And in the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919, where the conventional medical death rates were soaring to 30% and beyond, the homeopathic physicians of that time (all MDs) lost fewer than 1% of their patients.

http://www.homeopathy.com/clinic/article_flu.html

The 1918 flu epedemic was caused by vaccinations?
http://whale.to/a/spanish_flu_q.html

Apparently thats what the article says. Didnt know that they vaccinated back then. It looks like they just vacc. the troops, but had huge amounts of fatalities anyways.  It would make sense that they would vacc. soldiers because they basically had no say in it, what better way to spread it around.

And in the influenza epidemic of 1918-1919, where the conventional medical death rates were soaring to 30% and beyond, the homeopathic physicians of that time (all MDs) lost fewer than 1% of their patients.

http://www.homeopathy.com/clinic/article_flu.html

The 1918 flu epedemic was caused by vaccinations?
http://whale.to/a/spanish_flu_q.html

Vaccination Debate Hits Feverish Pitch

With flu season fast approaching, Americans are more inflamed than ever by the continuing debate over vaccination. Yet few may realize that the controversy is deeply rooted in centuries-old political rivalry.

In 1798, a little-known English doctor named Edward Jenner published a work on “Variolae Vaccinae", a term he used in association with cowpox.  Jenner observed that certain milkmaids appeared to be immune to smallpox, a similar disease which periodically ravaged the kingdom killing many thousands of people.  Jenner hypothesized that inoculation of humans with material extracted from cowpox vesicles would confer immunity against its death-dealing cousin.  Initially met with skepticism, Jenner's work was eventually acknowledged by his Fellows of the Royal Society, an oracular academic institution founded in 1660, just months after the restoration of King Charles II.  Jenner's findings form the basis of modern-day vaccination practice, and the acceptance of his work led to the passing of a hotly debated constellation of vaccination laws under the reign of Queen Victoria in the 1840's.   

Nearly a century after its publication, a Scotsman by the name of Dr. Charles Creighton openly censured Jenner's work as fraudulent.  His 1886 book, Jenner & Vaccination: A Strange Chapter in Medical History questioned the validity of the term “Variolae Vaccinae", declaring it to be both synecdochic and metonymical.  According to Creighton, “the name is a new one, hitherto unheard of in veterinary or medical writings; [Jenner] never says a single word to justify its invention; he never once uses it in the preface or text at all."  Despite a complete lack of historical basis or justification of the term, it was quickly propagated in the literature, much like the vacuous term “enemy combatant"  is used by the media today in reference to the War on Terror.

Noteworthy is the fact that, while Creighton was a well-known Cambridge professor, and had been commissioned to write several articles for the 9th Edition of the Encyclopedia Brittanica, Jenner's 1792 medical degree was purportedly purchased from the University of St. Andrew's for  £15, during a time when the now highly-respected educational institution was suffering from a near fatal drop in enrollment.  According to history, Jenner was later awarded a genuine medical degree by the University of Oxford more than 20 years later, in 1813.  Irrespective of its authenticity, Jenner's work sparked a chain of events culminating in the global eradication of smallpox, as declared by the World Health Organization (WHO) in 1980.

Vaccination underwent an explosive renewal following the introduction of the polio vaccine by the American physician, Dr. Jonas Salk in 1955.  Since that time, vaccines have been developed for a wide array of infectious diseases from the relatively harmless chickenpox to the potentially deadly Anthrax bacillus.

As a result of its use as a bioweapon, the Anthrax vaccine has gained special attention from the U.S. military, who announced last week that it will resume mandatory vaccination for all personnel within the next 60 days.  The move was met with heavy resistance, including that of Kelli M. Donley, a medically-retired Air Force captain who experienced a progressive loss of motor skills following inoculation with the vaccine before traveling to South Korea in 2001.  Upon her 2003 return, an MRI confirmed that Donley had suffered an inexplicable shrinkage of her cerebellum- the part of the brain that coordinates motor skills.  While cerebellar dystrophy has not yet been scientifically linked to the Anthrax vaccine, Donley remains convinced that the vaccine is to blame.  Donley was one of 28 attendees at a symposium held last weekend in Washington, D.C., to examine the legal implications of the military's public health policy.  Military personnel have long implicated the aggressive vaccination campaign in a wide variety of health problems, including the enigmatic Gulf War Syndrome.

Civilians, too, suffered a loss in the battle against mandatory vaccination with the signing of the Defense Authorization Act on October 17.  The Act empowers the federal government to employ the Armed Forces “to restore public order and enforce the laws of the United States" under a declaration of public emergency.  Among the new powers is the ability to enforce mandatory vaccinations, such as the controversial flu vaccine, without the consent of state and local public health officials.

Influenza, or the flu, is an infectious disease of birds and mammals associated with a particular family of RNA viruses.  According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the disease is responsible for an annual 36,000 deaths within the U.S.  Globally, these estimates climb into the hundreds of thousands, and in a pandemic year, following massive mutations in the virus' code, can skyrocket into the millions.

Despite its worldwide prevalence, tracking the flu can be a tricky process.  In addition to the challenges posed by the staggering rate of mutation, public health workers must also contend with the presence of “influenza-like illness", an acute respiratory illness which mimics the flu, and is often erroneously reported as such.  Flu shot critics cite this misdiagnosis as responsible for exaggeration of the statistics published by the CDC.

Under U.S. guidelines, the flu shot is recommended for all people over 50 and under 5 years of age.  The “jab" is also recommended for pregnant women, under claims that prevention in expecting mothers can reduce the risk of leukemia in their unborn child.  The U.S. Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices also cites the heavy burden imposed by influenza on the health care system as a key factor outweighing the known risks of the vaccine.  While a reasonable contention, the question remains:  Does public policy really hold up to the rigors of scientific scrutiny?

An Italian team, led by public health expert Tom Jefferson, recently evaluated the growing gap between science and public policy.  Their research, published in an October issue of the British Medical Journal describes “poor study quality" and an “absence of convincing evidence" with regard to the efficacy of the flu vaccine.  Jefferson's team goes on to report that a literature review of its safety “found only one old trial with data from 35 participants aged 12-28 months."

In a timely contravention to Jefferson's findings, a study of over 45,000 children conducted at Denver Health and Kaiser Permanente was published in last week's Journal of the American Medical Association.  According to Dr. Simon J. Hambridge, a Denver Health pediatrician and lead author, children receiving the flu shot were no more likely to make a visit to the doctor within the weeks following the vaccination.  While this study suggested that the flu shot is safe for children of all ages, its critics point out that it tracked only short-term outcomes, and is far from conclusive.

Since 1999, the number of childhood vaccines has jumped from 10 to 16, and is now estimated to cost a staggering $1100 per child.  On Wednesday, the CDC approved the addition of two more vaccines to the schedule, adding vaccines against human papilloma virus (HPV) and rotavirus to the burgeoning list.  Concerned parents are still able to claim exemption on the grounds of religious or philosophical objection, but that may not be for long.  Heavy pressure from public health officials, school administrators, and daycare operators makes it increasingly difficult for parents to make decisions concerning the health-care of their children.  Current AMA policy “encourages state and medical associations to seek removal of such exemptions in statutes requiring mandatory immunizations."

Meanwhile, anecdotal evidence continues to mount against the alleged safety of vaccination practices.  Last week, the New Zealand Ministry of Health suddenly acceded to previously squelched concerns over a controversial meningococcal vaccine after an ACC hematologist reported that a serious blood disorder found in six children was indeed a result of the vaccine.  In Taiwan, the Deputy Director-General for the CDC recently suspended administration of flu shots procured from the French firm Sanofi-Aventis after four deaths in Israel were reported in connection with the vaccine.

Some of the safety concerns stem from a mercury-based preservative used in vaccinations called thimerosal.  Thimerosal has been implicated in a variety of neurological disorders, including the development of autism in children.  A petition for stricter regulations by the Coalition for Mercury-free drugs was denied by the FDA last Tuesday, more than two years after its submission.  In his response, FDA assistant commissioner for policy Dr. Jeffrey Shuren wrote, “Only a small number of licensed and approved products still contain thimerosal, and the available evidence supports FDA's conclusion that all currently licensed vaccines and other pharmaceutical drug products are safe for use."

Shuren was correct to the extent that most vaccines administered since 2001 were either thimerosal-free, or contained minute quantities of the mercury-based preservative.  What he didn't mention was that the main exception to the rule is the ubiquitous flu vaccine.  Not more than two days following the announcement of the FDA's ruling, a coalition of vaccine makers, public health officials, and pediatricians, including Kaiser Permanente, petitioned the State of California for exemption from a new law banning the use of thimerosal in vaccinations citing a developing shortage of mercury-free flu shots.

With regard to FDA safety data, a recent study conducted at the Center of Human Development and Disability at the University of Washington School of Public health found that the agency's safety model is faulty.  The calculations initially used to determine the safe levels of mercury assumed that the absorption rate of ethylmercury, the poisonous metabolite of thimerosal, was lower that the previously measured absorption rate of methylmercury present in contaminated fish.  The study found that ethylmercury crossed the blood-brain barrier at a rate more than three times than that of its cousin.  Thimerosal, as phenylmercuric acetate, is also used in over-the-counter eye and nose medications.

The anecdotal evidence on the efficacy front has also been less than satisfying.  Last year, a measles outbreak in Indiana raised concerns that the virus was still circulating among those vaccinated against the disease.  Just last week, a child in Delhi, India was reported to have contracted polio despite receiving nine doses of the vaccine, and on Friday, a rash of children in Midland County, Michigan came down with chickenpox even though they had all undergone previous vaccination.   

To top it off, this year's batch of the flu jab has already been beset with recalls.  Last week, New Jersey-based drug mogul Novartis issued a recall for 500,000 doses of Fluvirin after faulty shipments arrived in New York.  Yet while the troubles that plague Big Pharma continue to flare on many fronts, an old rival of conventional vaccination is slowly rising up out of the ashes.

Homeopathic medical practitioners claim that an alternative to vaccination, termed homeoprophylaxis, is not only safe and effective, but inexpensive to boot.  Homeopathy is a distinct system of medicine, developed by the German Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, who first presented it to the public in 1807.  It gained rapid approval throughout Europe, and was introduced into the U.K. by Dr. F. H. F. Quin, a British aristocrat thought to be the love-child of the English Lady Elizabeth Cavendish, Duchess of Devonshire, and the Irish Sir Valentine Richard Quin, 1st Earl of Dunraven.  Quin was regarded by many as Hahnemann's greatest pupil, and was responsible for bringing homeopathy into great favor among the aristocracy, which later became the treatment-of-choice of King George VI and Queen Mary.   Today, homeopathy still enjoys the favor of Charles, Prince of Wales, and is recommended by an estimated 40% of British physicians.  Interestingly enough, Sir John Forbes, a Scotsman, Fellow of the Royal Society, and personal physician of Queen Victoria, did not share in his contemporaries' enthusiasm for homeopathy, calling its preparations “laughably ridiculous and an outrage to human reason."

Homeopathy crossed the Atlantic into the U.S. in 1825, with the emigration of Dutch homeopath Hans Gram.  By 1844, its great popularity resulted in the formation of the American Institute of Homeopathy, the nation's first medical society.  Two years later, a rival group of physicians formed another society with the primary intention of curbing the growth of homeopathy, dubbing it the American Medical Association.  So incendiary was the early AMA toward the practice of homeopathy that it resolved to deny recognition of all graduates from the University of Michigan's medical program, following the establishment of a homeopathic professorship within its medical department, should their diplomas have borne the signature of any practicing homeopath.  A century later, Jonas Salk, would be granted a research fellowship at the newly created School of Public Health at U of M.  Dr. Salk passed away last June, after spending his final years researching vaccination against the HIV virus.

Meanwhile homeopathy refuses to concede death, and is currently undergoing a rejuvenation of sorts in the U.S. public health arena.  The recent revival is due to the development of a compelling alternative to the flu vaccine called Oscillococcinum.  While also prepared directly from the flu virus, the homeopathic remedy differs in that the final product contains no physical remnants of the virus itself, and requires no added preservatives to maintain its freshness.  While there is little debate about the safety of homeopathic remedies, many have raised questions about their efficacy.

In the historical record, homeopathy is cited as a highly effective means of controlling the flu.  One report given by Dr. T. A. McCann following the Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-1919 observed a 1.1% mortality rate among flu sufferers treated with homeopathy, in contrast to a stark 28.2% among those treated conventionally.  More recently, Oscillococcinum was demonstrated to significantly reduce the length and severity of flu symptoms in at least two double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trials.  The remedy, developed in France by Boiron, is available without a prescription in the U.S for about $15.

Criticism ranging from accusations of pseudoscience to outright quackery have been levied against homeopaths by the medical establishment for proposed mechanisms of action that posit a hitherto undiscovered ability of water to absorb, retain, and transmit, information commonly known as “water memory".  The term was coined in 1988 by a journalist reporting on a paper published in Nature by French immunologist Jacques Benveniste, who observed the activation of white blood cells in the presence of homeopathically prepared antibodies without relying on a chemical reaction.  Despite a failed replication attempt by Nature editor Dr. John Maddox and professional debunker James Randi, and insurgent criticism from his peers, Benveniste refused to acquiesce to demands for retraction.  Benveniste was awarded two Ig Nobel Prizes in Chemistry before his death in 2004, following surgery.

Yet the witch-burning continues, now fueled by the James Randi Education Foundation's Million Dollar Challenge which has been extended to anybody who can provide proof of the water memory theory.  Of course, there's a catch.  The determination of proof must meet Randi's almost impossible standards.  Though Randi himself readily admits that nobody will ever likely win the prize, it hasn't stopped people from trying.  One attempt overseen by the Fellows of the Royal Society failed to meet Randi's standards, though critics claim that improper design promised failure from the start .  More recently, a small study conducted by Dr. Dean Radin, of the Institute for Noetic Sciences, and Masaru Emoto, of the International Water for Life Foundation, demonstrated that human intention can affect the chemical structure of water samples.  Published in the September issue of Explore, Radin and Emoto's study does lend some credibility to the theory, though its findings are preliminary at best.  Water memory theory has gained wider public recognition since Radin and Emoto's 2006 appearance in Down the Rabbit Hole, sequel to the hit documentary What The Bleep Do We Know!?

Is it simply coincidence that the same political players keep popping up with regularity at critical junctures in the development of vaccination policy?  Or is it a result of institutionalized antagonism among rival political groups?  Also noteworthy is the fact that all negative references to vaccination, including those made by Dr. Creighton, were removed from Encyclopedia Brittanica, after its purchase by the Rockefeller / Morgan media syndicate in 1901, shortly following the infamous 1900 Khaki Election, in which the Tories secured a large majority despite having only slightly more votes than the Liberals.   Rockefeller's strong ties to the Tories was revisited in 2004 when Alan Deacon of Leeds University noted that a declaration speech given by Michael Howard was almost identical to Rockefeller's famous “I Believe" speech given in a radio address in July of 1941.

Curiously enough, John D. Rockefeller was actually a strong advocate of homeopathy, calling it “a progressive and aggressive step in medicine."  Though Rockefeller had instructed his financial advisor, Frederick Gates, to award grants to homeopathic institutions, the latter's infatuation with orthodox medicine apparently precluded his compliance.  Today, the Rockefeller Foundation is one of the world's largest supporters of global vaccination programs, while contributing nothing to support homeopathic research and education. 

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that centuries-old British politics are still influencing the politics of the United States today.  For Americans, the greatest weapon in the fiery debate over health care policy may yet prove to be the most intangible of all:  accurate information.