Germany makes measles vaccination compulsory for children

 

news@thelocal.de
@thelocalgermany

17 July 2019
12:55 CEST+02:0

 

Photo: DPA

Germany’s federal cabinet has passed a new law for a compulsory measles vaccination, which could see parents fined if they violate it.

From March 2020, parents will have to prove that their children have been vaccinated before they can be admitted to a kita or school.

The vaccination obligation also applies to childminders and staff in day-care centers, schools, medical facilities, and communal facilities such as refugee shelters.

Children will only be admitted to kindergarten or school if they have had the jabs and violations can result in fines of up to €2,500.

“We want to protect as many children as possible from measles infection,” said Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU) on Wednesday. He added he is aiming for a 95 percent vaccination rate.

Children and staff who are already in a nursery, school or community centres when the law comes into force next March must prove that they have been vaccinated by July 31st, 2021 at the latest.

The ‘Kinderuntersuchungsheft’, or a special booklet to show if a child has received a vaccination. Photo: DPA

The proof can can come from a vaccination certificate, a ‘Kinderuntersuchungsheft’, a special booklet parents fill out documenting their child’s vaccines, or by a medical certificate that shows that the child has already had measles.

 

Growing numbers

The compulsory vaccination is being introduced in Germany in response to a worldwide increase in measles disease. In Europe alone, cases were up by 350 percent last year.

In Germany last year, 543 cases were reported. In the first months of this year, already more than 400 cases have been reported.

Last year, 350,000 cases of measles were reported worldwide, more than double the number for 2017.

And they increased fourfold globally in the first quarter of 2019 compared to the same period last year, according to WHO.

A heated topic

In Germany and abroad, the topic of vaccination has become increasingly controversial in recent years.

Germany’s paediatricians’ association has long demanded mandatory childhood vaccinations against measles and a range of other diseases.

The resurgence of the disease in some countries has been blamed on the so-called “anti-vax” movement, which is largely based on a 1998 publication linking the measles vaccine and autism that has since been debunked.

In response, the German government drafted the law making measles vaccination compulsory for all children.

After the cabinet, the Bundestag still has to give its approval. According to the Ministry of Health, no approval is required in the Bundesrat, the upper house of German Parliament.

The new legislation received widespead support, although was criticized by the Greens, who felt the vaccines should be encouraged but not mandatory.

Advertisements

The Real Story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and MMR (by Mary Holland, JD)

The Real Story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and MMR (by Mary Holland, JD)

A Thorough Analysis of the Case Against Dr. Andrew Wakefield by Mary Holland, JD

Mary Holland is a research scholar at NYU School of Law. She has written and edited books and articles on human rights and law. She has clerked for a federal judge, worked at the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and at prominent U.S. law firms. She graduated from Harvard College and holds graduate degrees from Columbia University. She is a co-founder and board member of the Center for Personal Rights.

Introduction

If you’ve heard Dr. Wakefield’s name — and you probably have — you’ve heard two tales. You’ve heard that Dr. Wakefield is a charlatan, an unethical researcher, and a huckster who was “erased” from the British medical registry and whose 1998 article on autism and gastrointestinal disease was “retracted” by a leading medical journal. You’ve also heard a very different story, that Dr. Wakefield is a brilliant and courageous scientist, a compassionate physician beloved by his patients, and a champion for families with autism and vaccine injury. What’s the truth?

Who is Dr. Andrew Wakefield?

Dr. Wakefield graduated from St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School of the University of London in 1981; he was one in the fourth generation of his family to study medicine at that teaching hospital. He pursued a career in gastrointestinal surgery with a specialty in inflammatory bowel disease. He became a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1985 and was accepted into the Royal College of Pathologists in 2001. He held academic positions at the Royal Free Hospital and has published over 140 original scientific articles, book chapters, and invited scientific commentaries.

Background on The Controversy

In the early 1990s, Dr. Wakefield began to study a possible link between the measles virus and bowel disease. He published a 1993 study, “Evidence of persistent measles virus infection in Crohn’s disease” and co-authored a 1995 article published in The Lancet, “Is measles vaccine a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease?” At roughly the same time, Dr. Wakefield wrote an unpublished 250-page manuscript reviewing the available scientific literature on the safety of measles vaccines. He was rapidly emerging as one of the world’s experts on measles vaccination.

In 1996, an attorney, Solicitor Barr of the law firm Dawbarns, contacted Dr. Wakefield to ask if he would serve as an expert in a legal case on behalf of children injured by vaccines containing the measles virus. The lawyer was bringing the suit on behalf of parents who alleged that vaccines had caused their children’s disabilities, including autism. Six months before this, and independent of the litigation effort, parents of children with autism and severe gastrointestinal symptoms began contacting Dr. Wakefield because of his publications on the measles vaccine, asking for help for their children’s pain and suffering, which they believed was vaccine-induced. Dr. Wakefield made two major, but separate, decisions at about this time — to try to help the families dealing with autism and gastrointestinal problems, and to become an expert in the legal case regarding vaccines and autism.

Barr asked Dr. Wakefield to study two questions:

(1) whether measles could persist after measles infection or the receipt of the MMR vaccine; and

(2) whether the measles virus could lead to complications, such as Crohn’s disease or autism.

Due to bureaucratic delays at his hospital, however, Dr. Wakefield did not begin this litigation-related study until October 1997. By July 1997, Dr. Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, had already examined the “Lancet 12” — twelve patients with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms that were the basis for the case study in the 1998 article published in The Lancet. Dr. Wakefield and others had recommended the referral of these patients to Prof. Walker-Smith, an eminent physician described by his peers as one of the world’s leading pediatric gastroenterologists.

Prof. WalkerSmith had recently moved to St. Mary’s Hospital from a different institution and brought with him the same clinical privileges and ethical clearances that he enjoyed at his previous hospital. He, a colleague, Dr. Simon Murch, and a team of other physicians, did extensive clinical workups on these sick children that Prof. Walker-Smith deemed “clinically indicated,” while Dr. Wakefield coordinated a detailed research review of the tissues obtained at biopsy. The clinical tests included colonoscopies, MRI scans, and lumbar punctures to assess mitochondrial disorders. “Clinically indicated studies” did not require permissions from The Royal Free Hospital ethics committee because the tests were required for the benefit of the individual patients. Dr. Wakefield’s research was covered by an appropriate ethical approval.

In 1998, to announce the publication of The Lancet article coauthored by Dr. Wakefield and twelve other scientists, the dean of St. Mary’s Medical School called a press conference. While this was not standard practice, the dean presumably was seeking to enhance the school’s visibility in cutting-edge research. The article was labeled in the medical journal as an “early report,” stating that it “did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.”

At the press conference, Dr. Wakefield was asked about the safety of the MMR vaccine. In 1992, two different combination MMR vaccines had been withdrawn from the U.K. marketplace because they were unsafe, so MMR vaccination was already a hot topic before The Lancet article was published. Dr. Wakefield responded that, given the paucity of combination MMR vaccine safety research, and until further safety studies were done, the vaccines should be separated into their component parts. He had previously informed his colleagues that this was his view and that he would express it if asked.

The 1998 press conference set off a media firestorm, with large numbers of parents raising uncomfortable questions about the safety of the “triple jab” and requesting single measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines. In the midst of the controversy, in August 1998, the British government took an extraordinary step. It made separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine components unavailable, thereby forcing the hand of concerned parents. At that point, measles vaccination rates among children in the United Kingdom fell significantly. Measles disease outbreaks became more prevalent and included a handful of cases of serious complications and deaths. Some sought to blame Dr. Wakefield for irresponsibly scaring parents and triggering a public health crisis. The British government had a big problem on its hands — one that would soon make its way to the United States.

The controversy surrounding Dr. Wakefield simmered. In February 2004, it reached a boiling point when Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, held a news conference to declare that the 1998 article was “fatally flawed” because Dr. Wakefield had failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest with the litigation-related study he conducted. British reporter Brian Deer published the story in the Sunday Times, detailing alleged undisclosed conflicts of interest. Immediately following publication, Mr. Deer sent a detailed letter to the British General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates the practice of medicine. The GMC then initiated proceedings against Dr. Wakefield that culminated in Dr. Wakefield’s delicensure in May 2010 and the retraction of the 1998 article from The Lancet.

The Allegations against Dr. Wakefield

The highly publicized, multi-year, multi-million dollar prosecution against Dr. Wakefield alleged that:

•Dr. Wakefield was paid 55,000 British pound sterling (about US $90,000) by litigators for the study published in The Lancet, and he failed to disclose this conflict of interest;

•He and his colleagues performed medically unnecessary tests on the children in the 1998 study and lacked appropriate ethical clearances;

•The children in the 1998 study were selected for litigation purposes (as described in the Sunday Times article) and not referred by local physicians; and

•He drew blood from children at his son’s birthday party for control samples in the 1998 study with callous disregard for the distress that this might cause children.

Based on its findings, the GMC concluded that Dr. Wakefield had engaged in “serious professional misconduct,” and “dishonest,” “misleading,” and “irresponsible” behavior, warranting the sanction of his removal from the medical profession.

Let’s examine the GMC’s charges and the evidence.

Failure to Disclose Payment from Litigators

Dr. Wakefield accepted 55,000 pounds to conduct a study for the class action suit regarding vaccines and autism. This was a research grant from which Dr. Wakefield personally received no compensation. Dr. Wakefield did not start this study until after the case series for the Lancet 12 had been submitted. Legal documents prove that Dr. Wakefield’s hospital knew about this study and knew about the amount of money he received, most of which went to pay the salary of a designated laboratory technician. Documents further demonstrate that Dr. Wakefield disclosed in a national newspaper over one year before publication of the 1998 article that he was working with the litigators. Dr. Horton, editor of The Lancet, had been informed and should have been well aware of Dr. Wakefield’s role in the vaccine-related litigation before the publication of the 1998 article.

“Medical Necessity” and Ethical Clearances

The Lancet 12 were sick. Each child was administered tests with the intent to aid that child. The hospital administration was fully aware of the tests being conducted and made no objections. Because all of the tests were “clinically indicated” and not for research purposes, no ethical clearance beyond what Prof. Walker-Smith already possessed was required. Notably, no patient, parent, or guardian has ever made accusations against Dr. Wakefield or testified against him for ethical violations or medically unnecessary procedures. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues reject the GMC’s ruling that the tests for the Lancet 12 were unnecessary.

The Lancet 12’s Referrals

The GMC charged that the children were referred through the litigation effort and not through ordinary medical channels. This is incorrect. Parents started contacting Dr. Wakefield long before the litigation started, and independently of it. Since the litigation study was not yet started by the time The Lancet study was completed and submitted to the journal, this finding is false. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues reject that claim; the families contacted them directly because of their medical expertise.

Control blood samples from a child’s birthday party

Dr. Wakefield arranged for control blood samples from healthy, typically developing children to be taken at his son’s birthday party. Most of the children’s parents were medical colleagues and friends. He did this with the children’s and parents’ fully informed consent and gave the children 5 pounds each for their trouble. The procedure was undertaken by an appropriately qualified doctor using a standard technique. The children were happy to be helpful and went on to enjoy the birthday party. While this is admittedly an unconventional method of collecting control blood samples, it hardly amounts to “serious professional misconduct” or an ethical breach warranting delicensure. The GMC’s description of this incident as an example of “callous disregard” for children’s distress seems to be a gross exaggeration. Indeed, the U.K. High Court of Justice exonerated Professor Walker-Smith in March 2012, and the Lancet journal has suggested that it is considering reversing its retraction.

The GMC failed to prove its case against Dr. Wakefield. Using Brian Deer’s reporting as evidence, the GMC appears to have purposefully conflated the Lancet 12 study and the subsequent litigation study to create the appearance of a financial conflict of interest. Similarly, the GMC appears to have wrongfully applied ethical research standards to tests that were “clinically indicated” for severely ill children. Conflating treatment and research not only grievously harmed Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues but set a threatening precedent for the practice of medicine. The government’s medical regulators (of uncertain expertise) second-guessed Prof. Walker-Smith, the world’s preeminent authority on pediatric gastroenterology, on his clinical judgment about what tests were necessary.

Which medical decisions will regulators second-guess next? The press, and specifically reporter Brian Deer, tried Dr. Wakefield in the court of public opinion while the GMC was prosecuting him in its regulatory court. Deer alleged that Dr. Wakefield had a pending patent application for a separate measles vaccine and hoped to “cash in” by urging parents to forego the MMR for separate measles vaccines. The evidence proves that Dr. Wakefield was not a patent holder for a separate measles vaccine. St. Mary’s Hospital held a patent for a therapeutic single measles vaccine using the beneficial immune properties of transfer factor, intended for people already infected with the measles virus. This measles vaccine was not a preventive product for people unexposed to the virus; in other words, there was no possible financial competition between the MMR vaccine and the single measles vaccine for which the hospital, and not Dr. Wakefield, held a patent.

In 2009, Deer made additional allegations that Dr. Wakefield fabricated data. The GMC never made this charge, but the media picked it up and, notably, the U.S. Department of Justice used it frequently in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In those proceedings to determine whether families could receive compensation for MMR-induced autism, the US Department of Justice went out of its way to depict Dr. Wakefield as a scientific fraud, although he was not directly relevant to the proceedings. In his 2010 book, Callous Disregard, Dr. Wakefield shows Deer’s allegations of fraud to be fabrications.

CPR finds no evidence of Dr. Wakefield’s scientific fraud. On the contrary, many scientists and laboratories around the world have confirmed Dr. Wakefield’s findings regarding severe gastrointestinal inflammation and symptoms in a high percentage of children with autism. In its February 2, 2010 retraction, The Lancet did not allege fraud. Relying solely on the GMC proceeding, it retracted the article, asserting that the authors had not referred the patients as represented and the study team had not received the hospital’s ethics committee’s approval. The GMC’s conclusions and The Lancet’s reliance on them appear unfounded.

The Meaning of The Wakefield Prosecution

What, then, was this high-profile prosecution really about? If there was no scientific fraud, no undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, no ethical breaches in performing tests on sick children, and no complaints from patients or their families, then what was the big deal? Did the international scandal and multi-million dollar prosecution proceed merely to chastise a doctor for drawing blood from children at a birthday party, with their consent and their parents’ consent? Of course not.

Dr. Wakefield was, and remains, a dissident from medical orthodoxy. The medical establishment subjected him to a modern-day medical show trial for his dissent. Dr. Wakefield’s research raised fundamental doubts about the safety of vaccines and the etiology of autism. Dr. Wakefield was punished for his temerity to caution the public about vaccine risks and to urge them to use their own judgment. Dr. Wakefield was punished for upholding vaccination choice.

The purpose of the proceeding, as in any show trial, was to communicate to other doctors and scientists, and to the public, the error of the perpetrator’s ways. A show trial offers a veneer of due process but, at its core, displays naked power. The apparent intent of the prosecution was to intimidate others from following Dr. Wakefield’s footsteps and to teach the lesson that anyone in the medical or scientific community who dares to publicly question the safety and efficacy of vaccines will be punished with utmost severity. The GMC appears to have decided that if the price of such a lesson was scientific ignorance about vaccine-autism links and the suffering of severely ill children, then so be it. Dr. Wakefield was made an example.

The GMC destroyed Dr. Wakefield’s professional reputation and livelihood, and The Lancet and other publications confiscated his professional accomplishment through retraction. The GMC colluded with The Lancet, the media, the British Department of Health, the pharmaceutical industry, and even with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Justice, to discredit Dr. Wakefield. The Center for Personal Rights is confident that the world will look back at the prosecution of Dr. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch with shame and remorse.

In due course, the world has paid tribute to human rights dissidents, as well — Nelson Mandela moved from prison in South Africa under apartheid to become its most beloved President; Andrei Sakharov left Russia’s internal exile to become its moral beacon; Vaclav Havel left a Czech prison to become its first post-communist President; and Liu Xiabo, a Chinese human rights advocate, received the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize in absentia because he remains incarcerated. In time, China will embrace Mr. Liu and look to him to help create a better future. Before long, the world will likely recognize that it was Dr. Wakefield, not his detractors, who stood up for the practice of medicine and the pursuit of science. Dr. Wakefield remains an unbowed dissident in the face of a repressive medical and scientific establishment.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Copyright © beBee is a trademark of beBee Affinity Social Network, SL..

CIF: . B84471838

Image

Ahuh.

A DISCUSSION AROUND THE BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN VETERINARY MEDICINE

When people who dont understand Homoeopathy speak for it. Thailand.

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE DEPARTMENT BACKS DOWN ON CLAIM AMID CRITICISM

THE DEPARTMENT of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine has backtracked from its claim that its homeopathic formula is highly effective for dengue-fever protection. 

“It’s just a supplementary measure that needs further research,” Dr Sun-pong Ritthiruksa said yesterday in his capacity as the chair of the department’s centre for herbal medicine, Thai traditional medicine, folk medicine and alternative medicine.

He spoke up after several prominent figures, including Chulalongkorn University’s lecturer Jessada Denduangboripant, raised questions about the claim.

Sunpong himself said last Friday that a homeopathic formula made from eupatorium perfoliatum 200C had been proved effective in preventing dengue fever. His agency is now handing out it for free.

“It’s 89.9 per cent effective,” Sunpong said last Friday, just a day ahead of Asean Dengue Day, as he cited findings from a journal.

Jessada then quickly argued that homeopathy was pseudoscience, something that the Public Health Ministry should not promote.

“The promotion can be dangerous,” he warned.

Dengue fever has hit more than 28,000 people in Thailand so far this year – up by 1.7 times from the same period a year earlier. Of them, 43 died.

Sunpong said he sought to support the use of homeopathy as a supplementary measure for protection against dengue fever.

He reiterated that to prevent dengue-fever infections, people still needed to focus on measures such as changing the water in flower vases weekly, keeping their home tidy, eliminating mosquito-breeding grounds and covering water containers.

Mosquitoes are the main carriers of dengue fever.

“I am worried that people may misunderstand what I said earlier,” Sunpong said.

He then clarified that eupatorium perfoliatum 200C was not for treating dengue fever.

“If patients develop symptoms that can be associated with dengue fever, [they should] go see a doctor to get treatment based on modern medicine,” he said.

Jessada said he had looked into several studies previously associated with the department and saw multiple flaws.

According to him, the efficacy rate cited for vaccines against dengue fever is not as high as the rate found by the department’s research, hinting at the possibility that the cited efficacy rate for eupatorium perfoliatum 200C might have been exaggerated.

Jessada explained that while eupatorium perfoliatum could reduce fever and boost the immune system, there was no clear proof that it could treat or prevent dengue fever.

According to the Disease Control Department, the main factors associated with fatal cases of dengue fever are living in communities hosting a large number of mosquito larvae, buying medicine for self-treatment, delays in seeking treatments from doctors, and having underlying illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and asthma.

Statistics compiled by the Disease Control Department show the number of dengue-fever patients this year is far higher than the number five years ago.

As of June 11 this year, dengue fever hit 28,785 people in Thailand. During the same period in 2014, the number stood at 10,670. The figures from the same period from 2015 to 2018 were at 24,248, 19,029, 13,961m and 17,302 respectively.

Image

David Bellamy

An Indians view of the sensation method.

Re: Sankaran Sensation method

Hi,

I have read the method in all the books published by Sankaran so far as also attended his seminars. It is the very enchanting video presentations at the seminars and the captivating material presented in his books that prompted me to use it side by side with the age-old traditional Hahnemannian method for some time. I concluded after a thorough study that the theoretical basis on which this entire method is based is flawed.

But such is the orchestrated hype about this method in the US and Europe that it is hard to get anything published against this method and prove to be a useless exercise that ends up in frustration.

Unfortunately, we have not evolved benchmarks to judge any method being propagated as homoeopathy and as a first step, we should do it.
The very basis on which Hahnemann founded homoeopathy was his discovery :

1. that any medicinal substance is capable of inducing a field force to distort the vital force of healthy human beings; the nature of distortion presents a recognizable field pattern and it is as true as the law of gravity or any other natural laws.

2. that the same medicine is capable of nullifying any disease force that establishes a similar distortion of vital force in a human being.

The SIMILARITY of the distorted picture or pattern of the vital force induced by the medicinal substance in a healthy human being and that created by the natural disease is essential for curative action to occur.

If Sankaran can prove that the vital sensation can be induced by a medicinal substance in healthy human beings and then prove the correspondences of this artificially induced vital sensation to the one present in the cured patient – then and then only it qualifies to be a homoeopathic method.

I hate to waste any more time discussing this method of madness, an aberration of an otherwise super genius whose convoluted thinking process reflects of a major portion of his brain cells gone awry….alas…

V.T.Yekkirala.

Thailand Seminar: June 27th and 28th.

A 2-day event covering 27th to 28th June 2019.

The price will be 13000 Baht (U.S.$400.)

We do not differentiate between medically qualified homoeopaths and lay homoeopaths. All are welcome. 

Contact Dr Krit for your place on 029829922,  0814982618. LINE:acantus, Email:acantusclinic@gmail.com

It will be a concentrated study of examining case taking and evaluation of symptoms collected in aphorism § 6 Sixth Edition:

The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease. 

Many practitioners prescribe on the totality of these symptoms and fail to apply aphorism § 153 Sixth Edition:

In this search for a homoeopathic specific remedy, that is to say, in this comparison of the collective symptoms of the natural disease with the list of symptoms of known medicines, in order to find among these an artificial morbific agent corresponding by similarity to the disease to be cured, the more striking, singular, uncommon and peculiar (characteristic) signs and symptoms of the case of disease are chiefly and most solely to be kept in view; for it is  more particularly these that very similar ones in the list of symptoms of the selected medicine must correspond to, in order to constitute it the most suitable for effecting the cure. The more general and undefined symptoms: loss of appetite, headache, debility, restless sleep, discomfort, and so forth, demand but little attention when of that vague and indefinite character, if they cannot be more accurately described, as symptoms of such a general nature are observed in almost every disease and from almost every drug.

We can see from 153 that reflection and finding the nucleus of the complete disease picture is required. The question is where and how?

So for this seminar, complete in itself, we will examine EXACTLY where to look for prescribing symptoms among the collected symptoms during case taking.

There are a number of different evaluation steps to obtain a correct homoeopathic prescribing symptom, and once found, gives surety of being a characteristic symptom of both the disease and the remedy. We will demonstrate this via a lot of cases and explanations. 

We will also show how to take cases via live presentations.

We will offer the SYNOPSIS software (Windows or MAC utilising Parallels discounted heavily from $799 to $499 for attendees)

The IHM is well known as a research and education body and has conducted seminars for over 27 years.

This seminar will give the chance for Thai Homoeopaths to be evaluated for inclusion in the I.H.M. Register of approved practitioners.  Each practitioner on the list has been taught by an I.H.M. official via training in our head office in Spain or by evaluation of their abilities

We have the First Thai practitioner to go on the Register. She has attended several seminars and has shown us her adherence to Hahnemannian principles. Her name will be added to the list in due course.

ccess to the resources of the I.H.M. for information and patient advice at all times.

The I.H.M. are the developers of the SYNOPSIS homoeopathic repertory program with the inclusion of the Therapeutic Pocket Book updated and revised 1846 edition of Boenninghausens work.  In practice, This has proved to be the most reliable indicator for the most suitable medicine. It took Vladimir Polony and Gary Weaver several years to compile and update.

 

garythai bio

Herd immunity?

There is a better than even chance that if you ask someone at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the World Health Organization (WHO) or your family physician who first discovered the poliovirus and when they did it, they would have a hard time coming up with the right answer. The answer, by the way, is Karl Landsteiner, MD and Erwin Popper, MD of Austria in 1908.

At the same time, it is unlikely many at the CDC, WHO or most medical doctors would be able to tell you the name of the person who came up with the theory of “herd immunity,” which serves as the foundational basis for justifying mandatory vaccination campaigns. The name of that person is Dr. Arthur W. Hedrich, a health officer in Chicago, Illinois. He observed that, “during 1900-1930, outbreaks of measles in Boston, MA appeared to be suppressed when 68 percent of the children contracted the virus.

Later in the 1930s, Hedrich observed that after 55 percent of the child population in Baltimore, MD contracted measles the rest of the city’s population appeared to be immune to the disease. It was these observations that led to the formulation of the herd immunity theory. But note that the theory was based on unvaccinated populations that were exposed to the disease and developed natural immunity to it. The protection came from the fact that each population was exposed to the disease and a certain percentage of the people got it.

The original theory of herd immunity had nothing to do with vaccination. The first mass vaccination campaigns for polio and measles in the United States, for example, did not occur until 1954-1955 and 1963 respectively. That’s three decades after Hedrich constructed his theory. The underlying assumption of the theory was that a community as a whole would develop a certain degree of natural protection from an infectious disease after a portion of its members actually came down with the disease, recovered from it, and became immune to it.

In other words:

The more members of the herd (community) who were exposed to an infectious disease and developed natural immunity to it, the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).7 

Somewhere along the line between the 1930s and 1950s the theory of herd immunity was corrupted and resurrected as:

The more members of a herd (community) who were vaccinated against an infectious disease and developed immunity to it, the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).

Notice the clever sleight of hand there. Suddenly, the importance of exposure to an infectious disease was eliminated and replaced with vaccination, and the importance of natural immunity was diminished. That’s a problem because both of those elements are key to Hedrich’s theory. Hedrich was not thinking about a vaccinated community or vaccine-induced—“temporary”—artificial immunity when he thought up his theory. He was thinking about the process of how a disease works its way through a community and how that community, eventually, naturally builds up a resistance to it as a result.

Dr Hedrich would not recognize his theory today. He would likely be the first to speak up and say, “Uh, no, that’s not at all what I had in mind. You missed the central point.”

Just about anyone with the equivalent of a high school education can answer the question, “Who developed the theory of relativity.” Einstein, of course. The theory is central to the science of physics. Although some have tried to question it, no scientist or professor of physics of any note would dare try to misrepresent or redefine it.

Yet, ask any public health official or health care professional involved in giving vaccinations to correctly explain the theory of herd immunity and who developed it, many would probably fail on both counts. Why? Because they have not made an honest effort to study the history of the theory. They have erroneously accepted as truth the relatively new myth promoted by public health officials around the world that herd immunity can only be attained through a highly vaccinated population and that every unvaccinated individual threatens the health of and weakens the herd.

Hedrich’s theory of herd immunity has been twisted by the myth that vaccine-acquired artificial immunity is identical to naturally acquired immunity, which is false. That myth serves to perpetuate the idea that only strict enforcement of mandatory vaccination laws will protect society from disease, which is also false. https://thevaccinereaction.org/2018/06/the-theory-of-herd-immunity-has-nothing-to-do-with-vaccination-2/

Vaccine induced illnesses.

I have long rationalised that vaccines can cause diseases, by virtue of live or dead cultures in the bloodstream. It is rational to expect that if a disease-producing substance is present… then it can and will produce the relevant disease.vaccine induced illness