But isn't vaccination consistent with Naturopathic philosophy?

This is interesting Ned. It's going to take some time to look into, and I will also ask my ND about it.It's hard to argue with you about anything. This is a very disarming picture, you look like such a friendly chap

quote:

---

It is appropriate to ask how they come by this feeling that herbs aren't untested, or aren't harmful is used correctly, or even how they know what "used correctly" means.

---

The premise is that herbs have been tried and proven through centuries of use.What does this have to do with whether vaccination is consistent with the naturopathic philosophy or not?

I had a quicker reply to this than I expected from my ND. She said that the appropriate homeopathic remedy should be prescribed for the symptoms of the cytokine storm (rather than, for example, decreasing vitamin C intake). She told me that homeopaths had notable success in treating cases of the 1918 Spanish flu. The efficacy of homeopathy is discussed in another thread, but I'll make a few points here regarding its use in treating the flu. (There are important implications for modern bird flu.)In the Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, May 1921, Dt. T. A McCann from Dayton, Ohio reported that 24,000 cases of flu treated allopathically had a mortality rate of 28.2%, while 26,000 cases of flu treated homeopathically had a mortality rate of 1.05%. This last figure was supported by Dean W.A. Pearson of Philadelphia (Hahnemann College) who collected 26,795 cases of flu treated with homeopathy with the above result. You can read about this on the Whale site. This information is also available in The Homeopathic Treatment of Influenza: Surviving Influenza Epidemics and Pandemics Past, Present and Future with Homeopathy, Benchmark Publications, San Antonio, Texas (1999). Unfortunately I've been finding it difficult to get a lot of documentation from the past when I've been researching various epidemics. I think it would require visiting a library, as the internet seems more concerned with information in the present.That's not to say that there is no other documentation of homeopathy's effects on the flu. This is a 1989 study from the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. Dr. Mercola explains on his site why it is difficult to get results in the traditional double-blind trial, as you can read here: It's next to impossible to get info about homeopathy from mainstream sites. I'm aware of the opinion of skeptics. At the moment it really seems to be a matter of "who do you believe." I believe that the figures for the treatment of flu cases with homeopathy in 1918 are probably accurate, that is my choice, and I would use it myself if the necessity arose. I've found quite a lot of alt med info on "surviving the bird flu" for example, and most of it is in keeping with good naturopathic practices.Finally, this article discusses how alt med practices helped people recover from the 1918 flu pandemic, and how allopathic treatments such as vaccines and using simple aspirin could have done more harm than good. It's from the Idaho Observer.

The point is, LindaLou, that many, perhaps most Naturopaths treat symptoms with herbal drugs, while rejecting the idea of vaccines.Drugs do not address the root causes of disease, while vaccines do.Vaccines fire up the body's own natural disease-fighting mechanism, and do so with far less stress on the body compared to actually contracting the disease.That is a clear contradiction.

quote:

---

As far as your stories of "healthy" people who have been susceptible to disease are concerned, I would ask you to re-read my previous post. Look at what I said about the necessity of high levels of vitamin C. Do you megadose?

---

There's no evidence that megadosing vitamin C prevents things like influenza, so why should I spend money on vitamin C tablets just to pee it all out? Just because you either ignore or can't properly evaluate the research doesn't mean I do and can't.

quote:

---

Did the people in the influenza outbreak megadose?

---

Do you have any evidence that megadosing of vitamin C is effective in preventing the contraction of Influenza of any strain?No, of course you don't. But you'll believe it anyway.

quote:

---

Also look at the work of Weston A. Price and what he found about the diets of indigenous people -- and how they became prone to disease in a single generation when they switched to a modern Western-style diet.

---

1) Weston Price was a dentist in the 1920's who had no training in science or experimental protocol.2) What methodologies and statistical analysis did he use in his research, and has his work been replicated by any other researchers?3) Weston price is also off topic for this thread.

quote:

---

It's next to impossible to get info about homeopathy from mainstream sites.

---

It's also next to impossible to get information about phrenology and psychic surgery from mainstream sites. Can you think of why that might be?

quote:

---

I'm aware of the opinion of skeptics. At the moment it really seems to be a matter of "who do you believe."

---

No. It is a matter of "what is the evidence".Homeopathy doesn't have any evidence to support it. It is the worst kind of quackery. That you can give it even a moment's consideration after reading the discussions about it here is, frankly, apalling. Edited by nator, : No reason given.

quote:

---

The premise is that herbs have been tried and proven through centuries of use.
What does this have to do with whether vaccination is consistent with the naturopathic philosophy or not?

---

Vaccines work by revving up the body's own immune system, which seems quite consistent with naturopathic philosophy.Herbs, on the other hand, treat the symptoms of disease in exactly the same way allopathic drugs treat the symptoms of disease, yet the use of herbs is commonplace in naturopathy.This seems contradictory.Also, you said that the reason vaccines are rejected is because of "questionable" ingredients in vaccines, yet there are are many, many unknown chemical compounds in herbal drugs. We, literally, don't know what is in many herbs, what their interactions might be, what their long-term effects are, etc.Again, I will state that just because something is "natural" doesn't mean that it won't harm you. Just because something is synthesized in a lab doesn't mean that it will.They are all just chemicals, after all.

quote:

---

Are the antibodies produced by vaccines effective as long term as those naturally developed?

---

I realised this morning that this statement needs to be addressed in another way.PD, what leads you to believe that the antibodies produced in response to a vaccine and those produced in response to exposure to the same live virus in the wild would be different?What makes you think that both aren't completely "naturally produced" antibodies, if the virus itself is what is used to stimulate the body to produce them in both cases? Edited by nator, : No reason given.Edited by nator, : No reason given.

How closely have you looked at the tests, including who conducted them and what their possible conflicts of interest were? This site documents quite a number of conflicts of interest in vaccine approvals. Witness here that two representatives introduced a bill last year that would give responsibility for vaccine safety to an independent agency within the Department of Health and Human Services, and remove most vaccine safety research from the CDC.Dr. Weldon (R-FL) stated, "There's an enormous inherent conflict of interest within the CDC. And if we fail to move vaccine safety to a separate independent office, safety issues will remain a low priority and public confidence in vaccines will continue to erode."Representative Carolyn B. Maloney (D-NY) is working with Weldon on the bill. In this article she states, "We must ensure that vaccines are safe so that the public can have confidence in vaccines. There are some in Washington who like things just the way they are. However, there is growing skepticism among some parents. The recent American Academy of Pediatrics conference had to have a special session on how to address the concerns of the 25% of parents who are apparently raising questions about vaccine safety."

So was bleeding and the theory of humours. These ideas didn't survive because they were bad ideas, in the case of bleeding actually killing patients. The popular belief in herbs as remedies has more to do with the fact that that there's no overt evidence that they kill people or cause serious harm, there's widespread belief that the long history of usage means they have no ill effects, and people are obsessed with natural remedies thereby making it easy for herbs to maintain their popularity.My guess is that many herbs are no more or less harmful than most foods, but that's not always the case. Ephedra has been a part of traditional Chinese medicine for thousands of years, but only when use skyrocketed in the United States did possible serious side effects come to light, and it is now banned pending testing to prove safety.So how many other herbs now being being touted as health remedies or aids and thought to be safe because of a long history of usage might actually cause harm? How many other ephedras are out there? Well, without FDA testing, the answer is, "We don't know."So, when asked the question, "Are the herbs you're taking safe and effective," the only accurate answer for most of them is, "We don't know." Uh, I don't know. Here's what you said that I was replying to: What did this have to do with whether vaccination is consistent with the naturopathic philosophy or not?This whole thread is into a red herring. There's no consistent naturopathic philosophy because it isn't based upon scientific studies of the real world, but just upon what people would like to believe, that health problems are caused by modern life styles and environmental problems, and that the body will just heal itself if given a chance and the right kinds of natural assistance. But clearly stimulating the body's own natural immune response fits into the overall naturopathic philosophy, there can be no argument about that.--Percy

A true naturopath treats the root cause of a disease. Sometimes it is necessary to ease the symptoms while this is happening. Herbs would not normally be the first choice, but often they are preferred over pharmaceuticals. Pharmaceuticals need not be rejected out of hand if they stand to benefit the patient with little or no harm. However, I refer you to my quotation from Dr. Saul about how drugs and vaccines pollute the body, even if they do have some positive effects (the "drano in the pond" analogy).And herbs are not prescribed without attention to appropriateness and dosage. I have stayed away from using some because I have read about their negative effects. These should be publicised. But there is an enormous spectrum to look at here. Cinnamon is a herb. I asked you before, do you want to see strict clinical studies of it before you decide to ingest some? I'd like to see some evidence for this assertion please. You still seem to be assuming that when a person contracts a disease, they will "suffer." Have you not heard of subclinical cases of disease? I believe I had subclinical chicken pox. Never even had spots. There's such a tone of anger in your posts. Why? This harmless vitamin can do some wonderful things.I did actually find a study that says vitamin C can relieve and prevent the symptoms of the flu. Read about it here. There is a mass of evidence in the Journal of Orthomolecular Medicine and alt med publications but I don't suppose anyone here is interested in citations from those.Vitamin C is not just peed out. Maybe this article will help. It is about the clinical experiences of Frederick Klenner, who used vitamin C to cure a wide spectrum of diseases, discussed here. This article also explains some of the mechanisms by which it works, and dosages. It's a wealth of information. Remember, while Linus Pauling was inspired by this research, very few others were, and it has been largely neglected. In my opinion this is criminal.I thought Weston A. Price would be dismissed here. Not a doctor. Of course that means what he did was utterly worthless. No openness to evidence other than lab-based randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials, eh? I think it's very relevant that he found disease-free indigenous populations that developed diseases within a generation once they adopted the Western diet and lifestyle. This would indicate that the dietary practices of indigenous people have much to teach us about health. Remember that Dr. Saul said that scientists are looking in test tubes for answers that are on our dinner plates. Many naturopaths are well aware of Price's work, even if the general public is not.I also don't give a damn who thinks homeopathy is quackery. I explained my reasons for why I would use it myself. As long as I have the freedom to choose for myself and my family then that's my immediate concern. Did you bother to look at any of the links I posted, or is the very idea just too ridiculous?

I am actually having trouble staying focused here Percy, because it's hard to know what to focus on. The topic for this thread can quickly and easily be answered, which I believe I did in my first post. What now? It would be nice to keep the topic narrowed so that the discussion doesn't branch out in too many disperate directions.

LindaLou, you're still dancing around the same mulberry bush. Making the same arguments again and again is not helping. It's fine to restate your argument for clarity, but you shouldn't just restate it as if it had never been addressed before. At the very least you have to follow it with something like, "Now I know the answer to this argument is...", and then go on the summarize that answer and then address it.Whatever imperfections exist in FDA testing procedures, protocols and review policies, it is still a far, far better process then relying upon anecdotal data, by orders of magnitude. The scientific method is the best way we know, by far, for establishing what is really true about the real world. You have to address this issue first. In the meantime, continuing to argue based on a foundation that bad evidence is equal to good is just a waste of time.--Percy

quote:

---

This whole thread is into a red herring.

---

Which is what I was afraid of, but am working not to get sidetracked into what has already been volleyed around in the last two threads.I don't use herbs, but I graciously answered nator's question in Message 9. And I answered your question. But this thread is not about herbs or whether naturopathic practices are valid or not.If you wish to let this thread be a red herring, that is your prerogative; but I don't care to play.

I asked a question that seems to be expressed by some naturopaths, it has nothing to do with what I believe.If you want to show that this idea is wrong, be my guest.

Stick to the topic, which is rather narrow. You don't have to respond to statements or questions that don't deal with the topic or could lead the topic off course.Don't use it as a podium to espouse thoughts on other health issues unrelated to the topic.Keep yourself in check no matter what anyone else does.

Uh, I was just replying to what you said, but the tie-in to the topic is obvious. The answer to the question raised in this thread's title is yes, vaccination is consistent with naturopathic philosophy. This raises the further question of why vaccinations, which are more consistent with naturopathy than drug-like herbs, are rejected while herbs are preferred. This is the question you were addressing when you replied by saying that the naturopathy field believes that herbs *are* tested, but as I pointed out, vaccines are far, far better tested.And so the original point stands, that vaccines are more consistent with naturopathy than herbs, and as has been established in thread after thread, vaccines are much, much better tested for safety and efficacy. So why the preference for herbs?LindaLou's answer is that not all naturopaths push herbs, so I guess that leaves vitamins and supplements which, since they, too, are not regulated by the FDA, are also much, much less tested for safety and effectiveness, and since they are adding foreign substances to the body and have to be taken continuously, usually on a daily basis, are far more intrusive than vaccines which are usually administered only once or twice and which have no long-term effect other than to stimulate the body's own natural immune response.What we're looking for is the rational underpinning for rejection of vaccines as safe and effective. I wouldn't call unsupported charges of conspiracy and bias and imperfection, which is all that's been offered so far, a good foundation for any rational objections, especially when weighed against the enormous advances in medical care during the 20th century, and most especially when weighed against a realistic understanding of reasonable possibilities (which does not include conspiracies by unseen, undetectable and in reality never-detected groups) and the myths of perfection and complete safety.Just to keep things interesting, take a look at this article from today's CNN website: Tests reveal high chemical levels in kids' bodies. Here's a short excerpt: Omigod, toxins! Let the hysteria begin!The article does try to provide balance: Of course, Whelan is probably in the employ of industrial polluters and is just part of the conspiracy. She couldn't possibly be motivated by anything like a sincere desire for genuine evidence of a hazard before taking action, such as happened with the silicon breast implant scare and the removal of thimerisol from pediatric vaccines. She's just another one of those no-good "vaccination causes autism" deniers.Sorry for the sarcasm, but this "leap to conclusions first, do the studies later then ignore them" act gets old after a while. Who is Dr. Whelan really? In reality she's president of the American Council on Science and Health. Her group has an informative pamphlet titled Weighing Benefits and Risks in Pharmaceutical Use: A Consumer's Guide. Good and sensible reading.And who is Dr. Leo Trasande? He's the Assistant Director for The Mount Sinai Center for Children's Health and the Environment (CCHE), and one of his papers is titled Public health and economic consequences of methyl mercury toxicity to the developing brain. Gee, that sounds like a familiar topic! Remember the rule of thumb that someone who believes one wacky idea is likely to believe a lot of them?The real point is that valid approaches to medical care derive from carefully conducted studies around which a consensus forms within the medical community, not hysteria and anecdote among the lay public. This truth is never made more clear than by the admission almost any naturopath advocate makes, that for serious diseases like cancer and heart disease where they actually understand their life is at risk they'll seek mainstream medical care, but for things for which they don't feel particularly threatened they'll just do whatever feels right to them. This is not so bad for those who understand epistemological issues such as valid approaches to getting at what is actually true of the real world, but for those without this skill, by ignoring professional advice they are literally taking their lives in their hands.--Percy