The Center for Proactive Medicine; Paige Adams, FNP, B-C's Facebook Wall 2015-02-05 00:09:59
Dr. Robert J. RowenLOGIC AND RESOLUTION TO THE VACCINE “DEBATE”! WHERE”S THE BEEF?PLEASE READ PREVIOUS TWO POSTS FIRST!(CNN 2-2-15) “To call the news surrounding vaccinations a “debate” is misleading. The scientific and medical consensus is clear: vaccinations are safe, and they work. Not vaccinating your child places others in your community at risk. But there are many who choose – for their own reasons—to disregard the recommendation to vaccinate and exercise their right not to do so….. There are no links to autism. The science ….is settled.” [Rowen note, it was settled in 1491 that the world was flat and people were burned at the stake for stating otherwise. The pro vaccine doctors are now asking for revocation of licenses (equivalent to being burned at the stake) of doctors who speak out about vaccines. Seems the inquisition has returned.] I’ve always teased my still living mother (now 92), “If you had breast fed me, perhaps I’d have a reasonable intellect. Maybe I could have achieved “real” doctor status.” Remember, in those days, moms were told that a can was just as good as mother’s milk, and that there was no proof that canned milk causes harm. And, those words came from many pediatricians, just like the vaccine mantra of today, who say there’s no proof that vaccines cause harm. Now, not having been breastfed (but having somewhat limited vaccines compared to today’s schedule) my intellect appears hamstrung. I just cannot resolve this conflict of vaccine truisms out. I need your help to solve what appears to be a HUGE oxymoron in the pro-vaccine world. So, after reading this post, please comment and let’s have a FAIR forum, while you help me with this. First, let’s look at what we are being spoon-fed. I will number just two (2) “truisms” which are pounding the entire population at the moment. I ask that we limit the discussion here to these two alleged “truths” to determine the logic of the so-called “controversy”. And, after reading these, I’ll ask you “Where’s the beef?”If you believe in mainstream media, then you’ll be convinced by CNN that 1) “Vaccinations are safe, and they work.” The ivory tower “experts” state,“Not vaccinating your child places others in your community at risk.” CNN medical expert Dr. Sanjy Gupta proclaimed on a CNN broadcast that 2) the measles ‘vaccine is 95% effective after the first dose and 99% effective after 2 doses’. (CNN 2-12-15 online). Now I will leave it to your logic in combining these alleged truisms brought to you by the pundits. And, with that logic, perhaps there is a sane resolution. Those compelling injections of foreign material into your kids essentially tell you “If we cannot pump these foreign antigens and metals into your child, everyone in the community is at risk.” HOWEVER, esteemed Dr. Gupta, just told you that if you get the vaccine, especially 2 doses, you are essentially at NO risk. Hmmm. Please consider these statements in reverse, with this non-medical example.The National Weather Service issues a Category 5 hurricane warning for Miami, and says it will march right up the eastern coast. It will hit in 48 hours. Everyone who remains will be wiped out. Everyone who leaves will be spared. You know well in advance. You vaccinate yourself by leaving and heading west for the Everglades, which is not going to be hit. Should you be responsible for the damages to the people who chose to have a hurricane party? I think not. Were you placed at risk by them staying? No. By leaving (vaccinating yourself), you had no further risk. And should those who stayed be responsible to pay for the snakebites and alligator attacks and insect bites you incur in the Everglades? I think not. Your leaving (getting vaccinated from the hurricane) did not place those remaining at further risk either. Each party was timely and properly, timely and made an informed choice. Neither party had an effect on the other. So, let’s apply that to the two truisms made by the pundits via CNN and Gupta. “Everyone who receives the vaccine is protected. Everyone who does not is at risk.” How does not getting vaccinated then pose a risk to those who have an essentially 100% certainly of immunity? Only those who don’t get vaccinated have the risk of getting slammed. What am I missing here?Logic: If “every child that gets the vaccine is protected”, it follows that the only ones at risk are those who do not get the vaccine. I ask, how does MY child NOT getting the vaccine put YOUR child at risk when you do give your kid the vaccine? It doesn’t compute in my brain. Why didn’t Anderson Cooper of CNN pick up on this flawed logic?? You guess why! I wasn’t breast-fed, so I might be missing something here. So based on what the pundits and your RULERS are telling you, the only ones at risk are those stupid enough not to vaccinate. OK, OK. Then leave me alone. You, who have dutifully vaccinated yourself and children, are not at risk! So, don’t point a gun at me. You are safe. You ABSOLUTELY have the right to protect yourself and your child. So, I agree. Go get vaccinated (like fleeing from the storm). But, based on what your gurus just said, don’t blame me for YOUR problems if I don’t do the same thing. Why? The vaccine is so VERY effective that your child should never be at risk. But, you willingly went to the Everglades and took the risk of the elements there. Don’t blame me either for that environmental fallout! Folks, let’s look deeper. The logic doesn’t compute on this one, and, in my humble opinion, someone therefore is LYING. I do believe in vaccines – for those who want them. And, if they work, well, no one who’s vaccinated need fear. Why will you fear my unvaccinated children when yours will have the alleged 100% immunity? Where’s the beef? So, why treat those not vaccinated (or their parents) like demons from Hell???? Again, logic does not compute here. And, in the case I presented of the hurricane, there were risks on both sides. Perhaps those remaining were wise enough to build poured concrete block homes that would survive the winds and waves (analogous to good nutrition and perhaps oxidation therapy to maximize immune defenses), and spare themselves the risk of pythons, alligators, and mosquitoes (analogous to the delayed potential toxic effects of vaccines). And the courts are complicit in this absurdity. They have held that you don’t have to get a vaccine for your kid, but you’ll not be permitted to enroll him in school, as it places everyone else at risk. “Hold on Your Honor. There’s something illogical here. No one is at risk but my child and the few others who have voluntarily put themselves at risk (by not vaccinating). The rest of the children, vaccinated, are not at risk according to what the government has told you, so why are you barring my child from school as an alleged threat to the others? So what if my child gets chicken pox or mumps and misses a few days? The government has told you that everyone else (the vaccinated ones that is) is safe!”If what the purveyors of vaccines are telling you is honest and truth, then simply go out and get your vaccine for you and child, for whatever is the disease or flu of the month. Since they work so well, your problem (risk) is over. You are not the keeper of the other family so let them take whatever risk they want and let them be responsible for the risk they choose to take. I just don’t get this alleged “controversy”. It is not logical to my non-breast fed brain. If you think the data supports vaccines, well, go and get them. Sanjay Gupta says that you’ll be essentially completely protected so don’t blame any result on my decision not to get them. Now remember, I based the logic on assuming two spoon-fed alleged truisms: 1) the vaccine is essentially failsafe in effectiveness. And, 2) that if you don’t vaccinate, you place everyone else at risk. Logic, please: One or the other is a lie. BOTH CANNOT BE TRUE. Someone is lying to you. Logical resolution: You want vaccines for the essentially complete effectiveness? I agree, go get them and shoot up your children as well, as you are the guardian, until 18 and certainly have that right. But don’t force me to do the same because the logic is 100% flawed. Not vaccinating my child doesn’t place yours at risk, if you have vaccinated your child with a foolproof (alleged) preventive measure. The only people at risk will be those who have not vaccinated, and these people are willing to take the risk of NOT vaccinating. So, why not let them? If you say they don’t have the right to take that risk, then consider the following:You know, if you want to stamp out airplane deaths (which will ALWAYS happen), just don’t get on an airplane and close down the industry. Being alive places you at risk of many things, from accidents to infections. But people see risk differently. We are forcibly imposing our standards on others, which, in my opinion, is a violation of human rights. If I were a vaccine proponent, I would simply haughtily say to you (who have not so vaccinated),”I’ll pray the epidemic doesn’t come around and take your child. Mine is sure to be OK.” (Meaning – “I’ve fled for the Everglades”). But we are not seeing that kind of attitude or proper delegation of responsibility. Why? Someone is LYING. The vaccine cannot be that effective but still leave everyone else vulnerable if you don’t get shot up. Only you and those refusing it would be at risk. Now reporter Michael Gerson writes in the Washington post on 2-2-15, “Sometimes we need 90 percent of the public to make the right choice, or innocent people suffer.” Whoa Mr. Gerson! I say, based on the logic, and using the same truisms that you have been spoon-fed, that what you just said is an oxymoron. The innocent will NOT suffer. If the vaccine is about 100% effective, only the “guilty” (those unvaccinated) will suffer. If these suppositions are true, then stand up and show me the flaw in my non-breast fed logic. (I keep raising the issue of breast-feeding as it was the truism at the time that a can was better than the breast. It took decades to break this idiocy. Hmmm. Please apply that to the current mindset of the truism of vaccines). Let’s put some things in reverse now. Innocent people ARE suffering. Autism and childhood immune dysfunction is taking a HUGE economic toll on society. It is affecting EVERYBODY. Since we have become a collectivist society (right or wrong) then the innocent (those attempting to live clean, free of toxins, and organic) are paying the price for the guilty (those party to government approved and endorsed drugs, vaccines, chemicals, GMO, etc, and getting chronic diseases. We will pay more with higher insurance premiums, taxes, lost productivity, etc. Rowen’s Simple Solution, fair, balanced, reasonable, and responsible: Vaccines once again become voluntary. You don’t want it? Don’t get it and reap the rewards (if any) of chronic and immune disease prevention; but you take the risk, and you pay for the consequences if you suffer a communicable disease. You want the vaccine? Get shot up and reap the rewards (the 100% guarantee of prevention of infection); but you accept the risk of complications, and you pay for the consequences. Don’t ask me to pony up. Either way, you make the decision and take the risk, and YOU pay for the consequences, not the government. Yes, government does have the right to protect the public health. But that is PUBLIC HEALTH. My child is not the public. I wouldn’t object to a home quarantine if my child had measles until the disease cleared. That does protect others. (Heck, I didn’t object to a wasteful quarantine when I came back from Sierra Leone, and hadn’t personally treated an Ebola case). Government, in our country, is not responsible for the individual. When government does assume that role, it can become tyranny. (Just look at Medicare. It tells you the diseases you are allowed to have (based on codes) and the treatments you are allowed to have (also based on codes) on the government’s payout for the diseases you are allowed to have) No reimbursement for stuff I do which you can see on You Tube actually may cure people and sometimes on the spot! Regardless, government, in my opinion, doesn’t have the right to LIE and tell you that not vaccinating your children places all others at risk when that same government tells you that the vaccine is essentially foolproof after 2 doses. My non-breastfed brain just went on TILT with that oxymoron. You don’t want to be at risk? Just go get a vaccine, and the case is closed, and your risk is covered. Mr. Michael Gerson, Anderson Cooper, Dr. Sanjay Gupta, and others, I’ll be happy to take you on regarding this matter in a fair level playing field forum or public debate, at any time, using your own logic against you. Oh, I invite comment and dissent. Please be polite and proper in your dissent and don’t name call or make inappropriate remarks about my non-breast fed brain. My mom did exactly what the pediatricians at the time told her was good for me. (Which of course, decades later, AFTER the damage has been done to a generation, the practice has been fully debunked). I DON’T blame her. I ask for dissent based on the two statements with which I opened this post, which we must accept as true since it comes from your rulers in government, Sanjay Gupta, doctors, and Anderson Cooper, who are reflecting the “logic” of your rulers. Please respond with constructive comments directed at the logic of these two accepted “TRUTHS,” and not with diatribes, name calling, or personal attacks. I will remove the latter as soon as I see them.I implore you all to attack the logic I have presented here and honorably slam it as hard as you can (which allows me to fairly respond) or support it, if you wish (which allows the vaccine proponents to fairly respond). I have not leveled personal attacks at the persons I’ve named here. I respect them for their beliefs, however flawed their logic may or may not be. I’ve have gone after the information they have conveyed, the public statements, and the logic they are conveying, not the individuals. I will, in subsequent posts, tell you more about oxidation therapy and how I would approach an epidemic like measles. Or if I were government, how I would investigate and implement incredible strategies for dispatching contagious disease quickly in the infected while maximizing the immune strengthening benefits of natural infection. But, sadly, these methods cannot be patented, so they’ll not likely see the light of day in the public arena. Please “SHARE” and “LIKE” this page and you’ll continue to get information, which I hope will be, for you, the latest and greatest in the world of “safest medicine”. PS The following was kindly sent from Carol Abilene one of our forum here. Please read them carefully, references are provided. Perhaps these are examples of running to the Everglades in face of the storm: AbstractThe Christchurch Health and Development Study comprises 1,265 children born in 1977. The 23 children who received no diphtheria/pertussis/tetanus (DPT) and polio immunizations had no recorded asthma episodes or consultations for asthma or other allergic illness before age 10 years; in the immunized children, 23.1% had asthma episodes, 22.5% asthma consultations, and 30.0% consultations for other allergic illness. Similar differences were observed at ages 5 and 16 years. These findings do not appear to be due to differential use of health services (although this possibility cannot be excluded) or con-founding by ethnicity, socioeconomic status, parental atopy, or parental smoking. Epidemiology. 1997 Nov;8(6):678-80 And from J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2000 Feb;23(2):81-90 CONCLUSIONS: DTP or tetanus vaccination appears to increase the risk of allergies and related respiratory symptoms in children and adolescents. Although it is unlikely that these results are entirely because of any sources of bias, the small number of unvaccinated subjects and the study design limit our ability to make firm causal inferences about the true magnitude of effect.PMID 10714532 [PubMed – indexed for MEDLINE]I would ask, “Why a study on vaccines would appear in a journal of manipulative medicine? I can tell you why. The larger Pharma supported journals most likely rejected this important association of vaccine and allergies, and the authors were forced to publish in a rather obscure journal. This happens all the time.