Homeopaths push... says The Times. No. No they don't.

The Times yesterday ran a piece on how homeopaths are endangering lives, pushing "useless alternatives to vaccines". Dawn, one of the featured homeopaths in it, shares her response here. It's funny how the arguments have changed against homeopathy - initially it was that it didn't work, now that because it doesn't work we're endangering lives. And sometimes it's that homeopathic products are dangerous - even as far as being called biohazards in a recent Sunday Times piece. 

It's not an argument I find myself wanting to be dragged into, yet we seem to be getting dragged into it nonetheless. And I know no homeopaths, despite having been a homeopath for 12 years, travelled internationally within homeopathic circles and met many others, I know of no homeopaths who "push" anything. I do know of people who come to homeopaths (including those working in the medical professions) because they feel sure that their child regressed after having had vaccines (an idea it seems currently essential to suppress hence the recent article against Alan Freestone - his response is here), and practitioners look at the whole case, as they would with any person in front of them, and ideally are able to help find improvements. Not every time. And this too seems to be a stumbling block. Tell me what medical field does everything every time? Vaccination, it seems, doesn't either, from recent reports of outbreaks being from vaccinated individuals. Again I'm keen not to get into a big discussion, but I do want to offer that any medical procedure is not without risk. Any way of living life is not without risk, and we should all carefully consider that. My beef, if I have one, is that frequently the 'shadow side' of vaccines are not shown - whether that be for financial incentive, as some suggest, fear that uptake would be lower or that parents would make the 'wrong' choice. But there is no mention of any risk associated with them, only with not having them. Which intrigues me. More about that below from a medical colleague.

What I think I'm curious about too is there is a story that's not being told, and a media hysteria going on which is interesting to observe. In my perception there's a truth not being told and a denial that harm can occur from the route that's commonly being "pushed". My newsfeed on Facebook is filled with harrowing stories from those who are sharing that side of the story. It breaks my heart. Perhaps there's no incentive to share those more widely, in the national press, which asks further questions.

It seems in these times of increasing numbers of people looking to alternative options - we also have to suppress the chance that anything else can work to keep us healthy - a little like the Cancer Act of 1939 - the only things that can cope with cancer are surgery, radiotherapy and chemo. The people doing things naturally (and there are those people - frequently those who've been sent home with no hope who look outside of that prognosis) either don't exist or never had cancer in the first place. Most interesting.

Interestingly too, and I'm not saying this should be used in every case by any stretch, but homeopathy has dealt with epidemics around the world which is ignored, both in historical times, and more recently. Cuba is a particularly good case in point.

The film Magic Pills shares more details around the story and is worth getting along to a screening near you if you've got the chance. This snippet from the film shares a little more of the story:

​In short, in case you're a reader and not a YouTube fan (in which case hello and so nice to meet you!!) the Cuban Finlay Institute found itself with the unsettling scenario of an impending epidemic of leptospirosis and no time to manufacture the necessary vaccine (the Finlay Institute were in fact the first place to create the Meningitis C vaccine). They decided to create a homeopathic medicine from the bacteria and gave to millions of people. And what happened? I'll share a graphic from the film Magic Pills:

---

​In some versions the slide above isn't displaying correctly - it reads:

The cases of leptospirosis increased by 27%, except in the three intervened provinces rates of infection reduced by 84% and remained below historic levels.

​Dr Gustavo Bracho, who presented the research at the Homeopathy Research Institute shares more about the project here:

This medicine that doesn't, can't work, seems to have done a damn fine job in that situation. The Finlay Institute went on to conduct other research using other homeopathic medicines for preventable diseases, with success in every instance.

There is a bigger picture we are not being told. Perhaps it's not always appropriate but we should ask ourselves why we're not hearing about this, or if we are, only in negative terms. As to homeopaths pushing anything, we should hear why they are not allowed to talk about what homeopathy can actually do. And why the media has turned - are they funded by anyone who might persuade that to happen? Several years ago they were happy to share this piece about how Roger Daltrey's son had his life saved by a homeopath. Now, nothing of the sort and we're all evil. Interesting again.

​I wanted to end with a piece written by a colleague and medical doctor, Dr. Joe Rozencwajg from New Zealand. Please read:

"In this morning's paper, there was again a piece of "opinion" by yet another ignoramus, insulting the people who do not vaccinate, with the usual arguments. I generally answer by sending a letter to the Editor or an Opinion piece, short and with references. This morning I was really pissed off so not only did I write a longer piece, but I sent a copy to David Clark, our Minister of Health. I just received acknowledgment by one of his employees that he read it (???) and is taking my views seriously (?????????). I thought I would copy what I wrote here; feel free to copy, enhance, embellish, modify as it suits you and please do send to all the local, regional and national papers you have access to. As usual I did not receive any acknowledgement from the press and it will probably not be published, no surprises here...so let's inundate the "free press, voice of the people" until they relent.

"How on earth do you talk to an anti-vaxxer" is published just a few days after an opinion piece about mandatory vaccination.

And yet, when comments, answers and explanations about the refusal to vaccinate are sent for publication, none is appearing and the authors are not even granted the common courtesy of a reply and an explanation...censorship at its best, so much for the "freedom" of the press.

Let's try again.

A common thread in those articles is the parroting of the same arguments, so some dissection is needed.

1. We are refusing Science: I have tried many times to refer readers to scientific papers coming out from the CDC, the WHO, world-renown hospitals and research centres, written by well-known researchers and published in peer-reviewed journals. Some are collated in the book by Mateja Cernic "Ideological constructs of vaccination". Did anyone read any of those? At best, a few answers I received was "I do no accept the validity of this publication" Why? that remains an unexplained mystery. So, yes, there is science and research behind the refusal to vaccinate, not madness, politics or ideology. Another question would be why has the report of Senator Kennedy about the dangers of vaccination never been mentioned? I know! it goes against official policy, it is well documented and unacceptable to the vaccinators.

2. Everybody quotes the "debunked Wakefield" saga. What nobody seems to pay attention to, or maybe they have been prevented from acquiring that knowledge, is that the "debunked study" was "rebunked" (if I can invent this word). But here is a more important question: did any one of the vaccine pushers really read Wakefield's paper? I would guess not, so here is a summary: he found out that many cases of autism were correlated to dysbiosis of the gut (a pathological change in the intestinal bacterial flora); this is a notion that was fresh in his time but has been confirmed now many times; do not take my word for it, just do a search for "gut dysbiosis and neurological pathology". At the same time Wakefield found out that the MMR vaccine created in some cases severe dysbiosis in the gut; again, something that was new at that time but demonstrated by now. He then wondered whether there could be an indirect link between MMR and autism. That is all he wrote. And now it is clear he was right. All that information is freely available on the net, just do the research for yourself, if you dare.

3. Now for the darling of vaccination, herd immunity. The claim is that in order to have "herd immunity" 95% of the population or group studied needs to be vaccinated; by vaccinated it is meant injected with the vaccine. Even the more rabid defenders of vaccination admit that the rate of "success" is at best around 80 to 90%, depending on which vaccine is used. Therefore, even if 100% of the population is injected, it is impossible to reach the threshold for herd immunity. But what does "successful vaccination" mean? In all studies, it means the appearance of antibodies, yet antibodies are not synonymous of immune protection, it only means that the immune system has been in contact with a foreign substance and has recognised it as foreign; check that fact in immunology textbooks, please. Even being totally immune to a disease does not mean one cannot propagate it as we have many "healthy carriers", people who have no symptoms, no medical problems but carry the germs and can transmit it to others; the best known examples are HIV and Hepatitis B carriers, but we all carry pathological germs that are controlled by our immune system. So much for really protecting the newborns and immunocompromised.

4. Yes, people vaccinated with live attenuated vaccines do continually shed those germs, and said germs are recovering their virulence. This has been demonstrated and published by the CDC about the actual measles outbreak through genetic decoding of the germs cultured from the sick: most are those germs that were used to manufacture the vaccines...now what? Wilful ignorance? I know, some will say conspiracy, chose your cup of tea...

5. Vaccination is a medical procedure. Every medical procedure is supposed to be performed only after proper information and with informed consent, the accent being on "informed". Every one of us has the right to accept or refuse any procedure after being duly informed about their advantages, their benefits and their dangers. It is called freedom of choice. What about the protection of the many compared to the right of the few? Please go to the Medsafe website, the official voice of the Ministry of Health; read the fact sheet about the MMR vaccine, published by the manufacturers themselves and look at the side-effects and contra-indications. Now ask yourself, especially when reading about the neurological complications, if you are ready to take a chance for your children, your friends' children to suffer from one of those problems. Yes their are not very frequent, but when they hit you, this is 100% life shattering.
​
We have something called the Freedom of Information Act. Its essence means that information, knowledge, should be freely available to every single person without censure, without restriction. Humans are supposed to be intelligent, evolved entities, that can think for themselves, ask questions right and left and make a decision that then needs to be respected. Why does the press deny this fundamental right?"