Comment to 'vaccination'
Comment to vaccination
  • I have been given permission to crosspost the following in its entirety. David Little is a fantastic homeopath; the best the world has. He follows in the steps of Samuel Hahnemann, but has progressed in his field. He has spent his life dedicated to homeopathy and is in the enviable position of being in possession of Samuel Hahnemann's original works and his Paris Casebooks His writings are completely factual, so the information he writes regarding vaccinations since the time of Hahnemann is worth reading. Dear colleagues, Over the next days I will be continuing on some of the themes I raised in Hahnemann's Genesis 1. The first subject I will take up is vaccination in general and then raising conceiving and raising children in particular. Without healthy, happier children tomorrow will not be a better world. As I reach later middle age and face old age I know that my work on this earth will someday be finished. At this stage of life what we leave behind becomes a more important issue and legacy a more important word. If we have any real legacy it is what we have done for others. This work starts at home and then spreads to the society and the entire global village. Today, I want to speak about how to build a better future with the same passion I spoke about present and past in Genesis 1. The idea behind immunizations is based on similar substances in that the original substance has been modified so that it is not exactly the same as the natural infection. Hahnemann supported vaccination although his casebooks show that he sometimes treated the acute side effects of vaccination. He knew vaccination could cause problems and even suggested methods for reducing the risk. He felt that this method was homoeopathic and that other preventative remedies might be found in a similar manner. Hahnemann observation was that vaccination had reduced the virulency and epidemic of smallpox. He thought, in his time and place, that the risk versus benefit ratio was in favor of vaccination. These are the historical facts so we best not ignore them based on our personal feelings. It was Wolf and Boenninghausen who first spoke out strongly about the long term side effects of smallpox vaccination. Then Boenninghausen introduced Thuja as a curative as well as preventative remedy for the miasm. This was quickly followed by the use of Variolinum based on Hering's experiments with nosodes. The smallpox nosode was used with great success in the USA during epidemics. There is amble documentation on this subject. The complications associated with the homeopathic campaigns were minimal and were mostly aggravations caused by the dose and potency. The homeopathic method seems to have faired better than the orthodox vaccinations. So for smallpox, at least, we do have some statistical and clinical data that shows the nosodes work well. There are quite a few promising studies and even a few laboratory confirmations of immune reactions. Homoeopathic prophylaxis has worked well in the field over the last 162 years since Hahnemann passed away. Orthodox immunization is similar in theory to the idea of nosode prophylaxis but the size of the dose and the tendency to mix several diseases together increases the danger associated with the method. The injection of large doses of mixtures of miasms at the same time is very questionable because it is so unnatural. The immune system is not designed to be exposed to so many differing acute and chronic miasms in the first five years of life. There is also the danger of contamination from chemicals and other viruses.So what we have is the right idea being done in the wrong manner. This is what I call "over-immunization". Too much of too many things too fast. In the end one ends up with so many dissimilar miasms affecting the vital force that they form dissimilar layers that can only repress one another or form complex diseases, but never cure each other. The continual production of antibodies for so many dissimilar diseases so fast can cause the immune system to attack its own tissue, producing vaccine related autoimmune disorders that appear as many different diseases not related to immunization. The exact nature of the final form of the vaccinosis is based on the heredity, constitution, temperament and predispositions of the individual as well as the nature of the iatrogenic miasm. The individualized nature of the reactions makes it almost impossible to relate all the potential disorders by a simple 1+1= 2 linear causation. For this reason, only the grossest side-effects that take place more quickly are ever recorded. The rest is ignored or considered new diseases. Now we come to the risk versus benefit of orthodox immunizations. Some say that all vaccinations do not work, but this is too sweeping of a statement. Yes, studies show that certain vaccinations do not work very well if at all. For example, WHO did a massive study of BCG in India and found that it had no real effect on infection rates. Risk yes - cost yes- benefit no! An MD (who is using more and more homeopathy) told me that in his young years he saw lots of tetanus but he no longer sees it much these days. At the same time, he told that DPT does not seem to have reduced the incidents of whooping cough and many immunized children still get the disease. This was his unprejudiced observation over the last 30 years. At the same time, this shot is known to cause serious complications in quite a few children. So what is the risk and what are the benefits? Should everyone get the shot now because someday they "might" need it? If one gets a deep puncture wound or serous laceration tetanus anti-toxin shots are available at the time. Ledum and Hypericum offer an alternative even then. I once had a discussion with a pediatrician.about giving new born babies hepatitis B shots in the first day of their lives. I ask him what are the transmission vectors. He said the most common vectors were drug addicts sharing needles and sexual intercourse. Then I ask him what were the chances of a new born baby shooting drugs or having sex? He said "none". Then I ask him why give them this immunization so close to birth when they did not need it? He was lost for words. He was stuck in the system and forced to follow standard practice. They should not *over immunize* children for more and more disease every year as if there is no limit to what the human organism can tolerate. At first it causes a boast of specific antibodies but then it exhausts the immune system, because it is not natural to be exposed to so many diseases at any one time. They may or may not get the disease the vaccination was given for but they do become more susceptible to a host of other diseases. They should only give immunizations to those diseases that present a clear and present danger. They should only give one immunization at a time and then wait and watch the child's health. They should not vaccinate children who an unhealthy or ill at the time. Each case should be individualized according to the patient, time and circumstances. If the orthodox school just followed these simple parameters the amount of complications would be reduced. What they are doing lacks common sense as well as medical prudence and is more about the assembly line production and money, than about health. Now let us look at Nature's Way. Why? Because if we are going to find a better method than the orthodox mechanistic approach we must know what is natural first. The immature immune system is supposed to be strengthened through the parent's genes, exposure of the mother's blood and fluids in the womb and by breast feeding. Breast milk increases the resistance to infection and helps strengthen the growing immune system. Exposure in the post-natal world to relative harmless microorganisms continues to develop the resistance and adaption of the growing infant further. As the child starts to eat solid food the intestinal flora is developed so that there is a healthy balance of positive and so-called negative bacteria, fungi and parasites. If the internal terrain is balanced the potentially pathological microorganisms are harmless and the process further increases resistance and adaption. These are important phases of living on the earth. Bacteria-phobia is one of the reasons for the excessive use of antiseptics and chemical soaps that has lead to the derangement of the system of mass defense leading to an increase of allergenic disorders. We can not live a healthy life without the millions of microorganisms that live within the human organism and surround us in life. Life is a twin process of adaption or learning to live with relatively harmless microorganism and gaining resistance to those which have pathogenic potential. As long as the internal terrain is not unnaturally deranged the human organism is ready, willing and able to strike up a healthy balance in its internal medium. When there is a balance of learning to adapted to that which is not really a threat and learning to resist that which is a danger the individual healthy. If the internal terrain is unbalanced by immunizations, antibiotics, fungicides and chemicals the same relatively harmless microorganisms become out of balance and become extremely pathological. On top of this natural resistance the growing infant must eat a good diet, feel loved and appreciated, and get enough exposure to the Nature's elements to continue to evolve into its new environment. When such a child begin to socialize they are expose to the common acute miasms, this is another chance to strengthen its system of mass defense. This is a natural immunization, which will make the child more resistance to all similar acute diseases and may even cure the predigestions to certain similar chronic disorders. In such a child their natural vitality and the acquired resistance is usually sufficient so that there are no complications. This is the ideal situation not a reality for each and every child even in the natural world. Heredity, constitution, temperament and predisposition combined with environmental factors are leading factors. Some children are born with notable weaknesses, susceptibilities and lack of vitality. They are always at a higher risk to suffering acute and chronic miasmic infections and prone to complications. These children need special attention until they overcome there innate disabilities and reach a point of sufficient resistance, adaptation and vitality. Unfortunately, those with compromised health are the most at risk of side effects from orthodox immunization. It is a vicious circle.