Because it is flu time of year and pressure builds to have “the jab”
we are adding this discussion to our articles list, originally written at the height of the MMR controversy, and once again in the news.

We heard a lot about flu vaccines at the end of last year, including dire prognostications for the vulnerable , especially the elderly, if they did not have their jab. Now the media have gone quiet on this aspect of vaccines, in favour of the much more highly emotive question of vaccines for small children, specifically for mumps, measles and rubella, for short, MMR.


People, especially the parents of young children, have been voting with their feet in the matter of vaccinations.
As a result, that part of the medical profession concerned, the G.P.s, the Public Health officials, District Health Visitors, Nurses and Midwives, have been involved in debate with patients organisations, campaigners against vaccination, and worried parents. Sound bites and catchphrases, simplified statements about imminent epidemics, increased risk of infection, permanent damage to vulnerable children, or the converse; damage caused by vaccination itself, vaccination does not reliably prevent infection, and so on. Who to believe?
To complicate matters, you can hear medics, nurses and lay people divided in their opinions on all these issues, and all producing illustrations to back their arguments. The only section of opinion not obviously either divided or in the public arena, is that of the pharmaceutical industry. Ask your GP however, what the industry reps are saying in their most recent sales pressure. Also ask him or her if they have vaccinated their own children.

What about the argument about single jabs? Is it more sensible to spread out the vaccinations over time, to give the infant’s delicately balanced system more time to withstand and recover from the introduction of poisons? ( Let’s call a spade a spade; if they are not toxins, the body would not need to produce antibodies)
Or does this prolong the total time in which the child is unprotected to the point when there is an unacceptable risk of infection?


There is the added complication also that there is no longer a blind trust in the scientist or the medic as authority figure or expert. Instead there is a healthy scepticism and an expectation that experts should explain themselves fully, and be accountable for their opinions. It is a pity that this has partly come about as a result of widespread disillusion with the scientific and medical communities, but it also represents an upsurge in personal responsibility, a willingness to spend time acquiring information and to ask questions, and insist on answers which respect the intelligent concerns of patients and parents. In fairness it must be said that there are sections of the medical community, notably nurses, who welcome this, and are forging new relationships with their patients.


There is a common thread, or underlying assumption, behind all of the recently expressed views. That is that disease is a random, external factor, which can be prevented by preemptive action such as vaccination against specific diseases. Fine. If you hold that basic philosophy of health and disease, you will have to find your way around the arguments in the light of that view.


There is a different view however, based on a wholistic and naturopathic perspective, which understands disease as an internal process of distress or overload in the body, as an efficient and sensible way of righting the balance.
Disease therefore is not an entity to be feared, but a pattern of symptoms to be acknowledged, its causes to be understood, and the organism’s attempts to achieve balance to be supported, not suppressed. From this point of view the childhood spotty diseases are steps in the child’s development, when the organism chooses an appropriate moment i.e. when it is strong enough, for the discharge of toxins. These may be inherited, acquired in early feeding or environmentally. After such an episode, treated with rest, light diet and TLC, it is well known to your older GP and of course your homoeopath, that children take a step forward in both physical and mental development.

Seen from this viewpoint, the procedure of vaccination looks rather different. Timed according to epidemiological considerations, not the readiness of the personal economy of the infant, the child has to cope with an episode of poisoning. Thereafter, for the period in which the antibodies are present, there is the constant demand on the immune system which stays alert “in case”, as well as the not yet fully documented effects on bodily efficiency at the cell level. Leaving aside the evidence of direct vaccination-induced damage, maybe the way to reach a decision is according to the principles of how the healthy body works to balance itself rather than debating different aspects of disease theory.


It is still difficult, especially for parents, because of the weight of persuasion of the “fear of disease lobby”, and I must add a note of caution. The natural way of health is emphatically not one of doing nothing. It also requires the preemption of harmful episodes, but by different means. Wise feeding, rest and as much protection as possible from pollution and stress for your child from birth. Tiny babies need to use their energies to grow and develop, not accompany their parents wherever they may be going, at all hours. To be handled by too many people has obvious drawbacks, as well as over stimulating a child whose main need is peace and quiet. It is a challenge for modern parents to protect their infants from environmental pollution and stress, but these are the protective measures they can take. And the appropriate natural methods to support, not suppress, when there is a tummy upset, a fever, a cough or cold.


Some parents will still worry about whether, in present day conditions, they can presume a sufficient level of health and resilience in their infant to act on their principles of natural health care. This is understandable, in the face of changes we have seen in the last two generations. These are relatively poor nutritional status, vastly increased chemical pollution, poor air quality and many more demands on mothers, to work until a short period before birth, and then curtail the breastfeeding period in order to return to work.

There is much comfort in the principles of natural health, especially that the body is programmed to regain balance; that is to repair damage and to heal itself. What is required from us is intelligent cooperation with those processes, not adding more of a burden by suppressing them.
It is just as important not to follow blindly the “natural lobby” if I may call it that. There is still the need to accept responsibility for health decisions and to ask questions until satisfied with the answers. Also we all need a trusted health care practitioner, whether this is your homoeopath, your GP or your naturopath, for advice and support when needed.


If the final decision is natural health care for the most part, but vaccination for certain diseases for whatever your personal reason, there are things you can do to mitigate the long term damage. Detailed discussion of this is beyond the scope of this article, but well-timed action taken by a subtle energy practitioner, in phytobiophysics (or homoeopathy, if you cannot find a phytobiophysics practitioner near you) both before and after vaccination, will help greatly. Phytobiophysics in particular can help to boost the immune system before, and minimise the later harmful effects of vaccines.

An introduction to the principles of Phytobiophysics is now included in the Self Help Techniques section of Elaine’s Living Foods Courses.

Further Reading The Vaccination Bible from WDDTY 0800 146054