Interestingly enough, one of the most prestigious
medical schools, STANFORD UNIVERSITY,is NOT
in agreement about vaccinating newborns against
Hepatitis B. In his teaching module, Eliseo
Perez-Stable, MD, says the following:
"ACIP, the American Academy of Pediatrics
and the American Academy of Family Practice
recommend universal immunization of all infants
against HBV, regardless of risk. Although this
policy is moderately economically attractive,
many have criticized the unneeded vaccinations
and the added pain of more "baby shots".
Bloom and colleagues completed a cost effectiveness
study on HBV vaccination strategies and concluded
that the strategy with the lowest cost per
year of life saved was:
Screen all pregnant women
If HBsAg positive (if mother has Hepatitis
B): vaccinate infant against HBV and administer
Vaccinate all children at l0 years and
re-vaccinate with a booster l0 years later.
I urge you to send this information on to others.
I am committed to stopping the routine vaccine
of newborns throughout N. America.
Babies' immune systems are not developed enough
to take this vaccine. I fear that this is a
huge money-making scheme on the part of the
pharmaceutical companies and that it is going
to have huge health costs for the general public.
Contact at least one public health official in
your community today and let them know there
is a campaign to end the vaccination of babies
against Hepatitis B. When the people lead,
the leaders follow.
I guess the question of vaccination
and immunization doesn't really occur to us
until we have children. Certainly, this was
the case for me. Now that I have four children
it is a very serious question, which I have
researched and would like to share with you
some of my notes and thoughts.
We are led to believe by the
medical dictorates and the media that immunization
is a safe, scientific procedure, which protects
and safeguards health. However, there is evidence
that much immunization is not safe in the short
term; that it offers far less protection than
might be imagined, and that the long-term effects
of certain forms of immunization may constitute
a major health hazard.
The argument is that vaccination
will provide protection against infectious
disease without the disadvantage of suffering
its distressing symptoms and possible residual
ACTUAL DISEASE TRENDS
One of the most common claims made by advocates
of routine vaccination is that the procedure
is responsible for eliminating common infectious
diseases from communities that have been well
vaccinated. This argument is not supported
by information compiled from official Government
figures obtained directly from the Health Departments
of the United States, Great Britain, and Australia
for the following infectious diseases:
Whooping cough, Measles, Poliomyelitis,
Tetanus and Diphtheria. If one where to examine
these figures and diagrams, it is quite clear
that the deaths from these diseases were virtually
eliminated BEFORE vaccination programmes were
introduced. The downward trend did continue
after the vaccinations were introduced, but
the trend was on the down path anyway.
Certainly, it cannot be claimed
that vaccination has been responsible for the
elimination of infectious diseases, the credit
for which must be largely attributed to improved
sanitation and waste disposal, personal hygiene
and nursing care, and the reduction of severe
nutritional diseases in the countries considered.
ROUTINE VACCINATION - A SUMMARY
As one reads the relevant literature on vaccination
risks based on scientific research, it is clear
that anyone who says vaccination is a totally
safe and effective procedure is either a fool
or a liar - and probably both. Pharmaceutical
lobby groups fall directly into this category
Dr. Coulter and Dr. Fisher have
thoroughly and accurately researched and documented
the risks of the Triple Antigen vaccine. They
list fourteen significant short term side effects
of the DPT vaccine, which can also apply to
other vaccines too:
1. Skin reactions
3. Vomiting and diarrhoea
4. Cough, runny nose, ear infection
5. High pitched screaming, persistent crying
6. Collapse or shock-like episodes
7. Excessive sleepiness
8. Seizure disorders - convulsions, Epilepsy
9. Infantile spasms
10. Loss of muscle control
11. Inflammation of the brain
12. Blood disorders - Thrombocytopenia, Hemolytic
13. Diabetes and Hypoglycaemia
14. Death and Sudden Death Syndrome (SIDS)
In addition to these short-term
side effects, Coulter and Fisher list three
major areas of possible long term damage, including:
1. severe neurological damage
2. brain damage, learning disabilities, and
3. allergy and hypersensitivity
Possibly the most disturbing
aspect of their book is the number of reported
case histories where doctors administering
vaccines completely ignored patients' previous
reactions to vaccination, in some cases resulting
in death. This further reinforces that ultimately
the parents are responsible for their children's
health; ignorance is not inductive to good
Other researchers have shown
that children who received the pertussis vaccine
were 5.43 times more likely to develop asthma
in later years, over twice as likely to have
ear infections, and significantly more likely
to spend longer periods in hospital than those
who had not received the vaccine. Thus, clear
evidence is emerging of a long term weakening
of the immune system due to vaccination.
Dr. Robert Gallo, the US expert
who first identified the AIDS virus, raised
the possibility between the spread of AIDS
in Central Africa and the World Health Organization's
(WHO) Smallpox vaccination campaign (see HERE
for more information). WHO figures show that
the greatest spread of the HIV infection coincides
with the areas receiving the most intense vaccination
programmes. This may also explain why the disease
in Africa is more evenly spread between males
and females than in the West.
Dr. Archie Kalokerinos and Glenn
Dettman, Ph.D. undertook one of the most important
pieces of research regarding vaccination programmes,
in their work with aboriginal children in Australia.
Aboriginal infant death rates had reached an
unprecedented level of up to 500 out of every
1,000 babies. The death rates had increased
dramatically during the early 1970's. The areas
Minister of Interior called in Dr. Kalokerinos
who began to investigate. He discovered that
herd immunity, without prior examination, was
resulting in babies dying due to being vaccininated
when they were severely nutritionally undernourished
or had a cold or infection.
Summaries of the long-term side
effects are as follows:
1. Severe neurological damage
2. Brain damage
3. Allergy and hypersensitivity
4. General damage to the immune system
5. Slow viruses
6. Genetic abnormalities - "Jumping Gene"
7. Viral transference
8. Trigger mechanism for immune system diseases
9. Dynamic (miasmic) changes
I have personally seen a number
of parents who brought their children to me
with similar problems (ADD, Autism, Autistic
symptoms, cognitive difficulties, etc.), reporting
a "sudden change" just after vaccination.
All these children tested positive on the VEGA
bio-dermal screening for "vaccination
HOW EFFECTIVE ARE VACCINATIONS?
It would be nice to think that vaccinations
were 100% effective, but the research shows
otherwise. Studies measuring "secondary
attack rates" - the percentage of other
family members infected as a result of definite
exposure to a family member with Whooping Cough
showed that the efficacy of the vaccine ranged
between 59.6 to 80.5%.
Professor Stewart of Glasgow
University, UK, head of Community Medicine,
states that in 1974/5, and 1978/9, outbreaks
in the UK, and in 1974 in the outbreaks in
the USA and Canada, the proportion of children
developing whooping cough who had been fully
vaccinated was between 30 and 50 per cent.
Dr. Stewart goes on to conclude that the risks
of vaccination to new born babies are as great
as those of actually catching the disease itself.
In 1993, Japanese health authorities
discontinued the use of the MMR vaccine. One
reason was that the vaccine was causing Mumps
in recipients. Initially, side effects from
the vaccine were predicated as 1 in 100-200,000,
but in practice, however, reactions were found
to be frequent as 1 in 300.
Roberts and others examined an
outbreak of Measles and found that the MMR
vaccine was not only ineffective, but increased
the severity of the disease. "Symptoms
were equally common among immunised and non-immunised
subjects. However, significantly more immunised
boys than non-immunised boys reported fever,
rash, joint symptoms and headache.
SUMMARY OF PROBLEMS ASSOCIATED
WITH ROUTINE VACCINATION
There are three basic flaws in the theory and
practice of vaccination:
1. The primary cause of disease
is not antigenic since not all unvaccinated
or previously unexposed people become infected
when similarly exposed to an identical antigen.
The disease initially results from a sensitivity,
which causes inability to cope with invading
antigens. This raises the question regarding
why some people have natural immunity while
others do not. Many other factors are involved
in immunity, including genetic characteristics,
placental transfer, breastfeeding, as well
as individual health, nutritional status, and
emotional response to stress.
2. Injections of antigens do not necessarily
produce the same results in all individuals,
and exceptions can be fatal. At best, these
injections increase toxins in the body, which
may cause some of the many side effects associated
with vaccination. These side effects are aggravated
by the relatively massive doses of antigen
administered compared to natural exposure,
plus chemicals such as Aluminium Phosphate
and Thimersol used in the vaccines, as well
as the fact that the injected material enters
the bloodstream almost directly, bypassing
the outer or primary immunological defences.
In addition, the protection given by injected
antigens is usually temporary, whereas natural
exposure to infectious diseases virus generally
produces permanent immunity.
3. Repeated injections of antigens tend to
both sensitise the recipient to the disease
and destroy the vitality of the immune system
on a number of levels. This has been scientifically
established, as noted in references to various
medical practitioners and researchers in previous
sections. Natural Therapists believe that damage
also occurs on the inner, dynamic level from
which an individual derives their entire physical
and emotional health.
PREVENTION IS BETTER THAN CURE!
The best position that advocates of routine
vaccination can take is that the program offers
some protection and that the known side effects
(and yet to be demonstrated side effects) are
worth the risk. Since this is obviously not
an optimum position, the question: "Is
there a genuine alternative available?"
must be asked. And the answer is a definite
As parents, the best protection
you can give your child involves:
1. Ensuring adequate ongoing nutrition for
yourselves and your children, including a balanced
diet, no more than a moderate alcohol intake,
and no smoking.
2. Breastfeeding, where possible, to around
nine to twelve months providing an emotionally
stable home environment for your children
3. Ensuring safe and effective treatment if
an infectious disease is contracted [Dr Shepherd
wrote that, during local outbreaks of disease,
conventional practitioners would complain that
she always had the "easy" cases;
her reply was that her method of treatment
- Homoeopathy - made her cases appear easy].
4. Constitutional treatment that will elevate
general vitality and immune competence.
If desired, parents may support
the above measures with Homoeopathic medicines
as preventatives against these infectious diseases.
THE ALTERNATIVES TO ROUTINE VACCINATION
Vaccines are more toxic than homoeopathic medicines:
This point is generally accepted; in fact,
many doctors criticize homoeopathic substances
because they do not contain any molecules of
the original substance used. They say that
"nothing" is there, so "nothing"
cannot be toxic. Vaccines, however, contain
a number of toxic substances. For example,
the triple antigen vaccine contains molecules
of diseased material modified with formaldehyde
together with an adjuvant (usually aluminium
phosphate) and a preservative (usually thimersol,
a mercury-based chemical).
The vaccine efficacy of 75-95%
may be compared to the single measure of effectiveness
of the homoeopathic method derived from the
1994 analysis, being 89%, as confirmed by the
latest ten-year survey (1997). This figure
not only gives a general indication of efficacy,
but (more importantly) supports the historical
experience with the homoeopathic method over
the last 200 years.
Homoeopathy rapidly gained popular
acceptance when it proved successful in treating
the infectious diseases sweeping through Europe,
1. In 1813, Hahnemann achieved a success rate
of 100% in treating 183 Typhus patients; at
that time Typhus was considered incurable.
2. Scarlet Fever was effectively both treated
and prevented by Hahnemann using the remedy,
3. During the European Cholera epidemics of
the mid-1800's, the death rate was between
54% and 90%, while the rate amongst persons
who received Homoeopathic treatment was between
5% and 16%.
4. During the 1918-1920 Influenza (Spanish
Flu) epidemic in the United States, the mortality
rate was around 30%; the mortality rate among
individuals treated Homoeopathically was less
A SPECIFIC HOMEOPATHIC PROGRAM
We will now examine the programs developed
by the Issac Golden over the last ten years,
who wrote the excellent and comprehensive book
"Vaccination? A Review Of Risks and Alternatives."
As stressed previously, no program, orthodox
or alternative, can be guaranteed 100% effective,
but it is essential that we establish a reliable
guide to the relative effectiveness of vaccination
It must be emphasised that the
methodology of disease prevention and the remedies
used in the kit are not new, having been used
for nearly 200 years. However, Issac Golden,
following extensive research in the Homoeopathic
literature, and subsequent personal clinical
experience developed the particular programs.
A supplementary program has also
been developed, which may be used in conjunction
with or instead of the basic program.
The reason for using both programs
is that, although successful use of the remedies
in the basic program has been established,
no system of protection can be guarantied 100%
effective. In the event of definite exposure
to a source of infection, parents may wish
to give their child additional protection at
that time. These two programs comprise the
third Homoeopathic Kit, which was first released
Supplementary Program for Protection
When Exposed to Infection
DISEASE ADMINISTRATION OF REMEDY
* Whooping Cough- Pertussin (200c) twice weekly
for 3 weeks after contact with carrier.
* Tetanus- Three doses of Ledum Palustre (30c)
daily for 3 days after breakage of skin.
* Diphtheria - One dose of Diphtherium (200c)
weekly for 4-6 weeks during an outbreak of
* Measles- Morbillinum (200c) weekly during
an outbreak, for 3 weeks.
* Mumps- Parotidinum(200c) weekly during an
epidemic or after contact with carrier.
* Rubella - As natural immunity is the most
certain, it is better to allow (German Measles)
healthy children to acquire this mild disease.
If protection is required, the Rubella Nosode
(200c) or Pulsatilla (30c) may be used twice
weekly for two weeks.
* Haemophilia - Haemophilis (1M) every 2 weeks
during an outbreak (Hib).
Most of the Homoeopathic medicines
listed above are called 'nosodes'. These are
potentised preparations of diseased substances;
for example, the nosode Pertussin is the potentised
expectoration from a patient with Whooping
Cough. However, it is not essential to use
As discussed previously, when
a person acquires immunity through natural
exposure to a virus, the actual quantity of
virus is minute, yet the change is effected
on a dynamic level, and subsequently on the
physical level. In Homoeopathy, the effect
is similar in that changes initially occur
on a dynamic level. The Homoeopathic remedy,
Pertussin, is the virus potentised to a purely
dynamic and non-material degree. Unlike vaccines,
therefore, Homoeopathic preparations copy the
processes of Nature, with similar results in
practice. Further, it must be stressed that
vaccination is not a type of Homoeopathic (as
has been suggested by some).
We are using medicines of energy,
not crude substances like those used in vaccines.
The remedies are selected using the Law of
Similars. The ignorance of such attacks is
made more obvious considering that Homoeopathic
medicine is first derided because 'nothing
is there', and then criticised as being 'toxic'.
Logical and scientific criticism indeed!
If the reader really wants to
get to grips with this complex subject, I will
give a few of the references that I have used
for this brief newsletter. There are many further
details and studies that I recommend the parent
or practitioner who truly wants to get to grips
with vaccine alternatives to read:
1. Issac Golden - Vaccination?
A Review of Risks and Alternatives (5th edition)
2. Leon Chaitow - Vaccination and Immunization:
Dangers, Delusions and Alternatives
Dr. George J Georgiou, Ph.D.,D.Sc (A.M).,N.D.