Impfungen Anhang 2


[Kate Couchman]

Dorland (2008) defines a vaccine as a “suspension of attenuated or killed micro-organisms administered for prevention or treatment of disease”. Vaccinations work by presenting a foreign antigen

to the immune system in order to evoke an immune response (Feder, 2007), according to various methods. According to Coulter (1990), the three main types are as follows:

1. Inactivated vaccines – these are made from viruses and bacteria that have been killed through physical or chemical processes (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 2006).

The virus particles are destroyed and cannot replicate, but the virus capsid proteins are sufficiently intact to be recognised by the immune system and evoke a response although booster shots are required periodically to reinforce the immune response (Ernst, 2001).

2. Attenuated vaccines – these contain a live virus which is weakened through chemical or physical processes in order to produce an immune response without causing the severe effects of  the disease (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 2006). They will reproduce, but very slowly therefore boosters are required less often (Ernst, 2001). There is a risk of reversion to virulence (Cave, 2004) and therefore cannot be used in immuno-compromised individuals (Department of Health, 2005).

2a. Subunit vaccines - these present an antigen to the immune system without introducing viral particles (National Center for Immunization and Respiratory Diseases, 2006).

One method of production involves isolation of a specific protein from a virus and administering this by itself (O’Shea, 2002).

Second method is the recombinant vaccine, which involves putting a protein gene from the targeted virus into another virus (O’Shea, 2002) so the second virus will express the protein, but will

not present a risk to the patient.

Vaccines typically contain one or more adjuvants added to the antigen in order to boost the immune response (Ernst, 2001). Neustaedter (1996) states vaccines may also contain other ingredients [thimerosal (ethyl mercury/preservative), aluminum (promotes antibody response), formaldehyde (disinfectant / preservative), phenol (disinfectant / dye), ethylene glycol (antifreeze), benzethonium chloride (antiseptic) and methylparaben (anti-fungal and preservative). Appendix J shows the revised EPI schedule, listing the proposed vaccination schedule for infants in South Africa.

Appendix K shows a list of thimerosal-free vaccines available in South Africa.

2.2 History of vaccinations

The South African Department of Health (1997), stated that if the Director General felt there was adequate scientific grounds to suspect the Republic or any part of the population’s health may be affected by a communicable disease against which a vaccination was available, he may do the following -

(a) Demarcate an area for compulsory immunization of all inhabitants.

(b) Designate the government body and / or persons that must carry out the immunization and the period it must be done in.

(c) The designated persons can authorize medical practitioners, nurses and immunization officers to carry out the immunization.

(d) No person may disregard or fail to comply with an order.

(e) Any person who cannot or will not be vaccinated may be placed in quarantine.

The Republic of South African Government Information Bill of Rights (2009) later stated that informed consent is required for any medical procedure, including vaccinations. Although vaccinations are not compulsory by law in South Africa (van den Heever, 2008), they are intrinsically entrenched in the Constitution, in accordance with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (1997

White Paper for the Transformation of the Health System in the Republic of South Africa). On the other hand, Van den Heever (2008) states that “The Department of Education has gazetted that children must be fully immunised before being allowed into schools”. This appears to conflict with the Constitution and the Rights of the Child and therefore may cause difficulty for health care providers in advising parents with regards to childhood vaccinations.

2.3 The viewpoints on vaccinations

Bhatia (2006) states that vaccination - be it conventional or homoeopathic - has always remained controversial as they carry certain risks, yet there are also many concerns regarding not vaccinating infants. WHO (2005) acknowledges that the safety of existing vaccines has created a climate of concern, as risks accompany every vaccination. Cave (2004) states there are an increasing number of parents who question the safety, effectiveness and necessity of vaccines. Neustaedter (1991) suggests that parents should be offered literature to assist them in making an informed decision with regards to the safety and efficacy of vaccinations, although he states the literature is “confusing and contradictory.”

Given the complexity of this matter (Coulter, 1990 and Neustaedter, 1991), many parents turn to their health care provider for advice and Zotti, Silvaplana, Ditommaso, Russo and Ruggenini (2002) state parents are greatly influenced by what their practitioner recommends. Maayan-Metzger, Kedem-Friedrich and Kuint (2005) surveyed mothers and noted that those who prevented the administration

of routine vaccinations to their newborn infants had a higher income level, were more educated and expressed more knowledge about vaccines than the remaining women.

The reasons mainly given by the complying mothers were “to protect the baby” and “trust in the doctors”. Therefore, anecdotal evidence shows that the practitioner is seen as a vital member of the health team and suggests their role is critical for patient health.

Considering the conditions unique to South Africa, such as the social structure and health conditions, this research aimed to determine whether South African homoeopaths are congruent in their opinions of vaccinations whilst disclosing the opinions and interventions of South African homoeopaths, as health care providers, with regards to childhood vaccinations.

2.4 The pro vaccination stance McTaggart (2005) states that most doctors believe vaccines are one of medical science’s greatest success stories, responsible for eliminating many potentially deadly infectious diseases.

WHO (2005) estimated 1.4 million deaths among children under 5 years old, were due to diseases that could possibly have been prevented by routine vaccination. This represents 14% of global total mortality in children of this age-group.

Vaccinations remain one of the most cost effective health interventions, as opposed to treating the severe chronic effects the ailments may produce (Department of Health, 2005).

Various pro-vaccination parties believe they are beneficial and state:

2.4.1 Vaccinations save lives

 - Since being introduced, rates of diseases have declined by 90% (Department of Health, 2005). According to WHO (2005), vaccination currently saves three million lives per year world-wide.

2.4.2 Vaccinations prevent the spread of disease

 – Vaccinations not only protects the individual but also curbs the spread of disease within the community – that is provides herd immunity (Department of Health, 2005). Thus, a non-vaccinated

child has a reduced chance of contracting a communicable disease when in a community where most of the population has been vaccinated. Therefore, vaccine promoters encourage every one to comply with government recommendations or it is thought that the diseases will return.

2.4.3 Vaccinations are safe

 – The Department of Health (2005) states that vaccinations are safe and getting safer and more effective, due to medical research and ongoing review by medical scientists. However, Gale et al. (1990)

found a positive association between severe acute neurological illnesses and vaccine administration. This was confirmed by Miller et al. (2008) who found that after 10 years, significantly more children die or suffer behavioural or neurological deficits than non-vaccinated children.

2.4.4 Vaccinations save money

 – Vaccinations are one of the most cost effective health interventions as WHO (2005) estimates that every R10 spent on vaccines saves R70 in medical costs and R250 in overall costs. Bloom et al. (2005)

conclude vaccines are regarded as an effective and cheap tool for improving health.

2.4.5 Vaccinations offer effective protection

 - A recent study showed that children who had not received the measles vaccine were 35 times more likely to get the disease. However, Neustaedter (1996) states that 90% or more of measles cases occur in previously vaccinated people and this therefore questions the efficacy of vaccines.

2.5 The anti-vaccination stance

Morrell (2000) states that the decline in infectious diseases was due to better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal and distribution of food and water as well as access to safe drinking water and basic healthcare. Weil (2004) therefore concludes that scientific medicine has taken undue credit for advances in health.

With regards to the vaccination schedule (Appendix J) Smits (2006) states that:

2.5.1 Vaccinations are carried out too early

- Noble et al. (1987) showed that there was an 85-90% reduction in severe reactions and deaths when vaccines were administered after age two.

2.5.2 Too many vaccines are administered together

- Hirsch et al. (1981) and Jaber et al (1988) show concern regarding the number of vaccines which may be administered simultaneously as it may create more of a burden on the system and therefore cause a

greater likelihood of adverse reactions than giving the vaccinations individually. This has been confirmed by Neustaedter (1996) and Offit et al. (2002).

2.5.3 Vaccinations are carried out too frequently and repeated too often

- In South Africa, it is currently advised to have up to 25 vaccines before the age of 14 weeks (Appendix J). Elminger, as cited by Smits (2007), found that economic considerations had dictated for several years that an increasing number of vaccinations were given at the same time. However, administering


2.5.4 Vaccines cultivated on animal proteins contain chemical additives that can excite allergies

 - Offit and Jew (2003) state that there are potential health damages from the chemicals and preservatives within vaccines.

2.5.5 Concerns regarding the route of administration

- Moskowitz (1983) states vaccinations short circuit important primary responses to disease as the virus is placed directly into the blood. Swift (2004) states that no such exposure occurs in nature and therefore questions whether a normal immune reaction can occur following vaccinations.

2.5.6 Concerns regarding the use of live vaccines

 - Levy (1992) states that live vaccines are banned in Scandinavian countries due to their detrimental effects and potential of causing the very disease they are designed to protect one against, yet they are found in the measles, rotavirus, rubella, varicella and yellow fever vaccines currently utilised in South Africa (Stannard, 2001).

2.5.7 Concerns regarding chronic impact

- Secondary and long-term effects on the immune system from introducing immunogens and immunologic adjuvants directly into the body are not fully understood. Moskowitz (1983), concludes

that it is dangerously misleading to claim that a vaccine makes us 'immune' or protects us against an acute disease, if it drives the disease deeper into the interior and causes one to harbour it chronically.

Neustaedter (1996) uses the terms vaccinate and vaccination as opposed to immunize and immunization as he believes that vaccines do not produce a true immunity, but are potentially immunosuppressive.

2.6 Circumstances pertaining to South Africa

Considering Morrell (2000) states that the decline in infectious diseases was not due to vaccinations, but rather due to better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal and distribution of food and water as well as access to safe drinking water and basic healthcare, which a large portion of the South African population do not have access to (Lehohla, 2007), there may be a different dimension to this already complex topic.

2.6.1 Poverty

- Mbeki (2008) and Manuel (2008) stated that fighting poverty is a central objective of the South African Government’s Programme of Action as a significant portion of the country survives on less than

$1 per day. Muller (2004) states that only a quarter of black South Africans have electricity, running water and modern sanitation.

2.6.2 Education

- According to the 2001 General Population Census, a mere 52% of the population within South Africa have completed grade nine or more. Of the remainder, 32% have not completed grade seven and

16% have no schooling at all. The need for literacy and basic education interventions therefore continues.

2.6.3 Nutrition

 - Collins (2002) states the most common meal in South Africa is a plate of maize meal and a cup of tea which contain minimal nutritional value.

2.6.4 Sanitation

 – Leatt and Berry (2006) state basic sanitation is essential for safe and healthy childhoods. Puoane et al. (2003) revealed that 80 % of residents in Khayelitsha live in shacks and an average of 105 people share each toilet. Leatt and Berry (2006) state that the use of buckets or open fields has detrimental consequences for water quality and leads to the spread of diseases.

2.6.5 Water

 - Muller (2004) states that 12 million people in South Africa did not have access to any kind of safe water in 1994 and that only 30 countries out of 180 in the world have less water per person than South Africa.

2.6.6 Health Care

 - Modisane (2005) states the South African government spends R33,2 billion on health care for 38 million people while the country’s private sector spends R43 billion servicing seven million people. There is also a severe shortage of qualified staff as 88% of doctors work in metropolitan areas, resulting in a shortage of doctors in remote areas (with a ratio of 1:30 000 in parts of the Eastern Cape).

Lehohla (2007) states the average life expectancy is decreasing by up to 14% with the average male life expectancy in Kwa-Zulu Natal being as low as 44 years of age.

2.7 The homoeopath’s role as a primary care physician

Razlog (2007) states that homoeopathy is currently in full expansion therefore it is important to analyze the viewpoints of homoeopaths with regards to vaccinations to see if there is a correlation to the above arguments, and what homoeopaths are telling their patients. If there is congruence in the perceptions of homoeopaths within South Africa on this subject, and on the way they deal with the issue

of vaccinations, then this could be used as a spring board for the development of an official policy regarding homoeopathy and childhood vaccinations.

Flanagan-Klygis et al. (2005) conducted a survey to identify reasons paediatricians cite for both parent refusal of vaccinations and consequent family dismissal from their practice. A total of 54% faced total vaccine refusal and paediatricians cited safety concerns as a top reason for this. However, 39% would discontinue care for a family for refusing all vaccinations whilst 27% would dismiss a family

 for refusing select vaccines. Ernst (2001) stated Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) practitioners are hesitant about the use of vaccinations and therefore may serve as alternative practitioners to oversee these families health yet allow the parents their freedom of choice.

2.8 Homoeopath’s viewpoints on vaccinations

Anecdotally, homoeopaths are against vaccines as they go against the homoeopathic principles and may lead to vaccinosis (Burnett, 1884).

Ullman (1992) states homoeopathy is a medical approach that utilizes medicines that stimulate the body’s own immune and defence systems to initiate the healing process. Based on this, some schools of thought believe homoeopathy and allopathic vaccinations apply the same principles in that they both induce the body’s natural response to an infection through administration of a minute dose of the required constituent/s. However, Vithoulkas (1998) states the concept of vaccination is almost the opposite of the principles of homoeopathy as it is an indiscriminate administration of a foreign substance to everyone, regardless of the state of health or individual’s sensitivity as well as the following reasons:

• For any given disease, vaccination uses the same identical disease to try to prevent it.

Homoeopathy uses substances with a similar sphere of action, not an identical substance.

• Vaccinations use physical quantities of disease material, whereas homoeopathic remedies are diluted beyond Avogadro's limit (i.e. do not contain any molecules of the original substance).

• Vaccinations contain foreign substances (egg albumin, formaldehyde, mercury and others) necessary in the production of the vaccine plus excipients and preservatives.

Homoeopathic remedies do not. •

Vaccinations are injected directly into the body, bypassing several of the body's defence mechanisms. Homoeopathic remedies do not.

• Vaccinations have the potential for allergic reaction.

Homoeopathic remedies do not.

It can therefore be extrapolated from O’Reilly (1997) that the homoeopathic method of prescribing medicines (giving the smallest possible dose - after serial dilution and succussion - according to individual susceptibility) are not met by vaccination. Vithoulkas (1998) states vaccination has nothing to do with homoeopathy - no more than surgery, the contraceptive pill or beta blockers have.

In the homoeopathic field, the term “vaccinosis.” dates back to Burnett in 1884 and has been summarised by Vithoulkas in 1998. He stated vaccinations can impress a chronic disease state onto susceptible patients, as the vaccinated person is poisoned by the vaccine virus. Phillips (2001) elaborates by stating evidence links vaccination practice to dozens of chronic immunological and neurological diseases. Furthermore, Swift (2004) states that once vaccinosis develops, there is a disturbance in the body’s vital force that leads to symptoms of chronic disease that can be very difficult (or impossible) to cure.

Vithoulkas (1998) states that vaccinations are disease agents which shock the vital force in a similar way as a severe illness or allopathic drugs do. He describes three possible reactions to vaccinations: mild,

strong and very strong reactions.

• 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 of 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.

Saxton (2005) states there is a crucial difference between vaccinosis and a vaccine reaction, which can have significant clinical implications. A vaccine reaction, if properly managed, need have no adverse effects, but failure to recognise it and act accordingly can cause vaccinosis.

2.9 Homoeopathic alternatives to vaccination

Considering McTaggart (2005) states that vaccines are responsible for eliminating many potentially deadly infectious diseases and Vithoulkas (1998) states vaccines may cause vaccinosis, it is logical that an alternative must be offered. Anecdotal evidence shows there are numerous ways of approaching vaccinations within the homoeopathic profession.

These methods may be more extensive, but according to Curtis (1994) and Golden (2005), can be summarised as follows:

o Stand-alone alternative to vaccination (homoeoprophylaxis).

o Adjunct, to quieten the side effects of vaccination.

o Disease treatment, once established.

o Prescribing on the rubric “vaccination, effects of”.

o Altering the body’s susceptibility to diseases (fortifying the immune system).

o Using it to effect changes if the child presents with adverse reactions.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that homoeopaths’ dealings and opinions with regards to vaccination varies tremendously. Some of the suggestions according to Coulter (1990), Curtis (1994), Feder (2007), Golden (2005), Levy (1992) and Scheibner (2006) include:

• Avoid all vaccinations.

•Use homoeoprophylaxis.

• Selective vaccines only.

• Vaccinate, but support the body with a concurrent homoeopathic remedy.

• Vaccinate, but later

• Vaccinate, but treat any symptoms which may develop.

Golden (2005) stimulates the immune system to produce antibodies with the use of homoeopathic nosodes “as they accomplish immunity yet do not have the other contaminants which cause the damage we see." Scheibner (2006) points out that if nosodes are given immediately after exposure to a known disease, they can prevent the development of clinical disease. However, Scheibner (2006) believes homoeopathic nosodes have limitations as they essentially put a “band-aid” over a susceptibility which will need to be dealt with at some stage. O’Reilly (1997) states that homoeopaths should prescribe

a single remedy, based upon the totality of the individual's symptoms to strengthen the immune system and assist the defence mechanism in overcoming the disease. This method offers greater protection than the nosodes, as it works from the inside out, rather than pasting a “band-aid” over the top.

2.10 Other studies of practitioners perceptions

Anecdotal evidence suggests there is no single opinion across the board regarding vaccinations from practitioners.

Lehrke, Nuebling, Hofmann and Stoessel (2001) conducted a survey to clarify whether homoeopathic physicians recommend or apply vaccinations as frequently as their allopathic colleagues. The study revealed that homoeopathic physicians view vaccines within a specific hierarchy and therefore apply the “classical” vaccines against tetanus, diphtheria and poliomyelitis to nearly the same degree as their non-homoeopathic colleagues. Contradictorily, other vaccines were applied and accepted with more restraint by homoeopaths. Research conducted by Schmidt and Ernst (2003) revealed that no homoeopaths and 0.06% of chiropractors advised in favour of specific vaccinations.

Posfay-Barbe et al. (2005) surveyed physicians and found 93% agree with the current official allopathic vaccination recommendations.

It is undeniable that there are, amongst the CAM healing professions, those who adopt a reserved, cautionary or even totally negative position on the subject of vaccinations (Loibner, 2008).

2.11 Conclusion

This study is vital as vaccination remains a debatable subject - not only in South Africa, but also globally. As more patients are becoming aware of complementary medicine, so an increasing amount of

them are debating whether vaccinations are necessary. It is imperative to ascertain the viewpoints of the homoeopaths in South Africa to see whether there is cohesion within the profession on this subject. If there is, then a policy on how to deal with vaccinations can be established and made readily available for the public so that an alternative approach to vaccinations can be formalized.

Deciding not to vaccinate or to use the homoeopathic nosodes can be difficult. Even the nosodes, as free from side-effects as they are, do not guarantee absolute freedom from disease (Golden, 2005).

So making a decision implies taking more responsibility for your health, which involves nutritional support, as well as alternative methods of dealing with viral and bacterial infections, should they arise.

This topic is especially complicated in countries such as South Africa because of the lack of basic needs available to some of the population. Therefore, if Morrell (2000) is correct in his statement that the decline in infectious diseases was due to better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal and distribution of food and water as well as access to safe drinking water and basic healthcare, the above information reveals some of the South African population may still be at risk and may contribute to the lack of cohesion in practitioners opinions.


This Chapter includes an evaluation and discussion of the results of the statistical analysis of the questionnaire (Appendix B) from Chapter Four.

5.1 Introduction to the findings of this study

In the cultural context of the vaccination programme it is important to highlight the concerns and misconceptions that are present, as well as to understand parental

decisions with regards to childhood vaccinations (Callréus, 2009).

The participants rated improved sanitization, followed by improved nutrition, improved access to healthcare, improved healthcare and improved education as the most important interventions contributing to the decline of infectious diseases. Considering many South Africans do not have access to these, as shown in Chapter 2.6, it was reassuring to see that the vast majority of homoeopaths (80.5%) indicated that their intervention protocols would differ depending on individual circumstances.

5.3.2 Timing of specific vaccinations

With regards to the timing of each vaccination, most participants (21.1% - 35.4%) felt that they were either too close together – especially for DPT, MMR and polio, or recorded that they were insufficiently informed to comment (26.3% - 38.2%). Hirsch et al (1981) and Jaber et al. (1988) state that administering numerous vaccines simultaneously may create a burden on the system and therefore cause a greater likelihood of adverse reactions than giving the vaccinations separately. 100% of participants felt that polio vaccine was repeated too often (Table 6).

5.3.3 Optimal duration prior to administering initial vaccination

Figure 4 and Table 7 show that the majority of participants either thought that children should wait a few months before being vaccinated, or they should not be vaccinated at all (28.2% each). Noble et. al. (1987) showed that there was an 85-90% reduction in severe reactions and deaths when vaccines were administered after age two. Of the participants, 22.4% agreed that a number of years should be allowed to elapse before the first vaccine is administered, while only 5.9% felt it should be a matter of days. Only two participants stipulated a number of days that should elapse, one responding one day and the other seven days. The median number of months reported was six, with a range from one to ten months. The median number of years was two (range one to five years).

5.3.6 Poly-vaccinations

The vast majority of participants (82.4%) were against the use of poly-vaccinations and 5.9% felt insufficiently informed to comment (Table 10). As mentioned in 5.3.2. various research indicates

poly-vaccinations may burden the system and result in adverse reactions (Hirsch et al. (1981), Jaber et al. (1988) and Neustaedter (1996)).

5.3.7 General support of vaccinations

Majority of the participants (72.1%) were not in favour of vaccines in general although 22.1% did support the use of vaccines. 5.8% felt they were insufficiently informed to comment (Table 11). This is in congruence with Bhatia (2006) who states that vaccination (conventional or homoeopathic) has always remained controversial for various reasons.

There were many cross-tabulations done with regards to this question as it was felt that this formed the crux of the research questionnaire and would assist in gaining a better understanding of the participants’ perspectives.

5.3.8 Adequate scientific proof

Table 12 shows that 55.3% of participants thought that there was not enough scientific proof that vaccinations prevent infectious disease but 12.9% felt insufficiently informed to comment.

5.3.9 Common side effects of vaccinations

The vast majority of participants (90.6%) agreed that fever was a common side effect of vaccinations, whilst local inflammation (87.1%), pain and discomfort (85.9%), irritability (84.7%) and rash (78.8%) were also reported commonly (Table 13). However, none of these are seen as serious, nor as chronic diseases hence may not be viewed with such severity. WHO (2005) acknowledges that the safety of existing vaccines have created many concerns as risks accompany every vaccination.

5.3.10 Vaccinations effect on the incidence of infectious diseases Table 14 shows that most participants (65.5%) believed that vaccinations had changed the incidence of polio. However, for the other diseases mentioned, most participants were unsure or did not believe that vaccinations had changed the incidence of the disease (e.g. 61.9% don’t believe vaccines changed the incidence of Tb. and 63.1% don’t believe vaccines changed the incidence of chickenpox).

 However, the Department of Health (2005) states that since being introduced, vaccinations have decreased the rates of diseases by 90% and WHO (2005) states vaccinations currently saves three million lives per year, worldwide.

5.3.11 Risk of vaccinations versus their usefulness in preventing diseases

There was an almost equal positive (40.7%) and negative (44.4%) response to Question 2.11 which asks whether the homoeopaths felt the risks of vaccinations outweighed their usefulness in preventing diseases although 14.8% were unsure (Figure 6). This is interesting as 72% of homoeopaths stated, in Question 2.7 that they were against vaccinations, in general. It can then be assumed that although most homoeopaths are against general vaccination, 44.4% of them do believe that the usefulness of the vaccines outweighs the risks within South Africa.

5.3.12 Risk of adverse reactions versus “herd immunity”

Table 15 shows that 62% of participants did not believe that the risk of adverse reactions was acceptable if the majority of the population was protected against infectious disease yet 10.1% felt insufficiently informed to comment. The Department of Health (2005) states vaccinations provide herd immunity, thus curbing the spread of disease within the community. However, Cave (2004) states

an increasing number of parents question the safety, effectiveness and necessity of vaccines.

5.3.13 Safety of natural contraction of infectious disease versus vaccination

Table 16 shows that the majority of participants felt that contracting chickenpox (84.5%), measles (73.8%) and mumps (75.6%) was safer than being vaccinated against them. To a lesser extent, they felt the same about rubella (61.4%) and pertussis (51.8%). Moskowitz (1983) states vaccinations short-circuit important primary immune responses due to the route of administration and Swift (2004) therefore questions whether a normal immune reaction can occur following a vaccination.

5.3.14 Desire of administration of vaccinations to practitioners own children

Table 17 shows responses to Question 2.14 and are ranked from most to least frequently selected. Polio was the most commonly selected response (52.3%), followed by 42% who responded that they will not use orthodox vaccines. Tetanus was selected in 37.2% and Hepatitis B in 24.4%. Only 5.8% said they would vaccinate against chickenpox.

5.3.15 Basis for opinions on vaccinations

Table 18 shows that the concern of adverse effects (77.9%) was the foremost concern of homoeopaths with regards to forming their opinions with regards to orthodox vaccinations whereas homoeopathic training accounted for 67.4%, while personal beliefs or experiences accounted for 55.8%.

5.3.16 Indication of whether the intervention protocol would differ according to the appropriateness of individual patients

The vast majority of homoeopaths (80.5%) indicated that their intervention protocols would differ depending on individual circumstances

 (Table 18). Considering the varying circumstances facing the South African population, I find this essential, especially as Morrell (2000) states that the decline in infectious diseases was due to better methods of sanitation, sewage disposal and distribution of food and water as well as access to safe drinking water and basic healthcare. Therefore these all need to be taken into account when treating

a patient or working out the most appropriate intervention protocol for each individual.

5.4  Part C: Homoeopaths experience with regards to childhood vaccinations

To investigate the treatment regimes followed by homoeopaths prior to, post, or as an alternative to recommended allopathic childhood vaccination treatment within South Africa.

5.4.1 Preferred “vaccination” method

Of the participants, 60.5% preferred to use a combination of both homoeopathic remedies and orthodox vaccinations. Almost equal proportions of participants avoided orthodox vaccines (23.3%) and used only homoeopathic remedies (24.4%). A mere 4.7% used orthodox vaccinations only, as seen in Figure 8. Elaboration of the use of orthodox vaccines

Table 19 shows that 22.1% of homoeopaths would use orthodox vaccinations if the disease was life threatening. Only 3.5% would use them if there was a family history of the disease. Elaboration of combining homoeopathic and orthodox vaccines

Those who preferred using a combination of orthodox and homoeopathic remedies opted mainly to treat adverse reactions homoeopathically (47.7%) while 36% administered the standard remedy prior to or post orthodox vaccinations (Table 20). Standard concurrent single remedy, stipulation of remedy and potency scale

Table 21 shows that just under half (46.5%) of the practitioners used Thuja as a concurrent standard remedy which is not surprising as Smits (2006) states that “for many years Thuja was acknowledged by homoeopaths as the proven remedy for these complaints” when speaking about the “post-vaccination syndrome.” A mere 19.8% used Silica and this correlates with an anti-miasmatic approach used in homoeopathy towards vaccinations and may protect against potential damage caused by vaccinations (Neustaedter, 1996). Table 21 also shows the median potency used was 30CH which conforms to aphorism 128 and was the dilution advocated by Hahnemann for most purposes (O’Reilly, 1997). Standard concurrent remedy complex

For those who administered a vaccination complex, it can be noted that no two complexes administered were the same as these complexes are practitioner specific, as seen in Table 22. Treatment protocol if orthodox vaccinations are avoided

Of those who preferred avoiding orthodox vaccines, their preferred alternative method of intervention was treating symptoms according to the law of similars (30.2%). Treating symptoms according to the clinical picture was preferred in 18.6% of participants

(Question 3.2.1) as was using a constitutional remedy preferred by 18.6% of participants (Table 23).

5.4.2 Standard treatment protocol pre- and post-vaccinations

Table 24 indicates 61.8% of participants had a standard protocol for treating children prior to or following their allopathic vaccinations. Figure 9 shows that of those who had a standard protocol for treating children prior to their orthodox vaccinations, administering a standard homoeopathic remedy was the most common practise, followed by a constitutional remedy and then the practitioners own combination. Figure 10 shows that for those who administered a treatment protocol post orthodox vaccination, a standard remedy remained the most popular, followed by their own combination and thirdly nosodes.

5.4.3 Preferred treatment alternatives

Many of the participants (60.8%) recommended alternative preventative strategies to treat children as opposed to using orthodox vaccinations (Table 25). Method

Table 26 shows that the most common types of alternative homoeopathic strategies used were constitutional prescribing (27.9%), followed by administration of remedy according to presenting disease (19.8%) and the administration of nosodes (18.6%).

5.4.4 Noted adverse effects in patients Percentage

Majority of participants (76.5%) had seen adverse reactions that they believed to be caused from vaccinations in their patients, as noted in Table 27. Types of adverse effects

Fever was the most commonly reported adverse reaction (61.6%) followed by eczema (54.7%) and irritability (53.5%) as seen in Table 27.

5.5 Cross tabulation of results

To examine associations between the opinions and treatment regimes used by homoeopaths with regards to childhood vaccinations. Table 28: Cross–tabulation between general opinion of vaccines and preferred method of vaccinating infants

Most participants seemed to be comfortable using a combination of homoeopathic and orthodox method of vaccinating infants as 73.7% of participants who indicated they were happy with vaccinations in general would employ this treatment method whereas 54.8% of those who weren’t happy with vaccinations in general would use this method. However, 19 participants stated they would avoid orthodox vaccines and 19 participants stated they would use homoeopathic remedies only.



6.1 Conclusions

It was presumed that most homoeopaths would disagree with vaccinations and 72% of them are not in favour of vaccinations, in general. However, 44.4% of them felt that the risks of vaccinations did not outweigh the benefits. This is a slightly ambiguous result and more accurate or further questioning may have clarified this. On reviewing data, it was noted that Question 2.11 on the questionnaire may have been misinterpreted. Given South Africa’s unique socio-economic environment, it can be postulated, homoeopaths would not like vaccinations. However, childhood diseases which should be able to be controlled in other first world countries – if conditions were ideal, lead to death in South Africa and therefore we need to take extra precautions within South Africa.

Whether vaccinations are further detrimental or not, under these circumstances, is not yet determined.

Aspects which seemed to affect the participant’s opinions were the age of the practitioner -and the way in which they had been educated- “old school” practitioners were commonly under the impression

that orthodox vaccinations were compulsory. Other important factors include the practitioners’ confidence within themselves as well as the profession including what they have been exposed to so they can

offer alternatives to their patients and their parents with confidence.

Although literature demonstrates homoeopaths take a strong anti-vaccination stance, results have not been as strong as was expected, therefore this could be further studied on other vaccines (HIV. AIDS.

HPV) herpes or other diseases – not only childhood vaccines.

Results indicate that majority of participants did not support the use of vaccinations although their treatment protocol and general opinions regarding vaccinations, in general, varied tremendously.

In conclusion, although literature demonstrates homoeopaths take a strong anti-vaccination stance, results have not been as strong as was expected. Some form of standardization regarding this issue within the profession would create uniformity and a sense of togetherness, the practitioners could stand united and the combined knowledge and experience could be used to gain results quickly and efficiently.

6.2 Recommendations

This survey can be adapted to be conducted amongst traditional healers in the rural areas of South Africa to ascertain whether their perceptions are congruent with government recommendations.

• Recommend a further study on adverse effects caused by vaccinations noted in homoeopathic and other medical practices.

• Controversy still looms and continues to do so as more and more vaccines are introduced and more advertising campaigns are launched. This further confuses the “vaccination debate” and destroys the impression of a unified profession which this research is trying to establish, or build on. Considering homoeopathy is not well established within South Africa and doesn’t have a good reputation with the general public as yet, contradictions such as this further tarnish its reputation therefore establishing a unified stance could help its image. Therefore establish basic guidelines for practitioners to follow.

• Recommend rural homoeopaths within South Africa are surveyed to determine if their interventions differ from the homoeopaths surveyed here, depending on the conditions facing their patients.

• In conclusion, since Burnett’s era in 1884, the theory and practice of homoeopathy has taught us that the approach to prevention, involving the injection of material doses of live or attenuated viral material, along with various chemicals, has consequences not only for short-term health, but more significantly, for long-term health. It is thus understood that the issue of vaccination has been consistently addressed by homoeopaths and needs to be more consistently taught in homoeopathic schools, and discussed in organizations and journals.

• Additionally, homoeopaths need to be better acquainted with homoeoprophylaxis, a treatment unknown to many homoeopaths and derided by some.


[Eva Stiegele]

Soll ich mein Kind impfen lassen? Wenn ja, wann und gegen welche Krankheiten? Diese Fragen stellen sich Eltern oft schon vor der Geburt ihres Kindes.

Die Münchner Kinderärzte Dr. Martin Hirte, Dr. Steffen Rabe und Georg Soldner -Mitglieder des Vereins Ärzte für individuelle Impfentscheidung- halfen in einem spannenden und informativen Vortrag zum Thema „Impfen – Pro und Contra“ (werdenden) Eltern, auf diese Fragen eine Antwort zu finden.

Einseitige Berichterstattung

Die Medienberichte über das Kind, das in Berlin in einem Krankenhaus an den Folgen einer Masernerkrankung gestorben ist, gingen um die Welt. Schnell wurde der Ruf nach einer Impfpflicht in Deutschland laut. Fraglich ist, warum etwa der Tod zweier Kinder nach der Rotavirusimpfung in Frankreich in den deutschen Printmedien überhaupt nicht erwähnt wurde. Auch erfuhr man nicht, dass das angeblich an Masern verstorbene Kind an einer schweren Herzerkrankung litt.

Dass Impfen ein Milliardengeschäft ist, ist unbestritten. Tendenz steigend. Leider gibt es nur wenige Studien zu Langzeitauswirkungen von Impfungen. Diese Studien werden zudem oft von den Pharmakonzernen selbst in Auftrag gegeben und finanziert, was deren Glaubwürdigkeit nicht unbedingt steigert. So gaben 13 von 17 Mitgliedern der Ständigen Impfkommission des Robert Koch-Instituts (STIKO) selbst an, in Interessenskonflikten mit der Industrie zu stehen.

Einige Ärzte verlassen sich da lieber auf eigene Studien, wie etwa ein anthroposophischer Kinderarzt aus Kiel, der herausfand, dass 8,5% der nach STIKO geimpften Kinder später an Asthma bronchiale erkrankten. Bei den Kindern, die nach dem 1. Lebensjahr geimpft wurden, waren es noch 2%. Wurde in den ersten 3 Lebensjahren nicht geimpft, erkrankten nur 0,8%.

Dies verdeutlicht, dass es nicht nur um die Frage geht, was geimpft wird, sondern vor allem, wann. Erfahrungen zeigen, dass ein Verschieben des Impfbeginns auf das 2. Lebensjahr das Risiko

von Impfkomplikationen enorm reduziert. Grund hierfür ist, dass Säuglingsimpfstoffe sehr hoch dosiert und mit zahlreichen Adjuvantien angereichert sind, um eine Reaktion des noch unausgereiften Immunsystems zu provozieren.

Das Kind muss zum Impfzeitpunkt unbedingt gesund sein. Die Eltern sollten auf ihr Bauchgefühl hören und sich nicht vom Kinderarzt zu einer Impfung drängen lassen. Babys sollten nach Möglichkeit gestillt werden, um in den ersten Lebensmonaten durch die mütterlichen Antikörper vor Infektionen geschützt zu sein.

Der Impfplan

Ein großer Teil der deutschen Kinderärzte impft die Kinder nach den Vorgaben der STIKO. Dieser sieht in den ersten Lebensjahren -beginnend mit 6 Wochen- ca. 40 Impfungen gegen 13 Krankheiten vor. Immer mehr Eltern informieren sich heutzutage kritisch zum Thema Impfen und haben angesichts möglicher Impfnebenwirkungen und -schäden Bedenken, ihre Kinder streng nach diesem Plan impfen zu lassen.

Nachfolgend ein Einblick in die wichtigsten Infektionskrankheiten und die zugehörigen Impfungen:


Ruft schwere Durchfälle hervor, die bei ansonsten gesunden Kindern nicht tödlich verlaufen und auch keine bleibenden Schäden hinterlassen. Die Impfung erfolgt zu einem sehr frühen Zeitpunkt

(6 Wochen) und ist eine Lebendvirusimpfung, die keine Adjuvantien, dafür aber Antibiotika enthält. Aus der Vergangenheit sind Fälle von Verunreinigungen des Impfstoffes mit Schweineviren bekannt. Als Nebenwirkung der Rotavirusimpfung kann eine lebensbedrohliche Darminvagination auftreten (etwa 40 Fälle pro Jahr). Frankreich hat übrigens nach zwei Todesfällen die Empfehlung für die Rotavirusimpfung aufgehoben.


Zählt zu den gefürchtetsten Infektionskrankheiten und ist in den Dritte-Welt-Ländern auch heute noch weit verbreitet. Bei uns spielt es eher eine untergeordnete Rolle, ist aber dennoch die Impfung, die von den meisten Eltern als die Wichtigste erachtet wird.

Problematisch ist das in den Tetanus-Impfstoffen enthaltene Aluminiumhydroxid. Es steht im Verdacht, Autoimmunerkrankungen sowie neurologische Erkrankungen hervorzurufen.

Vergleichsuntersuchungen zwischen geimpften und ungeimpften Kindern in Ländern der Dritten Welt zeigten, dass Impfungen gegen Tetanus (ebenso wie gegen Diphterie, Keuchhusten und Kinderlähmung) die Kindersterblichkeit im 1. Lebensjahr im Vergleich zu Ungeimpften fast verdoppelten!

Empfohlen wird, 20 Jahre nach erfolgter Tetanus-Impfung die Impftiter bestimmen zu lassen. Oft sind sie sogar dann noch relativ hoch.


Eine lästige Erkrankung, für Kinder, die älter sind als 4-6 Monate, in der Regel jedoch nicht gefährlich. Da der Schutz durch die Impfung zu diesem Zeitpunkt noch nicht gegeben ist, ist die Intention der Impfung nicht der Schutz des Geimpften, sondern der Schutz der kleineren Geschwister („Kokon- Strategie“). Allerdings müssten nach dieser Strategie zur Verhinderung eines Todesfalles zwischen 1 und 12 Millionen Menschen geimpft werden!

Die Impfung selbst hat nur eine kurze und unsichere Wirkung, die Erkrankungszahlen nehmen in den impfenden Ländern sogar zu. Zu den Nebenwirkungen der Impfung gehören Fieber, schrilles Schreien, selten eine Enzephalopathie. Bei einer erfolgten Infektion kann die Ansteckung weiterer Personen mittels Antibiotikum vermieden werden.

Hib (Haemophilus influenzae Typ b)

Eine Hib-Infektion kann die bei Kleinkindern lebensbedrohliche Kehldeckelentzündung (Epiglottitis) auslösen. Die Hib-Impfung ist eine der wenigen Impfungen, die einen wirklichen Herdeneffekt mit sich bringt, d.h., ein geimpftes Kind kann kein Hib übertragen. 50% der Fälle betreffen Kinder in Kindertagesstätten.

Zum tatsächlichen Impfschutz gibt es keine Studien. Als mögliche Nebenwirkung wird Diabetes diskutiert. Seit der Einführung der Hib-Impfung hat sich die Erkrankung zunehmend ins Erwachsenenalter verlagert. Mittlerweile ist die Mehrzahl der Erkrankten älter als 60 Jahre.

5% der nicht geimpften Personen haben Hib-Erreger im Rachen, ohne daran zu erkranken. (Bei Meningokokken sind es 10%, bei Pneumokokken sogar 50%). Hier ist noch Vieles nicht erforscht. Als gesicherter Risikofaktor für die Erkrankung gilt (Passiv-)Rauchen. Stillen stellt hingegen einen relevanten Schutz dar!

Bei Impfbeginn nach dem 1. Lebensjahr ist eine Impfung ausreichend, sonst werden 3 Impfungen benötigt. Der Impfstoff ist auch einzeln erhältlich.


Es gibt ca. 90 verschiedene Serotypen, davon sind 20 pathogen. Jährlich erkranken 1000-1500 mit Pneumokokken infizierte Personen schwer an Meningitis, Lungenentzündung oder einer Sepsis.

Die Sterblichkeit liegt unter 5%, darunter meist immungeschwächte Personen.

Die Impfung enthält 13 der 90 Serotypen. Laut zahlreicher Studien erkranken geimpfte Kinder häufiger an den Pneumokokken-Erregern, die nicht im Impfstoff enthalten sind (Replacement- Phänomen).


Die in Deutschland empfohlene Impfung schützt vor Meningokokken der Gruppe C. Diese macht jedoch nur 20% aller Erkrankungen aus. Das entspricht 70-80 Erkrankungen bei insgesamt ca. 350 Meningokokkenfällen pro Jahr.

Für die ebenfalls in Deutschland erhältliche Meningokokken B-Impfung (75% aller Fälle) gibt es aufgrund der fragwürdigen Wirksamkeit und schlechten Verträglichkeit keine allgemeine Impfempfehlung. Untersuchungen lassen den Verdacht aufkommen, Konjugatimpfstoffe wie die Meningokokken- (und auch die Hib-)Impfung könnten die Entwicklung autistischer Krankheitsbilder fördern. Auch das Kawasaki-Syndrom, eine potenziell lebensgefährliche Gefäßerkrankung, zählt zu den bekannten Nebenwirkungen.


Früher waren sie eine normale Kinderkrankheit. Gefährlich sind sie für Kinder mit Unterernährung in armen Ländern. Dort kann die Sterblichkeit sehr hoch sein. Wir sollten auf jeden Fall verhindern, die Masern in solche Länder zu tragen, z.B. durch nicht immune reisende Jugendliche.

Die Zahl an Komplikationen hängt stark von der Behandlung ab. Epidemien wie in Coburg zeigen, dass eine rein schulmedizinische Behandlung, insbesondere Fiebersenkung, die Verläufe ungünstig beeinflusst und sehr viel mehr Klinikeinweisungen die Regel sind, während bei rein homöopathisch-anthroposophischer Behandlung von 800 behandelten Kindern keines eingewiesen werden musste.

In keiner Masernstatistik wird die Art der Behandlung berücksichtigt. Dies führt zu einer Verfälschung der Statistiken. In Europa beträgt die Sterblichkeit derzeit 1:3000, das Enzephalitisrisiko 8:10000.

Die Behauptung, eine Masernerkrankung würde das Immunsystem schwächen, verkehrt sich bei richtiger Behandlung ins Gegenteil. So gibt es mehrere Studien, die eine Evidenz dafür zeigen, dass Neurodermitis und Asthma nach Masern seltener auftreten. Und langfristig sinkt auch das Risiko, an einer chronisch lymphatischen Leukämie zu erkranken.

Der größten Gefahr einer Maserninfektion unterliegen junge Säuglinge, die die gefürchtete, tödliche Folgeerkrankung SSPE (Subakute sklerosierende Panenzephalitis) entwickeln können. Einen Risikofaktor stellt das überfüllte Wartezimmer beim Kinderarzt dar. Gestillte Kinder sind in den ersten Lebensmonaten durch den Nestschutz der Mutter vor einer Infektion geschützt, wenn die Mutter selbst Masern durchgemacht hat. Nach Masernimpfung ist der Nestschutz weniger ausgeprägt. Insgesamt sinkt der Nestschutz, weil die Erwachsenen kaum mehr durch Masernkontakt ihre Immunität auffrischen.

Der Masern-Einzelimpfstoff bietet einen noch zuverlässigeren Schutz als der Kombinationsimpfstoff MMR, in dem es zu einer gegenseitigen Abschwächung der Impfviren kommen kann. Derzeit ist ein Einzelimpfstoff in Deutschland zugelassen, bei Nicht-Lieferbarkeit kann ein identischer Impfstoff (Rouvac) über die Apotheke aus Frankreich bezogen werden.


Die Erkrankung ist im Kindesalter völlig ungefährlich und senkt das Risiko für Frauen, an Eierstockkrebs zu erkranken, um 15%.

Ein Drittel der männlichen Erkrankten erleidet eine Hodenentzündung, von allen Erkrankten werden allerdings nur 5% steril, wobei nicht sicher ist, wie viele bereits vor der Erkrankung zeugungsunfähig waren. Der Impfschutz ist unzuverlässig und hinterlässt nicht die gleiche Immunität wie die durchgemachte Erkrankung.


Eine Röteln-Immunität ist bei Frauen unabdingbar, da eine Rötelnerkrankung in der Schwangerschaft für das Ungeborene sehr gefährlich ist.

Die Impfung sollte -falls noch nicht vorhanden- vor oder in der Pubertät erfolgen, auch weil der Impfstoff später weniger gut verträglich ist.

Da die Rötelnerkrankung oft symptomlos verläuft, kann man vor einer Impfung den Titer bestimmen, um zu klären, ob unbemerkt eine Immunität erworben wurde. Dies ist allerdings immer seltener der Fall. Auch wenn die Impfung bereits längere Zeit zurückliegt, kann eine Titerbestimmung sinnvoll sein.

Beim Kombinationsimpfstoff Mumps/Masern/ Röteln steigt der Prozentsatz der Impfversager bei Impfung vor dem 15. Lebensmonat stark an. Dieser fehlende Impfschutz kann dann oft nicht nachimmunisiert werden, weil primäre Impfversager auch bei Wiederholungsimpfungen vielfach nicht auf die Impfung ansprechen.


Eine völlig harmlose Erkrankung. Die Impfung ist im Prinzip überflüssig.

Eine durchgemachte Windpockenerkrankung reduziert die Wahrscheinlichkeit, an einem Glioblastom (bösartiger Hirntumor) zu erkranken, um 40%.

Die Einführung einer flächendeckenden Windpockenimpfung erhöht für die Bevölkerung deutlich die Wahrscheinlichkeit, an einer Gürtelrose zu erkranken, weil die Immunität gegen das Virus durch den abnehmenden oder fehlenden Windpockenkontakt absinkt.


Der individuelle Impfentscheid

Erfahrungen zeigen, dass Mehrfachimpfstoffe mit sehr vielen Komponenten mehr Impfkomplikationen nach sich ziehen als Einzelimpfstoffe oder Impfstoffe mit weniger Bestandteilen. Das ist z.B. beim Masern-Mumps-Röteln-Windpockenimpfstoff im Vergleich zu MMR oder beim Sechsfachimpfstoff im ersten Lebensjahr der Fall.


Prinzipiell kann ein Kinderarzt jeden Impfstoff bestellen. Leider ist die Verfügbarkeit von Impfstoffen mit weniger Komponenten derzeit sehr schlecht. Einige Einzelimpfstoffe, wie etwa gegen Röteln, wurden komplett vom Markt genommen.

Haben Eltern sich entschieden, nicht nach STIKO-Vorgaben impfen zu lassen, stehen ihnen oftmals ermüdende Diskussionen mit ihrem Kinderarzt bevor - bis hin zum Rauswurf aus der Kinderarztpraxis! Auf der Website der Ärzte für individuelle Impfentscheidung e.V. ( finden Sie unter „Impfberatung“ eine Arztliste der Mitglieder sowie weitere Informationen. Auf Nachfrage erhalten Sie auch gerne eine Liste der Ärzte in Ihrer Nähe.


[Karl-Reinhard Kummer]

Childhood Immunization Programs Questions from the Anthroposophic Point of View Part I (Original title: Impfungen im Kindesalter. Fragen aus anthroposophischer Sicht. Merkurstab 1995; 48:313-22. English by A. R. Meuss, FIL, MTA.) Vol. 12, Nr. 4


In view of the large number of immunizations recommended and the publicity-driven pressure on critics of mass immunization, it will be necessary to take a fundamental approach to the whole process. Immunization cannot be said to be an attenuated form of the disease. It is a specific memory process in which the child's powers of antipathy are enhanced. Immunizations are thus similar to what happens at a more advanced age. Boosters correspond in principle to allergic processes. Immunizations enforce peripheral digestive activity that may demand too much of the organism. This may pave the way for allergies.

Long-term effects on health cannot be adequately assessed, despite mass programs. Apart from immediate side effects there may be changes in infection spectrum. The actual goal of immunization, which is to reduce the number of injections, may not be reached. Gaps in the program may cause the immune status of whole population sections to be reduced rather than enhanced.

Lack of information on fundamental aspects of immunization is considerable. This concerns schedules, the number of immunizations required or the problem of failures. Information is also needed on the epidemiological effect of major campaigns. Studies on the individual rather than collective statistical methods are demanded.

Global mass immunization programs do not meet individual requirements. The individual or the parents must be allowed to make an individual decision for every immunization procedure.

Current situation

The Ständige Impfkommission (STIKO, Permanent Commission on Immunization) in Germany made major changes to its recommendations in 1994. Diphtheria immunization is recommended more strongly, HIB vaccine to be used up to four times for all infants and young children, MMR vaccine during the 15th month and at age 5 for all children, pertussis vaccine in combination with diphtheria and tetanus (DPT) three times in infancy and a 4th time in the 2nd year of life.

Little emphasis is put on the risks of cellular pertussis vaccines, with pertussis immunization recommended for children with neurologic disease, though the final responsibility is left to the physician. Some "children with progressive neurologic disease, seizures, neurologic conditions that frequently involve seizures"... are stated to be "greatly at risk." "The physician must therefore weigh the risks carefully." Acellular pertussis vaccines still have to prove their value in practice.

Twenty-nine routine immunizations against eight diseases are recommended up to the age of 15, about twice the number recommended by Stickl.

A look at some vaccines

Immunizations and vaccines differ, and distinction must be made especially between immunizations against virus and bacterial infections and those against toxins. Vaccines against viruses are often called "live" vaccines. Quast et al. write: "Use of live vaccines means injection of live attenuated pathogens, i.e. their virulence has been reduced ...." This is incorrect. Virus substance does have some of the properties of life forms but not the properties of life. It can induce specific reactions in the living organism. These are, however, different in quality, e.g. with BCG vaccine, than those seen with measles immunization. Considering them to be equal, as done by Quast et al. (p. 20f.) or Fenyves and Kurth, ignores the differences that exist for vital processes in the organism.

Vaccines against bacterial antigens

Rook distinguishes between toxins, capsular polysaccharides, a mixture of toxins in Bordetella pertussis, lipopolysaccharides in Neisseria gonorrhea and unknown antigens in BCG vaccine (see also Paswell). In his view, problems increase in the given sequence.

According to Steiner, bacteria are "animal plants." They may flourish where there is an excessive "tendency to become animal". Bacterial processes belong to the anabolic aspect of the organism. It is therefore understandable why bacterial vaccines have poor immunizing effects (BCG or live typhoid vaccines). Apart from the toxins, they are not well tolerated, which also applies to cellular pertussis vaccine. Excessive reactions such as BCG abscesses may occur. The antigens to BCG vaccination are not yet known.

Natural immunization against bacterial capsular antigens such as Haemophilus influenzae B starts only at 18 months, with a reliable level of immunity reached only at age 3. Present-day vaccines provoke an immune response even in infants, because bacterial antigens that are not very immunogenic before the 3rd year are conjugated with another antigen - diphtheria, tetanus or meningococcus toxoids. Conjugation of Haemophilus vaccines may be said to be "toxification." The toxoids raise the process to a level where astral antipathies are active. The possible consequences of this are not yet known.

Bacterial infections are a puzzle to this day. Heininger showed that while there were pertussis symptoms with whooping cough and parapertussis, no pertussis toxin had been found.9 In the case of HIB immunization, information on the role of antibody affinity is limited, .... reflecting physio- chemical bonding or accurate antibody-to-antigen fit; ... antibody affinity does not necessarily have to correlate with the antibody concentration.

Vaccines against viral antigens

Virus infections indicate a marked tendency towards mineralization and decomposition processes. The organism is forced to produce and replicate the foreign virus substance until it recovers. Healing will only begin if inflammatory reactions are possible. Zur Linden therefore postulated that viruses related to the destructive pole in the organism, i.e. the nervous system. The trend is evident in breakdown of the mucosa with aphthous stomatitis, for instance, or chickenpox. T cells perish in vitro after measles infection, resulting in a form of immunosuppression about which little is known. Cellular immunity,

e.g. the tuberculin reaction, is reduced during measles infections.

The inflammatory changes seen with virus infections represent the second, reconstructive healing phase. Measles exanthem actually indicates that (artificial) immunity is beginning to develop. The exanthema subitum of infants, which only develops when the process has finished, is a typical instance.

Because of the mineralizing tendency, it is easy to see why complications seen with immunization against virus diseases such as measles, mumps and rubella affect the nervous system. Degeller ascribed this to the effect mineral substances have on the Ego. The fact that pregnant women have good immunity against virus infections is also explained by increased catabolic activity. Compared to bacterial infections such as tuberculosis or pertussis, where this type of immunity is poor, the cellular component of immunity is less important.

Remarkable little is known about the role of the host. A number of measles virus subtypes are known, but no conclusions can be drawn from this. The polio vaccine virus clearly changes considerably in its passage through the gastrointestinal tract. For combined immunization against types 1, 2 and 3, parts of type 2 are incorporated in attenuated type 3 virus. Numerous other dramatic mutations develop during the weeks following vaccination. Elimination of the vaccine virus takes longer than assumed. In spite of so many facts being known, many questions remain open with reference to the oral polio vaccine.

Vaccines against toxins

Greater certainty exists with regard to vaccination against bacterial toxins. Vaccination with toxoids may be seen as addressing the astral body directly. This is able to react adequately by producing antitoxins. Digestion in the metabolic system is necessary but requires relatively little effort. Immunostimulation is at a high level, and tolerance relatively good.

With immunity limited to toxin activity, transmission of the bacteria is possible despite protection against developing diphtheria. Tetanus shows relatively little metabolic activity, at least compared to diphtheria, which may, among other things, lead to enlargement of lymph nodes. This explains why immunization against tetanus is possible at the intrauterine stage but immunization against diphtheria, which is more metabolic by nature, only at about 3 months.

Vaccination and disease

The aim of immunization is to develop antibodies. Many physicians consider vaccination to be an attenuated form of the disease which has a positive effect on the child's developing immune status. Early vaccinations done by the ancient Chinese or Jenner were intended to avoid serious illness by giving a mild one. The current view is that apart from antibody production, vaccination and disease have little in common.

This limitation to antibody induction was Behring's aim more than 100 years ago. He was only interested in the antitoxic effects. Initially he tried to treat sepsis with iodoform, "like preserving a ham against putrefaction by smoking it," and came to the following conclusion: "Let us assume the morbific effect of virulent pus depends on the presence not only of pus bacteria but also of their chemical products; let us also assume that those chemical products are influenced by iodoform, rather like cadaverin. This explains why iodoform can have a medicinal effect in virulent disease without causing appreciable direct damage to the microorganisms." He suspected that "laws can be demonstrated according to which a relationship exists between an animal's immunity to a bacterial disease and the antibacterial activity of its serum." In 1899 he wrote: "Nothing in the world is influenced by tetanus antitoxin, except tetanus toxin."

In 1901, he started his attempts, together with Katashima, to immunize monkeys with diphtheria toxin, "transferring genuine diphtheria bacilli, the virulence of which has been attenuated, to the human throat organs for the purpose of auto-immunization." He felt the body had to be forced to produce a species-specific antitoxin "that, unlike a foreign antitoxin, remains in the blood for a long time and therefore confers protection against diphtheria for a year and a day.

Vaccination and disease are almost completely dissociated today. Febrile reactions to vaccination are rare in healthy subjects. This means that vaccination has essentially become a process to which there is no inflammatory reaction, a process of coldness. The specific immunization process, vaccination and the general reaction, a respiratory tract infection, may actually run side by side. Mild disease is not considered a contraindication for vaccination. Dennehy et al. found that seroconversion against measles, mumps and rubella was the same in children with and without respiratory tract infection. Like Peter, they concluded that respiratory tract infection is not a contraindication. Long-term side effects were not investigated.

It is, in fact, contraindicated to induce disease by vaccination. With this in mind, many physicians give prophylactic antipyretics when doing a vaccination, even if there is no medical reason for this. Suppression of symptoms is the general principle with vaccination and disease, m the case of vaccination they are usually referred to as "reactions" rather than "complications." The distinction depends on whether it is felt that side effects should be presented as serious or made to look harmless.

Quast et al.’s reference to "vaccination disease" is inconsistent. The virus count does increase with "vaccination measles," but the symptoms are not those of the wild disease. Above all the characteristic psychic changes do not develop. BCG vaccination will result in enlargement of regional lymph nodes or tuberculous skin abscesses. The process shifts to the skin. With tuberculosis it takes place in the internal organism ("hysteria taking place directly in the ether body").

Time form of diseases

A disease is a process in time. Weckenmann investigated tonsillitis and myocardial infarction and found alternation between general and local symptoms following definite laws. This was especially apparent with childhood diseases, but also nephritis, pneumonia and myocardial infarction. Girke found this also applied to sclerotic symptoms. Sclerotic substance is produced during the local phases. A disease goes through numerous rhythmic intermediary processes before recovery is achieved. The recovery process may on occasion be painful but is a necessary part. "Silent" measles immunization is also a process. Here, it is open to the individual to gain immunity with or without manifest disease. The different incubation periods of many infectious diseases suggest that some room exists for individual variation. Evolution is, in fact, always individual, even with the same disease. Vaccination does not take this course in time. It may go against the normal time schedule and prevent the disease in the case of rabies or measles. The building up and breaking down processes normally seen with the disease do not develop/ and particularly also the process of ultimate recovery. Instead of the organism being restructured once the infection is overcome, there is only the development of immune memory, with no healing process.

Vaccination comes from outside, with the organism exposed to it. Behring actually spoke of "forcing" the organism. Vaccination is not intended to be individual but predictable, planned, uniform. An individual process also becomes impossible with regard to onset. With contagious diseases such as measles or chickenpox, some children will not contract the disease on contact but only at a later date or never. They have their own special place in the biography, as does pneumonia. Vaccination makes such individual evolution impossible.

The situation becomes even more serious when booster shots are given (v.i.). Entry port into the organism.

The normal port of entry into the organism, such as the mucosa or lymphatic system of the gastrointestinal tract, is not used as a rule. Behring still went in that direction in his attempts to "vaccinate" the tonsils with diphtheria bacilli. Vaccination by injection or scarification circumvents the digestive process, creating a minor wound and enforcing "parenteral digestion," without addressing the lymphatic system directly. From the anthroposophic point of view we must ask whether injections of any kind do not harm the "rhythmic system," unless the medicament is specially prepared. By its very nature such a medicament is not designed for digestive processes. The organism is mainly protected against foreign matter, "poisoning" by foreign foods,

in the gastrointestinal tract, with a limit set to destructive digestive processes.

In the process of digestion, food and organism enter into a close relationship between inner and outer. Weckenmann referred to this as a gesture of sympathy. At the same time a pause is created for the organism,

a kind of buffer zone between inner and outer, before the food substances reach the inner organism by the lymphatic route. As a result, contact between foreign matter that is not yet fully degraded and the lymph or blood which is wholly one's own can be delayed a little. It is different with vaccination. Here the foreign substance, generally given by the parenteral route, demands instant reaction, which puts it close to a forced reflex.

Weckenmann states that digestion outside the intestinal tract occurs only under pathological conditions, as with inflammation. Thus, "parenteral digestion" demands sacrifices from the organism that take the form of abscesses. Any injection calls for "parenteral digestion." The negative effect an injection has on the organism is not purely academic. Strebel et al. found that in 87% of cases of paralytic vaccination polio in Rumania one or several intramuscular injections had been given during the 30 days preceding onset of paralysis.

Problem of elimination

Typical childhood diseases have accompanying eliminatory processes. This may take the form of exanthem, diarrhea or vomiting, with the incidence remarkably high, as shown in a retrospective study by the author. This corrects the variable imbalances between the upper and lower human being as the disease evolves. Exanthema may be seen as peripheral "digestion," and equated with healing. Vaccination does not offer this potential, apart from so-called side effects. This may result in premature sclerotic changes.

With suppression of symptoms, immunizations have become memory and neurosensory processes. Reading Behring's writings we realize that metabolic activity is to be as far as possible excluded. This has two consequences. First, there is no possibility for creating a counterbalance to this neurosensory activity in the metabolic sphere. Secondly, this sense-related function is in the sphere of metabolism. The only kind of counter process the metabolism can find is a metabolic reaction in the sphere of the nerves and senses. The relationship between the upper and the lower human being is thus put under a strain.

Immunizations therefore increase a tendency to higher sensitivity in the nervous system, as described by Wolff. With a strain put on the memory and sensory functions of the organism, it is easy to see why side effects frequently involve the nerves or the senses, e.g. as encephalophathy with pertussis or diphtheria immunization or meningitic changes with measles immunization. The memory functions of the metabolic system are challenged by foreign substances. At the same time the actual metabolic processes, manufacture of the vaccine, take place outside the organism. Steiner referred to the effect of excessive demands made on the organism through external processes in the lower human being as hysteria.

Immunization and memory

A child is a creature of the senses; powers of growth with their sympathy dominate the picture. Sensory processes, tasting processes are active all the way to the body periphery. In the first 7 years of life the physical foundation for the individuality is created. In no other period of life is the tension between "inner" and "outer" as great as in childhood when body substance is created and infectious aspects of the environment have to be overcome.

During its first 7 years a child should only receive easily digestible quantities of new impressions. We know that infants may react with colic to mother's milk and with shyness to strangers. Mothers' milk is the least foreign substance. Its constituents, e.g. iron, are easily taken up. Having high physical surface activity and a high concentration of immunoglobulins it protects the child's sensitive organism.

Memory is only possible if there is conscious awareness. This requires powers of antipathy to the environment which infants and young children do not have. A cold persists for a long time in infants. Virus infections do not cause general febrile reactions followed by rapid recovery. Immunization is only good from birth, and even in utero, in the case of toxoids. Before mass measles immunization was so widespread, immunity conferred by the mothers was so good that measles immunizations did not prove successful before the 15th month. For a full discussion see Johnson et al., though they, too, reported only 74% or 53% success rates with early vaccination in 1994, depending on the method of investigation.

A child's early ability to remember is situation-bound. It will enter afresh into the same situation full of sympathy, perhaps taking the same route again in memory. Isolated facts are not remembered, and no note is taken of them. Only processes are remembered. Vaccination is not a process but a single event, with only the antipathetic aspect experienced. The absence of a process may be one reason why the immunity conferred by vaccination is limited in time, compared to that given by the wild disease (e.g. measles) which is lifelong.

Booster shots confer the desired long-term immunity. This, however, is enforced memory and unphysiological in young children. Young children, especially if under 3 years of age, experience every situation as something new, even if they have known it before. This is the age when forgetting is "practiced." Regular habits have an educative effect on the child. Isolated events, on the other hand, especially if enforced, with no opportunity to take them up in play, can prove harmful.

Immunizations, thus, represent one-sided emphasis on memory and "head" processes. The rhythmic functions that facilitate digestion are impeded if not made impossible.

Immunization and immune system

Little reliable information is available on the effect on immune status, though it has been said that "postvaccinal immune weakness" after MMR immunization is possible, at least in theory. Acellular pertussis immunization, currently introduced with considerable publicity, also raises many questions.

Immunization essentially addresses the specialized T cell functions of the immune system, and the antigen specific B cell response. The response to polysaccharide antigens begins in the 2nd or 3rd year and is only fully developed in the 9th year. From the anthroposophic point of view, this is the time when the "Ego" begins to intervene in metabolism. Children are then able to relate fully to their environment both physically and psychologically.

Little is known about immunization effects on nonspecific immune mechanisms. These are highly similar to digestive processes, e.g. complement receptors binding viruses or bacteria, opsonization of these complexes in macrophages and their elimination in the reticuloendothelial system of spleen and liver. Induction of special antibody development may result in nonspecific immune responses being neglected. This may apply especially if vaccination is given in spite of respiratory tract infection. It enhances the dissociation between specific and nonspecific immune processes. There are children with poor resistance to infection, for instance, who have had a large number of immunizations. This reminds of people with allergies who have extremely high IgE levels.

Waking and sleeping, allergy and immunization

The level of consciousness in the upper human being is reduced during illness. People are febrile, experience malaise and feel less bright. On the other hand, they are awake and active in metabolism. The phase of quiescence which follows is necessary to restore full performance capacity. In the case of vaccination, the senses and nervous system are awake, perhaps even excessively so due to the pain of the injection. Just as going to sleep can be difficult after one-sided intellectual work, so can the "going-to-sleep processes" after vaccination present problems because the calming metabolic component is largely absent.

Nothing appears to be known concerning excessive strain on the immune system. We know, however, from everyday life that it needs some degree of health to cope with both physical and nerve stress. Following vaccination,

a foreign substance has to be "digested." There is a risk that the astral body is put under strain by this and withdraws, becoming less mobile. As a result the metabolism is not able to digest certain products properly. This leads to conditions which Steiner referred to as childhood hysteria, with the upper aspects of the human being involved outside the organism; the organism is injured by foreign processes.

Unlike digestion, vaccination entails sudden contact with foreign matter. In digestion, food is broken down and assimilated in numerous stages. The foreign matter, intestinal mucosa and flora are in close contact.

This involves both sympathetic and antipathetic elements. Sympathetic aspects predominate in the absorption stage. Antipathy only gains the upper hand in the region of the large intestine. The child is actively involved in the process of digestion. The same can be said of childhood play, when the doing is more important than the outcome. With vaccination, the organism is not asked to "digest," and the assimilation process occurs outside the organism in the form of attenuation, production of toxoids, etc.

Weckenmann sees immunity as a process and not a stable state. A disease process alternates between local and general symptoms. Someone who is immune, he says, does not continue in the immune state but is particularly responsive. In his view, the third step in disease is that "it is a form of further development if it helps the individual to develop 'immunity' or encounters an immune individual." For a cure, the right level of reaction has to be found, and for this Weckenmann suggests the term "euergy" rather than immunity. A cure thus represents restoration of the normal conditions under which the organism is able to digest, with losses minimized (economically).

People liable to develop allergies clearly have a general digestive weakness. This is known from the fact that cow's milk proteins taken as food by the mother remain essentially unchanged, passing through numerous barriers, and can be demonstrated in the child's blood. It should also be remembered that the nonspecific immune system is mainly associated with the intestinal tract. An allergic subject thus has the double handicap of primary digestive weakness and primary nonspecific immune deficiency.

Another aspect is the time of first contact. Early contact increases the risk of allergization. Thus it is possible for individuals to be allergic to pollen grains that were seasonal at the time of their birth. This reveals the importance of setting limits. With vaccinations given to very young infants it is possible that the good tolerance shown is merely apparent, and that vaccination only had minor side effects because reactivity had not yet developed. No connection has so far been established, however, between vaccination and subsequent immune capacities.

Problems often arise with the third DPT immunization. Booster shots intentionally interrupt the normal forgetting process. The individual is forced to deal with the foreign substance and unable to avoid it. It is therefore not only the second vaccination which presents problems but also revaccination using the same antigen.

An important aspect is who is in control of forgetting and remembering. Reduced antibody levels after immunization indicate that the organism tends to forget the immunization. Booster immunizations make this impossible. With the disease, the Ego is involved in maintaining immunity for life. With immunization this has to happen from outside. This could be a further explanation of the allergy potential, of being unable to forget, due to immunization.

Even the minor shocks infants show in reaction to injections have significance. The pain of an injection drives the Ego and the astral body out of the rest of the body. This is all the more so once children are older when revaccinated and experience the event more strongly. Physiologic memory processes in childhood take a very different course (v.s.).

Many of the processes involved in vaccination therefore correspond to those seen with allergies. An allergic individual does not forget but is wounded all over again on contact with the allergen, retaining the pathological memory. Renewed contact does not result in a better, but in a worse, reaction. The allergic compulsion of having to react again and again to a foreign substance is applied on purpose with booster shots. The Ego is coerced from outside. This will above all make processes of rest impossible, which the human being chooses in sleeping and waking, for instance. Boostering enforces wakefulness in the immune system.

The allergic phenomena have to be seen as an attempt at elimination, e.g. the powerful secretion of mucus in allergic conjunctivitis, rhinitis or bronchitis. Aggravation of allergic symptoms after vaccination may be seen as an attempt on the part of the organism to forget the vaccination in order to heal itself.

Standard works on pediatric immunology do refer to the problems that arise with immunization of allergic subjects but say little about the allergy potential of immunization. Stueck, too, merely mentions short-term aggravation of neurodermatitis with MMR immunization. Quast et al. do, however, admit: "It has been stated that skin diseases may be exacerbated by immunization. An effect on endogenous eczema (often positive, occasionally negative) due to measles immunization is certainly possible.. .." Bauer states that no work has been done to find an answer to this question. In the author's experience, onset of neurodermatitis was frequently preceded by immunization.

Quast et al. list a number of local and general reactions that are clearly allergic by nature (pp. 162-194). Their assumption is, though there is nothing as yet to prove it: "Reactions of this kind, representing allergy to vaccine constituents, are, however, extremely rare..." (p. 176). On the other hand, they accept "general intolerance of hen's eggs, though anaphylactic and other allergic symptoms have not been clinically confirmed."

Peter accepts only extremely severe hypersensitive reactions as a contraindication to revaccination. Nowadays MMR immunization is actually recommended for children allergic to egg-white.

Reinhardt: "There is nothing to indicate that the usual immunizations pave the way for food or inhalation allergies. This applies both to the normal population and to individuals with a high risk of developing an allergy (positive family history and raised umbilical cord IgE)."

According to Reinhardt, allergic reactions to vaccines may be due to auxiliary agents, but with today's highly purified vaccines such reactions are extremely rare. Again, no empirical data are given to support these statements.

Immunization - a process relating to old age

Childhood diseases have to do with the head pole coming to terms with metabolism. In most instances, metabolic processes go up into the sphere of the nervous system. These diseases are acute and febrile. Warmth processes and anabolism predominate, especially in morbidity. If there were no excess of febrile and anabolic processes, degenerative processes would develop. It is only in older children that the middle, rhythmic function establishes a balance.

Later in life, growth and regeneration become less active. Catabolic processes predominate. Sensory functions are also different in old people. Reticence takes the place of sympathetic reaction. With immunization, this is, in fact, desirable: recognition of the antigen with minimal systemic reaction and maximum efficiency in antibody production. Yet this process, which belongs to a more advanced age, is generally applied in childhood and youth. The antipathetic reaction pattern of immunizations may result in premature aging and catabolic processes.

Vaccine production involves death processes. Zur Linden drew attention to this in 1962. Polio vaccine is cultivated on monkey kidneys, chick embryos or human diploid cells taken out of their vital context. To avoid direct toxic reactions substances have to be added to attenuate and inactivate the pathogen. Other potentially harmful additives are disinfectants, solvents, emulsifiers, etc. These may also cause side effects.

Cell cultures used to grow the pathogen are artificially kept alive; it is worth noting that they are largely cultures based on tumor cells, i.e. a pathological life process is cultivated for the sake of the vaccine and not to serve the human organism. We thus have a reversal of goals, for it is not the human being who is vitalized in the process but the vaccine.


[Wolfgang Hannig, Heilpraktiker]

Diese Informationen sind nur als Hilfe zur Behandlung bei Impffolgen gedacht.

Es soll keine Entscheidungshilfe für o. gegen Impfen sein. Die immer wieder beschworene Harmlosigkeit der Impfungen wird häufiger als wir glauben ad absurdum geführt.

Denn Probleme verschiedenster Art treten nach Impfungen mehr o. weniger schnell auf, die dann wiederum nur durch das Datum im Impfpass als solche erkennbar sind. Deshalb ist er als Diagnosehilfe zusammen mit dem U-Heft genauso unverzichtbar, wie die - angeforderten - griffbereiten Beipackzettel!

Impffolgen treten nicht nur durch die injizierten Viren o. deren genmanipulierten Antigene, Bakterien o. deren genmanipulierten Bruchteile auf, sondern häufig auch durch die Zusatzstoffe im Impfstoff. Deshalb genügt es leider nicht mehr, nur gegen die Folgen der Viren, Bakterien o. deren Gift zu behandeln, sondern gegen Formaldehyd, Natriumtimerfonat (= in praktisch allen Tetanus-, Diphtherie- und Hepatitis B-Impfstoffen sowie in vielen Grippeimpfstoffen enthalten), Thiomersal (Quecksilbersulfatnatrium = Natriumsalz einer organischen Quecksilberverbindung und wird als Konservierungsstoff in kosmetischen und pharmazeutischen Produkten verwendet, um diese vor mikrobiellem Verderb zu schützen). Es wird auch als Natrium 2- (ethylmercurithio)benzoat angegeben. Aluminiumhydroxyd, das auch in vielen Magenmitteln zu finden ist, Aluminiumphosphat sowie Thiocyanat (Schwefelcyanat), Trometamol (ein Entsäuerungsmittel!) sowie Medium 199 (bestehend u.a. aus Vitaminen, Aminosäuren und Mineralsalzen). Humanalbumin,

Hühnereiweiß und diverse Antibiotikaspuren (in den Beipackzetteln zu finden!) kann Therapeuten das Finden des Mittels erschweren.

Die Beipackzettel sind als Fachinformation! beim Bundesverband der Pharmazeutischen Industrie, Fachinfoservice, Postfach 12 55, 88322 Aulendorf, anzufordern. Selbstverständlich auch über Internet, wenn man eine Abfragenummer hat. Auch per Fax abzufragen mit dieser Nummer. Jeder, der die Rote Liste erhält, hat automatisch eine solche Nummer. Ansonsten muss man die kopierte Erlaubniserteilung mitsenden. Es hat sich herausgestellt, erhält kein Laie diese Beipackzettel über Internet. Die Informationen darin sollen wohl geheim bleiben?! Man muss nachweisen, dass man im medizinischen Bereich tätig ist.

Warum befinden sich solche Gifte im Impfserum?

Aluminiumhydroxyd ist ein Adsorbans bzw. Adjuvans (weitere Details siehe Pschyrembel), welches die Impfcharge „trägt“ und bei Bluttemperaturen über ca. 35 Grad Celsius sich wieder davon trennt. Somit schwimmen Aluminiumhydroxyd bzw. -phosphat und Impfwirkstoff getrennt im Blut. Das gleiche Aluminiumhydroxyd befindet sich in sogenannten Antacida (Kompensan/

Gelusilac/Maalox). Die Rote Liste listet die Nebenwirkungen auf. Anstatt Aluminiumhydroxyd wird auch Aluminiumphosphat genommen bzw. beides wird eingesetzt. Ihnen wird eine sogenannte Boosterfunktion zugesprochen. In der Einzelimpfung Pertussis acellulär zum Beispiel o. in der Twinrix (eine Kombiimpfung von Hepat. A und B).

            Was haben solche Gifte eigentlich im Körper eines 3-4 Monate alten Säuglings zu suchen?

Auf die Frage, ob sie sich obige Gifte freiwillig ins Fleisch spritzen lassen würden, kommt seitens der Eltern ein erschrockenes „Nein!“. „Sie haben es aber bei Ihrem Kind zugelassen“ ist

meine Antwort und zeige dann den Beipackzettel mit den Inhaltsstoffen. Denn der Impfarzt hat das Zeigen der Beipackzettel sehr häufig „vergessen“. Der Anteil an Ethylquecksilber hat eine Halbwertzeit von ca. 15-20 Jahren und lagert meist im Gehirn. Durch viele Impfungen erhöht sich dieser Anteil beträchtlich.

Hier lohnt es sich, den Symptomenkatalog von Mercurius solubillis in Hahnemanns „Chronischen Krankheiten“ nachzulesen!

Die Mittel Alumina und Aluminium-phosphoricum haben sich in der Praxis bei entsprechenden Symptomen bewährt. Die Materia Medica beschreibt beide Mittel ausführlich.

Die Alzheimer Krankheit wird mit Aluminiumphosphat in Verbindung gebracht.

Die Rubrik < Milch im Kent enthält 4 Aluminiumverbindungen. Bei Neurodermitis besteht häufig diese Milchunverträglichkeit. Zu beachten auch bei Lactoseintoleranz!! Eine relativ neue Erscheinung als Krankheitsdiagnose! Möglicherweise eine andere durch Impfung verursachte Krankheit.

Die Mittel Cadmium sulfuricum und -jodatum wirken bei (oft 3-4fach) erhöhtem Aluminiumspiegel „unbekannter Ursache“ als Antidot (Deos enthalten Aluminium). Laut einer Umweltstudie wird das Metall in großen Mengen fast nur über Impfungen und Infusionen in den Körper eingebracht.

Formaldehyd, jedem seit den 80er Jahren bekannt als Allergieauslöser und deshalb in allen Kosmetikas und in Nahrungsmitteln verboten, ist trotzdem noch in den meisten Impfungen enthalten!

Es befindet sich außer in Meningokokken A und C-Impfung, Typhus-, Gelbfieber-Cholera- und BCG-Impfung (da diese oft als Trockensubstanz geliefert werden) in den anderen Impfungen. Formaldehyd ist ein stark wirkendes Gift und wird deshalb zum Desinfizieren von Krankenhausräumen, Kindergärten (Fällen von Meningokokken und ähnlich schweren Infektionen) benutzt.

Diese Räume dürfen erst nach einer bestimmten Zeit wieder betreten werden. Es sollte also nicht über die Haut (Kosmetika) aufgenommen und nicht eingeatmet werden. Wieso darf es dann ins Gewebe gespritzt werden? Auf diese Art wirkt das Gift noch viel intensiver also in viel kleineren Mengen!

Formaldehyd ist ein Aldehyd der Ameisensäure. Nicht umsonst ist das Gegenmittel für Hepatitis B und A-Folgewirkung das homöop. Mittel „Acidum Formicium“ = Ameisensäure. Siehe Pschyrembel, Rote Liste und Böricke (dort unter Formalin!) wegen besonderer Nebenwirkung von Formaldehyd. Damit lassen sich die meisten Folgen beseitigen. Aber auch andere Mittel in der Rubrik „Hepatitis“ bei weit zurückliegender Impfung helfen.

Es wird als Konservierungsmittel deklariert, hat aber die Aufgabe, Viren inaktiv zu halten. Jedoch, in der Hepatitis-B-Impfung sind doch nur auf Hefe gezüchtete, genmanipulierte Oberflächenantigene enthalten. Wozu dann drei Gifte wie das Formaldehyd, Thiomersal und Thiocyanat? Seit ca. 15 Jahren ist der Begriff „Reinkarnation der Viren“ als Phänomen bekannt,

dass sich Viren aus Bruchstücken komplett neu bilden können. Im Impfserum wird dieser Vorgang verhindert durch die Gifte. Im Blut des Geimpften dann ja wohl nicht mehr?! Es gibt Berichte, wonach Impfviren trotz Formaldehyd in „wilde Viren“ zurück mutierten!

Mir ist aufgefallen, daß das homöopathische Mercurius sulfuricus häufig bei Kindern und, wenn nicht so oft, bei Erwachsenen wirkt. Durch die zufällige Erklärung des Wortes Thiomersal auf einem Kongress ging mir ein Licht auf. Das Wort, das weder in der Roten Liste noch im Pschyrembel steht, bedeutet nichts anderes als Quecksilbersulfat. Da es an Natrium gebunden ist, wird es oft als Dinatriumsalz deklariert. Enthalten in den meisten Lebendimpfseren sowie im Gen-H-B-Vax. Wenn die Eltern davon Kenntnis hätten, dass Quecksilber im Impfstoff ist, wäre die Impffreudigkeit

mit Sicherheit nicht so hoch. Daher wohl auch die Verschlüsselung (meine Vermutung). Quelle: Staufen Thiomersal (= Quecksilbersulfat) D 30.

Der Hinweis, es sind ja nur Spuren im Impfstoff, gilt nicht, weil Thiomersal o. auch Natriumtimerfonat vom Organismus besser aufgenommen wird als zum Beispiel das Amalgam-Quecksilber. Letzteres zu ca. 0,1%, ersteres zu fast 95%. Die Speicherung im Gehirn ist bekannt.

Inzwischen höre ich öfters, dass der Beipackzettel gezeigt wird. Aber mit der latinisierten Verschlüsselung kann der Laie kaum etwas anfangen. Eine für Laien freundlichere Beschreibung wäre nützlich, würde aber sicher zu kritischeren Einstellungen der Impflinge bzw. deren Sorgepflichtigen führen.

Behandlungserfahrungen für den Praktiker

Bevor ich zu den häufigsten Symptomen komme, die ich in der Praxis nach Impfungen sehe, und behandele, noch ein Wort zur Fünffachimpfung. Ich habe von mehreren Eltern gehört, daß diese Impfungen als Auslöser von Neurodermitis von verschiedenen Ärzten akzeptiert wird. Also gezielt nach dieser Impfung fragen bei Neurodermitis. Sie besteht aus dT, Pertussis acellulär, HIB und der neuen Polioimpfung (Virelon C) o. IPV. Der Anteil an Diphtherietoxoid ist inzwischen sowohl bei der normalen dT-Impfung als auch bei der 5fach reduziert worden. Ausgedrückt wird das durch das kleine „d“

Das sowieso als Impffolgemittel angegebene Sulfur darf nicht übersehen werden. Auch ohne „philosophische Schlampigkeit“ des Betroffenen wirkt es überraschend oft. Es ist eventuell eines

der Antidote gegen beide, das Thiomersal und Thiocyanat. Beide enthalten Schwefel. Den Beweis muss ich schuldig bleiben, da ein gezielter Einsatz kaum so gut möglich ist, wie gegen das Formaldehyd. Außerdem spielt das Quecksilber noch seine üble Rolle.

Hepathitis-B, (A+B) Formaldehyd, Alum.-hydrox., Thiomersal, Thiocyanat. (+ Alum.-p.)

Behandelt habe ich Impffolgen fast nur aufgrund des Impfpasses: Nach HEP-B-Impfung aufgetretener chronischer Husten, Bronchitis einhergehend mit Ringen unter den Augen, Kopfschmerzen, Appetitlosigkeit, Völlegefühl, Lernschwäche für Mathematik (Dyscalculi). Manchmal erst nach 2 Monaten, aber dafür deutlich auf Acidum formicicum reagierend.

Hinweis: Gut repertorisierte Mittel wirken nur kurz. Dann kommt das meiste wieder. Achten Sie in den Impfungen auch auf die vielen Phosphatverbindungen: Hyperaktivität der Kinder!

            Tetanus, Td Natriumtimerfonat.

„Seit ich bei der Bundeswehr war, bin ich nicht mehr derselbe.“ Das höre ich oft von jungen Männern. Inzwischen brauche ich nicht mehr zu grübeln, warum. Es ist im Impfpass die

Tetanusimpfung, die bei diesen Patienten die Veränderung hervorgerufen hat und durchaus Jahre anhalten kann! Zwei Impfungen bei Eintritt und eine bei Entlassung. So war es zumindest als der Dienst noch 15 Monate umfasste. Bei empfindlichen Personen schädigt diese Impfung oft die Nieren. Diese Personen klagen häufig über Rückenschmerzen, die gar keine sind.

Hinweis: Nächtliche Schmerzen, die durch eine Lageänderung nicht gebessert werden, wie im allgemeinen bei echten Rückenschmerzen der Fall. Eine Leistungsschwäche wird beklagt, auch eine Überempfindlichkeit gegen Schmerzen, die vorher nicht da war. Gegenmittel: Canth. Led. Strych. Strych-p.

Inzwischen wird nicht mehr nur Tetanus allein geimpft, sondern auf Auffrischung eine Kombination von Diphterie und Tetanus gespritzt. Der Impfling wird selten darauf hingewiesen. Nach einem Blick in den Impfpass gibt es überraschte Gesichter. Dies hat zur Folge, dass zusätzlich noch Halsdrüsen geschwollen sein können und Erwachsene einen croupartigen Husten entwickeln.

Hier helfen: Lac-c. Spong. Kali-bi.

            Masern-Mumps-Röteln, Humanalbumin, Phenol, (Acidum Carbolicum! Siehe dort.)

Nach schmerzhaften Anschwellung von Drüsen im und am Halsbereich danach fragen, ob selbst Mumps-Masern-Röteln geimpft o. Auffrischimpfung der 5-6jährigen mit Mumps-Masern sowie der 13jährigen in der Klasse. Die Mumps-Masern-Impfung hinterlässt oft lange Zeit am Hals eine Drüsenschwellung, sowohl der Parotis als auch der Unterkieferdrüse. Hier helfen: Trif-p. Trif-r. auch Trit.r. Santoninum kann hier ebenfalls helfen (ein Alkaloid aus Cina).

Mittel gegen Folgen von Mumps-Masern-Röteln-Impfungen: Cycl. Zinc-m. Diese Impfung und die Rötelnimpfung allein können nach vielen Jahren zu Ekzemen in der Handfläche führen.

Aur-m. Kali-n. Gegen Humanalbuminfolgen: Histamin C 30.

Der Masernanteil macht sich bemerkbar durch eine häufig gestörte Bauchspeicheldrüse. Hier helfen: Iris. Spong. Iod. Phos. Und die Masernmittel in der Rubrik. Hier ist Natrium chloricum nicht Nat-m.! Hinweise sind Hautschuppung, trockene Haut nach der Impfung mit Jucken.

            Pentavac, Formaldehyd, Alum.hydr

Die Hautnebenwirkung der 5fach-Impfung hat meistens der Polioanteil. Hier helfen: Bung. o. Kali-m. eines der 8 Impffolgemittel im Kent. Sehr selten wirkt Kali-chloratum, nicht verwechseln! Ein weiteres Mittel ist Queb. Bungarus Krait ist eine Schlange, deren Biß physiologisch und histologisch Schäden anrichtet, die der Poliomyelitis identisch sind! Ein weiterer Störfaktor ist Hep. B, siehe dort.

Da nahezu alle Impfungen auch ansteckend sind, darf man die Folgen der Impfungen von Tieren, übertragen auf den Menschen, nicht unterschätzen. Möglich sind unter anderem Tollwut, Staupe, Hundehepatitis, Katzenschnupfen und sogar Kaninchenschnupfen. Durch Reaktion auf die potenzierte Impfung in C 30 konnte es die Betroffenen selbst erleben und eine andere, die Bordetella der Pferde (eine Keuchhustenbakterie). Es betrifft Reiter auf frisch geimpften Pferden, die lange Husten nach Reiten auf geimpften Pferden! Durch Reaktion auf die potenzierte Impfung in C 30 konnte es die Betroffenen selbst erleben, daß diese Theorie Wirklichkeit ist.

            Pertussis acellulär, Thiomersal, Alum.hydr., Alum.phos

Die Hauptwirkung bei erkennbaren Folgen des acellulären Keuchhustens, der meiner Erfahrung nach sehr ansteckend ist, fällt Sang. auf, wenn sich eine Bronchitis o. ein chronischer Husten entwickelt hat. Eine Kette von 8 Personen konnte ich auf ein frisch geimpftes Kind zurückverfolgen, das danach sogar Keuchhusten bekam. Unter der Rubrik Keuchhusten finden sich die Gegenmittel z.B. Cast. Pert. Kali-s. Dirca.

            Tollwutimpfung, alte und neue, Hühner- o. menschliches Eiweiß.

Das Arzneimittelbild von Lyssinum (nicht Luesinum) muss gut studiert werden, auch viele einwertige Symptome wie Schokoladen-Sucht, Jähzorn und Kribbeln im r. Körperteil dürfen nicht außer acht gelassen werden. Eileiterentzündung, Eierstockzysten (häufiger r.), deutet auf die (alte) Tollwutimpfung hin. Seit 1995 gibt es eine neue auf Vacciniaviren aufgepropfte Tollwutimpfung. Das Auftauchen von Lyss. in den Arzneimittelrubriken der Repertorien erinnert mich immer daran zu fragen, ob Haustiere in der Familie heute o. früher existierten und ob diese geimpft wurden.

Ich habe bei einer Familie erlebt, dass ein Kind jedes Jahr im Urlaub regulär Angst vor dem Meer entwickelt hat. Die Mutter hatte jährlich heftige Leber-Gallenbeschwerden. Anhand des Hundeimpfpasses stellte sich heraus, dass beides ca. 4 Wochen nach der jährlichen Tollwutimpfung auftrat. Lyss. hat dem Spuk ein Ende gemacht. Die Familie hat daraufhin die weitere Tollwutimpfung eingestellt.

Eine andere Familie wurde selbst gegen Tollwut geimpft. Der jähzornige Vater wurde nach der Behandlung wieder ruhig wie früher, wurde mir berichtet. Die 17jährige Tochter hörte auf, Stapel von Schokolade zu horten und sie tafelweise zu essen.

Staupeimpfung. Inhaltsstoffe mir noch unbekannt.

Patienten mit Folgen durch Staupeimpfung des Hundes reagieren sehr gut auf Ars. Deshalb sind hier Zufall und Zusammenhang schlecht zu trennen. Ein weiteres und gezielter wirkendes Mittel ist Haplopappus (Boericke, neuere Ausgabe). Die Symptome der übertragenen Impfung ähneln nach einiger Zeit fast der Fibromyalgie. Ich habe mehrfach eine Prostatastörung beim Rüden und seinem Herrn gleichzeitig erfahren! Dies sollte weiter geprüft werden. Das Krankheitsbild der Staupe findet sich in Nachschlagewerken für Tierinfektionskrankheiten (Ruddock). Weitere Mittel dagegen sind Triticum repens und Badiaga. Steifigkeit nach langem Sitzen im Hüft- und Kniebereich.

            Fsme, Frühsommer-Meningo-Encephalitis Hühnereiweiß, im Maushirn vorgezüchtet.

Chronische o. akute Nackenschmerz, die nicht chiropraktisch behoben werden können, sind oft Folgen der FSME-Impfung, die monatelang bleiben können. Der Impfstoff Ticovac wurde

inzwischen vom Markt genommen bzw. für Säuglinge nicht mehr empfohlen und für Erwachsene und ältere Kinder in der Dosis halbiert empfohlen. Als bekanntestes Mittel bietet sich Cic. an.

Aber auch Physos., Bell., Cina dürfen nicht übersehen werden.

            HIB hämolisierende Influenza B. (Bakteriell keine Viruserkrankung!), Spuren von Phenol.

Hämolisierende Influenza B wird meist an ein Toxoid der Diphterie, Tetanus o. Meningokokken „geheftet“ (Vielleicht eine Möglichkeit, warum nur isolierte Fälle von septischer Meningokokken-Meningitis auftreten. Die Wissenschaft rätselt ja immer noch darüber, wieso diese nie epidemisch auftritt.) Folgen der Impfung können variieren. Sehr häufig sind starkes Schwitzen am Kopf. Meningitisartige Schmerzen o. Kalziumstörung mit Lernbehinderung sind aufgetreten und behandelt worden. Hell. und Borx haben sich dabei bewährt. Da HIB meist in der Kombiimpfung mitgespritzt wird, ist eine genaue Differenzierung sehr schwierig geworden.

            „Grippe-Impfung“ Influenza Impfung Natriumtimerfonat Formaldeyhd.

Bei Folgen von Influenza-Impfungen steht Influenz., dann Gels., Eupat-per., Carb-v. und Hippoz. (Malleinum), bei älteren Patienten häufiger. Weitere Mittel Mang-acet. Colch. Aus dem Beipackzettel der Fa. Solvay Arzneimittel lässt sich entnehmen, daß die Influenzaimpfung parkinsonoide Zustände verursacht. Als 1962 die große Grippeepidemie war, wurde auf diese

Spätfolge hingewiesen!

Nur um nochmals keine Missverständnisse aufkommen zu lassen: Das Werk hat keinen Anspruch auf Vollständigkeit und soll auch das Repertorisieren der Fälle auf keinen Fall ersetzen,

sondern ein Hinweis sein auf weitere Möglichkeiten der homöopathischen Therapie für Arzneimittelkrankheiten!! (Kunstkrankheiten) und deren Vererbung! Selbstverständlich beinhaltet die Behandlung immer auch eine Gabe des potenzierten Impfstoffes! Die Symptome Infektionskrankheiten sind natürlich ebenso zu beachten als Folge der Impfung, denn oft lösen diese Impfungen die Krankheit aus!


Offensichtlich ist die Kritik wegen der Giftigkeit der Inhaltsstoffe bis zu Arventis-Pasteur gedrungen. Diese Firma stellt einen Impfstoff „Hexavac“ her, der nur noch mit Adjuvans Aluminiumhydroxyd auskommt. Enthalten sind darin Td, Pa/c, IPV, HIB sowie Hepatitis B. Ein Kind allergischer Eltern ist damit mehrfach geimpft worden und war sehr schnell fast nur noch eine Kruste (Neurodermitis). Da das Kind auf Alum. gut ansprach, wurde dieses Mittel verschrieben. Behandlung dauert an.

Ich selbst war am Abend nach dem Kontakt mit diesem Kind heftig erkrankt ohne große Ankündigung. Eine Dosis Hexavac M machte dem Spuk in einer Viertelstunde ein Ende!

In der Werbung für diese Impfung wird auf den Vorteil verwiesen, dass sie als einzige Impfung keine Konservierungsmittel mehr enthält. Beipackzettel 2½ Seiten! Weiter wird die Frage aufgeworfen, ob „Ein Impfstoff gegen sechs verschiedene Krankheiten - überlastet das nicht das Immunsystem des Babys?“ „Nein, denn bereits durch die ‘Ausatemluft’ seiner Eltern kommt ein Baby mit weitaus mehr unterschiedlichen Keimen in Berührung, mit denen sich sein Abwehrsystem auseinandersetzen muss. Im Vergleich dazu ist die Belastung durch eine Impfung gegen sechs Krankheiten in einer Spritze sehr gering.“ Zitat Ende.

Äpfel mit Birnen zu vergleichen ist schon immer ein Hobby der Impfbefürworter gewesen. Altes Wissen sagt, dass der Organismus nur mit einer Infektion auf einmal fertig wird (Hahnemann vor 200 Jahren, immer noch gültig!). Das ist die zynischste Art davon abzulenken, dass die Spritze durch die Haut in das ungeschützte Gewebe gespritzt wird. Mit dieser Spritze wird das gesamte

RES (Retikulo-Endotheliale-System) umgangen wie auch mit allen anderen gespritzten Impfungen. Es bleibt abzuwarten, wie die Antikörper der Babys auf dieses Geschehen reagieren.

Für diese Werbung verantwortlich zeichnet: Service Impfen Aktuell, Oberramstädter Str. 69, 64367 Mühltal (Ratgeber für Eltern). Impressum: Sanofi Pasteur MSD GmbH.

All diese Erkenntnisse stammen teilweise aus meiner Praxis. Teilnehmer des Arbeitskreises Klassische Homöopathie haben Erkenntnisse dazu beigetragen. Aber auch Bücher von Boericke, Clarke, Ruddock, Kent Repertorium. Die Arzneimittelbilder waren eine Fundgrube. Autoren wie Mily Schär-Manzoli (Tabu der Impfungen, Aids-Story), Lynn Mc Taggart (Was Ärzte Ihnen nicht erzählen), Splittstösser (Goldrausch), Buchwald (Impfen), Coulter (Großangriff auf Gehirn und Seele) und nicht zu vergessen die Beipackzettel der Impfungen, haben mir nicht nur ein Licht, sondern einen ganzen Kronleuchter aufgehen lassen über die Wirkungen, Nebenwirkungen und Inhaltsstoffe der Impfungen.

Durch Herrn Dr. Stefan Lanka (Medizin und Menschenrechte) und seinem Buch „Impfen Völkermord im 3. Jahrtausend“ wurde ich auf fehlenden Virusnachweis (Abbildungen per Elektronenmikroskop) aufmerksam!



Vorwort/Suchen Zeichen/Abkürzungen                                   Impressum