The Ojai Post

This doctor has zero credibility when using scare tactics without doing any research.

She says:

Another concerning aspect of this vaccine is the use of dangerous ingredients. In addition to mercury and aluminum contained in many routine vaccinations, a fast tracked vaccine such as the new H1N1 will most likely contain squalene an oil-in-water adjuvant used to stimulate the immune system. Squalene is not licensed to be used in the United States, unless it is approved by the FDA in cases of a "public health emergency."

Will it "most likely contain squalene"? I spent literally 15 seconds at CDC.gov and got the following. I don't feel like wasting any more of my time debunking more of it.

Does the 2009 H1N1 monovalent flu vaccine have an adjuvant or squalene in it?
Adjuvants are agents that are sometimes added to a vaccine to increase its effectiveness. There are no adjuvants (such as squalene) in either the 2009 H1N1 monovalent or seasonal flu vaccines used in the United States.
http://www.cdc.gov/h1n1flu/vaccination/providers_qa.htm

I'm not taking a position either way on getting the vaccination, and I am personally not getting the swine flu vaccine. But this medical professional is not acting responsibly, at the same time advertising a $40 workshop.

but the workshop is ONLY $60/couple...

In addition to what Tyler said, I noticed this so-called physician ignored the sentence in the memo to physicians from the LA Dept. of Health that says, "There is no indication from the initial Food and Drug Administration safety and efficacy studies that the pandemic (H1N1) 2009 vaccine will pose a risk of GBS."
This Feder person is simply a fearmonger. We need to use our critical-thinking skills (or develop them) to expose these people and thwart their agenda.
Maryann

Thanks for these interesting reactions... especially interesting to hear someone who questions popular opinion accused of being a "fearmonger."

Before you throw out the baby with the bathwater, I'm curious to know if you checked out Dr. Feder's credentials, web site, books, etc. I will look into her background some more as well.

I could not agree more with the very last sentence in Comment #3. But that applies across the board!

About Lauren Feder, M.D.

Lauren Feder, M.D. is a nationally recognized physician who specializes in primary care medicine, pediatrics and homeopathy. Known for her holistically minded approach and combining the ‘best of both worlds,’ Dr. Feder is a frequent lecturer for parents and professionals and has been seen nationally on various health-oriented television and radio programs including most recently Oprah and Friends interviewed by Dr. Mehmet Oz. She is the author of Natural Baby and Childcare and The Parents’ Concise Guide to Childhood Vaccinations, and is in private practice in Los Angeles. She is the mother of two boys.

Suza
I wasn't questioning whether Feder was a licensed physician. I was contrasting her fearmongering with the doctor's oath to do no harm. Sorry I didn't make that clear in my comment.
Feder is questioning not popular opinion but the opinion of many respected scientists who are backed up by studies. My use of the term "fearmongering" is justified by her spreading of misinformation (fact: no squalene in this vaccine or the anthrax vaccine) and omission of relevant information (fact: studies of the H1N1 vaccine show no risk for GBS) to persuade people not to get vaccinated. Put her distortions up against the hard data behind the recommendations to get vaccinated and, well, to me anyway, one of those clearly has more credence.
Speaking of fear, I googled to find some more facts on swine flu and the first webpage I looked at was "Swine Flu Vaccine Fearmongering" at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1296. Check it out for more rebuttals to Feder's misinformation.
Maryann

Perhaps that's why the vaccine was given free on skid row and to 1000s of uninsured people in LA County, as gov. guinea pigs. None of the rest of us could find out where these clinics were. I'm immuno comprosied from chemo and radiation and have been fighting the flu since Oct. 30. I have been unable to shake it. All I've taken is aspirin and Tylenol. My primary care doctor never even called me back so I've just been toughing it out. Stay well everybody. It's airborne and highly contagious. I caught it while waiting to have my blood drawn in a lab. There was a sick baby in there and an hour wait.

Thank you, Maryanne, for your addtional Comments. I just got home but will look up the rebuttals you referenced above, later this evening.

The public has a right to research and engage in respectful dialogue with doctors and health professionals on both sides of the fence.

This afternoon I received via e-mail an article entitled,
"Obama Administration Launches Deceptive Swine Flu Propaganda Blitz
To Counter Growing Criticism from Scientific and Medical Community."

The article is co-authored by Richard Gale and Dr. Gary Null.

Richard Gale is the Executive Producer of the Progressive Radio Network and a former Senior Research Analyst in the biotechnology and genomic industries.

Dr. Gary Null is the host of the nation’s longest running public radio program on nutrition and natural health and a multi-award-winning director of progressive documentary films, including Vaccine Nation and Autism: Made in the USA. Dr. Null is also the plaintiff on a law suit against the FDA to prevent the launch of the swine flu vaccine until safety studies have been thoroughly conducted.

"President Obama and his top health officials are engaging in a major public relations effort to divert attention away from whether its swine flu vaccine is effective and safe – to whether there is enough of it to go around. And the media, as always, is cooperating fully. This echoes the way media debate was manipulated during the Vietnam and Iraq Wars. Instead of debating whether we should even be fighting those wars, the media debated only whether we were using the correct military strategy.

Increasing numbers of scientists and doctors are issuing harsh criticisms of the Government’s plan to vaccinate (forcibly if necessary) virtually the entire U.S. population with what they claim is a poorly tested vaccine that is not only ineffective against swine flu, but could cripple and even kill many more people than it helps.

The CDC’s public relations campaign has been running “scare” ads that portray swine flu as a full-blown “pandemic” responsible for snuffing out countless lives, and which, unless stopped by universal vaccination, could kill millions of American citizens. But scientists and health officials throughout the world have called the governments claims unjustified and deliberately misleading.

For example, Dr. Anthony Morris, a distinguished virologist and former Chief Vaccine Office at the U.S. Federal Drug Administration (FDA), states that “There is no evidence that any influenza vaccine thus far developed is effective in preventing or mitigating any attack of influenza” and that “The producers of these vaccines know they are worthless, but they go on selling them anyway.”

And in November 2007, the UK newspaper The Scotsman, made public warnings by the inventor of the “flu jab,” Dr. Graeme Laver. Dr. Laver was a major Australian scientist involved in the invention of a flu vaccine, in addition to playing a leading scientific role in the discovery of anti-flu drugs. He went on record as saying the vaccine he helped to create was ineffective and [that] natural infection with the flu was safer. “I have never been impressed with its efficacy,” said Dr. Laver.

We hear the assumption being made by the Centers for Disease Control (CDC) that the number of deaths from the H1N1 virus is at pandemic levels and now a “national emergency.” One would assume that with all of its resources, the New York Times’ October 26 front page story on the CDC’s statistics would be accurate: 20,000 hospitalizations and 1,000 deaths due to the swine flu. However, this is all fiction. And it is a fiction solely based upon the CDC’s own contradictory statements and actions.

Our independent investigations into the clinical trials and statistical studies of influenza vaccines reveal glaring discrepancies. Let us not forget that it is this same New York Times, with its “star” reporter Judith Miller, who led America into believing that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, tried to purchase yellow cake uranium from Niger, and had dealings with al-Qaeda. And let us also remember that it is the same CDC and health officials in Washington, including President Ford and his top health advisor F. David Matthews, who pushed through and propagandized an untested vaccine during the 1976 swine flu scare, which resulted in thousands of severely neurologically damaged Americans and about 500 reported deaths. Aside from permanent paralysis, many of these vaccine victims also underwent torturous processes for many years to get the government to recognize their illnesses and help cover their costs. Not only was the CDC’s prediction and vaccination campaign for the 1976 flu season a total disaster, it also turned into a deadly scandal, witnessed across the United States on 60 Minutes when Dr. David Sencer, then head of the CDC, confirmed that the vaccine was never field tested, that there were only several reported incidents of H1N1 infection and none of these had been officially confirmed, and then lied about the CDC having no prior evidence that the swine flu vaccine could cause severe and permanent neurological damage. The end result from the 1976 debacle cost the government $3.5 billion in damages, two-thirds were for severe neurological injury and death directly due to the CDC’s vaccination campaign.

Therefore, being anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine is not the most urgent issue. What is critical is whether or not there is legitimate, sound science to support either position; in this regard, the vaccine manufacturers and our federal health agencies have failed in the past, and continue to fail today. And they fail dismally. There is absolutely no evidence for sound-scientific protocol or anything resembling a gold-standard behind the swine flu infection statistics and vaccine efficacy and safety clinical trials to support Obama’s and his health advisors’ claims. Instead, the reports on hospitalizations and deaths due to the H1N1 virus are grossly distorted. What we are really witnessing is “official” science and statistics that are little more than propaganda.

One unfortunate development over the years is the notion that there is such a thing as a “flu season.” The truth is that we move annually into periods where there are dramatic increases in flu-like causing pathogens, however, the majority of these are unrelated to any strain of influenza virus. There can between 150 and 200 different infectious pathogens—adenovirus, rhinovirus, parainfluenza, the very common coronavirus and, of course, pneumonia—that produce flu-like symptoms, and worse, during a “flu season.” For example, how many people have heard of bocavirus, which is responsible for bronchitis and pneumonia in young children, or metapneumovirus, responsible for more than 5 percent of all flu-related illnesses? This is true during every flu season and this year is no different. Furthermore, all flu vaccinations, including the swine flu, are useless for protecting people from these many prevalent infectious organisms.

If we take the combined figure of flu and pneumonia deaths for the period of 2001, and add a bit of spin to the figures, we are left believing that 62,034 people died from influenza. The actual figures determined by Peter Doshi, then at Harvard University, are 61,777 died from pneumonia and only 257 from flu. Even more amazing, among those 257 cases only 18 were confirmed positive for influenza. A separate study conducted by the National Center for Health Statistics for the flu periods between 1979 through 2002 revealed the true range of flu deaths were between 257 and 3006, for an average of 1,348 per year.

The recent CBS Investigative Report, published on October 21, is one example. After the CDC refused to honor CBS’s Freedom of Information request to receive flu infection data for each individual state, the network performed independent outreach to all fifty states to get their statistics. Their report contradicts dramatically the CDC’s public relations blitz. For example, in California, among the approximate 13,000 flu-like cases, 86 percent tested negative for any flu strain. In Florida, out of 8,853 cases, 83 percent were negative. In Georgia and Alaska, only 2.4 percent and 1 percent respectively tested positive for flu virus among all reported flu-like cases. If the infectious-rate ratios obtained by CBS are accurate, the CDC’s figures are significantly reduced and agree with earlier predictions that the H1N1 virus will be simply an unwelcomed annoyance. So we are in the midst of an enormous medical hoax, a design and purpose that has yet to unfold completely, that will nevertheless reap huge revenues for the vaccine industrial complex.

Another example is a recent alarmist report issuing from Georgetown University, also usurped by federal health officials and their multimedia comrades to fuel a campaign of fear and panic. The report announced that over 250 students were infected by swine flu when in fact none of these students were tested for H1N1 infection. The university’s figure was based solely on a count of student visits to the health clinic and calls into an H1N1 hotline.

This is not the first time the CDC’s predictions for influenza strains have been overstated and miscalculated. In an interview on Swedish television, Dr. Tom Jefferson, head of vaccine studies at the prestigious international Cochrane Database Collaboration, after reviewing hundreds of influenza studies and statistical analyses, has said the WHO’s and CDC’s “performance is not very good.” And in an ITN News interview last month, Jefferson called the swine flu pandemic a “juggernaut they [the WHO, government agencies and vaccine makers] created.” For the 1992-1993 season, the prediction was off by 84 percent. For the 1994-1995 season, it was off 43 percent for the primary strain and off 87 percent and 76 percent for two other strains. The Laboratory Center for Disease Control’s study comparing vaccine strains with the strains appearing during the 1997-1998 season found the match was off by 84 percent. Again Dr. Jefferson in a Der Spiegel interview remarked,

“there are some people who make predictions year after year, and they get worse and worse. None of them so far have come about, and these people are still there making these predictions. For example, what happened with the bird flu, which was supposed to kill us all?... Swine flu could have even stayed unnoticed if it had been caused by some unknown virus rather than an influenza virus... An influenza vaccine is not working for the majority of influenza-like illnesses because it is only designed to combat influenza viruses. For that reason, the vaccine changes nothing when it comes to the heightened mortality rate during the winter months.”

Our review of all clinical trial studies conducted by the H1N1 vaccine makers for pre-licensing in the American market—CSL, Novartis, Sanofi-Pasteur, Medimmune and now GlaxoSmithKline—reveals they were poorly designed and feebly executed. Any professor in molecular biology or virology would fail a graduate student who presented a paper relying on research conducted in the manner of the studies the vaccine corporations submit to the FDA. Nevertheless, it is this lack of sound randomized, double-blind controlled placebo studies, particularly for inactivated virus vaccines, that our government is declaring definitive and is using to justify mass vaccination of our population.

Last week, Switzerland’s health authorities rejected Novartis’ new swine flu vaccine, Celtura, being targeted for women and children, because the company’s studies were insufficient to guarantee its safety. In addition, the new Novartis vaccine, which uses a cell base from dogs, was found to be contaminated with canine-specific bacteria. The Swiss newspaper, Tagesanzeiger, also noted there remains some suspicion that Novartis’ new vaccine may be a repackaging of an earlier 2008 vaccine responsible for killing almost two dozen homeless people during an illegal clinical trial in Poland. This is the same Novartis whose Fluvirin H1N1 vaccine being distributed in the US relied only on a hasty clinical efficacy and safety trial enrolling only a small number of health adults. Novartis likely remains unperturbed. The Swiss pharmaceutical giant has reported a $6.1 billion profit so far this year and expects to boost sales for the final quarter with its swine flu vaccine.

In July, the CDC announced it would cease testing and counting H1N1 virus infections. Their public reason was simply that they are convinced there is a pandemic and, therefore, accurate monitoring was unnecessary. On August 30, the CDC declared the states should report influenza and pneumonia-associated hospitalizations and deaths together, not singling out actual cases of H1N1 infection if there happen to be any actually confirmed from a laboratory. This has always been the CDC’s policy, and the 36,000 figure of annual flu deaths repeated ad nausea on their website and spewed from the media’s health pulpits for several years straight, does not distinguish between pneumonia, influenza and other flu-like pathogenic deaths. Perhaps it would make very little difference because the current rapid diagnostic tests for the H1N1 virus can range in only 10-50 percent accuracy.

Elsewhere in the world, particularly in Europe, civilians are increasingly rejecting the H1N1 vaccine. Recent polls in Germany and Austria show only 13 and 18 percent respectively willing to take the shot. In Sweden, four vaccine related deaths have been announced and almost 200 healthcare workers have reported becoming more seriously ill from the vaccination than they might have from a flu infection. In the US, anywhere from 90-99 percent of adverse events go unreported.

If people would simply shut off the CDC’s supported propaganda noise being blasted across the airwaves and newspapers— the spectacle of newscasters being inoculated, interviews with government health officials or private doctors and academics receiving consultation fees from drug makers, and the drivel of the New York Times—and simply do their homework, Americans would wake up and realize the hoax behind the swine flu pandemic. All of the information is before us. Nothing is hidden. All the contradictions and hypocrisies are contained within the massive vaccine industrial complex—including the government health agencies and professional medical associations. The lie is too large for them to not expose themselves if we simply look."

I thought this paragraph, about midway, was especially relevant to our discussion:

"Therefore, being anti-vaccine or pro-vaccine is not the most urgent issue. What is critical is whether or not there is legitimate, sound science to support either position; in this regard, the vaccine manufacturers and our federal health agencies have failed in the past, and continue to fail today. And they fail dismally. There is absolutely no evidence for sound-scientific protocol or anything resembling a gold-standard behind the swine flu infection statistics and vaccine efficacy and safety clinical trials to support Obama’s and his health advisors’ claims. Instead, the reports on hospitalizations and deaths due to the H1N1 virus are grossly distorted. What we are really witnessing is “official” science and statistics that are little more than propaganda..."

Cara, I appreciate your Comments also, and hope you feel better soon.

your story is evolving, you previously said you had swine flu, i called you on it, now you say you've got the flu...perhaps if you had gone to one of the many free clinics in our county, you would be fine??

say Tyler,

I appreciate your research into the squalene issue. But at the same time, with the benefit of hindsight, don't you feel your judgment of this physician and her concerns might be a little bit excessive?

For one thing, aren't you glad somebody out there raised the squalene issue for consideration, even if only to get confirmation that it is not being used?

Secondly, you seem very quick to believe the government website that says no squalene is actually being used. Haven't your experiences with bureaucracies taught you to maintain at least a little skepticism when it comes to such blanket assurances?

Thirdly, the Feder article raises lots of other issues. Are you quite sure you're not throwing out the baby with the bathwater by rejecting her views wholesale?

Thanks for possibly re-considering your judgment in this matter.

#12 - I appreciate the note. This medical professional is trying to put butts in seats for $40 and is being deliberately inflammatory in order to do so. Seriously, if I can debunk an assertion that she calls "most likely" in 15 seconds, what credibility does she have?

I don't see any reason to spend a bunch more time continuing to fact check the article, when I (a complete layman in these matters) can pick something out and prove it wrong in a matter of seconds.

As far as the government saying adjuvants are not being used in the H1N1 vaccine, I would think it would be easy enough to counter that assertion as a lie if in fact it was one. There's no equivocation in the CDC's statement.

Regarding her other views - I'm sure there may be some truth to them. It's not my fault that she makes statements with the intent to profit that undermine her own credibility.

I'm not advocating for or against flu shots either way. I'm personally not getting one, and I don't think my decision should influence anyone else's decision.

Everything else aside for the moment, I am not understanding why some Commenters are making an issue of charging $40 for a workshop. That is within the standard range for all kinds of workshops. This fee helps cover the cost of renting space, advertising, flyers, printed matter, etc. Considering the bloated cost of medical care, the nominal $40 workshop fee ($60 for couples) is a pittance in comparison.

There is no need for this doctor to resort to false information to fill up her workshops. There are already plenty of parents and grandparents interested in this topic.

Well, Tyler, if statements by individuals or groups who have a profit interest is your standard of credibility, then I am quite sure you must TOTALLY discount EVERYTHING that comes out of the phamaceutical industry -- or the medical profession in general, for that matter -- including their statements about what ingredients may or may not be in their products.

#15 - Suza posted an article that seemed kind of fishy to me. I did a little digging and very quickly found the first statement I researched to be inaccurate, misleading and inflammatory.

I'm not against making a profit and I am not suggesting that anyone who is trying to make a profit is suspect.

I don't think there is any comparison between a sole practitioner and a multi-national pharmaceutical conglomerate, but I'm not a big fan of the latter, if that's what you're indicating.

Regarding "what ingredients may or may not be in their products" - this is a regulatory matter, and is an important and positive role that government plays in our society (a role that was completely undermined during the Bush administration and is being restored under the Obama administration).

In between my housewifely duties, I checked out the websites noted above and googled, "Swine Flu Vaccine Ingredients."

Very interesting!

The source (link) listed below states:
"Although vaccine manufacturers were pushing to be allowed to use squalene in many of the swine flu vaccines, and the US Department of Health and Human Services purchased spent more than $400 million of tax payers' money to stockpile the oil-based adjuvant, their efforts have been unsuccessful so far.

In order to legally allow unlicensed squalene adjuvants to be included in licensed H1N1 vaccines, the US government would have had to issue an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA).

There have been small H1N1clinical trials in which experimental squalene adjuvants were included and tested, which have been reported by various media sources, fueling the questions about its use. But that is different from an FDA licensed vaccine that is made available for general public use.

To date, no EUA has been issued, so the swine flu vaccines licensed for use in the US do NOT contain squalene. However, it is still unclear whether the National Emergency declaration issued by President Obama on October 23, 2009, will cover adding novel adjuvants like squalene, or whether a separate EUA must be issued to allow the use of unlicensed adjuvants.

The best way to confirm the existence of vaccine components is to consult the vaccine product manufacturer inserts."

In the source below you will find links to the inserts for the four H1N1 vaccines licensed for use in the US.

This source adds that "Unfortunately, vaccine manufacturers have persuaded countries in Europe and elsewhere to add squalene to seasonal influenza and H1N1 vaccines, so if you live outside the US, you will need to do some further research to determine which vaccines may contain squalene."

Source: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/11/05/Swine-Flu-Vaccine-Ingredients.aspx

The November 2009 issue of Atlantic magazine has an article entitled "Does the Vaccine Matter?" by Shannon Brownlee and Jeanne Lenzer.

Here's a direct link:

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200911/brownlee-h1n1

An interesting quote from the article:

"But what if everything we think we know about fighting influenza is wrong? What if flu vaccines do not protect people from dying—particularly the elderly, who account for 90 percent of deaths from seasonal flu? And what if the expensive antiviral drugs that the government has stockpiled over the past few years also have little, if any, power to reduce the number of people who die or are hospitalized? The U.S. government—with the support of leaders in the public-health and medical communities—has put its faith in the power of vaccines and antiviral drugs to limit the spread and lethality of swine flu. Other plans to contain the pandemic seem anemic by comparison. Yet some top flu researchers are deeply skeptical of both flu vaccines and antivirals. Like the engineers who warned for years about the levees of New Orleans, these experts caution that our defenses may be flawed, and quite possibly useless against a truly lethal flu. And that unless we are willing to ask fundamental questions about the science behind flu vaccines and antiviral drugs, we could find ourselves, in a bad epidemic, as helpless as the citizens of New Orleans during Hurricane Katrina."

An Epidemic of Fear: How Panicked Parents Skipping Shots Endangers Us All
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience

A response to the Atlantic article on vaccinations from an actual infectious disease specialist, point by point:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2495

Both well worth reading.

(Can anyone tell me where Feder got her MD? I can only find references to her homeopathic training online. Along with a lot of marketing.)

Dear Tyler,

How can you make a statement like this:

"This medical professional is trying to put butts in seats for $40 and is being deliberately inflammatory in order to do so."

and then in the next comment say you have no problem with people making statements about things they have a profit interest in?

With regard to your research: You have heard one statement from Dr. Feder; you have read a counter-statement from the U.S. government. And then you consider the matter closed. Did you ever consider that Dr. Feder may have a reply to the U.S. government's statement? Why do you consider the government's statement to be the definitive, final, ultimate last word on the subject?

I think you need to consider the possibility that your own comments on this subject have been rather inflammatory.

Great articles Leah, I have vaccinated children, I am not afraid of getting them innoculated. However we didn't follow the regular panel recommendation. I got them selectively vaccinated opting out of Chickenpox and many of the multi-vax applications. Seems there is a higher incidence of adverse reactions with the grouped vaxes then single spaced vaccinations. I'll admit I've been leary about this vaccine because of all the negative hype. So far this flu hasn't been much more than the average flu. However, I'm now reading reports of a superflu developing in the Ukraine, this was the danger of this virus. Not that right now it's lethal, but more like it has the ability to mutate into something lethal, much more than a normal virus. So... I'm considering getting this vaccination. I was almost decided 100% until I read this:
"To be clear, there is no credible evidence to indicate that any of this is true. None. Twelve epidemiological studies have found no data that links the MMR (measles/mumps/rubella) vaccine to autism; six studies have found no trace of an association between thimerosal (a preservative containing ethylmercury that has largely been removed from vaccines since 2001) and autism, and three other studies have found no indication that thimerosal causes even subtle neurological problems." from your wired article Leah, thank you.
Having interned in a lab at a local major University studying Autism and the Autistic brain organization, i had the opportunity to ask a professor who's dedicated his life long research to this very issue. His take... he couldn't say that vaccine did not cause Autism, he said it was deceitful for the medical establishment to deny any correlation between the two. That in fact many studies have pointed to the association, just because they haven't discovered the causative agent, doesn't mean vaccines are free and clear from blame, according to this Autism research lab. He noted that if his research started to point blame at the vaccine, HIS FUNDING WOULD BE DENIED.
So when I read articles that seem well informed, I am on alert for these claims, I always find sections like the one I copied and pasted above that make it hard for me to believe.
So, I guess I'm watching for this superflu. If one develops i guess my urgency in obtaining this vax will increase, for right NOW I think I'd rather get the H1N1 naturally. News is just that, news. Research is research, not to be confused. News almost never accurately reports research.

Thanks, Leigh, I am up to my ears reading the material on both links.

In the interest of full disclosure, I have been researching the pros and cons of immunizations since I became a parent in 1968. Medical doctors such as Henry Bieler, Robert S. Mendelsohn, to name only a few, and numerous other health professionals, have debated this topic for decades.

It is fascinating to me how the pro vaccine people acuse those who question the party line of panic, fearmongering, and putting the rest of humanity at risk.

60 Minutes did a show on October 18, 2009 about a teenage boy named Luke Duvall who allegedly became extremely ill after falling victim to the swine flu. Here is the link, in case you missed it:

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?...inColumnArea.2

Here is a brief passage from the 60-Minute transcript on Luke Duvall:

"In Little Rock, the flu tests came back on Luke Duvall: it is 2009 H1N1, but also something else - staph pneumonia on top of the flu virus.

Staphylococcal bacteria came in behind the virus, in that common co-infection seen in the sickest patients."

Asked what that means, Dr. Michele Moss replied, "Well, it means that some of the injury in his lung is due to the virus and due to the flu, but on top of it he's got just a good old fashioned bacterial pneumonia with the toxins from the bacteria causing his blood pressure to be unstable."

As I understand it, Luke was infected with H1N1, but he also had a staphylococcal bacterial infection. That bacterial infection in turn caused the pneumonia which is what brought this young man to the brink of death. But if you watch the segment with a critical eye, you might wonder what was the real message behind this segment?

One of the problems I have with the pro-vaccine camp is the repeated message that "Vaccination is our best, and safest, line of defense." Very rarely is a word mentioned about building a healthy immune system by breastfeeding our chidren, by eliminating sugar and other junk food, by making sure our food/supplements provide factors like vitamins C & D complex that are citical to boosting our immune system, especially in the colder, darker winter months, etc.

The CDC is failing the public when their message appears to be that vaccines offer better protection than a healthy environment and lifestyle.
Their crediblity would improve if they at least promoted both.

So we can avoid H1N1 by simply eating better? I don't need to get a vaccine? Just avoid sugar? Wow, never mind the CDC recommendations, or what my doctor advises, I'll just lay off the soda and I will be cured and never get the Swine Flu!

To #23, I never said it was as simple as that.

The current issue of the VC Reporter has an interesting feature article:

H1N1 vaccine: A shot in the dark --
Why parents are hesitating to get kids immunized.

http://www.vcreporter.com/cms/story/detail/h1n1_vaccine_a_shot_in_the_dark/7411/

After reading this, I have a better understanding of the 60-Minute segment mentioned above. The article states:

"Another disturbing aspect about this strain of flu is that the hardest-hit patients have been older children and young adults, those who are usually in the best health at the time they get the flu. This was true for the 1918 flu, and the phenomenon has been attributed to something called a “cytokine storm.” It is where the immune system of a healthy individual fights back against the invading virus with such power that it sometimes overwhelms the body’s ability to survive.

It leaves the lungs wide open to secondary infection such as pneumonia, and that, too, is often deadly."

"It is fascinating to me how the pro vaccine people acuse those who question the party line of panic, fearmongering, and putting the rest of humanity at risk."

Ummm, Suza, that's because the anti-vaxx people do.

Of course not everyone, but if you look at the rhetoric, a whole lot of it is pretty over the top.

If you read the Wired article I linked to, Paul Offit gets death threats. People who point to the hard science and say that proof of autism links, for example, haven't been strongly made, are called everything from demons to tools. And so on.

There is an anti-science hysteria level in a lot of the noisy members of the anti-vaxx community that is downright frightening to me (especially the autism link community), for a couple of reasons:

1. Many are utterly convinced that vaccines are the sole cause of autism and are vehemently angry at anyone who suggests otherwise. They are completely certain in a way that the scientific community generally doesn't claim because of how science works, and they aren't held to the same standards of empirical distance, peer review, etc. Anyone who argues with them is in love with evil Big Pharma, (even though other drugs are far bigger profit centers than vaccines, generally) and there's no self-awareness of the profit motives of the professionals in the anti-vaxx community. Andrew Wakefield is the most egregious example of this -- and he's become a martyr to the cause. He's got real, live charges raised against him and they must be concocted, but scientists who've spent a lifetime working for community health with no blot on their records are instantly suspect. It's emotional, not rational. (Another reason to read the Wired article -- there are actually some psychological indicators of why this is an appealing move.)

And what happens if vaccines DON'T cause autism? The vast majority of attention and resources on autism has been focused on this battle, not the myriad of other possible causes for the rise in autism diagnosis rates. How is this a good thing?

2. When people choose not to vaccinate they do impact the rest of the world. Herd immunity is compromised remarkably quickly. Which is why this isn't merely a personal decision -- it's a lot more complicated than that. We don't live in vacuums and to insist that it's simply an individual's right to decide is irresponsible. If I claimed that it was my right to have an open septic system behind my house and to feed the rat population daily so it exploded in my neighborhood, is that my undeniable right? Or might my actions have implications for other people's health and therefore be responded to differently by a civil society? I just don't think it's that black and white. We are constantly balancing risks for ourselves and for the general good of our communities, personal liberties against the needs of the whole.

Lastly, while I am a devoted popper of various vitamins and such when I'm feeling run down, here's an evocative piece challenging a lot of assumptions about immune system boosting:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1828

I had never thought about it this way, but he's got some really interesting points about inflammation and the immune system -- and he's an immunologist. Worth thinking about in relationship to cytokine storms????)

Best,
Leigh

Oh, Katie K -- somehow missed your post before!

"So, I guess I'm watching for this superflu. If one develops i guess my urgency in obtaining this vax will increase, for right NOW I think I'd rather get the H1N1 naturally."

That's my thinking as well.

If this bug had come back this fall roaring and as frightening as it might have, I would have been a lot more concerned about getting a vaccine -- not only for my own health, but in the interests of helping the community to reach herd immunity stability.

As it is, particularly since I'm not in a high risk group and there is a shortage of the vaccine, it doesn't make sense to me to get it.

Best,
Leigh

Is everyone aware of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program?

Since 1989 this fund has paid out: $1,913,708,809.71 in compensation. (http://www.hrsa.gov/Vaccinecompensation/statistics_report.htm) Seems this is an admission of culpability on some level by the powers that are promoting mass immunizations. If we are prepared to suffer a minority of our citizens being damaged for the "good of the herd" then at least let's be upfront about it and hear from ALL the interested parties in this debate. Bill Maher puts this point across very eloquently here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bill-maher/vaccination-a-conversatio_b_358578.html

Vaccine Nation

The Vaccine Nation Documentary Film Trailer

http://www.vaccinenation.net/

Synopsis:
At the end of the eighteenth century, British physician Edward Jenner, with highly questionable medical credentials, initiated the theory and practice of live virus immunization that continues to serve as the scientific basis for the ever increasing vaccination of the world’s citizens.

With the number of vaccinations given to infants and children rising, kids are receiving doses of toxic mercury and other heavy metals well above environmental safety levels.

Yet the medical evidence is clear. Mercury, known as thimerosal, and other heavy metal additives are highly toxic and threaten children with neurological damage. The long-term efficacy of global vaccination remains controversial, inconclusive and is suspect in light of the powerful corporate interests, lobbying efforts, and profits associated with a multi-billion dollar vaccine industry.

In his documentary film, Vaccine Nation, award-winning investigative film director Dr. Gary Null challenges the basic health claims by government health agencies and pharmaceutical firms that vaccines are perfectly safe. This is one of the most critical questions facing today’s children and future generations to come. If inoculation with a large regimen of vaccines is safe, what can account for the rapid increase in autism and other mental disabilities that are now at epidemic proportions? And why isn’t the sudden onset of neurological illnesses in children being treated as an urgent crisis by our government and medical industries?

Weaving together interviews with many of the nations most expert medical researchers, private physicians specializing in autism, parents of children victimized by immunization, congressmen, vaccination activists, legal authorities and more, Vaccine Nation will awaken viewers to one of the continual perils to the health and future of children.

Disclaimer: I am posting this for informational purposes only. I do not know if all of the film content is accurate, but as a writer it is my responsibility to look at issues from different perspectives.

Thanks for your new Comments Leigh. I enjoy having this exchange of ideas with you.

To Wayne Thompson, Comment #27
No, I was not aware of the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. That's alot of money!

"The general public is essentially unaware of the true number of people -- mostly children -- who have been permanently damaged or killed by vaccines. In fact, most parents would be surprised to learn that the government has a secret computer database filled with several thousand names of disabled and dead babies, children who were healthy and alive just prior to receiving the vaccines."

http://www.thinktwice.com/secret.htm#data

Leigh, I read the article you recommended about immune system boosting:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=1828

Did you notice this statement:

"All the classic quack interventions: chiropractic, homeopathy, acupuncture, can also boost your immune system by, you know, changing some energy vibration or unblocking something or other. In fact one of the amazing things is that as best I can tell, there is no quack practice that someone, somewhere, says will boost your immune system."

This author seems to label anything he does not understand or agree with as quackery, the same as people have done for centuries...

Hey Suza:

Cheers! :-)

To Anon #31:

The folks that write on that blog are fervently committed to science-based medicine. If it can't be proven scientifically/medically, they are suspicious of it.

I am not as much of a purist about it and believe that there are a variety of ways to truth. (My academic work, for example, is in mythology and psychology.)

However, I think it's well worth reading and assessing their ideas. Yes, they are dismissive of what they define as "woo" and tend to be cynical about a lot of alternative medicine. (Though, if you read more on the site you'll see that they are open anything that has a legitimate scientific base and has had legitimate research results -- herbs, for example, and more conservative chiropractic claims.)

Anyway, while I don't necessarily agree with the idea that scientific thought trumps every other kind of thought, they come from a place of distinct intellectual discipline and care, which I really respect.

A thoughtful, nuanced exploration of the differences between science and pseudoscience -- looking at causation and correlation, how they differ and how they intersect:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=2741

Best,
Leigh

Re: Vaccine Nation

The synopsis you quote, Suza, begins with:

"At the end of the eighteenth century, British physician Edward Jenner, with highly questionable medical credentials, initiated the theory and practice of live virus immunization that continues to serve as the scientific basis for the ever increasing vaccination of the world’s citizens."

Edward Jenner had a perfectly legitimate medical background and the suggestion that he didn't is downright untruth. He was an MD and member of the Royal Society. Furthermore, this man that they condemn invented the smallpox vaccination. When he came up with the vaccine, one out of three people died of the disease and most who survived it were severely disfigured. This was a disease that had ravaged people for thousands of years -- killing up to hundreds of thousands annually. How is he evil and incompetent?

In contrast, Gary Null is NOT an MD and his medical/academic credentials are less than stellar. And in addition to fanning the vaccine/autism connection flames, he's also a fairly loud AIDs/HIV denialist:

http://www.actupny.org/reports/denialist_gary_null.html

Remarkably irresponsible. And really makes me wonder why I should believe anything he says about vaccines.

Best,
Leigh

Hi Leigh,

I want to make clear that I am NOT saying that immunizations do not play a role in preventing disease. However, as books such as "Medical Nemesis: the Expropriation of Health," by Ivan Illich point out, analysis of disease trends has shown that environment (air, water, nutrition, housing, sanitation, plumbing, economics, social and cultural attitudes, etc.) is the primary determinant of the state of health of any population.

I am well aware that historically immunizations were designed for very serious life-threatening diseases such as smallpox, tetanus and diphtheria. I am not questioning the role they played in the decline of once-sweeping disease outbreaks.

Basically what I am saying here on the Ojai Post is that before subjecting your six-week old baby to multiple immunizations or yourself to the H1N1 flu vaccine, be aware that the risks of taking these shots may outweigh the benefits.

I will address Edward Jenner and other things that have come up in seperate Comments.

Regarding Comment #33:
"Edward Jenner had a perfectly legitimate medical background..."

Here are the highlights of the Life of Edward Jenner S.J. (1749 -1823), father of vaccines.

1749
Jenner is born on May 17, in Berkeley, Gloustershire, England, son of a clergyman in the "church" of England.

1763
At the age of 14 he was apprenticed for seven years to Mr Daniel Ludlow, a surgeon of Chipping Sodbury, where he gained most of the experience needed to become a surgeon himself.

1770
At the age of 21 he was sent for two years as a pupil to Dr. John Hunter, of London, who undoubtedly was the most eminent surgeon of his day, and, like Jenner himself, a keen naturalist. While in London he became friends with Joseph Banks would later become president of the Royal Society.

1772
At 23, Jenner returned to his native village and started to practice as surgeon and apothecary. Here he remained for 17 years, just a plain unqualified country surgeon and apothecary, unknown to the world at large, but keeping up a correspondence with Hunter on a variety of natural history subjects.

1787
Jenner submits a paper on the nesting habits of the cuckoo.

1789
Thanks to his friends in high places, Jenner is elected a member of the Royal Society for his paper on the nesting habits of the cuckoo.

1790
Jenner becomes Dr. Jenner M.D., by buying a medical degree from the University of St. Andrew's for the sum of £15.

1791
Edward Jenner vaccinates his 18 month old son with swine-pox. In 1798 he vaccinates his son with cow-pox. His son will die of TB at the age of 20.

1796
On May 14, Jenner inoculates James Phipps, the eight-year old son of his gardener with cowpox disease which he had obtained from a local milkmaid named Sarah Nelmes. The boy develops cowpox but lives. In July, he inoculates the boy with smallpox. The boy dies at the age of 21 from tuberculosis.

1797
Jenner sends a paper to the Royal Society about his newly invented disease: variolae vaccinae or smallpox of the cow. The paper is rejected and returned with a warning "He had better not promulgate such a wild idea if he valued his reputation."

1798
Jenner publishes his Inquiry into the Cause and Effects of the Variolæ Vaccinæ. Variolæ was the common name for smallpox and vaccinæ was the scientific name for cow. So Jenner was able to equate smallpox (a human disease) with cowpox - a disease of animals.

1802
Royal Jennerian Society is formed in London but dies out in 6 years due to lack of interest.

1810
Jenner's son dies at the age of 21 from TB.

1813
For inventing a new disease, the University of Oxford awarded Jenner an honorary M.D. degree.

1819
James Phipps, the boy that Jenner used in his ghoulish experiments dies at 21 of TB.

1823
Jenner dies.

1838
John Baron writes The Life of Edward Jenner in 2 volumes. This panegyric was written by a man who was a consulting physician to the Lunatic Asylum at Gloucester.

Re rest of Comment #33, You raise several legitimate points. I'm running off to teach but look forward to responding more later today or over the week-end...There is much more to this than meets the eye!

Dear Leigh,

I read your comments about the anti-science attitudes of many of those in the anti-vaccine, alternative medicine camp, and I am fully sympathetic with your point of view in that regard.

But I think it is equally dangerous to accept the views of the medical establishment on grounds that they represent science and everyone else does not. There is plenty of evidence that many of those in the medical profession are very limited in their views and understanding both by the narrow conditioning to which they are subjected in their field as well as by self-interest.

To take just one example: the field of medicine performs more cruel and useless experiments upon animals than any other profession. Oh I know all their rationalizations and justifications very well. But I also know how little they regard the lives and sufferings of the creatures they experiment upon.

So I think it is a little short-sighted for people like you -- and Tyler -- to dismiss the anti-vaccine folks for having bad motives, as if the medical establishment was not equally infected with its own short-sighted, self-serving motives.

So if we're going to debate the H1N1 vaccine, how about if we just leave out all the speculation about anybody's motives and talk instead about the facts about the vaccine? I don't think this debate is well-served by taking 15 seconds to look up the government line, as Tyler did, and accept that as gospel truth, and dismiss any critics of the government program as people who just want to "put butts in seats" for a pitifully little $40 workshop. I think he still owes Suza, and this whole discussion, an apology.

My first comment was that the medical professional in question was acting irresponsibly and doesn't have credibility because of her easily debunked article. That's my opinion. If it turns out she is right and the government is lying about including adjuvants, then I'll be happy to apologize.

But her language was deliberately inflammatory, which is what caused me to do a little research in the first place. Regarding me taking 15 seconds to debunk the article - would it have carried more weight if I took three hours and exhaustively researched the same thing?

I have refrained from participating in the broader discussion about vaccines. I've stated clearly that people should make their own decisions about vaccinations. My comments specifically addressed the article above. Not once did I "dismiss the anti-vaccine folks for having bad motives."

Now, just for fun, let's run the numbers (and this isn't meant to influence the conversation about the original article) on the "pitifully little" workshop fee. The fee is $40/$60 for couples. If 80 people attend and half at the couples rate, that's a gross of $2,800. Less 20% for venue, advertising, etc, that's a net of $2,240. If she does four workshops a week, that's a monthly net of $35,840 and an annual net of $430,080.

Dave,
Me thinks there's a poem/sonnet to be found in this debris field...

Just for fun - I spent literally 15 seconds at http://www.drfeder.com and got the following:

The ACTUAL schedule of the medical practitioner in question:
"Upcoming" Workshops taken from the website of The Medical Group of Lauren Feder, M.D.:

Newborn Care Workshop
Los Angeles, CA
Saturday November 21, 2009
Vaccine Safety - Los Angeles
Los Angeles, CA
Sunday November 8, 2009
Vaccine Safety - Santa Monica
Santa Monica, CA
Wednesday November 18, 2009
Rosary Meditation Group
Los Angeles, CA
Vaccine Safety- Fullerton
Fullerton, CA
Saturday November 7, 2009

This equals 3 workshops a MONTH (on the topic of vaccinations)rather than the 4 workshops per WEEK as postulated.

An expense that hasn't been entered into the equation is the cost of attending the International Public Conference on Vaccination in Washington, D.C which ran from Thursday the 1st of October until Monday the 5th of October.

Just for fun...:)

Well maybe her schedule is a little slow right now, Wayne - she does describe herself as "a frequent lecturer for parents and professionals". Thanks for the fact-check...

Hi David:

If you read my posts carefully, you hopefully noticed that I don't believe that science (or Western medicine, as a subset of science) trumps all other forms of understanding in the world. I tried to be pretty clear about that, so I don't think that's something that I'd argue with you at all.

And while I think people can have (as I do as well) issues with research practices that include animals, that doesn't negate the findings of the research.

Ultimately, while I'd love to have a conversation simply on the merits of the facts about vaccinations, the problem is that the facts get clouded with a whole lot of emotions and a whole lot of information that is passed off as 'truth' when it isn't provable.

What the medical folks in the articles I've pointed to are arguing, and I would agree, is that to claim certainty about something medical without having research to back up that certainty is at best naive. At worst, it's manipulative and damaging.

That said, I don't believe that everyone in the anti-vax movement has bad motives. Far from it!

I think asking question is always legitimate. I think risk assessment is important. And I think parents who are fighting for their children, as in the case of the autism questions, are fighting with a passion that is admirable. I even agree with Tyler about vaccines being a personal choice -- my caveat is that it is a choice with implications far beyond our own lives and that detail seems often to get lost in the high emotions that seem to be inherent to the conversation.

My problem is that when you look at many of the leaders in this anti-vax conversation, there are a lot of people who are making huge claims that flatly contradict evidentiary science with no counter other than belief. Belief in something does not make it true. (In literal, tangible ways.)

Additionally, while I'm sure lots of the people involved in the conversation have really good intentions, there are people who are fairly obviously snake oil salesmen who make lots and lots of money off of people's fears.

So, what I often see when I look at this debate is on the one hand, people who have gone through rigorous academic/medical training, have external licensing and peer review systems in place, and who very carefully state only those things that they can clearly prove as fact (and even then, most often, acknowledging that scientific certainty is something that is never 100%). Their messages are complicated and nuanced. These are the people being accused of being thoughtless automatons who blindly follow "big government" and 'big pharma" down the path of damaging children and torturing families just to make bucks. Evil, greedy, stupid, sheep-like or villainous capitalists.

But to the rescue come the truth sayers! The purists! The people who are brave enough to take on the evil overlords of government!

Except that when I look at most of the people who've cast themselves in these roles, they are often really charismatic story tellers/message bringers who don't have equally rigorous training, who don't have external review processes, who aren't constantly pushed towards quantifiable truth to their statements like the science community is, and who can make a whole lot of money pushing their narratives. They offer broad based, feel-good messages that are carefully crafted to meet the psychological needs of their audiences.

They are like infomercial people pitching instant weight loss, much more appealing than stodgy "eat less, exercise more" messages that are really how you lose weight. And I've done my share of buying into those messages -- I'd much rather have a magic pill that will allow me to eat all the chocolate I'd like than suck it up and put the sugar away when I need to lose weight. We all would.

I've done my own broad-brush painting here, I know, as I've tried to make a point. And is this dynamic true 100% of the time? Of course not. There are scientists who are arrogant and who take short cuts. Who make mistakes. Pharmaceutical companies that have obviously been greedy in various situations. And there are system questioners who are absolutely filled with non-selfish commitment for the truth.

But this is why I come back to the evidence -- prove to me how what you're saying is true and I can meet you in a place beyond personal bias. And I'm far more open to anecdotal truth, if there is causation that's genuinely apparent in the correlation, than a scientist would be -- I live in the world of metaphor and connected ideas so I get jazzed over those connections. But if you're claiming something is scientifically true, then, in my mind, you need to be able to prove it with the science you're claiming.

So, with all of that, the Gary Nulls of the world, who one day condemn vaccines and the next insist that HIV doesn't exist, aren't worth my time. I think they're reprehensible.

All the best,
Leigh

Just for fun, I'm going to call the Yo Mama Yoga Center that sponsored the workshop two days ago and find out how many people attended...what rent or percentage was paid to the yoga center...the cost of healthy refreshments and other items provided at the workshop...and after that we can compare the workshop figures with the figures for doctor visits, drugs, etc.

Here is the Vaccine Safety workshop information taken from the Yo Mama Yoga website:

"Please join nationally recognized physician and Author Dr. Lauren Feder at Yo Mama Yoga for a workshop on Vaccine Safety on Wednesday, November 11th at 6:30P.M.

There has been a growing movement among parents to question the safety of vaccines and antibiotics. This workshop is for parents and parents-to-be who are seeking optimum health for their children.

Dr. Feder will present an overview of health, disease and each vaccination. Includes pros, cons, risk, benefits and prevention of vaccine side effects. Syllabus provided.

Lauren Feder, M.D. is a nationally recognized physician who specializes in primary care medicine, pediatrics and homeopathy. Known for her holistically minded approach and combining the ‘best of both worlds,’ Dr. Feder is a frequent lecturer for parents and professionals and has been seen nationally on various health-oriented television and radio programs including most recently Oprah and Friends interviewed by Dr. Mehmet Oz. She is the author of Natural Baby and Childcare and The Parents’ Concise Guide to Childhood Vaccinations , and is in private practice in Los Angeles. She is the mother of two boys. Visit Dr Feder's website at www.drfeder.com.

Make your reservations early, seating is limited.

Wednesday, November 18th
6:30PM, Drinks and Appetizers will be provided."

On a related note, I still remember how back in 1968 the hospital sent me home with several cases of formula. There was no education provided on how breastfeeding increases a child's immunity to disease and infections. When I went to the doc for my six-week check up, he was eager for me to start weaning my baby, get him going on baby food (is there anything more disgusting than a jar of Gerber beef or veal) and, most important, get going on whatever shots were in vogue at the time...

From my perspective, Dr. Feder's workshop might save parents a small fortune in future medical expenses.

Reviews for "The Parents' Concise Guide to Childhood Vaccinations: From Newborns to Teens, Practical Medical and Natural Ways to Protect Your Child," by Lauren Feder, MD.

“A brilliantly readable exposition of the facts about vaccinations…this book will help you more than any other. “ — Jay N. Gordon, M.D., FAAP, Associate Professor of Pediatrics, UCLA Medical School, and author of Listening to Your Baby.

"A very readable discussion of the pros and cons of specific vaccinations, and of vaccines in general. Feder includes alternatives to the standard vaccination schedule, an excellent 'Safe Shot Strategy' that advises on how best to prepare for vaccination, and information about prophylactic homeopathic treatments and other natural therapies." — Melissa Chianta, Mothering Magazine

Product Description:
As a physician trained in both standard and holistic medicine–and as a parent herself–Lauren Feder, M.D., presents the facts about vaccinations.

If you have chosen to vaccinate your children, she offers both practical medical and natural remedies to avoid possible side effects.

If you have chosen not to vaccinate your children, she offers natural medicines to strengthen your child’s immune system, along with tips on how to deal with legal exemptions, school requirements, and medical insurances.

If you’re just not sure what to do, she offers a balanced and easy-to-understand discussion of the issues, explaining the truth about the effectiveness of vaccinations, side effects, and much more.

With information on the latest available vaccinations for teens (including the meningococcal and HPV vaccinations), as well as new schedules for childhood vaccinations, The Parents’ Concise Guide to Childhood Vaccinations is a comprehensive and reassuring guide to help you make the right decision for your child.

For a far more balanced, in depth bio of Edward Jenner:

http://www.jenner.ac.uk/edwardjenner.html

The bio you shared, Suza, is a really good example of inflammatory/biased presentation of partial information.

A few examples (won't take the time to argue point by point through all of them, to everyone's relief, I'm sure):

• Prior to the 1790's, everyone "bought" their MD. Edinburgh and London were considered the top medical schools at the time.

• "Unqualified" was not a reference to his skill but his registration at the time, and he was not qualified as a surgeon, he was a general practice country doctor -- this was how any doctor practicing as he did would have been described.

• People were already being inoculated (called variolation) for small pox (Jenner had been, himself, as a child). He shifted the risk by realizing that cow pox, a far less virulent disease, created immunity to small pox. The horrible image of him injecting a boy with small pox is really inaccurate -- James Phipps was given the small pox variolation as many people were. The "ghoulish experiment" claim in the bio above is just a leeeetle over the top...

• While the Royal College may have excoriated him in 1797 but in 1798 they made him an Honorary fellow of the Royal College of Medicine -- a major award given only to people who made enormous impacts in human health.

• He was honored in lots of places, perhaps most movingly, by a group of Native American Chiefs (folks may recall how devastating small pox was to the Native American population).

So, yes, the guy was legitimate.

Best,
Leigh

Thanks, Leigh, I'm learning alot from this exchange. I appreciate the time and care you put into your responses.

I've just made the fascinating disovery that the Quackwatch website,(http://www.quackwatch.com/) and the Science Based website are linked. It now appears that every single author in my alternative/ complimentary medicine/health library is considered an unscientific quack!

It's a good thing I wasn't born yesterday.

I just got this email from County Health:

Ventura County Health Care Agency will be holding another H1N1 vaccine dispensing clinic at Ojai Nordhoff High School, Tuesday, December 8, 3PM to 8PM, 1401 Maricopa Highway, Ojai, CA.

Thanks for subscribing to our email list.

Your Ventura County Health Care Agency Emergency Preparedness Team
http://www.vchca.org/h1n1

Hopfully the vaccine alamists will not get the shots - good way to weed out the nincompoops out of the gene pool !

Due to limited supplies, H1N1 vaccine in Ventura County is limited to:

1. Pregnant women

2. Children and young adults from 6 months to 24 years of age

3. Caretakers and household contacts of infants less than 6 months of age

4. Persons aged 25 through 64 years of age who have high risk medical conditions, e.g.: lung disease including asthma, COPD, heart disease (not high blood pressure); diabetes; morbid obesity; neurocognitive or neuromuscular disease; immunocompromised (cancer, chemotherapy, steroids, congenital, HIV).

5. health care and emergency medical services personnel who have direct patient contact.

If, and only if, you are in one of the above five categories you're eligible for vaccine:

If you are healthy, not pregnant and 2 to 49 years old, you will be given FluMist.

All others will be given injectable H1N1 vaccine.

This will allow the maximum number of people to receive H1N1 vaccine while supplies are still limited.

People with serious egg allergies should not get H1N1 vaccines.

Those with runny noses should not get FluMist.