By: Doug Pasnak Re: Homeopathy Quackery Hail, All. Picked up a free magazine printed in Ca
By: Doug Pasnak
Re: Homeopathy Quackery
Picked up a free magazine printed in Calgary AB titled FFWD (FastForward,
I guess). It's a "New's and Entertainment Weekly".
Ordinairily it's good for city info but the Mar 7-13 edition had something
special. The article was entitled _The Needle and the Damage Done_ The
cover byline stated "If drugs are so bad then why are you giving them to
your kids? The growing concern over immunization."
Inside the article is titled "Immunization: a loaded gun? Questioning the
safety of vaccinating our children."
The article makes several claims. In no particular order they are:
"In 1990 WHO (World Health Organisation) doctors working in Africa
admitted that for all of the time, energy, and money spent on immunization
in the Third World, the money would be better put towards raising hygiene
and diet standards, as it was these factors that had a larger effect on
the general resistance to the childhood diseases."
I have no problem with this. It certainly would increase the overall
health if living conditions were improved. You would still need to
vaccinate though. However:
"WHO also reported that in a group of 20 unimmunized susceptible
children, the rate of measles was 2.2 %, opposing a 33.2% rate in the same
number of immunized children"
I read the WHO's Status of the World's Children reports from 1990 and
1991, and measles usually kills in combination with pneumonia and other
lung infections. If this supposed statistic (she prints no references)
were even partially correct, best case scenario would have deaths due to
measles and related/combined diseases showing a marked increase, like
say...double or triple?
Guess what? Steady decline in death rates as immunization coverage
Also, 20 kids is hardly a study of any value.
Then it gets a little strange...
The [???] are to call attention to weirdness.
"The best way for the immune system to develop, is by practice. It cannot
practice if it is suppressed."
"Many experts [none are named] agree that childhood diseases are a
necessary part in the development of the immune system. It needs to be
allowed to evolve and mature, unfettered, without the effects of
suppressive drugs [???], bad diet, and vaccination. It does not need toxic
substances like mercury, aluminum, and cow's pus (all constituents in
vaccine matter) [?????]"
" And what about vaccine damaged children? Facts in this area are either
being suppressed or econimised by the health community. Yet somehow
information rises to the top, much like scum rising to the top of a
polluted river. The vast [???] numbers of children that die, or become
damaged is staggering. In the United States it has been concluded that DPT
MMR shots cause a minimum of 1000 deaths diagnosed as Sudden Infant Death
Syndrome. Authorities don't want to entertain the thought of vaccination
being a possible concern, and about 12,000 cases of severe neurological
I guess the author considers partial paralysis (polio) and death
(tuberculosis) as "strengthening" the system.
Alrighty. The idea behind vaccinations is to expose children to dead or
weakened disease organisms so a child's system can develop useful
antibodies, correct? (tell me if I'm wrong) Now... does this not
constitute "practice"? What about immunization programs "suppresses" the
immune system? Is it not in fact stimulating the system?
Also note that 12000 thousand deaths is considered "staggering", although
no references are given as to the time span, type of disease, ages of
children...nothing. Before immunization programs and vaccines, it is
estimated that 13000 *children* died *every day* prior to 1970. 5 million
a year based on the WHO reports I *could* find. No indication whatsoever
that any study shows adverse effects. As the author provides no
references, I seriously question her numbers, and her scholarship.
Unfair of me? I've saved the best for last.
This appears earlier in the article, and I almost decided to toss the
whole magizine right there.
"The whole of western or modern medicine is based on Pasteur's Germ
Theory, which pastulates that a specific organism causes a specific
disease, and a specific vaccination gives protection. This is an utter
falsehood. We know that vaccines are not 100% effective, and that it is
susceptibility that plays the major role as to wether or not a specific
organismcan proliferate in any given individual.(It is also interesting to
note that Pasteur reneged on his germ theory on his death bed, admitting
he was wrong)."
I'll let that sink in.
It was as much as suprise to me as anyone to find that one of the most
important theories in medical history is a "falsehood", especially because
Pasteur " reneged on his germ theory on his death bed".
Sound familiar? According to Creationists, Darwin did the same thing.
Here is the clincher. The article was written by Cathy Marricks,LCH
[??],who, it is stated "studied and graduated from the College of
Homeopathy in London, England. She now runs a practice in Calgary and is a
mother of four."
Boy do I feel safer.
The whole "alternative medicine" circus is getting serious airtime here in
Alberta due to the spending cuts, and the distrust and worry is the
perfect breeding ground for quackery. I am writing a letter to address the
nonsense printed, but it is very hard to be civil at all to someone who
would fabricate nonsense about verified scientific theories while all they
have to offer is "like cures like".
* Freddie 1.2.5 * The first full-featured QWK reader for the Mac.
--- Maximus 3.01
* Origin: The Keyboard BBS [Calgary, Alberta 403-229-4858] (1:134/67)
E-Mail Fredric L. Rice / The Skeptic Tank