Vaccination

The pros and cons: helping you decide

Kathryn Alexander

© Kathryn Alexander 2004 1

www.kathrynalexander.com.au
Vaccination
The pros and cons: helping you decide

PART ONE: ORTHODOXY

THE CASE FOR ORTHODOX VACCINATION

At various times throughout history the human race has suffered the ravages of infectious disease
which has had the potential to wipe out millions of people. The most severe epidemic of all times
was the great Influenza Pandemic of 1918 where 20% of the entire world population were affected
and between 20-40 million people died as a consequence.

The principle behind vaccination programs is to eradicate specific infectious diseases which
are known to either threaten survival or cause serious side-effects in those affected. Through
intravenous or oral introduction of the causative agent (virus, bacteria) an immune response is
evoked which raises the immunity and confers resistance of the individual to the actual disease.
In other words, by giving a mild dose of the disease, the immune system is activated and as a
consequence retains an immunologic memory, so that in the event of an epidemic, the body is
“armed” to effectively fight the disease. In turn, by increasing the general resistance within a
community, there is less spread or contagion of the disease, and over a period of time will lead to
eradication of that disease.

To date the graphs covering most of our infectious diseases (whooping cough, polio, diphtheria,
smallpox and measles) indicate a steady decline for both incidence and mortality. To the casual
observer it would appear that there has been a significant decline over the last century, where
currently there is no incidence of small-pox, polio or diphtheria in the Western World. The reduction
of disease is attributed to vaccination programs.

The key factor in disease control is to reduce its incidence in the community. The graphs for The end point of
measles indicate that since the introduction of the measles vaccine in 1963, the incidence of vaccination programs
measles has indeed fallen. Records in the USA indicate that in 1963 notifications stood at around is to reduce the
430,000 and have steadily declined to a negligible amount. In the case of whooping cough, a serious incidence of disease,
disease in babies under 6 months, statistics available from the UK indicate that during 1978 -1982, thereby reducing seri-
notification of this disease doubled (from 30,000 in late 60s to 60,000 in late 70s). This epidemic ous side-effects and
was attributed to loss of public confidence which resulted in widespread public rejection of the death.
vaccination. However, despite the increase in notifications, the death rate from whooping cough
continued to decline throughout this period.

A further comparative study of the incidence following exposure to whooping cough in vaccinated Vaccination has
and unvaccinated groups in the USA, UK and Japan revealed an average efficacy of 71% for the been shown to confer
vaccine: an average of 20% of those previously vaccinated contracted the disease compared to 75% greater protection
of the non-vaccinated group. against contracting a
disease, but may not
Although retrospective studies and current documentation fails to conclusively support mass significantly influence
vaccination programs as the major influence in the reduction of mortality rates, the current stance mortality rates.
remains that the over-riding principle is to reduce the incidence of disease within a community.
It is also established that vaccination does not confer total immunity as epidemics have indicated

© Kathryn Alexander 2004 2

www.kathrynalexander.com.au
that the majority of children affected are often from the immunized group. Therefore, in order to Pressure is brought
protect our immunized group it is essential that all children be vaccinated. The theory remains to bear on non-
that it is the unvaccinated group that puts the vaccinated at risk. This has given rise to prejudice vaccinated groups
and suspicion particularly among parents of young children, schools and health care workers. It is due to the theory that
generally regarded that vaccination programs are relatively safe, that the benefits clearly outweigh these groups place the
the risks, and that death or serious side-effects resulting from vaccination are extremely rare. vaccinated groups at
Finding evidence to convince those (particularly among the 60+ age-group) who can remember risk. This is because
the gravity of epidemics such as whooping cough, polio and diphtheria, that vaccination programs vaccination fails to
may do more harm than good and may not have been responsible for the eradication of some of adequately protect
the most infectious diseases to date, may be a tall order, and not a debate that I would willing the immunized
undertake given the disparity in information, the lack of comparative studies, the absence of groups.
accurate statistics available on the number of deaths attributable to vaccination, the number of
diseases contracted from vaccination, or the number of “side effects” caused by the vaccination,
and the absence of double blind studies. However, having admitted to this, because I have observed
some of the consequences of immunisation, both personally and within my practice, I would not
hesitate to resort to other methods of prophylaxis.

Research:
◊◊ www.homeopathic.org/crtoddh.htm
◊◊ www.naturalrearing.com/J_In _Learning/Immunization/vaccinations/
◊◊ Excerpts from the Vaccine Guide: Risk and Benefits for Children and Adults: Randall
Neustaedter
◊◊ www.cure-guide.com/Vaccine_Guide/Vaccine_Guide_excerpts/Homeopathic_
vaccines/homeopathic_vaccines.html
◊◊ Vaccination? A review of risks and alternatives: Isaac Golden 1998
◊◊ Mass Immunization: A Point in Question; Trevor Gunn, 1992; Cutting Edge Publications

THE CASE AGAINST ALLOPATHIC VACCINATION

In order to make a case against allopathic vaccination as being an acceptable and valid method of
prophylaxis against infectious disease, we need to take into account both the rationale of prophylaxis
and set specific criteria by which the success of the proposed therapy can be measured. Safety and
effectiveness must obviously be high on the list, while other criteria, although less important, may
help determine the overall outcome and success of a treatment. Among the main criteria I have
listed the following.

Prophylactic treatment should be:

◊◊ relatively harmless
◊◊ effective (the benefits must outweigh the risks)
◊◊ responsible for a decline in infectious disease and mortality from the disease
◊◊ the only practical and dependable way to prevent both epidemics and potentially
dangerous diseases

Upon analysing the graphs indicating the incidence and death rate from infectious disease from Most infectious
the early 1900s, it is surprising to note that most infectious disease was already in significant disease was in
decline before the advent of mass vaccination programs. Not only this, but the graphs indicate in significant decline
many instances vaccination programs actually introduced the disease back into the community. prior to the advent
of mass immuniza-
If we refer to the three polio epidemics during the last century in the USA we can see that the first tion programs. This
two epidemics, which occurred prior to the introduction of the vaccine in the mid 1950s, declined was due to improved
without treatment. The decline of the third epidemic (1953) was attributed to the Salk vaccine and living conditions and
improved health.

© Kathryn Alexander 2004 3

www.kathrynalexander.com.au
the official figures indicated that between 1953-57 the incidence decreased from 15,600 cases to
2,499 cases. However, during the 1962 congressional hearings, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, testified
that not only did the increase of polio substantially increase (50% and 80% respectively during the
years 1957/58 and 1958/59) with the vaccination program but he highlighted how the statistics had
been manipulated in order to reflect a desired outcome:

◊◊ There was a redefinition of the term epidemic: an epidemic was previously classified as By redefining
20 cases/100,000 population; this was increased to 35 cases/100,000 “epidemic” and the
“disease” statistics
◊◊ There was a redefinition of the disease where the patient not only had to exhibit
can be manipulated
symptoms for 60 days (previous to this it was 24 hours) but also had to suffer paralysis.
to indicate favourable
The non-paralytic cases which had previously been included in the statistics, were now
results for vaccination
reported as viral or aseptic meningitis
programs. By reporting
polio as meningitis,
Furthermore Salk, along with other scientists, testified in 1977 that most of the polio cases since
one can show a sharp
the 1970’s probably were a product of the live polio vaccine in standard use. It is also interesting to
reduction in polio.
note that during the period 1955-66 polio declined but viral and aseptic meningitis increased until
by 1975 polio was declared as eradicated with a footnote to explain that all such cases were now
reported as meningitis.

Smallpox has a similar history. In 1853 vaccination for smallpox became compulsory in the UK. Vaccinated people who
Between 1857 – 59 there were 14,244 recorded deaths from the disease; by 1865 this figure had contracted smallpox
risen by 40.8% (factoring a population rise of 7%), and by 1870-72 there was a 123% rise with the were not included in
total number of deaths at 44,840. Japan saw similar rises in incidence following mass vaccination the smallpox notifi-
in the late 1800s. Furthermore the Department of Health (UK) has since admitted that the official cations - hence the
diagnosis of case was determined by whether or not the person had been vaccinated previously. decline in smallpox.
If there was prior vaccination, the disease was recorded as either monkey-pox, pustular eczema,
varioloid or chickenpox. From 1904 – 1934 records indicate that 3,112 people died from chickenpox
and only 579 of smallpox in the UK, yet all authorities agree that chickenpox is a non-fatal disease.

We can pursue this line of investigation with correlative evidence to support the notion that not Vaccination is proven
only does the decline in infectious disease have little to do with vaccination programs but also that to introduce the dis-
vaccination is a major cause of the disease itself. Take whooping cough: Sweden withdrew this ease back into the
vaccine and yet continued to see a decline in incidence that was paralleled in other countries still community, putting
using the vaccination. Sweden also withdrew the diphtheria vaccine, and again the incidence of all at risk. The decline
diphtheria disappeared. However in other European countries which had compulsory vaccination in infectious disease
the incidence increased: in France by 30%; in Hungary by 55%; in Switzerland by 300%; and is not proven to be
in Germany by 600%. This evidence alone is sufficient to shed doubt on the role of vaccination related to vaccination
programs in the prevention and decline of infectious disease and subsequently its validity as a programs.
therapeutic tool.

When we start to factor in some of the known adverse reactions to vaccination, and knowing that Medicine is not an
vaccination is not scientifically proven but remains an hypothesis, the continued and relentless exact science: it is a
propaganda by governments and pharmaceuticals could be perceived to be medically unethical. position. Negative
However, we must be careful about adopting a naïve stance on medicine – medicine is not an exact scientific findings are
science; it’s a position that is taken which makes no room for different points of view. In a culture often rejected or buried
of fear of infectious disease, this position can be reinforced even when there is overwhelming and results often
evidence to the contrary. This can be rejected by the scientific community purely on the basis of skewed to support
the common view. Lynn Payer, in her book “Culture Bias in Medical Science” exposes how the their position. Under
rejection of results is often based on how a population would react. For example in response to these circumstances
the fact that cholera vaccine was of little value, the health authorities of one un-named developed the scientific evidence
country explained “The fear of cholera is strongly felt by a large part of the population which still for the efficacy of
trusts vaccination practice as a control measure against the disease. We feel that our population, treatment is of little
as well as that of other countries, would not agree to drop a protective measure even if it has been consequence.
scientifically demonstrated to be of little value.”

At the end of the day it will be up to the consumer to draw the line. And here we return to examine
the evidence. It is acknowledged by the health services that vaccination is not a risk-free procedure.
There are several broad categories of concern which include the possible effects of toxic chemicals

© Kathryn Alexander 2004 4

www.kathrynalexander.com.au
contained within vaccines known to cause serious side-effects in the susceptible, to the suspected
long-term health implications of vaccines on populations.

Vaccinations usually contain chemical adjuvants such as formaldehydes, thimersol (contains Manufacturers nor
mercury) and aluminium phosphate. Aluminium phosphate makes the vaccine “longer-acting” those that prescribe
and increases the antibody response. Thimersol is a preservative. Both aluminium and mercury vaccinations accept
are neurotoxic and can set up a process of relentless oxidation and destruction within the nervous any liability in the
system and the brain. There is indisputable evidence that vaccines have been responsible for event of serious ad-
permanent neurological damage, brain damage, learning disability, autism, ADHD, epilepsy/ verse events. The risks
seizures, allergy and/or hypersensitive reactions. I have seen two cases in my practice of children and the liabilities are
who have been severely damaged by vaccination. One child not only developed severe epilepsy, passed to the
but was “vacant” for most of the time; and the other child suffered severe mental retardation and consumer.
deformity of posture, along with severe allergies after the vaccine. I saw pictures of her prior to the
vaccine – a normal, happy, healthy child.

There is also concern that the attenuated viruses found in vaccinations do not evoke a normal It is conceivable that
immune response and that consequently these viruses may exist in a latent form and cause vaccine vaccine induced im-
induced immune dysfunctions. For example, the measles virus can become a slow or latent virus mune dysfunctions
in a badly-managed viral infection. It can cause SSPE (sub-acute sclerosing panencephalitis) could occur later in
in later years. It is believed that the propagation of the latent measles virus (modified antigen) life, but providing a
from the vaccine plays a role in later immune dysfunction. To support this we are witnessing an direct link is difficult.
indisputable increase in immune-deficiency disorders and cancer in our young populations since
the development of more vaccination programs, notably the MMR. In particular the incidence of
auto-immune diseases such as Crohn’s disease and insulin dependent diabetes, and the childhood
leukaemias are major causes of concern. Proving a direct link with vaccination is difficult as the
onset may be months after the vaccine. However, in countries such as India which does not have
an MMR program the incidence of Crohn’s disease is low. Another study in 1994 indicated that
children who had received the pertussis vaccination were 5.4 times as likely to develop asthma
in later years than the unvaccinated group. The rubella vaccine has been linked with rheumatic
and arthritic conditions, glandular fever and chronic fatigue. The mumps vaccine is specifically
indicated in IDDM which may occur a few months after event.

SIDS is also a cause for concern. In 1975 Japan increased the minimum vaccine age for the DPT There is correlative
from 3 months to 2 years to reduce vaccine damage on the basis that the infant’s immune system evidence that supports
was too immature to adequately respond to the vaccine. Initially the incidence of disease rose, but a relationship between
then fell to pre-1975 levels. Of great interest was that following this initiative SIDS disappeared from the DPT vaccine and
statistics for compensation. The work of Dr. Viera Scheibner confirms the correlation between DPT SIDS.
and the incidence of SIDS. She has undertaken long-term studies monitoring babies before and
after the vaccine and documented episodes of apnoea during sleep. She noted a dramatic increase
in episodes which continued periodically for months after the vaccine.

The other area of concern is the risk of contamination from the culturing of vaccines on animal
organs, embryos or serum. There are two main concerns: the first is the “jumping gene” which is
the passing of genetic material from one species via the vaccine to the human and whether this
will cause genetic mutations in human populations; and the other more immediate concern is viral
transference. We know that viruses can cross species (Jacob-Cruezfeldt or “mad cow disease,”
influenza from birds) and of current debate is whether there is a link between the polio vaccine
and the SV-40 virus that this vaccine carried and the incidence of AIDS in countries that have been
heavily vaccinated using these vaccines such as Africa and parts of South America.

Research:
◊◊ www.naturalrearing.com/J_In_Learning/Immunization/vaccinations/NOSODES.htm
◊◊ www.naturalrearing.com/J_In_Learning/Immunization/vaccinations/
VACCINATIONSPart1.htm
◊◊ www.naturalrearing.com/J_In_Learning/Immunization/immunesystem/
IMMUNESYSTEM1.htm
◊◊ Excerpts from the Vaccine Guide: Risk and Benefits for Children and Adults: Randall

© Kathryn Alexander 2004 5

www.kathrynalexander.com.au
 Neustaedter
◊◊ www.cure-guide.com/Vaccine_Guide/Vaccine_Guide_excerpts/Homeopathic_
vaccines/homeopathic_vaccines.html
◊◊ Culture Bias in Medical Science: Lynn Payer Owl Books1988
◊◊ Vaccination Roulette: Australian Vaccination Network; 1998
◊◊ Vaccination? A review of risks and alternatives: Isaac Golden 1998
◊◊ Mass Immunization: A Point in Question; Trevor Gunn, 1192; Cutting Edge
Publications

HOMOEOPATHIC PROPHYLAXIS
Although the “terrain” or underlying vitality of the individual is the chief determining factor in
disease susceptibility, Hahnemann made a distinction between contagious disease (disease caused
by an infectious agent [single constant factor] that produces a specific group of symptoms in all
those affected) and disease based on multiple internal and external causations affecting body and
mind which will exhibit a unique set of symptoms. Treatment of the latter requires individualization
and specific remedy and may be referred to as a constitutional remedy, or pertaining to the unique
make-up of that person.

Hahnemann observed that an epidemic was nothing short of a mass proving of a causative agent. Homoeopathic pro-
Therefore he concluded that it should be possible to treat the masses with a given remedy (genus phylaxis means using
epidemicus remedies). Hahnemann clarified his concept of Genus Epidemicus as a remedy which remedies to prevent
reflects the nature of the particular epidemic rather than the constitution of the individual patient. disease.
He recommended careful observation of the sufferings of patients of different constitutions in order
to become conversant with the totality of symptoms of a collective disease. Although prophylaxis As an infectious
may appear to deviate from homoeopathic philosophy of individualization for the selection of a disease has specific
remedy, Hahnemann was specific that each epidemic, although appearing under the same label, characteristics, by
may exhibit unique characteristics which would need to be factored into the remedy prescription. choosing the remedy
He was aware of the possibility of mutation of diseases and that prevailing environmental and which induces similar
social factors would effect the course of the disease. Therefore, for effective prophylaxis, the true characteristics when
nature of the disease with all its idiosyncrasies would need to be exposed. This is somewhat a proved should offer
different approach to the one used in modern-day homoeopathic prophylaxis, using set remedies protections from the
and nosodes for labelled disease-states – a source of contention among the different groups of disease.
homoeopaths.

It was during an outbreak of Scarlet fever that Hahnemann became aware that homoeopathic
treatments could not only cure a disease but also offer prophylaxis during an outbreak of that
disease. He was already aware that epidemics could be treated using a single remedy for the mass
during the 1813 typhoid epidemic. Other practising homoeopaths were also obtaining excellent
results and in 1831 obtained spectacular results with the Cholera epidemic. However, it was
during an epidemic of Scarlet Fever where Hahnemann was routinely prescribing the similimum
Belladonna that he discovered a patient previously treated with Belladonna did not succumb to the
infectious disease when exposed, even though all the other members of that family did so. From
this, and subsequent testing of the prophylactic power of Belladonna, Hahnemann recognised that
homoeopathy could be used prophylactically, and he stated: “The remedy capable of maintaining
the healthy uninfectable by the miasm of scarletina, I was so fortunate as to discover.”

Hahnemann had also developed his philosophy of chronic miasms where he recognized that
unresolved infectious illness, when suppressed, could be harboured at a chronic level deranging
and weakening the vital force and complicating the disease picture. So although infectious
disease, if managed correctly and if the patient had sufficient inherent vitality to resolve the
illness completely, could act as a proving and enhance the overall vitality, he also understood that
infectious illness if left unresolved could create layers of distress within the organism and weaken
the vital force. This is similar to a patient remarking that they have “never felt well since” they
contracted Glandular Fever.

© Kathryn Alexander 2004 6

www.kathrynalexander.com.au
Hahnemann was also supportive of the work of Jenner (developed the concept of providing
immunity to small pox through the application of diseased cowpox material to the healthy
individual) and suggested that other animal miasms may be useful to prevent human diseases.
However, Hahnemann did not apply his medicine in the homoeoprophylactic way as we know it
today; its application was purely during epidemics and specific for those epidemics.

However, he was clear that suppression and/or inadequate treatment of miasms would lead to new Homoeopathic “im-
virulent strains and new complex chronic disorders; and that the inner effects of miasms would munity” is believed to
continue to mutate into deeper chronic degenerative states, including auto-immune and immune improve overall vital-
deficiency disorders – all of which are incurable by modern medicine. Bearing this in mind, he felt ity as it stimulates
that if a person could be rendered “immune” to the disease through homoeopathic treatment, far rather than suppresses
from the treatment being immuno-suppressive their overall vitality would be enhanced. the vital force.

According to the principles of homoeopathy where two similar diseases cannot exist in body at
same time and the stronger will repel or replace the weaker, so Hahnemann argued that if a
strong proving state was created in the individual, then the natural disease would be repelled
when exposed. He felt that as “provings” (which the application of these remedies in truth would
be), the “artificial” disease produced by the remedy would actually serve to strengthen the vital
force, and in modern day terminology would render the patient less sensitive to stimulus and
make the immune specific responses strong. Hahnemann had observed in himself and others who
were undertaking regular “provings” that their overall vitality was enhanced, not suppressed. In
simple terms the benefits of homoeoprophylaxis could be summed up by the phrase “an ounce of
prevention is worth a pound of cure.”

Current homoeopathic prophylactic regimes

The modern concept of homoeoprophylaxis for universal use for the general population was initiated Homoeopathic prophy-
by Arthur Grimmer and Dorothy Shepherd in the mid 1900s and today there are nosodes for nearly laxis does not carry
every endemic and epidemic disease on the planet. This practice was developed out of concern and any of the inherent
a desire not only to prevent serious infectious illness but also to alleviate the severe side-effects risks of vaccination
of vaccination. However, it is considered by many to be nothing short of an allopathic approach of and has been used
treating the disease and not the patient. Hahnemann offered a middle path, but the current view of successfully when
addressing the situation before it arises to counter the risk of high mortality or severe side effects, given to populations
makes Hahnemann’s approach to treatment when the epidemic arises unacceptable. In order to of children, and also
keep abreast with the modern concept of disease management, some homoeopaths have adopted can deliver a Schick
the allopathic stance under the guise of homoeopathy. Unfortunately this may prove be a short- negative reaction in
sighted attempt to prove homoeoprophylaxis, as a dilution of the principles (i.e. using a remedy patients that were
that may not absolutely fit the current epidemic) may at prove ineffective in many cases and bring Schick positive prior to
the practise of homoeopathy into disrepute. Homoeopaths may also, by adopting the allopathic receiving the homoeo-
stance, be seen to support the notion that prophylaxis is the only effective method for the control pathic remedy for
and subsequent decline in infectious disease, which we know from looking at the evidence, it diphtheria.
clearly is not.

Having said this, we are aware through statistics that the incidence of chronic degenerative
disease is increasing in all age groups and that we looking at a general constitutional weakness
in our society, which if exposed to an epidemic may be disastrous. We have also seen excellent
results using homoeoprophylaxis. Dr. Grimmer reported that over 30,000 individuals received
Lathyrus Sativa to prevent polio and no one had a side-effect to his knowledge. Similarly, Dr.
Dorothy Shepherd gave homoeoprophylaxis to 364 children for whooping cough and not one child
contracted the disease. Additional scientific evidence comes from the work of Dr. Paul Chauvanon
who tested the efficacy of the Diphtherotoxinum in people who were Schick positive (the diphtheria
skin test for immunity where a positive reaction between days 5-7 indicates lack of immunity).
After administering 2 doses of Diphtherotoxinum 4M, 6-8 weeks apart, all 45 participants became
Schick negative and remained so for 10 years. This is clear proof that the remedy was able to
impact the immune system in a positive way.

In Australia, the foremost researcher of homoeoprophylaxis is Isaac Golden. He has undertaken

a 10 year study which has involved 557 parents, and produced 6 surveys between the years 1988
– 1994. The protocol he used has been developed during that period through continued research,
information received from homoeopaths abroad and his own clinical observations.
© Kathryn Alexander 2004 7
www.kathrynalexander.com.au
The diseases covered in the pack include whooping cough, diphtheria, measles, mumps,
tetanus and more recently, haemophilus meningitis (Hib). Most of the homoeopathic remedies
used are potentized nosodes (prepared from the disease product itself) which include Pertussin
(whooping cough), Tetanus toxin, Diphtherinum, Morbillinum (measles), Parotidinum (mumps)
and Haemophilus. The polio remedy is the constitutional remedy Lathyrus Sativa. The nosodes
can be substituted by constitutional remedies particularly if the government restricts the use of
nosodes in the future. In which case Cuprum Met will replace Pertussin; Gelsemium, diphtheria;
Pulsatilla, Morbillinum; Hypericum, Tetanus Toxin; Rhus Tox, Parotidinum and Arsenicum Alb,
Haemphilus – all of which will be equally effective.

The first pack was introduced in 1986 and was based around single doses of an M potency for
each disease. By 1991 research clearly suggested the need for triple doses to lessen the chance
of a single dose being anti-doted. A single dose of 200c for the specific disease was introduced
one month prior to a triple dose in ascending potencies of 200c, 1M and 10M spaced at 12 hour
intervals. The remedies are taken over a five year period with specific instructions for the age at
administration; for example, Pertussin is taken at the single dose of 200c at one month, followed
one month later by the triple dose. Within the first year whooping cough, polio, tetanus, diphtheria
and meningitis are all covered; in the second year measles and mumps are added and thereafter
at intervals they are all repeated. The 200c dose is always given on its own for each disease, one
month in advance of the triple dose, when it is initially introduced.

The combined results of the surveys were very rewarding and compared more than favourably Through recent studies
with conventional vaccination programs. Overall there was a success rate of 98% with only 2% homoeopathic prophy-
contracting the disease after taking the remedy. However, not all these children would have been laxis is around 89%
exposed to the disease so the figure of 11.2% of children who had definite exposure to the disease efficient.
and subsequently contracted the disease having taken the remedy is a more realistic figure. This
makes homoeoprophylaxis 88.8% efficient. Efficacy was increased to 91.3% when triple doses in
ascending potency were introduced. Additionally, only 10% suffered side-effects and most of these
symptoms were transitory and due to “clearing” or healing reactions.

Golden compares these figures to conventional efficacy rates for vaccination which range from The published
75-95%. However, I find these figures rather optimistic being as my research reveals that with the statistics for conven-
introduction of the measles vaccine, the years 1983– 1990 saw a 423% increase in the incidence tional vaccination is
of the disease; in the statistics for 1985, 80% of the notifications had been previously vaccinated 75-95%. However, on
and in the 1986 epidemic in Texas – 99% had been vaccinated. Additionally, a WHO report stated closer inspection of
that for measles, the rate of contraction was 2.4% in the unimmunized group, and 33.5% in the disease notifications,
immunized population. these statistics may be
skewed.
In addition to homoeoprophylaxis programs which aim to mimic the orthodox vaccination programs,
other homoeoprophylaxis programs offer treatment for those travelling abroad and exposed to
infectious disease while abroad. These include Cholera, Dysentery, Influenza, Malaria, Typhoid,
Typhus and Yellow Fever.

Research:
• Vaccination? A Review of Risks and Alternatives: Isaac Golden, 1998
• Homoeoprophylaxis; a Practical and Philosophical Review: Isaac Golden
• Homoeoprophylaxis: A ten year clinical study: Isaac Golden
• Prophylaxis in Homoeopathy: www.simillimum.com/Thelittlelibrary/
Homoeopathicphilosophy/prophylaxis.html
• Homeopathic Prophylaxis: Fact or Fiction Todd A Hoover
• Homeopathy for a Changing World: Is there a Remedy for Bioterrorism
www.homeopathic.org/crtoddh.htm

Footnote:
It’s important to remember that medicine as it is practised today is a stance or position; it is not
a science, it is not a proven philosophy, but a status quo and one that will automatically prejudice
any practice or research that runs counter to the current political opinion of the day. One may
personally oppose that stance, but at the end of the day we cannot speak for others. This must be
© Kathryn Alexander 2004 8
www.kathrynalexander.com.au
the foundation upon which any advice is given. While orthodox treatment may be invaluable in an
acute crisis to stabilise the patient, in chronic conditions it will suppress and deny the opportunity
for healing to occur. At best one needs to review the options and allow, through the questions that
arise, for those making a decision to have enough information to make their own call.

Regarding the question of vaccination – I have always given a very simple answer that it is important
if a parent is not considering vaccinating their child that they must take steps to improve the
health of their child through healthy diet and lifestyle practices, which includes how they care
for the child when it does become sick and the treatment options they are going to use. The
tremendous difficulty is that parents are untrained in healthcare as we have delegated this to the
medical profession and as a consequence methods of health care and nursing are not passed
down from mother to daughter. Reliance on antibiotics combined with inadequate nursing care
and insufficient recuperation time will inevitably leave a child constitutionally weakened.

A healthy, strong child automatically has improved resistance to disease and a better capacity It has been proven that
to fight infection. Children of poor constitution are more likely to be negatively affected from the burden of cause of
infectious disease and/or vaccination (severe side-effects). So the boosting of general immunity mass epidemics does
is the first-line consideration. This is supported by WHO reports which indicate that disease and not solely lie with the
mortality rates in third world countries bear no correlation to the amount of money spent in medical infectious agent but
treatment including vaccination programs, but are more closely related to hygiene and diet. A the inherent health of
healthy, varied diet high in whole foods and limited in those known to deplete the body of nutrients the population itself.
(such as refined foods, sugar, refined fats and oils, caffeine-containing foods and beverages) is Better hygiene, housing
the first step. It’s also important to remember that young children do not have matured immune and nutrition have
systems, and therefore exposure to many “germs” within the first few years can weaken the child been proven as the key
and increase their susceptibility. Placing a child under the age of three into an environment where determinants in reduc-
disease may be harboured (such as play schools or nurseries) is increasing exposure and we may ing mortality from
need to re-visit this practice to reduce exposure in the early years. infectious agents.

Beyond this general advice one could bombard the parent with all sorts of statistics and fear stories
about the dangers of vaccination and its implication in auto-immune and immune deficiency states
in later life, but in some cases this may be counter-productive. We are already living in a culture of
fear and I have found that emotional decisions are probably not the best decisions. I would however
go through some of the known risks in an objective manner and I would recommend specific
books and literature to allow the person to become more self-informed. This pragmatic approach
enables the parent to take full responsibility for the decision and ensures that a personal plan of
action which embraces healthy life-style, is part of the equation.

• www.naturalparenting.com.au/print.php?sid=21
• www.naturalrearing.com/J_In _Learning/Immunization/vaccinations/

© Kathryn Alexander 2004 9

www.kathrynalexander.com.au