In following the vaccine debate, I've observed what seem like two completely different versions of reality. For those perplexed by this, here's a brief guide to a basic issue underlying this long-standing controversy: biological individuality. If properly understood, it can create the ground for reconciliation.
Have you ever noticed that feet come in all shapes and sizes?
Why do you adore spicy food while your beloved hates it?
How come your friend can handle a lot more alcohol than you?
So whence cometh the assumption that we're all completely unique on the outside, but exactly the same inside?
Most people don't even react to coffee the same way!
If my calm and collected pal Charlie drinks any caffeine whatsoever, he morphs into a jittery Mr. Hyde--complete with road rage. My friend Lynn sleeps like a baby even after an evening expresso. Me? If I drink caffeine after lunch, I'm up watching Sex and the City re-runs until 1 A.M.
Our differing reactions to coffee are just one of thousands that reveal that what's going on inside of each one of us is just as distinct as our outer appearance. Scientists call this biochemical individuality.
Excepting water, no food, drug, or substance is good for all of the people all of the time. What's helpful for some, can be useless or harmful for others. Yet medical research tends towards majority rule. If it's statistically proven to work for some, then we leap forward to assume it must be great for everyone--despite all the common sense evidence about how totally unique each one of us is.
Let's look at one subset of people who can't handle things others can handle. People with allergies. I first heard the word "allergy," at a kid's birthday party when a tot named Maddy refused the strawberry shortcake, pronouncing dolefully, "I'm allergic." The same to chocolate cake.
Was an allergy some kind of curse? I sadly wondered.
To the non-allergic, allergies can seem mysterious, unmanly, or even non-existent. But a good number of people are indeed sensitive, intolerant, or outright allergic to common foods, toxins, viruses, bacteria, adjutants-- any ingredient that interacts poorly with individual biochemistry. According to the Asthma and Allergy Foundation of America, 25% of Americans, 60 million people have recognized allergies--and that's not counting all of the individual sensitivities.
Beyond that, we've all been exposed to various stuff that differentiates our immune response capacity from our neighbor's. Tests reveal that fetuses are filled with environmental toxins, metals, you name it, all received in utero--which can impact immune response. Diet and lifestyle factors, even the internal bacteria we harbor, all influence health, resilience, and immune competence--together determining how each person will react to a drug, shot, or food.
That's why when high risk health decisions face us, it's vital to evaluate all relevant factors. However, apart from a vanguard group of integrative physicians, doctors don't routinely study factors acting in synergy within an individual. Therefore, despite statistical predictions of how a majority will react to a vaccination, it's impossible to accurately predict how any individual will respond.
Nor has mainstream medical science defined those at higher risk for adverse reactions, so people only find out after they get the shot-- leading some to consider autistic children--well, guinea pigs.
If for some, vaccines are a significant contributing factor, many adults will soon have an opportunity to join a similar experiment thanks to the Swine Flu vaccine, which a recent lawsuit filed in New York State claims has not undergone the substantive safety testing mandated by the FDA. Last week. on behalf of New York health workers, attorney James S. Turner, asked for a restraining order until "carefully conducted double blind placebo controlled studies trials (are) done in accordance with FDA regulations, and...reviewed by FDA scientists." A New York judge halted the vaccine mandate in response. For more information, go to www.citizens.org
Despite tremendous scientific advances, medical research does not capture the totality of individual variation. Most statistical results routinely ignore a great many operative factors since they are harder to study. That's why reactions to any substance--including vaccinations--differ. So who has the criteria and the right to decide?
Mounting health care costs require that we all become empowered and active for our health. We need a medical science that accounts for individual variations in response--so that we can better predict the risk factors for adverse outcomes, helping us to screen those at risk. Turner questions whether the vaccine should be ever mandated, because it removes the individual right to make this crucial health decision--based on our unique individual health profile.
For health information, science, and action, check out the free Health Outlook ezine.
Follow Alison Rose Levy on Twitter: www.twitter.com/AlisonRoseLevy
Vaccine - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Vaccines: HOME page for Vaccines and Immunizations site
National Vaccine Information Center – Vaccine Watch Dog
Sebelius calls for updated vaccine-making process
Worldwide Vaccine Availability Reaches All-Time High: Report
Production of swine flu vaccine is way behind
Producers cause H1N1 vaccine shortage, CDC says
Broomfield Health and Human Services offering H1N1 flu shots Saturday
EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: Swine Flu Virus Says He's 'Thrilled' With Vaccine Delays
We've clashed on Eleanor Roosevelt's spirit, your modelling yourself on it and my view that your position on vaccination meant you weren't following the spirit, the ethics of Mrs. Roosevelt. So we're disagreeing on the ethics of vaccination.
You've called for a more civilized and focused dialogue, Agreed. Let's start here with an entry titled, "The Ethics and Morality of Voluntary H1N1 Vaccination."
To make the dialogue useful, everyone AGREES with or ASSUMES or PRETENDS the following is true: (1)the virus is killing and injuring children and adults and especially pregnant women, (2)there's a 1 in a million chance vaccinatin will result in serious harm ) the vaccine is effective in preventing infection both in those at high risk and almost everyone else vaccinated and (4), if the virus mutates and becomes more dangerous, the vaccine will still be effective.
Anyone can begin.THE CDC's INFORMATION IS WRONG, BUT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS DIALOGUE, I WILL PRETEND IT IS CORRECT, before continuing
Is this a trap?
No, it's a neglected area of discussion on H1N1. Yes, it's a trap because it isn't hard to forsee the results of the dialogue. And that leads to the next ethical question: Don't those with a soapbox have a duty to discuss the ethics of a topic when it is so central to the topic itself.
I hope to see a blog entry as discussed above in the near future.
Yours sincerely,
sheldon101
Are you listening Obama Administration?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3XlJB7J5-o&feature=related
Read & learn more from the comments at;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/24/obama-declares-swine-flu_n_332617.html#postComment
I'm so glad that there has been an active discussion here and I thank all of you have engaged in this and offered additional links to helpful information, as well as your own deeply felt perspectives. Let me tell you that I really resonate with the thoughtful and heartfelt comments coming from those on both sides of the issue.
I want to say a little more about my intention in writing this blog which I may also address in future blogs, based two decades of reporting on health and psychology, as well as thirty years in the mass media.
When there is a controversy like this, naturally people feel strongly about their views, and both sides have good reasons to feel the way they do, Neither view can nor should be overlooked.
Whether it's international policy towards other nations, relationships with others, or how we frame an important matter of health care policy, fighting to the death with someone who does not agree with you will rarely help to resolve the problem. Some emotional intelligence needs to be brought to this debate. This is not just about molecules -- peoples' lives are at stake here.
In my experience, I've never seen that people are helped or an issue is resolved, by drawing lines in the sand, and adopting and an I am right and you are wrong attitude. The real solution always come from hearing the other side.
That was my goal in writing this blog-- to try to find a common ground that will meet the needs of both sides. If you care about this issue on either side, that is what you should care about too.
So instead of repeating the same kinds of comments, accusations, and references that I know many of you have already shared elsewhere, and will no doubt share again, why not take me up on the challenge I issue to both sides. Is there a way that we can screen those at risk for adverse reactions? If we can, then that would meet some needs on both sides.
If you are interested in engaging in that kind of exchange with others who may not agree to you, please sign up at: www.health-journalist.com and I will try to create a forum for those who would like to heal this situation rather than just proving that they are right.
Thanks to all,
Alison
I signed up & will help gather others on my way through these blogs spreading what I know as truth, because it's a great idea & we need this.
Speaking of "allergies", I find it interesting that very little mention, if any, has been made about individuals who have an egg allergy -- when it comes to this personal decision --about getting vaccinated.
Doctors may not (at least, I know my Doctor won't) vaccinate patients with an egg allergy. So, sometimes there are those of us -- who have an immune system -- that contributes to making this decision for us, whether we want to be vaccinated or not.
"Are there any downsides or risks associated with the new swine flu vaccine?
With many people asking that question, we have compiled a list of frequently asked questions - along with some less frequently asked ones.
This article will help the reader to make an informed decision about the risks and benefits of getting vaccinated."
http://www.thevaccination.com/article/2/Should-I-get-the-new-H1N1-vaccine.html
Read & learn more from the comments at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/mandatory-flu-vaccines-fo_n_323923.html?show_comment_id=33374563#comment_33374563
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Raggedy Ann is a fictional character created by writer Johnny Gruelle (1880–1938) in a series of books he wrote and illustrated for young children.
Gruelle created Raggedy Ann for his daughter, Marcella, when she brought him an old hand-made rag doll and he drew a face on it.
Marcella died at age 13 after being vaccinated at school for smallpox without her parents' consent. Authorities blamed a heart defect, but her parents blamed the vaccination. Gruelle became an opponent of vaccination, and the Raggedy Ann doll was used as a symbol by the anti-vaccination movement.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raggedy_Ann#cite_note-0
Just because her parent's blamed the vaccination doesn't make it true.
It never does, does it?
But soon, all voices will be heard on this matter & will count.
by Dr. Doug Henderson and Dr. Gary Null
http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15758
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/16/swine-flu-shots-revive-a-_n_323503.html?show_comment_id=33353344#comment_33353344
http://www.naturalnews.com/027055_swine_flu_vaccines_swine_flu_vaccine.html
Bracing Ourselves for More Sham Vaccine Studies
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=15669
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/10/24/CBS-Reveals-that-Swine-Flu-Cases-Seriously-Overestimated.aspx
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/us-swine-flu-deaths-surpa_n_332360.html?show_comment_id=33360220#comment_33360220
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=mh5F5wP8RdU
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/23/us-swine-flu-deaths-surpa_n_332360.html?show_comment_id=33360220#comment_33360220
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/2009/10/24/autismenvironmental/
(lights the blue touchpaper, and retires directly!)
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1
Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alison-rose-levy/a-guide-for-the-perplexed_b_327242.html
________________________________________________________________________
This story is done so poorly it has been dissed out and made fun of as of late.
Apparently, a magazine exclusive to electronics, gadgets and hardware suddenlty has the expertise and intelligence to write such a poorly done story that does not use one shred of fact of evidence to back up any of it's claims.
Read the reviews from other journalists and Industry experts and they pick it apart with glee.
I suppose they are suffereing in the real world and would like Pharmaceutical ads to make up it's bulk of advertising. Watch, in the next year they will have Lipitor and prozac ads.
I seriously hope someone does not base their theory on this matter by a poorly done pro vaccine story done by a tech and gadget magazine.
BTW - Lipitor and prozac advertisments already exist, as do ads for other prescription medicines.
http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/10/ff_waronscience/all/1
I do hope some vaccines have been beneficial because certainly many people have suffered & still are due to the living nightmare they're in.
I would hope the sacrifices of many injuries & death were worth it but I doubt it at this point.
Vaccines Did Not Save Us – 2 Centuries of Official Statistics
http://childhealthsafety.wordpress.com/graphs/
Read here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/
Our children are too important not to;
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/maria-rodale/swine-flu-is-in-the-house_b_331719.html