP proposal was made for perceived political expediency, against the general opinions of the membership of the AANP. I think it sucks.  Please let your AANP representative know your opinion on this issue, as the final vote is about to take place.

Jared Zeff, ND
Salmon Creek, Washington


Eric Blake
Message 2 of 4 , Aug 1 10:36 AM
View Source
Thank you for bringing this to this forum Jared.  Unfortunately the process has not been transparent and the general membership was excluded from awareness until the proposed document was leaked on other FB groups.   I spoke with Dr. Hillary Andrews Busch that corroborates your experience that not only does the current document not represent the survey of actual Naturopathic doctors clinical practice, role, or opinions on vaccines, but that when she asked that the proposed document be circulated to general membership for review the decision was made not to - she asked that her request and it's denial be preserved on the official record.

I find it very unsettling that the process has been corrupted so that certain individuals feel that they have the power and right to dictate a position out of step with actual professional opinions and that does not respect the balanced approach that you described which is a part of our actual general practice.  A service that I find many many parents are looking for actively.

The ethics of the leaders involved in this are upside down.  If they have knowledge of the professions activities and clinical practice, if they understand what that is, and apparently they did survey this,  and choose to then misrepresent the general positions of the profession in order to obtain some 'political gains' or 'modernization' they have upside down ethics.    How is misrepresenting the profession to political leaders or the public in any way an ethical practice.  Apparently these people have an agenda and are seeking to manipulate and dictate rather then represent and lead. It is a very sorry state of affairs.

If they choose to additionally shield this process from the membership (which according to Dr. Hillary Andrews, Chip Halverson posting on ND Biz, and yourself occurred) there is another significant concern.

Thank you again for sharing this and your experience. You risk your political and professional capital to do what is right. Thank you.


Show message history



--
Dr. Eric Blake
Naturopathic Physician and Diplomate of Acupuncture



Colleen Huber, NMD
Message 3 of 4 , Aug 2 9:06 AM
View Source
Thank you so much, Jared and Eric and Dennis, for having the courage to speak up on this hugely important issue.

The AANP's position on vaccines, which is the opposite of the great majority of their membership puts AANP in an increasingly out-of-touch position among naturopathic physicians and our patients.  For mostly this reason, I rejected their invitation to speak this year, and will not attend their conferences.    A decade ago I wrote for the largest health website at that time, mercola.com, and a lot of my articles are still on online.  I closed each one saying something like, "but for specific information for your health circumstances, go to naturopathic.org, and plug in your zip code, to find a naturopathic physician near you."  Now I regret all the free advertisement I gave AANP.  Although I hope that other naturopaths got new patients from it.

Too often "leadership" courts the wrong side of the divide: medical power-brokers and Pharma, rather than our most steadfast, appreciative, largest and wealthiest ally, which is the general public. (I say wealthiest, because consumer spending is about 70% of GDP; US consumers are the ultimate arbiter of economic and political direction.)  Staying steadfast to our patients has built bigger, stronger practices for us than those who chose to appear as wannabe MDs, many of whom are badly struggling or have left medicine altogether.   I employ 3 other doctors, over a dozen employees altogether, all built from total scratch, an empty little suite and a phone that hardly ever rang for months, except for wrong numbers.  It was staying devoted to my patients' best interests that built the practice, not from slapping them in the face with "Well, the CDC says I'm supposed to vaccinate you, so roll up the sleeve."  Heck no!!!

Parents need to be able to not poison their kids with vaccines; they need our support.  Naturopathic physicians have historically honored and supported that choice.  It is something that we can be very proud of.  It is something that we need to publicly re-affirm, so that our patients remember that we are always there for them, not ready to run away to chase a perceived political or financial advantage.

Colleen Huber, NMD
Naturopathic Oncologist (FNORI)



Mona Morstein
Message 4 of 4 , Aug 3 6:24 AM
View Source
I am going to the AANP conference, as I am on the philosophy panel (speaking on Docere) and doing a “NED" talk (I finally memorized my 22 minute talk!)

I would like to present the comments from NatChat to people at the AANP. Is there anyone who is not comfortable with their comments being presented? If so, please contact me publicly or privately, and I’ll remove them.

Mona Morstein, ND, DHANP