Reason to Think

by Dan Schultz, DC

Vaccination, since it’s formal inception in 1796, has been a subject of violent controversy.  Controversy, by it’s very nature, maintains some degree of rigidity in it's opposing views.  Debate follows:  Are the risks worth the benefits?  Is the disease worthy of mass or forced vaccination policies?  How do we measure efficacy or long-term adverse effects?

For many people, just following the crowd is good enough for them.  Others simply abdicate their responsibilities to a “professional.”  They “trust” another to know and decide for them.  The underlying question lingers, “Is the crowd mentality or popular medical opinion worthy of our trust without further individual analysis?”

The baby boomers broke loose from blindly following authority as their distinct generational signature and succeeding generations have continued this trend.  Increasingly, as a result of this new, independent thinking paradigm – and regardless of generation or demographic -- parents are questioning the value of vaccination.   But, who and which information does the individual trust to make decisions?

To avoid feelings of doubt, guilt or remorse, two methods can be used to arrive at solid conclusions; induction and deduction. Recruiting the perspectives of both are necessary to arrive at certainty -- and certainty is what people are looking for.

Inductive thought
Inductive reason gathers data from multiple sources, then tabulates and evaluates their interrelated meanings. This means doing your homework. This site (www.novaccine.com) is designed to redress the balance of information and provide you with a comprehensive palette of resources available for your study.  Even after one has made their decision, educating ones’ self allows them the ability to competently educate others and explain or justify their position.

We induce from both empirical (experiential) and the scientific sources understanding that there is significant bias involved in forming nearly everyone’s conclusions.  The ever-changing popular opinions and flip-flopping conclusions of poorly designed "studies" can be frustrating.  For example, 20 years ago the newspapers and magazines touted with certainty that butter was bad for you.  They highly recommended margarine, instead.  This position was abruptly followed by the authoritative belief that just the opposite was true.  But people who educated themselves in a broader sense – from other than headlines and hearsay – gained the perspective and foresight to choose responsibly.   

Personally, I have never met anyone who objectively and thoroughly studied vaccination from both sides and nonetheless chose to inject their children with vaccinations.  In fact, many studies show that the more highly educated a parent is, the less likely they are to vaccinate.(1)   My experience also has shown me that ignorance, it seems, is the breeding ground for the irresponsible to point, blame and to become victims.

Deductive thought
The deductive process is entirely different.. As opposed to looking outside yourself for the answers, it means looking inside.  What lasting principles or truths have you come to rely on?  Deep philosophical tenets of natural principle, tradition, religion, or metaphysics can guide you.  Possibly you have come to trust axioms like "Natural is always better" or "God doesn't make mistakes."  Some choices need no structured knowledge and come in the form of intuition.  Indeed, relying on inner wisdom can be a freeing experience.  Deducing means utilizing timeless or trusted truths -- and it's every bit as valid as inductive reason -- sometimes more so.

May your journey with both processes bring you a degree of wisdom, peace and health into your life.

1. Children’s Immunization Status Worsens as Mothers’ Income, Education Rise. NewsWise January 5, 2007.
http://www.newswise.com/articles/view/526333/

For the Love of Germs

by Dan Schultz, DC

Every day I’m at the office about a hundred people breath in my face as I check their cervical spine (I’m a chiropractor).  I smile at them.  I like to shake people’s hands, too –- all kinds of people -- in the grocery store, at the dry cleaners, and at my daughter’s basketball games.  I rarely wash my hands afterward.  And, I don’t shower every day, either.

I’ll stop there before somebody calls to have me quarantined.

Should I be wearing a surgical mask to keep out all these germ-bearers’ disease-harboring bacterial flora? Should I ask them to keep their germs to their self?  May be I should wake up every morning and suit up in Mission Oriented Protection Posture gear (MOP suits)?  How much of a bubble should I be living in?

Nawww.  The fact is ... I love germs. 

Have a cold?  I’ll drink from your cup.  Mine runneth over.   We were the first to scurry our children across the street for a chicken pox party. I welcome germs for the very opportunity they are.

Am I a nut?   The medically indoctrinated/fixated usually think so.  However, the proof, as my grandfather used to say, is in the pudding (but the actual proverb goes "the proof of the pudding is in the eating and proof").

I haven’t had a cold or flu in 26 years. It was the fall of 1981. I’m afraid it’s true.  Am I superman?  I don’t think so.  I believe, to a significant degree, that my lack of fear for germs may be one of my best defenses.  May be we're all supermen and superwomen and fear is some kind of kryptonite. 

All the while, obsessive-compulsive, germophobia is nearing mass hysteria proportions in the United States.  Antibacterial soaps are best sellers at the supermarket.  Anti-septic wipes are everywhere. There’s a new $60 device out that sprays a hospital-grade disinfectant on doorknobs every 15 minutes.

We’re so clean that scientists now believe that the increase in asthma and allergies may be caused, in part, by too little germs, dust, and dander. Are "individuals are losing their bodily ability to fight off certain diseases" due to germophobia?
http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002421.html
http://www.mercola.com/2002/jul/10/clean.htm

Is there any other evidence supporting the idea that germs may be good for you?  Actually, there is.

"The creation of a sterile environment through excessive cleanliness may potentially be harmful to the immune system."
Sherriff A, et al Arch Dis Child. 2002 Jul;87(1):26-9. Hygiene levels in a contemporary population cohort are associated with wheezing and atopic eczema in preschool infants.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12089117&dopt=Abstract

One of the central themes to Jared Diamond’s excellent treatise Guns, Germs and Steel (http://dannyreviews.com/h/Guns_Germs_Steel.html) was that civilizations effectively survived, flourished, and conquered by densely populating and sharing all their germs.  It matures and evolves the human immune system, it seems.

This study “consistently revealed a lower cancer risk for patients with a history of FICD (febrile infectious childhood diseases).
Albonico HU, et al  Med Hypothesis 1998 Oct; 51(4) 315-20 “Febrile Infectious Childhood Disease In The History Of Cancer Patients And Matched Controls”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9824838&dopt=Citation

But what about HIV?  I read Duesberg’s work and, whoa, he demonstrates that HIV doesn’t even cause AIDS.  The vast majority of AIDS patients were immune compromised from chronic use of recreational or prescription drugs (like AZT), or suffer from malnutrition.  It’s a good read.
http://www.virusmyth.net/aids/index/pduesberg.htm

One of the ironic and interesting things about germophobes is that they're often the ones who are sick most often. May be they have more germs than the rest of us?  I’ll take their germs, too, just to be kind.  And I'll continue to actively cultivate long-lasting health and vigor with a healthy lifestyle.

Got germs?  Bring’em on!  I look forward to meeting you and your germs some day.