Coming to the U.S.?
‘Police have arrested more than 500 parents in and around the northwestern Pakistani city of Peshawar for not allowing their children to get the polio vaccine, an official said Tuesday.
Peshawar Deputy Commissioner Riaz Khan Mehsud told CNN that the 513 arrests took place Monday and Tuesday as part of a government campaign to administer polio vaccines in parts of Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province.
Those arrested will be released on bail if they sign an affidavit stating that they will let their children get vaccinated, according to the deputy commissioner.’
There are treatments that can heal vaccine damage, but few physicians in the conventional medical care system know about them, since vaccine injuries are usually denied as the cause of any illness. Some parents with autistic children report that homeopathy has completely reversed their children’s autism and healed other serious health conditions caused by vaccines. This article explains how homeopathic remedies can bring about healing for many types of vaccine injuries.
Homeopathy is not the only treatment that has helped children and adults recover from vaccine damage, but it is the one that is the focus of this article. I will describe how homeopathy can bring about a true cure for the harm that vaccines have caused to children and adults.
The National Vaccine Information Center states a very sobering fact about vaccines:
“Every vaccine recommended for use by government and doctors has been associated with hospitalizations, injuries and deaths. There is no guarantee that a particular vaccine will be safe to give to a particular individual and will not result in permanent injury or death.” 
Vaccine Damage Takes Many Forms
It is a tragedy when a normal young child suddenly starts losing the ability to speak sentences or even to speak words after receiving vaccines. The ability to have positive social interactions with other children or adults can disappear in a matter of days after vaccines have been given to children.
Intellectual development can be lost and even successful potty training skills can disappear. The ability to sit quietly, listen to a story being read, and the ability to learn can suddenly be replaced with hand flapping, body spinning, head banging, food allergies, asthma, agitation, hyperactivity, learning disabilities, chronic colds and fevers, constant stomach pain, constipation, and a general failure to grow and thrive.
There are also serious consequences for adults who use vaccines. Formerly productive adults can lose their independence and become paralyzed, infertile, chronically ill, and even die, because of vaccine damage. It happens every day, yet few people make the connection between their illnesses and vaccine use.
Please see the previous article on identifying vaccine damage for additional information:
Hope for Recovery from Vaccine Related Illness
In most cases, physicians who give vaccines completely deny any relationship between vaccines and the negative health effects that people observe. Most physicians will insist that vaccine damage is extremely rare and will insist that the changes are just coincidence.  Faced with this denial, it often takes years for people to put all the pieces together.
By the time parents fully awaken to the harm that has occurred to their children, many have already resigned themselves to a lifetime of caretaking their disabled children. Some parents will even receive counsel from their physicians to give up their children to the care of the state, because they have no treatments to offer and can offer no hope of recovery. Some physicians will try to convince parents that this is a genetic problem that might be cured someday, but not in the near future.
The conventional medical care system leaves parents feeling like helpless victims without any good options.
The truth is there are good options for restoring health after vaccine damage, and homeopathy is one of them!
What is the History of Homeopathy?
Homeopathy is a complete system of healthcare which has been used to successfully treat all types of illnesses for over 200 years. Its popularity rose rapidly in the early 1800s because it safely cured people of conditions that allopathic physicians could not cure through the standard treatments that were used during that time.
Homeopath, Amy Lansky, PhD, former editor of the journal of the North American Society of Homeopaths, and author of Impossible Cure: The Promise of Homeopathy, described the techniques that characterized medical treatment in the late 1700s and early 1800s. This was the time period when homeopathy was developed. She stated:
The most popular treatments tried to encourage sweating, vomiting, diarrhea, bleeding via cutting of veins (venesection) or the application of leeches, or the creation of blisters to draw inflammation from one part of the body to another. Sedation via opiates was also popular, as was the use of toxic doses of mercury in the treatment of venereal diseases. 
Homeopathy and homeopathic remedies have been successfully used to treat and cure all forms of illness for over two centuries. It has been proven to cure all forms of physical illness, mental illness, and developmental problems. This system of healthcare can safely treat people when they are sickened by infectious diseases during epidemics, and it can reverse and cure the harm that vaccines have done to people. Even animals benefit from homeopathic veterinary treatment.
Amy Lansky provides us with this historical perspective about homeopathy. She states:
It is amazing that a medicine that was such an intrinsic part of 19th century America became nearly forgotten in the 20th. Pioneers carried homeopathic medical kits as they traveled across the continent. Indeed, homeopathic remedies were often the only effective medicine available to them. The first American domestic manual (a medical reference for use in the home) was a homeopathic reference — The Domestic Physician, published in 1835 and written by Constantine Hering, MD, the father of American homeopathy. 
Vaccine Damage is Not a New Phenomenon
The harmful consequences of vaccine use are not new. Some physicians observed vaccine related damage in their patients as soon as the smallpox vaccine began to be used in the first part of the 1800s. People were harmed by vaccines at that time, and they continue to be harmed today.  Doctors who used vaccines at that time were pressing for mandatory vaccinations while homeopaths were raising the red flag of warning about vaccination dangers.
Homeopath, Kate Birch, RSHom (NA), CCH, CMT, author of Vaccine Free: Prevention and Treatment of Infectious Contagious Disease with Homeopathy, describes what one of the early nineteenth century homeopaths believed about vaccination. Kate Birch described his conclusions as follows:
Burnett argued that vaccination, as practiced by Pasteur and Jenner (who developed the cowpox vaccine) using material doses, would eventually end in disaster because it was temporary protection. It did not individualize the dose to the strength of the individual and it brought long-term chronic consequences. He argued also that vaccination would actually increase the mortality rate because, in addition to the vaccinosis [adverse reaction to vaccine] incurred, if the person also caught the disease the prophylaxis was intended to prevent, they were more likely to die from the disease than if they had just caught the disease without the vaccination. 
Homeopathic physicians in the 19th century observed that some people never got over the effects of vaccinations and stayed in a poor state of health. Their immune systems could not clear the infectious materials from vaccination, and they stayed chronically ill. Chronic illness that can last a lifetime is the most common consequence of vaccination. Vaccinations can also cause other latent diseases to appear, or worsen pre-existing illnesses. 
200 years later, people are still getting sick from vaccinations. Some become totally disabled, and some are dying from the adverse effects of vaccination or from the actual diseases that the vaccines were intended to prevent.
To read more about the history of homeopathy in America, and how the American Medical Association and the pharmaceutical industry eventually took over America, see:
Testimonies of Healing from Vaccine Damage
It is not hard to find testimonies on the internet from parents who have witnessed their children be cured from autism spectrum disorders, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, pervasive developmental delays, non-existent speech, failure to communicate or respond, rage attacks, inability to learn, inability to socialize, severe food allergies, asthma, intense anxiety, obsessive compulsive behaviors, and intense levels of digestive system pain. Homeopathy is one method that has brought about these permanent cures for children and adults.
Adults who were injured from vaccines are not usually stuck in developmental prison in the same way as children. Their confinement is caused by chronic disease and disability. Adults experience fatigue, depression, brain fog, various types of pain syndromes, inability to digest food, high sensitivity to environmental toxins, high sensitivity to electromagnetic fields, and numerous other factors. They often find it necessary to seal themselves in a protective bubble of social isolation in order to maintain a partial level of normal functioning. Survival is about avoiding the next toxic exposure that could come from any direction – contaminated food, contaminated air, contaminated water, contaminated clothing, contaminated housing, etc.
An Example of Vaccine Injury and Recovery from the Tetanus Vaccine
If you search for recovery from vaccine damage on the internet, you will find many testimonies from people who recovered from adverse reactions to vaccination. I selected the following testimony from a very long list of testimonies on a popular website.
Annette Liberty posted the following testimony on January 29, 2014. She described what happened to her after she received the tetanus booster vaccine in 2001. The vaccine reaction caused paralysis and activated a latent case of Lyme disease. She was disabled by the combination of both conditions. Annette stated:
On December 5, 2001, I became paralyzed from the waist down and was bedridden for 7 months. Three weeks before this happened I had a tetanus shot because I had cut my finger and required stitches. What a mistake that was. I was seriously ill with a fatigue that lasted many years, but more intensely during those first 7 months and could hardly make it to the bathroom or take a shower. I saw 9 doctors, including a neurologist at Stanford and one at the University of California San Francisco. No one knew what was wrong and they didn’t want to see me again, because they could not find anything in my blood tests.
I sought out healers. I started to see an herbalist. I was desperate. After 7 months, I could go back to work part time but could not walk more than about 50 steps a day. I could not stand more than 30 seconds without pain up and down my legs. The leg and walking problems lasted for several years.
After 2 ½ years my herbalist was the one who discovered it was Lyme. I went to a Lyme specialist who confirmed it with a more intense blood test. I was on cocktails of powerful antibiotics for 3 ½ years. They made me very sick and did not help much, but it was all I had.
I then heard about Dr. Ronald D. Whitmont in Rhinebeck, New York (and New York City) through my herbalist. … Dr. Whitmont is an MD and classically trained homeopath. … During my first conversation with him, I felt like I had come home. Dr. Whitmont was very understanding, supportive and calming. We talked for a couple of hours and he told me which homeopathic med to take.
I was nervous to stop the antibiotics fearing I would get very ill again. I started taking the daily homeopathic remedy. [At first] I felt a little sick, but after 30 days on homeopathy, I was out of pain and felt good. Unbelievable!
It’s been several years [since I started using homeopathy], and I’m almost back to normal. I think homeopathy is a true miracle, and a true Godsend. I still take maintenance doses but I feel it’s helping my future health in more ways than I even realize. At this moment, I’m walking on the treadmill 30 minutes a day, lifting weights and doing yoga. I plan to increase this as I continue to get stronger and stronger.
Over time I realized the tetanus vaccine was what nearly killed me and brought out the Lyme with a severity I can’t describe. 
I recently contacted Annette for an update about her condition. I will share her progress report later in this article.
Homeopathy Compared to Conventional Medical Care
Allopathic medical care is currently the dominant system of healthcare in North America and Europe. When most people think of healthcare American style, with its drugs, surgeries, and expensive diagnostic equipment and procedures, they are thinking of allopathic medicine.
The healthcare system known as homeopathy is completely different from allopathic medicine. Homeopaths think differently about health and illness. Their understanding of illness and how to bring about a cure stands in direct opposition to the practice of allopathic medicine. In fact, one of the reasons that the allopathic physicians formed the American Medical Association (AMA) in 1847 was to destroy the practice of homeopathy.  Many allopathic physicians were switching over to homeopathy at that time, and the financial interests of allopathic physicians were being threatened.
Homeopaths see physical functioning, emotional functioning, and mental functioning as a unified system. Homeopaths would never consider treating one aspect of a person while ignoring everything else. For example, they would not treat a physical symptom without exploring symptoms that are occurring in the emotional realm or mental realm.
Dr. Richard Moskowitz, MD, made the transition from being an allopathic physician to being a homeopathic physician. He describes his role as a homeopath. He stated:
The art of caring for the sick transcends merely assembling information and doling out treatment, which may not work or even be chosen properly until an appropriate setting and healing relationship are created for them. As much as whatever we do to them, those afflicted with pain, suffering, and disability seek relationships of trust with friends, loved ones, and professionals,
1) to help them make sense out of what is happening to them;
2) to help them construct a working mythology of their illness;
3) to help them discover and navigate a safe passage through it; and
4) to help them envision a life beyond it, insofar as possible. 
On the other hand, allopathic medicine emphasizes diagnosis followed by drugs and surgical procedures to treat the symptoms of disease. It uses vaccines with the hope of preventing infectious diseases for which it has no successful treatment or cure.
Allopathic medicine uses substances (drugs) that eliminate symptoms by suppressing them. The disappearance of symptoms is associated with successful treatment. Multiple symptoms that are observed at the same time for a patient might be seen as part of a single disease, but commonly, the symptoms might be seen as several unrelated diseases.
Allopathic Approach to Illness
Consider this example:
A man goes to an allopathic doctor with chest congestion. The doctor diagnoses him as having bronchitis. The doctor then asks if the man is having any other problems. He tells the doctor that he has itching feet. He also says that he keeps waking up at 2:00 a.m. and remains awake until 4:00 every morning no matter what he does. Finally, he confesses that he keeps having anxiety attacks while he is at work.
In the worst case scenario, the allopathic doctor might prescribe an antibiotic for his bronchitis. He also might prescribe sleeping pills for his disturbed sleeping pattern, an antianxiety medication for his uncontrolled anxiety, and a medicated foot powder for his itchy feet. He received four prescriptions for four different diagnosed illnesses. Each prescription is designed to attack and destroy a specific symptom that was described by the patient.
If everything works as the allopathic doctor intends, then the symptoms will all disappear and the man will be considered to have been successfully treated. If symptoms do not disappear or new ones appear, then additional medications will be tried. The goal is simply the alleviation of symptoms.
Homeopathic Approach to Illness
A homeopath will approach the same man and his collection of symptoms differently. He will ask many questions during an interview that could take one to two hours. He will investigate the lung congestion by asking the person to describe the cough. When does it occur, how long does it last, how does it feel, etc. He will ask about the itchy feet. How do your feet smell, is the itching worse at a certain time of the day, do you have itching problems elsewhere in your body, etc.? Regarding the sleeping problem, he might be asked if there are certain thoughts or feelings that he is experiencing when he wakes during the night. Does he have persistent dreams or physical symptoms when he wakes up? He might be asked to describe his mental state during the hours when he is awake. The situation with anxiety would be explored in detail to learn how and when it occurs. Who is involved? When does it happen? Where does it happen? Does it occur at certain times of the day or evening? What is he doing when the anxiety flairs up, etc.?
The homeopath is not usually attempting to give the patient a diagnosis. Rather, the homeopath is simply trying to assemble a distinctive set of symptoms that perfectly describe the person’s over-all state of illness. In other words, how does the patient’s condition depart from his view of health?
A homeopath who uses classical homeopathy will then begin the process of finding a single homeopathic remedy that would treat the entire set of symptoms. Sometimes homeopaths use multiple remedies at the same time when there is severe vaccine damage. Homeopathic remedies are selected on the basis of their ability to produce the same symptoms in a healthy person that the ill person is experiencing. The principle that Dr. Hahnemann (the creator of homeopathy) discovered in the late 1790s was that substances which have the ability to produce the same set of symptoms that a person is experiencing will actually be highly effective in stimulating the person’s body to heal itself from those symptoms. This is called the Law of Similars.
Homeopathy is Gentle and Powerful
Homeopathy does not wage war on disease and seek to destroy the symptoms of disease through brute force. It does not bring substances into the body as is done with allopathic drugs, for the purpose of doing hand to hand combat against disease. Instead, homeopathy and its remedies are intended to gently stimulate and strengthen the body so that it can overcome illness through its own vital force and strength. Homeopathic remedies restore the natural ability of the body to defend itself against illness and to heal itself. When this happens, a person is truly cured of what ails him.
Homeopathic author and teacher, Kate Birch states:
The success of homeopathy is a result of treatment directed at improving the defense mechanism’s ability to defend itself rather than eradicating the offending agents. In contrast to natural disease, we now find a multitude of human-made diseases that come from the use of toxic medications, suppressive medications, vaccinations, antibiotics, artificial foods, pollution, and nuclear waste in our environment; all are agents that act as interventions, debilitations, or suppressions to our natural defense mechanism.
Because of this the health of successive generations has become weaker and weaker. The ability to produce curative responses to the influences in the environment has been thwarted. No longer do we have the strength to react unabated to acute disease.
We rely on toxic external medicaments to control the symptoms and suffer the long-term consequences of chronic disease. In order to preserve our health we must first have the ability to respond to acute disease. Present day medical practitioners have failed to recognize this trend, are at a loss to explain it, and are unable to adapt their system of medicine to address it. In contrast to suppressive or palliative measures, homeopathic medicine (through the Law of Similars) aims to reduce one’s susceptibility through the production of a curative defensive response, which removes the disease. 
Illness, from the homeopathic point of view, represents a disturbance in the fundamental energy system of a person. The vital force that keeps a person alive has been damaged, weakened, or disordered, and it needs to be restored so that the person can be cured of his or her illness. Homeopathic remedies are intended to remind the body of its normal functioning, so that it can be restored to strength and vitality. Such restoration will occur at the physical, emotional, and mental levels.
Allopathic Drugs and Side Effects
When allopathic physicians use drugs, there are often many unwanted side effects. Pharmaceutical manufacturers create drugs which are designed to destroy a certain unwanted symptom. However, their drugs also create other symptoms which are called side effects. If the side effects are less troublesome than the original symptom, then the patient will be reasonably happy and the allopathic physician will feel that he has successfully treated his patient. If the side effects are unacceptable to the patient, then the doctor will search for another drug that will destroy the unwanted symptom while producing a different set of side effects. This process continues until the patient stops complaining about side effects or the allopathic physician prescribes additional drugs to eliminate the unacceptable side effects.
In most cases, the suppression of symptoms by allopathic treatment ultimately produces other long-term chronic illnesses. For example, children who are taken to the doctor with childhood eczema will often be treated with cortisone creams. Doctors might warn parents that asthma often develops in children who have eczema. The truth is that the cortisone treatment does not cure the eczema, even though it might appear to disappear from the skin. In actuality, the disease process that produced the eczema is driven deeper into the body and reappears later (in a year or so) as asthma. The cortisone did not cure anything, it just transformed the symptom of skin dysfunction into a more serious disease of respiration, which can be life threatening. 
Allopathic drugs and treatments do not have a positive effect upon the vital force in the body. They do not improve the strength of a person, and they do not provide for physical, emotional, or mental renewal. Rather, they just suppress symptoms, and add side effects.
Homeopathy Releases Disease
Homeopathic remedies do not drive diseases deeper into the body. Rather, they help the body overcome or eliminate the disease. Thus, after a symptom of disease is overcome, the body is healthier and stronger than it had been.
Sometimes toxins need to be removed from the body before healing can occur. There can sometimes be a temporary aggravation or intensification of symptoms while toxins are being excreted from the body and the person’s vital forces are being strengthened. When this is completed, then the person will be stronger and will feel renewed.
The selection of a homeopathic remedy is not based on a disease diagnosis, but on the specific collection of symptoms that are being revealed in an individual person’s illness. The more unique the symptoms, the more likely it will be for the homeopath to find the best possible remedy for the person. Remedies are matched to each individual person by their complete collection of symptoms, and not to a particular disease diagnosis.
How is Annette Doing Today?
Annette shared the following information with me when I asked her for an update about her condition. She has been continuing with her homeopathic treatments. She stated:
Since I posted my testimonial [in January of 2014], I have been getting gradually, slowly better.
I can walk one or two miles a day, and sometimes break into a little run for a bit. My goal is to run at least a half hour a day.
I can lift some weights and do a little yoga each day.
I work as a realtor, so I’m blessed to set my own work schedule. I don’t go into the office early in the morning, but I do go in every day and sometimes work weekends.
I plan to stay on homeopathy for a while, perhaps a few more years, and on some kind of maintenance probably for the rest of my life, if I need to. I also take along with the homeopathic meds, a supplement that is colloidal silver. Since the tetanus shot, I am extremely sensitive to everything, so I take just one drop of colloidal silver every other day, and I take a homeopathic medicine about once a week. I cannot do without those two things, and it seems one does not work without the other for me.
I still have a ways to go. I am extremely sensitive to electronic devices and gadgets: computers of all kinds, anything that is electronic that is new and that I’m not used to. It’s very aggravating. My old TV broke and I can’t tolerate the new flat screen TV’s. So, I had to get a used old [style] TV.
My diet is extremely limited. Foods bother me. I just eat boiled ground chicken, steamed veggies and quinoa.
I cannot wear new clothes. The chemicals in the new clothes bother me.
If I have to stand in a long line anywhere, I have a cane that turns into a seat. In the past, I had to use this cane everywhere I went. Now I use it less and less and less.
However, I know, and I do feel this intuitively, that all of the above sensitivities will resolve themselves once my body is stronger and I am able to run, and work out physically a bit more.
I feel (and I can’t prove it) that the vaccination harmed my liver so very badly, that it’s not working properly to protect me from these things like it does for the average healthy person. 
In my opinion, Annette’s recovery is spectacular. It was the allopathic medical system and its vaccines that brought her to the point of total disability. It was the allopathic medical system, which is controlled by pharmaceutical companies, that left her to languish with her disability. They had nothing to offer Annette after they destroyed her health with their vaccines. It was ultimately homeopathy that returned her to the level of health she enjoys today. She is not totally cured yet, but she has hope. Her progress has been amazing despite the challenges that remain.
Annette told me, “It is my prayer, that what I have learned to help me recover, will help many more people recover themselves.” To that prayer, I must say, “Amen!”
How are Homeopathic Remedies Made and Taken?
Most homeopathic remedies are made from plants, mineral, and animal products. If the substance is soluble in water or alcohol, then it is dissolved in these liquids. If the substance is not soluble, then it is ground into an extremely fine powder with milk sugar and is processed in a slightly different method. Regardless of the original substance, it goes through a series of sequential dilutions.
For example, 1 drop of the original liquid solution is put into a glass vial. Nine drops of water/alcohol are then added to the vial and then the sealed glass vial is succussed (shaken). The succussion of the vial is not a random shaking, but involves a forceful slapping of the vial against a solid object. Dr. Hahnemann originally took the vial in his hand and forcefully slammed it down on a leather covered Bible that he had on a table. The repeated slamming or succussing of the vial activates subtle changes in the solution. Succussion is a necessary step for the creation of the remedy. Succussion is believed to cause restructuring of the water/alcohol at the molecular level. 
After the succussion of the first vial is completed, 1 drop of the liquid from that vial is added to an empty vial and nine drops of water/alcohol are added. The vial is succussed again. This process is repeated until the desired number of dilutions is reached.
A homeopathic remedy that is called “6X” or “6D” has gone through 6 dilutions. Other dilution ratios are also used such as 1 drop being added to 99 drops of water or alcohol, which makes “C” potencies. There are also remedies that have a dilution ratio of one drop to 50,000 drops of water/alcohol. These highly diluted remedies are called “LM” potencies. 
The final homeopathic potency is used to coat tiny sugar pills, which are then used for treatment. When the pills are taken, they are placed under the tongue so they can dissolve. Sometimes they are dissolved in water and swallowed.
Different potencies of the same substance produce different effects. The remedies can be given daily, or on a less frequent schedule depending on the need of the client. Sometimes only one small dose is given, which completely cures the illness.
How do Homeopathic Remedies Work?
Homeopath, Kate Birch gives more insight into the way homeopathic remedies work in the human body. She states:
The system of homeopathy is based on the principle of “like cures like.” A substance’s ability to treat a disease has its power in the ability to produce a disturbance similar to that disease. The more homeopathic (similar) a substance is to the symptom(s) in question, the greater its potential to cure the condition. Symptoms are understood to be a manifestation of a disturbance in the vital force; they are not the problem but the answer to the problem. Taking away the symptoms without treating the problem will result in the vital force finding a different avenue to express the problem. The goal of homeopathic treatment is to support the vital force in its wisdom to create balance. 
In the case of Annette, the allopathic physicians did not have a drug that could take away her paralysis and extreme fatigue/weakness. They were not able to think in terms of how they might strengthen her vital force so that healing could occur.
Kate Birch continues with her discussion of homeopathic healing. She states:
Every medicinal substance has a primary action and a secondary action. The primary action is what the substance does to the person. The secondary action is what the vital force does in response to the substance. In material doses (substances in crude form), the secondary action to a substance is usually in equal and opposite force to its primary action. The process of potentization reduces the primary action, while the secondary action of the vital force is increased. The higher the potency the less significant the primary action is and the greater the secondary action is. 
Thus, the greater the number of times that a substance is diluted, the greater will be its ability to help restore the damaged energetic patterns (vital force) in the body, which is causing the symptoms of illness.
Undiluted substances, such as pharmaceutical drugs, treat symptoms by suppressing them, which does not bring healing to the energetic patterns of illness in the body. The result is that the vital force or energetic pattern will simply express itself with a different set of symptoms after the drug has been taken. The drug will suppress symptoms and the vital force will manifest different symptoms as a result. If the drug is discontinued, then the original symptoms usually return.
When Annette was taking antibiotics for three and a half years with minimal improvement, she was simply maintaining the status quo. Her vital force was stuck in the Lyme disease pattern, and antibiotics could not get her out of it.
The highly diluted homeopathic remedies are intended to express a stronger effect upon the vital force in the body. They will have a slight effect on physical symptoms, and usually produce a slight intensification of the symptoms for a short while. The intensification of symptoms is a sign that the remedy is a good match for the illness. During the time of intensification, a healing at the energetic level will take place. The person will rally the forces needed to overcome the illness to some degree. Sometimes the illness will be completely overcome, and sometimes additional doses of the remedy will be needed. Sometimes a different potency will be required to finish the healing process, or as the symptoms change, a different remedy will be needed.
When Annette started taking the homeopathic remedy, she had an intensification of symptoms, which was followed by an improvement in health after the antibiotics were discontinued.
Does Homeopathy Work Because of the Placebo Effect?
Critics of homeopathy claim that the effectiveness of homeopathy is caused by the placebo effect. They claim that the sugar pills are nothing but sugar, and any healing that does occur is the result of people simply wanting to be better.
A 2010 study confirmed that homeopathic remedies were able to disrupt the cellular division of human breast cancer cells and produce cytotoxic effects in laboratory experiments. The homeopathic remedies, Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Conium, and Thuja were each able to kill human breast cancer cells in laboratory tests. These homeopathic remedies were also used to treat normal breast cells. They did not harm healthy tissue and actually strengthened the cells. The homeopathic remedies also stimulated the production of substances that would naturally inhibit the growth of cancer. 
Since these experiments were treating cells in a petri dish, there was no possibility of the placebo effect. The cancer cells were not expecting to die from the homeopathic remedies, and the healthy breast cells didn’t know that they were intended to become stronger or become more resistant to cancerous growth.
A German study with pigs compared the use of pharmaceutical drugs and homeopathic remedies for preventing respiratory infections. A total of 1440 pigs were divided into four groups. One group received a combination of homeopathic remedies mixed in with their normal feed. The second group received antibiotics and other allopathic drugs in a routine low prophylactic dose. The third group received a high therapeutic dose of the standard blend of allopathic drugs that would be used to treat cases of respiratory infections. The fourth group was the control. They were not treated, just fed their normal diet.
Amy Lansky explains the results of this study in Chapter 7 of her book. She stated:
The results of this study were startling: homeopathic treatment was far superior to prophylactic doses of antibiotics in preventing respiratory disease. Prophylactic allopathic treatment made it only 11 percent less likely [than control] that the pigs would become sick. But homeopathic remedies made it 40 percent less likely. When the allopathic drugs were raised to therapeutic levels, it became 70 percent less likely that the pigs would become diseased. Now, it is clearly impossible to keep farmed animals medicated at high levels of antibiotics all of the time. Even at lower prophylactic levels, the entrance of these drugs into the food chain has become a societal health problem. This study showed that homeopathy provides a much safer and more effective solution than prophylactic antibiotics. 
Amy Lansky concludes her remarks about the pig study by stating:
I believe it is animal studies like this one that provide the most compelling proof of the effectiveness of homeopathy. Can anyone seriously believe that pigs taking remedies in their feeding trough are getting well because of the placebo effect? 
Success in Healing Austism
Homeopath, Cindy Griffin, consultant, author, educator, and cofounder of the Homeopathy Center of Houston, describes their success with curing children who have been diagnosed with autism. They use the Autism Treatment Evaluation Checklist (ATEC) with their clients to measure progress. If there is healing, then there should be improvements in behavior and a reduction in the need for special care. This is exactly what happens to many of the severely disabled children they help.
We see behavioral, cognitive, communication and academic improvements across the board. We have a fairly strict definition of what we call recovered.
Children with autism are fully recovered when they look like normal children of their age. Sometimes they may have a little social and academic catch-up to do, but typically they do it at warp speed.
Right now in 2015, we already have over 100 children who are no longer autistic nor do they have PANDAS (Pediatric Autoimmune Neuropsychiatric Disorders Associated with Streptococcal Infections). These children are not dependent on supplements or special diets. They do not have educational aids in school, special education classes, therapists, and are not receiving special accommodations in school. 
Finding a Homeopath who can Treat Vaccine Damage
Sometimes it may take some effort to find a homeopath who has the training and/or experience that you are seeking. You may need to interview a few homeopaths before deciding who will be the best person to help with vaccine damage. Be up front with the homeopaths. Tell them your needs and ask if they have experience working with other people who have vaccine damage. It is OK to ask if they were successful in helping other vaccine damaged clients recover.
Kate Birch – Vaccine Injury and the Role of Homeopathy
Kate Birch describes the challenge of using homeopathy to treat vaccine related illnesses. She stated:
In order to treat vaccine damage effectively with homeopathy, a homeopath must be able to understand the varying distinctions between the underlying health of the person, the diseases in the vaccinations, the responses of the vital force to the vaccinations, and the resultant complex disease state. 
Information about Kate Birch’s books and training is available here:
Kate Birch also recommends homeopaths who use CEASE [Complete Elimination of Autistic Spectrum Expression] therapy. This is one of the types of homeopathic treatment that is used for people with vaccine damage.
In a phone conversation with Kate Birch, she explained that homeopathy can be very helpful for many types of vaccine damage. Sadly, she noted that damage from HPV vaccine is the most difficult to treat. She wants people to understand that injuries from HPV vaccines are deep and insidious, and difficult to clear. She explained that HPV vaccines cause progressive and debilitating neurological injury to the point of death. 
Amy Lansky – The Impossible Cure
Amy Lansky has a website for her book Impossible Cure, which was set up for people who want additional information about using homeopathy to help with vaccine injury.
This is her referral list of classical homeopaths who have experience with vaccine damage recovery:
You may also wish to ask for a referral from your chiropractor, osteopath, or acupuncturist. Such practitioners are often aware of good homeopaths in the area. Sometimes the person who is responsible for managing supplements and remedies sold at health food stores will be aware of experienced homeopaths as well.
Homeopaths are not licensed at the state or national level. Thus, it is important to look at their qualifications. Those who have participated in formal training programs and who are certified by national organizations will be preferred if you cannot obtain a referral from someone who you know.
Amy Lansky provided the following list of organizations to help people locate a classical homeopath in the United States and Canada. 
Also see the list at:
This list is self-referred. Practitioners may or may not have been assessed for competency. Be sure to check their qualifications. They also have lists of homeopathic study groups. You could contact a study group in your area to find a homeopath.
This is a professional society of homeopaths. They hold the title RSHom (NA). Most NASH members are professional homeopaths. They have completed comprehensive homeopathic training and have met certification standards.
Some licensed health care providers such as medical doctors (MD), osteopathic doctors (DO), and naturopaths (ND), obtained training in homeopathy. They have DHt certification (Diplomate in Homeotherapeutics).
Agents of the Food and Drug Administration know better than anyone else just how bad scientific misbehavior can get. Reading the FDA’s inspection files feels almost like watching a highlights reel from a Scientists Gone Wild video. It’s a seemingly endless stream of lurid vignettes—each of which catches a medical researcher in an unguarded moment, succumbing to the temptation to do things he knows he really shouldn’t be doing. Faked X-ray reports. Forged retinal scans. Phony lab tests. Secretly amputated limbs. All done in the name of science when researchers thought that nobody was watching.
That misconduct happens isn’t shocking. What is: When the FDA finds scientific fraud or misconduct, the agency doesn’t notify the public, the medical establishment, or even the scientific community that the results of a medical experiment are not to be trusted. On the contrary. For more than a decade, the FDA has shown a pattern of burying the details of misconduct. As a result, nobody ever finds out which data is bogus, which experiments are tainted, and which drugs might be on the market under false pretenses. The FDA has repeatedly hidden evidence of scientific fraud not just from the public, but also from its most trusted scientific advisers, even as they were deciding whether or not a new drug should be allowed on the market. Even a congressional panel investigating a case of fraud regarding a dangerous drug couldn’t get forthright answers. For an agency devoted to protecting the public from bogus medical science, the FDA seems to be spending an awful lot of effort protecting the perpetrators of bogus science from the public.
Much of my research has to do with follies, foibles, and fraud in science, and I knew that the FDA wasn’t exactly bending over backward to correct the scientific record when its inspectors found problems during clinical trials. So as part of my investigative reporting class at New York University, my students and I set out to find out just how bad the problem was—and how much important information the FDA was keeping under wraps.
We didn’t have to search very hard to find FDA burying evidence of research misconduct. Just look at any document related to an FDA inspection. As part of the new drug application process, or, more rarely, when the agency gets a tipoff of wrongdoing, the FDA sends a bunch of inspectors out to clinical sites to make sure that everything is done by the book. When there are problems, the FDA generates a lot of paperwork—what are called form 483s, Establishment Inspection Reports, and in the worst cases, what are known as Warning Letters. If you manage to get your hands on these documents, you’ll see that, most of the time, key portions are redacted: information that describes what drug the researcher was studying, the name of the study, and precisely how the misconduct affected the quality of the data are all blacked out. These redactions make it all but impossible to figure out which study is tainted. My students and I looked at FDA documents relating to roughly 600 clinical trials in which one of the researchers running the trial failed an FDA inspection. In only roughly 100 cases were we able to figure out which study, which drug, and which pharmaceutical company were involved. (We cracked a bunch of the redactions by cross-referencing the documents with clinical trials data, checking various other databases, and using carefully crafted Google searches.) For the other 500, the FDA was successfully able to shield the drugmaker (and the study sponsor) from public exposure.
It’s not just the public that’s in the dark. It’s researchers, too. And your doctor. As I describe in the current issue of JAMA Internal Medicine, my students and I were able to track down some 78 scientific publications resulting from a tainted study—a clinical trial in which FDA inspectors found significant problems with the conduct of the trial, up to and including fraud. In only three cases did we find any hint in the peer-reviewed literature of problems found by the FDA inspection. The other publications were not retracted, corrected, or highlighted in any way. In other words, the FDA knows about dozens of scientific papers floating about whose data are questionable—and has said nothing, leaving physicians and medical researchers completely unaware. The silence is unbroken even when the FDA itself seems shocked at the degree of fraud and misconduct in a clinical trial.
Such was the case with the so-called RECORD 4 study. RECORD 4 was one of four large clinical trials that involved thousands of patients who were recruited at scores of clinical sites in more than a dozen countries around the world. The trial was used as evidence that a new anti-blood-clotting agent, rivaroxaban, was safe and effective. The FDA inspected or had access to external audits of 16 of the RECORD 4 sites. The trial was a fiasco. At Dr. Craig Loucks’ site in Colorado, the FDA found falsified data. At Dr. Ricardo Esquivel’s site in Mexico, there was “systematic discarding of medical records” that made it impossible to tell whether the study drug was given to the patients. At half of the sites that drew FDA scrutiny—eight out of 16—there was misconduct, fraud, fishy behavior, or other practices so objectionable that the data had to be thrown out. The problems were so bad and so widespread that, contrary to its usual practice, the FDA declared the entire study to be “unreliable.” Yet if you look in the medical journals, the results from RECORD 4 sit quietly in The Lancet without any hint in the literature about falsification, misconduct, or chaos behind the scenes. This means that physicians around the world are basing life-and-death medical decisions on a study that the FDA knows is simply not credible.
It’s not just one study, either. The FDA found major problems with sites involved in the other three clinical trials that were used to demonstrate rivaroxaban’s safety and effectiveness. RECORD 2, for example, was nearly as awful as RECORD 4: Four out of 10 sites that the FDA inspected showed evidence of misconduct, or other issues grave enough to render the site’s data worthless—including clear evidence of data falsification at one site. In aggregate, these problems raise serious doubts about the quality of all four key rivaroxaban studies—and, by extension, doubts about how seriously we should take the claim that rivaroxaban is safe and effective. The FDA is keeping mum, even as wrongful-death lawsuits begin to multiply.
The FDA’s failure to notify the public is not merely a sin of omission. In March 2009, the FDA convened a committee of outside scientific experts to mull the “robustness and meaningfulness” of the results from the four rivaroxaban trials, RECORDs 1, 2, 3, and 4. (The agency regularly calls in advisers to get advice, or, more cynically, to get cover, about a decision the agency has to make.) When the agency briefed the committee, it was (to put it mildly) coy about the problems it was finding. It said only that inspectors had found “significant issues” at two clinical sites involved in the RECORD 4 study—and that data from one of them was included in the analysis. Inspections were still ongoing, so it’s not easy to say precisely what the agency knew at that point, but it’s clear that the FDA wasn’t admitting to everything it knew. A bunch of inspections had been completed a month prior to the meeting, and we know for certain that the agency was fully aware of major issues beyond the two it revealed to the advisory committee. In a memo dated three days before the advisory committee meeting convened, the FDA detailed “falsification of data by a subinvestigator” at a RECORD 2 site. The advisory committee was not told.
By itself, this might seem like a miscommunication or an oversight, but the FDA has a history of not notifying the public about the misconduct it finds. About a decade ago, the agency got into trouble over a newly approved antibiotic, Ketek. Inspectors had found extensive problems (including fraud) affecting key clinical trials of the drug. Yet the agency did its best to hide the problems from even its most trusted advisers. As David Ross, the FDA official in charge of reviewing Ketek’s safety, put it, “In January 2003, over reviewers’ protests, FDA managers hid the evidence of fraud and misconduct from the advisory committee, which was fooled into voting for approval.” However, when the reports of misconduct at one clinical site began appearing in the press—along with stories of liver damage and blurred vision associated with the new drug—Congress stepped in, demanding information from the agency about the fraud.
But even the Senate couldn’t wring key information about the misconduct out of the FDA. “Every excuse under the sun has been used to create roadblocks,” complained an indignant Sen. Charles Grassley, “even in the face of congressional subpoenas requesting information and access to FDA employees.” The head of the FDA, Andrew von Eschenbach, attempted to explain to Congress why the agency didn’t tell its advisory committee about the problems in the Ketek study: “After considering the fact that the investigation results were preliminary … FDA decided to hold the Advisory Committee meeting as planned …” without notifying the committee of the potential problems. But Rep. Bart Stupak quickly pointed to an email, which, he argued, contradicted von Eschenbach’s testimony. “So either you are not being forthright with us, when I believe you are, but whoever is doing your work is trying to lead this committee down the wrong path.” And the correct path showed that site after site involved in study 3014, as well as other key Ketek studies, were tainted as well.
In the decade since the Ketek affair, it’s hard to see any change in behavior by the agency. On occasion, the FDA has even actively approved and promoted statements about drugs that, according to its own inspectors, are based upon falsehoods. At the end of 2011, the FDA learned that an audit of a Chinese site involved in a key clinical trial of a different anti-clotting agent, apixaban, had turned up evidence of fraud: Personnel had apparently been fiddling with patient records. Worse yet, the fraud appeared to invalidate one key finding of the study. Just three months earlier, the researchers running the trial proudly announced in the New England Journal of Medicine that there was a “significant reduction in mortality” among patients who took apixaban compared with those who took the old standby, warfarin. Alas, the moment you exclude the data from the Chinese fraud site, as per standard FDA procedure, that statement went out the window. Yet look at the label for apixaban—the one approved by the FDA after the fraud was discovered—and you read that “treatment resulted in a significantly lower rate of all-cause death … than did treatment with warfarin,” backed up by the data set with the Chinese site included. In other words, the label is carrying a claim that the FDA knows is based upon fraud. In a written response to my questions on this subject, the FDA stated that, “The FDA extended the drug’s review period to address the concerns. However, the review team did conclude concluded [sic] that the data at that site and other sites in China did reflect meaningful clinical information; that was not what was considered unreliable.”
Again, this isn’t an isolated incident. I had previously encountered bogus data on FDA-approved labels when a colleague and I were looking into a massive case of scientific misconduct —a research firm named Cetero had been caught faking data from more than 1,400 drug trials. That suddenly worthless data had been used to establish the safety or effectiveness of roughly 100 drugs, mostly generics, that were being sold in the United States. But even after the agency exposed the problem, we found fraud-tainted data on FDA-approved drug labels. (The FDA still maintains its silence about the Cetero affair. To this day, the agency refuses to release the names of the 100-odd drugs whose approval data were undermined by fraud.)
And the FDA covers up drug-related misconduct in other, more subtle ways, too. For example, the agency publishes the canonical listing of generic drugs in the United States, known as the “Orange Book.” Prescription drugs in this book are often given what’s called a “therapeutic equivalence code.” This code is a two-letter designation that signals the quality of the scientific evidence that a generic is “bioequivalent” to the name-brand drug. The code “AB,” for example, tells pharmacists and physicians that there are solid scientific studies proving that bioequivalence. Another code, “BX,” signals that there isn’t sufficient data to prove the generic is bioequivalent to the name brand.
When the Cetero misconduct was uncovered, key bioequivalence studies for scores of generic drugs turned out to be worthless. By rights, some of those drugs should have had their designation downgraded from AB to BX. But even though the FDA updates the Orange Book monthly, there was no rash of drugs losing their AB rating in the months after the Cetero affair broke. In the year and a half after the Cetero fraud was first announced, I was able to identify a grand total of four generic drugs (in various dosages) that were downgraded to BX, none of which appeared to be linked to the Cetero problem. On the other hand, the one prescription generic drug that I knew for sure had been hit hard by the Cetero fraud—both key studies supporting its bioequivalence to the name brand were declared worthless—had no change in its designation. The FDA apparently allowed the drug to keep its AB badge for months without any valid data backing the drug’s bioequivalence. When asked, point blank, whether the agency had downgraded the bioequivalence code of any products due to the Cetero affair, officials promptly dodged the question. A written statement issued by the agency’s press office in response to my queries noted that the FDA requested additional data from the companies whose drugs were implicated in the Cetero affair and that “If the data were not provided within 6 months or the data provided did not support a finding of bioequivalence, FDA said it would consider changing the generic product’s therapeutic equivalence rating in the Orange Book from AB to BX.” Not a word about a single bioequivalence rating actually being changed.
This, too, is a pattern of behavior rather than a one-off. In the past few weeks, another major Cetero-type case began to emerge—this time, having to do with GVK Biosciences, a firm in Hyderabad, India. The European Medicines Agency, the European equivalent of the FDA, examined more than 1,000 drugs in various dosages affected by GVK’s “data manipulations” and has suggested pulling 700 off the market. You can find the full list on the EMA website; to their credit, the Europeans are being relatively transparent as the crisis develops. Not so much on this side of the pond, alas. So far from the FDA, we’ve heard precious little, even though there are drugs on the U.S. market that rely entirely on GVK’s tests. In a written statement, the FDA admitted that there were some 40-odd drugs whose approval depended upon GVK-run studies. Which ones? The agency is keeping mum, as it did with Cetero and with other similar cases. However, the agency assures us that it inspected GVK’s facility and found nothing to be concerned about; if the situation changes, “FDA will take swift and appropriate action to ensure that the drug products available to American consumers are safe and effective.”
Why does the FDA stay silent about fraud and misconduct in scientific studies of pharmaceuticals? Why would the agency allow claims that have been undermined by fraud to appear on drug labels? And why on earth would it throw up roadblocks to prevent the public, the medical community, its advisory panels, and even Congress from finding out about the extent of medical misconduct? The answers the FDA gives are fascinating—they show how an agency full of well-meaning people can do intellectual backflips to try to justify secrecy.
The most common excuse the agency gives is that exposing the details about scientific wrongdoing—naming the trials that were undermined by research misconduct, or revealing which drugs’ approvals relied upon tainted data—would compromise “confidential commercial information” that would hurt drug companies if revealed. This claim falls apart under scrutiny. The courts have ruled that when information is provided by companies involuntarily, such as the information that an FDA inspector finds, “commercial confidential information” refers to proprietary material that causes substantial, specific harm when it falls into the hands of a competitor. It doesn’t cover embarrassing peccadilloes—or misconduct that might cause bad publicity when word gets out.
Another excuse I’ve heard from the FDA is that it doesn’t want to confuse the public by telling us about problems, especially when, in the FDA’s judgment, the misconduct doesn’t pose an immediate risk to public health. For example, when my colleague and I asked the director of FDA’s Center for Drug Evaluation and Research why the agency wouldn’t name the drugs affected by the Cetero fraud, she told us that the matter “did not rise to the level where the public should be notified. We felt it would result in misunderstanding and inappropriate actions.” But even the most paternalistic philosophy of public health can’t explain why the FDA would allow drug companies to put data on its labels that the agency knows are worthless, or to fail to flag bioequivalence problems in a publication that is specifically designed for the purpose of flagging those very problems.
The sworn purpose of the FDA is to protect the public health, to assure us that all the drugs on the market are proven safe and effective by reputable scientific trials. Yet, over and over again, the agency has proven itself willing to keep scientists, doctors, and the public in the dark about incidents when those scientific trials turn out to be less than reputable. It does so not only by passive silence, but by active deception. And despite being called out numerous times over the years for its bad behavior, including from some very pissed-off members of Congress, the agency is stubbornly resistant to change. It’s a sign that the FDA is deeply captured, drawn firmly into the orbit of the pharmaceutical industry that it’s supposed to regulate. We can no longer hope that the situation will get better without firm action from the legislature.
The FDA wants you to take it on faith that its officials have the public’s best interest at heart. Justification through faith alone might be just fine as a religious doctrine, but it’s not a good foundation for ensuring the safety and effectiveness of our drugs. After all, the whole point of science-based medicine is to keep us from having to make a leap of faith every time we swallow a pill.
Health Impact News Editor Comments
As we have previously reported, the state of Oregon wants to take away the right to informed consent and vaccine choice and mandate vaccines for all children statewide. The bill was introduced by Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, a State Senator in Oregon who is also a medical doctor.
The public attended a hearing on the bill last week, and much of it was video-taped. In the clip above, attorney Robert Snee from Portland is shown addressing the Senate Committee on Health Care, which includes Hayward.
Attorney Snee begins in this clip by addressing the American Medical Association’s published Code of Ethics which states physicians may claim a religious or philosophical reason not to be immunized. Snee makes the point that if physicians have the right to such exemptions, how is it legal to take that right away from citizens of the State?
Attorney Snee then quoted from an article published in the American Academy of Family Physicians featuring Oregon Senator Elizabeth Steiner Hayward, M.D. In the article, Hayward is addressing the issues she was facing with taking drugs during pregnancy. Dr. Hayward suffers from multiple sclerosis (MS), and according to the article abstained from taking her MS drugs during pregnancy because of her presumed concern over her unborn child.
After her second child was born, according to the article, she consulted with a neurologist about her options in breastfeeding her second child:
The subspecialist informed Steiner Hayward in no uncertain terms that she was going to start interferon therapy immediately and she would not be allowed to breastfeed.
But Steiner Hayward had other ideas.
“Breastfeeding protects against autoimmune disorders, and I have MS,” she said, laughing and shaking her head. “So I did the research and told her I thought interferon was too big to get into breast milk and that I was going to go ahead and breastfeed.
“She, of course, thought I was crazy and told me I was not to do that. So I went out and found another neurologist who respected the fact that I was an FP and I knew what I was talking about, and he agreed that (breastfeeding) was OK.” (Source.)
At this point in his testimony, Attorney Snee was stopped by Steiner Hayward who was sitting just across from him, in a very visibly upset tone, claiming that the attorney was “impugning her integrity” by relaying the story from the American Academy of Family Physicians article.
She then went on to explain why she disagreed with her doctor’s recommendation not to take her MS drugs and continue breastfeeding, based on her own research and what she felt was “best for my child.” She states:
So I would be very grateful if you did not take my decision, my personal decision about my medical care out of context.
Attorney Snee responded that he had no intention of impugning anyone, but that he was simply pointing out that the sponsor of the bill in Oregon who wanted to take away the right to informed consent on medical procedures such as vaccines made a decision to disagree with a medical treatment that affected someone else, and that her right to do so was the same right citizens were seeking to retain for themselves.
Watch the video above. This is a perfect example of medical tyranny in action in the United States of America, happening right in the legislative branch of the Oregon State government.
Elizabeth Steiner Hayward wants the right to make her own personal medical decisions for her and her children, even if means disagreeing with a medical specialist who presumably had more knowledge than her in the matter of the pharmaceutical product she was considering.
However, this medical doctor, who is also a lawmaker, does not want anyone else in Oregon to have the same freedom of choice in regards to other medical products like vaccines. This would include other doctors and medical professionals who do not share the same views on vaccines and the science behind them as does Steiner Hayward, so she wants to use the power of government to force everyone else to believe like she does.
One of the doctors in Oregon who would be forced to give some vaccines to patients that he presently does not give vaccines to, would be Paul Thomas, M.D., FAAP. Dr. Thomas is a board-certified fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. He also testified against SB 442 in front of the Senate Committee on Health Care in Oregon:
On 8/27/14, CDC Scientist Bill Thompson issued a statement addressing his regret that he and his co-authors omitted “statistically significant information” in a 2004 study on the MMR vaccine causing autism.
CNN reporter Deborah Goldschmidt then published an article which embedded a CNN video where health correspondent Elizabeth Cohen states that within all of the dangerous side-effects of vaccines, autism is not listed. She then rephrased saying, “Some people don’t hear this well: vaccines do not cause autism.”
Outraged that CNN would choose to embed such a statement within Dr. Thompson’s confession that he and his co-authors had omitted evidence that African American males were at increased risk for autism from journal publication, autism parents across the country and across the globe responded to a call from the Autism Media Channel. These parents addressed the CNN correspondent directly, informing her that in their own families, vaccines had, in fact, caused autism.
National Adult Immunization Program (NAIP) Draft
Vaccination is considered one of the most important public health achievements of the 20th century and continues to offer great promise in the 21st century. Vaccines save lives and improve the quality of life by preventing serious infectious diseases and their consequences. However, the benefits of vaccination are not realized equally across the U.S.population. Adult vaccination rates remain low in the United States, and significant racial and ethnic disparities also exist.
The NAIP is intended to facilitate coordinated action by federal and nonfederal partners to protect public health and achieve optimal prevention of infectious diseases and their consequences through vaccination of adults. The NAIP includes indicators to draw attention to and track progress against core goals. These indicators will measure progress against set standards and inform future implementation and quality improvement efforts.
The plan establishes four key goals, each of which is supported by objectives and strategies to guide implementation through 2020:
Goal 1: Strengthen the adult immunization infrastructure.
Goal 2: Improve access to adult vaccines.
Goal 3: Increase community demand for adult immunizations.
Goal 4: Foster innovation in adult vaccine development and vaccination-related technologies.
Achieving the goals of the NAIP is facilitated by agreement on plan priorities and coordination of the wide range of programs that support them. The Assistant Secretary for Health serves as the director of the National Vaccine Program and will lead the NAIP and its implementation. In support of this mission, NVPO will facilitate collaboration and coordinate the monitoring of progress for the NAIP.