wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 09:17:17 -0400, chardonnay9
wrote:

wrote:
On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 08:28:11 -0400, chardonnay9
wrote:

Anyone that would think that a homeopath considers vaccines a good thing
doesn't know much about homeopathy at all. It would go against the very
nature of what homeopathy is about.

Dr Carley was, among other things, a surgeon and a very good one till
she studied holistic medicine and chose to take that path in life. She
talks about vaccine damage in both humans and pets.
http://drcarley.com/

Vaccines - The True Weapons of Mass Destruction
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M6dffXhewVE

Science of Vaccine Damage
The vaccinated, but not the non-vaccinated, dogs in the Purdue studies
developed autoantibodies
to many of their own biochemicals, including fibronectin, laminin, DNA,
albumin, cytochrome C,
cardiolipin and collagen.
This means that the vaccinated dogs -- "but not the non-vaccinated
dogs"-- were attacking their
own fibronectin, which is involved in tissue repair, cell multiplication
and growth, and
differentiation between tissues and organs in a living organism.
The vaccinated Purdue dogs also developed autoantibodies to laminin,
which is involved in
many cellular activities including the adhesion, spreading,
differentiation, proliferation and
movement of cells. Vaccines thus appear to be capable of removing the
natural intelligence of
cells.
http://drcarley.com/Science_of_vaccine_damage.pdf
Do you really want to offer Dr. Carley as a reference?

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/carley1.html
In July 2003, the New York State Board for Professional Medical
Conduct (BPMC) found Rebecca Lee Roczen, M.D. (a/k/a Rebecca Lee
Carley, M.D) guilty of "practicing while impaired by a mental
disability" and "having a psychiatric condition which impaired her
ability to practice medicine." Her medical license was suspended for
five years with a provision that her ability to practice could be
restored after one year if she sought psychiatric treatment and the
psychiatrist recommended that she be considered fit to practice again.
Do you really want to offer Stephen Barrett as a reference?

Don't like Dr. Barrett?

Then how about the State of New York, Department of Health?
http://w3.health.state.ny.us/opmc/factions.nsf/cd901a6816701d94852568c0004e3fb7/777c474f253ed8d085256d5f0053955e/$FILE/ATTVAXXO/lc175786.pdf

The basic premise here is that CHard thinks
that ALL homeopathic doctors are like her,
and that they all place their agenda above
the lives of the animals they are charged
with treating.

Thankfully, not all do that. Wieghing the
benefits against the risks is as much a part
of being a homeopathic doctor as it is being
an "allopathic" doctor. Just because a doctor
makes a determination based on the contexts
presented that benefits his patient, whether
or not the agenda pushers disagree, doesn't
make them "not" homeopathic....it just makes
them a good doctor.