Friday, July 12, 2013

Homeopathic Researcher Discusses Vaccination

HHoH





Hpathy Ezine, June, 2013 | 
Homeopath and researcher Dr. Rupali D. Bhalerao discusses vaccination and homeoprophylaxis.
“A truth, on any plane, presented to different men, is accepted or rejected by each according to the good or evil of his mind”- Kent
 For the entire article please visit:
Introduction

Vaccination presents a difficult choice. On one hand it is aimed to prevent serious diseases whose mere names terrifiy us, like polio or tetanus; on the other hand we tend to instinctively reject the idea of injecting young babies with pathological material. In 1796 Jenner tried his vaccine against smallpox and in 1799 Hahnemann used homoeopathic Belladonna as a preventive for Scarlet fever. Conventional medicine followed efforts to prevent disease in a manner similar to that used by Edward Jenner. Due to lack of systematic studies, homoeoprophylaxis was never established as a scientific and effective method of disease prevention.
Burnett & his vaccinosis
 Burnett was the first Homoeopath to forcefully warned against the dangers of vaccination. He believed that vaccination generated a state of disease, not that of the disease intended to be protected against, but rather a similar low chronic state of ill health; a contracted miasm.
He argued that vaccination, as practiced by Pasteur and Jenner using material doses will eventually end in disaster, because it is temporary protection. It does not individualize the dose to the strength of individual and it brings long term chronic consequences.  Burnett warned against the reaction of individuals to particular vaccines on the basis of individual susceptibility back in 1884. In a recent report in August 2011 of IOM in review of adverse effects of vaccine, they clearly mention under the heading of susceptibility that ‘individuals with certain characteristics are more likely to suffer from cer­tain adverse effects from particular immunizations’. Modern medicine is late to actually realize the importance of individual characteristics for evaluating the adverse events of vaccination.
Burnett also noted that vaccination actually increases the mortality rate, because in addition to the vaccinosis incurred, if a person also catches the disease prophylaxis was intended to prevent, he or she is more likely to die from the disease than if had just caught the disease without vaccination.  Neil Z Miller and Gary S Goldmanin their research published in Human and experimental toxicology found thepositive correlation between the number of vaccine doses in the first year of life and increasing Infant mortality rates (IMRs) of a nation. The US childhood immunization schedule specifies 26 vaccine doses for infants aged less than 1 year—the most in the world—yet 33 nations have lower IMRs. The author concludes with a note ‘A closer inspection of correlations between vaccine doses, biochemical or synergistic toxicity, and IMRs, is essential’.
What Burnett said in the 18th century and what research reflects currently about adverse effects of vaccination is similar. We must think twice before denying facts in the present situation.

No comments: