or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Are getting no vaccines right for us?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Are getting no vaccines right for us? - Page 2

post #21 of 109

Robert S. Mendelsohn also published a book called "How to Raise a Healthy Child... In Spite of Your Doctor," I bought a copy off Amazon.  It´s from 1984 so a lot of stuff is outdated, particularly when he talks about vax, (old schedule and diff vaxes) but the overall theme is about how to avoid unnecessary drugs/procedures. 

 

Some of the major topics:

"Drs. Aren´t Taught the Importance of Nutrition" "Drs. Rarely Investigate the Drugs They Use" "Why Weight Charts are Misleading" "Childbirth Should be a Natural Process" "Don´t Start Solid Foods Too Early" "Children Cry Because they Have Problems"

 

And then he goes into what the parents should do for whatever ailment your kid has, before you call the pedi.

 

On vax he wrote:

 

Quote:
1. There is no convincing scientific evidence that mass inoculations can be credited with eliminating any childhood disease...
2. It is commonly believe that the Salk vaccine was responsible for halting the polio epidemics that plaqued American children in the 1940´s and 1950´s. If so, why did the epidemics also end in Europe, where polio vaccine was not so extensively used?...
3. There are significant risks associated with every immunization and numerous contraindications that may make it dangerous for the shots to be given to your child....
4. While the myriad of short-term hazards of most immunizations are known (but rarely explained), no one knows the long-term consequences of injecting foreign proteins into the body of your child....
5. There is a growing suspicion that immunization against relatively harmless childhood diseases may be responsible for the dramatic increase in autoimmune diseases since mass inoculations were introduced.

He does have some references listed in the back of the book, but does not cite specifics in the chapters.

 

He then discusses what to do if your child should have a vpd...

 

It´s a pretty interesting book, (although some things outdated), especially to hear his perspective as a dr. who practiced for many decades, many decades ago. His attitude towards measles is fairly non-chalant (I know sometimes people bring up the brady bunch episode about measles and it being a normal childhood disease back then), he additioanlly wrote: " I would consider the risks of associated with the measles vaccination unacceptable even if there were convincing evidence that the vaccine works. There isn´t."

 

I guess it was a good thing he wrote this at the end of his career/life!!

 

too bad now everyone here will associate his name with a hate website...

 

post #22 of 109

sorry, double post! oops

post #23 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by slmommy View Post

 

too bad now everyone here will associate his name with a hate website...

 



Or with deceptive marketing practices for unregulated dietary supplements.  It's too bad he didn't care enough about his patients to avoid involving himself in efforts to protect quackery and deception.  

post #24 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post



Or with deceptive marketing practices for unregulated dietary supplements.  It's too bad he didn't care enough about his patients to avoid involving himself in efforts to protect quackery and deception.  



He died in 1988... published 3 books in the 80s... 

 

according to wikipedia - 

 

 

 

 

Quote:

For 12 years, Mendelsohn was an instructor at Northwestern University Medical College, and was associate professor of pediatrics and community health and preventive medicine at the University of Illinois College of Medicine for another 12 years.

From 1981 to 1982, Mendelsohn was president of the National Health Federation (NHF). He also served as National Director of Project Head Start's Medical Consultation Service (a position he was later forced to resign after criticizing the public school system), and as Chairman of the Medical Licensing Committee of Illinois.

 

when did he deceptively market unregulated diet supplements??? are you thinking about mercola??

 

 

post #25 of 109

As head of the National Health Federation.  

post #26 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

As head of the National Health Federation.  



Ok, I did some quick searching... he was head of NHF 1981-82, theres some info about NHF's "Vitamin Bill" in the 70s, so what exactly did he do 1981-1982, can you fill me in??... also, the only sites I've found are on "quackwatch.com" clearly unhappy with many of his positions...

post #27 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post



Or with deceptive marketing practices for unregulated dietary supplements.  It's too bad he didn't care enough about his patients to avoid involving himself in efforts to protect quackery and deception.  



 

Could you please specify exactly which dietary supplements, and exactly what the deceptive marketing practice was?

 

Would you also like to comment on the deceptive marketing practices currently used by the pharmaceutical industry?

 

whether or not a product is regulated means nothing if the regulating body is corrupt.

post #28 of 109

I tried posting earlier but my comment is being held for moderation because im new, even though ive been posting fine up until now...

 

I was going to say I did a quick search and only found reference to NHF "vitamin bill" in the 70s... so what exactly did Mendelsohn do in for NHF 1981-1982 to deceptively market dietary supplements?? (the only websites I found that info on in regards to this were quackwatch sites, not exactly unbiased based on what they would think of Mendelsohn's published opinions)...

 

so if a dr. is/was anti-vax or even questioned vax, and not selling supplements, and not an Aids denialist, can we entertain his points?

 

 

 

I hope this doesnt cause a double post, ill try to delete it if i can, assuming this post isnt held for moderation too...

post #29 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Taximom5 View Post



 

Could you please specify exactly which dietary supplements, and exactly what the deceptive marketing practice was?

 

Would you also like to comment on the deceptive marketing practices currently used by the pharmaceutical industry?

 

whether or not a product is regulated means nothing if the regulating body is corrupt.



 

But NOT regulating a product solves the manufacturer all kinds of time and trouble. They can cram whatever they want into some capsules, plaster the container with unproven claims, and make scads of money from people who seriously believe that whatever it is will make them better, behave in a predictable way inside the body, and not interact with their other supplements or medications.  I don't trust supplements AT ALL.  

 

If you have something to say about deceptive marketing practices being used by drug companies, you should go ahead and say it.  I haven't looked at any vax marketing materials lately (or ever), so at this time I have no comment.    

 

 

 

Quote:
I was going to say I did a quick search and only found reference to NHF "vitamin bill" in the 70s... so what exactly did Mendelsohn do in for NHF 1981-1982 to deceptively market dietary supplements?? 

 

In my opinion, anyone who got involved with the NHF after that point knew what the organization had done and why, and thus actively participated in perpetuating supplement-related scams.   Honestly, anyone who got involved with an organization created by someone upset about a ban on radionics deserves some very serious scrutiny, even without the vitamin bill issue.  The alleged goal of the NHF is to "protect consumer's rights" to buy and use unregulated supplements - i.e., to make sure companies can sell them to you.

 

 

 

Quote:
so if a dr. is/was anti-vax or even questioned vax, and not selling supplements, and not an Aids denialist, can we entertain his points?

 

You can entertain any points you want, but the criteria above are a reasonable starting point for identifying people whose ideas I am willing to consider.  

 

post #30 of 109

Ok, maybe you can show me where Mendelsohn made profit off of enabling supplement scams.

 

So you don't trust any vitamin or supplement, which are totally optional - you choose if you are interested in it, choose to buy whatever kind you want, choose to take it, choose how to take it...

 

but you trust vax - which are so shoved down our throats it is practically mandatory?

 

Guess I feel about vax like you feel about supplements. Fair enough. At least you don't have to fight with anyone about your option to not take a multi-vitamin, or get a school exemption because you don't want to give your kid vitamin C.

 

I know there are lots of vitamin/supplements scams out there. I know it's possible to do plenty of harm by ingesting too many or the wrong supplements. But at the end of the day it is optional. 

post #31 of 109

I didn't say he made a profit, I said he participated in scamming people.  I believe he probably profited, but I've been careful not to assert it - I don't have his tax returns.

 

I have chosen vaccination for my family.  It is the right choice for our circumstances.  No one made me do it.  I delayed some vaccines while I did my research and made my decisions.  It was my call to make, and if I had been getting too much pressure from my kids' doc, I would have stopped scheduling well-child appointments.  My experience contradicts the assertion that vaccines are "practically mandatory."  They were genuinely optional for me.  And they still are.  

 

Your decisions are your own.  I won't pretend I have no stake in them - if the vaccination rate drops too low, there's a decent chance of a measles outbreak becoming widespread in the US, and I don't want it, so I'd prefer that more people vaccinated.  But while I consider myself an interested party, whether anyone else gets a vaccination or not is none of my business.  

 

What I want is for posters who are reaching out to families who are just beginning their research process to be open about where their information is coming from, so that the value and limitations of that information can be evaluated.  

 

 

post #32 of 109

I'm sorry that Mendelsohn's 1 year participation in the NHF at the end of his life totally invalidates him for you. Honestly, the book I wrote about above seems like it was the Dr. Sears of the day, of course it is from 1984 so outdated, but most of his other topics in the book, most people on MDC support - nutrition, bfing, nautral birth, anti-circ, listening to your kid, avoiding unnecessary medication or procedures, etc. most of the book is advice on what to do for your child before you take the step of taking him to the dr. and when to go to the dr. It could be interesting to some as he practiced med. during years were he would have encountered more vpd than we do nowadays.

 

What you said about supplements is exactly how I feel about vax, perfect analogy:

we dont really know whats in it *(contamination or not fully disclosing ingredients - what is in "cell culture medium")

they make scads of money off of it

we dont know how it will interact with the body, short or longterm.

 

Add - if your child should have any reaction, it will be hard to find anyone to believe you or help you.

 

You are lucky you have never felt coerced or threatened in any of your vax choices. Many stories on these boards tell quite the opposite.

 

 

post #33 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post

 

What I want is for posters who are reaching out to families who are just beginning their research process to be open about where their information is coming from, so that the value and limitations of that information can be evaluated.  

 

 



You are asking more from the posters here than healthcare providers.

 

I don't know what my childrens' pediatrician believes.  I don't know what his religious or political leanings are.  I don't know if he's a conspiracy theorist.  I don't know if he is a member of the Ku Klux Klan.  I don't know if he has sex with farm animals.  Because it really doesn't matter.  I am not privy to that information, with good reason.  What matters to me is that he respects my parenting decisions and that I respect his medical advice and trust him to make decisions for my children's health with me.

 

So please, stop being so sanctimonious and demanding that non-vaxxers disclose information that is absolutely irrelevant.  It's hypocritical.  Should parents listen to YOU instead, because you are a teacher and follow the CDC recommendations?  Why is THAT superior?  Why do you presume that YOU are superior?

post #34 of 109
Quote: Or with deceptive marketing practices for unregulated dietary supplements.  It's too bad he didn't care enough about his patients to avoid involving himself in efforts to protect quackery and deception.  


Stik, as far as I can find out, without devoting hours of research to the issue...  you made this up to discredit this dr. because you dislike the fact he is anti-vax, therefore crazy, therefore a bad source for people starting to research vax decisions. Feel free to correct me and show me his deceptive marketing practices.

 

He was president of an organization, for one year, that some years before was active against FDA oversight of vitamins and supplements. I can't find how exactly the FDA regulations purposed in the 70's would have worked. Maybe it was poorly worded legislation that would have had other bad consequences. A lot of people use vitamins or herbs or some other dietary supplement. I take fish oil. Go tell birth boards no more RRL tea or Angelica or evening primrose oil.  Go tell nutrition board they cant get their favorite brand of cod liver oil anymore because it wasnt "approved." See how people react. I can't really find out what Dr. Mendelsohn did during his one year at NHF over 20 years ago, or how he felt about all their stances. Maybe he once pet the dog of Andrew Wakefield's mother's future neighbor's niece's ex-husband...

 

Supporting FDA staying out of supplement regulation (food vs. drug), is not the same as using scammy advertising to sell some bad quality weight-loss supplement. He didn't do that. Most people would agree that there are good and bad brands and products out there. A lot of people would also point out the FDA has issues sometimes too.

 

You are being unfair about what sources can be listened to and which must be discarded.

 

post #35 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by stik View Post



 

But NOT regulating a product solves the manufacturer all kinds of time and trouble. They can cram whatever they want into some capsules, plaster the container with unproven claims, and make scads of money from people who seriously believe that whatever it is will make them better, behave in a predictable way inside the body, and not interact with their other supplements or medications.  I don't trust supplements AT ALL.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


Actually, that's not true AT ALL.

 

According to http://www.fda.gov/food/dietarysupplements/default.htm:

 

Dietary Supplements

FDA regulates both finished dietary supplement products and dietary ingredients under a different set of regulations than those covering "conventional" foods and drug products (prescription and Over-the-Counter). Under the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act of 1994 (DSHEA), the dietary supplement or dietary ingredient manufacturer is responsible for ensuring that a dietary supplement or ingredient is safe before it is marketed. FDA is responsible for taking action against any unsafe dietary supplement product after it reaches the market. Generally, manufacturers do not need to register their products with FDA nor get FDA approval before producing or selling dietary supplements.* Manufacturers must make sure that product label information is truthful and not misleading. Under the FDA Final Rule 21 CFR 111, all domestic and foreign companies that manufacture, package, label or hold dietary supplement, including those involved with testing, quality control, and dietary supplement distribution in the U.S., must comply with the Dietary Supplement Current Good Manufacturing Practices (cGMPS) for quality control. In addition, the manufacturer, packer, or distributor whose name appears on the label of a dietary supplement marketed in the United States is required to submit to FDA all serious adverse event reports associated with use of the dietary supplement in the United States.

FDA's other responsibilities include product information, such as labeling, claims, package inserts, and accompanying literature. The Federal Trade Commission regulates dietary supplement advertising.

 

Is it legal to market a dietary supplement product as a treatment or cure for a specific disease or condition?

No, a product sold as a dietary supplement and promoted on its label or in labeling* as a treatment, prevention or cure for a specific disease or condition would be considered an unapproved--and thus illegal--drug. To maintain the product's status as a dietary supplement, the label and labeling must be consistent with the provisions in the Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act (DSHEA) of 1994.

 
post #36 of 109

In response to:

 

"What field of science do you work in?  What evidence have you found to support the value of a homeopathic approach to boosting immunity?"  

 

I worked as a physicist for three years, taught high school math and science for five years and am now completing a doctorate in statistics.  My particular field of science is irrelevant, I only brought it up to make the point that I have experience reading and evaluating scientific literature.  As a statistician, I also recognize the limitations of epidemiological studies.  Anyone can come to the same conclusion if he or she is willing to make the commitment to understanding this issue.  Just because I have a science background doesn't make me superior to anyone else when it comes to researching and making decisions.

 

In regards to homeopathy.  My mom took me to a doctor who used homeopathy and this was the only treatment my sister and I ever received.  Homeopathy is an ancient practice that doesn't rely on traditional clinical research for proof of effectiveness.  It would be difficult to locate a database or clinical studies that support the value of homeopathy.  The first time I took my son to a homeopathic doctor was when he was 18 months old and still waking up at night for several hours at a time.  After an hour long interview she gave him Chamomilla and within a week he was sleeping through the night and continues to do so.  If you are seriously interested in homeopathy, you should look for a doctor with a background in the practice and conduct your own search starting with, but not limited to:

 

http://thinktwice.com/nosodes.htm

http://thinkchoice.com/homeopathy.htm

 

It's a fascinating topic worth exploring.

 

post #37 of 109

For those interested in research and homeopathy

 

http://knol.google.com/k/scientific-research-in-homeopathy#

 

 

 

 

post #38 of 109

Stik,

 

Do you trust the FDA? It seems as if you do. Would you feel better if all supplements were FDA regulated in the same way drugs are right now? So any person that is associated with this agency is trustworthy and has the beast interest of the public at heart? You crucify those in the medical profession for being associated with agencies or groups that you feel are untrustworthy.

 

What do you make of former FDA commissioner Lester Crawford who was involved in the 2005 vioxx scandel?  As Commissioner, Crawford approved Vioxx (made by Merck Pharmaceuticals) which was linked to 140,000 heart attacks and 60,000 deaths. After his resignation from the FDA, he was hired as senior council by Policy Directions Inc, which just so happened to be the public relations firm that represented Merck, creator of Vioxx.

 

The current FDA associate director of the Office of Drug Safety, Dr. David Graham, who has stated that the FDA “is inherently biased in favor of the pharmaceutical industry. It views industry as its client, whose interests it must represent and advance. It views its primary mission as approving as many drugs as it can, regardless of whether the drugs are safe or needed.” - you think this dude is not being publically criticized by the FDA for making these statements?? This guy is a whistleblower - too bad more good people don't have the balls to stand up and do what's right.

http://www.whistleblowersblog.org/2010/07/articles/corporate-1/pharmaceuticals/fda-whistleblower-dr-david-graham-to-testify-on-avandia-today/

 

Constitutional Attorney and author Jonathan Emord has discussed the many problems and corrupt practices of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.This guy has defeated the FDA 7 times in federal court so I think he may know a thing or two. I can't link to his numerous youtube video interviews from this computer as youtube is blocked, but if you google it, they pop up. Not that I think you will bother but maybe some other folks will.

My point is that the FDA (and those associated with it) seems to be a trustworthy agency to many in your camp including yourself (forgive me if Im wrong here), yet you don't seem to hold it (or them) to the same standards as agencies such as the NHF.

post #39 of 109

...and in recent vax issues with the FDA, CBER, which is the branch responsible for vax safety, purity, and effectiveness, fast tracked gardasil approval in an irresponsible way, and confirmed the presence of dna of porcine circoviruses in the rota vaxes and then just told everyone it´s fine - don´t worry! even if that contamination were never to cause a single problem, doesn´t anyone find it disturbing that contaminations are happening? how did it happen and what else could/already did happen? They are clearly missing something in the responsibility for vaccine safety and purity...

 

Stik, I think you wrote somewhere that you are a historian... in one of my first history classes, I remember the point of a lecture being that "History is written by the victors," how can you not apply that here? Victor = money and media and legislative power.

 

It is ok for FDA or Pharma companies to make mistakes and they get to be forgiven? But any questioning vax source is tossed out no matter how minor the infraction that you personally dislike?

post #40 of 109
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bokonon View Post



You are asking more from the posters here than healthcare providers.

 

I don't know what my childrens' pediatrician believes.  I don't know what his religious or political leanings are.  I don't know if he's a conspiracy theorist.  I don't know if he is a member of the Ku Klux Klan.  I don't know if he has sex with farm animals.  Because it really doesn't matter.  I am not privy to that information, with good reason.  What matters to me is that he respects my parenting decisions and that I respect his medical advice and trust him to make decisions for my children's health with me.

 

So please, stop being so sanctimonious and demanding that non-vaxxers disclose information that is absolutely irrelevant.  It's hypocritical.  Should parents listen to YOU instead, because you are a teacher and follow the CDC recommendations?  Why is THAT superior?  Why do you presume that YOU are superior?



I ask quite a lot of my health care providers.  Significantly more than I have asked of the posters in this forum, but since we tend to see eye-to-eye on what constitutes a decent source of information, we have spent way less time discussing AIDS and Holocaust denialists than this forum has, so those conversations have tended to be quicker.  While I don't know their religious or political leanings, I do ask where they get their information, and they have been totally willing to share. And if I had the slightest suspicion that my doctor belonged to a hate group or accepted and passed on information that come from a hate group, I would find a new doctor.  

 

I don't think anyone needs to agree with me.  However, this forum has a specific purpose - to serve the needs of parents who are just beginning to research their vaccination decisions.  I feel strongly that this purpose is well-served when posters explain where their ideas and information are coming from.   I think opinions that come with an explanation of their origin are substantially more useful than opinions that don't.  For example, I don't think homeopathy has any medical value, because it's been scientifically tested and shown not to work.  Another poster has said that she trusts homeopathy, believes it works in a way that isn't scientifically understood, and has used homeopathic remedies all her life, as did her parents.  For readers who like to see scientific evidence, my beliefs are probably more appealing.  To people who find family tradition and other people's experience reassuring, her beliefs are probably more appealing.  Because we've been open about where our beliefs come from, it's easier for readers of this forum to evaluate our ideas and decide how to apply them to their own lives.  

 

Marnica, Vioxx isn't a vaccine.  You and I have already been asked to stay on topic in the forum, so I'm not going to answer your very interesting question.  

I think the idea behind this new forum is really cool, and I'd like to see it work the way it was intended.  

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Vaccinations Debate
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Baby › Baby Health › Vaccinations › Vaccinations Debate › Are getting no vaccines right for us?