The Immunisation Dilemma – Part Two

Summary

Two fundamental questions regarding the long-term safety of immunisation options will be investigated. Homoeoprophylaxis is nontoxic, but does the use of a long-term programme disturb the subtle bodies? Vaccination is potentially toxic and short-term adverse events are documented, but has the long-term safety of vaccination been adequately quantified? The long-term energetic effects of homoeoprophylaxis programmes have not been extensively studied. One identified English-language study is critically reviewed and findings, limitations and implications are examined. No definitive, long-term studies have been published comparing the holistic (intellectual, emotional and physical) health of appropriately matched and aged, fully vaccinated and completely unvaccinated children. As well, methodological limitations of existing studies have been identified. Four small but comprehensive studies provide data, which shows that there are evidentiary questions regarding long-term vaccine safety. Potentially significant personal and economic consequences of vaccination, as well as vaccination compliance issues, are identified. It is recommended that national health authorities and independent researchers should address these issues to facilitate a truly scientific comparison of immunisation options by parents as well as governments.

Key words

Homoeoprophylaxis - Immunisation - Vaccination - Prevention - Evidence - Long-term safety

• References

• 1 Hahnemann S. The Cure and Prevention of Scarlet Fever. Lesser Writings. New Delhi: B Jain; 1986: 369
• 2 Golden I. The Potential Value of Homoeoprophylaxis in the Long-term Prevention of Infectious Diseases, and the Maintenance of General Health in Recipients. Melbourne: GSIM, Swinburne University of Technology; 2004
• 3 Smith PJ, Chu SY, Barker LE. Children who have received no vaccines: Who are they and where do they live?. Pediatrics 2004; 114: 187-195
• 4 Brown KF, Kroll JS, Hudson MJ et al. Factors underlying parental decisions about combination childhood vaccinations including MMR: a systematic review. Vaccine 2010; 28: 4235-4248
• 5 Science in Public. Media Release. 50 % of Australians who oppose vaccination get their information from the Internet (23/05/2013). Online: http://www.scienceinpublic.com.au/media-releases/vaccinationsurvey accessed 11/02/2014
• 6 NSW Department of Health. Homeopathic Immunisation (2005). Online: http://www.health.nsw.gov.au/policies/ [accessed April 6, 2014]
• 7 Betsch C, Sachse K. Debunking vaccination myths: strong risk negations can increase perceived vaccination risks. Health Psychol 2013; 32: 146-155
• 8 Golden I. Vaccination & Homoeoprophylaxis? A Review of Risks and Alternatives. 7th ed. Gisborne, Victoria: Isaac Golden Publications; 2010: 164
• 9 Schmitz R, Poethko-Müller C, Reiter S et al. Vaccination status and health in children and adolescents. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2011; 108: 99-104
• 10 Madsen KM, Hviid A, Vestergaard M et al. A population-based study of measles, mumps, and rubella vaccination and autism. N Engl J Med 2002; 347: 1477-1482
• 11 Madsen KM, Lauristen MB, Person CB et al. Thimerosal and the occurrence of autism: negative ecological evidence from Danish population-based data. Pediatrics 2003; 112: 604-606
• 12 Trelka JA, Hooker BS. More on Madsenʼs analysis. Correspondence. J Am Physicians and Surgeons 2004; 9: 101
• 13 Email 13/11/2002 from M.B. Lauristen to P. Thorsen and K. M. Madsen. Subject: Manuscript about Thimerosal and Autism.
• 14 Institute of Medicine, National Academy of Sciences. Washington DC. Adverse effects of vaccines: evidence and causality (2011). Online: http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=13164&page=114 [accessed April 6, 2014]
• 15 Smeeth L, Cook C, Fombonne PE et al. MMR vaccination and pervasive developmental disorders: a case-control study. Lancet 2004; 364: 963-969
• 16 Taylor B, Miller E, Farrington CP et al. Autism and measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine: no epidemiological evidence for a causal association. Lancet 1999; 353: 2026-2029
• 17 Farrington CP, Miller E, Taylor B. MMR and autism: further evidence against a causal association. Vaccine 2001; 19: 3632-3635
• 18 Hahnemann S. Organon of Medicine. Footnote 103. New Delhi: B Jain; 1985
• 19 McGauran N, Wieseler B, Kreis J et al. Reporting bias in medical research – a narrative review. Trials 2010; 11: 37 http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/37%3c/REFCMT%3e Available at www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/37
• 20 Krzyzanowska MK, Pintilie M, Tannock IF et al. Factors associated with failure to publish large randomized trials presented at an oncology meeting. JAMA 2003; 290: 495-501
• 21 Odent M, Calpin E, Kimmel T et al. Atopic eczema. Lancet 1994; 344: 140
• 22 Odent M, Culpin EE, Kimmel T. Pertussis vaccination and asthma: Is there a link?. JAMA 1994; 272: 592-593
• 23 Tenpenny S. Generation Rescue. Cal-oregan vaccinated vs. unvaccinated survey (2007). Online: http://drtenpenny.com/vaccinated_vs_unvaccinated_survey.aspx [accessed March 3, 2013]
• 24 Bachmair A. State of health of unvaccinated children (2012). Online: http://www.vaccineinjury.info/ [accessed April 6, 2014]
• 25 Ioannidis JPA. Why most published research findings are false. PLoS Med 2005; 2: e124
• 26 Golden I. Beyond randomised controlled trials – evidence in complementary medicine. J Evid Based Complementary Altern Med 2012; 17: 7 DOI: 10.1177/2156587211429351.
• 27 Walach H, Falkenberg T, Fonnebo V et al. Circular instead of hierarchical: methodological principles for the evaluation of complex interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol 2006; 6: 29
• 28 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Chronic Disease and Associated Risk Factors in Australia. Cat. no. PHE 81. Canberra: AIHW; 2006: 4
• 29 Australian Centre for Asthma Monitoring. Health Care Expenditure and the Burden of Disease Due to Asthma in Australia. Cat. no. ACM 5. Canberra: AIHW; 2005: Page XI
• 30 Australian Institute of Health and Welfare. Australiaʼs Health 2010. Australiaʼs Health Series no.12. Cat. no. AUS 122. Canberra: AIHW; 2010: 184