Intended for healthcare professionals

Rapid response to:


Society of Homeopaths does not advise against vaccination

BMJ 2003; 326 doi: (Published 18 January 2003) Cite this as: BMJ 2003;326:164

Rapid Response:

Facts: Calm, Sensible or Otherwise...

In response to comments above:

From the letter itself:

> The society acknowledges that there is much anecdotal and scientific evidence to support the arguments presented both for and against vaccination.

Perhaps the society should acknowledge that the vast majority of anti-vaccination information is based on anecdotal rather than scientific evidence, and that attempts at the misuse of evidence can easily be discredited by checking with the original source. Having done such checking, any ethical organisation would largely recommend vaccination.

For example:

The Anti-Immunization Activists: A Pattern of Deception


Anti-immunisation scare: The inconvenient facts

From one of the responses:

> but people and organisations who injure children... by promoting infectious disease spread deserve prosecution.

Can't see much to argue about here.

Readers might be amused to know that the (alleged) vaccine in question was sold with the wrong spelling of the word
Meningococcal on the bottle!

Whether well-intentioned or just grotesquely stupid the people who sold these bottles should be prosecuted.

If many homeopathists do speak out against vaccination that is a damning indictment indeed. Encouraging parents to take the risk of not vaccinating will clearly lead to death and disease. Apologies to those homeopathists who have checked the evidence and do not contribute to unnecessary scare campaigns against vaccinations.

Competing interests:  
None declared

Competing interests: No competing interests

13 February 2003
Tony Floyd
Medical Student
Newcastle University, Australia 2308