The Problem of Combination Vaccines:
For the childhood vaccinations recommended by the Standing Committee on Vaccination (STIKO), systematic immunization is only possible with combination vaccines. Currently, a six-in-one combination (diphtheria, tetanus, polio, Hib, pertussis, and hepatitis) and a four-in-one combination (measles, mumps, rubella, chickenpox) are recommended. Two problems with these combinations must be considered: first, it is questionable whether the efficacy of the various vaccines in combination is comparable to that of individual vaccines. Many studies show that efficacy decreases in combination, and the two major vaccine manufacturers worldwide compete with studies on this issue regarding their respective competitor’s product. STIKO has responded to this, and as a result, multiple combinations must be administered more frequently than the respective individual vaccination. The second problem is the question of tolerability. After the six-in-one vaccine was introduced to the market, deaths were observed for the first time in connection with this vaccination, although it remains unclear whether these deaths are causally related to the vaccination. Interestingly, however, no deaths were observed in temporal association with the previously used five-in-one combination and, before that, the four-in-one combination. The discussion is currently very lively and surprisingly unscientific (90 and 91). In 2011, the TOKEN study was published, which scientifically investigated this question. All 676 cases from July 2005 to July 2008 were re-examined, of which 254 cases were included in the study investigating the cause of death of the deceased children. According to Prof. Zepp in Mainz, who presented the study at the “Pediatrics Update 2011” in Wiesbaden, the parents of the other 422 deceased children did not consent. Overall, this significantly limits the validity of the TOKEN study (after all, two-thirds of the cases are missing).
Booster Vaccination in Adulthood:
In Germany, the recommendation is to receive booster vaccinations for tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis every 10 years. This often leads to the idea that if this interval has been exceeded (who checks their vaccination record as often as their car service booklet?), one must “start over from the beginning.” This leads to massive over-vaccination with many complications, including long-term ones. A “fresh start” is never necessary, not even after a 50-year break—there was no protection during this time, but it will certainly be restored long-term with one vaccination (if vaccinated three times in childhood) (117). In many EU countries, after childhood vaccinations, boosters are only given every 20 years; in New Zealand and Australia (certainly a relevant area for tetanus), after age 18, boosters are given again at 45 and 65 years; in Ireland and England, not at all after age 18. In none of these countries are more cases of tetanus, diphtheria, and pertussis observed than in Germany! The WHO also does not recommend routine booster vaccinations in later adulthood; it recommends (as initially recommended here) vaccinations in childhood at age four, at 12–15, and once as a young adult—this also applies to the so-called “Third World”! (all information from 117). Therefore, after complete immunization in childhood and adolescence, probably only one booster vaccination in young adulthood is needed, and then probably once more before retirement (actually only once!!!) This applies to these diseases even during vacations in the jungle camp! (of course, not for the recommended travel vaccinations that have not yet been administered).
ALTERNATIVE VACCINATION METHODS: A REAL POSSIBILITY OR ILLUSION?
An increasing number of “experts” from the non-conventional medical scene recommend alternative vaccination methods, the most common being so-called “homeopathic vaccination.” This method is based on an observation by Samuel Hahnemann, the discoverer of homeopathy, who during a severe scarlet fever epidemic found that early administration of Belladonna C30 in his clientele significantly reduced the occurrence of severe scarlet fever cases (45). Vaccination in the true sense—i.e., protecting the population before the epidemic occurs—is clearly not meant here, but rather treatment of an existing disease. Every homeopathically practicing therapist experiences that epidemics often have a common “signature”; during a flu wave, one homeopathic remedy, e.g., China, is often effective and helps most patients. During the next flu wave, this “signature” is different, and the remedy may be Aconitum, etc. This applies to all epidemic diseases. If the “signature” has been identified, the course can certainly be favorably influenced, but it simply cannot be predicted! The exchange among all homeopathically practicing therapists during such an epidemic is necessary and very helpful; this approach certainly does not correspond to vaccination. To be clear: scarlet fever certainly cannot be prevented by Belladonna; the clinical picture of scarlet fever is highly variable and may correspond to a completely different homeopathic remedy (e.g., collection of scarlet fever cases by Von Ungeren-Sternberg). From this dilemma, some homeopaths have developed so-called “nosodes,” homeopathically prepared medications from body secretions of diseased individuals. Thus, there are “Morbillinum,” “Parotidinum,” “Diphtherinum,” etc., as nosodes against measles, mumps, and diphtheria, etc. These nosodes are now taken according to specific instructions and are supposed to prevent the diseases or their complications. This method is described and discussed in more detail in reference 18. There are no studies on this method, but there are numerous personal observations. If one again critically examines the probability of a complication, e.g., with measles (1:500) or the probability of a polio infection in a fully vaccinated environment (1:3.5 million), it must be honestly stated that individual observations make no statement whatsoever, because 500 observed uncomplicated measles cases (27) simply fall within the spontaneous benign course spectrum of this disease; no observed polio or diphtheria case among 10,000 patients is likewise explained by normal statistics and cannot be attributed to the aforementioned measures. The critical attitude toward the claims of vaccination advocates must also be applied, if we attempt to examine the issue truthfully, to other methods such as homeopathic vaccination. This method is certainly not effective in the sense of vaccination! The question is also whether, in the absence of vaccination, any alternative method can offer protection, or whether the task we must fulfill is not rather weighing vaccination risk against disease risk. However, this requires a different approach to disease than that of vaccination advocates, whether conventional or homeopathic, both of whom have only elimination as their goal—i.e., they actually differ only in method. But then they must be measured against each other, and the comparison, based on literature review, clearly favors conventional vaccination. Detailed discussion in Neustaedter’s book cited below (18). Even the classical homeopath Neustaedter concludes that homeopathic vaccination is not a realistic approach. Due to increasing, sometimes very poorly substantiated “vaccination education” by various “homeopaths” (homeopathy is an unprotected term and can be used by anyone, regardless of their actual qualifications), the “British Society of Homeopaths” felt compelled to issue a statement clarifying that classical homeopathy does not involve any rejection of vaccinations; rather, members of this professional society commit to providing “balanced and non-directive” vaccination education to their patients. This statement also makes clear that there is no such thing as “homeopathic vaccination” (80). Author: Bernhard Ulrich, Specialist in Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, Specialist in Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine.
