Vaccination

All parents want the best for their kids.  Having good health includes having a strong immune system. The question here is, What is the best way to ensure my child has the best immune system possible?  In the vaccination debate, what needs to be understood, is that underlying the whole thing are two totally different, and mutually exclusive, ways of understanding and practising what constitutes good health, good immunity, and what steps parents can take to promote a strong immune system in their children. If you want a safe and reliable (effective) immunity for your child, then you won’t vaccinate them; if you decide to vaccinate, then forget about natural immunity.

The cultus of the modern medical "scientific" approach to treating the human body (the internal environment) has been philosophically consistent with the approach, which has been taken by science to the external environment.  What has been done to the external environment in the last few hundred years has been done "in the name of technology, science, progress and advancement" (recognise these catch-cries?), without much understanding or concern for the good of the planet (the "whole").  People like Paul Erlich and David Suzuki suggest such an approach has brought us to the "edge of destruction”  (as Bob Dylan sang).  What has happened is that driven by a desire to "conquer nature", an opportunity of greed and exploitation, and with scant regard for ethics, especially this century with the emergence of the huge pharmaceutical cartels, we have "treated" the environment with chemicals to the extent that the future survival of the planet is tentative.

Do not underestimate the power of the modern pharmaceutical industry; it drives modern medicine, in the same ways and with the same purposes as it drives agriculture and industry, and with the same scant regard for the health of the peoples.  What agricultural chemicals (fertilizers, pesticides, fungicides, herbicides, etc) do to the land, what waste products of industry do to the air, the waterways, the forests, the oceans, is reflected in what vaccines, antibiotics, and most other pharmaceutical drugs do to the internal body.  "Science" and medicine is first and foremost, a business enterprise; what matters at the end of the day, is the "bottom line".  Profit is the responsibility of the directors to their shareholders, not ethics or altruism, and the history of modern medicine is replete with stories to make your hair curl; what information "gets out" is merely the tip of the iceberg.

In the same way that we cannot blame individual broad-acre farmers for the mess the planet is in, we cannot blame individual doctors for the mess we are in with regards to the (un)health1 of this nation.  But in the same way that farmers have to share collective responsibility in the matters of global degradation, so do doctors when it comes to the pollution of the human body.  Ignorance is no longer a justifiable excuse, if indeed it ever was.

Nature has created and nurtured a wonderfully complex and interrelated web of life (a "bio-complex") on this planet; modern studies of bio-diversity unanimously reveal a finely tuned, intricately synergistic, symbiotic, organic homeostasis (balance).  As ecologists are now beginning to see Nature's patterns and relationships, these "tangles of bonds that exist between the species, forces and materials of the natural world"2, a central truth is emerging.  The earth's fragile, enveloping film of life-supporting air, water and soil is a single, ecological whole, a "biosphere", in which every living species large and small, mammal and microbe, known and unknown, is interrelated and interdependent.  Everything has a place, a vital place; Nature knows better than we do, and tampering with the natural order whether outside the body or inside, brings dis-ease, imbalance and ultimately (whether foreseen or not) dire consequences.

The Role of Bugs in the Natural Order

What is the relationship between "bugs" and good health, the health of the external environment, the health of the internal environment?  The "germ theory" of disease as developed by Pasteur postulates that "bugs" are the enemy, that they cause disease.  Naturopathic thinking suggests otherwise, that the bugs are friends of the human organism in the same way that they are friends of the environment; each has an important role to play.  For example, in a forest, there are an almost infinite number of bugs of millions of species, and the health of the forest depends on them being there.  If we want a fertile, healthy soil for farming, we should not set about destroying the microflora which compost and aerate and provide all sorts of symbiotic relationships with the elements of the soil.  But modern agriculture has done just that, with the "modern farming methods" which include tree clearing, and the widespread use of pesticides, herbicides and fungicides.

We have been created (or evolved, whatever) with all the bugs, since the beginning. Our history is one of sharing the environment (internal and external) with the bugs.  In terms of human ecology, we have literally trillions of bugs on us and in us, including the better known so-called "nasties".  At any one time, we might have Golden Staph., Streptococcus, Pneumococci, Salmonella, Hemophilus, Cholera, Meningococcus, E. coli, polio, hepatitis viruses and any you like to name, on us and in us.  And in proximate animal and insect populations we have many more. 

If indeed bugs were the enemy, then how has the human race survived and thrived (before modern chemical warfare was declared on them)?  It is a naturopathic premise, based on the evidence of history and science, that in a healthy person, the body's non-specific and specific immune systems keep these nature-provided populations in check; it is when a person becomes unhealthy, the immune systems run down, that these bugs can provide a threat to the health of the host organism, not because of some mal-intention, but because that is their rightful job.    And there is growing evidence to suggest that indeed we need the bugs, all of them, not only to stimulate the development of a child's immune system, but also to guide in the genetic microevolution of the human species.

Do we create healthier soils by tipping in large amounts of chemicals?  Do we get healthier water by tipping in chemicals?  Do we get healthier food by processing it with chemicals? Do we get healthier children and adults by tipping in chemicals?

The Real Issue

The real issue is, what is the best way to assist a young child to develop a strong immune system, and prevent serious illness from infective agents?  Is chemical warfare the answer?  Do we really think we can manipulate the immune system with powerful, poisonous toxoids and other chemicals and not adversely affect the health and immunity of the child?  Or does the truth lie in providing the child with a healthy fetal environment, a proper breastfeeding program, a hypo-allergenic weaning program, the best fresh fruit and vegetable diet, exposure to sunshine and fresh air, fresh water to drink, a happy home environment (stress minimization), and lots of healthy exercise, and avoiding exposure to chemicals in whatever form, whether from air pollution, water and food laden with chemicals, or pharmaceuticals?

Do we really believe that our immune systems are unhealthy and untrustworthy if we don't inject certain pharmaceutical chemicals into our bodies?  How do animals in the wild indeed survive without such pharmaceutical intervention, one might well ask.

Some frequently asked questions

  1. Can’t we thank vaccines for reducing morbidity and mortality from infectious diseases over last century?

    No we cannot.  Vaccination propaganda is based on this myth, and it is still promulgated today.  Vaccination is built on dogma (a belief system).  However, the facts are that morbidity and mortality rates from childhood diseases had dropped by an estimated 90% before the introduction of vaccines. This indisputable fact is perhaps one of the most revealing.  It shows several things of central significance to this whole debate.  Firstly, what evidence do the medical profession tout as proving vaccinations even work at all? (i.e. confer immunity/protection against disease).   Well, we are told that the reason we have no polio today is because of vaccinations. That is not a fact.  (See graphs on the next page 3(b)). Polio vaccine was first used in 1956.  In 1916 in the US there were 27000 cases of paralysis, and 6000 deaths from polio. But statistics of morbidity and mortality show that the incidence of the disease had declined dramatically by 1955, the year before the first vaccine, to about 12% of what it was earlier in this century.  

    How did it thus decline? This disease had declined for the same reasons that whooping cough had declined to about 5% over the same time frame; and measles similarly to about 18% of what is was since late last century. It is certain that it was not from vaccines, for there weren't any. What was responsible was the growth in knowledge of nutritional health and hygiene, together with improved housing, sanitation and water supplies3. Thomas McKeown, Emeritus Professor of Social Medicine in the US stated in the 1970s,  "According to recent World Health Organisation studies on nutrition in the developing countries, the best vaccine against common infectious diseases is an adequate diet"4.

    Scarlet fever was very common at the turn of the century, and had significant mortality rates.  It is rare today, and no vaccine was ever used for it.  Similarly other common plagues which once affected western civilization such as TB, cholera, and typhoid have almost completely disappeared, diseases for which no vaccine has been routinely used.  What is crystal clear from last century, is the fact that since the introduction of vaccines the continuing rates of decline in mortality and morbidity have not altered in any significant degree. The medical profession is being dishonest to suggest, as it does, that vaccines have anything to do with it.

    What about Smallpox?

    On May 8, 1980, it was officially declared that smallpox had been eradicated from the human population, thanks to a "successful vaccination campaign" started by Jenner nearly 200 years before.  This view, commonly held, is untrue on two counts.
    Smallpox declined despite the use of vaccinations, for the same reasons other infectious diseases did before vaccines, sanitation, hygiene, nutrition etc. as listed above.  But many studies done in the 1960s were highly suggestive that the side effects from smallpox vaccines far outweighed the supposed benefits.  The mortality rates from the disease were higher in the vaccinated populations where infants had been vaccinated then boosted later.



    Secondly, the disease has not been eradicated (whether by vaccines or hygiene).   Incidence in human populations has been diminishing, but the virus lives on happily in animal populations. In 1992, the Australian Doctor Weekly (17.07.92) stated that 130 people, mostly children, had died from smallpox in Laos.  There have also been recent deaths in India and Africa from smallpox.
    The graphs above show the modern progression in America of each disease (as you can see, each disease well in decline before any vaccine was introduced).  The arrows show when the vaccine was first used.

    What about the Herd theory?

    The “Herd Immunity theory” suggests that if you vaccinate enough of a population, you can wipe out a disease.  Paediatrician and infectious diseases "expert" Dr Mark Ferson, at the South Eastern Sydney Public Health Unit said "Measles and whooping cough are highly contagious, spread by the airborne route.  To eradicate them you need to vaccinate 95% of the population".5

    This idea (95% of the population needs to be vaccinated in order to eradicate a disease) is pure speculation, and based on dogma (a belief system), not on science. Where is the evidence for such an assertion? The USA has had better than 95% vaccination rates for nearly 35 years now, but rates of infectious disease outbreaks are no different to those in Australia or Great Britain where for years the vaccination rates have been much lower. As in Australia and other vaccinated countries, in the US there are still outbreaks of measles and whooping cough epidemics, in the fully vaccinated part of the population. In fact, figures published by health authorities in the United States show that there were more cases of whooping cough in 1994 than in 1967, more than 10 years before compulsory vaccination began there, when there was much less of the populace vaccinated.  And the death rate from measles in the US has risen more than 1000% of what it was before the measles vaccine was introduced in 1963.  The Herd Theory is unscientific, founded in dogma, and statements like these are one reason why many more people are seeing through the myth of vaccination-mediated immunity.

  2. Doesn’t vaccination mean my child is protected from really serious, life-threatening diseases?

    No.  Immunisation means that, but not vaccination.  We want immunisation from disease.  The issue is, what is the best way to achieve this immunisation.  We assert it is not through vaccination, but through developing a natural immunity.

    But uninformed folk do look to vaccines to 6 provide such protection. In a healthy child, childhood illnesses are very mild occurrences.  Let’s take measles for example. "In healthy, well-nourished children, measles has a low mortality rate unless complications ensue"7. The best protection (immunity) is that which nature confers, that is, by exposure to the wild measles virus (Paramyxovirus).  When this happens, infinitesimally small amounts of antigenic material enter the bloodstream after having passed the normal non-specific immunological barriers, and serves to raise a mild fever, designed by nature to stimulate and fine-tune a developing immune system.  Such an exposure to the wild measles virus will ensure that that person will never again contract measles (called naturally acquired immunity).

    On the other hand, vaccination against the measles virus can never guarantee immunity, as is evidenced by the fact that most measles outbreaks occur in fully vaccinated populations.  At best a vaccine might confer a temporary immunity, but “boosters’ are required, and even then, offer no guarantee. Various studies have shown that only about 50% of children vaccinated against measles for example actually develop measles antibodies. Vaccination can lead to later problems, such as "atypical measles", a more potent hybridized form of measles which can cause serious neurological problems such as panencephalitis, convulsions and death.

    Also emerging now, is an even greater problem for infants being born to mothers who themselves were vaccinated against measles (as children). These mothers are now failing to pass on to their children the immunity which otherwise would have protected the infant in the first few months of life, when they are most vulnerable to measles complications.  It is infants under 6 months of age who after all are at the greatest risk of damage from an infectious disease.  Maternal, non-vaccination conferred, naturally acquired immunity otherwise protects these infants.  So we are starting to see consequences of tampering with nature's ways, and we can expect to see lots more of it sooner or later. 

    Similar observations can be made about whooping cough.  Vaccines do not immunity against whooping cough, as is evident from the fact that since 1970 in the UK, more than 200,000 cases of whooping cough have occurred in fully vaccinated children, as similarly is the case in the US and other places as well.

  3. So what are the problems with vaccinating?

    Vaccinations are both unnecessary, and harmful.  They are unnecessary in that they do not confer promised immunity against infectious disease.  Naturally acquired immunity as provided by millions of years of evolutionary development, or by the hand on an omniscient and benevolent Creator, or both, is designed to convey a natural, adaptable, effective and permanent immunity to the broadest exposure to viruses, bacteria, fungi etc.

    They are also harmful, and can cause both acute and chronic damage.  Which ought not be surprising when you consider that vaccines are real chemical cocktails which, apart from the protein structures of the bugs wished to be recognized by the immune system, can contain such things as "adjuvants".  According to New Scientist (Nov 11, 1996), these can include detergent, oil, aluminium hydroxide.  Also often included are stabilising agents such as formaldehyde (a known carcinogen), thiomersal (contains mercury), aluminium phosphate, ethylene glycol (antifreeze), phenol or carbolic acid (disinfectant/dye), neomycin and streptomycin. Animal parts also might include blood, chick embryo proteins, monkey kidney tissue, aborted human fetus, and even animal virus (dead or alive).  This cocktail is mostly injected directly into the bloodstream, bypassing natural protective defense and immunological structures, so it is little wonder vaccines can cause damage. 

    Such damage can include immediate damage, such as shock, fever, diarrhoea, headaches, hypotonic episodes, fits and convulsions, collapse, and more serious and permanent brain damage, mental retardation, damage to sensory organs, infantile autism, hyperactivity, encephalitis, encephalopathy, and death.  Vaccine manufacturer Merck warns that possible side effects from its measles vaccine are high fever, convulsions, anaphylactic shock, eye problems, complicated skin problems, paralysis, and encephalitis which may result in permanent brain damage and death.

    Such reactions are a regular occurrence, as is demonstrated by the hundreds of millions of dollars paid to victims of vaccine damage in the US alone where there is a compensation scheme.  In a 3 year period to 1994, more than 32,000 serious adverse reactions, and 700 fatalities were reported to the FDA in the US. In Australia and other places where there is no such financial “safety net”, victims have to fend for themselves. It can be difficult to sue a doctor, the system closes ranks to protect doctors who vaccinate, and the process can take 20 years before compensation claims can be heard; but very large monies are being paid, usually in "out of court" settlements, which means it is hushed up.  And this is only for acutely damaged children where a definite link has been established

    As a naturopathic physician my concern is the long-term depression of the immune system which vaccines can cause.  There are several ways this can occur, such as B-cell and T-cell “tolerization”, which means B and T-cells tolerate rather than destroy antigenic material.  If immature B-cells are exposed to massive doses of antigenic material (eg a vaccine), normal maturation of these cells is aborted (clonal abortion); constantly exposing B-cells in immature infants will predispose to massive clonal abortion, which amounts to a killing off of huge numbers of B-cells.  Repeated antigenic challenge with a particular antigen may even cause clonal exhaustion.  All B-cells capable of responding to the antigen are stimulated to differentiate into short-lived antibody-producing cells (the terminal stage for B-cells).  This means that unnecessarily large numbers of B-cells are “used up”, preoccupied with a single (massive) dose antigen, instead of being available for other antigen types later. Since the body only produces a limited number of B-cells, vaccination programs which inject more and more antigenic material can lead to functional depletion of B-cells, a weakened immune system, for the entire life of the vaccinated person.
    T-cell tolerance occurs along similar pathways to B-cell tolerization, however T-cells are tolerized at a 100 - 1000 fold smaller antigen level exposure (i.e. it takes even less antigen to shut them down).  Of special note here are the T-suppressor cells.  The body makes some antibodies, which are capable of attacking the body's own tissue (called auto-antibodies).  In the healthy immune system, T-suppressor cells control these auto-antibodies.  However, where these T-suppressor cells are themselves depleted, via such pathways for example as noted above, then the person becomes predisposed to significant immune deficiency, especially auto-immune diseases, such as juvenile diabetes, RA, MS, SLE, as well as increasing morbidity and mortality of asthma, AIDS, and a host of others.  This possible vaccination connection raises serious questions, given the increasing incidence of auto-immune diseases in vaccinated societies today (the cause of which the medical profession is at a loss to explain).

    The great rise in morbidity and mortality from asthma7 (which was not a fatal disease one hundred years ago), the increasing susceptibility to ear, nose and throat complaints, allergies manifesting in eczema and psoriasis, as well as ADDs, autism, and the vast array of auto-immune diseases such as juvenile diabetes, MS, Lupus, and other serious and often fatal diseases, diseases of "modern civilisation", including some cancers including leukemia and skin cancers (8), has to be looked at in the context of chronically impaired and depressed immunity. Vaccination is one factor, which time and time again has been implicated, in so much medical literature.

    The problem for the scientists and doctors promoting vaccination is that the long term detrimental health effects have never been properly examined.  One New Zealand vaccine manufacturer stated quite openly “…my data proves that the studies used to support vaccination are so flawed that it is impossible to say if vaccination provides a net benefit to anyone or to society in general.  That question can only be determined by proper studies which have never been done (italics mine). The flaw of previous studies is that there was no long term follow up, and chronic toxicity was not looked at”. (9)

    When you try to manipulate nature, or try to go one up on evolution/God, and start pumping any amounts of toxic chemicals into a child from the age of 2 months, into a gut and liver and an immune system which are not fully formed or developed until at least 12 months of age, then it ought not surprise you if there are serious side effects, and it becomes doubtful if the immune system will ever gain a mature strength. One may well become subject to a lifetime of immune deficiency, with susceptibility to all sorts of bugs and diseases, with concomitant antibiotic usage and other medical interventions, with all the health problems that brings. This is what we are seeing today. The cost in human sickness and suffering is inestimable.<

So how can parents ensure healthy immunity system for their child?

Firstly, the term "immunisation" is a moot point.  Do vaccines achieve immunisation (i.e. raising the consciousness and capacity of the immune system)? The term "immunisation" is a misnomer; whether vaccines in fact confer immunity or even help at all, is very much a point of debate. Whilst stimulating the immune system might be the aim of vaccination, what we see from both clinical experience, and emerging in the medical literature, is that vaccinations simply confuse, and even damage the immune system, and if immunity is conferred in some cases, it is of limited duration. Only antibody testing of the individual child could determine it.

There is really only one appropriate way to ensure proper immunity, and that is to honor Nature by following the laws of good health, as outlined above and reiterated here.  Provide the child with a healthy fetal environment, a proper breastfeeding program, a hypo-allergenic weaning program, the best fresh fruit, vegetables and herb diet, (avoiding the foods which are detrimental to a healthy immune system), adequate exposure to sunshine and fresh air, clean water to drink, a happy home environment (stress minimisation), and lots of healthy exercise, and avoid internal contamination by chemicals whether from the air, water, food or pharmaceuticals. Supplementation for mother whilst breastfeeding, with some specific immune-enhancing vitamins, minerals and herbs are also valuable, to compensate for less than perfect environmental factors. 

Immunity against disease is developed as children are exposed to the natural environment.  We live in a world of “bugs”, and our immune systems naturally know how best to live with them.  Why do human infants crawl before they walk?  Baby calves and foals are literally running around within hours of their birth, not so with us.  Why?  Because we need to crawl around in the dirt, to expose our immune systems to the bugs we have to live with for the rest of our lives, and through such exposure, mediated via the complexity of our body’s intricate defense and immunological mechanisms, we develop a natural immunity, so that as long as we live, and provide our bodies with the proper health requirements as listed in the paragraph above, we can rely on our immune systems to defend us appropriately.  I am a good example of this, I was never vaccinated against anything, not even tetanus, I got the “usual childhood illnesses” such as measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, whooping cough, all mild diseases with mild fevers as my body built a natural immunity, and I have enjoyed good health free the fear of disease or the need for any antibiotics ever since.  This is what Nature provides for us all.  There is nothing to match naturally acquired immunity.  Why settle for something less for your children?

In Conclusion

Fear motivation is being practiced by the medical community re vaccinations. Fear motivation itself is highly questionable as a legitimate motivation for anything. Why is the medical fraternity so afraid of their patients finding out for themselves the "cons" as well as the supposed "pros" of vaccinations?  Why is the debate being stifled?  Truth bears a full, open, honest and unemotional investigation, does it not?  Who is hiding what here?
At the end of the day, you really have to make a choice, whether to vaccinate or not.  That choice ought to depend on the full possession of the facts, and parents will demonstrate a degree of irresponsibility if they simply allow Governments to dictate, or go with the “doctor knows best” syndrome without looking at both sides of this important question as dispassionately as possible.  Parents who, in possession of the facts, decide not to vaccinate, ought to be praised for their courage in the face of oppression, for they indeed are the ones taking responsibility for the future health and well being of their children.

Vaccination is certainly a "questionable procedure", as it attempts to supersede Nature's endowments, namely the benefits of natural, acquired immunity.  It is questionable in its philosophy of regarding bugs as the enemy, and it is questionable as to its outcome, as to whether vaccines confer immunity or not, as well as to the hazards of polluting an (internal) environment which much better looks after itself when good health practices are followed, and when it is not polluted.
If you want more information, and references to much of the material contained in this section, refer to the library available free on-line at www.naturalhealth.com



1. Whilst we may live longer (a proposition which is debatable), we are definitely not healthier today, despite the trillions of dollars spent on research and "healthcare" each year.  Is one too cynical to say, that it seems more people make a living from cancer than die from it?  It is certainly true in regards to vaccinations; vaccines are worth billions of dollars, to R&D scientists, manufacturers, governments and doctors.

2.Knudtson, Peter and Suzuki, David Wisdom of the Elders (1992) Allen and Unwin, Sydney pp43 ff

3.Understand also that many of these diseases may have natural life cycles spanning decades or even centuries. 

4.McKeown, Professor Thomas  as quoted in Dangers of Immunisation (1979:20)

5.As quoted in Get Into Life Autumn 1997 p.6

6.The Merck Manual  p. 2167 (16th edition, 1992), standard text for medical people

7.Dr Michael Odent (Lancet July 1994) says that studies show that asthma is 500% more common in children who have been previously vaccinated with Pertussis (part of our DTP triple antigen)

8. As early as 1976 the journal ‘Cancer’ (March;1(4):225-30 raised the prospect of vaccinia viral connections with cancers

9.Personal letter to Karin Schumacher of the Vaccine Information and Awareness Group (USA), 1996 

If you need some help, Book a consultation with Adrian about your health concerns (CLICK HERE)
  2010 - 2015 © Adrian Jones Naturopath   Global Star Services