There is a slowly rising tide of uncertainty in Canada over the necessity and safety of vaccines for childhood infectious disease. While the safety and efficacy of vaccines is very well-established, doubt continues to be sown among parents just wanting the best for their child, and the leaders from this movement often find themselves in the ranks of those promoting dubious alternative medical treatments.
Homeopaths are among the worst.
This problem was highlighted this week in the United Kingdom, where there are still state-funded homeopathic hospitals and where homeopathy has been a common option for some people, promoted by no other than HRH Prince Charles of Wales. The BBC program In Touch investigated the sale of homeopathic alternatives to vaccines, called nosodes. These are manufactured using the diseased tissue, pus, or other discharge from an infected patient and diluted to such a degree that none of the original substance remains, save for some sort of vitalistic magical ghost that is supposed to wake the body up and have it fend off the disease itself. This, I think, is bunkum.
The British Advertising Standards Authority is an arms-length industry funded group akin to Advertising Standards Canada that is tasked with enforcing voluntary guidelines set up by the advertising industry to protect the consumer from misleading and false advertising. The ASA has made several rulings against complementary and alternative medicine manufacturers and practitioners over the past several years when they try to make claims that are scientifically unsupportable.
A more recent ruling was against homeopathic preparation producers Ainsworths and Helios for products that were labeled as a homeopathic vaccine and being offered as a replacement for the normal vaccine schedule.
Let us be clear, there is no good evidence that homeopathic vaccine alternatives work, and at the dilutions they are commonly offered, there would be no chance you could mount a traditional immune response to them: there is nothing in the remedy.
This has not stopped the promotion of these products in Canada, however. Though we have tighter regulation regarding homeopathic product labeling (you cannot make a specific claim on the label without a stronger standard of evidence) it is clear that when a homeopath is offering you influenzinum 9C, they are offering you an alternative to the flu shot, even though influenzinum 9C is not actually labelled as a vaccine.
The efforts in North America have been led by U.S. homeopath Kate Birch, who will, for a fee, train any homeopath as a "homeoprophylaxis supervisor" who can offer a complete replacement scheme for all of the childhood immunizations. There are several homeopaths in British Columbia and Ontario, including one who sits on the board of the new homeopathic licencing body in Ontario, who have taken Birchs's training and are offering homeoprophylaxis in Canada.
What is worse is that Health Canada, through the Natural Health Products Directorate, has approved well over 60 of these products for sale in Canada, including DTP toxinum, which contains pertussinum, made from the "Sterile lysate of expectoration of untreated patients infected by Bordetella pertussis." That's right -- it is made from the sputum of a patient, most likely a baby, infected with pertussis, or whooping cough. Outbreaks of whooping cough, an awful childhood disease that most often afflicts babies too young to be vaccinated, occurred in Alberta, B.C., Ontario and New Brunswick last year, with one baby killed by the disease in Alberta.
Besides a very flawed Cuban study concerning leptospirosis, there are few modern trials of homeopathic vaccines, and most of the evidence for their use predates the 1960s. These products are nothing short of a complete fantasy and do nothing to protect our children against a host of deadly diseases, some of which we had nearly eradicated, prior to the resurgence of the modern anti-vaccination movement in the 1980s.
We need to demand that our government stop speaking out of one side of its mouth about the importance of the modern, science-based immunization schedule, while the other side approves the sale of useless homeopathic hokum to be promoted as an ineffective alternative. If we do not, we risk a return of deadly childhood diseases like the 100-day cough of pertussis or the deadly, paralytic polio.
This is not a time to waffle, lest it risk the lives of our children over a silly sugar pill or magic water.
Loading Slideshow
Myth: The Flu Shot Can Give You The Flu
<strong>Fact:</strong> This myth just will not die. So let's clear this up: You <em>cannot</em> get the flu from your flu shot.
Why? That vaccine is made from a dead or inactive virus that can no longer spread its fever-spiking properties. <a href="http://www.everydayhealth.com/cs-cold-flu-pictures-myths/colds-and-flu-whats-true.aspx#/slide-4">In rare cases, a person may experience a reaction to the shot</a> that includes a low-grade fever, but these reactions are not <em>The Flu</em>, Everyday Health reported. Note: Even though the flu shot cannot cause the flu, there are a number of other <a href="http://www.everydayhealth.com/cold-and-flu/flu-vaccines.aspx">reasons not to get the vaccine</a>, including for some people with an allergy to eggs or a history of Guillain-Barre Syndrome.
Myth: If You've Already Had Your Shot, You Are Guaranteed To Be Flu-Free
<strong>Fact:</strong> Unfortunately, even after slapping a bandage on that injection site, you <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/vaccineeffect.htm">may only be about 60 percent protected</a>, according to the CDC. That means, yes, you <a href="http://www.npr.org/blogs/health/2013/01/08/168814935/can-you-get-a-flu-shot-and-still-get-the-flu">can still get the flu after your shot</a>. Some people may be exposed to the flu in the two weeks it takes for the vaccine to take effect, reports NPR. Others might be exposed to a strain not covered in the vaccine, which is made each year <a href="http://www.flu.gov/prevention-vaccination/vaccination/index.html">based on the viruses experts predict will be the most common</a>, according to Flu.gov. (This year's batch seems to have been matched well to what is actually going around, NPR reports.)
Myth: Antibiotics Can Fight The Flu
<strong>Fact:</strong> Plain and simply, antibiotics fight <em>bacteria</em>, not viruses. The flu -- and colds, for that matter -- are caused by viruses. In fact, <a href="http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/ResourcesForYou/ucm078494.htm">antibiotics kill off the "good" bacteria</a> that help to fight off infections, so that viral flu may only get <em>worse</em>.
Myth: The Stomach Flu Is A Type Of Influenza
<strong>Fact:</strong> Nausea, vomiting or diarrhea, while often dubbed the "stomach flu," are <a href="http://www.flu.gov/about_the_flu/seasonal/">not typically symptoms of seasonal influenza</a>, which, first and foremost, is a respiratory disease, according to Flu.gov. The flu can sometimes cause these issues, but they won't usually be the <em>main</em> symptoms -- and are more common signs of seasonal flu in children than adults.
Myth: If You're Young And Healthy, You Don't Need The Shot
<strong>Fact:</strong> Younger, healthy adults aren't among the <a href="http://www.cdc.gov/flu/about/qa/flushot.htm#high-risk">people the CDC urges most strongly to get vaccinated</a>, like pregnant women, people over 65 and those with certain chronic medical conditions.
The young and healthy will more often than not recover just fine from the flu, with or without the shot. But protecting yourself even if you don't think you need protecting can actually be an act of good. The <a href="http://healthland.time.com/2011/10/13/no-excuses-a-brief-guide-to-the-flu-shot/">more people are vaccinated, the fewer cases of flu we all pass around</a>, which in turn offers greater protection to those at-risk groups.
Myth: You Can Get The Flu From Being In The Cold Without A Coat (Or With Wet Hair)
<strong>Fact:</strong> Mom or Grandma probably told you this one at some point, and while you might not feel so cozy if you head out the door straight from the shower, doing so doesn't exactly condemn you to bed. <a href="http://www.health.harvard.edu/flu-resource-center/10-flu-myths.htm">The <em>only</em> way to catch the flu is to come into contact with the virus</a> that causes it. That might happen <em>while</em> you are outside in the cold, and flu season does certainly happen during cold weather, but it's not because you're cold that you catch the bug.
Myth: There's No Treatment For The Flu
<strong>Fact:</strong> It's not antibiotics that cure-seekers should be looking for. While the two antiviral drugs available to fight the flu aren't a quick fix, they <em>can</em> <a href="http://www.webmd.com/cold-and-flu/features/top-13-flu-myths?page=2">reduce the length of your bout of the flu and make you less contagious</a> to others, according to WebMD. This year's earlier-than-usual flu season has already led to <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/flu-vaccine-shortage-tamiflu-_n_2448519.html">shortages of one of the drugs, Tamiflu</a>, in the children's liquid formulation, according to the medication's manufacturers.
However, a number of experts in countries around the world have questioned Tamiflu's efficacy in fighting the flu, and some have even <a href="http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/11/12/tamiflu-evidence-british-medical-journal-cochrane_n_2117287.html">suggested a boycott until further data is published</a>.
Follow Michael Kruse on Twitter:
www.twitter.com/@anxiousmedic
The "science-based" medical industry duped many world governments, for example, into stocking Tamiflu. http://tinyurl.com/b686u3j The fact is that the world of "science-based" medicine is rife with corruption and malfeasance. I agree with the author about homeopathic medicine, but I also recognize that "science-based" medicine ought not be considered safe.
I also say that placebos have an important and safe contribution to make in the treatment of some people. Indeed, anyone who takes the time to canvas the scientific literature would likely draw the same conclusion.
And in the context of vaccines, these are undoubtedly effective, whereas the "natural" alternatives seldom are.
http://vran.org/in-the-news/forced-flu-vaccination-of-healthcare-workers-threatens-health-and-liberty/
http://www.naturalnews.com/038598_vaccines_medical_hoax_government_documents.html
Is excrementum caninum – google it – among your favourites?
Or do you prefer Blatta Americana – crushed cockroach in plain English?
Or is it Charta alba (snips of white paper) that does it for you?
If not, is Helodrilus caliginosus (earthworm) more to your taste?
Or Lac maternum (milk from nine women, taken between three days and ten months after birth). If you don't like blends you can ask for Lac humanum, based on the givings of a single mother.
If you're into bestiality, you might want to try Lac phoca vitulina (milk from a common seal) instead.
If you have guests, you may want to surprise them with a potion of Orchitinum (testicles extract) or some Panthera pardus (panther pee).
These are "remedies" that just about any homeopathic retailer will be happy to sell you. If any of these ingredients should disgust you, don't worry, they're all watered down. As the saying goes: homeopathy – there's nothing in it. And if you want to be on the really safe side: try some Vacuum C30.
It's acknowledged that the Pertussis vaccine is ineffective, and that many cases of "whooping cough" are actually Para-pertussis.
Since when did paramedics become experts in epidemiology, or Homeopathy by the way? Could it be that the author belongs to a media skeptic organization (CFI, CASS) that has a very vocal beef with alternative medicine and Homeopathy in particular when given the chance?
Nobody uses Homeopathy without doing their own research/investigation, and the demographics clearly show that these people belong to the higher income/education segment of society, which, last time I check was democratic. People have the right to choose their modes of health care.
If you don't like Homeopathy, don't use it. The rest of us don't need Skepti-Nanny telling us what to do.
If you think it is correct, please cite the "medical authorities" that say the only outbreaks of polio since the 80s are from the vaccine.
It is not acknowledged that pertussis vaccine is "ineffective", merely that its efficacy wanes after a few years. It does a marvellous job doing what it is meant to do - protecting the vulnerable infants from disease.
Does the Polio vaccine work, very well in fact but you need two doses as one isn't 100%. Does the MMR vaccine work, certainly does & the evidence is overwhelming.
When we jump to influenza vaccines things get a little trickier. The flu vaccine actually works for the three strains the flu shot contains. The problem is those three strains are not that often a solid match for the strains circulating.
My only real concern with our vaccines is the continued use of Thimerosal in them. That is based on the fact what's in an woman's body can be transferred to the fetus. And woman typically receive many vaccines containing Thimerosal before having a child. What affect does all that built up Mercury have on a fetus? Nobody knows!
It is short-sighted--and harmful, even stupid--to dismiss therapies that give some people relief because they don't fit a particular narrow-minded scientific paradigm.
The fact is that, unlike supposed "science-based" medicines, homeopathic medicine does no harm. Surely if a homeopathic tincture gives relief from a headache or back pain that is the more responsible course than using non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs. The former does no harm, the latter does.
In my view, a responsible and thoughtful physician, unencumbered by bias, would recommend the least dangerous option first, the one with the least side effects, to deal with a complaint, rather than opt for the accepted approach because it was science-based. It really is time that physicians stop being drug pushers and medical procedure marketers and think about being healers.
Is it not better to start with chicken soup rather than codeine laced acetaminophen to deal with flu-like symptoms?
Placebos and homeopathic medicines don't preclude using the tender mercies of the drug companies, but if the former works in the first instance, why risk harming patients with the latter?
And it's simply not true that homeopathic "remedies" can do no harm. They may not have side effects, but they are have no main effects either. Prescribing placebo and waiting for an illness that can be treated with a mild intervention at an early stage to get worse is irresponsible! It might make far more drastic measures necessary at a later stage.
Antibiotics are less and less effective because doctors are giving them out to deal with the common cold, knowing they have no effect. The antibiotic is not curing the cold, but may be having a placebo effect. Is this your preferred course of treatment, rather than a harmless placebo? Prescribe powerful, useless drugs that act like a placebo but cause harm, rather than prescribe a placebo that does not? Where's the quackery? It's the doctor prescribing the antibiotic.
A review of studies of over-treatment, over-prescribing, and medical mistakes leading to harm and death suggests that there may, in fact, be few "responsible physicians".
The notion that offering a harmless placebo or homeopathic remedy is irresponsible or will prevent a cure early on is nonsense, not supportable with facts. Each case is different. Both homeopathic medicine and placebos can make a valid contributions to treatment when used by a responsible physician, and responsible physicians will begin treatment with the least intrusive methods.
And why did you put "science-based" medicine in quotes? Is there another basis for medicine? Astrology? Dart board? Just becuase you don't understand something, don't assume it's wrong.
Also, I'm not suggesting that placebos and homeopathic remedies replace demonstrably useful treatments. I am saying that used responsibly by open-minded and responsible physicians these treatments can help people, all the while posing no risk. It is idiotic for a physician to summarily dismiss treatments that people demonstrably respond to. Indeed, much of the efficacy of conventional medicine is due to a placebo effect--the patient "believes" the treatment will help them.
(Presumably the missing teeth of the portrayed mum @1:20 are just initial worsening of a homeopathic dental treatment.)
Let's go further NOBODY SHOULD TRUST HOMEOPATHIC ANYTHING!
The argument that swayed me is that we produce more Vitamin D in the Summer then Winter. The flu virus doesn't go dormant during the summer but we rarely catch it then. Works for me.