Category Archives: Vaccination

Tatijana responds to vaccination viewpoint…

Dear Sir/Madam,

regardless human immune system, we should know that it does not rely only upon inflamatory proteins and cells, and that can not be seen only in levels of laboratory findings.
What we can see through changes in hormones, cytokines, TNF, neurotrasmiters, neutrophiles etc. represent that organisam is in DISTURBANCES, but it is not disease per se.
Prior to this changes we have changes in mental-emotional-spiritual part, in etheric, energetic part.

It is obvious from scientific medical branch, psychiatry.
What do pschyatrist do?
Try to convince patient to think positively, to eliminate fear from him.

It is very well known that positive thoughts have benefit in human organism.
This is confirmation that disease is not of material nature, but of energetic nature.
You can try to help such persone with antidepresants, but at the same time you will have constantly tired person, draging (CFS). Energy is leaking.

Vaccination, as well as viruses and all other microorganisms are triger factors in which hereditary predisposition is acctivated and organism produce symptoms to fight for.

So symptoms such as caugh,fever, slight fear of of death, malaise, loss of apetite are produced by our immune system to fight against virus. If you treat with chemicals than after some time organism will not be able to produce high fever, and inflamation (pain) is transmited deeper, moved from mucus, from surface to central parts., producing dysfunctioning of internal organs for very long time before tissue structure is changed.

We are complexed energetic system- proof EEG, ECG.
Heart and brain are conected.

Changes that precede are not based on the atomic and molecular structures, but on the energy levels, eggzactly on subatomic level of building blocks of an organism, electromagnetic levels.

Why I mentioned conscience, because it plays important role in health of individual, especialy in chronic diseases., it is not only matter of religious.
All of us are aware that if we confesse something that we are relieved, that we feel better, that we can move on ahead.

We can talk about health fom point of wiev of physics as well, where we have proces of dissintegration called entropy.

I do not claim that only homeopathy can cure human, there are others therapeutic systems, but we should first know and understand what is cure and what is palliation.

Vaccination is triger factor, if organism is very strong than fever would develop and process would resolve either with health or death.

If not, chronic condition will be establish, automatically organism is not able to develop infectious disease.

Infectious disease and chronic disease are continuum, and cure is eggzactly if you are able to bring this inflamation on the surface ( respiratory mucus or skin), treat it successfuly and CROSS this line in organism withouth antibiotics.

I am sorry if I have ofended anyone, buth these are facts.

Further comment on vaccination…..using Vithoulkas levels of health concept.

We are publishing our colleague’s thoughts without endorsement or comment.


First of all, I would like to point out what Dr. Herscu represents and why he makes this argument in favour of the immunization campaign against the current pandemic. Remember, Paul Herscu is a naturopath. One day, perhaps, we should have a discussion about the impact naturopathy has had on the practice, theory, and the public perception of homeopathy and its political and regulatory implications in north America. Fortunately, naturopathy’s detrimental effect has so far being confined to this continent; Dr. Henny Heudens-Mast is also a naturopathic physician, but it has not prevented her from being one of our best classical practitioners and a brilliant teacher. In America, unfortunately this is not the case. Naturopathy has subsumed and largely corrupted not only homeopathy but all other disciplines it has captured in its regulatory grasp, such as acupuncture and herbalism, to name a few. Trained in all the major medical sciences and practicing largely as allopaths, NDs found a unique niche in the lucrative marketplace of America. They have been taught to be fluent in the lingo and passions of the holistic disciplines but are unable to grasp the latter’s theoretical foundations. Their only professional aim is to sell the drugs which they label as ‘natural’ to the public at large and their own patients. The profession has completely integrated itself into the neo-liberal capitalist environment. From their professional platform, they preach self-improvement and self-relance to the wealthy few and neglect the larger systemic and health-related issues that make us sick. In short, to the practitioners of homeopathy and acupuncture, the health systems that are not predicated on profiting from a product, naturopaths are not their comrades, putting it mildly. Therefore, no one should be surprized by Herscu’s articles.

So, I urge you to consider this before you respond to his vaccination glorifying paper because it is not written from the perspective of homeopathic theory. This is a piece penned for one single purpose: to promote his practice and his expanding ego, while simultaneously bidding for the NDs to be accepted as partners in the mammoth, exceptionally profitable American medical-industrial complex. (Note, in some of the states, NDs actually do practice as regular physicians).
A while ago, I, too, was wondering about him. Herscu had produced one of the best texts in homeopathic pediatrics, The Homeopathic Treatment of Children. Written in the style of Morrison’s Desktop Guide, only so much more extensive, it is one of our best textbooks and a reliable materia medica. But, remarkably, this is one single scholarship of excellence that he so far managed to produce in his 30 years of practice. What followed this valuable publication was not crafted in the same vein. He went down the rabbit hole of publishing questionable provings. He joined our infamous school of nonsense and created his very own theory of homeopathy, Cycles and Segments. Following this, he began producing exceptionally verbose texts on epidemics and currently presents himself as some sort of a widely accepted authority on the topic. He even quotes himself! I can’t imagine anyone being able to read his loquacious papers in their entirety. So, in the past, I often wondered, as to how he managed to write this great pediatrics book. Roger Morrison’s Desktop Guide is also a textbook par excellence, but it is constructed as an almost verbatim copy of his early lecture notes by George Vithoulkas. Straight from the horses mouth, so to speak, though without giving GV the credit. As far as I understand, Herscu never went to Greece to study. Another peculiar thing about The Homeopathic Treatment of Children is that not that many of the ‘pediatric constitutional types’ are actually there, a few of the important remedy pictures are sorely missing. Carcinosin, Mercurius, Calcaria phos, Calc sulph, Lachesis, and Hepar are a few to mention.

Dr. Tatijana Nincevic’s letter addresses one major thorn in the body of homeopathic theory and praxis. It is very important for our profession to have a coherent scholarly view on vaccination, and, I believe, we have already had it for many decades. However, there something else to consider in Nincevic’s letter here. Besides opening it by unreservedly and aggressively addressing Herscu as Mr.—which would probably assure neither he nor his followers are going to read her response—it does not exactly present a very persuasive argument. To begin with, it seems to me, Nincevic does not really understand Vithoulkas’ Continuum theory. This theory represents the essence of his Layers of Health praxis, and, in effect, is his highest achievement as a medical theoretician. It is simply brilliant. It is rooted in medical reality and supported by sciences. Nincevic, however, makes full use of Vithoulkas’s very old unsavoury vitalist ideas rather than utilizing the central tenets of the Continuum principles.
After a brief statement that immunization is a ‘mechanistic’ idea, she however doesn’t not follow this tendentious line of argument but dives deep into her own ‘mechanistic’ training at the allopathic medschool (which seems rather embedded into her own limbic system). A holistic understanding of the disease as a process and of an organism as an exceedingly complex dynamic entity are difficult subjects to gain mastery in and not that easy to operate in discourse. So we are now invited by the author into the second part of her argument, the one that is unsurprisingly wholly reductionist (pun intended). Even though Nincevic begins with this correct Hahnemannian precept, which infers a holistic understanding of the disease process:
“This phenomenon is based on the natural laws of onset and disappearance of disease, in which disease (inflammation) has its own course from the periphery (skin and mucous) to the center of an organism (internal organs).”
She then changes her course. Completely forgetting that she is supposed to defend her teacher‘s ideas from a vitalist perspective, she offers us a picture of a complex organism reduced to one single central nervous system organ—hypothalamus, all in caps. After making her rather incomplete and shambolic reductionist case that literally proves nothing, she veers back into the 1970s New-agey Vithoulkas vitalism presenting the reader with zero explanation (or understanding) of the terms she uses in her thoughtless pseudo-scientific statement:
“Everything happens on the subatomic complex of the human organism, energy.”
Huh? ‘Subatomic complex’? ‘Energy’? ‘Everything’? Seriously?
Yet another sudden conceptual swerve, and, voilà, who could have thunk it? we are invited into her religion: a disease as a sin, a ‘compromised conscience.’ Ouch. Stalin might have loved it.
“The basis of the disease lies in a compromised conscience, which cannot be found in any molecular structure of the brain. As disease is of a spiritual-dynamic nature, not material.”
But, but, what about the Limbic System? Is it spiritual or subatomic? Take you pick. OMG, is this the way to argue with the immunization diehards?

Currently, Vitalism is beginning to permeate the philosophical grounds of many practical sciences, such as anthropology, archeology, etc. Not the old vitalist idea of the organic matter being of a different substance entirely—this conceptual ghost has been dead for a very long time. Being purged and deconstructed of its religious notions, the old vitalist ideas of dynamic holism are being incorporated into the new materialism—in certain way similar to Marx rendering Hegel’s idealism palatable and workable.
The Continuum Theory of Disease states that all disease must be viewed as an inflammatory process. Vithoulkas proposes that a chronic state of inflammation is left over to linger in certain affected tissues when an acute infection is supressed and not allowed to proceed. Unless rooted out, this inflammation would persist in suspended animation and move from tissue to tissue and organ to organ, giving rise to various signs and symptoms. Pathologically and historically, this process creates the appearance of different disease entities ‘attacking’ the person. Vithoulkas tells us, however, it is all the same disease. Now, just because he calls it a vital something doesn’t mean it is some sort of a spiritual malady inflicted on us by the savage gods, an immorality of some sort. It is a singularly concrete physical process.
Furthermore, this corporeal pathological process exists at different levels of magnitude, at different organic and physical scales. On our scale, the inflammation appears as a ‘derangement’ of organs. Down a level of magnitude, it interferes with the functioning of this organism on the molecular level; we see this in blood or urine tests. Farther down the road, it affects our bodies at a subatomic level, impeding the flow of electrons and protons along their channels thus hampering the vital cellular quantum mechanical processes (the scale at which homeopathic drugs act). Are the quantum mechanical process ‘spiritual’? Immaterial? No, not at all! Electrons that our mitochondria manage are thoroughly concrete and physical. Stop all this New Age nonsense already, please! No one wants to take us seriously. We are delegitimizing our own beautiful science.

Now, I would like to see a scholarly homeopathic argument about the danger of immunization from this materialist perspective! But not by reducing the body to a single brain organ, however magical, rather by showing how immunization leads to establishing a state of subacute or chronic disease. Injected at the point where a virus is not expected by our immune system to enter, the viral proteins evade the upper-respiratory native immunity agents well-designed to handle a viral assault. The connective tissues of some individuals, whose bodies reside at a certain low Level of Health, somehow, are unable to quench this new inflammation. We should be able to show how this process develops. Yet another argument, of course, needs to be posed about the immunizations effect on the population as a whole. But there have been numerous such arguments raised inside and outside of the allopathic profession.

Another comment in response to vaccinations

Dear Mr.Herscu,
I would like you to read my thoughts about what I consider vaccination is.

Vaccination of the population has become a “hot” topic today. Something that was considered extremely effective in preventing infectious diseases, today has proven to be extremely destructive to the entire human race, humanity.

Modern Western society has been systematically vaccinated several generations ago, and those who have escaped should consider themselves fortunate persons. Such are for sure not borne in western modern society.

Namely, in medicine that has a mechanistic view of the human organism and perceives it as a mechanical machine, the vaccine is considered to cause the production of humoral and cellular immunity against the corresponding microorganism, and thus “protects” us from diseases caused by them.

This is a completely wrong theory, and in reality a completely different phenomenon occurs, which is why such an individual is protected from an infectious diseases.

This phenomenon is based on the natural laws of onset and disappearance of disease, in which disease (inflamation) has its own course from the perifery (skin and mucous) to the center of an organism (internal organs).

In the human body, more precisely in the human brain, there is a system called the LIMBIC SYSTEM and it is located exactly in the center of the brain structure.

The limbic system plays the most important role in the health and disease of the human organism, for regeneration or degeneration.

The most important part of the limbic system is the HYPOTHALAMUS, which is located centrally in the system, and is connected to all levels of the limbic system by two-way communication routes. Together with the structures tightly connected to it, the hypothalamus sends signals in three directions, back and down to the brainstem, up to the areas of the cerebrum and cerebral cortex and into the hypothalamic stem (infundibulum) for full or partial control of most secretory functions of the posterior and the anterior pituitary lobe.

Namely, this extremely small structure of the brain, the size of a few cubic centimeters, is the most important part of the brain, and depending on the stimulation that comes from outside, the entrance is for illness or health. It is a structure of double quality, negative and positive. Depending on how it is stimulated, so will the effect be.

The most important structure of human health, responsible for degeneration or regeneration of human organism.

Hypothalamic function in the body: control of the cardiovascular system, regulation of body temperature and fever, regulation of body water, regulation of uterine contractility and milk secretion, regulation of the digestive system and feeding, regulation of endocrine secretion of anterior pituitary hormones, ability of wide range positive and negative emotions.

What happens with vaccinations?

The vaccine is a biological-chemical material and as such it acts precisely on this structure of the organism, negatively stimulates. In some individuals, if they are healthy and with strong constitution and good immunity, they will develop a high temperature, fever (inflammation), in which the human organism will expel from its body an “intruder” whether it is a biological or chemical agent and will return in balance after some time. The homeostasis or balance of an individual is her/his ability to function, create, complete concentration on the creative work for which she/he was created byour Divine creator. This means that her/his mental-spiritual functions are not disturbed and that she/he can learn and understand, and develops psychophysically normally and be happy till the end of his life.

If the vaccinated individual is no longer able to develop a high temperature higher than 38.5C for a long period of time, such an individual has developed a “sicker” condition, chronic condition (subinflamation). This is way acctually organism is “protected” of infectious diseases.

This is evident in the examples of the development of hyperactivity or hypoactivity disorders in children after vaccination, especially vaccines that have multiple components in them.
This is very strange and you should be surprised how child the day before vaccination was in order, constructive, creative, full of empathy and positive emotions and tomorrow is totaly different, lost.

In reality, it happens that the child can no longer follow the school program, that his attention is weak or non-existent, that he is restless, that he no longer has social behavior, that he is aggressive, irritable, anxious, phobic, emotionally absent and cold. In a word, the coherent ability of the brain is lost ( in reality persone feels lost). It is a product of the suppressive effect of the vaccine, negative stimulation of the hypothalamus and its function, producing disbalans, INNER PEACE IS LOST.

Population vaccination is the destruction and degeneration of the human species and an attempt to control nature in its selection mechanism. The price is high and is reflected in the explosion of cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, cancer, neurological and autoimune systemic disorder. Modern society deeply suffer wherever we see that immunization is obligation.

Vaccination of the population of chronic patients is completely unnecessary, because such patients cannot suffer from “acute infectious disease”. Only elderly patients on long-term chemotherapy due to vaccination can develop high fever with respiratory symptoms, but such an “acute illness” is the last in their lives and has its purpose like everything.

Society’s collective immunity or what is called “herd immunity” to an epidemic infectious disease is because society is in reality in the “deeper” sick condition, they suffer chronically. That is way they are “immune” to acute infectious diseases.

Why is that so?

Because human organism is one closed energetic complex. With chemicals and vaccines you can only suppress inflamation (pain) in deeper structure, not resolve inflamation, pull on the surface.

Everything happens on the subatomic complex of the human organism, energy.

The basis of the disease lies in a compromised conscience, which cannot be found in any molecular structure of the brain. As disease is of a spiritual-dynamic nature, not material. One continuum of events in human life. (G.Withoulkas-The “continuum” of a unified theory of diseases). This is not something rigid, but dynamic.

No one is spared of the pain, but it should be treated in a natural way, with a homeopathic remedy wherever nature allows and where the image of the medicine is seen, and to bring it “to the surface” of the organism, not to push it inside the organism causing more suffering of humans.

Depending on drugs with which is humans stimulated, we will have health or illness, peace or restlessness.

Due to long chemical treatment of human organism degeneration of humans are present, not evolution.Happiness and joy is lost.

I know that scientists who work in the field of health are honest and decent people and their tasks are not primarily personal material gain, but unfortunately they are on the WRONG track and actually responsible for degeneration that is in play in our society today. They do not know that vaccination acts on mental-emotional level of human been, on the etheric part of human organism, and all diseases are not of material nature, but of spiritual nature. We can see how far they came in their mechanicistic aproach in developing antiinflamatoric Aspirin with simple molecule till today very aggressive tocilizumab-antiinflamatoric-blocator of cytokine, IL6.
But with very dangerous side effects.

There is MEDICINE that can regain health in a person as well as in society.

Every person should have a fundamental human right to choose the treatment of their health, including vaccination.

Vaccination is a pressure of an organism to produce something , but at the same time with consecuences in other parts of human been.

Tatijana Ninčević, IACH

Response to Paul Herscu regarding vaccines.

It is obvious that this person do not understand thoroughly the process of disease and health and that he has got pure mechanistic approach in the understanding of the human organism and his immune system which exists in modern scientific medicine.
Vaccination is a trigger factor that activates and force the organism to do something in a not natural way with consequences.
The way in which vaccination acts is the suppression of inflammation consequently having as a result more serious and deeper disturbances of the organism and that is the reason why person is protected of epidemic respiratory diseases.
Inflammation is “pushed” inside. A person is sick chronically. And this is characteristic of the health condition of modern society last few generations, explosion of chronic disease.

Herd immunity is on the play not because that people are healthier, but on the contrary, they are sicker, this is the reason of herd immunity, not because there are no more viruses around us, because viruses are in the air and they are most numerable organisms in our environment, but because we are not susceptible to catch them.

Dear Mr. Herscu, unfortunately, you do not understand the process of disease in which any organism who is in any chronic condition is not able to develop high fever which is the sign of healthy immune system unless he is in the last state of chronic condition very close to death.

I can clearly see that you are not in order when you said that you will take the vaccine in order to continue your job and to avoid a lawsuit. This is not moral and it is disgrace for classical Hanemanian homoeopathy.

Tatijana Nincevic

Paul Herscu individual view on vaccines

A Broader Conversation About Vaccines – Part #2

2019 Novel Coronavirus (CoVID-19): Part XVIII
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV (first named); COVID-2019 (later named disease); SARS-CoV-2 (final name of the virus causing COVID-2019), COVID-2019 Pandemic:

January 2, 2021 update Part 18 (Vaccines – Part #2)
Paul Herscu ND, MPH
Herscu Laboratory

A Broader Conversation About Vaccines

This Covid Update #18 is a companion piece to #17, and forthcoming updates #19, #20, and #21. The topic of vaccination is a difficult one, with a great deal of information and misinformation circulating. There is tremendous emotion, anxiety, fear and anger surrounding the topic of vaccines. The opinions here, are for your consideration. Make up your personal choice in consultation with your health care provider. But to help inform your choice, it is useful to have information. In this post, I briefly touch on some of the science for those interested in understanding vaccines in a broader context, and in learning about the different vaccine forms and how they relate to COVID-1 vaccines.

In the next update, I focus on the role organizational and educational institutions have in changing the course of this pandemic. What is the big ask we want from those in the position to effect change and how to shift the discussion and the focus of our efforts so they lead to better outcomes.

Update #20 will discuss the framework to understand vaccine reactions.

Lastly, I will take up the important topic of what you and your loved ones and your patients/clients might do to potentially prevent or mitigate side-effects from the vaccine if taken. I have broken this large topic up, as there is a lot to share from several angles!

This piece is about vaccines and how to think/talk about the topic in general, from the conceptual model, away from the operational specifics.

I am writing to those that actually believe we are in trouble here. (I had an interesting moment where Amy and I were presenting a talk for a professional organization last month and a physician there said something like, is this whole thing real? I have not seen anyone with this disease yet. I said, yes, very real. What I did not say was that right before our presentation, I had a patient who was waiting for a room in the hospital because the whole hospital was full, the ICU was full, the ED was full, and the hospital was setting up makeshift oxygen tents in peoples’ cars, just to keep them alive until someone either got better or died and there was room in the hospital.) So, I am writing for you. Dealing with the reality and tragedy upon us.

At this point, for many, the discussion hovers at the for or against vaccinations point. Vaccinations are good or vaccinations are bad. My goal is to permanently change this discourse so that it fits a bit closer to reality and offers you, your family, and your patients a clearer way to think about vaccines. This discussion is the same one I have given in 1990, in 2000, in 2010, and now here, again in 2020. I hope, at some point this discussion can become more mainstream to move the actual conversation to where it belongs, mirroring reality, predicting outcomes, lessening harm.

Let’s get started.

The first thing we have to bring up is that most people are arguing an issue using 1970s language and the reality of that time. Let’s take this and see how quickly we can pull it forward to 2020/2021. Broadly and basically the concept of vaccination is introducing something into the body, let’s say for example, an antigen, to produce an immune response, for instance, an antibody. It is much broader than that, but let’s just keep it at that conceptual level. I will keep this brief, having followed the evolution of vaccinations for my entire professional career in one form or another, starting with the reading of Lady Montague’s accounts and then Edward Jenner’s account all the way through today.

I would like to branch this out into two types of vaccines. At this time, there are vaccinations used for prevention, but there are also vaccinations used for treatment, a topic not often mentioned. The old fight was about immunizing via vaccine, which focuses on prevention. Let’s put that aside for now. But please realize we are in 2020. The concept has broadened into vaccines, of other sorts, including those used as part of a treatment.

The most compelling one here, from the orthodox medical model, are the immunotherapies that are used for cancer treatment. Many of them utilize the concept that you either inject an antigen, inject a protein, or inject another substance into the person in order to produce an immune response. The old one of these that led to TNF drugs, etc., some of you may recall, Coley’s toxins, is something we have taught about for over three decades.

Some new approaches move beyond that by removing some of the immune cells, and by attaching chimeric antigen receptors (CAR) to T cells from the patient, and then are put back into the patient’s body. Those cells find the cancer cells and destroy them. Broadly, these are the CAR-T or TCR therapies, or even the TIL cytokine additions.

Again, please don’t write me about how you or your family used this approach and it cured or it was horrible or did nothing. I am just offering an example of another type of ‘vaccine’ used for treatment rather than prevention, to catch us all up to an expanded view of the topic.

Here’s the takeaway: cancer therapy used to be limited to surgery, chemotherapy and radiation and now the thinking is more about stimulating the body’s own immune system to address cancer cells. Focus here on the conceptual model, that putting something into the body so that the body will react in such a way as to create a specific or general immune response to treat a particular disease. We might call these by any name you prefer, but you can see the basic concept of vaccination at play.

Relatedly, in the integrative medicine world, ‘vaccines’ have moved on to treatment as well. There are any number of integrative doctors injecting peptides, protein pieces, and other materials into people to elicit a specific immune response, for a variety of diseases. When the political environment is welcoming, they call this a vaccine of sorts and when it is a less popular word, they call it a peptide antigen to elicit an immune response.

There are also those working with upregulating an immune response by use of traditional vaccines. For example, there are many integrative doctors that will inject a typical vaccine, such as yellow fever vaccine, into a person with a disease, say cancer, using the adjuvants in the vaccine to upregulate the immune system to recognize and address cancer cells.

There are many, many other examples, but as you can read, the topic of vaccinations is actually a large one, much larger than is often appreciated in the current debate. What to me sounds sort of funny, or sad, is when an integrative doctor that gives a vaccine to treat cancer say he is against vaccines for prevention of a potentially life-threatening disease. It is not logical! Some have a knee-jerk response to words or labels, even when the words represent similar things.

I remember some years ago I was working on a vaccine position paper and there was a great amount of in-fighting in the group. It sounded to me like it all started in the middle of the argument as if it was picked up from 50 years ago. I tried to make the point that even the folks that were ‘pro’ vaccines, that their practices which were against these newer cancer treatments, were not in keeping with their stated position on vaccine when it came to prevention, and some of those that were ‘anti’ vaccine for prevention were pretty happy with the newer cancer treatments. This discordance within a world view, simply due to the term used for the intervention, struck me as odd. After they listened politely, the argument returned. Which was sad to me. And an opportunity for further understanding lost.

REGARDING VACCINES FOR COVID-19, in December, 2020/Early January, 2021

Let me jump into the types of vaccines in general and then in COVID-19.

Different types of vaccines for prevention.

  1. Nucleic acid, RNA/DNA vaccine. The new technology is designed to be developed in a quick and inexpensive way, and since they are new, no one is completely sure of the full short term or long terms effects. It takes a couple of months to get to clinical trials, and 6 months to get to Phase III trials. The mRNA has you making the antigenic protein within your cell. Your immune system reacts to the protein that your cell made from the mRNA message. At this time, there are about 20 of these in testing phases for COVID-19, from different companies. There are two major forms here, which I describe below. This form is potentially going to become a very dominant form of vaccine into the future for many diseases.

2a. Whole virus LIVE vaccine. Here you take the actual virus, keeping it alive but weakening its pathogenicity, in other words, creating a less pathological form. It keeps on replicating itself for a while which means it lasts longer than a killed form. MMR is like this one. There are a half dozen or so of these being developed for COVID-19. One big problem, theoretically, is that species often want to revert to their more natural form. Follow me here for a bit, from an evolutionary biological point of view, it is important. If you take a highly bred dog and let it run wild, it moves toward, in subsequent generations, a more feral ‘wolf-like’ appearance. Species do this, moving closer to the wild type variant since that is what nature created, as best adapted to the environment. Well, with live form vaccinations, there is the possibility that the virus might revert back to its stronger pathogenic state. This happens, in fact, and no one debates that this happens. So instead of arguing whether vaccines are ‘good’ or ‘bad’, I think it is more useful to talk about how to make this form safer.

2b. Whole virus, but DEAD/INACTIVE vaccine form. Here you take the virus but kill it, instead of weakening it, in order to create an immune response. Some vaccine makers add adjuvants to upregulate the immune response. While it is true that you cannot become sick with that specific illness from this form of vaccine, as it is dead, other reactions may occur. There are a half dozen or so of this type being tested for COVID-19.

  1. Viral vector form of vaccines. There are around 20 COVID-19 vaccines of this form in experimental phases. This is a sort on interesting one. Here you use a common, simple, safer virus, like the one producing the common cold,as a delivery agent but you add a gene into the virus, and the virus does its usual thing, and it causes you to make a protein in question, for example, a spike protein. The virus keeps going for as long as typical, or you could introduce something else that stops its actions (I do not believe they are doing this yet, but this is clearly a pathway for cancer research, introducing a vector and then with it a ‘suicide’ gene to stop the process, so that it does not keep going, or stops the target in question. I know it sounds like science fiction, but I imagine this will be pretty common within 15 years or so.)

The main problem with this form is that we are dealing with three living agents, the bug you are trying to protect against, the bug that is the carrier, and you. The bug that is the carrier ideally is a simple one that we typically see and have no problem with. But if we typically see it, then we may well have antibodies to it already. And if we have antibodies to it, then when you undergo this vaccine form, it might be that your own immune system inactivates the carrier virus before it has a chance to deliver the gene of interest. There are all sorts of go-arounds here, but I thought I would highlight this.

  1. Protein subunits vaccines are made from the surface of the pathogenic bug in question, like the spike protein of SARS-CoV-2, which you can upregulate by adding adjuvants. Here we have about 30 COVID-19 contenders in experimental phases. Again, you will not get the disease from this, even though it is up to your immune system to react to this protein or protein/adjuvant.

COVID-19 Vaccines

With COVID-19, we have the RNA/DNA option for now, as described above, and specifically the mRNA form delivering different parts of the SARS-CoV-2 antigen. The mRNA is not very stable, so you have to keep it at very low temperatures. Also, you have to somehow ‘wrap’ it up in a fatty coat, if you will. (Here there are issues, as for example the poly ethylene glycol that is included, which some people have a severe anaphylactic allergy to, which is known and clearly articulated.)

At this moment, in early January, 2021, the mode of administration is by injection, though my informed prediction is that in 6 months, an inhaled version will be added as a delivery system. As described above, the RNA causes your cell to produce this antigen, for now the one chosen is the spike protein, and then this is moved to the cell surface, at which point your immune system perceives the protein and starts producing antibodies to it.

The hope is, and what was borne out in clinical trials, is that the antibodies keep you from getting severe illness if you contract SARS-CoV-2, preventing patients from experiencing precipitous decline and leading to time in the ICU or worse. In a sense, your immune system has been primed to address the virus. Put another way, when you get sick, it takes time for your immune system to recognize that there is a problem, to identify the problem, and to then react appropriately to the problem. That valuable time allows the virus to replicate taking over more and more cells. If you could have get a head start so your body more quickly identifies a problem and reacts to it, then there is less virus to have to deal with in the body. That is how it is supposed to work.

Please note that I personally believe what is currently in these vaccines, is as stated by the manufacturers. In other words, I do not believe that they have added substances to control you, to track you, to kill you, to make you infertile, to control your thoughts, to add a kill switch to your life. I know you might think that these are preposterous things for me to mention, but I have had people from the left and the right, conservatives and liberals both, tell me all of the above and more. I will not further describe or discuss any conspiracy theory, since they are both unproductive and unending.  What can I say? There is a lot of confusing information out there.

Really, for me, this is an example of worrying about the wrong thing. There are things to absolutely be concerned about with vaccines, but worrying about something completely unrelated takes and keeps your focus off the main issues such as described below. My personal suggestion to anyone worrying about what is in a vaccine, take a sample and see what is in it. The chemistry is not that difficult to investigate, and really should not cost that much to do. Form a group, test the chemistry in the vaccine, describe what you find and move on.

Concerns with the mRNA

Moving on here. There are two potential forms here when speaking about mRNA; a non-replicating form of mRNA vaccine and the self-replicating form of mRNA.

The non-replicating form is what we now have as the approved vaccine. It is the kind you inject into the body, the body takes up the mRNA, it goes into the cell, causes the cells own production line to make the protein in question. And then eventually the job of these mRNA is done, they get used up, destroyed. To keep this from occurring too quickly or having too many unintended consequences, they sort of chemically ‘freeze’ the shape of the mRNA, and then coat the whole thing in a lipid substance, as mentioned above. It is kept from denaturing by storing at low temperatures. The Moderna and Pfizer version of the vaccine use similar mRNA code for the whole spike protein and similar lipid coat technology. I imagine in the future this whole form will be modified to make the vaccine more shelf stable. They may also modify the target, as for example, target for a part of the spike protein instead of the whole, or target for the spike protein plus another part for better specificity, but that is a future engineering challenge and keeps the same overall concept of this type of vaccine. More on this below.

The self-replicating type is an up and coming vaccine not approved yet. It would be the next version of these mRNA vaccines, where you create the system by which the mRNA keeps replicating itself inside the person, and therefore can last for an indefinite amount of time, continually producing more and more protein, before it is processed itself and ceases to be active.

I have grave concerns here. At this time, late December 2020/early January 2021, I really do worry about this. We have not seen what mRNA vaccines looks like in the real world. I mean what really happens over a large population, in different subgroups, over a span of months? But at least it is over sooner rather than later with the injection, in this first phase of vaccines. However, the self-replicating form would keep going for a while in the body, and that seems unnecessarily dangerous at this time. Put another way, if there is a problem with this whole mRNA concept then let’s have at first the type that starts the immune response, ends its work and the immune system is prepared.

Having the mRNA go on and on indefinitely, as in the self-replicating types, seems like an unnecessary risk. At least for the first few years, until we have more answers from the epidemiology associated with this vaccine type. If I could make a VERY STRONG recommendation, it would be for the different medical societies to put the brakes on this form until we know more about the short-acting form. As an integrative medical society, this seems reasonable, and logical, and not at all alarmist, but uses the precautionary principle. This is something that can be written and acted upon today, not once they are developed and distributed.

Clearly, these current vaccines have known side-effects, which FDA lists, and the vaccine makers provides. No one is saying that these are simply safe and carry no risk. No one has or will say anything close to that in the near future. The makers of these and the government both acknowledge known risks. And there are the unknown risks as well. But this is what I was underscoring in my previous update. The math is the math. At the start, there are multiple pathways open to halting an epidemic. But if you close off, prevent, underfund, or dismiss such other pathways, you are left with this one, with its potential risks and impacts. Sad but true.

There are specific populations that I worry about that have not been discussed elsewhere to date. Aside from those whose age, or who have specific ailments that put them at risk for certain problem from the vaccine, and those that may have the allergic reaction to the poly ethylene glycol, I worry about the upcoming vaccines and the adjuvants that may upregulate the immune system in unspecific manners.

There are numerous populations that this vaccine is complex, for me, as there is not enough information yet. For example, anyone with added hardware, medical devices and implants of various sorts. A vaccine is as good or as bad as how specific it is in its short term and long term effects. The more ‘off target’ it goes, the more problems it might cause. While this is not in the current plan, I STRONGLY URGE OUR INTEGRATIVE MEDICAL ASSOCIATIONS to emphatically urge the FDA in their post-approval tracking to add, NOW, at the beginning, specific tracking of side-effects of the vaccine on those with added internal/medical devices etc. These should be tracked carefully, as a potential subpopulation data points to be gathered. Even simpler procedures like cataract surgeries where new lenses are implanted, we should watch these people carefully.

As importantly, AND SOMETHING ELSE THAT OUR MEDICAL SOCIETIES SHOULD urge is special protocols towards vaccinations, which may include stopping or creating a time gap between particular procedures or treatments and the vaccine. I am trying to address the real world that we find ourselves in, and to diminish the risk of additional problems for ourselves, our families, our patients, and our neighbors. And if FDA will not pick up on this call, one very useful addition to our knowledge here is to have the integrative medical societies create a tracking system, and publish what we find. Simply put, from our point of view, we are not all the same, and do not respond the same to any exposure, including vaccines. Having people that specialize on personalizing medicine keep track and articulate latent subclasses is a huge benefit to society in general and to integrative healthcare in particular.

Hang in there. We are halfway through the topic. In the next update, we discuss what Integrative physicians and Naturopathic physicians can do, in particular, to help the current situation.

Kind regards,

Paul Herscu, ND, MPH

A Broader Conversation About Vaccines – Part #3

2019 Novel Coronavirus (CoVID-19): Part XIX
2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-nCoV (first named); COVID-2019 (later named disease); SARS-CoV-2 (final name of the virus causing COVID-2019), COVID-2019 Pandemic:

January 7, 2021 update Part 19 (Vaccines – Part #3)
Paul Herscu ND, MPH
Herscu Laboratory 

Hello and good day to you and yours.

This COVID-19 Update #19 is the companion piece to COVID-19 updates #17 & #18, and forthcoming updates #20 and #21 all of which focus on vaccines. I focus here on the role organizational and educational institutions have to change the course of this pandemic as related to vaccines.

The next update will focus on vaccine reactions. Lastly, I will write about what you, your loved ones and patients/clients can do to help prevent side effects from the vaccine if taken and to mitigate side effects that may arise. 


We know that the conventional medicine community has more money than integrative or naturopathic doctor communities do, and therefore more influence. Which means, if looking at only that medical model, there will be more and more vaccines for both prevention and treatment. The vaccines for SARS-CoV-2 are only the most current ones we are hearing, reading and thinking about. And because of all the controversy, anxiety, depression, and just bad time we have all had, this vaccine has garnered more controversy than others.

I have spent the last year describing workable simple options, numerous options really, and also the direction we were going, and that, if unchanged, we would end up with this this vaccine option as Plan A and only Plan A. I will not repeat myself here. The last two updates, this one, and the next two focus on the vaccine issue itself. We are stuck in the pro/con vaccine false dichotomy which has become even more entrenched. A very complex discussion is minimized to soundbites which does a great disservice to all. In these treacherous waters, many individuals and organizations decide to sit out the debate, put their heads down and remain ambiguous. I think this, too, misses the opportunity to help science move forward to help more people. This update is aimed at organizations, trying to give more support to positions they might be able to take today, as a way to build a solid middle, a way to break through the rhetoric, to get to a closer approximation of what really happens.

Let me start with an illustration of a problem from the past, to illustrate why vaccine makers and government officials would do well to engage with naturopathic and integrative physicians soon and more closely.

In 1998, FDA approved a Lyme Disease vaccine LYMErix, with protein antigens from Borrelia burgdorferi. The vaccine rollout failed miserably. It was unclear if the vaccine protected you and how long protection would last. Additionally, you would have had to take multiple doses. Some patients felt they became chronically ill post-vaccine. No one wanted to take the vaccine and it was discontinued. A complete rollout failure.

I believe the COVID-19 vaccine rollout may also fail. It has to do with what was tested, as I mentioned in the previous update. Most of us think of vaccines as a one and done effort or a series and then done. For example, when many of us received the polio vaccine, we had one series and were done. What was measured was how likely are were to become sick and/or how likely are we were to pass the bug to someone else. That is NOT what tested in the initial COVID vaccine trials. The main endpoint tested was how many people became SEVERELY SICK with the virus in the vaccinated group versus the placebo group. But they only measured SICKNESS if you were symptomatic. In other words, they did not test everyone to see if they were getting sick, potentially transmitting the virus, but who may have developed only mild symptoms or those who remained asymptomatic entirely.

In other words, it may be, as I wrote the first update, that transmission may be less, or be completely unchanged, or may even be worse. We simply do not know. What they were looking at was a binary question of how many people ended up in the hospital. (Sound familiar? It is odd to me that the only folks that took my study design endpoint of paying attention in a dichotomous fashion to hospital admission need or not, were the vaccine makers and not my brethren. It is that easy. If we did the same thing, natural treatments would have been adopted by the mainstream as quickly! Let’s not waste this opportunity to discuss vaccine issues in their full complexity.) So really, if the only thing that this vaccine does, is keep you out of the ICU that would be great, by itself, but it is extremely likely that other more natural means, with fewer potential side effects are able to achieve this without the vaccine. We don’t know, because research for such approaches has not been properly funded.

The point I am making is, if transmission rates are not substantially diminished, this rollout may go the way of the Lyme vaccine. And remember, at this point, late December/early January we have no other easy viable choice that society or public health institutions appears ready to adopt. If this result is revealed, which may be in the next 2-4 months, the rollout runs into difficulties.

We need a reliable Plan B. Being included in discussions, distributing research funding more equitably, and sharing from our naturopathic and integrative clinical findings and recommendations related to COVID-19.

For the government agencies, for the vaccine makers, the best way to roll out a successful program here is through open dialogue, and in this current environment, I cannot think of a better profession to have this dialogue with, then with licensed naturopathic doctors who have been working at individualizing care and supporting the immune response from the inception of the profession. Let us help, by establishing contact and communication and by working hard to create opportunities to engage in meaningful dialogue.

If we can shift the conversation of vaccines to ‘vaccines are a solution in this respect and not a solution in that respect,’ or ‘vaccines are a solution for this person and this same vaccine is not a solution for that person,’ then we come closer to understanding in which circumstances vaccines are an important option, and in which instances they are completely the wrong path. More specifically, as long as the conversation is limited to good versus bad, one side never sees a problem and the other side never sees a solution.


Sadly, at times, the actual problem that needs solved is not clearly articulated. I hope I describe where the problem and potential solutions reside. Professional associations should call for, demand and stand ready to participate in creating a new integrative perspective, a true Plan B.

Here are some of the main steps of such a path:

  2. FDA, FTC, and NIH (or professional associations and NHS in all countries) should come together to develop a fuller CORONAVIRUS TREATMENT ACCELERATION PROGRAM (CTAP see this link to read further on CTAPs) that properly funds integrative approaches, and that includes ND stakeholders on the relevant committees. For me this is essential, a major pivot point and a very clear ask from the integrative community. It is, actually a game changer.
  3. Recommendations can be based on the best science available, on the prevention and/or treatment of related viruses, and on understanding of immune system function. Naturopathic and integrative physicians should be invited into protocol development, to be studied, published and promoted to include natural products and therapies, that focus on prevention of COVID-19 from gaining access into cells, reducing viral replication, supporting innate immunity, and mitigating the short term and long term impact. Naturopathic and integrative doctors have an enormous role to play at this time and should make their way to the table.
  4. In the clinical world, NDs provide patients with a variety of interventions aiming at different parts of the individual to help the overall state. This is not classical study design where you test only one variable. But it is here, that NDs shine. For example, we already know that modifying chronic health status of blood sugar, weight, and blood pressure impacts COVID-19 disease expression. It is time to advocate for the testing of whole person, multi-factorial protocol rather than only investigating one variable at a time.

Many billions of dollars have gone into and continue to pour into each vaccine development vs. a paltry amount to fund natural medicine testing. Funding is essential to prove how interventions with natural medicine approaches and substances diminish the severity of expression of COVID-19 or can reduce chronic effects of COVID-19 infection. We also need to study how natural and integrative approaches can increase effectiveness/longevity of the vaccines, and diminish side-effects that may arise. As well, funding should also include for the development of new drugs and the repurposing of older drugs, both avenues were severely curtailed when the directive was to pursue vaccines.


Within the vaccine world, away from the rhetoric, there is acknowledgement of potential harm to the recipient exemplified by vaccine makers’ own disclaimers. We need this information shared more widely so everyone understands inherent risks. Include NDs in the creation of vaccine information inserts, as a way to help further articulate potential risk/benefits. We should advocate for more detailed description of what potential harm or potential benefit exists, and for the creation of more refined tracking of actual harm. This cannot be done in the dichotomous ‘vaccines are good/vaccines are bad’ world. But they can be done in a world that establishes a more personalized approach to health care.

We need to allow for modifications of recommendations based on individual, personalized health concerns in order to limit harm, and at the same time increase efficacy of the vaccine. This could be done by, for example, latent class analysis, uncovering subgroups that might not be currently identified, yet nevertheless exist. If we are out front with understanding which groups of people or which kinds of people with which health concerns would be more at risk for poorer outcomes, this could be helpful information to share. NDs specialize in personalized care and could be of immense value here.

Over the years, my practice had many vaccine-injured individuals, according to the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. It is hard for me to believe that anyone wants this outcome! A much better outcome is a nuanced, individualized approach that seeks to prevent those more at risk and which develops specific protocols for those people. In other words, discussion how to make it safer and how to identify those more susceptible to potential harm ahead of time, and to prevent problems from arising is a much better discussion than we have right now. Join me in moving this discussion forward.


  1. Highlight clearly that for the next 6 months at least, even with vaccines, we will continue wearing masks, social distancing and following public health guidelines about businesses opening, with continual but slow easing of lockdowns when and if incidence numbers go down.
  2. Describe how there have been many billions of dollars spent on the creation of this vaccine and very little spent on natural treatment options.
  3. Work to further access funding, create study design and carry out research related to natural medicine approaches to the prevention and mitigation of COVID-19.
  4. Work to broadcast widely results of such studies so that specific approaches become standard of care. This is the important one. There is no mechanism in the USA to allow a natural product to become standard of care, unless FDA/FTC allows this to occur. Integrative organizations could ask for a seat at the table and together formulate minimal natural product recommendations for the prevention and treatment of disease. This would be a new, radical, and important modification in health care in the USA. This is the main focus of change that needs to occur, or else we maintain the status quo.
  5. SPECIFICALLY, with relation to COVID-19 vaccine:
  6. Emphasize that it is not known how long the vaccine effect will last. Hopefully it lasts longer than the disease immunity.
  7. Share that we do not know how people will tolerate a second or third series of vaccination. (Because of this we need a Plan B, as in the other effective natural medicine options to help prevent and mitigate COVID-19.)
  8. Explain that we do not know if the vaccines will continue to be effective, as the virus mutates. (I mention this for completeness sake only). (Because of this we need a Plan B, as in the other effective natural medicine options to help prevent and mitigate COVID-19.)
  9. Explain that at this time, we do not know what the rates of transmission are for the different vaccine forms. But also ask the question, why were these not properly tracked originally.
  10. Request explanation of what the main goal of each of the vaccine forms is. Which ones lessen transmission? Which ones lessens severity?
  11. Help describe the need for and help develop special protocols towards these vaccinations, which may include stopping or creating a time gap between particular medical procedures or treatments, and the vaccine, as for example, dermal fillers, cataract lenses, etc.
  12. Continue to articulate that NDs and integrative physicians should be included in the development of protocols to lessen potential side-effects of the vaccine.            h. NDs and integrative physicians should be included in the development of and updating post-approval side-effect surveillance, as they are uniquely trained to uncover latent subpopulations.
  13. Up front and center, should be a close following of vaccine during pregnancy.
  14. I also suggest that there should be a slowing down of the development of self-replicating mRNA vaccines until we see what the effects of the non-replicating mRNA forms is on the population.

I also believe there needs to be a rethinking of the prioritization of who receives vaccinations. No one has said this openly, but broadly speaking, you could say the choice is whether to vaccinate those that will ‘restart’ the economy first, or to vaccinate those most likely to die first. In the USA we chose the open the economy first plan. I think ethically it may be that medical societies might have a problem with this sequence. For example, I think vaccinating those most likely to die might be the most ethical first step as it limits mortality. If this were the case then some of the stage 2 groups might move up to stage 1. There is an ethical imperative that speaks to a better sequence. Regardless of the result of that debate, my point is that integrative physicians should be part of the discussion on the rollout.


To Recap:

We need scientific testing to prove efficacy. We need our medical societies, schools and leadership across all integrative and natural medicine stakeholder groups to take bold steps to investigate and generalize our work, without apology, and in partnership with funding organizations and government agencies. Our work could become standard of care across the full medical landscape. The driver of this in the short term is the need for a PLAN B now and for the longer term as a way to discuss the future of vaccinations in the clear light of day. When is it an appropriate option and when should it be the absolute last option as better ones exist?  We lost this first round of opportunities, a year wasted and lives lost. That said, I have faith that our different medical societies and leadership decide to engage in developing and promoting these other pathways now. It is not too late to alter our path forward. This is the perfect time to help lead change in a structural, institutional fashion. We have, I think 6 months or so to do so.

In the next update, I propose a conceptual model of how to talk about vaccine reactions. And in the last update on this topic some things you might want to do in preparation of the vaccine if you choose to take it.

With much hope,

Paul Herscu, ND, MPH

Some useful resources or links referred to in the above:


2.The 70 plus COVID-19 vaccine programs, their trial stage and side effects may be tracked in a variety of sites. Some of which are listed here:

3.In the last update, I suggested that people with ‘altered’ structures inside their body may need to be tracked separately, just in case they at risk for side effects. Since that time the American Society for Dermatologic Surgery released guidance that looked carefully for side effects in those patients with recent dermal fillers. As an example of what these look like, to emulate, please see: .

  1. There is further information related to special populations to consider, including the pediatric population and pregnant and nursing women, which I think needs a clear understanding of as soon as possible. For those populations, where these are not possible, there should be a PLAN B that does not focus on vaccines, and for which the naturopathic physician and integrative communities can play an essential role.

No tests ever conducted.

VAXXED: Why Every Parent Should See This Film

VAXXED: Why Every Parent Should See This Film

Over the weekend, my wife and I decided to take in a movie. Our film of choice?  Vaxxed: From Cover-Up to Catastrophe – the controversial film which Robert De Niro first supported and later axed from his Tribeca Film Festival line up. Lucky for us, New York’s Angelika Film Center was chosen to host the premiere, making it available to the general public.


My initial takeaway is that EVERY parent, not just the ones with autistic kids, should see this film.
Vaxxed is directed by Dr. Andrew Wakefield who is well known as the researcher who published the now ‘debunked’ paper on the coincidence of MMR vaccination and a unique gastrointestinal disorder in autistic children.  The intent of the movie is to prove that the CDC has compromised the integrity of many scientific studies done that actually proved a correlation between autism spectrum disorders and vaccines. The film has footage of interviews with reputable autism researchers and clinicians, politicos and journalists who have been involved in this issue for over 18 years.

Conversations with Dr. Brian Hooker, investigative biologist and Dr. William Thompson, now known as the “CDC Whisteblower” reveal that Dr. Thompson admitted that he and his colleagues at the CDC participated in a massive, coordinated cover-up of crucial data linking autism and MMR back in 2004. Dr. Thompson is not legally allowed to speak publicly because of his position with a government agency.
Studies proving the safety of these vaccines comparing vaccinated and unvaccinated children haveNEVER been done.  Statistics analyzed by  Dr. Thompson and Dr. Hooker, who is his spokesman in the film, were altered in order to falsely change the results of the study which proved 236% increase in autism in African American boys, thus minimizing a significant effect of the MMR vaccine.  The CDC has tried to prove that “isolated autism” is what we are seeing and that normal children who develop appropriately are not effected by the MMR.

Apparently the CDC is guilty of doing NO controlled studies – the same ones that are required for any drug or pharmaceutical product to be approved for use.  There is evidence of omission of data and destruction of documents.  Pharmaceutical manufacturers of vaccines are not held to the same standards since vaccines are categorized as necessary for public safety and thus are not subject to the same scrutiny as other medications.

Since 1986 the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act has paid over 3 Billion dollars in vaccine injury. This money does not come from Pharma but from taxpayer money.  If there is no connection between vaccines and autism, then why all the pay outs??

At the rate of autism increasing based on real statistics around the world, the incidence could be as high as 1 in every 2 boys by the year 2032.  

Congressmen Dave Weldon and Bill Posey have demanded transparency in this matter most recently in July 2015.  To date nothing has been done by our congress to investigate these claims.
Regardless of the fact that this appears a national emergency for infants and young children, regardless of the millions of grown children who are very ill, cannot speak, have multi-organ dysfunction and will have no place to live and no money to support their care, the CDC maintains their position that there was never a cover up.

The movie is not about whether or not children and adults should be vaccinated but rather it is about VACCINE SAFETY.  As a pediatrician who treats these children and young adults and one who believed that vaccines were safe, I recommend that every parent see this film and draw your own conclusions.  Another interesting takeaway?  All of the perpetrators of the falsified studies and the former head of the CDC declined to be interviewed for this film.

The Theory of Herd Immunity Has Nothing to Do With Vaccination

The Theory of Herd Immunity Has Nothing to Do With Vaccination

There is a better than even chance that if you ask someone at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the World Health Organization (WHO) or your family physician who first discovered the poliovirus and when they did it, they would have a hard time coming up with the right answer. The answer, by the way, is Karl Landsteiner, MD and Erwin Popper, MD of Austria in 1908.1 2 

At the same time, it is unlikely many at the CDC, WHO or most medical doctors would be able to tell you the name of the person who came up with the theory of “herd immunity,” which serves as the foundational basis for justifying mandatory vaccination campaigns. The name of that person is Dr. Arthur W. Hedrich, a health officer in Chicago, Illinois. He observed that, “during 1900-1930, outbreaks of measles in Boston, MA appeared to be suppressed when 68 percent of the children contracted the virus.”3

Later in the 1930s, Hedrich observed that after 55 percent of the child population in Baltimore, MD contracted measles the rest of the city’s population appeared to be immune to the disease. It was these observations that led to the formulation of the herd immunity theory.3 But note that the theory was based on unvaccinated populations that were exposed to the disease and developed natural immunity to it. The protection came from the fact that each population was exposed to the disease and a certain percentage of the people got it.

The original theory of herd immunity had nothing to do with vaccination. The first mass vaccination campaigns for polio and measles in the United States, for example, did not occur until 1954-1955 and 1963 respectively.4 5 6 That’s three decades after Hedrich constructed his theory. The underlying assumption of the theory was that a community as a whole would develop a certain degree of natural protection from an infectious disease after a portion of its members actually came down with the disease, recovered from it, and became immune to it.

In other words:

The more members of the herd (community) who were exposed to an infectious disease and developed natural immunity to it, the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).7 

Somewhere along the line between the 1930s and 1950s the theory of herd immunity was corrupted and resurrected as:

The more members of a herd (community) who were vaccinated against an infectious disease and developed immunity to it, the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).

Notice the clever sleight of hand there. Suddenly, the importance of exposure to an infectious disease was eliminated and replaced with vaccination, and the importance of natural immunity was diminished. That’s a problem, because both of those elements are key to Hedrich’s theory. Hedrich was not thinking about a vaccinated community or vaccine-induced—“temporary”—artificial immunity when he thought up his theory. He was thinking about the process of how a disease works its way through a community and how that community, eventually, naturally builds up a resistance to it as a result.

Dr. Hedrich would not recognize his theory today. He would likely be the first to speak up and say, “Uh, no, that’s not at all what I had in mind. You missed the central point.”

Just about anyone with the equivalent of a high school education can answer the question, “Who developed the theory of relativity.” Einstein, of course. The theory is central to the science of physics. Although some have tried to question it, no scientist or professor of physics of any note would dare try to misrepresent or redefine it.

Yet, ask any public health official or health care professional involved in giving vaccinations to correctly explain the theory of herd immunity and who developed it, many would probably fail on both counts. Why? Because they have not made an honest effort to study the history of the theory. They have erroneously accepted as truth the relatively new myth promoted by public health officials around the world that herd immunity can only be attained through a highly vaccinated population and that every unvaccinated individual threatens the health of and weakens the herd.

Hedrich’s theory of herd immunity has been twisted by the myth that vaccine acquired artificial immunity is identical to naturally acquired immunity, which is false. That myth serves to perpetuate the idea that only strict enforcement of mandatory vaccination laws will protect society from disease, which is also false.


Note: This commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers.  The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.

Germany makes measles vaccination compulsory for children

17 July 2019
12:55 CEST+02:0


Photo: DPA

Germany’s federal cabinet has passed a new law for a compulsory measles vaccination, which could see parents fined if they violate it.

From March 2020, parents will have to prove that their children have been vaccinated before they can be admitted to a kita or school.

The vaccination obligation also applies to childminders and staff in day-care centers, schools, medical facilities, and communal facilities such as refugee shelters.

Children will only be admitted to kindergarten or school if they have had the jabs and violations can result in fines of up to €2,500.

“We want to protect as many children as possible from measles infection,” said Federal Health Minister Jens Spahn (CDU) on Wednesday. He added he is aiming for a 95 percent vaccination rate.

Children and staff who are already in a nursery, school or community centres when the law comes into force next March must prove that they have been vaccinated by July 31st, 2021 at the latest.

The ‘Kinderuntersuchungsheft’, or a special booklet to show if a child has received a vaccination. Photo: DPA

The proof can can come from a vaccination certificate, a ‘Kinderuntersuchungsheft’, a special booklet parents fill out documenting their child’s vaccines, or by a medical certificate that shows that the child has already had measles.


Growing numbers

The compulsory vaccination is being introduced in Germany in response to a worldwide increase in measles disease. In Europe alone, cases were up by 350 percent last year.

In Germany last year, 543 cases were reported. In the first months of this year, already more than 400 cases have been reported.

Last year, 350,000 cases of measles were reported worldwide, more than double the number for 2017.

And they increased fourfold globally in the first quarter of 2019 compared to the same period last year, according to WHO.

A heated topic

In Germany and abroad, the topic of vaccination has become increasingly controversial in recent years.

Germany’s paediatricians’ association has long demanded mandatory childhood vaccinations against measles and a range of other diseases.

The resurgence of the disease in some countries has been blamed on the so-called “anti-vax” movement, which is largely based on a 1998 publication linking the measles vaccine and autism that has since been debunked.

In response, the German government drafted the law making measles vaccination compulsory for all children.

After the cabinet, the Bundestag still has to give its approval. According to the Ministry of Health, no approval is required in the Bundesrat, the upper house of German Parliament.

The new legislation received widespead support, although was criticized by the Greens, who felt the vaccines should be encouraged but not mandatory.

The Real Story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and MMR (by Mary Holland, JD) is an interesting read and where this information came to my attention.

The Real Story of Dr. Andrew Wakefield and MMR (by Mary Holland, JD)

A Thorough Analysis of the Case Against Dr. Andrew Wakefield by Mary Holland, JD

Mary Holland is a research scholar at NYU School of Law. She has written and edited books and articles on human rights and law. She has clerked for a federal judge, worked at the Lawyers Committee for Human Rights and at prominent U.S. law firms. She graduated from Harvard College and holds graduate degrees from Columbia University. She is a co-founder and board member of the Center for Personal Rights.


If you’ve heard Dr. Wakefield’s name — and you probably have — you’ve heard two tales. You’ve heard that Dr. Wakefield is a charlatan, an unethical researcher, and a huckster who was “erased” from the British medical registry and whose 1998 article on autism and gastrointestinal disease was “retracted” by a leading medical journal. You’ve also heard a very different story, that Dr. Wakefield is a brilliant and courageous scientist, a compassionate physician beloved by his patients, and a champion for families with autism and vaccine injury. What’s the truth?

Who is Dr. Andrew Wakefield?

Dr. Wakefield graduated from St. Mary’s Hospital Medical School of the University of London in 1981; he was one in the fourth generation of his family to study medicine at that teaching hospital. He pursued a career in gastrointestinal surgery with a specialty in inflammatory bowel disease. He became a Fellow of the Royal College of Surgeons in 1985 and was accepted into the Royal College of Pathologists in 2001. He held academic positions at the Royal Free Hospital and has published over 140 original scientific articles, book chapters, and invited scientific commentaries.

Background on The Controversy

In the early 1990s, Dr. Wakefield began to study a possible link between the measles virus and bowel disease. He published a 1993 study, “Evidence of persistent measles virus infection in Crohn’s disease” and co-authored a 1995 article published in The Lancet, “Is measles vaccine a risk factor for inflammatory bowel disease?” At roughly the same time, Dr. Wakefield wrote an unpublished 250-page manuscript reviewing the available scientific literature on the safety of measles vaccines. He was rapidly emerging as one of the world’s experts on measles vaccination.

In 1996, an attorney, Solicitor Barr of the law firm Dawbarns, contacted Dr. Wakefield to ask if he would serve as an expert in a legal case on behalf of children injured by vaccines containing the measles virus. The lawyer was bringing the suit on behalf of parents who alleged that vaccines had caused their children’s disabilities, including autism. Six months before this, and independent of the litigation effort, parents of children with autism and severe gastrointestinal symptoms began contacting Dr. Wakefield because of his publications on the measles vaccine, asking for help for their children’s pain and suffering, which they believed was vaccine-induced. Dr. Wakefield made two major, but separate, decisions at about this time — to try to help the families dealing with autism and gastrointestinal problems, and to become an expert in the legal case regarding vaccines and autism.

Barr asked Dr. Wakefield to study two questions:

(1) whether measles could persist after measles infection or the receipt of the MMR vaccine; and

(2) whether the measles virus could lead to complications, such as Crohn’s disease or autism.

Due to bureaucratic delays at his hospital, however, Dr. Wakefield did not begin this litigation-related study until October 1997. By July 1997, Dr. Wakefield and his colleague, Professor John Walker-Smith, had already examined the “Lancet 12” — twelve patients with autism and gastrointestinal symptoms that were the basis for the case study in the 1998 article published in The Lancet. Dr. Wakefield and others had recommended the referral of these patients to Prof. Walker-Smith, an eminent physician described by his peers as one of the world’s leading pediatric gastroenterologists.

Prof. WalkerSmith had recently moved to St. Mary’s Hospital from a different institution and brought with him the same clinical privileges and ethical clearances that he enjoyed at his previous hospital. He, a colleague, Dr. Simon Murch, and a team of other physicians, did extensive clinical workups on these sick children that Prof. Walker-Smith deemed “clinically indicated,” while Dr. Wakefield coordinated a detailed research review of the tissues obtained at biopsy. The clinical tests included colonoscopies, MRI scans, and lumbar punctures to assess mitochondrial disorders. “Clinically indicated studies” did not require permissions from The Royal Free Hospital ethics committee because the tests were required for the benefit of the individual patients. Dr. Wakefield’s research was covered by an appropriate ethical approval.

In 1998, to announce the publication of The Lancet article coauthored by Dr. Wakefield and twelve other scientists, the dean of St. Mary’s Medical School called a press conference. While this was not standard practice, the dean presumably was seeking to enhance the school’s visibility in cutting-edge research. The article was labeled in the medical journal as an “early report,” stating that it “did not prove an association between measles, mumps and rubella vaccine and the syndrome described. Virological studies are underway that may help to resolve this issue.”

At the press conference, Dr. Wakefield was asked about the safety of the MMR vaccine. In 1992, two different combination MMR vaccines had been withdrawn from the U.K. marketplace because they were unsafe, so MMR vaccination was already a hot topic before The Lancet article was published. Dr. Wakefield responded that, given the paucity of combination MMR vaccine safety research, and until further safety studies were done, the vaccines should be separated into their component parts. He had previously informed his colleagues that this was his view and that he would express it if asked.

The 1998 press conference set off a media firestorm, with large numbers of parents raising uncomfortable questions about the safety of the “triple jab” and requesting single measles, mumps, and rubella vaccines. In the midst of the controversy, in August 1998, the British government took an extraordinary step. It made separate measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine components unavailable, thereby forcing the hand of concerned parents. At that point, measles vaccination rates among children in the United Kingdom fell significantly. Measles disease outbreaks became more prevalent and included a handful of cases of serious complications and deaths. Some sought to blame Dr. Wakefield for irresponsibly scaring parents and triggering a public health crisis. The British government had a big problem on its hands — one that would soon make its way to the United States.

The controversy surrounding Dr. Wakefield simmered. In February 2004, it reached a boiling point when Dr. Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, held a news conference to declare that the 1998 article was “fatally flawed” because Dr. Wakefield had failed to disclose financial conflicts of interest with the litigation-related study he conducted. British reporter Brian Deer published the story in the Sunday Times, detailing alleged undisclosed conflicts of interest. Immediately following publication, Mr. Deer sent a detailed letter to the British General Medical Council (GMC), which regulates the practice of medicine. The GMC then initiated proceedings against Dr. Wakefield that culminated in Dr. Wakefield’s delicensure in May 2010 and the retraction of the 1998 article from The Lancet.

The Allegations against Dr. Wakefield

The highly publicized, multi-year, multi-million dollar prosecution against Dr. Wakefield alleged that:

•Dr. Wakefield was paid 55,000 British pound sterling (about US $90,000) by litigators for the study published in The Lancet, and he failed to disclose this conflict of interest;

•He and his colleagues performed medically unnecessary tests on the children in the 1998 study and lacked appropriate ethical clearances;

•The children in the 1998 study were selected for litigation purposes (as described in the Sunday Times article) and not referred by local physicians; and

•He drew blood from children at his son’s birthday party for control samples in the 1998 study with callous disregard for the distress that this might cause children.

Based on its findings, the GMC concluded that Dr. Wakefield had engaged in “serious professional misconduct,” and “dishonest,” “misleading,” and “irresponsible” behavior, warranting the sanction of his removal from the medical profession.

Let’s examine the GMC’s charges and the evidence.

Failure to Disclose Payment from Litigators

Dr. Wakefield accepted 55,000 pounds to conduct a study for the class action suit regarding vaccines and autism. This was a research grant from which Dr. Wakefield personally received no compensation. Dr. Wakefield did not start this study until after the case series for the Lancet 12 had been submitted. Legal documents prove that Dr. Wakefield’s hospital knew about this study and knew about the amount of money he received, most of which went to pay the salary of a designated laboratory technician. Documents further demonstrate that Dr. Wakefield disclosed in a national newspaper over one year before publication of the 1998 article that he was working with the litigators. Dr. Horton, editor of The Lancet, had been informed and should have been well aware of Dr. Wakefield’s role in the vaccine-related litigation before the publication of the 1998 article.

“Medical Necessity” and Ethical Clearances

The Lancet 12 were sick. Each child was administered tests with the intent to aid that child. The hospital administration was fully aware of the tests being conducted and made no objections. Because all of the tests were “clinically indicated” and not for research purposes, no ethical clearance beyond what Prof. Walker-Smith already possessed was required. Notably, no patient, parent, or guardian has ever made accusations against Dr. Wakefield or testified against him for ethical violations or medically unnecessary procedures. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues reject the GMC’s ruling that the tests for the Lancet 12 were unnecessary.

The Lancet 12’s Referrals

The GMC charged that the children were referred through the litigation effort and not through ordinary medical channels. This is incorrect. Parents started contacting Dr. Wakefield long before the litigation started, and independently of it. Since the litigation study was not yet started by the time The Lancet study was completed and submitted to the journal, this finding is false. Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues reject that claim; the families contacted them directly because of their medical expertise.

Control blood samples from a child’s birthday party

Dr. Wakefield arranged for control blood samples from healthy, typically developing children to be taken at his son’s birthday party. Most of the children’s parents were medical colleagues and friends. He did this with the children’s and parents’ fully informed consent and gave the children 5 pounds each for their trouble. The procedure was undertaken by an appropriately qualified doctor using a standard technique. The children were happy to be helpful and went on to enjoy the birthday party. While this is admittedly an unconventional method of collecting control blood samples, it hardly amounts to “serious professional misconduct” or an ethical breach warranting delicensure. The GMC’s description of this incident as an example of “callous disregard” for children’s distress seems to be a gross exaggeration. Indeed, the U.K. High Court of Justice exonerated Professor Walker-Smith in March 2012, and the Lancet journal has suggested that it is considering reversing its retraction.

The GMC failed to prove its case against Dr. Wakefield. Using Brian Deer’s reporting as evidence, the GMC appears to have purposefully conflated the Lancet 12 study and the subsequent litigation study to create the appearance of a financial conflict of interest. Similarly, the GMC appears to have wrongfully applied ethical research standards to tests that were “clinically indicated” for severely ill children. Conflating treatment and research not only grievously harmed Dr. Wakefield and his colleagues but set a threatening precedent for the practice of medicine. The government’s medical regulators (of uncertain expertise) second-guessed Prof. Walker-Smith, the world’s preeminent authority on pediatric gastroenterology, on his clinical judgment about what tests were necessary.

Which medical decisions will regulators second-guess next? The press, and specifically reporter Brian Deer, tried Dr. Wakefield in the court of public opinion while the GMC was prosecuting him in its regulatory court. Deer alleged that Dr. Wakefield had a pending patent application for a separate measles vaccine and hoped to “cash in” by urging parents to forego the MMR for separate measles vaccines. The evidence proves that Dr. Wakefield was not a patent holder for a separate measles vaccine. St. Mary’s Hospital held a patent for a therapeutic single measles vaccine using the beneficial immune properties of transfer factor, intended for people already infected with the measles virus. This measles vaccine was not a preventive product for people unexposed to the virus; in other words, there was no possible financial competition between the MMR vaccine and the single measles vaccine for which the hospital, and not Dr. Wakefield, held a patent.

In 2009, Deer made additional allegations that Dr. Wakefield fabricated data. The GMC never made this charge, but the media picked it up and, notably, the U.S. Department of Justice used it frequently in the Omnibus Autism Proceeding in the U.S. Court of Federal Claims. In those proceedings to determine whether families could receive compensation for MMR-induced autism, the US Department of Justice went out of its way to depict Dr. Wakefield as a scientific fraud, although he was not directly relevant to the proceedings. In his 2010 book, Callous Disregard, Dr. Wakefield shows Deer’s allegations of fraud to be fabrications.

CPR finds no evidence of Dr. Wakefield’s scientific fraud. On the contrary, many scientists and laboratories around the world have confirmed Dr. Wakefield’s findings regarding severe gastrointestinal inflammation and symptoms in a high percentage of children with autism. In its February 2, 2010 retraction, The Lancet did not allege fraud. Relying solely on the GMC proceeding, it retracted the article, asserting that the authors had not referred the patients as represented and the study team had not received the hospital’s ethics committee’s approval. The GMC’s conclusions and The Lancet’s reliance on them appear unfounded.

The Meaning of The Wakefield Prosecution

What, then, was this high-profile prosecution really about? If there was no scientific fraud, no undisclosed financial conflicts of interest, no ethical breaches in performing tests on sick children, and no complaints from patients or their families, then what was the big deal? Did the international scandal and multi-million dollar prosecution proceed merely to chastise a doctor for drawing blood from children at a birthday party, with their consent and their parents’ consent? Of course not.

Dr. Wakefield was, and remains, a dissident from medical orthodoxy. The medical establishment subjected him to a modern-day medical show trial for his dissent. Dr. Wakefield’s research raised fundamental doubts about the safety of vaccines and the etiology of autism. Dr. Wakefield was punished for his temerity to caution the public about vaccine risks and to urge them to use their own judgment. Dr. Wakefield was punished for upholding vaccination choice.

The purpose of the proceeding, as in any show trial, was to communicate to other doctors and scientists, and to the public, the error of the perpetrator’s ways. A show trial offers a veneer of due process but, at its core, displays naked power. The apparent intent of the prosecution was to intimidate others from following Dr. Wakefield’s footsteps and to teach the lesson that anyone in the medical or scientific community who dares to publicly question the safety and efficacy of vaccines will be punished with utmost severity. The GMC appears to have decided that if the price of such a lesson was scientific ignorance about vaccine-autism links and the suffering of severely ill children, then so be it. Dr. Wakefield was made an example.

The GMC destroyed Dr. Wakefield’s professional reputation and livelihood, and The Lancet and other publications confiscated his professional accomplishment through retraction. The GMC colluded with The Lancet, the media, the British Department of Health, the pharmaceutical industry, and even with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the U.S. Department of Justice, to discredit Dr. Wakefield. The Center for Personal Rights is confident that the world will look back at the prosecution of Dr. Wakefield, Walker-Smith, and Murch with shame and remorse.

In due course, the world has paid tribute to human rights dissidents, as well — Nelson Mandela moved from prison in South Africa under apartheid to become its most beloved President; Andrei Sakharov left Russia’s internal exile to become its moral beacon; Vaclav Havel left a Czech prison to become its first post-communist President; and Liu Xiabo, a Chinese human rights advocate, received the 2010 Nobel Peace Prize in absentia because he remains incarcerated. In time, China will embrace Mr. Liu and look to him to help create a better future. Before long, the world will likely recognize that it was Dr. Wakefield, not his detractors, who stood up for the practice of medicine and the pursuit of science. Dr. Wakefield remains an unbowed dissident in the face of a repressive medical and scientific establishment.

Dr. Andrew Wakefield

Copyright © beBee is a trademark of beBee Affinity Social Network, SL..

CIF: . B84471838