Latest articles
→ The Many Dangers of the Swine Flu Scare
→ How to Measure Treatment Success Through Sleep and Dreams
→ Why Dreams Are Valuable in Homeopathic Diagnosis and Treatment
The Many Dangers of the Swine Flu Scare

One of the basic principles of homeopathy is that there are two types of disease: chronic and acute. Whereas acute illnesses (mainly infectious diseases and traumas) are normally considered as independent phenomena by the scientific medical philosophy, in homeopathy it is recognized that many acute illnesses are exacerbations of underlying chronic illnesses. The current Swine flu scare can be thought of as an acute exacerbation of the ‘chronic illness’ which is the belief that infectious diseases were conquered thanks to vaccinations: it is simply a product of the mistaken belief that vaccination has been the key player in reducing the impact of infectious diseases in modern society.
The homeopathic perspective on vaccinations shares with naturopathic medicine the principle of valuing the ‘healing power of nature’ (the body’s intrinsic defence mechanisms) as the forefront — along with traditional hygienic measures — in the battle against infectious disease. Clinically proven vaccines may be indicated in certain high-risk situations where hygiene is defective and cannot be corrected, or in specific high-risk subpopulations. But the flu vaccine has never been properly tested, and the Swine flu vaccine has completely bypassed traditional testing mechanisms, all in the name of a presumed emergency.
To vaccinate or not to vaccinate?
The question of whether or not to vaccinate should be asked about each vaccine specifically. In the case of the Swine flu vaccine the answer is straightforward: each of us is free to choose to receive an unproven, potentially harmful treatment promoted by the pharmaceutical lobby, or to rely on time-tested practices or well-researched alternative treatments. In the interest of promoting a conscious decision on the matter, I would like to share the following thoughts about influenza and vaccinations in general:
- The science behind vaccine research is not as clear-cut as it is presented by medical media. Medical doctors are often just as much influenced by media reports and by patient demand which as said may be based on misinformation. Because the flu virus is constantly evolving, the actual ability of the latest vaccine (whether conventional or H1N1 flu) to confer protection can only be guessed. Besides, not every ‘flu’ is due to the flu virus: there are other viruses that cause flu-like symptoms. Past history of flu vaccines shows that sometimes vaccinated individuals were more rather than less likely to get the flu. A broad-spectrum approach based on hygiene and immune boosting clearly has the potential of being more reliable if properly pursued.
- Historically speaking, vaccinations were typically introduced when diseases were already on the wane due to improved living conditions, nutrition, sanitation, heating, etc., and have never been proven to have been the main contributors to the decline or elimination of those diseases as if often claimed by vaccination advocates. For example, the 1918 Spanish flu epidemic arrived in the wake of World War I, with many populations depleted from several years of war and related economic stress. Other factors such as the lack of antibiotics (which hadn’t yet been discovered) further muddle the picture. Therefore comparing then and now makes for good polemics but is not scientifically responsible.
- The cost-benefit ratio of vaccines — whether the protection conferred by the vaccine outweighs any potential harm from it — varies depending on the population: in populations where infectious disease is the main cause of morbidity or mortality (third-world countries, immuno-compromised, elderly, etc.) such use may be justified, but in populations where chronic disease dominates, or in relatively healthy individuals, such use may be unjustified. This is because vaccinations carry known and unknown side-effects, some of which only become manifest years later; although the medical establishment often dismisses such claims, based on the collective experience of the naturopathic and homeopathic professions the short-term side-effects of vaccinations are under-reported, and their long-term effects have been poorly researched to date. This is especially true in the case of the flu vaccine which is constantly altered to match the current form of the virus and applied widely shortly thereafter.
- For a reasonably healthy individual the flu is rarely dangerous, and vaccinations often fail to produce an immune response in precisely those individuals for whom the flu would be dangerous, because their immune system is unresponsive to begin with. There are immune-boosting methods that reduce the risks of the flu, such as vitamins C and D and immune-boosting herbs and mushrooms such as Astragalus and Reishi. Traditional hygienic practices are especially important during the flu season.
- Chronic avoidance of the flu may have negative long-term consequences, because periodic exposure to the virus may be a crucial component in the maintenance of a healthy immune system. An interesting observation is that individuals afflicted with severe chronic illnesses such as cancer, schizophrenia, epilepsy, and multiple sclerosis often have a prior history of absence of acute illnesses (including the flu, colds, and fevers).
- Vaccination has been observed clinically to be associated with lowered overall health and vitality: while a vaccine may confer protection from a specific disease, this may be at the cost of leaving the organism more vulnerable to other disease agents. In the long term this strategy produces increased dependence on external protection from disease agents, and may produce developmental delays. In the case of children, there are serious concerns about the long-term safety of vaccinations, and at any rate children that are allowed to experience acute illnesses naturally (so long as they can be guaranteed access to both conventional and complementary treatments) are observed to develop better than average, often undergoing a spurt of development following an acute illness. Thus at least in the Western world where hygiene is up to par and access to medical care is universally available, vaccinations are not the most reasonable, cutting-edge solution to infectious diseases.
- Environmentally speaking, vaccination encourages faster mutation of the flu virus, because viruses evolve to adapt to the changing environment imposed by anti-flu vaccinated populations. This may have unknown adverse public-health consequences in the long term, potentially upsetting the evolutionary balance between the flu virus and the human population.
- The naturopathic approach to flu prevention relies on improving the overall health of the organism through various material or spiritual means: improved lifestyle and nutrition, judicious use of herbs and nutritional supplements, constitutional homeopathic treatment, and so on. The long-term side-effects of this approach include increased vitality, happiness and fulfilment, and resistance to a wide array of diseases. Philosophically speaking, naturopathic medicine discourages a fear-based approach to medicine, instead encouraging individuals to address overall health and vitality so as to minimize the risk when exposed to any strain of the flu.
- Most ominously, it seems that the Swine flu scare has been manufactured by the pharmaceutical lobby, which has convinced the governments worldwide to purchase vast quantities of vaccines. Reports about complications or deaths from the Swine flu are mostly unsubstantiated, because the majority of people are not tested for the identity of the virus they carry, or because such occurrences may not be any more frequent than during other (regular) flu seasons. These vaccines, though mostly not yet delivered, will, it seems, be used on schedule regardless of whether the Swine flu turns out to be unusually virulent. For the time being it appears to be mildly more dangerous than the regular flu, not any more virulent, and on path to becoming nothing more than yet another variant on the seasonal flu; no pandemic is or ever was in sight. Therefore it remains incumbent on the individual to decide whether to support such practices by getting vaccinated or to vote against them by refusing to do so. Meanwhile, falling for the Swine flu scare may result in unnecessary complications from unproven vaccinations, in relying on an ineffective vaccination instead of pursuing more reliable alternatives, and in emergency wards overflowing with minor cases and thereby preventing patients who truly experience serious complications from the flu (a regular occurrence during every flu season) from receiving proper treatment.
Further reading
The following is an excellent, level-headed article on the history of the flu vaccine and the status of the evidence for it: “Does the Vaccine Matter?”
The following series of articles from NaturalNews.com start with the Swine flu vaccine and go on to address vaccination in general from a US anti-governmental, anti-corporate perspective:
Part 1, Part 2, Part 3, Part 4, Part 5, Part 6.
In a similar vein, this audio from Mercola.com discusses the circumstances surrounding the declaration of a health emergency issued by the US Government in late October 2009.
Speak your mind: Share your thoughts on this article by publishing your comment below.
1 Comment: (Click here to add a comment)
I just came across this info, that may add more to what has been noted in the blog:
Here is the press release (but note that it only pertains to the vaccine Pandemrix; some countries may use different vaccines):
Press release of the German Professional Association of Environmental Medicine (Deutscher Berufsverband der Umweltmediziner – DBU).
October 26, 2009
Swine flu [H1N1] vaccine is unsuitable for patients with chronic multi-system illnesses. Pandemrix® poses substantial health risk with respect to mass immunization programs due to the lack of proof of safety. Because of the producer’s release from liability by the German Federal Government (BRD), the risk of adverse reactions and/or permanent damage due to the vaccine rests with the patient.
The German Professional Association of Environmental Medicine (DBU) has, in spite of press releases from the BRD, the Paul-Ehrlich-Institute, as well as the vaccine producer’s assurances of safety, serious concerns relating to Pandemrix® (GlaxoSmithKline), the only vaccine which has been approved for mass vaccination by the BRD.
The DBU discusses at this point neither the medical use of immunization in general nor the necessity of such measures in the, up until now, mild course of the swine flu pandemic.
Our criticism is directed only against the pandemic vaccine Pandemrix®.
There exists considerable doubt as to the effectiveness of the vaccine: during the licensing phase, the vaccine tested had a 40% higher portion of virus antigen (5. 25µg) than the vaccine (3.75µg) now being delivered. An unequivocal consensus has not been reached as to whether the vaccination should be given once or twice a season.
There exists considerable doubt concerning the safety of the adjuvanted active amplifier since it is being used for the first time. The vaccine contains 27.4mg AS03, an emulsion of polysorbate, squalene and tocopherol. Sufficient studies are lacking, because in the test phase, only the development of antibody titers was determined as a surrogate criterion, and not any potential adverse reactions.
The producer as well as government agencies have concealed the fact that squalene, if used subcutaneously or intramuscularly is an inflammatory immune activation immunogen, unlike when ingested. (Squalene is, among other things, for example, naturally contained in olive oil.)
Autoimmune diseases can be provoked by squalene; already existing ones can be activated. Squalene has been connected with the emergence of Guillan-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and is now considered a trigger for Gulf War Syndrome (GWS). In animal studies squalene brought on rheumatoid arthritis.
Squalene from food sources is mainly incorporated into membranes in the body. The production of squaline antibodies resulting from an immunization sets off chronic inflammation of the membranes, which explains diseases such as Gulf War Syndrome and also degenerative neurological diseases such as Multiple Sclerosis, Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis, Chronic Inflammatory Demyelinating Polyneuropathy and Guillan-Barré Syndrome.
The delivery of vaccine in multiple dose ampules is obsolete. In single dose ampules the mercury used for preservation, as in thimerosal – which is included in Pandemrix – would be unnecessary. Also, mercury has been proven to set off autoimmune diseases.
Since the vaccine has not been tested on either young children or pregnant women (Ethics Commission objection), the call to give preference in the first phase of vaccination to precisely this particularly endangered segment of the population represents an improper and totally unjustifiable field test.
The vaccine poses a higher risk than the swine flu itself for patients with environmental illness and for patients with compromised immune systems (e.g. AIDS).
The vaccine producer GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), according to the contract with the BRD, is largely exempt from liability. In case of damage from the vaccination, the affected vaccinee would have to sue the government and therefore the country of Germany, usually a futile exercise.
To avoid the trap of liability, the doctor giving the vaccination must meticulously inform the patient of all risks concerning the vaccination and the vaccine. It is recommended to give this information in the presence of an assistant and to have it be confirmed by the patient’s signature. The explanation should also include the liability features. Also the indication that other, lower risk vaccines are available in Europe and that due to a faulty decision by the German government, they are currently not available to the German population. This information should definitely be included in the explanation.
For general and environmental health considerations the DBU urgently advises against carrying out a vaccination with Pandemrix®.
Dr.med. Hans-Peter Donate for the board of the German Professional Association of Environmental Medicine (DBU)
Read related articles:
↓ Fill out this form to leave a comment:
- If you have a question or comment unrelated to the article above please e-mail me instead.
- As a spam-prevention measure, comments will appear only after they are approved, usually within a day.



