Immunization Options: A Middle Way - Dr Isaac Golden - Part 2

Part 1 described some ways in which the integrity of our medical system is being compromised, in particular from the inherently corrupt influence of Big Pharma on modern medicine. I had yet another personal experience of the extent of this influence in March, just after Part 1 was sent to the Editor. I was phoned by a young lady from a Sydney radio station who was presenting a discussion on immunisation later that day. They had also asked a senior official from the Australian Medical Association to speak. I was asked if I would be prepared to discuss this issue with the other guest or on my own if he preferred, and I said I was happy either way - the station producer said how much they were looking forward to the segment.  Then literally 5 minutes before the show was due to air I received another call from a now much less happy producer who said that I was no longer invited to speak. Something similar has happened on a number of occasions, as it has with journalists who had approached me wanting to write an even-handed article about immunisation, only to be told by senior management not to proceed. 

A simple question arises from such situations: if orthodox health authorities are so certain of the truth of what they tell parents about vaccination, then why are they intentionally suppressing debate about evidence, and why do they feel a need to prevent free speech? Do they really feel that the average Australian is so stupid that they need bureaucratic protection from thinking for themselves?

Health officials may reply that they are doing it to protect the general community against irresponsible and misinformed “vaccine skeptics” who place the health of the entire community at risk. But IF those parents who choose not to vaccinate were supported to immunise homoeopathically, then herd immunity would improve and the numbers of unimmunised children would be even lower than before. Further, there are many more parents who do not vaccinate their children through simple neglect or who, because of language difficulties are not aware of free programs, than those who choose not to vaccinate because of their own research. Recent data suggests that around 75,000 out of 2,216,383 under 7y/o are not fully vaccinated (3.8%), especially in more affluent suburbs of Sydney and Melbourne, plus other pockets around the country such as Byron Bay. Whilst exact figures are not available it may be estimated that around 25,000 children are homeopathically immunised and 50,000 are not protected using either vaccination or homoeoprophylaxis.

We know that homoeoprophylaxis (HP) is non-toxic so the crucial question is “does it work?” Put simply, there is no point in using something which is safe if it doesn’t work. There are four types of evidence now available.

 

Evidence of the Effectiveness of Homoeoprophylaxis

(i) Historical Evidence: Vaccination was first used in 1796 and HP was first used in 1798. There is over 200 years of recorded clinical evidence showing the real-world effectiveness. The founder of Homeopathy, Dr Samuel Hahnemann, was the first to use HP in epidemic situations and it has been used by many masters of homeopathy since then. However much of this information is not collected into statistical studies and does not suggest rates of effectiveness. It has practical value, but we shall next examine statistical studies.

(ii) Epidemic Studies: There have been a number of studies published in English describing the effectiveness of HP in epidemic conditions. Most have found an effectiveness of around 90%. The most thorough study in English undertaken by orthodox practitioners and scientists was from a region in Brazil in 1998 where there was an outbreak of meningococcal meningitis type B. There was no vaccine available so a group of doctors who worked in the region’s hospitals used the meningococcal Nosode to immunize 65,826 children. Another 23,539 children in the region were not immunized. The doctors followed the two groups for 12 months. The efficacy of homoeoprophylaxis was 95% after six months and 91% after 12 months. It was a complete and statistically rigorous report and was published in a leading peer reviewed Homeopathic journal, and is available for study[i] .

(iii) Long-term Endemic Studies:  My own research into a long-term HP program for use against potentially serious infectious diseases commonly present in the Australian community collected and examined data from 1986 to 2004. The research used responses from parents whose children used my 5 year homoeoprophylaxis program for disease prevention from 1985 to 2004. 2,342 responses were collected, each one covering one year of a child's life. The single figure measure of effectiveness was 90.4% (95% confidence limits 87.6% - 93.2%). Using national attack rates as a de-facto control, HP efficacy for three diseases was whooping cough – 86.2%; measles – 90.0%; mumps – 91.6%.

It is important to note that no one piece of research on its own can ever provide sufficient information – but a base of research is made up of individual studies and allows researchers to see if there is consistency in findings from a variety of independent studies. This is where this part of my research is relevant – it shows a consistency of findings over a variety of studies of around 90% effectiveness.

(iv) Regional and National Experience:  Most studies have been in limited numbers of people, but recently we now have evidence involving the use of HP in millions of people in Cuba and India.

 

The Cuban Experience
Because of the 50 year USA embargo on Cuba it has needed to become self-sufficient in medical education and medical supplies. In fact recent data shows that Cuba now has a lower infant mortality rate than the USA, a real credit for a country which has a per-head GPD (a measure of wealth) of 1/4th of that in the USA. The Finlay Institute in Cuba is a W.H.O. registered vaccine manufacturer and supplies vaccines to South America and Africa. The people who led the HP interventions described below were not homeopaths but orthodox scientists and doctors.

In October and November 2007, three provinces of the eastern region of Cuba were affected by strong rainfalls causing widespread floods severe damage to sanitary and health systems. The risk of leptospirosis infection was raised to extremely dangerous levels with about 2 million of people exposed to potentially contaminated water. The Finlay Institute homeopathically prepared a leptospira nosode 200 CH using 4 circulating strains and following international quality standards. A multidisciplinary team travelled to the affected regions to conduct the massive administration of the nosode. Prevention consisted of two doses (7- 9 days apart) of the nosode to over 2.2 million of people (4.5 million doses). The coverage of the intervention rose up to 95% of total population of the three provinces most at risk.

The epidemiology surveillance after the intervention showed a dramatic decrease of morbidity two weeks after and a reduction to zero mortality of hospitalized patients. The number of confirmed leptospirosis cases remained below the expected levels according to the rainfall totals. A reinforcing application of nearly 4,500,000 doses was given in 2008 after the hit of the hurricane IKE but using the nosode potentized to 10M CH. Strict epidemiologic surveillance was carried out on the targeted provinces. Published results show that the incidence of the disease was unchanged in the three intervened regions (the 3 regions most at risk due to the greatest level of hurricane damage), but rose significantly in the rest of the country where the HP program was not used. It provided overwhelming evidence of the effectiveness of the HP intervention.

I am returning to Cuba for the 4th time in August 2014 to work with Dr Bracho at the Finlay Institute on their latest data, such as their new HP immunisation against Dengue Fever (for which there is no vaccine available), and the findings will be released in 2015.

The leptospirosis immunization program undertaken by the Finlay Institute cost around $400,000US. It indicates that the entire population of Australia could be homoeopathically immunised for around $10,000,000. This cost applies for homeopathic immunization against any infectious disease. In 2009, the Australian Government spent $200,000,000 to purchase vaccines (mostly unused) against Swine Flu. In fact, most of this expenditure could have been saved using homeopathic immunization against Swine Flu, and this calculation can be repeated many times given the large vaccination schedule now current in Australia. But further, the homeopathic option is non-toxic, and would remove the risk of using a little tested vaccine. We know in America when mass Swine Flu vaccination was previously used that people died from the vaccine and hundreds were permanently damaged, costing the American Government billions in compensation. In 2009/10 the Cuban Government directed the Finlay Institute to homeopathically immunise the entire country over 12 months of age against Swine Flu in 2009/10 (over 9.8 million people). During my 2012 visit we examined influenza figures for the incidence of Swine Flu – there were no cases.

 

The Indian Experience
For many years the disease Japanese Encephalitis has been endemic in parts of India. In Andhra Pradesh province in 1999 cases had risen to 1,036, with 203 deaths, principally in children. The Government directed medical homeopaths to immunise children in the province 14 years and under, roughly 20 million young people. A three year program was begun in 1999, and by 2003 both notifications and deaths had fallen to zero. Comparing this experience with provinces surrounding Andhra Pradesh which had not used HP showed that the incidence of Japanese Encephalitis remained high in these other provinces. The Government-directed intervention was once again an unambiguous success, and showed the potential value of HP as a safe, comparably effective, and a cost-effective option to vaccination.

The great shame is that these options are not being examined by orthodox health authorities in an impartial and scientific manner which could lead to fewer children left unprotected against potentially dangerous infectious diseases in our community. The pharmaceutical lobby will simply not allow it – they fear that to do so would threaten the basis of their industry. Yet in other countries around the world where Big Pharma does not dominate the health system we find that these medicines being used to the great benefit of all.

 

Conclusions

Big Pharma has not been allowed to trade openly in Cuba due to the American embargo. This has forced the Cuban health system to be independent. This has resulted in a relatively poor country having one of the highest numbers of doctors per head of population in the world. It has meant that Cuban patients have access to whatever form of therapy their doctor deems most appropriate whether it be pharmaceutical, herbal, acupuncture, nutritional medicine, or homoeopathy. As a result the average Cuban, whilst not enjoying a high level of economic wealth, enjoys the benefits of a readily accessible health system which provides comprehensive and effective therapies for general health problems. The Cuban health system achieves high performance at modest cost.

It is hoped that one day Australia may have political leaders who are made aware of the pernicious influence of Big Pharma, and see beyond the advice given to them by people who are so conflicted. Australia could develop a system of integrative medicine which would lead the Western world. Such a system would begin to lower the level of chronic illness in this country, and would begin to lower the enormous economic burden of a National health system which aspires to cover every citizen but which at the moment struggles to do so and which, like the systems in many developed countries, is becoming simply unaffordable.

Instead, in Australia the peak medical body the NH&MRC has attacked homeopathy as being ineffective based on a rigidly defined academic study which explicitly excluded health creation (as opposed to disease reduction), excluded disease prevention, excluded consideration of the economic cost-benefits of homeopathy, and defined acceptable evidence in such a way that some of the best studies on homeopathy were excluded. The NH&MRC have signalled that they will eventually do the same with all other complementary medicines. Further, the NH&MRC and other medical bodies criticise those parents who homeopathically immunise their children against potentially serious infectious diseases to avoid possibly damaging the intellectual, emotional and/or physical health of their child. They don’t realise that these parents are not “doing nothing” – they are immunising their children and are at least as responsible and caring as are parents who vaccinate.

We are indeed a lucky country, and we indeed have the potential to enjoy a health system which is much more affordable and much more effective than what we presently have. We should use the best of orthodox medicine which has made brilliant technical advances in some areas of health, particularly in emergency medicine and surgery. We should use drugs when they are life-saving and truly necessary. We should move towards a system where patients feel no hesitation to consult their family GP as well as accredited complimentary medicine practitioners, and not be afraid to tell their GP what they are doing. We should move towards a system where parents can freely choose between vaccination and homeopathic immunisation to protect their children against potentially serious infectious diseases, as this will increase national immunisation coverage and reduce the incidence of vaccine damage. It would be a win-win for all except Big Pharma and their apologists.

 

Click here to read Part 1

 

See Isaac live in Toronto August 10, 2014! Click here for details and to register!


[i] Mroninski C, Adriano E, Mattos G (2001) Meningococcinum: Its protective effect against meningococcal disease. Homoeopathic Links Winter Vol 14(4); pp. 230-4.