ICA NEWS!  

For Immediate Release

June 20, 2005



ICA Responds to TIME Magazine Editorial on Chiropractors and 
Vaccination



 



The International Chiropractors Association (ICA) has responded to 
an editorial that appeared on June 7, 2005, by Leon Jaroff entitled 
"Chiropractors v. Vaccination."   In this article, Mr. Jaroff, a regular 
contributor to TIME and longtime chiropractic critic, presented the 
orthodox medical position that ".vaccination has saved untold 
millions of lives," but "Critics here charge that it is largely 
responsible for increases in such disorders as asthma, autism, 
juvenile diabetes and attention deficit hyperactivity disorder 
(ADHD). That advice, unfortunately, is being dispensed to patients by 
chiropractors, far too many of them."  Mr. Jaroff goes on to say that, 
"Chiropractors are accustomed to, and generally ignore, such 
criticism from the medical profession. In fact, the International 
Chiropractors Association sells a book entitled Vaccination: 100 
Years of Orthodox Research Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical 
Assault on the Immune System."



 



In a letter to TIME, ICA President John K. Maltby wrote:



 



"We are deeply disappointed by the shallow and incomplete 
depiction of the very serious issue of vaccination risk and injury, 
and the likewise incomplete representation of the position of this 
organization presented in your publication by Mr. Jaroff.  By direct 
reference, Mr. Jaroff named the International Chiropractors 
Association (ICA), and did correctly report that ICA does offer to the 
public a book entitled Vaccination: 100 Years of Orthodox Research 
Shows that Vaccines Represent a Medical Assault on the Immune 
System.  This book, which is only one among the dozens that ICA has 
for sale on a variety of important issues, represents compelling 
reading.  One might conclude, however, that all Mr. Jaroff read was 
the title.  He certainly did not bother to research the ICA's formal 
policy on vaccinations, which is as easy to find on our organization's 
website, www.chiropractic.org, as the book to which he refers."  



 



"For the record, please note the ICA's official policy statement on 
vaccination states that, '.the use of vaccines is not without risk. The 
ICA supports each individual's right to select his or her own health 
care and to be made aware of the possible adverse effects of 
vaccines upon a human body. In accordance with such principles and 
based upon the individual's right to freedom of choice, the ICA is 
opposed to compulsory programs which infringe upon such rights.'



 



"This is not a chiropractic issue; it is a public health and 
accountability issue.  ICA's policy is not one of opposition to or 
promotion of vaccination; it is one of informed consent and personal 
freedom."  



 













ICA also expressed concern about the way Mr. Jaroff simplified the 
research record in favor of his editorial opinion, doing both the 
chiropractic profession and the consumer a grave disservice.   
Credible examples of research studies that call the safety and 
efficacy of mass vaccination programs into question exist in large 
quantities, a fact well known in the chiropractic profession.  



 



ICA believes that this is a debate that must go on, and not be 
silenced by scare tactics, by government mandates that are 
fundamentally contrary to the basic concepts of American freedoms, 
or by a badly flawed and suspect research environment.  With 
billions of dollars at stake, it has become clear that the 
pharmaceutical industry is willing to pay whatever price it takes to 
buy the research outcomes they need to defend themselves.  



 



In a recent article in the June 9, 2005 edition of the highly 
regarded scientific journal Nature, entitled "Scientists behaving 
badly", the ethics and behavior of researchers were studied through 
a survey of over 3,200 scientists, and the authors came to alarming, 
but far from unique conclusions.  According to the study's authors: 



"Serious misbehaviour in research is important for many reasons, 
not least because it damages the reputation of, and undermines 
public support for, science.We surveyed several thousand early- and 
mid-career scientists, who are based in the United States and 
funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), and asked them to 
report their own behaviours. Our findings reveal a range of 
questionable practices that are striking in their breadth and 
prevalence."1



This article appeared on the same day that The New York Times 
reported, in a story "Drug Safety System Is Broken, a Top F.D.A. 
Official Says," that, ".the nation's drug safety system had "pretty 
much broken down" and that there was room for "a lot of 
improvement" in the government's approach to uncovering dangers in 
drugs already on the market."  

ICA concluded its response to TIME and Mr. Jaroff stating that, "ICA 
holds that:  all citizens deserve better than the dogmatic, heavy 
handed, economically driven and scientifically questionable approach 
which Mr. Jaroff seems to think is good public health policy.  Ask 
anyone whose child has been harmed, and whose lives have been 
ruined by the connection between vaccination and autism and other 
mentally and physically debilitating conditions."  



 



 



  1.. The full text of this article is available at: 
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v435/n7043/full/435737a.h
tml