Monthly Archives: March 2015

Personalities in remedies are wrong!

If you prescribe on the basis of a ‘constitutional’ drug picture, as initiated by Kent and specialised by the Vithoulkas school.  then you will not be prescribing for the diseased state that the patient is exhibiting…

 

“The homoeopathic employment of this, as of all other medicines , is most suitable when not only the corporeal affections of the medicine correspond in similarity to the corporeal symptoms of the disease, but also when the mental and emotional alterations peculiar to the drug encounter similar states in the disease to be cured, or at least in the temperament of the subject of treatment.”

Samuel Hahnemann. Introduction to Pulsatilla Pratensis. MMP.

The Homoeopathy of Emotion – Enlightened Case-Taking

First published in May 30, 2011. A tongue in cheek look at modern homoeopathy.

By Priscilla Rowbottom, FHom, DHom, XHom, PQRS (Dip) (Lic), HomQuack

I am so excited, I felt I had to share this with my readers world-wide. I took my first case yesterday using a sensational new method – The Homoeopathy of Emotion. I invented it myself. The name is so catchy, don’t you think? I just felt that all this dry, symptom-based case-taking and repertorisation was so… so limited. Unenlightened. Vibrationally low. After all – what can be expected from a method where they ask you about your…(if you’ll excuse me)…shhh…stools…

Anyway, an asthmatic patient came to my clinic the other day. I do so love having a clinic, I have my name on the door, a secretary outside who runs my appointment book, and I’m very fortunate to have a large clientele. Patients usually only come once or twice – after that they are clearly cured as I never see them again. But there are always more where those came from…

I digress. This asthmatic patient stumbled into my room yesterday. It was urgent – he had been taken ill while arguing with the secretary about the cost of his vitamins.

He sat in the chair, wheezing and blue. It seemed to ease as he sat down, and he croaked “can you get me some ice-cold water, please?” As he sipped the water slowly, the colour returned to his face. He shivered and pulled his sweater on, even though it was quite a warm day. He burped, and grinned, saying “that’s much better… now can you help me with my asthma, doctor?”

I rubbed my hands in glee. What a perfect opportunity to test out my new method! There was clearly not much else to go on…

“Tell me,” I asked, “do you love your wife?”. I do so believe in getting straight to the point.

He looked bemused. I could see I had to press him.

“Do you feel any love in your life?” I asked, putting on my glasses and gazing at him sternly for greater effect.

“Er…yes…um…” he stumbled, “but what’s that got…”

Ah, I noted to myself, there’s a rubric for this, Answering, Aversion to, Refusing to Answer…was it possible that I had arrived at the core of the case within 5 minutes? Of course it was, after all, I always do…

“You must know,” I lectured, “we treat the whole human being! We must know all facets of your case before we can prescribe! Now tell me, do you, or do you not love your wife?”

“I’m not married,” he responded, somewhat sheepishly.

“Well, why not?” I pressed on regardless, one does have to be relentless in this inspiring work. “Are you sexually impaired?”

“What?” he asked, looking dazed. “Why-?”

I had clearly hit the center now. Male Genitalia, Sexual Desire, Wanting.

I quickly wrote out a prescription for Phosphoric Acid 10M and sent him on his way. He appeared to be wheezing as he left, and as he was settling his bill I heard some shouting, a thump and then frenzied cries for an ambulance.

I’m sure he’s doing much better as a result of my prescription as I haven’t seen him since…

In conclusion – as you can see, it’s only through enlightened case-taking that you can really see through to the core of the case. The patient’s asthma reflects his refusal to respond to the questions life places on him by making him dependent on respiration for life. In addition, his clear lack of sexual desire, obvious from the hangdog look in his eyes, is reflected in his asthmatic state, as his low vibration prevents him from participating fully in the joys life has to offer.

It’s so wonderful to be a homoeopath! I do thank Hahnemann daily for the generous gift of homoeopathy! Especially since my seminar on my new method, scheduled for tomorrow, already has 50 participants, prepaid!

Case Taking observations from Hahnemann.

 Sore throat, fissure of anus

O—–t, an actor, 33 years old, unmarried.

January 14, 1843. For several years he has had a sore throat, so now for a month. The last time his sore throat had lasted six weeks. When swallowing saliva, he feels a pricking sensation of constriction and soreness.

When he is not afflicted with this sore throat, he suffers from a fissure of the anus, with violent pain as from a chap; then the anus is inflamed, swollen and constricted, he can then discharge his stool with great exertions, while swollen haemorrhoidal veins extrude.

January 15. He took early before breakfast a coffeesponful of a solution of one pellet of Belladonna in seven tablespoonful of water, from which solution one tablespoonful was put into a tumblerful of water and stirred.

January 15. In the evening the throat was worse.

January 16. The throatache is gone, and a toothache remained. but the ailment of the anus has returned, as described, an open fissure with pain as from a chap, swelling, beating pain and constricture. Nevertheless he had a painful stool in the evening.

He acknowledged that eight years ago he had a chancre which had been as usual destroyed with a corrosive, after which all these ailments had set in.

On January 17 he received one pellet of Mercurius vivus I. of the lowest new dynamization (which contains immensely less substance than the present) prepared for being taken as before and taken as before (after shaking the bottle every time), one spoon-full in one tumblerful of water, as with the Belladonna, well stirred. 

January 20. Almost all the toothache gone. The anus is better; but he still feels a soreness there after the stools; but there is no more pulsation there, no swelling of the anus and no inflammation. Less constricted. One pellet of Mercurius viv., 2 dynamization, prepared and taken in the same manner in the morning. I did not note down whether he took the Mercurius (2) once or twice a day; usually only once early in the morning before breakfast.

January 25. The throat is almost altogether well, but in the anus there is a pain as from a chap, and severe lancinations, severe pain in the anus after stool, there is still some constriction and heat.

January 30. In the afternoon he received the last dose (one coffeespoonful). On the 28th the anus was better, the throatache had returned; severe chaps in the throat.

One pellet in sugar of milk for seven days, prepared and taken as before.

February 7. Severe pain as from ulceration in the throat. Colic, but good stools, but several times in succession, with great thirst. But everything is well at the anus. Sulphur 2-0 in seven tablespoonfuls of water as above.

February 13. He had ulcerative pains in his throat, especially when swallowing saliva of which he now has a great quantity, especially much on the 11th and 12th. Some constriction of the anus, especially since yesterday.

Now I let him smell of Mercurius and gave him Mercurius vivus 2-0, one pellet, as always in seven tablespoons, one-half spoonful of brandy and to be taken as before.

February 20. The throat is better since the 18th; he suffered much at the anus; the stool pains him when discharged; less thirst.

§-0 Sugar of milk in seven tablespoonfuls.

March 3. No more throatache. In going to the stool a haemorrhoidal vein but bloodless extrudes (formerly this caused burning and pains as from chaps), now there is only itching in that spot. I let him smell of Ac. nitr.

March 20. Hardly any more pain after the stool; yesterday some blood was discharged with the stool (an old symptom). The throat is well, only when drinking anything cold there is some sensation.

Now he is allowed to smell of A

c. nitr. The smelling is directed after opening a little vial containing half an ounce of low grade alcohol or brandy, in which one pellet with medicine is dissolved; he smells at it one or two moments.

His health was permanently restored.

In sending this case to Boenninghausen, Hahnemann was presenting the usage of LM or Q potencies. He also stated that they were not good examples for instructional use.

In saying that, some of us at the IHM have spent considerable time examining the methodology employed in the actually casetaking. It determines a number of criteria that has to be employed in EVERY case analysis. For those that have an inner determination to practice homoeopathy in the proper manner, it would be of benefit to stop listening to the modern gurus who purport to be ‘experts’ but whose words and methodology prove false to the instructions of Hahnemann.

The only way to determine if a method is Hahnemannian  is to undertake a deep study of all the writings of Hahnemann, the writings of Boenninghausen, the case examples of Hahnemann and Boenninghausen, and a critical evaluation of the cases presented in Hahnemann’s case books from Germany and Paris.

In examining this case we see that the patient presents a picture of the disease state and how it affects him. Hahnemann clearly outlined in aphorism six of the Organon the methodology based on observation to elicit the individual symptoms and reaction to the disease process that has affected the patient.

§ 6
The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease

in looking at this case we can see that the patient has two seats of affection in his organism. One is the throat and the other is the anus. At the time of taking the case, the throat symptoms were predominant and the disease state was focused on this area. The patient had had a sore throat for over a month when interviewed by Hahnemann. There are not absolute specifics regarding the symptoms taken by Hahnemann in this case, but we can assume his prescription of Belladonna was based on an accurate assessment of the current prevailing disease expression as located in the patient’s throat. The symptoms of the anal fissure were not present at this time, but were obviously noted by Hahnemann in the disease picture, but he did not prescribe for them as they were not present.

In observing this case we can see very clearly that Hahnemann, utilising the law of similars, would only prescribe on symptoms that were present at the time of consultation and predominantly dictated the expression of the disease.

So Hahnemann prescribed the Belladonna.

January 15. In the evening the throat was worse. January 16. The throatache is gone, but the ailment of the anus has returned, as described, an open fissure with pain as from a chap, swelling, beating pain and constricture. Nevertheless he had a painful stool in the evening.

So fairly immediately, the Belladonna worked successfully on the organism and moved the state from the throat to the Anus, as per the alternating condition of the patients illness.

Hahnemanns experience with both infection, remedy action and disease states, given the symptoms, would indicate that he retook the symptoms as the fissure presented itself. In tracing the picture of the disease, his experience dictated that the seat of the problem was of a chronic nature, venereal in nature and probably due to suppressive allopathic treatment of the ailment. This was confirmed by the patient. There are no notes recorded by Hahnemann as to why he prescribed Mercurius, however a general overview of Mercurius and its ability to produce symptoms similar to both syphilis and suppressed syphilis are unequalled by any other medicine in the materia Medica. We note that Hahnemann gave the Mercurius to deal with the underlying infection/suppression that was the maintaining cause and aggravating factor in producing both the throat symptoms and the anal fissure.

It is also important to note that Hahnemann was treating the disease state as expressed in the patient’s physical symptoms and syphilitic infection. Nowhere do we see mention of the patient’s mental state or condition. This is important, if not vital in understanding Kent’s incorrect assertion that the mental state is of primary importance in every prescription. The only time a symptom becomes a prescribing symptom is when it is changed and altered. A physical symptom, a local symptom, a modality, a location can all be the leading symptom for prescribing if it is changed and altered from the previous state of health and is represented as peculiar to a certain remedy which produces the same state or symptom from its substance.

Looking further into this case, who we see that Hahnemann re-dosed the patient with Mercurius a few days later. We also see that Hahnemann prescribed in the Q potency and moved from LM 1 to LM 2. He repeated the dosage a few times as the patient still had soreness of the anus. On 28 January we note that the anus was much better but that the throat symptoms had returned. At this juncture, Hahnemann decided to give placebo for seven days to see what other symptoms developed. After this period, the patient was prescribed sulphur LM2. We note that after the symptoms were collated, Hahnemann again prescribed Mercurius and then placebo  until March 3.

We note at this juncture that the throat pain had all but gone. The residual anal pain had changed from severe chapping and splitting to a haemorrhoidal vein with itching. He was prescribed Nitric Acid, and this was repeated a few times more until cure a few weeks later.

So we can learn much from this case. Firstly that there is no such thing as a constitutional remedy. Each prescription is based on the collection of changed and altered symptoms and has nothing to do with personality or personal preferences. We can see in this one presented case that it took several remedies to restore the patient to health. We can see that miasms are nothing more than infections, and that miasmatic diseases are nothing more than the results of being infected and produce their own symptom peculiarities based on that.

Homoeopathy is a medical practice and application of therapeutics. Unless the laws of similars is followed closely and the application of the therapeutics is adhered to using the scientifically observed results of being poisoned by a substance and the symptoms noted, it will not work effectively or permanently. We can see that Hahnemann did not ever promote a core delusion or a personality type for prescribing. By following Kent’s methodology it has been the undoing and spoiling of many a case where the practitioner has applied a personality or preference rather than the matching of prescribing symptoms.

What is a Symptom? What are we Treating?

A symptom (from Greek σύμπτωμα, “accident, misfortune, that which befalls”,from συμπίπτω, “I befall”, from συν- “together, with” and πίπτω, “I fall”) is a departure from normal function or feeling which is noticed by a patient, reflecting the presence of an unusual state, or of a disease.

A symptom is subjective, observed by the patient, and cannot be measured directly,  whereas a sign is objectively observable by others. For example, paresthesia is a symptom (only the person experiencing it can directly observe their own tingling feeling), whereas erythema is a sign (anyone can confirm that the skin is redder than usual). Symptoms and signs are often nonspecific, but often combinations of them are at least suggestive of certain diagnoses, helping to narrow down what may be wrong. In other cases they are specific even to the point of being pathognomonic.

 § 6 Fifth Edition
The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

For those that like to quote Kent and assert that the homeopath treats the person, not the disease, we would like to correct this false assumption by quoting aphorism 2:

§ 2
The highest ideal of cure is rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and annihilation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles.

It is always a source of disappointment to watch a homeopath take a case and spent hours and hours extracting symptoms that are a waste of the patients time and the practitioner’s time and of no value in treating the patient. Hahnemann very clearly detailed what information is required for changed and altered symptoms that are perceptible both to the patient and to the observing practitioner. In his instructions on how to take a case he emphasised that the important symptoms must be fleshed out so as to know exactly how the expressed symptom affects the patient.

Hahnemann also stated: “to only take symptoms pertinent to the case”.

§ 83
This individualizing examination of a case of disease, for which I shall only give in this place general directions, of which the practitioner will bear in mind only what is applicable for each individual case, demands of the physician nothing but freedom from prejudice and sound senses, attention in observing and fidelity in tracing the picture of the disease.

§ 84
The patient details the history of his sufferings; those about him tell what they heard him complain of, how he has behaved and what they have noticed in him; the physician sees, hears, and remarks by his other senses what there is of an altered or unusual character about him. He writes down accurately all that the patient and his friends have told him in the very expressions used by them. Keeping silence himself he allows them to say all they have to say, and refrains from interrupting them1 unless they wander off to other matters. The physician advises them at the beginning of the examination to speak slowly, in order that he may take down in writing the important parts of what the speakers say.

In discussing these matters with homoeopaths, many of them point out that aphorism 85 on shows Hahnemann detailing points outside of the disease process currently exhibited. If you actually read carefully Hahnemann focuses on the salient points of change in the patient, and generally asks if anything else has changed during the onset or prior to the onset of the current malady experienced, or if any other symptoms exist that the patient has noted which are not connected to the disease presented. He does not detail anything except that what has changed.

The IHM have reviewed many of the case books of Hahnemann and can see clearly from his case taking that he solely keeps in view just the altered symptoms and does not cover every part of the pathology except as outlined above.

The problem that exists among Kentian prescribers is a multifaceted one. Firstly Kent classified symptoms as one being above another in hierarchy. For example he classifies the mental and emotional state as being the key and the primary indicator for a prescription. This holds true to such an extent that most practitioners will not prescribe a medicine without a mental collection of symptoms. This is patently wrong.

Hahnemann’s instructions were to observe only the symptoms that have altered or changed. If a patients personality has not changed or his or her reaction to a situation is unaltered, then clearly a mental or emotional observation of a changed state is not present. A medicine is given for an altered state, not a personality.

Another problem that Kentian practitioners face, is that some of the modern materia Medicas present remedies as a personality or a type. This is also patently wrong. The materia Medica should be a collection of accurately observed symptoms that are produced by a substance.

For this reason for example, Pulsatilla can be given to a normally aggressive and non-compliant male for symptoms presented which are typical and produced by the substance Pulsatilla as a direct result of the effects of that medicine. If the symptoms are such that no other medicine can produce the symptom state, and the patient’s mental or emotional state has not changed, then Pulsatilla can be given with an assurance that it is the correct medicine for the ‘changed and altered state’.

Pulsatilla will work more readily if the patient’s mental and emotional state, during the disease, has changed to a mild disposition. However, it is not necessary, as stated previously if the only symptoms presented match Pulsatilla.

Hahnemann pointed out, in his experience, that Pulsatilla worked only rarely in the cases where the mental symptoms did not alter as well. Yet in his case work records we see a lot of Pulsatilla prescribed for different conditions in men where the mental symptoms where not yielding or placid but remained unaltered.

So for the Kentian practitioner wishing to have more success in his case taking, we would humbly suggest that the return to the Hahnemannian method and stop looking for personalities, for types, for in core delusions or a central state based on mental emotional pathology, and just stick to observing deviations from health in the symptoms presented, without speculating on the reasons for a deep inner conflict.

More on this later.

t

Discussion between 2 homoeopaths.

Comments taken from the responses to articles published

Mokhtar Akbari

Hello, I am a Homeopath from Canada and have studied many different methods of Homeopathy, including classical and more contemporary approaches. I would like to understand more, for my own learning, what people mean when they say that they approach case analysis and case management from a purely Hahnemannian perspective. There is a lot on the internet criticizing new approaches, but I do not find much about what constitutes and defines the purely Hahnemannian approach. I am genuinely interested and eager to learn and have even looked for books on the subject but I can’t find any besides the Organon itself. Could you please help me find books or other ressources that would help me understand how Hahnemannian homeopaths analyse and manage cases? (second prescription, remedy reactions, ect). Ideally, I think that all students should learn all methods. This will lead to the best results for us all and help us to really understand what Homeopathy is and the different paths it has taken. Thank you and all the best with your wonderful website.

Response from Ed Nunnery

Welcome to the site. What defines the pure Hahnemannian approach is how closely you follow the instructions in the Organon. Everything you need to know about casetaking, case analysis, prescribing and case management is in the sixth Edition of the Organon. Use the Dudgeon Translation. Read and re-read it and you will find out how very clearly everything is laid out by Hahnemann. The 6th Edition was his last word on how to practice Homoeopathy. The medicines he used almost exclusively at the time were the LM or Q potencies. Instructions as to dose and preparation and case management are given in the Organon.
Boenninghausen’s “Lesser Writings” have helpful essays on the approach and he was Hahnemann’s most valued colleague and the best prescriber who ever lived. His repertory “The Therapeutic Pocketbook” is the most reliable, accurate reflection of the “Materia Medica Pura” and “Chronic Disease”. These are the other books that you will need to study and refer to in choosing the most similar remedy, they contain the best and most reliable provings ever done.
I have studied many approaches myself. Kentian, Vithoulkian, Andre Saine and others. I have tried to use them in practice and always felt that something was not quite right, or that I’m not smart enough to make them work. Then I found this site and saw the elegance and simplicity of the pure Hahnemannian method at work and I realized that this is real homoeopathy. All the other approaches were flawed in the degree to which they deviated from Hahnemann. I highly recommend reading all the cases on the site and the articles on case taking. I only wish I had found this out 30 years ago when I started! I know from experience that the best, most consistent results come from practicing Hahnemann’s Homoeopathy according to the rules set down in the Organon.

BIG PHARMACIES MASS VACCINATION AGENDA: PROPAGANDA ASSAULT ON INFORMED CONSENT

SOURCE: JAMES F. TRACY

Major US news media have presented a grossly distorted and misleading interpretation of vaccines and their relationship to public health since early January. These  journalistic organs have suggested the recent measles outbreak in the Western US has been a crisis of monumental proportions.

This flagrant and cynical sensationalism has become a foundation for intense advocacy on behalf of the pharmaceutical corporate and regulatory cartel targeting patient informed consent—a founding principal of modern medical practice and personal freedom. Keeping in mind the close to 300 vaccine products now in the pharmaceutical industry’s pipeline,[1] closer analysis of “measles outbreak” press coverage suggests a conscious effort by corporate news media to virtually banish such notions and practices from the public mind. A news media dependent on over $1 billion in advertising dollars from big pharma must almost by necessity indulge their clients’ broader agenda.

An impartial journalistic approach to the question of vaccination and personal choice would provide equal and unprejudiced airing of “both sides,” in addition to the varied grey areas in the debate, from the corporate and statist entities flying the banner of mandatory vaccination to cautious segments of the citizenry voicing reservations toward such technology alongside the foremost prerogative of personal choice.

A LexisNexis search of US newspaper and wire service articles from December 28, 2015—the official start date of the California measles outbreak—to February 8, 2015 [2] using the search terms “measles” and “vaccination” yields 799 press releases or wire stories and 746 newspaper articles and opinion pieces. Much of this coverage predictably emphasizes the array of vaccine-friendly assumptions and pronouncements from entities abetting the pharmaceutical industry’s long-term profit-specific objectives.

For example, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention is, alongside the Food and Drug Administration, the most powerful bureaucratic arm utilized by the global pharmaceutical cartel to elicit compliance with the federal vaccine schedule for children from the medical profession and broader population. Of the article sample referenced above, close to one-third (517) reference the “Centers for Disease Control” or “CDC” in their text, suggesting citation of the agency and its policies to persuasively instruct readers on vaccine efficacy and safety.

In contrast, the same body of over 1,500 press releases, news stories and editorials reference “informed consent” only three times—and when the term is used it is done so either in passing or to disparage the practice itself. For example, Arthur Caplan, a professor of medicine at New York University, warns against doctors even considering the practice of informed consent in regard to vaccines. “The science is unimpeachable,” Caplan proclaims. ” Vaccines do not cause autism; measles is dangerous and contagious; inoculating against the disease is neither pointless nor riskier than abstention.” The physician then amazingly suggests that genuine informed consent–explaining how a vaccine such as Measles, Mumps, Rubella, which can severely injure, incapacitate, or kill the child patient–must be categorically replaced by the dissemination of pharmaceutical industry propaganda and half-truths. “Those doctors who counsel otherwise – who distort what patients need to know to preserve their health or that of their children – have crossed a bright red line. They have violated a patient’s right to informed consent, which depends on accurate information.”[3]

The foremost US organization advocating the fundamental doctrine of informed consent, the National Vaccine Information Center, is referenced a paltry 22 times in the sizable article sample. And while the NVIC routinely emphasizes that it is not “anti-vaccine” and merely advocates that patients or their parents fully understand the risks associated with the industrialized, “one size fits all” immunization process, it is nevertheless framed as the official voice of “anti-vaccination.” A recent New York Times article from the data set is exemplary of this practice. “Members of the anti-vaccine movement said the public backlash had terrified many parents. ’People are now afraid they’re going to be jailed,’ said Barbara Loe Fisher, the president of the National Vaccine Information Center, a clearinghouse for resisters.”[4]

Of the 746 articles published in newspapers, 143 are editorial and opinion pieces. Almost without exception each vigorously supports wide-scale vaccination, even proposing punitive measures for those clinging to informed consent and personal choice. Such uniform opinion among newsroom management provides a clear indication of exactly how warped the overall news coverage of the “measles outbreak” has been.

“If we’re not willing to permanently exile anti-vaxxers from the public square,” one opinion in the Philadelphia Daily News remarks, “we should at least make emergency provisions to do so. Anti-vaxxers should be made to understand that when there is a public-health emergency – such as a measles outbreak – they’ll be quarantined for the duration.”[5] “Those who refuse to vaccinate are wrong,” the Salt Lake Tribune argues. “They endanger themselves and those around them.”[6] “The growing anti-vaccination movement is one of the most frustrating developments of this decade,” the San Jose Mercury News similarly contends. “Some of the parents who mistrust vaccine are uneducated and have no access to pediatric counsel, but there’s no excuse for the irresponsible parents who have access to the latest science yet irrationally fear that vaccines are not safe for their children.”[7]

In an effort to console parents concerned about the very real possibility of vaccines causing autism, US government press releases and US news outlets alike reference a 1998 study authored by British physician and medical scientist Andrew Wakefield linking vaccination to Crohn’s disease and autism. “Public health officials blame a decline in parents having their kids vaccinated that began after a now-thoroughly discredited 1998 British report alleged that common early childhood vaccinations triggered autism,” the San Diego Union Tribune grouses. “Unfortunately, that discredited report continues to be cited by know-nothing celebrities and vapid New Age authors who broadly reject modern medicine. They do so even as life expectancy hits all-time highs and medical researchers make steady progress on many fronts.”[8]

The US government’s own public relations service—US Official News—likewise chimes in on Wakefield’s alleged deceit. “A 1998 article in the medical journal The Lancet caused a firestorm of controversy when it was published   and helped create the anti-vaccine movement that continues today,” one US government press release reads. “There’s only one problem–the article was later retracted by the publisher for being ‘utterly false,’ and the author, Andrew Wakefield, was found to have been paid big bucks by plaintiffs’ lawyers.”[9]

The fact that Wakefield’s 1998 findings have been upheld in 19 peer-reviewed papers he has contributed to the literature between 1998 and 2010, in addition to 28 studies from other scientists around the world [10] has been consciously overlooked by US newspaper editors and other drug industry propagandists. That this key piece of disinformation–soundly rebutted in the published research–continues to be repeated by journalists and government publicists alike suggests the hardcore disinformation tactics deployed to perpetuate the misunderstanding and unwarranted faith the majority of US families continue to place in big pharma’s immensely profitable vaccine agenda.

As direct result of this well-coordinated publicity campaign and resulting hysteria the legal right by which families may exercise informed consent is now under intense legal assault across the US. “Hearings to remove philosophical/conscientious exemptions to vaccine mandates have already taken place in Washington and Oregon,” NVIC reports.

California, Maine, Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Vermont all have bills already filed or press announcements of bills about to be filed to remove philosophical/conscientious exemptions. Maine, Minnesota and Texas have bills to substantially restrict philosophical/conscientious exemptions. Religious exemptions are also under attack. Maryland, New Jersey, Texas and Vermont have bills filed or announced to eliminate religious exemptions, and Illinois, New Mexico and Texas have bills filed or announced to unconstitutionally restrict religious exemptions.

In addition, Connecticut, Florida, Indiana, Maine, Maryland, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, and West Virginia all have legislation underway to expand vaccine mandates.[11]

In light of the above one should be unsurprised at the mob-like antipathy toward “anti-vaxxers,” and how the notions of personal liberty and informed consent have been made to appear increasingly bizarre by being effectively stricken from public discourse. The population has been expertly propagandized on the issue by medical practitioners, their professional associations, and regulatory agencies tethered to the pharmaceutical industry’s agenda vis-a-vis a news media reliant on drug advertising revenue. With these observations in mind one must seriously ask themselves, In what meaningful way would a wholly scientific authoritarianism differ from what is witnessed in America today?

Notes

[1] Medicines in Development: A Report on the Prevention and Treatment of Disease Through Vaccines, Pharmaceutical Researchers and Manufacturers of America, 2013.

[2] Jennifer Zipprich, Kathleen Winter, et al, “Measles Outbreak – California, December 2014-February 2015,” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, February 20, 2015.

[3] Arthur Caplan, “Quacks Against Vaccines? Revoke Their Licenses,” Washington Post, February 8, 2015.

[4] Jack Healy and Michael Paulson, “Vaccine Critics Turn Defensive Over Measles,” New York Times, January 31, 2015.

[5] Joel Mathis and Ben Boychuck, “The Vaccination Debate Continues,” philly.com, February 9, 2015.

[6] “Washington Post: Measles in America,” Salt Lake Tribune, February 3, 2015.

[7] “Disneyland’s Measles is a Hard Lesson in How Vaccines Work,” San Jose Mercury News, January 29, 2015.

[8] “Anti-Vaccination Charlatans Take Toll on Public Health,” San Diego Times Union, January 19, 2015.

[9] “Flashback: The Anti-Vaccine Movement and a Trial Lawyer-Funded Climate of Fear,” Plus Media Solutions/US Official News, February 17, 2015.

[10] Joseph Mercola, “Why Medical Authorities Went to Such Extremes to Silence Dr. Andrew Wakefield,” April 10, 2010, Mercola.com, http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/04/10/wakefield-interview.aspx

[11] “You Need to Act Now: Vaccine Exemptions and Mandates Threatened in Even More States,” February 23, 2015, National Vaccine Information Center.

BBC newsman Malcolm Brabant says yellow-fever vaccination led him to believe he was the Devil

Malcolm Brabant, his wife Trine and son Lukas‘You don’t give up’: two years after the start of his ordeal, life remains tough for Malcolm Brabant, his wife Trine and son Lukas Photo: Clara Molden

If the countenance is familiar, though, his current location isn’t. His usual on-screen sign-off is ringing in my ears — “Malcolm Brabant, BBC News, Athens” – but today he is welcoming me into his home in Copenhagen.

He is, he explains, currently living in exile from the Greek capital, and thereby “missing one the biggest news stories of my career”. The reason is the biggest personal story of Brabant’s 58 years. As he puts it with what I quickly learn is characteristic bluntness: “I went bonkers.”

In April 2011, he attended an Athens clinic for a routine vaccination against yellow fever before an assignment in the Ivory Coast. As well as reporting from Athens, he has also travelled the globe to cover international stories, winning a coveted Sony award in 1993 for his reporting from a besieged Sarajevo at the height of the Bosnian crisis.

His reaction to the vaccine, however, was anything but routine. “It fried my brain,” he states simply. Overnight a previously sane man developed severe psychosis. An agnostic, Brabant became so convinced he was the Messiah that he telephoned his bemused fellow correspondent, Allan Little, to appoint him “first disciple” and ask him to record his words of wisdom.

One minute he was announcing that the Queen was aware of his divine status, the next he was claiming to be able to stop the traffic just by thinking about it, and control all technology. To prove the point, he flushed his Kindle down the lavatory.

It was utterly bewildering for those around him, especially when he switched into the persona of Winston Churchill, and then the Devil. Yet, because he had no insight into how strangely he was acting, Brabant also attempted to carry on reporting, with results that horrified previously admiring editors at the BBC.

With the corporation’s support, he was sent to hospital in Athens, then released, but shortly afterwards he experienced a second mental breakdown. Unable to work, broke and broken, he returned to his childhood home in Suffolk where he tried and failed to get the help he needed from the NHS. While there, and out of control mentally, he presented himself, clad only in cycling gear but minus a bike, at BBC Television Centre in West London, which was being picketed in a pay dispute. He demanded to see senior managers and generally caused such a scene that the police were called.

“I was the man in Lycra, come to solve the strike,” he recalls without flinching. “I really thought in my madness that I could do it but, of course, I was away with the fairies. That will have been the last time many of those people at the BBC saw me face to face.”

At one stage, he bumped into Frank Gardner, the BBC’s security correspondent partially paralysed after being shot in Saudi Arabia in 2004. Brabant attempted, Messiah-like, to effect a miracle cure by rubbing his back.

He ended up back in Greece and no better. He was persuaded by his Danish wife, Trine Villemann, to abandon their rented home, pack what few possessions they could fit into their estate car, alongside their 11-year-old son, Lukas, and the family dog, and drive across the continent in a desperate search for psychiatric help in Denmark.

Perched on the sofa beside her husband in their typically Scandinavian white-walled apartment in the Danish capital, Villemann grimaces when she recalls just what a state he was in. “I have been around mental illness before [her father hanged himself], but I have never seen someone so gone before. Malcolm was clawing around in the deepest, darkest parts of his mind,” she says. “It would have killed a lesser human being.”

She pauses as she pushes her long blonde hair back from her face. “I am ashamed to remember them now, but there were even times when I thought it would be better if he died because his suffering was so great.

“I have this nagging image in my head that won’t ever go away of Malcolm, sitting on his bed in the hospital, with his arms folded. He was rocking backwards and forwards, saying, ‘I’m the Devil, I’m the Devil’. Whatever anger I’d felt about the situation we were in evaporated in that moment.”

The Danish health professionals who slowly and painstakingly brought Brabant back to sanity told him that he would have to spend the rest of his life on medication. He decided otherwise.

“I was determined this wasn’t going to beat me. When I finally left hospital in 2012, I would rattle as I walked around because I was carrying so many pills. I was a one-man chemist’s shop. It took me another year and a half to reduce my medication. I stopped taking it in January of last year, and since then I have gradually been getting stronger and stronger.”

So much so that he is now back at work, and back on our screens after almost four years away. His unheralded return came earlier this month with his reports on the murder of two people by an Islamist extremist in separate attacks in Copenhagen.

Brabant says: “In the aftermath of those attacks, I was working in the old way: until I dropped. I need to. Because of my illness, we have lost everything. I have a 15-year-old son to support, and we don’t even have a car any more. I am the man from the BBC who arrives by bicycle. It makes me feel like a cub reporter again.”

Picking up the threads of his career and of his reputation is one part of his life today in Copenhagen. But Brabant and his wife are also pouring their considerable energies into spearheading a campaign that they hope will prevent others suffering as a result of vaccinations.

“My husband had absolutely no previous history of mental illness,” says Villemann. “There was nothing latent in him. I have no doubt at all that his severe psychosis was brought on by the yellow fever vaccine.”

Brabant adds: “I was not a one-in-a-million case. We are determined to make the manufacturers, Sanofi Pasteur, investigate what is happening. I have provided them with open access to all the doctors who treated me so they can hear what their vaccine did to me, but they haven’t been in touch. They are refusing to engage.”

Faced with this silence, the couple have been collecting reports from many others around the globe who suffered similar consequences to

Brabant. And it is not just a question of a few individuals sounding the alarm bells. In 2005, Dr Thomas Monath, a world expert on yellow fever, who sits on various World Health Organisation committees, confirmed publicly that the vaccine in question can cause “really severe and significant, serious adverse events”.

Even the manufacturer seems to be aware that all may not be well. In 2013 its head of vaccine innovation, Dr Ronald Neeleman, admitted to a conference that the vaccine in question had not been reviewed in many years. “[It serves] a small market, with very low returns, and there is not really an incentive to redevelop,” he said.

If Dr Neeleman was hinting that it is past its sell-by date, then, as Brabant points out, it remains a product “routinely available in high street chemists. It is given to British soldiers who are going overseas. And it is used widely in Africa, where there are few channels for reporting when people go mad after taking it”.

“We are not anti-vaccine in general,” stresses Villemann. “Yellow-fever vaccination saves lives, but what concerns us is that, when something goes wrong, there appears to be no help for people like Malcolm whose lives have been ruined.”

They are seeking financial compensation and they are prepared for it to be a bruising fight. To which end they have bared all in a book, Malcolm is a Little Unwell.

They are also working on a documentary film, using some footage they shot during the most gruelling chapters of Brabant’s illness.

Aren’t they tempted to draw a veil and just get on with their careers?

“Even if we wanted to,” Brabant replies phlegmatically, “we couldn’t. It’s out there anyway because of how I behaved.”

“No one rolls out the red carpet to welcome back people who have suffered a mental illness,” says Villemann. “That cannot go unchallenged.”

Malcolm is a Little Unwell is published by Andartes Press