more on vaccines + natchat mole

Colleen Huber, NMD

Message 13 of 31 , Feb 13 6:20 AM

View Source

Dr. Yarnell, 'Seen one, seen 'em all' is a very broad brush with which to paint several hundred original sources spanning three centuries.  Since you imply that you are familiar with vaccine history, you must know that smallpox was not eliminated by the vaccine, but rather worsened by it.  And you would certainly know about Leicester, England, where in 1885, despite prophesies of doom from the medical profession, a two-mile long procession of citizens demanded an end to mandatory smallpox shots, the local government gave in, and then of course, both incidence and mortality from smallpox plummeted and stayed down in Leicester to much lower than surrounding towns and cities.  A 21st century American might ask, "Gee, why are so many humans so anti-vaxx that a two-mile procession of them would get out in the street and protest a wonderful vaccine?"  Their deceased relatives, following the shot, are the answer to that question.

I see we have both studied mathematics at a higher level; that's good.  Neither that nor any manipulation of statistics changes the raw data in the paper under discussion.

You still assume that Neil Miller, Critical Vaccine Studies, is an anti-vaccine diatribe.  It is not.  When you first open the book you will immediately see what it is: dispassionate summaries of 400 studies in the conventional medical literature, one per page, regarding vaccines and infectious diseases.  For example, you may be interested to read that wild chickenpox protects against brain tumors (inverse association in adults) Am J Epidem.  Or that a mumps infection but not mumps vaccination protects women against ovarian cancer (inverse association in adults) Cancer Causes Control.

And about pertussis:
You may also be interested to see that a toxin from a highly virulent strain of pertussis (ptxP3) has emerged from within pertussis-vaccinated populations.  "Vaccines designed to reduce pathogen growth rate and/or toxicity may result in the evolution of pathogens with higher levels of virulence.  We propose that waning immunity and pathogen adaptation have contributed to the resurgence of pertussis."  Mooi FR, van Loo IH, et al.  Bordetella pertussis strains with increased toxin production associated with pertussis resurgence.  Emerg Infect Dis 2009 Aug; 15(8): 1206-13.

And about debating:
We are both too busy to haul all of PubMed onto NatChat to debate vaccines.  Please read the two books I cited, because they are much more comprehensive and fact-based than what you imagine of "anti-vaxx" literature:

Neil Z. Miller, Critical Vaccine Studies
Suzanne Humphries MD, Dissolving Illusions



Colleen Huber, NMD
Naturopathic Oncologist (FNORI)
President, Naturopathic Cancer Society, NatOnco.org
Secretary, ANRI / NORI / INCRI, NaturopathicStandards.org
Medical Director, NatureWorksBest Cancer Clinic, NatureWorksBest.com



jlletellier

Message 14 of 31 , Feb 13 8:22 AM

View Source

I suppose I'll chime in here for the content to match the subject, Vaccines. I've been reading the Medicare thread with talk of the vaccine effectiveness of Pertussis and wanted to draw attention to the CDC website.
The surveillance reports from 2012-2014 (link here for the 2014 stats http://www.cdc.gov/pertussis/downloads/pertuss-surv-report-2014.pdf) clearly shows that the incidence of pertussis is consistently increased in those who have 3+ DTaP vaccinations. The lowest rates are in the groups who have received no vaccinations and 1-2 vaccinations. But much higher in the 3+. This is coming straight from the CDC reports. This is not an anti-vaxx website.
That seems pretty clear to me.

Jennifer Letellier, ND
Durango, CO
www.bewellfamilymediine.com



Eric Yarnell

Message 15 of 31 , Feb 13 11:29 PM

View Source

I will have to review the information in more detail but my immediate responses are:

1. The very large number of “unknowns” (44% of the total sample) makes this information useless. What is most of the “unknowns” are in the unvaccinated or low vaccinated categories? It would totally shift the interpretation.

2. Without knowing the total population, we can’t calculate an attack rate and these numbers aren’t very helpful. For example, what if there are 100,000 kids who aren’t vaccinated at all for pertussis, and 556 of them got pertussis, for a rate of 0.006. If 10,000,000 kids got fully vaccinated and 2950 of them got pertussis, the rate would be 0.0003. That makes the vaccine extremely effective. But I don’t know the totals so this isn’t very helpful. Of course there will be more kids who get pertussis who are fully vaccinated though, because that vast majority (over 80% for sure, I wish it was over 90% to get better herd immunity) of kids get vaccinated and since the vaccine isn’t perfect (see item 3) we would expect some to get it. But the rates are what allow us to compare between populations.

3. Most kids get 3+ DTaP shots, and we know the vaccine isn’t perfectly effective, so I don’t expect 100% efficacy. And there is a lot of research (some of which I cited in my prior email) showing that when vaccination rates fall below 90% in a population pertussis vaccine really loses efficacy. So without knowing the background vaccination rates it is hard to judge what is going on here.

Once can never just look at such crude numbers without the full epidemiologic context to understand them. I’m a little surprised CDC published numbers like these as they aren’t very helpful and are very prone to misinterpretation as already demonstrated.

Eric Yarnell, ND, RH(AHG)
Seattle, WA



Colleen Huber, NMD

Message 16 of 31 , Feb 14 4:28 AM

View Source

Dr. Yarnell, I would like to offer you a deal:

If you agree to promptly read any third (you choose which third) of each of the two books on vaccines that I recommended . . .

Neil Z. Miller, Critical Vaccine Studies
Suzanne Humphries MD, Dissolving Illusions

. . . then I agree to promptly buy and read a third of each of two pro-vaccination books that you recommend.  If you agree, then which two would you most recommend?

Vaccines are so massively important to human health, and as I've said before, I think the biggest civil liberties issue of our time.  A newborn can't even exit a hospital these days without Hep B shot unless there's first a tense standoff between parents and hospital personnel.  Two weeks ago 4 nurses surrounded and bullied (about Hep B) a newborn and family later seen by our clinic.   (I mean do we really want to start off life with a confrontation??)   However, it was an opposite-thinking RN who first told me about the Humphries book.

Anyway, vaccines are so massively important that, as naturopaths and health care providers, we really need to dig in to both sides of the vaccine divide, to understand both sides as well as possible.   The divide being, I think, the question as to whether vaccines are effective and safe and always subject to individual choice.  This is far too important to take the approach of turning statistics inside out from a given research paper until the numbers can appear to support either side of an argument.  I am saying that I want to back up from the trees a bit and look at the forest.

Thanks in advance for your book recommendations.

Colleen Huber, NMD
Naturopathic Oncologist (FNORI)
President, Naturopathic Cancer Society, NatOnco.org
Secretary, ANRI / NORI / INCRI, NaturopathicStandards.org
Medical Director, NatureWorksBest Cancer Clinic, NatureWorksBest.com



Eric Yarnell

Message 17 of 31 , Feb 14 10:39 AM

View Source

Dr. Huber,

I am about to leave for a week’s vacation so I can’t promptly obtain any books. I also am not sure I can uphold my end of the bargain as I don’t know the pro-vaccine book literature. I prefer to read the primary research in this area. I can ask around for recommendations but it won’t be until after Feb 22 that I will likely have any books to suggest or ability to obtain and read anything.

Those “bullying” nurses are trying to prevent a disease that can result in cirrhosis of the liver, liver cancer and death. This is hardly some kind of horrible thing, and their motivations are good, though perhaps their methods are suboptimal. And given that there is almost no downside (and what little downside there is, is on the order of a 1 in 1,000,000 or less risk), why not get the vaccine?

The trees and the forest have been examined in depth it seems to me, and the answer in any credible study has been that vaccination is safe and effective. But like many other arguments where the science is not in doubt (global warming or tobacco being harmful for instance, both of which are or were denied despite the facts), truth alone doesn’t seem sufficient.



Eric Yarnell, ND, RH(AHG)
Seattle, WA



Eric Yarnell

Message 18 of 31 , Feb 14 10:43 AM

View Source

I found a study that does include a more comprehensive population in Germany (so, also a highly developed country like our own) which clearly shows that lifetime risk of pertussis and other vaccine-preventable diseases are massively less common in fully vaccinated kids vs. unvaccinated ones, with no increase in atopic conditions in the vaccinated kids to boot. Rates of non-vaccine preventable infectious diseases were the same between unvaccinated and vaccinated kids. The free full text is available. I will admit this study did have one problem that also affects the CDC data noted, which is that the sample size of the unvaccinated population was low (just 94 vs. 13,359 fully vaccinated).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3057555/pdf/Dtsch_Arztebl_Int-108-0099.pdf



Eric Yarnell, ND, RH(AHG)
Seattle, WA



Eric Blake

Message 19 of 31 , Feb 14 3:41 PM

View Source

Yarnell I am just curious what you think of Dr Thompson who worked at the CDC on several vaccine studies and has come out that fraud occurred which showed an association of autism at elevated rates in sub populations associated with vaccination. And his allegations that destruction of evidence occurred and manipulation of data to show no effect.

Sincerely
Dr. Blake

Eric Blake ND, DAc
Naturopathic Physician,



drerikak

Message 20 of 31 , Feb 15 6:31 AM

View Source

I have a pro-vaccine book you can check out:
On Immunity: An Inoculation, by Eula Biss

I haven't read it yet, but one of my patients highly recommended it.  It is supposedly very well written.

But I strongly agree with Eric Yarnell, please let's cite original research rather than a handful of anti-vaccine books.

I spend a LOT and I mean a LOT of my time researching vaccines.  I'm updating my Vaccines Demystified webinar right now, and I'll tell you if I wanted to write an anti-vaccine book it would be very easy.  (And I would probably make a lot of money.)  But it would be deceitful.  There IS, in fact, a lot of "anti-vaccine" research.  Meaning, researchers are still trying to figure a lot of things out - what is the link between Hep B and demyelinating diseases? How protective is Tdap and DTaP against pertussis? Are there breakthrough infections in vaccinated populations (answer: yes.  But how many??)

But for every "anti-vaccine" study (especially those published on Mercola's site or GreenMedInfo) there are about a dozen or more (or hundreds in some cases) showing large, population-wide benefits.  Shall I list some of them for us all?  I'd be happy to!

As naturopathic physicians we have a duty to be the MOST educated, BEST well-read in terms of research.  There are side-effects and issues in vaccinations that neither side are fully talking about.

However, to dismiss all vaccines as being either ineffective or dangerous (or both) is extremely naive and completely unjustified in research.  I urge my colleagues to look closer and to recognize that declining all vaccines on a population level would have disastrous public health consequences.

Erika "Vaccine Information" "Report to Vaers" Krumbeck
Montana Whole Health
Missoula, MT



Eric Blake

Message 21 of 31 , Feb 15 9:20 AM

View Source


Hillary Andrews does a great vaccine webinar and reviews the field, schedules, individual vaccines, etc that I think is excellent
She updates her information ongoing and I cant recommend it enough.  She offers it periodically:
http://vaccineconsult.com/ce-courses/

Show message history



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



weyrich_comp

Message 22 of 31 , Feb 15 1:58 PM

View Source

Unfortunately, the vaccine controversy is NOT just about what is in the best interests of our patients.  There is also the "public health" perspective, which says that anything that statistically reduces the cost to society is ethically valid and can be forced on the population.

The concept of "herd immunity" is invoked in defense of vaccines.

Of course, it is hard to put a "value" on the alleged benefits of (for example) preventing measles against the alleged downside of increasing incidence of autism.  But the first step is to take an honest look at all the evidence, including the evidence the CDC and Lancet have attempted to suppress.

However, the fact that Congress gave vaccine makers an exemption to the standard product liability laws, and instituted a special vaccine court with a higher level of evidence needed to prove individual harm does NOT "smell" right to me.

I will continue to recommend DPT vaccines and recommend against MMR and influenza vaccines until my position is disproved to my satisfaction.

If you can find it, the CDC's CME called "Faces of the Flu" that I attended several years ago was a good presentation of the value (or lack thereof) of the vaccine to different populations.  Basically, the populations most endangered by the flu are least protected by direct vaccination, and rely instead on either herd immunity or isolation for protection.

Orville Weyrich, Jr PhD NMD
Payson/Phoenix AZ



Sally Boyd-Daughtrey

Message 23 of 31 , Feb 15 7:33 PM

View Source

Hi All,
Thanks guys for all the intelligent debate on vaccines.  It occurs to me that, when two people (or groups of people) whom are otherwise obviously intelligent, well read and competent  disagree in such a polarized manner that 'something else is up'.   In other words, one can assume based on other experiences with both of these Docs that they are smart, passionate, well read and fundamentally well meaning.   They both study and read material that sounds valid and reasonable to them and make  decisions based on what they have accurately read.  Sometimes they read the same material and come up with different conclusions, especially about fine points in that material.  Therefore, there is a problem  of understanding that transcends normal human error.  When I hit such a roadblock, I try to create an internal paradigm shift for myself and look at the problem from a different viewpoint rather stay 'in the trenches'.
Perhaps, for example:
1 Source material is flawed such that the reader is unable to detect the flaw (fraud in design of study, in completion of study or in write up of study, expert bias, tunnel vision bias, compulsion/coersion or another psychological problem on the part of the investigators/writers of the material) For example,some 'Anti-Vax' people are very concerned that there is a conspiracy to create flawed data that makes vaccines 'look' safe. Therefore, any use of material that could be distorted in such a manner will not change their belief.  This makes for quite a circular problem.  If you try to convince me all day that x is true using y, and I know or suspect that y is flawed, you will never convince me that x is true.  But, just because you are paranoid does not mean they're not out to get you. We all know as NDs that the dominant medical paradigm has had its share of nasty dealings with our species, and sometimes there ARE conspiracies afoot.  (the Flexner Report comes to mind.)  How do we know that this is not one of them?
2 Personal bias- unconscious drives that are normal to humans, such as desire to fit in to a dominant paradigm for safety reasons, (pro Vac)  or desire to protect self, children or others from a perceived threat (anti Vac). These can cause people to interpret things selectively on either side such that practically any material reinforces their belief.  Until we look at these drives and biases in ourselves, we will be fundamentally locked in opposition.  Personal bias applies to individual researchers as well.  Who here has done any data collection and not felt the subtle  'pull' to record more avidly results that support a hope or belief?  I have surely felt that.    (Heisenburg of the brain?) This level of concern has nothing to do with 'conspiracy theory wackos in that it is individual and largely unconscious.

These drives and biases can get really strong when they trigger our survival issues, either for ourselves (making a living) or for those we perceive as helpless (children).  Strangely, another place I have seen this is in debates over metal shoes versus 'barefoot trimming' in the horse industry.  Those poor helpless horses (read: children)! That other side is killing them!  Those barbaric idiots!  People get really vicious and polarized when they feel threatened or feel that a help[less dependent is threatened.  Even if the issue is really actually quite small.

So how do we work through these issues and come up with a rational plan?  I wish I knew, but I would start with examining the above 2 points in ourselves.

  It seems to me that it is probable that neither one of these positions is completely right, nor is one completely wrong.   One can not solve a problem in the same paradigm in which it was created.  I think we as a community need to address this issue by also addressing our underlying fears, biases and beliefs about the sources of material we depend upon, and look at how those fears color our interpretations.

How do other Docs out there deal with the vaccine issue in their practices?  Care to share?
Many thanks!

Sally Boyd Daughtrey
Pahoa, HI



Eric Yarnell

Message 24 of 31 , Feb 16 12:36 AM

View Source

http://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2016/01/04/the-william-thompson-documents-theres-no-whistle-to-blow/

http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/2015/08/05/the-cdc-whistleblower-william-thompson-appears-to-have-gone-full-antivaccine/



Eric Yarnell, ND, RH(AHG)
Seattle, WA



Colleen Huber, NMD

Message 25 of 31 , Feb 16 5:40 AM

View Source

I am really not sure where the idea of a conspiracy theory came from???

Vaccines are clearly flawed from the enormous history of injuries, both due to safety negligence and lack of effect against the same infectious diseases.  I am talking about flawed products, not likely deliberately flawed products.  Probably everybody would like them to work safely and effectively.

As I explained to Dr. Yarnell, it makes no sense for us to haul half of Pub Med onto NatChat to say, "Look how I was able to nitpick the numbers in this paper more creatively than you did."  What is more efficient is to look at where analysis has already been done, which is why I recommend that people read:

Suzanne Humphries, MD's book, Dissolving Illusions and Neil Miller's Critical Vaccine Studies.

Between these two books, the best researched in the area of vaccines, there are more than 1,000 references to the conventional medical literature that are worth reading.  My interest in this debate woud be re-energized by people actually willing to read those and then discuss them.   Where are the flaws in those two books?  (Saying, "Well they're probably anti-vaxx, so I'm not going to bother reading them" is not the most persuasive thing to say.)

Colleen Huber, NMD
Naturopathic Oncologist (FNORI)
President, Naturopathic Cancer Society, NatOnco.org
Secretary, ANRI / NORI / INCRI, NaturopathicStandards.org
Medical Director, NatureWorksBest Cancer Clinic, NatureWorksBest.com



Eric Blake

Message 26 of 31 , Feb 16 7:02 AM

View Source

Yarnell neither of those address my question about the legitimate concerns he raised regarding the research he participated in.

One piece attacked hookers analysis and the other Thompsons persona.

And Orac? You use him as a guide?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Gorski


My question is - what do you  think of his very real concerns and accusations of misbehavior at the CDC regarding research he participated in that is used to justify - well - used to justify your position of overwhelming safety.

Smear campaign is the appropriate response to what he has divulged?


Sincerely
Dr. Blake



Mona Morstein

Message 27 of 31 , Feb 16 7:16 AM

View Source

Sally,

My views on vaccine are less research driven, to be honest, than patient driven. I do not have time to continually study vaccine research, but I’ve been in practice nearly 30 years and that has helped shaped my viewpoint.

It’s a good thing overall, for example, for people that there is no smallpox in the world.  That was a good disease to eradicate via vaccination.

Yet, when a parent presents their autistic child, or their child with seizures, and explains the child was absolutely fine until MMR or DPT vaccine (or all of them at once) and then 1) within 30 seconds began seizing and has had seizures ever since (in one case the clinic staff literally pushed her out the door of the clinic as the child was seizing in her arms!), or 2) within several days the child had regressed, no longer spoke, etc, I’m blaming the vaccines, as the parents do, as everyone should.  The pro-vaccine people simply oftentimes do not want to ever acknowledge the multitude of these experiences are real, or perhaps blame them on something else.  I believe the parents. I believe their children suffered vaccine injury.

However, I also saw in Montana the daughter of a couple who were friends of mine, and she was a total catastrophic “vegetable”, blind, deaf, no cognition per se, stuck in a wheelchair, from having developed HIB meningitis when she was an infant.

I also analyze the vaccines for their innate need—almost everyone my age had chicken pox, and easily survived, and I feel that is an unnecessary additional vaccine for kids. Let them get chickenpox.  I feel keeping infants on breast milk and probiotics is a good alternative to rotavirus infection (as none of my patients ever developed rotavirus and had to be hospitalized).  I do not believe newborns need Hep B protection. I do not think they need Hep A protection.  As a naturopathic physician, also, I feel comfortable treating many illneses in infants and toddlers—I’ve successfully treated Hep A, RSV infection, chickenpox, diarrhea, etc.

So, yes, I do not make vaccine decisions for my patients, but I ask them to read the pro and the con and become educated themselves.  If they ask my opinion I list the vaccines I think are a good idea to get, and the one’s I think they can not give their children in good conscious.

Mona Morstein, ND, DHANP
Tempe, AZ
www.diamend.info
Official Sponsor of NatChat—Doctor’s Data Labs



Anne Van Couvering

Message 28 of 31 , Feb 16 9:35 AM

View Source

I'm with Mona on this.

Succinctly:
Some people are injured by vaccines - I know, I've seen it in clinic

All vaccines are not created equal - some are more effective, some are safer, and some are less researched

All bodies are not created equal - some are more likely to react than others

Vaccines that are delivered the same way the disease is delivered are more likely to trigger the appropriate immune reaction (eg tetanus comes through the skin, tetanus is a very useful and safe vaccine)

Some diseases are more likely to cause long-standing meaningful harm than others, and some affect infants more dangerously than others and vaccines against them are more interesting to me as a result.

Government mandates for health care decisions are dangerous and likely unconstitutional

I think those points are almost universally agreed on.

Beyond that I see other possible problems that are more controversial but I can't just put aside

Adjuvants, especially aluminum, are concerning - potentially allowing viruses etc to cross the blood brain barrier

Multiple viruses all at the same time given to
Immature immune systems - not the way humans GET diseases - seems like a potentially questionable practice

Herd immunity - is it really a viable proved thing or a wishful concept? Been reading some questions about this recently.

Vaccinating children in the first year of life does not confer lifelong immunity and is a decision made by policy makers not immunologists

The profit motive is real and there are money trails that are easy to follow

Loud ad hominem yelling about how I am an unscientific fool for wondering about any of this makes me want to wonder about it even more -sorry, that is not science, that's hysteria

Why won't these parents go away when all of authority is telling them it's NOT the vaccines, and previously pro-vaccine parents are suddenly and completely convinced about the cause and effect of vaccines and autism? they're not all conspiracy driven desperate fools - plus the courts in other countries (Italy for one) are coming to the same conclusion

Wakefield was exonerated - why do we not hear that? What about this new whistle-blower?

And more, but they get further out there - not saying these are right, but I want the right to think about them and have parents think bout them without being called names or threatened with jail or having children removed from them or denied schooling or work.

Professionally I don't tell anyone what to do - I give them resources, and tell them to research, and support their decision and their child's immune and clearing systems. If patients ask me, I tell them which ones are vital for the first year, which ones can be delayed with less risk, ways to support the immune system and clear. If a family member has autism or the child has had an averse immune reaction (even temporary) I am much more cautious and recommend delaying vaccines until after the autism window. At this point I do not recommend the HPV shot to anyone, and remain unconvinced about flu shots being useful to anyone, although not as dangerous as the HPV.

Personally, I have a son with Aspergers, and wish I hadn't vaccinated him, although there was never a clear regression, and I'm not sure how or if they affected him. It's just one more maybe as to why he is so much more affected than the other males in my family who have traits but are far more functional (and are older than the extreme vaccination schedule). My son was born in 1991, the schedule changed in 1990 - as he went through school, he was always just ahead of the autism curve - services were implemented a year or two behind him, because there were more and more kids needing them. That timing always bothered me too - WHAT HAPPENED??

And until we have that answer about what happened and what's happening that is making our children so sick (how often do you see truly healthy children - vital, cheerful, happy, well, curious, bright, compassionate - either in your office or around town? -there are so many special needs and allergic children in classrooms that it's considered normal now, they are medicating TWO YEAR OLDS for depression) - until we figure that out properly, I am going to continue to be cautious about vaccines (and GMOs and water and fracking and industrial food production and and and...).

I don't have the answers but I don't think anyone does. Being told to stop asking questions when the answers are incomplete has never sat well with me.

Anne Van Couvering, ND
Berkeley, CA



Michael Uzick, N.D.

Message 29 of 31 , Feb 17 7:31 AM

View Source



Show message history

Eric Yarnell, are you the mole?

Michael Uzick, ND
Tucson



drerikak

Message 30 of 31 , Feb 17 3:29 PM

View Source

Oh, but Colleen, I am HAPPY to pull half of Pubmed into this discussion :-)

Seriously, if I read the book you recommend will you read the one I recommend?  If so, it's a deal.

In the meantime, you can take a look at this excellent JAMA summary of the historical comparisons of morbidity and mortality for various vaccine preventible diseases.  Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for Vaccine-Preventable Diseases in the United States




Historical Comparisons of Morbidity and Mortality for ...
Context National vaccine recommendations in the United States target an increasing number of vaccine-preventable diseases for reduction, eli...

View on jama.jamanetwork.com
Preview by Yahoo



If you say that there is no evidence that vaccines work then you have to willfully ignore thousands and thousands of studies.

Vaccines DO prevent "vaccine-preventible" diseases.  Some do a fantastic job, some a lousy job, but there is plenty of data to show that they work.

The question is always - do they have unintended consequences? (Genetic drift toward abnormal pertussis strains? Possible increase in autoimmunity? Development of Hia meningitis instead of Hib meningitis?)  Research is always discussing these things if you pay attention to it.

You can't just put out a blanket statement like that and then cite a book without citing original research.  Again, I could easily write an anti-vaccine book based on research, but it would be ignoring 95% of it.

What would everyone like to know? I'm happy to pull research into the conversation. There's lots of it. And I mean LOTS of it, on both sides.  It's like my weird hobby.

Also, I strongly believe that vaccines can be given safely to almost all kids.  You just have to be smart about it - absolutely no vaccine when kids are ill, minimize combo shots for high-risk kids, no no no acetaminophen around the time of immunization, and lots of antioxidants.  Liposomal glutathione turns kids right around when they start having adverse vaccine reactions.

Erika "Vaccine Information" Krumbeck
Montana Whole Health
and Naturopathic Pediatrics



L's Yahoo

Message 31 of 31 , Feb 18 10:10 PM

View Source

Wow!

I’ve just checked in on this forum, it seems I’ve been missing all the drama…I have to say, respectfully so, that Dr Uzick it is really ironic that you of all people would name Dr Yarnell, (one who I know to be as genuine a nerd and naturopathic patriot as you can possibly find which I say that with fond respect) as a potential mole when you run the clinic that Britt Hermes worked at in Arizona, no?
Dr Uzick, it would really be insightful to hear your take on Miss Herpes tales, I don’t recall ever hearing your side of the story- like have you filed suit for defamation, etc??


Secondly, I have posted questions or comments to Natchat in the past and they have never seemed to make it to the group. I believe the need for transparency and collective responsibility has got to ensue from this Britt Herpes scenario- and that would start with asking Dr Mornstein how she can be relieved of the endless obligations and the “going it alone”/hero mentality that leads to unilateral decision making associated with hosting this forum.

Because, if there’s one thing that’s certain our individual sense of self-importance will tear us apart- we need to come forth and together as a community which means working together, talking it out and sharing the responsibility for for a genuine blossoming of this field of holistic, practical Health care.

In Grace & Gratitude,
Lisa Chavez


Lisa Chavez, ND
goodnaturedmedicine.com
Seattle, WA