Aspects of MMR
BMJ 2002; 325 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.325.7364.597 (Published 14 September 2002) Cite this as: BMJ 2002;325:597
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
Sir,
Autism does exist.
It causes almost life time problems to those who have it.
It is a growing problem in the UK.
I think these are facts?
We therefore need to find out why children suffer from it and put a
stop to it.
The fact that educated people quarrel bitterly about the cause or
even refuse to discuss the cause would seem to indicate that we are not
doing modern research the correct way.
We are applying too blunt a research tool on the problem perhaps?
Perhaps we are losing sight of what is going on by too many studies?
To me the power of individual case studies is supreme.
Child X talking, perhaps having a vaccine and then regressing to
autism.
The child having fever - a sign of infection.
The child having an illness which he or she had a vaccine for.
All very inconvenient.
We need to plan forward looking experiments going over this ground
with individual studies and having a visible record all can see and check
up on.
We need to agree in advance what certain results would tell us and
what action would be required - beforehand!
To keep the controversy going is to abuse children and abusers are
typically locked away in prison for life.
We need doctors to provide answers not to argue and keep themselves
in highly paid research work which tells us nothing.
John Fryer Unpaid Scientific Health Researcher
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: professional homeopaths are not health
professionals
With regard to the original letter from K Schmidt and E
Ernst (1) we were dismayed to discover that this had
been published as their research appears to have
been based on a survey which used dubious and
possibly unethical methods in order to extract
potentially sensational information.
Public confidence in our profession may have been
dealt a blow by this irresponsible piece of reporting.
We wish to make it clear that the Society of
Homeopaths does not encourage its members to
advise patients against vaccination. The Society
acknowledges that there is much anecdotal and
scientific evidence to support the arguments presented
both for and against vaccination. The Society believes
that parents should be supported in making rational
informed decisions about the short and long-term
implications of vaccination for their children.
Many of the points we might wish to make in relation to
the letter from Drs Fisher, Leckridge and Lewith (2)
have already been well presented by other contributors
to this correspondence, including Robert Fordham
RSHom.
As he has indicated, homeopaths on the Society's
Register have been trained to a very high standard and
then undergone a rigorous registration process. This
registration process uses as one of its main reference
points the National Occupational Standards for
Homeopathy, published in 2000 (3): the Society of
Homeopaths, the Faculty of Homeopathy and other
homeopathic organisations all contributed to the
development of these Standards. Our members are
fully insured, abide by a strict Code of Ethics and
Practice and are expected to participate in regular CPD
activities.
The Society's development as a professional
organisation was commended by the House of Lords
Select Committeee Report on Complementary and
Alternative Medicine (4). This Report also
recommended that the different organisations
representing homeopaths should come together to set
up a single register.
Acknowledging that it can be difficult for members of the
public to make sense of the plethora of qualifications
and professional organisations, the Society of
Homeopaths is therefore working with other bodies in
the Council of Organisations Registering Homeopaths
(CORH) in order to establish a single register. Drs.
Leckridge, Fisher and Lewith should be fully aware of
these developments.
Susan Crump
s.crump@homeopathy-soh.org
Melanie Oxley
m.oxley@homeopathy-soh.org
1. Schmidt K, Ernst E. Survey shows that some
homeopaths and chiropractors adise against MMR.
BMJ 2002;325 (14 September); 597.
2. Fisher P, Leckridge B, Lewith GL. 'Professional'
homeopaths are not health professionals. BMJ 2002
e-letter (27 September)
3. National Occupational Standards for Homeopathy.
Healthwork UK. 2000.
4. House of Lords Select Committee on Science and
Technology 6th Report: Complementary and Alternative
Medicine. The Stationery Office, November 2000.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir Iain Chalmers, of the UK Cochrane Centre, was recently
interviewed by Dr Jonathan Miller for a BBC documentary series on
public health history and policy.[1] He stated that parents who opt
for single vaccines are making a rational choice in the face of the
probably very slight, but as yet undetermined, risk associated with
MMR. He objected strongly to the way they have been unfairly
‘lambasted’ by the medical profession and government.
Since the risks are unquantified, it’s hardly surprising then that
researchers from Exeter University discovered that many
complementary practitioners advised against MMR.[2] In the light
of the institutional bullying that Sir Iain drew attention to, it’s
equally unsurprising that the BMJ did not publish the letter under
the title, ‘Survey shows that GPs ignore parents’ written request
for MMR advice’.
The survey would have been more informative, however, had it
looked for alternatives to government policy recommended by the
study sample. Do they advise uptake of single vaccines? Or are
they opposed to any immunization programme? If the latter, what
do they advocate instead? Do homeopaths offer prophylactic
homeopathy, for instance? And if so, would this involve
constitutional treatment, with traditional plant and mineral
remedies, or isopathic medicines derived from infectious agents?
Most importantly, what epidemiological or clinical evidence are any
recommendations and treatments based on?
We need answers to these questions, given the large and
increasing number of consultations with complementary
practitioners, and the influence that any health provider has when
advising parents on their children’s health. Whether covert
surveillance, as used by Professor Ernst’s department in this and
other studies,[3] is the most appropriate way to find out is
another matter. The large percentage of replies withdrawn after
disclosure of deception in the MMR survey suggests it has serious
limitations.
1. Miller J. The nation’s health: BBC Radio 4, 19 September, 2002.
2. Schmidt K, Ernst E. Survey shows that some homoeopaths and
chiropractors advise against MMR. BMJ 2002;325(14
September):597.
3. Resch KI, Ernst E, Garrow J. A randomized controlled study of
reviewer bias against an unconventional therapy. JRSM
2000;93(4):164–167.
Competing interests: No competing interests
In defining the nature of a profession, a professional and
professional work so narrowly, Drs Fisher, Leckridge and Lewith might well
be correct in asserting that the term professional homeopath is
misleading.
For me, professionalism in health care is defined by the manner of
one’s approach to the grey areas of practice: problem-solving,
interpretation, consideration of evidence, exercise of clinical judgement
and the evaluation of ethical imperatives, for example. This stands in
stark contrast to the possession of a degree, a diploma or the membership
of a professional body as the defining characteristic. Were the latter
adequately to define a professional, it would surely follow that
possession of a qualification would banish all wrong-doing in the
professional life. Clearly this is not the case. There is surely much more
to being a health professional than working within externally defined
guidelines and protocols.
I have been a registered member of the Society of Homeopaths since
1987. The Society does have a vaccination policy to guide me in working
with patients. It defines my role as essentially helping parents to weigh
up the arguments presented by both sides in order to arrive at a decision
they feel most comfortable with. This is an invitation to me, as a
professional, to work with parents and encourage them to weigh up evidence
themselves. In practice, exercising this role over the years has meant
that the whole range of options has been followed by my patients. Some
have indeed followed DoH guidelines, others have refused all vaccinations,
still others have sought separate M, M and R vaccinations for their
children. My belief is we all have a right to choose. Our GP – when we
wished to discuss our daughter’s immunisation programme at an early post-
natal follow up – said: ‘If she dies, you’ll only have yourselves to
blame.’ He stormed out – no discussion. Nothing. When I’d recovered from
the shock, I hoped he’d come back – so I could throw him out! Possession
of MB BS, MRCGP, etc. offered no guarantee to us that our query would be
met ‘professionally’.
That said, some of my best friends are doctors! Some of my closest
professional colleagues and mentors have been Members of the Faculty of
Homeopathy. We have worked together as partners, mainly in education for
professional practice, but also in writing for publication and in
supervision of clinical work. Our differing backgrounds and experiences
have created dynamic learning experiences. I value this genuine
professional collegiality, with real critical distance and palpable
challenges to my own practice, very highly. It is experiences like these
that give me hope that a strong, credible health profession will indeed
emerge from these exciting times.
The tone and intent of the Faculty of Homeopathy with respect to
professional homeopathy is visible from as far away as South Africa and
New Zealand. It sounds increasingly shrill, partisan and ill conceived. I
am personally convinced that the future of homeopathy in the UK will owe
more to the legislative structures described by Julian Winston in New
Zealand and collegial professional attitudes like those of Dr Jeggels in
South Africa.
We are actively engaged in building a new homeopathic profession. As
an institution, the Faculty of Homeopathy seems intent in defining the
terms in which this happens exceedingly narrowly.
The Society of Homeopaths received a strong endorsement of its work
in professional education, regulation, codes of ethics and practice and
professional conduct and so on after a House of Lords inquiry. Work
continues with the establishment of an independent Council of
Organisations Registering Homeopaths (partly funded by the Prince of
Wales’ Foundation for Integrated Health); the support of the NHS Alliance,
public and patients’ lobby organisations; an increasing interest in
integrated medicine in higher education and pioneering projects supported
by PCTs nationally.
This work is being carried out in a thoroughly rigorous manner and is
a credit to an emerging profession.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Sir,
The letter by Fisher et al [1] is seriously misleading on a number of factual and historical points of interest that really demand some correction.
1. First, they are wrong to state that Hahnemann supported vaccination. The information they quote in Aph 46 of the Organon needs to be seen in the context of the book as a whole, which unfolds rather like a medical Origin of Species, in the sense that he invokes and inspects masses of data that are suggestive of various patterns. Aph 46 is a small part of an ongoing discussion about the nature of diseases and drugs and the impacts each make upon the human organism. In particular, Hahnemann was keen to demonstrate that the law of similars is a medical fact not only in relation to the effects of drugs but also by one disease displacing a similar disease. The upshot of this still does NOT support the idea of vaccination, partly because of the size of the dose, which Rudi Verspoor has already mentioned [2], and partly because vaccination is always a mass applied technique, which homeopathy is almost the direct opposite of, relying as it does for efficacy on the individualised treatment of each patient.
2. Vaccination did not really begin to take off [1890s] until long after Hahnemann died [1843]. Regardless of his specific views about Smallpox, it is hard to believe he would have condoned immunisation, going as it does completely against the rational basis of homeopathy, which does not prescribe crude doses of drugs for disease labels, groups of symptoms or whole populations. The comments Fisher et al make, therefore reveal a lamentably desultory knowledge of homeopathic principles and the history of what they profess to be their main subject of expertise. It is no coincidence that this letter follows the recent publication in the BMJ of Lewith’s ill-conceived, inconclusive and faultily concluded study of house-dust potency [3], which also demonstrated beyond much doubt their very poor grasp of even the very basic homeopathic principle of individualising the drug per patient instead of using one isopathic preparation en masse for allergic asthma.
3. Another of their misapprehensions concerns the practice of homeopathy in the UK by MD homeopaths. Although only a dwindling minority of ‘professional homeopaths’ remain without any qualification in that subject, by contrast, any MD can practise homeopathy and treat people without any restriction in this country and they are bound by no ethical constraints apart from those they must observe as a doctor registered with the GMC. There is no obligation on them to join the Faculty of Homeopathy. In essence, this means that there is no guidance or regulation placed upon the MD to practise homeopathy according to any clearly established or agreed-upon principles or ethics. They can do as they wish and prescribe as they wish. This stands in sharp contrast to ‘professional homeopaths,’ who are constrained by their professional bodies and codes of ethics.
4. Why should any homeopath have any need to qualify as MD first? Brian Inglis ably answered this question almost 40 years ago: “The other alternative would be [for lay homoeopaths] to... establish independent training colleges, like the osteopaths; and start again at the bottom of the social ladder. A homoeopathic medical school would not require a wholly new curriculum... to some extent the allopathic case needs to be mastered even by those students who are going to reject it; but this is not the same as insisting that a student who wants to become a homoeopath must first complete the full allopathic course. To compel him to do so is as illogical as it would be to compel a judo trainee to complete a full professional training as a boxer before he can begin to learn judo. The homoeopath needs to know quite a lot about allopathy, but he should not be required actually to qualify in a method with which he is fundamentally in disagreement.” [4]
5. The whole tone of this letter stands in very marked contrast to an article Fisher wrote in 1988 [5] in which he argued a case for playing down the elitist and divisive demarcation that has long stood between the lay and the doctor homeopathic traditions in the UK, thus leading, one presumes, to much greater dialogue, mutual respect and cooperation. Why the change of heart 14 years later? Though Hahnemann did not encourage lay practitioners per se, two of his star pupils were non-medically qualified persons – Dr Carl von Boenninghaussen [1785-1864], a Botanist, and Hahnemann’s second wife Melanie d’Hervilly Gohier [1801-1878], who both enjoyed long and busy medical practices. Therefore, the contention that NMQPs, as Dr Fisher pejoratively chooses to call them, are somehow less than capable practitioners, is not borne out by the historical facts. That very influential British homeopath, Dr John Henry Clarke [1857-1931] also famously taught several lay homeopaths, as did Dr Thomas Maughan [1901-76], who taught many of the ‘leading lights’ in modern British homeopathy. Many other examples could be adduced. Again, the historical facts militate against the arguments presented in this letter by Fisher et al.
6. As Rudi Verspoor and Julian Winston have already pointed out [2, 6], ‘professional homeopaths’ are certainly ‘health professionals’ in a similar sense that chiropractors, acupuncturists, osteopaths, herbalists, nurses, dentists and physiotherapists are also ‘health professionals,’ and to contend otherwise is both churlish and inaccurate.
7. Finally, it is noteworthy that the recent revival of alternative medicine, which dates from 1978-79, has been mostly driven forwards NOT by MD practitioners, but by the sheer weight of patient demand and those qualified and talented NMQPs around the world who have been inspired to set up Colleges and professional associations to meet that public demand for natural medicine. Indeed, in the UK it is not a distortion to say that this resurgence of homeopathy has been almost entirely driven by lay practitioners since 1979 and that the doctor homeopaths have been more or less ‘left behind’ in the growth of a whole movement. The number of fully qualified medical homeopaths on the Faculty's register is virtually the same now as it was 10 years ago.
Throughout the 20th century, they barely lifted a finger to promote homeopathy to any ‘public’ except one composed of royals and aristocrats, with whom they have been exclusively concerned as a professional niche virtually from the inception of homeopathy in the UK in the 1830s. Little wonder, then, that the Faculty and the British Homeopathic Association were for most of that century regarded as idle backwaters of medical deviance and little more than rich-men’s talking shops in which ‘progress’ and ‘public acceptance’ were very dirty words. Clearly, their original policy of tying UK homeopathy very firmly to a rich clientele has profoundly backfired in recent decades. Numerically outnumbered for over two decades, and virtually powerless, the Faculty is no longer the dominant voice of British homeopathy, so why should anyone listen to their complaints?
Sources
[1] BMJ e-letter, 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals, Peter A Fisher, Bob Leckridge , George L Lewith (27 September 2002)
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7364/597#25842
[2] BMJ e-letter, Re: 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals, Rudi Verspoor (28 September 2002)
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7364/597#25867
[3] Use of ultramolecular potencies of allergen to treat asthmatic people allergic to house dust mite: double blind randomised controlled clinical trial, G T Lewith, A D Watkins, M E Hyland, S Shaw, J A Broomfield, G Dolan, and S T Holgate BMJ 2002; 324: 520. BMJ 2002;324:520 (2 March)
http://bmj.com/cgi/content/full/324/7336/520
[4] Brian Inglis, Fringe Medicine, London: Faber, 1964, 93
[5] Peter Fisher, Time To Grasp The Nettle?, The Homeopath, 7:3, London, Spring 1988, 101-105
[6] BMJ e-letter, Re: 'Professional' homeopaths are not health professionals, Julian Winston (28 September 2002)
http://bmj.com/cgi/eletters/325/7364/597#25869
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
The response of Drs. Fischer, Leckridge, and Lewith represents the
deplorable UK domestic Homoeopathic relations, which have absolutely
nothing to do with the rest of the world. They can also be accused of
causing confusion by raising the issue of the term “professional
homoeopaths” in an international magazine, as if this issue affects us
internationally.
The Faculty of Homoeopathy’s position in relation to the
“professional homoeopaths” (PH), is deplorable, as the stature of
Homoeopathy in the UK and elsewhere in the world, whether that be the US
or SA, has been kept alive by the very same PH’s and not the MD’s, since
Homoeopathy was driven out of medical schools!! That is a fact evidenced
by the previous Apartheid Government of SA, which by act of that
parliament established 2 Homoeopathic colleges attached to what is known
in the UK as Polytechnics. These colleges have the same curricula as a
medical school, except for the fact that Homoeopathy is reigning. One of
the main reasons for its establishment was the fact that the medical
schools would not cater for the training in Homoeopathy, whilst the need
for training in Homoeopathy demanded it. Dr. Leckridge is very well aware
of this fact as he has been to SA on a number of occasions, and is also
aware that the relations here are much more healthier than in the UK.
Would the Faculty kindly remind themselves that most of the famous
international masters of Homoeopathy are not MD's!! In SA many MD's
initially received their Homoeoapathic training from PH's! I consider it
dishonesty to adopt this adversarial position.
For the Faculty to imply that their statutory institution is the only
one to train Homoeopaths, would also imply that we have to wait for MD’s
trained at the Materialistic and Reductionistic medical schools to make up
their mind to train in Homoeopathy, would have meant the death of
Homeopathy altogether long ago.
I would suggest that the Faculty get off their high horse and engage
the PH’s in a positive way. They cannot wish these colleges away,
therefore assist in their registration, cooperate in the teaching and
training, and strive to open the hospitals to expose those graduates to
the whole ambit of suffering man. This is your challenge.
This challenge I have taken up long ago by having participated in the
training for registration of some of the PH’s by the statutory bodies.
Furthermore I am an officially accredited provider of Continuous
Professional Development (CPD), accredited by the Allopathic Statutory
Body, for both MD’s and PH’s who attend my consultations twice weekly!
Please show you are magnanimous to assist in elevating ALL Homoeopathic
practitioners.
A cause for concern for the Faculty is the lack of audit of their own
graduates. You indeed have problems that you need to address, as the lack
of excellence to achieve results, drives some of you graduates into that
materialistic and reductionistic psuedo discipline called “Integrated
Medicine”. This subject is beyond this response to elaborate on further.
Yours sincerely,
H Jeggels.
Competing interests: No competing interests
In a recent letter to the BMJ, Drs. Fischer, Leckridge,
and Lewith question the use of the term "professional
homeopath." They say that such people have "no
mandatory registration or minimum standards of
training, ethics etc.
I cannot speak for those elsewhere, but in New
Zealand, the "professional homeopaths" DO have
register which requires minimum standards of training,
as well as a complete code of ethics.
The New Zealand government, through the New
Zealand Qualifications Authority has established a
qualification leading to a Diploma of Homeopathy. The
standards to which this diploma is assessed meets
the standards of the New Zealand Council of
Homeopaths-- the group which administers the
register.
The standards were developed to meet the standards
suggested in the educational guidelines published by
the International Council of Classical Homeopathy.
I suggest that the people the good doctors are thinking
about are "lay homeopaths"-- those with no standards
of training, no registration, no code of ethics, etc.
Furthermore, as homeopathy is becoming more
recognized in NZ, and as most medical practitioner
view homeopathy as something outside their domain,
more surgeries are having Registered Homeopaths
working within their domain.
While the authors might not view "professional
homeopaths" as "health professionals" that is certainly
NOT the case in New Zealand.
In the same letter the doctors defended the Faculty's
position on vaccination in a way which suggested that
"medical" folk are in agreement with vaccination while
"professional homeopaths" are not.
Might I point out the resolution that was passed by the
International Hahnemannian Association (a group of
ONLY medical doctors) in 1924 at their Cleveland
meeting:
Read by Dr. Dienst:
WHEREAS, The IHA, an association of regularly and
legally qualified and licensed practicing physicians,
knowing that the greatest and safest prophylactic
against contagion of whatever nature is good health
and its maintenance, and
WHEREAS, This Association is opposed to the
introduction of a morbific substance into the
bloodstream of children, the results of which are often
more injurious than the contagion it is supposed to
prevent,
WHEREAS, Only those susceptible to contagion are in
any danger of infection, and
WHEREAS, It is very difficult to differentiate between the
susceptible and those who are not susceptible,
causing, thereby, in a general vaccination, the infliction
of pain and discomfort, if not incurable maladies on
innocent and healthy children, and
WHEREAS, There are safe, sure, and reliable
remedies, non-poisonous, which prevent contagion
when properly administered, and
WHEREAS, Vaccination has caused many severe
diseases, some of them like cancer and tuberculosis,
malignant, and other organic changes, such as
deafness, impaired vision, necrosis of bone, impaired
digestion, etc.
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, 1st, That we urge the
necessity of hygiene, sanitation, and the use of properly
indicated remedies in the maintenance of health.
RESOLVED, 2nd, That we urge the rational use of the
internal potentized remedy in times of epidemics, or
prevalence of contagion as a prophylactic.
RESOLVED, 3rd, That we oppose compulsory and
promiscuous vaccination by scarification, on all
children, (except by consent of parent or guardian).
The Resolution was passed by the membership.
Sincerely yours,
Julian Winston
Co-Director, Wellington College of Homeopathy
Tawa, New Zealand
Competing interests: No competing interests
Dear Editor,
I feel obliged to write to correct a serious misconception set out in
a recent letter to the BMJ from Dr. Fisher et.al., complaining against the
use of the term “professional homeopath.” Aside from the absurdity of the
statement that lay homeopaths “are not members of any recognised health
profession” (does that mean that so-called medical homeopaths are bereft
of a health profession, namely homeopathic medicine? And if so, on what
basis are they protesting?), the statement regarding Dr. Hahnemann’s views
on vaccinations cannot be left unanswered.
The Faculty of Homeopathy states, so I am told here, that Dr.
Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy, supported allopathic vaccinations
and that patients are directed to follow the “normal (i.e., allopathic)
vaccination schedule. This statement does not stand up to the facts of the
matter. The Faculty position is justified on the basis of Dr. Hahnemann’s
alleged support for smallpox vaccinations, citing Aphorism 46 of the
Organon.
Aphorism 46 only explains the principle behind the cure, by nature,
of an existing disease by a similar disease, such as cowpox and smallpox.
§.46.9. …due to their great similarity, the ensuing outbreak of
smallpox is at least
greatly diminished (homeopathically) and made more benign a] by the cowpox
which has already neared its maturity...
§. 46.9. a] This appears to be the reason for the beneficent, remarkable
event that, since the general dispersal of Jenner's cowpox inoculation,
smallpox has never again appeared among us either so epidemically or so
virulently as 40-50 years ago when a city seized therewith would lose at
least half and often threequarters of its children by the most wretched
plague death.
What is left out in the Faculty position is the whole issue of dose.
Dr. Hahnemann pointed out clearly that the law of similars using nosodes
or isodes is harmful because of the large (material) dose. To be safe, the
application of disease material as a preventative (immunization) has to be
diluted and succussed (potentized).
§50.1. Great nature itself has as homeopathic curative implements, as
we see, only a few established miasmatic diseases as aids: scabies,
measles, and smallpox, a]
a] and the above mentioned skin-eruption-tinder which moreover is to be
found in the cowpox lymph,
disease Potences which,b]
b] namely smallpox and measles
are partly, as remedies, more life-threatening and atrocious than the
maladies to be cured therewith, and partly (like scabies), after cure of
similar diseases is accomplished,
require cure themselves in order to be extirpated in turn --both
circumstances which make their employment as homeopathic means difficult,
uncertain and dangerous.
§.50.3. Only a few maladies can therefore be cured in the course of
nature with these dubious and precarious homeopathic means, and success
shows forth only with danger and great ailment, surely for the reason that
the doses of these disease Potences do not lend themselves to reduction
according to circumstances, as can be done with medicinal doses; on the
contrary, the one afflicted with an old similar malady is covered over
with the entire dangerous and troublesome suffering, the entire smallpox-,
measles- or scabies-disease, in order to recover from the old similar
malady.
§.56.4. a] 3. But this intending to cure by means of an entirely
identical disease Potence [that is, using a crude substance] contradicts
all healthy common sense and therefore all experience also.
§.56.4. a]7. But meaning to cure a human disease … with an identical human
disease matter — that is going too far!
§.56.4. a] 8. Nothing results from it but calamity and aggravation of the
disease!
The conclusion is clear. Dr. Hahnemann supported the principle of
immunization, but not the “normal” (i.e., allopathic, crude dose)
approach, quite the contrary. He stated, presciently as it seems based on
official statistics, that such an approach to prevention would lead to
death and destruction. Perhaps the Faculty should review its position on
this matter.
Sincerely,
Rudi Verspoor, FHCH, Rhom.
Director, Hahnemann Center for Heilkunst
Ottawa, Canada
hchclinic@netscape.net
Competing interests: No competing interests
Schmidt and Ernst risk causing confusion by their use of the term
‘professional homeopaths’, since the defining characteristic of this group
is precisely that they are not members of any recognised health
profession! Anyone can style her/himself ‘professional homeopath’, there
is no mandatory registration or minimum standards of training, ethics etc.
By contrast, the Faculty of Homeopathy is empowered by Act of Parliament
to award diplomas to health professionals who must be registered with
their respective statutory professional bodies.
The two groups of homeopaths also differ sharply in their attitudes
to immunisation. The Faculty’s longstanding policy is to advise
immunisation according to Department of Health guidelines and recommends
that immunisation be carried out in the normal way unless there are
medical contra-indications. This too is the authentic homeopathic
tradition: as early as 1810, Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy
strongly endorsed vaccination, presciently remarking that those who
opposed it had never witnessed the terrible consequences of a smallpox
epidemic.1 The Faculty of Homeopathy produces an information sheet for
parents to explain its position.2
The title ‘professional homeopath’ is misleading and should not, in
our view, be used unless and until it is invested with real meaning by
legislation. The term non medically-qualified practitioners (NMQPs) is
preferable.
Peter Fisher
Vice-president, Faculty of Homeopathy
Peter.fisher@uclh.org
Bob Leckridge
President, Faculty of Homeopathy
George Lewith
Centre for the Study of Complementary Medicine
Southampton
References
1) Hahnemann S. Organon of the Medical Art. Tr O’Reilly WB, Birdcage
Washington 1997. Para 46.
2) Homeopathy and immunisation factsheet. available from Faculty of
Homeopathy
email: info@trusthomeopathy.org
Competing interests: No competing interests
Aspects of MMR
I am surprised that only half of the homeopaths surveyed were against
MMR. I have met many homeopaths and found all are against all types of
immunisation, not only MMR. Well before the MMR controversy the mantra of
homeopaths was and appears to remain that having measles is good for a
child as it "boosts their immune system" I have never been able to obtain
an explaination of why, if it does this, some children can die or have
permanent disability from measles.
My biggest horror was hearing a Homeopathic lecturer who trains large
numbers of homeopath students, tell a group of nurses, midwives and health
visitors not only the measles mantra but that "immunisation causes cot
death." Even worse, none of these other health professionals appeared to
be concerned to hear such a statement being made.
I am also finding that cranial osteopaths have jumped on this anti-
immunisation bandwagon. As a number of my clients visit cranial osteopathy
centres and complementary therapists with their young babies, I now try to
make a point of advising mothers before their visit that they will hear
antiimmunisation propoganda and that it is important for their child's
health that they ignore this.
Finally, perhaps the researchers could also to evaluate the number of
homeopaths who advise mothers to take their young babies off dairy
products on the grounds that their eczema or any other problem is due to
cow's milk allergy. Again, in my experience this advice is invariably
given.
June Thompson
Competing interests: No competing interests