Homeopathic View of Vaccination

[Guest guest]

I disagree as well that vaccines are homeopathic. Homeopathy means

likes cure likes. Which means you take the unique symptoms of the

person presenting, and then find the remedy that matches those

symptoms. Vaccines if you had to give it a name, is more isotherapy,

same " cures " same (and that is being generous with the word,

cure...) Not everyone with the flu is going to need the same remedy,

so if it is homeopathic, how can they " need " the same vaccine??

Misty L. Trepke

http://www..com

 

The Homeopathic View of Vaccination

http://www.lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnline/issue2/voice2.html

 

Twentieth Century Homeopathic Perspectives

 

The next major statements on homeopathy and vaccination came with the

classic textbooks of Close and Roberts in the first half of the 20th

century. Neither spent a great deal of time on the issue, focusing

more on the harm they saw resulting from vaccination in clinical

practice. They disagree on whether vaccine therapy is an application

of the law of similars. Close argued against vaccination on the

grounds that it harms in the way it is administered. He did not go

into the detail that Burnett devoted to the topic, but the message is

quite clear: vaccination may be based on the concept of similars, but

its method is faulty and dangerous.

 

Homeopathy is opposed to the methods of vaccine and serum therapy,

although it is claimed by many that these methods are based upon the

homeopathic principle. It grants that this may be true so far as the

underlying principle is concerned, but opposes the method of applying

the principle as being a violation of sound, natural principles of

medication and productive of serious injury to the living organism.

It has been proven experimentally and clinically that such methods

are unnecessary, and that the results claimed by their advocates can

be attained more safely, more rapidly and more thoroughly by the

administration of the homeopathically indicated medicines in sub-

physiological doses, through the natural channels of the body, than

by introducing it forcibly by means of the hypodermic needle

or in any other way. (Stuart Close, M.D., The Genius of Homeopathy:

Lectures and Essays on Homeopathic Philosophy, p. 20)

Roberts espoused Hahnemann's later view that using disease tissue is

isopathy, not homeopathy, and, thus, that the use of vaccines is not

an example of the law of similars in action, but of the law of

identities or isopathy (see Herbert A. Roberts, The Principles and

Art of Cure by Homeopathy: A Modern Textbook, 1936, p. 16). Roberts

saw vaccination as harmful and behind the plague of cancer already

starting to emerge in his day.

 

George Vithoulkas, in his more modern, The Science of Homeopathy,

presents a detailed explanation of why vaccination is a disease agent

leading to the same shock to the vital force as a severe illness or

allopathic drug. He states that vaccination is not homeopathic

because it is not individualized. He does not argue specifically that

the administration of a material substance is at fault, but this is

implied. He sets out an interpretation of each of three possible

reactions to vaccination: mild reaction, strong reaction, and very

strong reaction. The mild reaction or no reaction means the vital

force is not strong enough to resist the shock. The strong

reaction suggests that the vital force is able to successfully

overcome the shock of the vaccine but is then not " protected " by the

vaccination (although this " protection " consists or an artificial

suppression of the person's natural susceptibility to a disease

agent). The very strong reaction means that there is a great

susceptibility, but that the vital force is not strong enough to

overcome the shock and serious damage occurs.

 

Vithoulkas argues that the cases of illness after vaccination that

Burnett saw with smallpox are repeated by modern homeopaths with

vaccines against rabies, influenza, typhoid, tetanus, etc. (George

Vithoulkas, The Science of Homeopathy, 1980, p. 116). Vithoulkas

cites one case where a woman was successfully treated and then

received a smallpox vaccination for a foreign trip. Her case relapsed

and did not respond any remedies until a dose of the nosode,

Variolinum, made from smallpox, removed the blockage caused by

the vaccination.

 

Vithoulkas, basing his opinions on Burnett's work, has given the

clearest homeopathic statement on vaccination to date. Since Burnett,

it has been widely accepted in homeopathy that the predisposition to

vaccination shock lies in the sycotic miasm. Homeopathic practice

essentially now recognizes that a patient may experience significant

changes in health following vaccination and should be treated

for " never been well since vaccination. "

 

Another contemporary voice on vaccination within the homeopathic

community is Dr. Richard Moskowitz, who concludes from his experience

and observation:

 

 

It is dangerously misleading, and, indeed, the exact opposite of the

truth to claim that a vaccine makes us 'immune' or protects us

against an acute disease, if in fact it only drives the disease

deeper into the interior and causes us to harbor it chronically, with

the result that our responses to it become progressively weaker, and

show less and less tendency to heal or resolve themselves

spontaneously. This view was expressed in the March 1983 issue of the

Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy and later reprinted

as a pamphlet, The Case Against Immunizations.