Tag Archives: Vaccines

Vaccines and Pertussis

Joyce Bowen.

Questions About Vaccine-Strain Pertussis

A premise
I am just recovering from my third bout of pertussis in as many years.  I’m 67 and I never remember having pertussis in earlier years.  It is quite a distinctive illness, so I have no doubts.
I recall recently hearing about the pertussis outbreak amongst students where only the vaccinated experienced the illness.  Their unvaccinated peers did not suffer the illness.  I think there is a reason for that.
In 2016, I asked for a tetanus booster.  I had to kick and fight to get it.  I wish I hadn’t.  A friend of mine came over to visit one day in 2017—don’t remember exactly when, but I could look it up if I had to.  He had had his tetanus booster.  He sat in a chair about four feet away from my bed.  I had been getting sicker and sicker so I lay in my bed.
He left after about a half-hour—within a week, I was hacking my brains out with something I had never experienced before.  I went to the doctor and no tests were done, but my oxygen was low—about 92%.  I made it clear I did not want to go into the hospital and I didn’t.
My friend, Bert, was as stymied as I was—I was sure he was the source of my illness.  I barely went out; my kidneys were close to failing and my body was often wracked with spasms.  He told me he was just as confused as I was because both I and his wife had gotten this mysterious illness yet he had not.
Fast-forward through my next bout of this illness  (which was last October) to now.  With a few caveats.
  1. I did not receive a tetanus booster: I received the Tdap.  I have confirmed this through records.
  2. As to my first experience with this illness, I suspected Bert received the Tdap rather than a tetanus booster and that this was probably now protocol.  I and his wife experienced pertussis because of his transmission of vaccine-strain pertussis.  He, of course, felt nothing.
This case of pertussis I am just finishing up was the result of occupying the same space as my mechanic.  After paying my bill, he informed me he had received his tetanus booster a week earlier.  I groaned and told him he more than likely had received the Tdap, and that he would now be susceptible to pertussis for the rest of his life.  What didn’t hit me until the drive home was that I was going to get sick, and I did.  I kept hoping I wouldn’t, but with the onset of glandular pain, I knew I was probably in for it.
I’ve now experienced three events.  All three events occurred as the result of contact with someone having a shot laced with an acellular pertussis component.
Questions:
  1. Are those pertussis breakouts among the vaccinated being specifically infected by vaccine-strain pertussis?
  2. Is this only experienced only by those vaccinated with a shot containing ap?
  3. Are the unvaccinated not affected because this strain is only virulent to the vaccinated?
  4. How long can these bacteria live outside the body?
  5. Are these known quantities by the vaccine/pharmaceutical industry?

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.

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

https://joyce-bowen.blog/ is an interesting read and where this information came to my attention.

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

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

Vaccine Fraud. Russell Blaylock M.D.

Post Vaccination – Vaccine Targeted Strain – Viral and Bacterial Pathogen – Shedding

So how much of this said claim is truth and real, and/or not real? Do we know? A search for the evidence.

First of all, let me ask this. Why is it, that when the conclusions of actually peer reviewed studies are not in your favor as to the intended agenda bias, that even endless peer reviewed studies are not enough to get pro-vaccine people to take a look at and even read a single one of those studies; yet when there are limited to little to no existing peer reviewed studies, that they are jumping all over with demands to produce a peer reviewed study, to make such as any certain such as a vax-truth opposing persons point of contention, that has expressed?

In regard to vaccines lets go to the issue of vaccine shedding, and ask the question as to can and do any of the current vaccines shed the pathogen in a way that could make a non vaccinated person susceptible to acquiring the illness from a vaccinated person. There are in Pubmed several but limited studies that address the shedding issue as to in regard to the various vaccines. Just use the search terms vaccine shedding Pubmed, and will you several but as said limited numbers references in the google listing, and then you can go to pubmed itself, which is somewhat as well limited for available references as to claiming one way or the other. As for the measles vaccine, one Pubmed reference stated that it the vaccine could shed for up to three days. Certainly long enough to infect another individual.

So, actually and possibly no one really nor likely knows for sure what the complete truth is on this issue. It would seem to be common sense that the vaccine makers surely do not and would not want to know if their vaccine causes shedding or not; nor to find out. So then who would actually fund theses said studies. I think with what I read and reviewed in regard to vaccine shedding, just getting into even the beginning phase of the studies, tells me that vaccines do have a potential to shed irregardless of being bacterial or viral; which very well could be an obvious risk to the unvaccinated. I mean good grief, the existing studies clearly point to the push to vaccinate everyone due to the risk of shedding possibility. What more evidence would you need of the risk of the vaccinated, to the unvaccinated? And yet the pro-vaccine side wants to claim to just the opposite; and that it is only the vaccinated that are at risk from the unvaccinated??? You know accused again of reducing the vaccine derived herd immunity; even though the schools most often even today have no more than a 5% or less rate of existing school exemptions?  We as well by the way are not are NOT just talking about the oral polio vaccine, here. They clearly know that the oral polio vaccine sheds and can as well cause numerous cases of AFP in the underdeveloped and unsanitary for conditions countries, that the oral polio vaccine is still used to day. They know of the identified mutations in the polio vaccine virus that the the said oral vaccine has very likely as well caused. if they have an alternative explanation, I have yet to hear and or read about it.

So, let me ask you, have vaccines eradicated so called illness and disease, or have they just prolonged the exit, while creating only lower levels of chronic disease, and disease conditions? How about other unrelated chronic illness and autoimmune disease, unrelated to the vaccine targeted pathogen? How about the pubmed listed as well references to the harm of aluminum adjuvants, causing overactivation of the brains microglia and resulting low levels of chronic brain inflammation resulting for repeat multiple vaccines, in some individuals; maybe more individuals and children that we have ever realized? How about the aluminum adjuvant connection to ASD? The studies, and new studies have shown that same brain inflammation to now be found in more and more children and individuals with ASD. And they want to tell us that vaccines have never been scientifically linked in any study, to ASD? Really? How about the MMR vaccine, in which there are actually some similar physiological pathways found in relation to ASD, and also which are in common with heavy metal toxicity, if not overload, in regard to both thimerosal, and aluminum adjuvants. I don’t know about you and what you think, but I think it is not looking good for the claim as to the issue of vaccines doing more good than harm. When will the CD stop living in the dark ages, and dragging their feet as to doing the proper studies? Yet they waste millions chasing the genetic link to ASD, and refuse all other types and forms of real research?

I did pick one specific peer reviewed reference in regard shedding, that I thought was interesting, and a bit troublesome regarding risk. In regard to the shedding of course all they can come up with is to come up with that every last person existing must be vaccinated to protect them against the shedding.

Pertussis infection in fully vaccinated children in day-care centers, Israel.

Abstract

We tested 46 fully vaccinated children in two day-care centers in Israel who were exposed to a fatal case of pertussis infection. Only two of five children who tested positive for Bordetella pertussis met the World Health Organization’s case definition for pertussis. Vaccinated children may be asymptomatic reservoirs for infection.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2627963/pdf/10998384.pdf

Pertussis Vaccine Failure is not Just Modern but Historical: Vaccine has Never Been Effective
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/pertussis-vaccine-failure-is-not-just-modern-but-historical-vaccine-has-never-been-effective/

Researchers find first US evidence of vaccine-resistant pertussis
http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/researchers-find-first-us-evidence-of-vaccine-resistant-pertussis/

And they tell us the vaccines do not shed? How would this be possible if the vaccines do not shed anything contagious? And they want us to believe that the un-vaccinated are a risk to the vaccinated. Vaccine derived herd relatively and comparatively short term immunity, has never had any actual science behind it; and as to natural long term and/or life time immunity, where as that concept actually makes does sense. So what is the REAL reason they say they need vaccine derived herd immunity? Is it possible that it is more likely due to the issue of vaccine shedding? Now we are getting to some actual understanding of what possibly really goes on.

17 Examples of Admitted Vaccine Failure
http://vactruth.com/2013/02/23/17-examples-of-vaccine-failure/

Article

ECZEMA VACCINATUM

ABSTRACT

Nine cases of eczema vaccinatum are presented, including two fatalities. Seven were caused by contact of a child with eczema with a recently vaccinated sibling.

Suddenly appearing umbilicated vesicles superimposed upon atopic eczema are almost diagnostic of eczema vaccinatum or eczema herpeticum. These do not occur with mere secondary bacterial infection.

Hyperimmune vaccinal gamma-globulin is now available for specific therapy.

Eczema vaccinatum is frequently iatrogenic and uniformly preventable.

The following steps are recommended for prophylaxis: 1) No child with atopic eczema or other skin disorder should be vaccinated. 2) No child should be vaccinated if any member of his family has eczema or other skin disorder. 3) Parents of children with eczema should be notified at the onset of the disease of the danger from vaccination contact. 4) If a sibling of a child with atopic eczema is vaccinated, he must be completely separated from that child for at least 21 days. 5) Forms used by state and local health departments for parents’ consent to vaccination should include an appropriate warning of the contraindications. 6) Eczema vaccinatum should be a reportable disease. 7) Patients recently vaccinated must be excluded from pediatric wards containing patients with atopic eczema, other diseases of the skin, burns or healing surgical incisions. 8) Vaccination may be recommended at 2 months of age, especially for babies from strongly allergic families.

http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/22/2/259

Acellular pertussis vaccination enhances B. parapertussis colonization

An acellular whooping cough vaccine actually enhances the colonization of Bordetella parapertussis in mice; pointing towards a rise in B. parapertussis incidence resulting from acellular vaccination, which may have contributed to the observed increase in whooping cough over the last decade.

http://www.cidd.psu.edu/research/synopses/acellular-vaccine-enhancement-b.-parapertussi

And rarely are they testing for it nor even knowing understanding what pertussis pathogen strains are there. B parapertussis antigen is not in the current vaccine. And the fear mongering and the recommended boosters continue.

They can admit to the pertussis vaccine failure in Pakistan, but the CDC can not and refuses to admit to that here happening in the US.

Public Health. 2012 Jun;126(6):518-22. doi: 10.1016/j.puhe.2012.02.001. Epub 2012 Mar 23.

Pertussis resurgence among vaccinated children in Khairpur, Sindh, Pakistan.

Mughal A, Kazi YF, Bukhari HA, Ali M.

Source:Diagnostic and Research Centre, Department of Microbiology, Shah Abdul Latif University, Khairpur, Sindh, Pakistan.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To investigate the aetiology of persistent cough among vaccinated children as suspected cases of pertussis in Khairpur District, Sindh, Pakistan. Pertussis or whooping cough, caused by Bordetella pertussis, is re-appearing in many countries despite vaccination coverage. In Khairpur, persistent cough and symptoms similar to pertussis among vaccinated children are common but the aetiology has not been investigated previously.

STUDY DESIGN:

B. pertussis was isolated from cough samples of suspected pertussis patients (n = 700) using the cough plate method with charcoal agar.

METHODS:

Isolation and confirmation of the clinical isolates of B. pertussis was performed by culture on Bordet-Gengou medium, biochemical tests and polymerase chain reaction.

RESULTS:

In total, 22 strains of B. pertussis were isolated from clinical cough samples.

CONCLUSION:

To the authors’ knowledge, this is the first report of the presence of pertussis in vaccinated children in Khairpur. There is a need for continuous monitoring of pertussis after immunization programmes in order to assess the efficacy of pertussis vaccination.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22445714

And what has the CDC done about it all? They have only continued with their fear mongering and falsely blaming the un-vaccinated. Cocoon tyle vaccinating whole families, and still the outbreaks occur.

The False Theory of Vaccine Derived – Herd Immunity 
http://www.vacfacts.info/the-false-theory-of-vaccine-derived—herd-immunity.html

———————-

Whooping Cough Epidemic Caused by Virulent New Pertussis Strain—And It’s the Result of Vaccine
http://gaia-health.com/gaia-blog/2012-10-31/whooping-cough-epidemic-caused-by-virulent-new-pertussis-strain-and-its-the-result-of-vaccine/

Bordetella pertussis Strains with Increased Toxin Production Associated with Pertussis Resurgence (PDF)

Abstract excerpt:

We present evidence that in the Netherlands the dramatic increase in pertussis is temporally associated with the emergence of Bordetella pertussis strains carrying a novel allele for the pertussis toxin promoter, which confers

increased pertussis toxin (Ptx) production. Epidemiologic data suggest that these strains are more virulent in humans. We discuss changes in the ecology of B. pertussis that may have driven this adaptation. Our results underline the importance of Ptx in transmission, suggest that vaccination may select for increased virulence, and indicate ways to control

http://gaia-health.com/articles451/000485-bpertussis.pdf

J Hyg (Lond). 1976 August; 77(1): 85–91.

PMCID: PMC2129724

Prevalent serotypes of Bordetella pertussis in non-vaccinated communities.

Abstract

In many countries, the prevalent serotypes of Bordetella pertussis have changed from a mixture of types 1,2,3 and 1,2 (organisms possessing antigen 2) to a predominance of type 1,3. The timing of the change in different countries is shown to be related to the introduction of mass-vaccination with material rich in antigens 1 and 2 but weak in, or devoid of, antigen 3. In several parts of the world, there have been outbreaks of type 1,3 infection in fully vaccinated children. Non-vaccinated communities in various parts of the world still show the pattern of serotypes which existed elsewhere before mass-vaccination. In order to avoid the disappointments experienced in the past, it is essential that pertussis vaccine for use in previously non-vaccinated communities, like that for any other country, should be rich in each of the three antigens.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2129724/

RESEARCH ARTICLE

Small Mutations in Bordetella pertussis Are Associated with Selective Sweeps

Abstract excerpt:

Our results suggest that the B. pertussis gene repertoire is already well adapted to its current niche and required only fine tuning to persist in the face of vaccination. Further, this work shows that small mutations, even single SNPs, can drive large changes in the populations of bacterial pathogens within a time span of six to 19 years.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0046407

You can not patent vitamin C, as you can an expensive drug or vaccine. Modern medicine is NOT about the actual health of your child, unless it can be done with chemical pharma.

Special Report: The Vitamin C Treatment of Whooping Cough (Pertussis)

http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2011/12/20/special-report-the-vitamin-c-treatment-of-whooping-cough-suzanne-humphries-md/

Here is what they already knew years ago in the treatment of pertussis.

Can Med Assoc J. 1937 August; 37(2): 134–136.
PMCID: PMC1562195
Ascorbic Acid (Vitamin C) Treatment of Whooping Cough *

Discussion
The short series of cases presented is too small to draw any statistical conclusions, but one fact stands out. Ascorbic acid has a definite efTect in shortening the period of paroxysms from a matter of weeks to a matter of days. We have not checked by cough plates or otherwise in this preliminary work to see whether the infectivity subsides simultaneously with the spasmodic symptoms, but are continuing with a larger series of cases in which these and other tests will be employed.

The dosages used have been empirical, with a tendency to use larger doses early in the disease as our experience of its effects progressed. The acid is available at reasonable prices, and the danger of overdosage seems negligible. Animals have received 2,000 times their estimated requirements without any deleterious effects. Any excess is excreted by the kidneys.

CONCLUSIONS
1. A method has been described for the treatment of whooping cough by ascorbic acid
(vitamin C).
2. Ascorbic acid definitely shortens the paroxysmal stage of the disease, particularly if
relatively

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1562195/?page=3

Pertussis is a bacteria, but either way it is beneficial.

Vitamin C As An Antiviral: It’s All About Dose
http://orthomolecular.org/resources/omns/v05n09.shtml

Vitamin C for Whooping Cough. Updated Edition. Suzanne Humphries, MD
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/09/07/vitamin-c-for-whooping-cough-updated-edition-suzanne-humphries-md/

Why is nobody studying vitamin C in whooping cough? – Conventional medicine’s hypocrisy. by Suzanne Humphries, MD
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/08/03/why-is-nobody-studying-vitamin-c-in-whooping-cough-by-suzanne-humphries-md/

LIPOSOMAL ENCAPSULATED VITAMIN C
http://www.vacfacts.info/anti-viral—liposomal-encapsulated-vitamin-c.html

————————————-

History Repeats Itself: Lessons Vaccinators Refuse to Learn, by Jennifer Craig, PhD
http://www.vaccinationcouncil.org/2012/04/17/history-repeats-itself-lessons-the-vaccinationists-refuse-to-learn-by-jennifer-craig-phd/

Another below is another example of a failed effort with polio vaccine. It does little good to claim to have eliminated a certain number of previously present cases of polio, while at the same time causing massive cases of polio vaccine derived paralysis. 47,500 new cases. Yet they claim this is NECESSARY, to eradicate polio. They refuse to admit any failure, it seems to me?

Indian J Med Ethics. 2012 Apr-Jun;9(2):114-7.

Polio programme: let us declare victory and move on.

Vashisht N, Puliyel J.

Source:Department of Paediatrics, St Stephens Hospital, Delhi 110054, India.

Abstract

It was hoped that following polio eradication, immunisation could be stopped. However the synthesis of polio virus in 2002, made eradication impossible. It is argued that getting poor countries to expend their scarce resources on an impossible dream over the last 10 years was unethical. Furthermore, while India has been polio-free for a year, there has been a huge increase in non-polio acute flaccid paralysis (NPAFP). In 2011, there were an extra 47,500 new cases of NPAFP. Clinically indistinguishable from polio paralysis but twice as deadly, the incidence of NPAFP was directly proportional to doses of oral polio received. Though this data was collected within the polio surveillance system, it was not investigated. The principle of primum-non-nocere was violated. The authors suggest that the huge bill of US$ 8 billion spent on the programme, is a small sum to pay if the world learns to be wary of such vertical programmes in the future.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22591873

VIDS – Vaccine Induced Diseases
http://www.vaccinesuncensored.org/vids.php

51 035 cases of AFP appear in this document (p 578) for India in 2011, and the in 2011. The figure of 86 638 cases of AFP was listed as globally.

http://www.who.int/wer/wer8650.pdf

VRM: The Re-emergence of Polio in The Third World (compliments of the World Health Organization & Bill Gates)
http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=10091

VRM: Weaponized Polio & The African Green Monkey Conundrum
http://vaccineresistancemovement.org/?p=10727

Why I choose not to Vaccinate my child
by: Amy Goalen Whittam
https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1Y2hS7WxS2gU4yXCjuYx84AY60tQc2rGXnTPPWqogOfk

What Is Coming Through That Needle? The Problem of Pathogenic Vaccine Contamination

Benjamin McRearden

http://www.scribd.com/doc/42722540/Vaccine-Contamination-Mcrearden

Mutant Polio Virus Spreads in Nigeria

Experts have long believed epidemics unleashed by a vaccine’s mutated virus wouldn’t last since the vaccine only contains a weakened virus strain – but that assumption is coming under pressure. Some experts now say that once viruses from vaccines start circulating they can become just as dangerous as wild viruses.

“The only difference is that this virus was originally in a vaccine vial,” said Olen Kew, a virologist at the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The oral polio vaccine used in Nigeria and elsewhere contains a mild version of the live virus. Children who have been vaccinated pass the virus into the water supply through urine or feces. Other children who then play in or drink that water pick up the vaccine’s virus, which gives them some protection against polio.

But in rare instances, as the virus passes through unimmunized children, it can mutate into a strain dangerous enough to ignite new outbreaks, particularly if immunization rates in the rest of the population are low.

Kew said genetic analysis proves mutated viruses from the vaccine have caused at least seven separate outbreaks in Nigeria.

Though Nigeria’s coverage rates have improved, up to 15 percent of children in the north still haven’t been vaccinated against polio. To eradicate the disease, officials need to reach about 95 percent of the population.

Nigeria’s vaccine-linked outbreak underlines the need to stop using the oral polio vaccine as soon as possible, since it can create the very epidemics it was designed to stop, experts say. WHO is researching other vaccines that might work better, but none is on the horizon.

Until a better vaccine is ready, WHO and U.S. CDC officials say the oral vaccine is the best available tool to eradicate polio and that when inoculation rates are nearly 100 percent it works fine.

“Nigeria is almost a case study in what happens when you don’t follow the recommendations,” Kew said.

http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-204_162-5242168.html

Mutated Polio From Vaccine Is Spreading in Africa

A mutation from a live polio vaccine is stalking Nigeria. In a strange twist of logic, experts are claiming that it mutated as it passed through non-immunized children.

The claim is that children given the live attenuated oral vaccine are properly immunized, but the live virus passes through them and enters local water supplies through their urine or feces. Then, children who have not been immunized pick up the supposedly safe virus by drinking or playing in the water. The weakened virus mutates in them, becoming a new virulent strain.

Why the virus would choose to mutate in non-vaccinated, rather than vaccinated, children is unexplained. Even odder is why the weakened virus would pass through the vaccinated children. If the purpose of a live attenuated vaccination is to force the body to develop antibodies to the virus, then why would live viruses be excreted? Shouldn’t they be killed by the newly-developed antibodies?

Are we being lied to?

This sounds much like the argument that blames nonvaccinated people for disease in those who’ve submitted to innoculations. If the vaccines are effective, then why would the vaccinated be at risk from the unvaccinated?

Are we being lied to?

http://www.gaia-health.com/articles51/000078-Polio-Caused-By-Vaccine.shtml

Nigeria Sees Polio Outbreak from Mutated Vaccine Virus
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/health/july-dec09/polio_08-24.html

Polio in Nigeria Traced to Mutating Vaccine
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/11/world/africa/11polio.html?_r=0

Mutated virus confirms polio vaccine fears. New Delhi
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1101024/jsp/nation/story_13094132.jsp

Vaccine. 1994 May;12(6):503-7.

Point mutations involved in the attenuation/neurovirulence alternation in type 1 and 2 oral polio vaccine strains detected by site-specific polymerase chain reaction.

We screened for this mutation in five type 1 and nine type 2 polio vaccine-derived strains isolated from vaccine-associated paralytic poliomyelitis (VAPP) cases and in 16 such strains isolated from healthy vaccinees. All 14 strains isolated from VAPP presented the reversion. Of the eight pairs of type 1 isolates from healthy vaccinees, four presented the reversion 3 days after vaccine administration and all but one at 7 days postvaccination. These results support the involvement of the 5′ non-coding specific nucleotide sites in the reversion to neurovirulence of attenuated polio vaccine strains upon multiplication in the human gut

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8036823

Look at the unbelievable statements in the next set of information. So ask, WHY are they using a live and shedding viral vaccine, in these contaminated areas, at all?

Oral Polio Vaccine Circulation and Mutation after Mexican National Immunization Weeks

Conclusion: OPV, primarily serotype 2, was detected in sewage as late as 7 months after an NIW in a Mexican community primarily vaccinated with IPV, but was not detected at 8 months, suggesting that OPV circulation may have ceased.  VAPP mutants were predominantly detected.  This data suggests that in communities with high vaccination rates, one or two years of IPV administration after OPV cessation could be sufficient to prevent outbreaks of paralytic poliomyelitis from vaccine-derived strains.

https://idsa.confex.com/idsa/2011/webprogram/Paper30468.html

Polio vaccine suspected as cause of fatal mutant form of encephalitis

The polio vaccine isn’t protecting children – and, worse, it appears to be causing a new and sometimes fatal form of the disease.

Concerns about the vaccine have arisen following a high number of deaths and hospital admissions from encephalitis and polio in the Uttar Pradesh region of India – where there has been an intensive vaccination programme.

Around 400 children have died, and a further 2,300 admitted to hospital, following an outbreak of a new form of viral encephalitis, and doctors admit they do not know its cause.

http://www.wddty.com/polio-vaccine-suspected-as-cause-of-fatal-mutant-form-of-encephalitis.html

Unvaccinated Blamed for Mutated Polio, (AGAIN ALWAYS FALSELY THE UNVACCINATED ARE BLAMED FOR ANYTHING THAT HAPPENS)

Mutant polio vaccine regains virulence

Excerpts:

But the latest study raises the frightening possibility that the vaccine strain can also regain the ability to spread between people more easily than thought. “It demonstrates clearly that the vaccine virus can spread from person to person,” says Olen Kew from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in Atlanta, Georgia.

The outbreak was exacerbated by the fact that Haiti had relaxed its polio vaccination program more than five years earlier. “It’s a warning that you need to have good coverage to prevent vaccines from running away like this,” Kew says.

Total eradication

The study also shows how difficult it will be eliminate polio entirely. For this to be achieved, natural polio would first have to be wiped out through stringent use of the oral polio vaccine. Then all countries could simultaneously stop vaccinating or switch to a different vaccine – injectable, dead polio virus.

This method does not confer as much immunity as the oral vaccine, but it cannot revert to a disease-causing form. This vaccine is already used in the US and much of Europe.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2047-mutant-polio-vaccine-regains-virulence.html

This again points to the claim that they think they need to get 100% vaccine coverage in ever country with existing polio, and only then it may be possible to stop polio, but yet they know they will have the mutations still going on and the result of that is in their minds quite obviously only necessary collateral damage, so to speak. So, as long as they can keep blaming it all on the unvaccinated, which is not exactly proven; it is an assumption. And as long as they keep playing Russian Roulette with the vaccine virus; in the hopes that it does not continue to mutate to a point of becoming a super virus world wide. But in the end, the with the known odds that have been and in the resulting outcomes; clearly it all shows this plan to be not only failing and dangerous; but even currently, is likely causing more harm than good; and will continue to.

J Clin Microbiol. 1995 Sep;33(9):2485-8.

Detection of measles virus RNA in urine specimens from vaccine recipients.

Rota PA, Khan AS, Durigon E, Yuran T, Villamarzo YS, Bellini WJ.

Source: Division of Viral and Rickettsial Diseases, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, Georgia 30333, USA.

Abstract

Analysis of urine specimens by using reverse transcriptase-PCR was evaluated as a rapid assay to identify individuals infected with measles virus. For the study, daily urine samples were obtained from either 15-month-old children or young adults following measles immunization. Overall, measles virus RNA was detected in 10 of 12 children during the 2-week sampling period. In some cases, measles virus RNA was detected as early as 1 day or as late as 14 days after vaccination. Measles virus RNA was also detected in the urine samples from all four of the young adults between 1 and 13 days after vaccination. This assay will enable continued studies of the shedding and transmission of measles virus and, it is hoped, will provide a rapid means to identify measles infection, especially in mild or asymptomatic cases.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7494055

You see in the next below link that it ALL depends on who has done the study, as for if they find the evidence of shedding due to a/or the vaccine. Here we have the Journal of Infectious diseases that is closely aligned with pharma and Offit’s CHOP. And they of course find predicable no shedding. Can you imagine the upset if they had, and presented to the CDC with that? Clearly, is not happening.

J Infect Dis. 2004 May 1;189 Suppl 1:S165-70.

Lack of evidence of measles virus shedding in people with inapparent measles virus infections.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15106106

And here, and again pharma connected

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22983013

So, the pro vaccine side again claims to what? Well if there are no studies to prove that the vaccines cause shedding, then it simply doesn’t happen. Just like in regard to the vaccine aluminum adjuvants; if no studies have ever been done, then we can proclaim that there is no scientific proof of the harm, thus there is no said harm being done.

J Clin Microbiol. 2008 Mar;46(3):1101-3. Epub 2008 Jan 9.

Detection of RNA of mumps virus during an outbreak in a population with a high level of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine coverage.

Bitsko RH, Cortese MM, Dayan GH, Rota PA, Lowe L, Iversen SC, Bellini WJ.

Source:Epidemic Intelligence Service, Office of Workforce and Career Development, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Atlanta, GA 30333, USA.

Abstract

The duration of mumps virus RNA detection was studied during a mumps outbreak in a highly vaccinated university population. Seven of the eight reverse transcription-PCR-positive specimens were collected during the first 3 days of parotitis, suggesting that viral shedding is minimal after the first 3 days of symptoms.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18184850

However, in three days, you could infect 100’s of people.

General Index: But as you can see, very few actual studies on vaccine shedding have been done.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=shedding%20of%20measles%20vaccine%20mealses

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

Secondary Transmission: The short and sweet about live virus vaccine shedding.(A short list of the evidence of shedding in regard to each specific vaccine).

http://insidevaccines.com/wordpress/2008/02/24/secondary-transmission-%EF%BB%BFthe-short-and-sweet-about-live-virus-vaccine-shedding/

Measles Vaccine Found in Throat of Vaccinated Child
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11858860

Pediatr Dermatol. 2005 Mar-Apr;22(2):130-2.

Vaccine-associated “wild-type” measles.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15804301

Acta Paediatr Jpn. 1995 Jun;37(3):374-6.
Measles encephalomyelitis in a patient with a history of vaccination.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7645392

Clin Infect Dis. 1999 Oct;29(4):855-61.
Measles inclusion-body encephalitis caused by the vaccine strain of measles virus.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10589903

Pediatr Neurol. 1999 May;20(5):399-402.

Acute disseminated encephalomyelitis with probable measles vaccine failure.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10371390

I would take my chances with natural infection and recovery, any day; over that of the use of a vaccine, or in this and the most common case, the MMR vaccine..

Picture

Review of IHM Training: Restoring the Art of Simple, Pure Homeopathy

 

Arden Wong    B.HSc., D.C.H., DHom Med(Lic) I.H.M.    Based in Hong Kong.

23rd September, 2016.

P1060316It’s been about a month since I attended the one week training with Dr Gary Weaver and Vera Resnick of IHM in Seville, August 2016.  And I am still feeling exhilarated from this empowering experience.

Revisiting Hahnemann’s philosophy of the pure similia, removing unnecessary theories, demystifying modern mis-interpretations of miasm theories, unlearning the overlay of Kent and others, what I achieve is clarity of mind, confidence in case-taking, logic in clinical reasoning, and, immediately improved clinical results.

During the training, I was given lots of case exercises with pictures and videos.  We analysed the cases based on Hahnemann’s instructions outlined in the Organon, and repertorised with P&W’s edition of Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook (TPB) with the most precise rubrics. We worked the cases step by step.  I also presented some difficult cases from my own clinic. I found out where my weakness had been, and where I could work on.  I witnessed how simple accurate application of Hahnemann’s guidelines and Boenninghausen’s method can solve acute and chronic, minor and severe pathologies with less effort and each step with clear logic.

espacio_parasol_sevillaI have been in full-time clinical practice for over 14 years and learned from various teachers and schools of thoughts.  Yet, it turns out that we are all mostly repeating the same mistakes in spite of all the ‘innovations’ from the masters and gurus.  Some major errors and detours are:

  • Excessive emphasis on mental symptoms and psychological analysis.
  • New materia medica based on clinical symptoms without basis of provings.   ‘Materia medica’ presented as ‘remedy personality portraits’, ‘constitutional pictures’  and ‘themes’ based on creative imaginations and theoretical speculations.
  • Repertories ever expanding not in a non-homeopathic way.  Old and new remedies are added to old rubrics.  New rubrics are created from imaginations (namely ‘practitioner clinical experiences’, ‘meditative provings’).  Unfortunately, few of them are based on high quality provings.

As a result, unprejudiced observation in case taking is biased to mental sphere with reduced details in morbid phenomena on the physical level.   Inaccurate materia medica knowledge dominates our mind from subjective experiences and writings of gurus and teachers, rather than precise provings records.  Unreliable modern repertories are glutted with unproven information.   It’s emperor’s new cloth:  homeopathic remedies today are no longer prescribed on the principle of similia.  

Fortunately, I have found out that by restoring pure homeopathy: matching patient symptoms to proving symptoms, with the aid of provings-based repertory and pure materia medica, clinical results is warranted.  Cure is certain.  The physician’s mission is accomplished.

laptop2P.S.  Why I chose to study with Dr. Gary Weaver?   He is the translator of the Boenninghausen’s Therapeutic Pocketbook (Polony & Weaver Edition 2014). He studied the source materials from Hahnemann and Boenninghausen and verified every rubric and remedy in the repertory.  TPB is by far the most reliably repertory based primarily on provings and the proven method of Boenninghausen’s and approved by Hahnemann.   TPB(P&W 2014 edition) is thetpbpw most faithful and accurate rendering of Boenninghausen’s TPB (1846) in modern understandable English.  (I have compared a few other translations.)  Learning from Dr. Weaver helps me clarify and understand the meaning of many rubrics in the original context.   That’s priceless knowledge!  

P.P.S.  I got a bonus from the course.  Vera Resnick’s session on studying Hahnemann’s provings.  Honestly, few people today care to read them. Studying the Hahnemann’s pure materia medica is a daunting task.  Vera has developed a systematic approach to ‘dissect’ the provings. Her historical knowledge of the provers also make understanding the provings more relevant and lively.   Her presentation has debunked so many common misnomers of big polychrests.   That’s eye-opening!

 

CDC COVER UP

The untold story of Vaccines.

Psora-Vaccination and Thuja

Psora-Thuja, etc

mtylerBut it is rather with the extension of Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases that we are concerned to day.

His dicta in regard to the Venereal Diseases are now amply confirmed. They are no longer stumbling-block. His psora theory (so long a rock of offence to his most loyal followers) still needs working out, but will doubtless obtain elucidation or confirmation in the end : because his most questionable statements and palpable absurdities have an uncomfortable way of turning out correct, after having been laughed out of court for the best part of a century.

Some day someone among the pathologists will demonstrate his perspicacity in regard to Psora also, by proving that the acarus is the intermediate host of some micro-organism responsible for one or more chronic diseases of manifold manifestations. For he gives numerous instances, from many writers, of itch, cured by outward applications, having been followed by chest troubles-asthma-epilepsy-gastric ulcer-dropsy-albuminuria-even eye troubles and cataract.

Itch, he avers, “is at the same time, and especially, an internal disease.”

In support of which statement I would like to say that it is possible to cure itch by internal treatment. I remember a case. The boy had it badly. I did not want to sulphur him, because I had recently seen a much-sulphured boy, whose whole body was repulsive and horrible with a pustular mix-up of itch and sulphur poisoning. As Dr. Clarke suggests Oil of Lavender as an application, I gave the boy Psorinum c.m. , and ordered oil of lavender to be rubbed in-for the sake of the people he might otherwise infect.

Continue reading

Hahnemann and vaccination.

vaccineDr. Peter Fisher, in an interview published in The American Homeopath 2015 edition (p. 39), made some comments related to vaccination. Dr. Fisher supported the validity of vaccination as a health promoting measure. I disagree, but that is not why I’m writing. Dr. Fisher then claimed that Hahnemann himself supported them.

“Some homeopaths attack vaccination unaware that in the 6th edition of the Organon, Hahnemann has said that vaccination is a wonderful thing and it has saved the lives of children. Do see the footnote under paragraph 46. Hahnemann seems to have considered that the Jennerian method of vaccination – scratching cowpox pus under the skin – was both preventative in epidemics and curative when it was used against similar disease states. Both homeopathy and Jenner’s cowpox vaccine came around in the late1700s and Hahnemann saw the benefits of cowpox vaccination.

In the present day and age, we have been able to eradicate polio, smallpox, diptheria and even tetanus by judicious use of vaccination. I see cervical cancer being wiped out by the use of the HPV immunization program. We have to wake up to the benefit of vaccination. There can be some adverse effects, no doubt, but vaccination has done a lot of good. Homeopaths would be able to do a lot by staying out of the vaccine controversy.”

Continue reading