ERM251001

Recent Activity

A Few Important Questions that Parents…

ERM251001

I thought it might behoove readers to have a chance to view family doctors in a positive light, instead of merely as crooks salivating over the money they make by recommending vaccines to their patients and their children. Here is the entire article a the following website:

https://shotofprevention.com/2014/10/22/are-doctors-vaccine-recommendations-motivated-by-profits/

The Article:

Are Doctors’ Vaccine Recommendations Motivated By Profits?
Oct 22, 2014
Dr Zibners: This guest post has been written by Dr. Lara Zibners, in response to comments we’ve received on our Vaccinate Your Baby Facebook page.
“How can I trust the vaccine recommendations that I get from my doctor? After all, isn’t she the one making money off all of these shots?”

"Have you ever heard this concern or something like it? How many parents do you know who are leery of a doctor’s vaccine recommendations because they think the doctor is simply motivated by profits?"

"The idea that pediatricians are colluding in some giant immunization scam that is designed to fund their fancy vacation homes and expensive watches is a concern for some. But could it be true? Does your pediatrician look at your child, pinch those pudgy thighs and inject vaccines against life-threatening illnesses while dreaming of a new car? It’s a pretty disgusting thought, isn’t it? The idea that your child’s doctor could have a financial incentive to encourage vaccination is an upsetting one. One that would understandably get your panties in a twist, right?"

"Well, my friends, relax. You can unwind your knickers because it’s simply not true."

"Now, let me start by telling you that this is not a discussion of physician salaries as a whole. (Although I will point out that pediatricians are the 2nd lowest ranking physicians by salary in the United States.) Or whether they deserve a salary that averages in the low six figures. (Even though that’s after the usual investment of 40,000 hours of training and $300,000 in expenses). We’re not going into those topics today but instead we’re going to focus on one specific question: do pediatricians make money from immunizations?"

"And the answer is “No.” Despite what some people think, vaccines aren’t the cash cow everyone seems to think they are."

"It’s estimated that it takes 35 office visits and costs around $2500 to fully vaccinate a child through age 18. But providing immunizations goes beyond just providing the vaccine. There are plenty of additional costs. These include direct costs such as vaccine purchase, storage, staff time to handle, oversee and administer the vaccine, as well as indirect costs such as insurance against vaccine loss."

"And pediatric offices delivery the majority of immunizations. Eighty percent in fact. It’s a huge part of well-child and preventative care. Which makes them a daily topic in any pediatric practice. But what many people don’t realize is that vaccines are the second highest expense for a pediatric practice after employees. As in doctors, nurses, receptionists and that poor lady who has to deal with the insurance companies. Think about that."

"But why are vaccines such a large expense for the pediatrician? Well, vaccines vary in cost (in one study between $4 and $30 per dose) and that figure can vary depending on the circumstances. For instance, how complicated is it to produce a vaccine? How many years of research went into the vaccine? How much did it cost to develop? And how much money was spent on the various stages of clinical trials before the vaccine receives FDA approval for use? Because, yes people. It’s true. Pharmaceutical companies spend years developing and testing the vaccines they produce to ensure they are as safe and efficacious as possible. Not to mention there is a large investment that goes into the development of a new vaccine without any assurance that the vaccine will be ultimately approved or even recommended. And as much as I’m sure companies would like to create and distribute vaccines for free because they know they save lives, they also have to cover their costs at the end of the day. That’s just life. And if a pediatrician wants to offer immunizations, she has to do her part too and buy them. Before she can give them. Cash up front."

"So the money comes out upfront. And the vaccines are stored and inventoried and insured. And then you walk through the door with little Tommy, braced for his scheduled injections. You pass your insurance card through the little window and that’s it. Your doctor’s back in the black, right? Well, not exactly. Practices are reimbursed for the costs of the vaccines (and associated expenses) either through private insurance or through public insurance (think Medicaid or CHIP). But the insurance company has to be billed. Then someone has to process the claim. Cut the check. Put it in the mail. And so on. There is a real delay between purchasing vaccines and the insurance reimbursement for the delivery of the vaccine. While your doctor is still out-of-pocket."

"Image courtesy of the Refutations to Anti-Vaccine Memes"
Image courtesy of the “Refutations to Anti-Vaccine Memes” Facebook page.

"So the payment finally arrives. But wait. The reimbursement often doesn’t cover the full cost of the vaccine, let alone the total cost of delivering that vaccine. The average reimbursement by public insurance is less than $10 and for private insurance, it’s only a bit higher. Maybe somewhere in the neighborhood of $17."

"To sum it up, even when an office is paid for delivery of an immunization, nearly half of reimbursements don’t cover the cost to the practice. And if the vaccine reimbursement doesn’t pay for the vaccine itself, it certainly doesn’t cover ultimate cost to the pediatrician, let alone for the receptionist, the nurse, the computerized charting system, Highlights magazine (remember that?!), sterilizing systems for the toys, or food for the tropical fish tank that keeps your kids from going bananas while waiting to be seen. Vaccines are not the pediatrician’s cash cow. Hopefully you’re beginning to understand that now."

"So why do general pediatricians continue to give vaccines? For those of us who have dedicated our lives to ensuring the health and safety of children, it’s not about the money. It’s the genuine belief that immunizations are one of the most important ways to protect individual patients and society as a whole. It’s an undisputed fact that giving vaccines is a financial disincentive for pediatricians. Nearly 10% of pediatricians have seriously considered no longer providing vaccines because of the economic strain involved. Which is scary. If your child’s doctor doesn’t give immunizations, it’s going to be quite a bit more difficult and inconvenient for you to get your little one vaccinated, isn’t it?"

Image courtesy of the "Stop the Anti-Science Movement" Facebook page.
Image courtesy of the “Stop the Anti-Science Movement” Facebook page.

"As for me, I’m not even a general pediatrician. I am an ER pediatrician. Which means I’m paid a salary. If one cute 3 year-old patient with a Lego in his nose shows up between 7am and lunchtime, I’m paid the exact same as I would be if an outbreak of measles brings the patient volume to a level fondly known as “heaving,” without a room to spare and a line stretching out the front door. Of course, I’m not the only pediatrician who is paid this way. Many doctors who work in hospitals or clinics are also salaried employees. Far fewer physicians are in private practice now than in the past. And like me, they’re paid exactly the same whether we order a vaccine or not."

"In my current position I don’t give routine vaccines. I give emergency room vaccines. Like a tetanus booster to a child who has a nasty wound. A little one who was sleeping in a room where a bat was found will get rabies prevention. Occasionally, I’ll give a dose of varicella vaccine to a kid who is just shy of her 1 year well-visit, who has a sister with leukemia, and has been exposed to chicken pox. But when I do administer vaccines it’s the hospital that purchases the supply, bills the insurance, and recovers the money (if there is anyone to bill). I don’t get paid one tiny little extra penny more."

"But I assure you I still care if a kid is up-to-date on their vaccines. Because in my line of work, it’s the baby battling whooping cough, who turns blue and stops breathing, that make me so passionate about vaccines. Or the encephalopathic kid with measles that is having seizures and needs a ventilator to breathe. It’s the vicious stink of Rotavirus that creeps down the halls. Or the child with group A streptococcal sepsis secondary to chicken pox who needs blood pressure support and an ICU bed."

"But please, rest assured, it’s most definitely not the money."

"Dr. Lara Zibners is board certified in both general pediatrics and pediatric emergency medicine. As the author of the award-winning book “If Your Kid Eats This Book, Everything Will Still Be Okay,” and a hilarious blog, Dr. Zibners has been an avid and very public supporter of vaccination."

(my comment)

Of course if you suffer from cognizant Dissonance you will not for a second entertain the fact that the above article might be true.You will absolutely refuse to accept that idea, since it clashes with your thoroughly entrenched anti-vaccine convictions, and your anti-doctors who dispense vaccines convictions psyche. If you don't want to be a "sheeple," then stick to your own anti-vaccine convictions and will not for a minute doubt that your own beliefs are true--after all who would ever believe (when presented with objective evidence) that doctors are not out to make a buck?--better keep your minds honed like lasers on the fact that you won't even consider such tripe! Your not like those "sheeple"who are afraid to part with their preconceptions!

Further debunkings of Gary Kohls

ERM251001

replied to: How in the world did they just recently…

"Washington, DC – The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) released the following statement in response to the results of 'A Randomized Trial of Induction Versus Expectant Management, more commonly referred to as the ARRIVE Trial, funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Maternal-Fetal Medicine Units Network and published in The New England Journal of Medicine:

“The ARRIVE Trial studied more than 6,100 first-time, healthy pregnant women across the country. Researchers randomly assigned half of the women to an expectant management group (waiting for labor to begin on its own and intervening only if problems occur) and the other half to a group that would undergo an elective induction (inducing labor without a medical reason) at 39 weeks of gestation.

“The ARRIVE Trial found no statistical difference in the primary outcome, which was a composite of perinatal mortality and severe neonatal morbidity, among the two groups of women. However, notable findings of the ARRIVE Trial include;

A lower rate of cesarean births, the major secondary outcome, among the induction group (18.6%) as compared to expectant management group (22.2%).
Lower rates of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (e.g. preeclampsia and gestational hypertension) among the induction group (9.1%) as compared to the expectant management group (14.1%).
A lower rate of respiratory support among newborns born to the induction group (3%) as compared to the expectant management group (4%).
“ACOG and SMFM have reviewed the published results of the ARRIVE Trial and determined that it is reasonable for obstetric care providers to offer an induction of labor to low-risk women after discussing the options thoroughly, as shared decision making is a critical element. Women eligible for induction must meet the following criteria:

Women who are planning their first delivery, are healthy and have no medical or obstetrical complications.

Women who are 39 weeks pregnant and had an ultrasound performed early in the pregnancy to confirm dating."

“It is important for all inductions of labor, as was done in this study, to adhere to clinical protocols that optimize the chances of a vaginal delivery. Elective induction of labor should not be offered to women under circumstances that are inconsistent with the study protocol unless performed as part of research or quality improvement. As induction of labor involves coordination between the health care provider and the infrastructure in which induction and delivery will occur, it is critical that personnel and facilities coordinate policies related to the offering of elective induction of labor.

For more detailed information, visit the ACOG and SMFM websites.”

"About ACOG"

The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) is the nation’s leading group of physicians providing health care for women. As a private, voluntary, nonprofit membership organization of more than 58,000 members, ACOG strongly advocates for quality health care for women, maintains the highest standards of clinical practice and continuing education of its members, promotes patient education, and increases awareness among its members and the public, of the changing issues facing women’s health care. www.acog.org

"About SMFM
"The Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine (SMFM) is a non-profit..."

(my words)

Yes births have been happening for untold millenniums of human history and as time went on, those who do the delivering have passed down knowledge to each successive generation of physicians.

However, we can presume that at one time, C sections were not done, and because they weren't many pregnancies resulted in the deaths of the mother or child, or even of both!

why do you feel the need to deny that many medical doctors have been studying aspects of human birth and have surely been learning from each mistake and each improvement? And no! new knowledge does not just "come about," but often requires years or decades in the making, You are so bent on portraying medical professionals as bogeymen, that you decided to use a totally irrelevant and meaningless hypothetical example to argue with, in which many pediatricians and obstetricians are supposedly among the doctors who commonly recommend vaccines. The fact is that they can recommend what microbiologists and immunologists tell them works best, but often that kind of knowledge is outside of their specialities domain. Most vaccines are prescribed after birth and the guys who delivers children usually focus on the health of those children from that point on, whereas most other doctors focus on providing medical help within their specialities, after a child has been born. So exactly who would want to butcher anyone else for having a "non-cosmetic" approach to medicines? I'm asking you in all sincerity, "what do you mean by a non-cosmetic approach to medicine?"

You may have pain and resentments stemming from bad experiences that neither I nor most people, have had. But that is really is none of my business. The only thing I really have to add to this conversation is that one's doctors do not have the right to shame or insult their patients for voicing honest fears about their children's vaccinations. So if any doctor treats yoiu this way look for another opinion and report that physicians conduct to the AMA.

Further debunkings of Gary Kohls

ERM251001

replied to: You admit Peter, that these vaccines…

Information taken from the following website;

https://www.techtimes.com/articles/3610/20140220/new-ob-gyn-guidelines-discourage-c-sections-encourage-waiting.htm

OK, I looked up the issue you brought up and found that you seem to be spinning it unfairly in a way that needlessly denigrates doctors. Here are some important sections in the article linked to above;

“Laboring women will have no choice but to push for at least two hours before they can opt for a Cesarean delivery, longer if they are giving birth for the first time."

"The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine have issued new guidelines governing both the doctor and the patient's decision to deliver via Cesarean section.”


"Evidence now shows that labor actually progresses slower than we thought in the past, so many women might just need a little more time to labor and deliver vaginally instead of moving to a cesarean delivery," said Aaron B. Caughey, MD, of The College's Committee on Obstetric Practice, which developed the recommendations. "Most women who have had a caesarean with their first baby end up having repeat cesarean deliveries for subsequent babies, and this is what we're trying to avoid. By preventing the first cesarean delivery, we should be able to reduce the nation's overall cesarean delivery rate."

“Mothers who have delivered a baby before are recommended to push for at least two hours, while first-time mothers need to push for at least an hour more. Forceps or other methods to assist with vaginal delivery are recommended before eventually considering a Caesarean section."

"Doctors were also told not to automatically decide to perform a Caesarean section just because the baby seems very large, or when the babies are in the breech position.”

“Recent studies also seem to be in support of vaginal childbirth. A review of 12 trials that involved over 15,000 women revealed that mothers are less likely to need a Caesarean delivery if they receive "continuous one-on-one support during labor and delivery," and are generally more satisfied with the birth experience."

"A different study that included over 62,000 women showed that there seems to be a broader range of time for normal labor, which drastically influences how and when doctors decide to deliver the baby via Caesarean section.”

Because-- "The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine has issued new guidelines governing BOTH THE DOCTOR AND THE PATIENTS DECISION TO DELIVER VIA CESAREAN SECTION.

"The rise in the incidence of Caesarean deliveries could be attributed to many different factors. Some women and doctors see Caesarean sections as more convenient because they can be scheduled in advance, albeit MORE EXPENSIVE DOCTOR'S FEES DO NOT DRAMATICALLY RISE WITH CESAREAN SECTIONS but a 2013 Truven Health Analytics Marketscan Study says that insurers pay out twice as much for it, because of a longer hospital stay and more medication needed."

How do we know that Doctors are not making these calls only for their own convenience?—because the new guideline that they follow were set in response to new knowledge of the risks C sections!

"For pregnant women with health risks, delivering their baby via Caesarean section is the better option. However, for mothers who are healthy, pose no health risks, and first-time mothers, delivering vaginally is the method that is recommended, encouraged, and enforced."

"The fact is that BOTH MOTHERS AND DOCTORS HAVE SOMETIMES THOUGHT THAT A C SECTION WAS MORE CONVENIENT, BOTH FOR THE MOTHER AND HER DOCTORS. However the new guidelines are the result of research which shows delivering with a C section can increase infant deaths—still many mother prefer not to endure excessive labor, and BOTH THEY AND THEIR DOCTORS ALSO THOUGHT C SECTIONS ARE MORE CONVENIENT AND EASIER ON MOTHERS."


BTW, where did these new guidelines come from?--the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine, which BTW, is a renowned medical organization, and thus recommends these new guidelines for Obstetricians and Gynecologists!!

It's really pretty bizarre to believe that this issue resulted merely because greedy doctors thought only of themselves?—particularly because the
The American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) and the Society for Maternal-Fetal Medicine is itself, composed of Doctors and researchers!!

I would guess that you consulted an anti vaccine (or (anti too many vaccines) website, and you decided to let what you read there influence your preconceived view.--which is the only way you can continue to believe that virtually all doctors, nurses, researcher, and long standing government agencies, are deliberately recommending the use of drugs and vaccines which kohls claims are "WHOLLY OWNED SUBSIDIARIES OF BIG PHARMA??--OH REALLY?

Further debunkings of Gary Kohls

ERM251001

replied to: Thank you

Since it is late, In my haste I forgot to place several paragraphs in quotation marks, and I cannot find a way to properly edit. However if you open the link I provided before my opening remarks, you can open it and confirm them for yourself.

A Comprehensive List of Vaccine-Associated…

ERM251001

replied to: Are you there ERM? Your industry does not…

Firstly, It's not my industry! I'm just an ordinary retired person from a middle class background, who was part of the vaccination programs of the 1960s. Myself and my friend ran the gamut of infectious childhood disease and survived, while elsewhere many children suffered for lack of vaccinations.

No I am not brainwashed, I lived through that era and experienced none of the vile conspiracies which you want to believe. If you are a Millennial, or even a Gen X, you have no such background--you grew up hearing the idea of vaccine activists who convinced you that they alone know the truth behind the so called vaccine conspiracy? Beliefs about conspiracies can grip many of us who have a distrust of government and of doctors to begin with. I only wish you would see the real story rather than the sensationalized anti-science circus you have come to believe.


there must have been at least a thousand kids in my school district, all of whom were vaccinated and which none of us developed serious complications form our shots. Perhaps your too young to remember the clear benefits of vaccines. So when you are fed bogus information about them, you are more inclined to accept them.


Secondly I can only right what I believe are the facts and I am not interested in seeking an audience which trusts me. Trust the doctors, the research and the track records of vaccines. thier the experts, I am only using my personal experience and research in support of them--and I will never convince anyone to accept facts unless they themselves become aware of them!

A Comprehensive List of Vaccine-Associated…

ERM251001

replied to: ERM, when physicians were murdering women…

There was also a time when those having epileptic seizures were thought to be possessed by demons, until modern science found clear physical causes for their maladies. There was also a time when early colonists in Salem were put to death as witches, merely on the say so of some spoiled kids who thought it would be fun to tell lies about others. In each case, when scientific knowledge was able to debunk outrageous superstition, thoe in salem learned that bizarre truth. And, scientist themselves are the first to admit that many of their theories change over time. But after being able to replicate the results of new research, that becomes another story.

But how do these things compare with accusations hypothesizing a cruel conspiracy conducted by virtually every nurse, doctor, researcher and company executive in the vaccines and drug industry? Proving a conspiracy always relies on known facts, and does not depend just on subjective analysis. All one has to do, to launch a conspiracy theory, is include a few facts and then embellish them with false claims and anecdotal evidence designed to arouse the suspicions and distrust of others---and of course, by repeating falsehoods over and over again!

In this sense, many of Gary's claims are not factual and are based on conjecture about what the evidence means i.e if one is simply opposed and ridiculed by others, that does not mean that one is being persecuted by neo-nazis. So how Gary simply discard hundreds of years of solid research that is continually building on what was known before? How can you compare the millions of lives that have been saved with vaccines for polio, measles, and rotavirus etc. even though these facts have been documented for many years!--the only thing you can do is to rely on the mistaken assumption that vaccines were used and therefore must be to blame, even though millions of sufferers can attest to the good that vaccines have brought? You probably think that facts about vaccines are deliberately distorted to give a false impression about their usefulness. But perhaps, Just as a grieving parent is understandably angry about their child's death soon after being vaccinated, and desires someone to blame, you too are eager to find someone or something to blame for your own personal tragedies--and for example, forgetting that your child was given vaccinations at a time that paralleled the age when small children begin to develop Autism. in order to reject that idea, you then must deny all the studies which have disproved any causal relationship existing between Autism and vaccines. For example, the double blind study in Denmark involving half a million children, half of which were given MMR injections, and half of which were not--which ultimately revealed that the rate of developing autism was exactly the same in each group--those who developed autism were virtually the same among those who were vaccinated and those who were not given vaccinations!

its one thing to base results on the very small number of children in Wakefield's study, but a sample containing a dozen children cannot compare to one with 500,000 participants which was absolutely doable in a country like Denmark which keeps meticulous records of its citizens from the cradle ot the grave.

Then there is the fact that analogy you used depends on a false equivalency between personal hygiene and the cures brought about by modern biochemistry, immunology, and vaccinology--none of which is concocted by family doctors or medical specialists?

Then of course, where does that example come from? I have never heard that lack of hygiene alone allows butchers and quacks to murder women? The fact is that abortion butchers killed women in many differnet ways, but washing one's hands is not the only factor to blame. But if that was formerly a prevailing attitude among physicians, what made them change thier opinions?--pseudo-scinece? superstition? or just because they read it somewhere? Nope, it was due advancements in medical science that sometimes come about slowly, but which are not based on correlations that prove causation. Using your reasoning, you might as well point out that at one times, women were killed by being exposed to fat men belching after sunset. Even if you witness that happening 50 or more times, it would be foolish to base an entire theory on something so unscientific and so unproven! Then again, if you simply modify your statement a little and say that not washing hands was probably (one) factor in the deaths of women seeking backroom abortions you would be right! After all, doctors today clearly recognize the role of hygiene and a sterile environment in which to perform operations. Thats why they scrub vigorously and use masks and surgical gloves to operate. However hygiene is obviously not the only factor involved in successful surgery--just as handwashing is not.

A Response to the March 15 letter to the…

ERM251001

replied to: In 2005 my son Erick Greenwalt, had what…

I won't argue with your testimony about the love and care provided to your son by Dr. Kohls but any professional virtues he displays do not automatically make him correct concerning each an every medical decision.

It's of course true that some mental patients do eventually overcome the need for medications, but one can also respond to the love and care of doctors who respect and practice science based medicine too, and who do not arbitrarily force thier patients to take any particular drug.

Today there are multitude of medications used to treat the symptoms of psychosis and long lasting mental illnesses, and each patient is encouraged to try differnet ones, before deciding to use those that affect them positively. However, all of them come with side effects like any other drugs, and the process of finding the right one often takes some time. but in that context, I have never heard of any doctors saying, "You must take this medicine, or that medicine?"

Remember also that although your son was lucky, there are many patients who do rely on particular medications just to stay grounded in the real world, and to many of them psych drugs represent a much needed aid.

Since Kohls is fairly old like myself, I would guess he started his practice during the 1960s when few effective psych drugs even existed, and psych drugs consisted mainly of concoctions like thorazine and Valium, many of which were used in desperation and then found not to be safe of suitable for many mental patients--and the industry made that discovery.

Also, realize that there are few, if any, psychotherapists today who deny the effects of trauma on mental health or who deny the power of a compassionate and loving therapist. But they take into account both mental and physical aspects at play in mental illnesses and know very well that love and support will never be denied as far as making any individual psychologically healthy.

Dr. Kohls also does a disservice to records kept by the CDC, and the FDA etc. whose members have long kept recorded of the ravages and spread of infectious diseases, and have conclude that BOTH improved healthcare and sanitation, as well as the use of effective vaccines have literally delivered a one two punch, that has made some infectious diseases virtually non-existent! However, what should bother us the most, is the fact that people like KOhls not only vilinize big pharma, but even those at every level of the healthcare industry- such as dedicated family practitioners whom Kohls portrays as not giving a damn whether babies live or die--as long as they can make money. Forgive me if I say so, but that idea is first class BS!

A Response to the March 15 letter to the…

ERM251001

Instead of saying, "Be that as it may, such accusation do not automatically support the idea that Gorski is nefarious, and instead simply affirms that Offit has decided to dedicate his life and career to seeking to alleviate the suffering of his fellow men " I should have said this instead:

"Be that as it may, such accusation do not automatically support the idea that Gorski is nefarious, and instead simply affirms that Offit and he have decided to dedicate their lives and career to seeking to alleviate the suffering of their fellow men,"

And instead of saying,

"Yes, Kohls has provided plenty of quotes from supposedly knowledgeable sources--many of whom have records of making unsubstantiated facts and reprehensible slurs aimed at dedicated professionals of dedicated like Gorski and Offit..."

I should have said:"Many of whom have records of using unsubstantiated facts, and reprehensible slurs, aimed at dedicated professionals like Gorski and Offit!...

Please excuse any other obvious grammatical mistakes I've made.

A Response to the March 15 letter to the…

ERM251001

"I am accused of “unbalanced” reporting, making “unsubstantiated claims”, making “assertions that lack empirical support and not citing references from the peer-reviewed medical literature. I dispute that assertion, but, then again, I am writing essays that are not for professionals in a medical context. Therefore, being an essayist, extensive documentation is not required."

Gary Kohls HAS made unsubstantiated claims, and he is not merely "ACCUSED OF " making unsubstantiated claims! he has often cited the slander of others in order to conduct a systematic campaign of defaming and malighing the careers of two prominent Doctors--Dr David Gorski and Dr. Paul Offit. Those who doubt this "fact," need only refer to Gorski's article in the February 21st, 2019 issue of Reader, in which Dr. Gorski directly proves that comments that were attributed to him by Kohls were actually written by a commenter on a forum of one of his articles. This commenter, uses the screen name (g724). And Gorski also provides a link to his comments which can be found on his Respectful insolence blog, as well as the date they were posted--April 20th, 2012. So, If you doubt these facts simply read Dr. Gorski's response in the Feb. 21st article of Reader, titled: "DISINFORMATION OF FACTS"

As far as Kohls self exoneration of his slanderous comments, his rationale for making them leans heavily on the claim that, since he is not writing professionally or in a medical journal, he should not be helds to the same standards of proof that professional researchers are expected to meet--what a convenient alibi! Kohls seems to thinks that he is not expected to be honest or factual when dissing learned professionals like Gorski and Offit? But when he pedals falsehoods to the rest of we plebeians, the truth does not matter? Furthermore, Kohls is damn lucky that he has not yet had his pants sued off for his malicious attempts to discredit and defame two Doctors who have dedicated their lives to alleviating the suffering of others!

Yes, Kohls has provided plenty of quotes from supposedly knowledgeable sources--many of whom have records of making unsubstantiated facts and reprehensible slurs aimed at dedicated professionals of dedicated like Gorski and Offit. And Kohls has directly insulted both of them in a most unprofessional way by stating in bold type that:"TWO OF THE MOST DEVIANT AND ABUSIVE INTERNET TROLLS ARE PRACTICING US DOCTORS"

Readers can view this quote as well as other nasty things said by Kohls in his Feb. 14th 2019 article in reader, titled: "INTERNET TROLLS, DISINFORMATION AGENTS AND BIG VACCINE."

ANOTHER THING THAT kOHLS DOES NOT SEEM TO UNDERSTAND IS THAT, ANYONE CAN USE SOURCES WRITTEN BY UNETHICAL AND IGNORANT PEOPLE, BUT THAT DOES NOT PROVE THAT WHAT IS SAID BY THEM IS REALLY TRUE. Yet Kohls idolizes such sources while vilifying the proven and accredited sources used by Gorski and Offit.

ONe might sum up Kohl's misinformation, disinformation, and outright lies, as stemming from a (we versus them) mentality which for instance makes a big deal of facts such as Gorski's--being a consultant to big pharma, has "built a career and a fortune defending vaccines"--and is somehow a criminal for pursuing an honest and useful vocation.? Be that as it may, such accusation do not automatically support the idea that Gorski is nefarious, and instead simply affirms that Offit has decided to dedicate his life and career to seeking to alleviate the suffering of his fellow men --just as being a self professed whistleblower and antagonistic commenter dedicated to vilifying big pharma and exposing a supposed plot which he contends involves virtually everyone in the healthcare industry at all levels--including family doctors--who he implies don't give a damn if their patients die from vaccines since they are all only in it for the money??

In closing, let me just mention one of Kohl's shining achievements in the pursuit of slander, in which he claims that Dr. Gorski was a willing collaborator with an extremely unethical and greedy Dr. named (Dr. Farid Fata)--a criminal oncologist who diagnosed healthy patients as needing unnecessary therapy for their cancers, and in the process deliberately billed them for illness they did not have--while simultaneously defrauding Medicare out of millions of dollars! To answer that ridiculous charge. here is what Gorski said--"As far as I know Fata was a private oncologist who ran a chain of clinics in the Detroit suburbs. He never had privileges at Karmanos (the cancer center where Gorski works), and never practiced here." Furthemore Groski had these choice word to say about Fata--"Dr. Fata is evil (and yes he is evil). The truth is that I've personally never met Fata, or communicated with him, much less work with him. More importantly, I have nothing but contempt for the man, as I have related in the past. I am glad he is in prison. If there was anyone who richly deserved being in Prison for a long, long time, it's Fata." Furthermore Gorski has stated--"Dr. Fata is universally despised by every oncologist I know who has heard of him, as well he should be!"

So Gary, if you will, please explain how you can publish scandalous material about award winning Drs. while claiming that Gorski is in league with someone like Fata, and them be offended when those of us who know the facts, become angered by your libelous slander? Your usual trope seems similar to that of President Trump's-- you portray yourself as the poor victim of unethical Drs. and researcher who seek to discredit your every word--even though you rely on sources, who often have checkered pasts of their own, and are not supported via quality peer-reviewed research?

Thousands of research paper are published every day, and many of them are published (for a fee) by predatory publishers which have never been approved of by genuine scientists--so the sources you use, are what make all the edifference! Yet when someone like Offit financially benefits from ground breaking research which saves millions of lives belonging to those who were former victims of Rotavirus, you portrayed him as being unethical just for dedicating himself to lengthy research and sharing an intellectual patent for helping discover a vaccine used to defeat a deadly disease?

There is no truth to the idea that, in order to do honest research individuals must be completely unmotivated by any money they recieve, Researchers do not need to live in caves or forgo all material rewards in order to develop ground breaking cures that save millions of lives! And none of them are motivated so ruthlessly by money that they would willingly recommend unsafe vaccines with the intention of profiting over the deaths of children? So if you expect to get a free pass for using faulty research and issuing slanderous insults--think again!!

Further debunkings of Gary Kohls

ERM251001

replied to: You admit Peter, that these vaccines…

Actually, I have not read any reports which examine "unnecessary" Cesarean sections--like those that are performed all the time--and which are supposedly done mainly for the convenience of Doctors? So until I research such claims, I will not agree with you blindly.

As far as cutting the number of an infant's vaccines to provide an added layer of protection for infants, I am sure that medical researchers have studied this issue thoroughly before making any recommendations that that might potentially endanger patients, and which not done merely for the convenience of doctors--the fact is that they are done in cases where ordinary deliveries are complicated by one factor and another, and are done as safety precaution, that facilitate the health and safety of both mother and child. I am someone who was born via C section and who has suffered no ill effects from being delivered in that way.

About parents who fear giving their children vaccines, or fear they will have very bad side effects--I respect parent's rights to worry about and protect their children, unfortunately something like a 90% vaccination rate is required to guarantee herd immunity that will protect children who are unvaccinated and prevent them from unwittingly infecting others.

What I think should be done, is that parents who object to vaccinations should be able to homeschool their children or hire a tutor, who can teach them recommended course material and thus give them certifiable quality educations--or else provide special accommodations for students who have not been vaccinated (such as a sealed off area in the classroom which would be party glass enclosed, and which could, via means of a microphone or intercom system, allow both teachers and students to interact with each other on a verbal level. Sure, would cost a pretty penny, but if such rooms or booths have already been built to accomodate children with special needs--such as children with tourette's syndrome--why can't the same be done for unvaccinated children whose parents refuse to subject them to typical vaccination schedules?

Although tempers become heated and mothers who want the option to choose, are often the brunt of insults, the same goes for parents who accept vaccines as a means to provide herd immunity and thus protect everyone's children. Consequently it has become common for each side to vilify the other, when actually, both sides are sincerely concerned primarily with the safety of their children.

A Response to the March 15 letter to the…

ERM251001

replied to: I don't think that education about…

So when many readers who read Gary's columns are persuaded that holistic medicines are far better than science based medicine, and then go to their new holistic stores, Gary is not favored financially by their purchases, which may also make them decide to seek professional advice from Gary, and does not constitute a promotion that benefits Dr. Kohls?--NOT!

I'm not saying he can't promote any treatments that he recommends--just that its silly to think that none of his articles will convince anyone to try natural medicines and then make personal appointments with Gary?

A Response to the March 15 letter to the…

ERM251001

replied to: In 2005 my son Erick Greenwalt, had what…

Two thing to add for Gary Kohl's consideration;

Being of retirement age, and having spent many of my formative years during what the media called the "Hippie Revolution," I have known many people who where prescribed psychiatric drugs--either temporarily or for the long term, and I have never heard one of them complain about being "forced" to take certain medications.

The fact is that, many psychiatrists make sure that patients understand the possible side effects and dangers of using, or suddenly going off of the drugs they prescribe, and usually recommend something else, if the first option is not helping. most people with long term mental illnesses have experimented with others before settling one that helps the most and causes less side effect. This is actually the same process followed by medical doctors and their patients in regard to physical conditions also--if a doctor recommends Lipitor, for example, including any side effect it may cause. Then he or she let's the patient decide which one works best for them. In some cases there are also what have been called spontaneous remissions that take place occasionally, which allow them stay in reality and remain in a recovered state which allows their medications to discontinued. But not once did I heard any of my friends complain about being pushed to use certain drugs by either psychiatric, or conventional medical doctors. So, I am afraid that Gary's focus on MDs and Psychiatrist, has been stated far too dramatically and full of personal dislikes of conventional drugs used by, for instance, Bipolar people who experiment with different medication until they find something that works, and keeps them in touch with reality.

If certain medications were ever forced on them or anyone else, that would be a good time for Doctors to face being suspended and sued for malpractice.
Crooked physicians of course, do exist. However, most medical doctors including psychiatrists, sincerely want their patients to return to good health, even if their discharge calls for regular gifts of money paid them to the doctors that treated them. (sarcastic humor), that is not really legal, unless thier payments go directly to the people and facilities who treated them when they receive their bills!

Yes there are cases where Big pharma has not been diligent enough to refrain from marketing a new drug that shows promise, and have then had to recall it to keep unanticipated damage from being done. But almost all of them have received safe vaccinations and new drugs, in the course of their treatments, that they have been duly warned about.

This entire issue revolves around the common practice of knowing beforehand if a drug is potentially too harmful to risk taking. A large majority of patients do experiment with drugs that have unpleasant side effects, but are much better than the alternative--complete loss of contact with reality and/or being hospitalised for long periods of time. A person who is allergic to peanuts may like thier taste, but decides not to eat them once they are advised not to do by their doctors. its the same with mental illness--many unpleasant side effect are far better than having a psychotic episode which involves great trauma, and often, a great deal of embarrassment--never--the-less--competent doctors in every corner of the globe have advised their patients to experiment with beneficial drugs, and then narrows them down to those that work best and are what they prefer. If you've ever witnessed someone in a manic episode who cannot sleep for as long as 5 days at a time, you would be instantly convinced that the drugs that help them are far better than the alternative. And as far as incompetence and abusive behaviors, doctors are usually aware of the negative aspects of the drugs they recommend. You would not be so quick to discredit people in the medical profession, if you have ever realized how much good they do,

And what makes you think that doctors are not aware of holistic treatments or are unaware that conventional drugs can be overused and can cause very undesirable effects which MAY threaten their patients well--being. But, do you think Gary, that most doctors are independently wealthy and Like killing babies.? If that's what you think Gary, then you are far too biased to see the many great things that medical science has done for us all!

Perhaps big corporations are often unethical and greedy, but do you really think that practicing Doctors sit around and cackle over the lastest child they killed that day? Most of the time its just the opposite--they spend days working diligently to diagnose and treat patients that they really care about! Most of us who believe in the curative powers of SBM, have much better attitudes towards life and other people in general.

Internet Trolls, Disinformation Agents…

ERM251001

replied to: Despite having been informed of the…

Here’s another big stnk.

From: Peter Johnson
posted Thursday, February 21, 2019

Hello Reader.
This is not intended for publication and it may contain mistakes that have not been edited out so please read it when you can.

“I just checked the comment section at the end of Gary Kohls article where someone apparently claiming to be Dr. Gorski. as well as Dr. Offit. Are both quoted as saying things they didn’t say which is reminiscent of some being kind of organized mafia threat that was not even written in the same style as Gorski’s Science Based Medicine blog and seemed like an effort to discredit him by pretending to sink to the level of so many anti-vaccine advocates who are so prevalent on social media threads. But, I doubt any of it is truly written by Gorski or Offit, and is rather, the work of some unethical person claiming to be Gorski, who is supposedly behind attempts, to discredit me by asking that I contact him on his blog. However, I have no interest in trying to convince others by proving that Gorski and Offit are not really creative and dedicated men of science whose work has paved the way for new treatments as well as new medicines and vaccines, which have saved millions of lives in the third world and elsewhere.. I simply desire to dispense the truth without wading deeply into the territory where so many of these angry poison pen critics live. Rather, because they are practitioners of pseudo-science, and we, as a society, need to censor people who seem to dispense and spread lies intended to destroy Dr. Gorski’s and Dr. Offit’s reputations.

Personally, I think the fact that Reader publishes so many different points of view (is a good thing)—and as long as others remain free to disagree with them, contributors will make comments of their own! But in reality, it was Gary who asked “Reader” to retract my article and make me apologize for simply writing one of my own, which provided links to websites and quoted evidence. But, the goal of many anti-vaccine advocates seems to be to misinform readers about the history of vaccines and deny the amazing ways that they have saved countless lies.

Gary’s activists are trying to turn the tables and make it seem like Gorski is the one who is making demands of “Reader? But not so! It was really Kohls himself who likely made such a bizarre request. And in reality, that seems to be the way that so many proud and self-righteous conspiracy believers try to deflect their own shortcomings onto others.

Dr. Gorski has already written a short comment that criticizes Gary for publishing such a slandrous piece, but in the comment he actually wrote, he does not sound hateful or manipulative—he just tells Gary that he has been lying about things Gorski never said--and for that attempt to set the record straight—Gorski has been portrayed as public enemy number one?

Its still my hope that Reader will also publish my article about the misinformation, disinformation, and immoral ways that Kohls and his followers, have been bearing false witness to implicate Readers editors of doing wrong. So, they must be convinced that God has given them an exemption, or some sort of get our of jail free card, that entitles them to bear false witness against their neighbors while believing their cause is just?. It’s ironic that so many who scream about their rights to free speech being violated, will not respect the rights of those who utilize their expertise and experience, as well as their credential and contributions to medicine itself! Both commenters, and/ or journalist are also free to let their words speak about those have tried for so long to make a difference in the lives of poor and sick children around the world.

In Gary’s eyes this is not just about not adequately testing new drugs and vaccines, but is rather about everyone in the heath field--=including PhDs MDs, the microbiologists who discover new treatments, the sales men who share them with established physicians, the Registered nurses and the lowly orderlies who empty bed pans, give shots, and doctors who simply access vital information on their computers to check for side effect in the medicines they prescribe for their patients. So why does Gary want to condemn them all?—Because they supposedly know that certain vaccines are being used to kill babies, but don’t give a damn since they supposedly can become rich giving deadly vaccines to children?- –Really??

Anyway, go to the comment section after Gary’ Gary’s indictment of trolls in any given thread and see for yourself how anti-vaccine enthusiast are looking for Weapons of mass vaccinations? And good fortunes for having access to medical marvels. Gary is not going to get away with lies about drugs and vaccines that have actually been very successful at preventing many childhood and other infectious diseases.

There have always been some side effect involved with any kind of medicine but most vaccine critics are too young to remember when injections were given to millions of school kids during the 50s and 60s. There must have been at least a thousand children in my school district, some of whom passed out while waiting in line, or after hearing those in the front, hollering “Ouch!” or occasionally cried. But as far as horrendous reactions to vaccines---none of us heard a single such case among the more than 1000 kids that got vaccinated!

I can’t tell parents not to grieve if they believe that vaccine are responsible for killing their children and/or are the cause of autism in their children. But most children are first vaccinated about the time that symptoms of autism and seem to be affected by them before that they are as normal as can be and none of the double blind studies have ever established that kind of link. or because their parents had children who learned to vent their angers In ways that dedicated family practitioner just could not understand.

compare Dr.Gorski’s comment above in which he simply stated that Gary quoted him as saying things he never really said.

Sincerely Peter W Johnson
Superior, WI. 54880

Internet Trolls, Disinformation Agents…

ERM251001

2/19/2019
For the Duluth Reader,
RE: A lack of understanding which perpetuates a myth

https://leftbrainrightbrain.co.uk/2015/10/06/to-all-who-use-paul-offits-10000-vaccine-paper-to-scare-others-put-up-or-shut-up-and-that-means-you-age-of-autism-and-all-your-team/

“I’ve generally stopped countering the misinformation by the Age of Autism blog. They are pretty much irrelevant now that they lost their star power, now that Jenny McCarthy and Jim Carrey have dropped out of the picture. They still cause harm, but on a much smaller scale than in the past.
That said, I recently saw one of the Age of Autism contributors in an online discussion. And as is typical, the conversation devolved into throwing around the usual tired arguments. For example…That The notorious Offit 10,000 vaccine paper (we might add 10,000 vaccine doctrine) was written to be re-assuring to parents. The reality is that 1 vaccine might kill an infant. But what is the rhetorical effect of saying 10,000 vaccines (or 100,000 vaccines originally) are “theoretically safe”. It really says that if we give them 10 at time and hundreds over a childhood it is no big deal. What we are really on to here is the hit and run strategy. It doesn’t matter(how) egregious the effects of the ever extended and mandated schedule are, you can always insist that it wasn’t vaccines (which are theoretically safe). And you can flood the media with people like you deriding the experience of actual rather than theoretical families who have found that products are not necessarily that safe after all. And you can claim that everything you say is thoroughly scientific (hoho).”

Now, this is a new way to misrepresent what Dr. Offit wrote. So far off that one wonders if the author of the comment (one John Stone) has actually read the original. He claims that the Offit paper’s claim is ” It really says that if we give them 10 at time and hundreds over a childhood it is no big deal.”
Really?

Nope. Not even close.
“Here’s the section of the paper that that is being referred to:

“Studies on the diversity of antigen receptors indicate that the immune system has the capacity to respond to extremely large numbers of antigens. Current data suggest that the theoretical capacity determined by diversity of antibody variable gene regions would allow for as many as 109 to 1011 different antibody specificities.38 But this prediction is limited by the number of circulating B cells and the likely redundancy of antibodies generated by an individual….

….each infant would have the theoretical capacity to respond to about 10 000 vaccines at any one time (obtained by dividing 107 B cells per mL by 103 epitopes per vaccine).
The paper merely states that an infant’s immune system can respond to the antigens in 10,000 vaccines.” Matt Carey

So here is the challenge to Mr. John Stone (who wrote the first comment), (for) the Age of Autism blog….

Prove it!

(My words)

I’ll be the first to admit than I am not an expert in molecular biology, nor am I acquainted with all the ways to explain this dispute. But I know that the man who originally wrote the article known as the 10,000 vaccines statement, is very intelligent—to a degree that would take years for someone like me to even dream of equaling. His knowledge is deep and complex, so I would guess that his words are indeed, true, and would make no sense if the anti-vaccine camp had the correct understanding of them?

For a layman like me, the disconnect displayed by Dr. Offit’s critics in regards to his actual statement must come from a similar place as mine—the fact that we are not knowledgeable enough to fully understand his comments, since we lack both the general and specific knowledge he possess. But let me take a shot in the dark;

Perhaps the doctor’s comments referred to the large number of different (ANTIGENS) that a child’s body can defend against at one time—not the incredible amount of fluids (in 10,000 vaccines) that could be injected into its body before his or her system could not handle them anymore—i.e. that the very large number, of (VERY SMALL ANTIGENS) in our bloodstreams would require 10,000 vaccines to destroy them all?

I am may understand this issue wrongly but it’s enough for me to know that Dr. Offit has the right stuff, and that he truly understands why vaccines are needed to eradicate a host of illnesses, While someone who pretends to understand his comments may not even possess the scientific knowledge to do so?

Peter Johnson,
Superior, WI.

Internet Trolls, Disinformation Agents…

ERM251001

To the Duluth Reader—the following comments are in rebuttal to Gary Kohls article in the Feb. 14th, 2019 edition of Reader. It’s about 1530 words. I hope you will have room for it in your next issue.


Pete



02/10/2019

To the Duluth Reader, about the ideas of Gary Kohls.

RE: One sided open mindedness,


After discovering that I am now a shill for big pharma, I must be the last to know, because in reality, I’m just a retired senior who did well in science and math classes while in high school and college and has no special degree that automatically validates anything I have found to be true. However, the real reason I felt compelled to write an article challenging the views of Gary Kohls, is because I am concerned about the current Zeitgeist which includes many people who are determined to deny objective facts and vilify established scientific knowledge—especially if it contradicts what they want to believe! AGW deniers are of this ilk, religious groups which attempt to deny all geological, biological and evolutionary scientific principles, are of this ilk, the many 911 conspiracy theorists are of this ilk, and so are those who claim that vaccines are dangerous and/or useless—especially those who believe that dedicated physicians are only in it to get kickbacks in exchange for using and recommending the products provided by big pharma, (which they supposedly know kill babies)—who are also of this ilk! And, regardless of what Gary claims, anti-vaccine people do not only support reducing vaccinations, (although that is part of it) i.e. Some are fighting school districts which vaccinate their students and would rather refuse such vaccinations all together.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3113438/



Sorry Gary! Neither of us is God, so the best we can do is to explain why we find that the evidence we gather (minus biased filters) affirms our own conclusions. I merely find much of the evidence you rely on to be false and/or misleading. And anybody who calls me a sheeple, a robotic drone, or a bamboozled victim of big bad pharma, can therefore count on me to oppose their dogma!



Since I must avoid posting an extremely long comment, let me just grab the Bull by the horns and share some of my internet research about the myths Kohls promotes. And, I will also leave a link to an article that explains why many Doctors are (not) merely motivated to be rich, and/or how the CDC allocates funds, while (not) a “wholly owned subsidiary of big pharma.”

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/the-myth-of-big-pharma-vaccine-profits-updated/



Gary also frequently vilifies Drs Paul Offit and Dr. David Gorski, so perhaps readers should know what kind of Doctors they really are?

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/debunking-myths-dr-paul-offit/


“DAVID H. GORSKI, MD, PhD, FACS is a surgical oncologist at the Barbara Ann Karmanos Cancer Institute specializing in breast cancer surgery, where he also serves as the Medical Director of the Alexander J. Walt Comprehensive Breast Center, Professor of Surgery and Oncology at the Wayne State University School of Medicine, and faculty of the Graduate Program in Cancer Biology. An investigator whose primary research interests include the role of glutamate receptors in promoting the growth and metastasis of breast cancer, Dr. Gorski also runs an active research laboratory and has recently taken an active interest in the problems of breast cancer overdiagnosis and overtreatment. His research has been funded by the NIH, the Department of Defense, the Conquer Cancer Foundation of ASCO, and others, and been published in prestigious journals such as Cancer Research, Clinical Cancer Research, Blood, Nature Reviews Cancer, and Nature. Additionally, he has served as co-director of the Michigan Breast Oncology Quality Initiative (MiBOQI), a statewide quality consortium dedicated to improving the care of patients with breast cancer in Michigan.”


Care to dispute any of that Gary?


And how about Dr. Paul Offit?


“Dr. Offit’s biography is simply one of a person who is passionate about helping children. His first book, Breaking the Antibiotic Habit: A Parent’s Guide to Coughs, Colds, Ear Infections, and Sore Throats , was one of the first popular books that asked parents to start reducing the use of antibiotics, because they may have long-term consequences for the children.”


“But most of Dr. Offit’s career has been in studying and supporting vaccines as the best method to prevent deadly diseases. Here are just a selection of what he’s done:

He is Chief of Infectious Diseases at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia and the Maurice R. Hilleman Professor of Vaccinology and professor of Pediatrics at the University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine.”


“He has published over 100 peer reviewed articles in prestigious journals and is an internationally recognized expert in the fields of virology and immunology, was co-inventor of the rotavirus vaccine, which protects children from the rotavirus infection. Prior to the release of the rotavirus vaccines in the USA, the disease was responsible for more than 400,000 doctor visits; more than 200,000 emergency room visits; 55,000 to 70,000 hospitalizations; and 20 to 60 deaths in children younger than 5 years of age. Each year, prior to the advent of the vaccine, an estimated 450,000 children died of this disease worldwide.” What an evil guy huh?


Care to dispute the information above?


About the 10,000 vaccines myth attributed to Offit--as explained by Joel Harrison, PhD, MPH:


“the average child is inundated with foreign microbes, literally, many thousands, on a daily basis, through the air they breathe, the food and liquid they take in, and minor cuts and scrapes, even microscopic ones. And these microbes are at full strength, not killed or severely weakened. The one sentence with the 10,000 vaccines simply made the point that our immune systems are ready to defend us against the microbial antigens equivalent to that found in 10,000 vaccines.” Nuff said?


Shouldn’t we empathize with people like Dr. David Gorski and Dr. Paul Offit? Can anyone imagine how hurtful their critics must be while they’re demonizing two men who have made their life’s work about saving children and others sufferers?


Some common talking points used by anti-vaccination advocates:

https://www.skepticalraptor.com/skepticalraptorblog.php/another-anti-vaccine-article-bad-journal-bad-data/


One anti-vaccine advocate dotes on the fact that vaccines have been found to contain trace amounts of metallic or biological particles which supposedly make them very dangerous—and an article in SBM tells of a study that supposedly confirms all the beliefs of anti-vaccine people:


“The researchers used an environmental scanning electron microscope to examine particles usually found in, biological materials. It can also find relatively tiny amounts of inorganic or organic matter in something like vaccines….”


“So, Let’s assume the data is all gathered in an objective manner. What does it mean?”


“Here’s the problem – if dose makes the poison, anything can be a poison or not be a poison, depending on the dose, then what dose are we getting?”


“Therein lies the most problematic issue with the data. The numbers are well below the level of biological activity, if these various chemicals even have biological activity (most don’t). For example, the authors found 1569 particles or precipitates in one drop of Cervarix (an anti-HPV vaccine). Sounds horrific right? Except that one drop of vaccine contains around 1.39 X 10^21 individual molecules. So this so-called contamination is approximately is just 0.0000000000000000000719% of one drop of vaccine.”


And, what about contaminates like lead and copper which can often be found in tap water?—when we drink it we are not usually risking our health are we?—(provided it is not grossly tainted like the contamination in Lansing Michigan’s water supply)—when contaminates are measured in grams per liter as they are with water, don’t they represent a much larger percentage of contaminates than those in vaccines?



Also, many “experts” referenced by Gary kohls deal in outright pseudo-science. For instance, here are some facts about Mike Adams, the founder of “Natural News,” which Gary often quotes:


“Mike Adams, founder of the NaturalNews.com online empire, who resurrected the false 2010 charge of an undisclosed financial COI and has written a series of screeds making false accusations against him—claiming, for instance, that he sabotaged the entry for the movie on Wikipedia (he does not edit Wikipedia) and is in cahoots with a corrupt oncologist (Dr. Farid Fata) who bilked Medicare out of millions, and gave chemotherapy to people who didn’t have cancer. Adams has posted fake patient reviews and even claims to have reported Dr. Gorski to the FBI, Michigan Attorney General, and his state medical board. Worse, in doing so, he has made similar allegations against his cancer center in an effort to pollute its Google reputation along with Dr. Gorski’s.”


Can you or Adam’s prove those allegations or are we just supposed to take your word for it?


https://naturalnews.com/


Here are some typical articles it contains;


“The COSMIC truth: Ten revelations that prove Democrats are DEMON-infested creatures pretending to be human”


“It’s time for the American people to declare our own national emergency and remove destructive Dems from power”


“ANALYSIS: How AOC’s Green New Deal would unleash a catastrophic food collapse and Venezuela-style mass starvation across America”


“Behold, a pale horse? How the “green” environmental movement may be the Biblical Fourth Seal of an End Times global death cult”


Had enough?


In closing let me also say—whatever you do, don’t be afraid to question me, Gary Kohls or anyone else. You have a right to determine the truth for yourself!—no matter what anyone says!


Peter W. Johnson

Superior WI

Trump lies as global warming’s victims…

ERM251001

And in the eyes of those who deny human caused global warming, those of us who raise valid red flags are just complainers and weaklings who can't stand the thought of a little rough weather in the future. Too bad that green energy is enjoying a surge in usage and popularity around the world, and could soon create more jobs, while eliminating hundreds of billions of costs needed to cope with the damage from future mega-storms.

Politicians often try to make their constituents focus on the "give me what I what I want now" syndrome. So if we get a small tax break, that justifies letting the top .1% get massive tax breaks, while they ignore the environment and send our education system back to the stone age, simultaneously tossing millions off of health care---and all the while trying to make us believe that those necessities make no difference at all?---err so let me say that again---hundreds of billions in aid for ahhh, environmental catastrophes happening today.... everywhere...errr no health care for 15 million, privatising public education and errr potentially raising the national debt by.... even more trillions in taxpayers errr dollars? Errr...what I mean is if...I mean why? Errr I'm getting so confused!

In the next elections Republicans are aiming to screw an incredible number of middle and lower people, most of whom have worked all their lives, and have always played by the rules. But this time the obscenity of their plans are far too devious to benefit any of us at all. So when we get into our voting booths lets not forget to kick the suckers in their big behinds and not fall for yet another devious illusion! Bill Clinton said it best at the 2012 Democratic convention--the Republicans screw things up, we fix them, and then they convince people to vote for them because WE are fixing their mistakes too slowly. What might bring us short term satisfaction is guaranteed to bring the Coke Brothers and other billionaires to the land of perpetual milk and honey--right after they pull the rug out from under us again!

I wish we could echo the attitude of the many people in European countries who earn much less but don't really care, because they get free health care, and the opportunity to use good affordable health care, etc. As Bernie Sanders said in this recent debate with Ted Cruz--"You've got to see the whole picture--If you have to pay $2000 a year in Health care costs, but save 15thousand in actual health care and health services, have a future guaranteed to include a much more affordable education, but still pay only an affordable tax burden, you'd errr....err. maybe you'd be screwed by errr.... Ahhh? What did Bernie say?

Let's not let the Republicans pull their devious illusions on us again--saying that Democrats are trying to make us fear losing money while painting common sense measure to bring real (net prosperity) to us all---as being bad advice. i.e. Even though many Europeans pay very high taxes, but don't care about their pay simply because they are guaranteed of having free or low income access to healthcare and the opportunity to obtain a real higher education? If we just quite saying "I want what I want when I want it," or want to take teh easy road now that will eventually become the hardest road we could really make some progress that might help us all.

9/11 and the Repression of Dissent Through…

ERM251001

The following is a very long comment which refers to several of the “indisputable,” claims made by 911 conspiracy theorists, Gary Kohls, who presented them as absolute proof of a conspiracy in his article in the September 7th issue of the Duluth Reader. Let me see if I can debunk them?
“On the morning of 9/11/01, 19 Arab Muslims outwitted the most sophisticated military defense system in the world – FOUR TIMES.”

Some of the claims made about the attacks included disbelief that a military might like America could be successfully attacked by a few Hi Jackers. However, by the time the military became aware of what was happening and scrambled jets to intercept the hijackers, they had turned off the radio signals in their planes, making them hard to spot out of hundreds of planes on our radar that morning. Pilots couldn’t just jump in their planes and 2 minute later shoot down the highjacked jets, or persuade the attackers to stop. As much as we’d like to believe it couldn’t happen it did—on the morning of 9/11 in 2001! The hijackers were also able to smuggle on small weapons that were undetected (like Box cutters and small knives) and they had also been trained hand to hand fighting. And just as General Custer never anticipated what would happened next. Our means of detecting suspicious passengers was much less effective and by comparison way too lax.

About steel columns and the Tower’s collapses;
“The laws of physics were suspended in New York City, with three high-rises, massively steel-reinforced skyscrapers all collapsing at free-fall speed directly into their footprints.”
“In every photo and every video, you can see columns far outpacing the collapse of the building. Not only are the columns falling faster than the building, but they are also falling faster than the debris cloud which is ALSO falling faster than the building. This proves the buildings fell well below free fall speed. That is, unless the beams had a rocket pointed to the ground.”
Just look at any video you like and watch the perimeter columns.
Deceptive videos stop the timer of the fall at 10:09 when only the perimeter column hits the ground and not the building itself. If you notice, the building just finishes disappearing behind the debris cloud which is still about 40 stories high.”
The World Trade Center towers, each of which were designed to easily tolerate such impacts were allegedly brought down by two airlines. (the following paragraphs are from the Debunking 911 myths website).
“The towers were steel without concrete. The towers perimeter steel walls were held in place by the trusses and those trusses were connected to the perimeter columns by small bolts. They also weren't hit by an airliner at 500 miles an hour. While it's true they were designed to withstand the impact of a smaller 707, they never factored in the removal of fire proofing or fuel in the wings.”
But it wasn't the impact which the NIST said brought the building down. That's a conspiracy theorist straw man. They show an interview with a construction manager who said the buildings steel skin should have held up by redistributing the load. He's right. This is EXACTLY what the NIST said happened. It wasn't the impact alone which the NIST said brought down the towers. It was a combination of factors. The only way conspiracy theorists can attack the report is by separating these factors and attacking them individually.

From this website: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/wtc/minu-trans.html

“To many who witnessed the horrific attacks on the World Trade Center last September, it might appear obvious why the Twin Towers fell: They were struck at blinding speed by two massive aircraft carrying thousands of gallons of jet fuel, whose ignition generated a fire so searing that it weakened steel beams to the point of collapse. Standard skyscrapers of the day had support columns that were spaced evenly throughout the width of the building. Robertson decided instead to keep the columns in a main inner core (housing the elevators, emergency stairs, and other building services), and move the rest of the support columns to the exterior walls. This difference allowed the interior to have more open space.”

“Like all the steel in the building, the trusses were protected from fire using a fire-retardant foam. But according to the findings of some of the forensic engineering teams -- which included researchers supported by the American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the National Science Foundation, and the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) -- each plane's impact blew the foam away. The naked steel was weakened by exposure to the intense heat of burning jet fuel. This could have caused the floor trusses to sag and fall.” Likewise, there may have been a similar problem with fire-protection for the emergency stairwells and elevators in the inner core. Those areas were surrounded by drywall -- a kind of Sheetrock that is especially fire resistant. But the drywall was so lightweight that the impact of each plane blew it away, exposing the stairwells and inner core supports to the intense fires. It is impressive that the World Trade Center towers held up as long as they did after being attacked at full speed by Boeing 767 jets, because they were only designed to withstand a crash from the largest plane at the time: the smaller, slower Boeing 707. And according to Robertson, the 707's fuel load was not even considered at the time.

“There were a lot of firsts for the WTC. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been hit with a plane traveling 500 miles an hour and had its fire proofing removed from its trusses. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever had its steel columns which hold lateral load sheared off by a 767. In all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been a building which had its vertical load bearing columns in its core removed by an airliner. For Building 7, in all the history of high-rise fires, not one has ever been left for 6-7 hours with its bottom floors on fire with structural damage from another building collapse.”

Then there is this bugaboo;
None of the names of the 19 alleged hi-jackers were mentioned in the passenger manifest lists. At least five of the alleged hi-jackers have been found to be alive and well and living in the Mid-East. Some of them have been interviewed by the BBC.
“Among the human remains painstakingly sorted from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites of Sept. 11 are those of nine of the hijackers.
“It's a unique situation," said Dr. Jerry Spencer, a former chief medical examiner for the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, who worked 30 years as a Navy forensic pathologist. "The terrorists are usually not in our possession in the United States like this. The other issue is, will the families want them back?
We don’t actually subscribe to these ideas, but without any official documentation it’s hard to prove a point, one way or the other. Which is why we were very interested to see a photo of what looked like a passenger manifest in the Terry McDermott book, Perfect Soldiers. We emailed the author, and he said yes: apparently these were amongst a bunch of investigative files he obtained from the FBI while researching his book. 24 hours later we had copies, too. So, what would they tell us?”
“One immediately obvious point is that our lists show the alleged hijackers on each of the four planes. Another indication that the “hijackers weren’t on the manifests” claims are false.
“t’s worth bearing in mind that these aren’t the only reported documents to show alleged hijackers on the planes, though. The Boston Globe published the seat numbers of the suspects on the two planes hijacked locally to them, and provided the complete seating plan for Flight 11. These lists do nothing more than confirm what we already knew.as identified by the hijacker’s families.”
From:
http://www.911myths.com/html/hijackers_dna_profiles.html
“Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001.
Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).”
“The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms. Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims.
"No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms. Borakove said.
"We haven't finished our work, so it may be more," she added.”
About those impossible phone calls;

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/2808599.stm

My words: (in order to destroy the idea that passengers on the hijacked planes engaged in a brave fight with hijackers, apparently, conspiracy believers found it necessary to destroy the idea that several doomed passengers made cell phone calls alerting loved ones of their situation.) So, this is the theory they circulated;
“In 2001, it was impossible for commercially-available cell phones to transmit messages from planes that were flying higher than 2,000 feet of altitude or at speeds exceeding 230 MPH. (Flight 93 was flying at 30,000 feet and at 500 MPH when calls were allegedly made. The calls were clever hoaxes, particularly the infamous “Let’s Roll” call.”
But, according to an article written by Simon Romero in the Sept. 14th, 2001 issue of the New York Times;

“Some older phones, which have stronger transmitters and operate on analog networks, can be used at a maximum altitude of 10 miles, while phones on newer digital systems can work at altitudes of 5 to 6 miles. A typical airline cruising altitude would be 35,000 feet, or about 6.6 miles.”
“It is still not clear, except perhaps to investigators, whether the various calls placed from the hijacked planes were from cell phones or air phones, the wireless pay phones built into some aircraft seats that are operated by AT&T Wireless and the GTE operation of Verizon Communications. (Air phones communicate with ground-based antennas that do not interfere with cellular networks.)
“But at least one of the calls appears to have come from a passenger in a bathroom outside the reach of the air phones, suggesting that a cell phone was used in that case. Wireless carriers declined to say whether the calls were made on their systems, citing privacy concerns and the investigation by the federal authorities.”
To bolster their 911 conspiracy theory Truther tried to circulate the myth that passenger using cell phones could not possibly have used them to contact loved ones. And they conjured up speculations about some amazing electronic device that could not only imitate the voices of loved one who mighty call from the plane, but also immediately match their response to any word or phrase, in English (and possibly other) languages, so that they could give the impression of hearing and responding to whatever was said. In other words, if the loved one said, “Uncle Don heard about it on the news,” then the device would have been able to identify and instantly craft a congruous response? Of course, such a device has never been invented and/or commercially used, and so 911 truthers who use it as a hypothetical explanation lean more on science fiction than anything in the real world. However, this is an absurdly inventive attempt to provide speculative answers, which are way to bizarre for more rational truther to accept! This science fiction concoction is way too bizarre than other arguments made by truthers, and it’s amazing that Gary still clings to it?

“The laws of chemistry were suspended in New York City when dozens of massive steel girders, whose melting point is 2,750 degrees Fahrenheit, were simultaneously and explosively melted by burning aviation fuel, whose maximum achievable temperature (even when burned in 100% oxygen) is 1517 degrees F”
However, this question has already been proved irrelevant regarding why the twin towers fell. If one visits a metallurgical website it doesn’t take long to find out that, although Steel does need to be heated to very high temperature in order to melt, in order to seriously destroy the Towers’ stability, all that needs to happen is for the steel to weaken, then bend and snap while trying to cope with 10 stories above the impact area in one tower and about 25 floors above the impact zone in the other. Each floor took up about an acre of horizontal space and weighed thousands of tons. They also contained furniture, like desks chairs, tables, and filing cabinets, plus copious amount of office supplies, like printing paper, ink and uncountable thousands of papers documents, as well as all the chemicals in paint, printers, and all the things with various minerals and chemicals from hundreds of computers in the impact zone, which all contributed to the blaze! Experts have determined that when all this “fuel” burned (more than an hour in one tower and at least half an hour in the other) so, the resulting heat was able to raise temps up to 1000 degrees, F. This was enough to make the Tower’s structural steel become half as strong, until it could no longer hold up the hundreds of thousand tons in the floors above that came down in response to gravity and acceleration. If one really looks at just about any of the videos of the towers falling, one can see that the large portions of steel beams and huge clouds of dust particles being ejected were falling faster than the tower itself, and in actuality, the time it took to fall has been estimated as 40 seconds by some investigators—well above free-fall speeds

About the myth/ rumor that 5 of the Hijackers are alive and living in the middle east, the BBC has updated the article that discussed that story;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2006/10/911_conspiracy_theory_1.html
Here is some of what they said in the 2006 update;
“The story has been cited ever since by some as evidence that the 9/11 attacks were part of a US government conspiracy…. We later reported on the list of hijackers, thereby superseding the earlier report. In the intervening years, we have also reported in detail on the investigation into the attacks, the 9/11 commission and its report.

We’ve carried the full report, executive summary and main findings and, as part of the recent fifth anniversary coverage, a detailed guide to what’s known about what happened on the day. But conspiracy theories have persisted. The confusion over names and identities we reported back in 2001 may have arisen because these were common Arabic and Islamic names.

In an effort to make this clearer, we have made one small change to the original story. Under the FBI picture of Waleed al Shehri we have added the words "A man called Waleed Al Shehri..." to make it as clear as possible that there was confusion over the identity. The rest of the story remains as it was in the archive as a record of the situation at the time.

We recently asked the FBI for a statement, and this is, as things stand, the closest thing we have to a definitive view: The FBI is confident that it has positively identified the nineteen hijackers responsible for the 9/11 terrorist attacks. Also, the 9/11 investigation was thoroughly reviewed by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States and the House and Senate Joint Inquiry. Neither of these reviews ever raised the issue of doubt about the identity of the nineteen hijackers.”

Now about the claim that The BBC reported the fall of WTC tower 7 a half hour before it happened—Here’s an article by Mark Rudin, published 9:00 Wednesday 2nd on July 2008 which should put that mistake to rest;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/07/controversy_conspiracies_iii.html

“It is certainly true that on 9/11 the BBC broadcast that WTC7 had collapsed when it was still standing. Then the satellite transmission seemed to cut out mysteriously when the correspondent was still talking. Then Richard Porter admitted in his blog last year that the BBC had lost those key tapes of BBC World News output from the day. So, is that proof that we at the BBC are part of a huge sinister conspiracy or is there a simpler explanation?

The mystery of the missing tapes didn't last that long. One very experienced film librarian kindly agreed to have another look for us one night. There are more than a quarter of a million tapes just in the Fast Store basement at Television Centre. The next morning, I got a call to say the tapes had been found. They'd just been put back on the wrong shelf - 2002 rather than 2001. Not so sinister after all.
What about the incorrect reporting of the collapse of Tower 7? Having talked to key eyewitnesses who were actually at Ground Zero that day it is clear that, as early as midday, the fire service feared that Tower 7 might collapse. This information then reached reporters on the scene and was eventually picked up by the international media.
The internet movie Loose Change has been viewed by more than 100 million people according to its makers and it asks this question in the latest film release: "Where did CNN and the BBC get their information especially considering the building was still standing directly behind their reporters?" It turns out that the respected news agency Reuters picked up an incorrect report and passed it on. They have issued this statement:

"On 11 September 2001 Reuters incorrectly reported that one of the buildings at the New York World Trade Center, 7WTC, had collapsed before it actually did. The report was picked up from a local news story and was withdrawn as soon as it emerged that the building had not fallen." I put this to the writer and director of Loose Change, Dylan Avery. I asked whether he believed the BBC was part of the conspiracy. Given the question his film had posed about the BBC I was surprised by Dylan's response: "Of course not, that's ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?" He added candidly: "I didn't really want to put that line in the movie." And the reason the interview with the BBC correspondent, Jane Standley, ended so abruptly? The satellite feed had an electronic timer, which cut out at 1715 exactly.
As Dylan Avery, the maker of “Loose change” said, “Of course not, that’s ludicrous. Why would the BBC be part of it?”—why indeed? Could it be that we will next be expected to believe that all the entire world was in on the alleged plot?
One more thing about Tower 7 (which many new studies have now explained) when observers claimed that it showed very little structural damage, they were not looking at the side of the building closest to the Towers. Building 7 was severely damaged on that side, since the building was half as tall as the Twin Towers, and large pieces of debris such as heavy steel columns had been raining down on it for many hours.
These are merely a few of the arguments which truthers claim are indisputable and which leave no doubts. Yet if one is not so eager to jump on the band wagon of those who want to see a conspiracy, one will find that there are a great number of ways to cast doubt on and/or prove that a conspiracy has never happened. Anyone willing to engage in genuine critical thinking should see for themselves just how the many supposed smoking gun fallacies have been explained. And I am not talking about those few mentioned in this long comment—virtually every suspicious anomaly ever mentioned by truthers, has been disprove or debunked as containing misinformation or as coming from faulty or poorly informed sources—really! Every last one!

Start reading some of the debunking sites, which a vast number of scientists and Engineers have clearly explained before you allow someone else to tell you what is true and what is false!

Nuff Said?
Peter W. Johnson,
Superior, WI.

“Just Get Your Damn Shots”

ERM251001

I only wish that Gary would share more links to corroborate the many quotes and figures he references. I see plenty of quotes but no links to their sources in his comments above.

An Honest Look at the Historical Evidence…

ERM251001

If one checks actual websites that deal with infectious diseases and which contain facts and figures about the incidence of say, Diphtheria or Measles during a certain year, one finds that Dr. Kohls is either not being honest about the affects of vaccines, or else doesn't know that what he say's is just not the case.

If one visits the CDC website which has stats relevant to the incidence of certain infectious diseases, and how many death from resulted during certain years, as well as after the introduction of vaccines. The website also lists the cases and the number of deaths caused each year, which all began to diminish around the times these vaccines were first introduced. By examining them, one can clearly see that in most, or all cases, many infectious diseases have begun to decrease. However as DR. Kohls says, the numbers of infectious diseases has decreased, not just because of modern inoculations.

However, Kohls graphs exaggerate the notion that, many years ago other factors were already causing favorable outcomes---like improvements in sanitation, the supply of healthy foods and medications, along with the use of penicillin and antibiotics which dealt the first blow.

In actuality though, the vaccine for Measles was first introduced around 1962 or 1963, and after one small upturn, disease rates of the measles began to plummet. However it wasn't until the use of DTP vaccination became widespread, that the very low incidence of Measels began to diminish even further, and would soon become almost non-existent,

Kohls's graphs are misleading because he deliberately emphasizes the fact that, in many cases, the incidence and number of deaths began to rapidly decline, not just with the introductions of modern vaccines, but also many years before, when penicillin and antibiotics became wildly used. It was during those years that kohls claims the numbers of cases dropped by about 90% before those modern vaccines were even widely used.

Here are the reasons for that contradiction:

It was not just that, say, that eliminating diseases like diphtheria and the measles have helped safeguarded our collective health?--It's also that many years before vaccines, death rates also plummeted long before vaccines were used to help treat these diseases, without serious of negative consequences. But if one does a little detective work one will soon wonder what the attacks against vaccines are motivated by? Diphtheria began its decline in the 1930s, polio in the 1950s, measles in the 1960s, chickenpox in the 1990s and rotavirus in the 2000s--all after the new vaccines became available? And if better sanitation, nutrition, and healthy practices are almost completely responsible for the the positive results concerning Pre-vaccine infections illnesses, then why would all of the above diseases not begin to diminish at the same time? Our increases in health and sanitation happened in a linear fashion, so when those in Maine benefit from new health practices, that knowledge should also be passed along nationwide, in a relatively short period of time.

Even though all these facts testify for he safety of vaccines, I can't say that I too, wouldn't be very anxious and up in arms, about anything that might threaten the life of my child. However, when complications follow in a very small number of cases, let's not forget that in every drug and inoculation that our Doctors might prescribe, there are going to be risks involved. So, whatever course we choose to take, we should not loose sight of the fact that one sick child can infect hundreds of other children just by going to school. Therefore, it would seem logical that any parent who chooses not to vaccinate, should arrange for some kind of home schooling instead.

One final point, what does Dr. Kohls mean by this statement?:


"8] Let’s focus on another infectious disease—measles. Keep in mind that by 1963, almost no one died from measles. During this year, the whole of New England had only five deaths (Maine: 1, New Hampshire: 0, Vermont: 3, Massachusetts: 0, Rhode Island: 1, Connecticut: 0) that were attributed to measles."

The fact is that any of us who are over 60 years old knows better, because during the 1950s and 60s we received vaccinations for a number of transmittable diseases--One of them was the measles. I remember standing in a in a line in a school gym for more than an hour until we had all received shots, including what was infamously feared as a "booster" shot. We were all a little scared because we could hear our classmates ahead of us screaming and crying during what seemed to be a very traumatic event. But the shots were sorely needed because all of us, and virtually everyone we knew, had at least one child who became sick with the measles. And thanks to those vaccinations, what had been an epidemic, soon plummeted and is now is almost unheard of.

Its also strange that DR. Kohls would cherry picked the measles death rates of a few states like, New Hampshire, Vermont and Rhode Island, Those few states can hardly represent measles cases in our entire country. And anyway, even though these states experienced only a small number of deaths in 1963, that does not rule our the fact that many active cases may still have been occurring while just a few people actually died. It's surprising that someone like Kohls who frequently calls out others for their devious and dishonest actions should try to cherry pick data and use red herrings ot make his points?

Here is a mainstream website which contains tables filled with teh figures and stats concerning common infectious diseases and how the have been diminished throughout time. We all have a right to be informed and to protect our children, but we needn't become overcome with fear until it clouds our judgments. There are many other children involved,not just our own!

Here is a good link to a chart with facts and figures compiled by the CDC:

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/downloads/appendices/e/reported-cases.pdf