homeopaths and vaccinations

[brodski]

I am currently trying to understand as much as I can about Homeopathic philosophy and how homeopathic practitioners relate this to eth real world.

I have recently been discussing homeopathy with a colleague who takes pretty much all CAM claims at face value, and the issue of vaccinations came up, specifically MMR and the new 5-in one jab rolled out on the NHS.

My colleague claimed that she thought these where dangerous chemicals which could harm children and should be replaced with "homeopathic vaccinations".

Now I don’t want to get into the heated debate over vaccinations, as I am well aware of evidence suggesting that even if Dr Wakefield where correct in his findings, the risk that children would be subject to from measles mumps or rubella in the time between taking the separate vaccines would far outweigh the likelihood of autism.

However this debate got me thinking (a rare thing in itself0, anyway to get to my point.

As I understand it homeopathy is based on 2 principles.
1) Substances which can cause the symptoms of a particular condition can cure/ prevent people suffering from that condition
2) Smaller doses are more potent than larger doses.

As I see it everything else is a matter of delivery and concentration / dilution.

In which case why do homeopaths oppose vaccination?

Is there something in their philosophy which argues against giving patients a very small dose (all be it not homeopathically small) of an organism which could (in a larger dose on another form) do them harm, in order to prevent harm.

Vaccination is eth only instance in medicine I can think of where like cures like, so why eth opposition?

Any answers, especially from the homeopaths here would be very much appreciated.


Thanks.

 

[Darat]

...snip...

In which case why do homeopaths oppose vaccination?

...snip..

I think it is very difficult to generalise on what "homeopaths" will oppose or support since there is so much disagreement between them as to what it is they actually believe! (Just look at some of the discussions in this forum for examples.)

Since "historic" homeopathy does not subscribe to the "germ theory" of disease then I would say according to a homeopath vaccines don't work!

 

[brodski]

Re: Re: homeopaths and vaccinations

I think it is very difficult to generalise on what "homeopaths" will oppose or support since there is so much disagreement between them as to what it is they actually believe! (Just look at some of the discussions in this forum for examples.)

Since "historic" homeopathy does not subscribe to the "germ theory" of disease then I would say according to a homeopath vaccines don't work!

Darat many thanks for this- however in my (limited) experience of talking to homeopaths and those that almost exclusively use homeopathic remedies I have not yet met anybody who
1) Does not believe in "germs" or
2) Supports (non homeopathic) vaccination.

I would be very interested in hearing what the homeopaths on this forum believe.
Of course skeptical views are always welcome

 

[Rolfe]

There is, as Darat says, a great deal of variation in the claims of different homoeopaths.

The Faculty of Homoeopathy (the British institution of medically-qualified homoeopaths) actively supports conventional vaccination, and their president has accused the anti-vax brigade of being the "spoiled brat school of medicine", pointing out that they simply have no real concept of the dangerous nature of the vaccine-preventable diseases, and the enormous benefits that have accrued from vaccination.

Other classical homoeopaths do not support homoeopathic "vaccination" because according to their beliefs homoeopathy treats a disturbance of the vital force, and there is no way to use it as a preventative. Essentially, you have to have actual symptoms present in the individual patient before you can find their simillimum and treat them, you can't do anything pre-emptively. These people may still assert that real vaccines are ineffective and/or dangerous, though!

And then there are homoeopaths who believe in the concept of "nosodes", which is what homoeopaths call the preparations (erroneously) referred to as homoeopathic vaccines. These are preparations made from diseased tissue, and they may be used inthe ordinary homoeopathic way to treat disease according to their proving symptoms, but some homoeopaths also recommend them as preventatives against the disease in question,

Of course the preparations are diluted out of existence, otherwise they would be frankly dangerous, so there's no hope of a tiny dose of something real actuallly stimulating an immune response. Homoeopaths all acknowledge that these nosodes don't stimulate measurable antibody production, and they have to acknowledge that every time there has been a study where animals were given a nosode and then challenged with the virulent organism, no protection could be demonstrated. There's a very well-known paper in the Veterinary Record describing such a trial of a commercially-marketed lungworm nosode.

No antibody could be demonstrated in either group, mortality in both groups was high, and there was no difference in the number or morphology of the worms recovered from the groups post mortem. The conclusion was that "There were no discernable differences between the treated and the control groups in their manifestations of resistance to D. viviparus or their clinical responses to the diseases produced."

However, they simply assert that "it works" under (uncontrolled) field conditions.

Note that nosodes are not recognised as valid vaccines for any certification purposes, including that your cat will be turned away from a GCCF cat show as unvaccinated if all you can show is a "homoeopathic" vaccination certificate.

Rolfe.

 

[Chris Haynes]

...As I understand it homeopathy is based on 2 principles.
1) Substances which can cause the symptoms of a particular condition can cure/ prevent people suffering from that condition
2) Smaller doses are more potent than larger doses.

As I see it everything else is a matter of delivery and concentration / dilution....

Read up about it at: http://www.skepdic.com/homeo.html

...In which case why do homeopaths oppose vaccination?
...

Because:

1) Vaccines actually contain active ingredients

2) Because they actually work (at least most of the time, the effectiveness is dependent on the vaccine, see:
http://www.cdc.gov/nip/publications/pink/def_pink_full.htm

3) Because anyone who thinks homeopathy works does not have the basic math/science knowledge to understand even the basics of statistics and history of vaccines.

 

[Rolfe]

Looking again at the actual question (rather than answering a question which wasn't asked), I'd say HC has put her finger on it to a large extent.

Vaccination was devised and developed according to scientific pronciples, not homoeopathic principles, therefore many homoeopaths are ideologically opposed. In particular, many of them do not believe in prevention at all, claiming that only when there are symptoms to treat can homoeopathy cure the patient. So, they don't even think about it.

However, this doesn't prevent a fair amount of double-speak. I've seen a legal statement from a luminary in the Faculty of Homoeopaths declaring that homoeoapthy works by stimulating the immune system in just the same way vaccines work. This is a useful ploy to use on scientifically literate but poorly informed people.

I've also seen many of the less rational homoeopaths (that's the ones who will deny the efficacy of vaccination) nevertheless make very similar claims about homoeopathy "stimulating the immune system" by a sort of process of osmosis from "homoeopathy rectifies imbalances in the vital force", through "homoeopathy stimulates the body to heal itself", to "homoeopathy works by stimulating the immune system". These people have no idea what the immune system is, or what is known about it, they just sort of pretend that it's the same as the nebulous Hahnemannian "vital force".

Rolfe.

 

[brodski]

Re: Re: homeopaths and vaccinations

Thanks for the input, that’s what I like about this place, I can blindly wander in asking my uninformed questions and get authoritative and thought provoking responses [/ Flattery]

Hydrogen Cyanide

I would take issue with your point 3 (but only in a minor way)

3) Because anyone who thinks homeopathy works does not have the basic math/science knowledge to understand even the basics of statistics and history of vaccines.

I would alter it to say "anyone who has looked into the evidence and thinks homeopathy works does not have the basic math/science knowledge to understand even the basics of statistics and history of vaccines.

I know at least one professional statistician who swears by homeopathic allergy relief, although she had no idea of how homeopathy was supposed to work, and was surprised when I told her that in all probability she was ingesting none of the substance which was meant to help her.

I would still really like to hear from the homeopaths on this forum, come on, I know you’re out there.

Thanks.

 

[Chris Haynes]

Re: Re: Re: homeopaths and vaccinations

...I know at least one professional statistician who swears by homeopathic allergy relief, although she had no idea of how homeopathy was supposed to work, and was surprised when I told her that in all probability she was ingesting none of the substance which was meant to help her....

Then she does not really know what homeopathy is and is confusing it with holistic or herbal medicine ..which is how many of us here starting thinking about it until we found what it REALLY was and looked at the evidence. So your edit works.

BUT... if she still thought it worked even after it was explained, then I would be wary of her skill.

You should print out the skepdic article, and see if she still thinks it is a valid form of medication (I did that for my father-in-law, he has not mentioned it again... though I am still thinking about getting him Voodoo Science: The Road from Foolishness to Fraud for his birthday).

 

[Barbrae]

As I understand it homeopathy is based on 2 principles.
1) Substances which can cause the symptoms of a particular condition can cure/ prevent people suffering from that condition
2) Smaller doses are more potent than larger doses.

As I see it everything else is a matter of delivery and concentration / dilution.

In which case why do homeopaths oppose vaccination?

Is there something in their philosophy which argues against giving patients a very small dose (all be it not homeopathically small) of an organism which could (in a larger dose on another form) do them harm, in order to prevent harm.

Vaccination is eth only instance in medicine I can think of where like cures like, so why eth opposition?




Thanks.

Hi there,

Not all homeopaths oppose vaccination. Of those who do there can be several reasons why. Like Rolfe mentioned some believe that you don't medically or homeopathically "treat" unless disease is there - in other words they don't "prevent" disease. Also, vaccines, however dilute, are not dilute enough to prove zero risk to the individual being vaccinated, there is enough material to make them "dangerous" (btw, these are reasons homeopaths have - not my opinion necessarily). The biggest reason however (imo) is that as alternative practitioners we see a large portion of folks who believe their children were damaged (sometimes severely and permanently) by vaccines. These are moms who tell us that their child was perfectly fine before a vaccine and then developed XYZ symptoms immediatly after. ANyway, this is just the opinion of one homeopath I have never taken a poll of homeopaths on this issue.

 

[Alkatran]

Whenever anyone says vaccines are bad and don't work, just say:

"Well gee, it's a good thing the mumps, polio and small pox just decided to leave then, isn't it!"

Then wink and walk away.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: homeopaths and vaccinations

Also, vaccines, however dilute, are not dilute enough to prove zero risk to the individual being vaccinated, there is enough material to make them "dangerous" (btw, these are reasons homeopaths have - not my opinion necessarily).

Well, there you go. As opposed to homoeopathic "remedies", which have zero material in them, therefore cannot be "dangerous", but hey, they can't (and demonstrably don't) do anything else either.

There is a real problem here. Anything which is biologically active is capable, et least in theory, of having an undesired effect. The only way to avoid this possibility is to use preparations which are not biologically active. Like homoeopathic remedies. Sure, you've presumably achieved your goal - assuming you dismiss the figures published by Henschel, which put the risk of adverse sequelae to homoeopathic treatment at a whopping 39.7%, as pure coincidence. However, dismissing all these reactions leads inexorably to the necessity for dismissing all the claimed positive reactions as coincidental also, leaving us with the unpalatable fact that in eliminating the adverse reactions we've also eliminated any possiblity of a positive action. What is the use of a perfectly safe drug if it does nothing?

Homoeopaths really have to face up to the utterly self-contradictory nature of their claims. On the one hand, they claim that their content-free preparations are biologically active even though there's no possible way they can be, and they claim every coincidental improvement as proof of activity. But on the other hand when challenged about the cases where patients deteriorated, they fall back on the claim that since there's nothing in the remedies then they cannot possibly be harmful. No, you can't have it both ways. If there is biological activity there despite the absence of any material explanation for it, it also has to be conceded that such activity may not always be the desired activity. For a method in which absolutely nothing is understood about the mechanism of action, if any, this surely goes double.

The biggest reason however (imo) is that as alternative practitioners we see a large portion of folks who believe their children were damaged (sometimes severely and permanently) by vaccines. These are moms who tell us that their child was perfectly fine before a vaccine and then developed XYZ symptoms immediatly after. ANyway, this is just the opinion of one homeopath I have never taken a poll of homeopaths on this issue.

This is yet another example of homoeopaths choosing to declare that a probably coincidental occurrence is causally significant. It's understandable that a parent might make a connection when something alarming happens after a vaccination. However, with the exception of specific instances which have been well investigated and adequately addressed, all the evidence points to the vast bulk of such occurrences being coincidental. A very large study of dogs in the UK recently, which was prompted by loud assertions from veterinary homoeopaths that they were seeing enormous numbers of dogs suffering from vaccine-induced illness, failed to find a shred of evidence for any of these allegations.

So, improvement following homoeopathic remedy - wonderful proof that homoeopathy "works". Deterioration following homoeopathic remedy - either coincidental, and the right remedy has yet to be identified, or an "aggravation", which never mind, shows the remedy is doing something, and must under no circumstances be described as an adverse reaction. Untoward even following conventional vaccination - proof that vaccines are dangerous, and should not be used.

Why am I bothering? We've had ample demonstration already that no homoeopath seems to be able to weigh up the "possibly coincidence" factor with any degree of objectivity. Their entire training is based on finding the right form of words to explain what has happened in terms of the homoeopathic remedy being effective, and not dangerous, and post hoc always equals propter hoc. Unless of course it might look like a real adverse effect that can't be explained away, in which case, how can content-free pills possibly do any harm?

What they seem entirely incapable of appreciating is the concept of risk/benefit ratio. It's well established that the objective amount of harm attributable to vaccines is tiny compared to the consequences of the diseases vaccination combats. It's understandable that a parent will view damage caused by an illness (perhaps seen as an "act of God", in the legal sense) differently from damage caused by something they allowed the child to be given. However, it is the duty of healthcare professionals to take an objective view, to point out that most alleged vaccine reactions are no such thing, the risk of vaccination is indeed tiny, and surely damage caused by a disease which could have been prevented by a vaccine is just as much the fault of the parents as anything that might happen as a result of a vaccine.

I realise you have specifically distanced yourself from some (if not all) of these opinions, Barb. However, if you run with the wolf-pack, you must expect to attract some fire.

Rolfe.

 

[edthedoc]

Here's a graph showing the dramatic drop in incidence of H. influenzae infection following the introduction of the vaccination in the UK in 1992. Anti-vaccs would probably claim it's coincidence though.

I think it is a most impressive indication of the effect of vaccinations.

The more recent rise in the incidence of infection (on the right of the graph) is thought to be due to the MMR scare affected uptake of the H. influenzae vaccination. Thank you so much Dr Wakefield

 

[brodski]

Re: Re: homeopaths and vaccinations

Barbrae,
Thanks for responding. I realise that you are not representative of all Homeopaths, but I appreciate the fact that you are trying to answer my questions from as many homeopathic viewpoints as you can.

I (of corse) have a couple of questions.
You state that

Also, vaccines, however dilute, are not dilute enough to prove zero risk to the individual being vaccinated, there is enough material to make them "dangerous"

Now it was my understanding that homeopaths believe that the more dilute a preparation, the greater affect it ahs on they body.
If this is the case then vaccinations as used in modern western medicine should, according to homeopathic theory, be less likely to have a sever and damaging effect on the individual.

By being in a stronger dilution, they should be less potent?
Or am I misrepresenting homeopathic theory here?

If I am not, that at what point of dilution does a substance stop becoming more potent the higher the concentration and become more potent the lower the concentration?

 

[Alkatran]

Originally posted by Barbrae
Also, vaccines, however dilute, are not dilute enough to prove zero risk to the individual being vaccinated, there is enough material to make them "dangerous"

Opening your eyes (literally), no matter how long, presents the risk of your eye being damaged (say, by a small rock kicked up by a car).

Therefore you should never open your eyes.


If you think that sounds stupid because not opening your eyes destroys the point of protecting them: not using a vaccine because it poses a health risk is entirely analogous.

 

[brodski]

Opening your eyes (literally), no matter how long, presents the risk of your eye being damaged (say, by a small rock kicked up by a car).

Therefore you should never open your eyes.


If you think that sounds stupid because not opening your eyes destroys the point of protecting them: not using a vaccine because it poses a health risk is entirely analogous.

I was actually deliberately avoiding this point for now, but since you brought it up...

I used to work in health and safety regulation. A full report of every work related fatal accident in the UK would cross my desk (as well as many non fatal but serious accidents).

I saw evidence of people suffering the most horrendous consequences, sometimes from the most innocuous of sources. If you took the cases which I dealt with as representative of working life in the UK no one would work... anywhere.

However in order to function we must asses risk, and we must accept risk.

Alternative health practitioners will see a lot of parents who believe that their children have been harmed by vaccines, this is only natural (if you believed, all be it mistakenly, that your doctor had poisoned your child would you trust them to try and "clear up their own mess" or would you look for an alternative?)

However just like I never got reports of people surviving days at work without incident, alternative health practitioners don’t tend to get to here about the millions of children helped by vaccinations. This seems to lead some of them to believe that no children are helped by vaccinations.

I believe that an expectation of total safety all the time, and an inability to understand and asses risk in every day life are the most damaging developments in modern society.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

Vaccination is eth only instance in medicine I can think of where like cures like, so why eth opposition?

Well, vaccines don't cure anything. They're a preventative measure. Once you have the disease, then vaccination won't help. They can't treat disease, they can prevent you from getting harmed by them by preparing the body for the "real" thing.

 

[brodski]

Re: Re: homeopaths and vaccinations

Well, vaccines don't cure anything. They're a preventative measure. Once you have the disease, then vaccination won't help. They can't treat disease, they can prevent you from getting harmed by them by preparing the body for the "real" thing.

Ok so not cure then, but I am aware that some homeopaths suggest taking homeopathic substanecs to either "promote" better helth or "prevent" futuer diseases.
The basic point remains, that a subsatnce which can make yuou ill (all be it in annotehr form) is used to negate the ill effects of that substence.

 

[Eos of the Eons]

That's still a stretch. It depends on the vaccine. Some use only bits of the virus to make your body build immunity, or dead viruses. There's no way they'd actually make you ill.

The only ones that might qualify for your analogy are the ones that use weakened forms of the virus.

Then you have to think of it as "negating ill effects". Well, that doesn't happen. The body simply builds immunity. It's not causing any "negating" of any "ill effects". Instead, you're simply able to fight the disease afterwards.

It's really not able to fit in any homeopath philosophy.

 

[Alkatran]

Vaccinations are based on germ theory, homeopathy is not. Germ theory has been the most succesful theory for fighting disease (so far). Homeopathy is not based on germ theory and therefore 'like cures like' in Homeopathy != vaccination.

 

[Rolfe]

Re: Re: Re: homeopaths and vaccinations

Now it was my understanding that homeopaths believe that the more dilute a preparation, the greater affect it ahs on they body.
If this is the case then vaccinations as used in modern western medicine should, according to homeopathic theory, be less likely to have a sever and damaging effect on the individual.

By being in a stronger dilution, they should be less potent?
Or am I misrepresenting homeopathic theory here?

If I am not, that at what point of dilution does a substance stop becoming more potent the higher the concentration and become more potent the lower the concentration?

This is part of the "magic" of homoeopathy, and what I was getting at in my post above about the deep internal contradictions they work with. According to homoeopathic theory, when you dilute something by their methods, the harmful effects behave as predicted, and decrease and eventually vanish. But the good effects are somehow "spiritualised" and enhanced and made purer and more potent. Therefore, they can unblushingly declare in the same breath that this magic potion has a profound effect on the human body, but it is so dilute that it can't possibly be harmful.

How this squares with the other part of the theory, that when a healthy person takes the magic potion ("proving") it will make them ill, I'm not really sure.

Rolfe.