Refusing Vaccination: Guide To Informed Choice
                                    By: Gary Krasner
                                    Director: Coalition For Informed Choice
                                               
         Revised June 2005  

Note to reader: This article is a polemic against the practice of vaccination.  I
wrote it for the benefit of parents and students who are not familiar with the
health risks from vaccines, or its lack of efficacy.  

                                  The Vaccine Injury Compensation System
By the late 1970’s, there had been so many successful lawsuits for vaccine
injuries from childhood vaccinations that not a single insurance company was
willing to underwrite vaccines marketed in the U.S.  

In 1986, Congress undertook to insure vaccine products by passing the
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act (NCVIA).  However, following the law’s
passage, the government under-funded the program and made it highly
adversarial.  

Hearings for claims are now complicated, drawn-out, and hostile to
petitioners.  Funds that have been awarded have been meager, usually falling
far below the total costs incurred by families over the long term.  

Compensation is also awarded too late—long after medical and related
expenses bankrupt the family.  Despite this, as of 2002, over a billion dollars
has been awarded to only about 1,000 families affected by vaccine injuries.  
With thousands of cases still pending, on average 3 out of 4 applicants are
refused compensation.  

The basic fault in the system stems from the authorization of HHS to perform
the conflicting roles of adjudicating claims, and establishing the criteria for
causality.  The Secretary of HHS has artifactually narrowed or eliminated
contraindications based on mere budgetary considerations—often in
contravention of IOM recommendations—in order to exclude many kinds of
injuries eligible for federal compensation, thereby minimizing monetary
awards the government must pay to families.  

How could they possibly compromise their integrity this way?  Just consider
that they invested in a career in which they first were indoctrinated with an
exaggerated hubris and confidence in the conventional theory of infectious
disease and the notion that vaccination is modern medicine’s greatest
achievement, and then embarked on a career path in which they either
promoted or administered vaccinations.  

Of those that enter the public health services, can we really expect them to
impartially interpret and report on vaccine safety and effectiveness, or to
extend compensation for delayed reactions in children, and thereby
undermine the efficacy of vaccination programs that they operate?  

How else can HHS deny there are causal relationships involving dozens of
diseases, while at the same time year after year reject grant applications from
accredited researchers and institutions that want to investigate the
associations, or the basic science that may unravel the causes, if it’s not to
sustain the disease paradigm that’s become the cornerstone of their
profession, and defend it when it’s under attack?  

The overtly strict rules for establishing causality by HHS are apparent when
viewing the stark differences in the adverse effects listed in the HHS Vaccine
Injury Table, as opposed to the Physician’s desk reference, or the more
cautious (and honest) manufacturer’s product inserts that protects
companies from liability.  

FDA estimates that 9 out of 10 reactions go unreported, the federal
Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS) receives annually between 12,000
and 14,000 reports of adverse reactions, including hospitalizations, injuries
and deaths following vaccination.  

Today, a child receives about 39 doses of vaccines by the time he’s 6 years
old.  By the time he’s finished primary school, he would have received roughly
four times that many doses.  

                                            Why Is Compensation Denied?  
Contrary to the claims of vaccine promoters and proponents, vaccine injuries
appear to be the norm: Many children exhibit seemingly
“mild” reactions,
followed later perhaps by slowed physical or cognitive development, or
changes in consciousness or emotional behavior.  

So-called
“minor” complications like these are never linked to the vaccine, nor
do such cases ever receive compensation.  The government denies that many
common symptoms and disabilities are the result of vaccination, by citing
biased and fraudulent
“safety” studies and field trials sponsored or performed
by the drug companies who developed the vaccine and wish to profit by its
sale.  

For example, compensation is not awarded for delayed reactions, or for
chronic diseases that vaccines are suspected of causing, like lupus, cancer,
arthritis or multiple sclerosis.  

Details of compensation claims are difficult to obtain.  The government cites
the privacy rights of the individual claimants.  However, parent support groups
have received many complaints from parents regarding seemingly clear-cut
reactions just a few days following vaccination, but which failed to qualify for
compensation.  

Harold E. Buttram, M.D., author of:
Vaccinations and Immune Malfunction
(1982) said in 1997:

“If an individual patient goes into anaphylactic shock following an injection of
penicillin, no one questions that the penicillin caused the reaction.  Yet when a
severe reaction follows a vaccine, experience has shown that the vaccine is
disallowed as a cause in a majority of instances.”  

Even parents who are generally aware that there are risks associated with
vaccination do not realize that symptoms that become apparent days or
weeks later may have been the result of the vaccines.  

A special investigation in the December 1996 issue of
Money magazine —
The Lethal Dangers of the Billion-Dollar Vaccine Business—found that
doctors and federal health officials tend to downplay vaccine reactions hoping
the public will remain confident about vaccination and to keep vaccination
compliance rates high.  

Not only is there gross underreporting by doctors in the federal
Vaccine
Adverse Event Reporting System
(VAERS), but the FDA itself has been
unwilling to investigate clusters of injury reports to identify particularly unsafe
vaccine lots.  

The
Money article reported that, “even with timely reporting, the FDA is
reluctant to act”.
 Money learned that not only did the FDA “feel that no action
was needed”
concerning a vaccine lot that produced 70 adverse reactions—
including nine deaths, the FDA also felt that no action was needed for several
other lots that had even higher numbers of reports of adverse reactions.  

                                                How Safe Are Vaccines?
Satisfactory safety studies are absent for all vaccines.  The administration of
multiple vaccines in one shot have not been tested for safety let alone
effectiveness.  

The new use of genetically engineered vaccines may have irreversible and
unpredictable effects on the human genome.  There haven’t been generational
studies on the teratological effects of attenuated virus vaccines, such as birth
defects, cancer, and mutations.  

There haven’t been adequate long-term studies to rule out the suspected link
between vaccination and degenerative diseases later in life, such as arthritis,
cancer and multiple sclerosis.  Studies typically do not employ placebo
controlled, cohort groups of unvaccinated children.  

The safety studies that are done—usually pre-licensure tests done by the
manufacturer—follow up for only 3 weeks or less, instead of several years.  

There has been mounting evidence that delayed reactions are caused or
provoked by vaccinations.  For example, several recent medical studies have
demonstrated a significant causal link between vaccines given to infants and
subsequent development of autoimmune diseases, such as asthma and
diabetes.  

Science News reported that a growing number of scientists are concerned
whether childhood vaccines initiate immune system problems, or builds
resistance to them.  
“Immunization skews the activity of the immune system”
says Howard L. Weiner, an immunologist at Harvard Medical School in
Boston.  
“If a person has a tendency toward a disease at a certain age, a
vaccine might…make [him or her] more susceptible later, when other
challenges come along.”  

Although the delayed and long-term effects of persistent circulating antigens
from vaccines in the body are unknown, they may be the cause of continual
immune suppression, disabling our ability to react normally to disease: A
latent virus from a vaccine injection can be incorporated into our body cells,
yet still be viewed by our immune system as a foreign entity.  This is one
possible mechanism to explain how vaccines have provoked autoimmune
diseases and recurrent infections.  

For example, live virus vaccines require incubation in animal tissues.  Not only
are the foreign proteins toxic, but the incubation of live viruses in animal
tissue introduces the risk that viruses may incorporate genetic material from
the animal tissues in which they are incubated (through the process of
“jumping genes”) and subsequently introduce this animal genetic material into
the child receiving the vaccine.  This may be what sets the stage later for
immune disorders.  

The virus in any vaccine is cultured on tissue from monkeys, chicks or
aborted fetuses, which have produced antigens that cannot be filtered out.  
These antigens can affect the human body.  

The ingredients of vaccines do not include the eye of a newt, which would at
least contain vitamin A, but they do contain an impressive array of toxic
substances in addition to the actual viruses.  

There are antibiotics that can cause reactions in those who are allergic;
aluminum that has been implicated in the promotion of Alzheimer’s disease;
MSG and egg proteins, both of which are allergens for some people;
thimerosal, a neurotoxin; formaldehyde, a carcinogen and aborted fetal tissue,
which compromises the beliefs of those against abortion.  

In the last 30 years, the increase in vaccine dosages per child has coincided
with childhood cancers rising to become the #1 disease from which children
under the age of 14 are dying.  

Stories of the decimation of native populations by European germs are
essentially medical urban legends.  There are many alternative explanations
for mass illnesses that are simply not considered.  Forced migration and being
displaced by European settlers was the obvious and main cause.  

The most commonly cited myth was the deliberate infection by Europeans by
passing along
“small-pox blankets” to Indians.  These stories are based
exclusively on two letters from British soldiers in 1763, at the end of the bitter
and bloody French and Indian War.  

Essentially, it was based on an anecdotal interpretation of a couple of 18th
century soldiers (not scientists).  The claims by modern medicine that
infectious diseases decimated native populations during that era are
unsupportable, and are intended to justify mass vaccination and to prop the
theory that diseases are transmissible from person to person.  (Note: the
microbes are, but not the diseases.)  

The Smallpox epidemics a century ago—and its eradication—has been touted
as the greatest vindication for the practice of vaccination.  While the
retrospective studies of the aforementioned scientists has rendered this a
myth of modern medicine, there were scientists at the time who demonstrated
that vaccination played no role in the eradication of smallpox.  In many
instances, it was the cause of smallpox.  

                                         There Are No “Bad” Germs
The idea that germs and viruses cause disease gets to the real nuts and bolts
of the theory.  Historically, dissidents from the (now) conventional theory of
infectious disease have admitted that microbial agents are transmissible
through various vectors from one host to the next.  

The point of contention has always been about the diseases and the role, if
any, that these microbes play in causing them.  

Germs (bacteria) are the oldest and simplest life forms on our planet.  They
form endogenically from dead and dying cells.  That’s why we see this form of
life proliferate on decaying matter, and never on healthy living tissue and
cells.  They appear as nature’s scavengers, helping the cycle of organic and
inorganic matter.  

They have a similar function within our bodies.  After your cells have been
damaged by toxicity or trauma, it is easy for bacteria to attack and devour
these weakened, injured, and dead cells.  

The species & function of the bacteria is determined by what they eat.  In part,
you control what they eat by what you eat.  So-called virulent or pathogenic
bacteria are only generated in the presence of decaying matter.  They
consume this matter, as well as dead cells, to reduce (decompose) it to it’s
constituent elements.  

The body is then able to drain (eliminate) both the germ and the broken down
waste products from the body.  

If unclean or putrefying matter is injected into a healthy host, then morbid
chromosomes can alter the genetic material of normal cells.  Your body will
mount an immune response to the foreign matter and symptoms of disease
(elimination) may follow.  

You should allow this to proceed, unmedicated.  Cleanliness, or the avoidance
of morbid matter (asepsis), should not be equated with killing germs
(antisepsis).  The former leads to a state of health.  The latter suppresses
symptoms and creates more acute diseases.  

Bacteria are involved in the end stages of digestion.  It converts the residues
of what was eaten to fecal material for elimination from the body.  Yet
allopathic medicine instructs us to use germicides (antipyretic drugs) when
inflammation is manifested (swelling, rash, fever, cough, mucous, etc.).  

Ironically, these symptoms of inflammation mean that the body has reacted
appropriately.  Antibodies and other specialized cells gather at the site of
injury, and the dead cells are eliminated through the skin or lungs (so-called
“vicarious” elimination), or else through normal channels.  Tonsils and the
appendix may be temporary storehouses.  

Trying to reduce a swelling with ice, for example, would be akin to preventing
firefighters and EMS workers and police from getting to the location where a
building caught fire and collapsed.  

Sure, there will be less congestion around that block by doing that.  But who
would help injured survivors escape?  Who would put out the fire and carry
out the dead?  

Thus, the use of germicides (drugs) makes no sense.  They’re toxic to all
bacterial cells, and adversely affect normal metabolic function.  When has it
made sense to use an atom bomb when a fly swatter was sufficient?  

And when has it made sense to use a fly swatter when cleaning the kitchen
had sufficed.  The use of germ-killing agents is a level of micro-manipulation of
a complex system that yields unintended consequences.  

The most common are diseases from antibiotic-resistant strains of bacteria.  
And where do most such cases occur?  In the place where there’s the highest
use of antibiotics (i.e. germicides).  Hospital-acquired infections have reached
alarming levels.  

The principles that distinguish asepsis from antisepsis may be applied to the
internal environment of our bodies when we’ve accumulated high amounts of
abnormal bacterial cultures (i.e. to many bad bacterial cells).  

Fasting can facilitate the drainage and elimination of excess mucous and
metabolic waste.  A change to a health enhancing, vegetable-based diet will
benefit you thereafter.  Studies confirm that those who live on vegan or low-
meat (zero cow’s milk) diet generally live longer, healthier lives than meat-
eaters.  

In fact, historically there have been entire populations and civilizations who,
by and large, managed to escape the spectrum of degenerative and (so-called)
infectious diseases as long as they lived in accord with nature.  

Does exposure and infection equal disease?  There are always vastly more
people who are exposed to, or infected with, pathogenic bacteria or viruses
associated with diseases, who do not exhibit any signs of disease—even
during so-called
“raging epidemics”.  

This can be attributed mostly to their healthy internal
“culture”.  In almost
every instance though, whether in sickness or in health, your germs are
“home-grown”—products of human tissue cell degeneration, with your
internal environment determining their species and pathogenicity.  

Doctors claim that you
“must have caught” another person’s disease.  In fact,
you’ve simply
“cultured & harvested” your own disease, either by exposure to
the same environment, or the one you created for yourself, through diet or
drugs (medically prescribed or recreational).  

At that point you have two choices.  You can re-normalize your internal
environment safely without drugs by following the principles of Natural
Hygiene.  Or, you can become one of the estimated one million Americans
each year who suffer from prescription, drug-induced death or adverse
reactions.  

To understand one of the reasons for these drug reactions requires an
understanding of the vital role that bacteria (both
“good” and “bad”) play in all
life on earth.  

Bacteria were the only forms of life for the first 2 billion years of earth’s
existence, living here twice as long as the life forms that evolved afterward.  

Without bacteria, all life on earth would cease to exist.  There is no such thing
as a germ-free sustainable environment.  Where there is life, there are
necessarily bacteria.  

Strains of bacteria that are associated with disease are those that proliferate
on morbid, decaying matter.  Inside your body, these germs, which are
converting waste products for safe avenues of elimination, are killed by
antibiotics.  

The so-called
“beneficial” or “friendly” bacterial strains are also killed.  This
contributes to an increased buildup of waste, as well as an abnormal balance
in the bacterial population.  

Your body soon becomes weakened, and it’s efforts to expel waste
vicariously—in the form of swelling, redness, pus, rash, stiffness, fever,
coughing, etc.—eventually subsides.  

This is when the doctor may tell you that the drug is
“taking effect”.  In reality,
uneliminated waste is being stored in your tissues and vital organs.  Over time,
you will consequently develop acute, chronic, then degenerative diseases.  

Unless waste products from our cells, as well as the waste products of certain
bacteria, find avenues of escape, our bodies can be overcome by them, which
can lead to death.  

Doctors attribute the cause of death to whichever viral or bacterial strain
grows in a dish from a tissue sample taken from the organ that
“failed”.  But
obviously that’s not the real cause.  It’s just a derivative substance found after
the disease had begun.  

To promote the growth of specific kinds of pathogenic bacteria, medical
technicians provide a selective nutritive medium (food).  However, bacteria in
the real world are generally pleomorphic—their species change rapidly
depending on the kind of
“food” that exists around them.  

Surprisingly, there are more deaths today from septicemia (blood poisoning
caused by toxic waste from putrefactive bacteria) than there were before the
use of antibiotics.  Reactions from antibiotics include anaphylactic shock,
aplastic anemia, and induced virulent infections.  

Death from penicillin still occurs.  These antibiotics irritate an already over-
worked liver, as well as whip the endocrine glands to a higher tempo,
eventually exhausting and weakening the adrenals.  

An antibiotic may kill enough of the intestine’s normal microorganisms to
allow more resistant competing strains to flourish and take over.  

If the surviving bacterium is Clostridium difficile, for example, the diarrhea from
the toxins it produces could lead to severe dehydration, and possibly
ulceration and perforation of the intestine.  

All drugs and antibiotics leave your body in an ecological mess.  In fact, it is
drugging that is the real reason there is such a high rate of infections among
hospital patients: when you kill off one strain, you then allow others to over-
proliferate.  

The belief that germs cause disease allows health officials to forcibly medicate
and vaccinate people.  But actually, a diseased state in the host precedes the
formation and growth of pathogenic bacteria.  

Some strains flourish in the bodily waste that accumulates well before any
outward symptoms (elimination) begin to appear.  Their strain (hence function)
is determined by the type of waste that they feed upon.  

And 99% of the germs that live inside you are endogenic (born from within),
not exogenic.  Such comparatively low titers of bacteria originating from
outside our bodies explains why they have virtually no effect on our health.  

We are constantly exposed to
“infectious” agents and there are innumerable
opportunities for us to “catch” a disease.  Yet we don’t.  Even during so-called
epidemics or outbreaks, it is only a handful of people who exhibit illness.  
Statistically, it is therefore extremely rare for a person to get the same illness
twice during his or her lifetime.  

In fact,
“infectious” diseases usually occur, if at all, within a narrow time-span
of a person’s life—during childhood.  Yet doctors insist that you escaped
illness because you built up your immunity by getting the disease the first
time!  

Their various explanations for vaccines that fail to protect against disease are
even less plausible.  In fact, many of their own studies, if one accepts their
precepts and interpretations of the results indicate that vaccines only partially
or temporarily confer immunity, and that repeated booster doses have little or
no effect.  

Vaccination focuses on antibody production—just a single aspect of the
immune process—and by-passes other important mechanisms and stages of
the entire immune response.  This explains the numerous medical studies that
have found that there is absolutely no relationship between antibody count
and the disease.  

                                         What Is Natural Hygiene?
In the United States, the modern history of Natural Hygiene began in 1830.  
Some of the early leaders of the movement were medical doctors: Sylvester
Graham, William Alcott, Mary Grove, Isaac Jennings, Russell Trall and John
Tilden.  

The underlying philosophy of Natural Hygiene is that the body is self-
cleansing, self-healing and self-maintaining.  Food only provides
nourishment.  There are no substances that possess mystical properties that
heal cells, tissues, or organs.  

The process of cellular repair (healing) is performed by the body, and it
performs this function best in the absence of foreign or extraneous matter,
such as drugs, or even herbs and vitamin supplements.  

Natural Hygiene is not a religion or cult.  It does not teach dogma, nor impose
a morality.  It is not a means unto itself.  It provides a means of achieving and
maintaining basic health by understanding Nature’s laws.  

Our understanding of these laws, as well as the various modalities used to
augment the natural healing process, have evolved over time.  But Nature’s
laws have not.  

Allopathic medicine takes the opposite approach.  It seeks to micro-manage
(usually through drugs) the after-effects (symptoms) of metabolic dysfunction,
which can only result, at best, in short-term palliation.  

The next disease to develop in a person so treated is often caused by the
medical intervention itself.   

A drug, for example, doesn’t
“kill” a patient—the patient simply didn’t
“respond favorably” to the treatments.  

A spontaneous remission (their terminology) is in fact, a cure that is
discounted in medicine simply because it is an unanticipated positive
outcome that cannot be attributable to the doctor’s actions or participation.

In other words, if medical treatment wasn’t involved, then the reasons for such
a recovery is not worth exploring (very scientific, huh?).  Apparently, medicine
feels there is little that an ill person on his own, may do or stop doing, to affect
what doctors termed a
“cure”.   

This is contrary to the tremendous successes made through hygienic
measures in public health and clinical practice.  For medicine to continue as a
profit-making enterprise, they must convince the public that they are making
progress against disease.  

Medicine also places a strong distinction between prevention and cure.  
“Prevention” equates to annual check-ups and medical tests before
symptoms appear.  

The implication is that disease is inevitable and should be detected early.  
“Cures” are attempted only after symptoms are detected.  (However, the
disease process really begins before detectable symptoms.)  

In both stages, the role of the patient is passive.  For
Natural Hygiene, the role
of the
“patient” is active.  

“Prevention” is lifestyle: you do what is good for you and stop what is bad.  
Disease is not inevitable if the proper lifestyle is followed.  
“Prevention” and
“cure” are one in the same, because the former determines the latter.  

Diet is an important component in the Hygienic lifestyle.  Unlike conventional
medicine,
Natural Hygiene doesn’t subscribe to the “everything in
moderation”
philosophy.  

Some things are poisonous, and they have some effect—even in moderation.  
We may not discern any effects, but there is a biological effect—however
small—to everything we do.  

Physiologically, humans most resemble other herbivores in the animal
kingdom.  A vegetable-based diet, free of refined and fractionated
“foods” is
recommended for many sound health reasons.  

For example, those nations that lead the world in meat and dairy consumption,
also lead in the incidence of degenerative diseases.  In fact, almost all
degenerative diseases (cancer, osteoporosis, cardiovascular, gastrointestinal,
atherosclerosis, hypertension, diabetes, urinary disease, etc.) may be
prevented, reversed or ameliorated by adopting a vegetarian diet.  

The wholesale slaughter of billions of farm animals (cows, pigs, fowl) annually
supports one of the largest sectors of our economy—meat, poultry, milk,
eggs, as well as secondary industries like leather and soap.  

Even though there is a preponderance of literature that documents the
benefits of vegetarianism, it is rare that we hear or read about it through the
major media.   

Such a major change would threaten large institutions, which are linked or
supported by these industries.  Also, like drug addicts, most people are
addicted to their barbecued steaks.  It is extremely difficult for most people to
modify their diet, especially when the food industry extols the so-called
benefits of meat and dairy.  

The weight of the evidence linking diet to disease has been shielded from the
public almost as effectively as the evidence linking vaccinations to disease.  

One clinical modality that is used by Natural Hygienists, and adopted by other
“alternatives” to allopathic medicine, is to fast only on distilled water during an
illness.  That’s why a loss of appetite accompanies most illnesses.  That’s
why no digestive juices can be produced during a fever (etc.).  

This physiological rest period facilitates bodily elimination of excessive waste
and the bacteria that feed upon it.  Fasting can be safely performed by most
people if the principles of
Natural Hygiene are followed.  

Even degenerative diseases have been reversed through properly conducted
fasts.  Intake of food would divert energy and resources towards digestion
and assimilation, and away from detoxification (mostly by the liver) and
elimination.  

But pharmaceutical drugs, as stated, have even more harmful effects.  If the
use of medication leads to death, you may hear the doctor say that the patient
“did not respond to treatment” or “died of toxic shock”.  

If the patient survives, adverse effects can be manifested later—as chronic
and degenerative diseases, including neurological effects.  Thus we never
associate diseases later in our life with medications that are taken today.  

We usually heal and survive the immediate effects to our health in spite of
what doctors do to us.  But this wasn’t the case during the half century prior
to 1920, when allopathic physicians still employed mercury for syphilis,
digitalis for heart disorders, Quinine for malaria, and as well as the use of
strychnine, arsenic, opium, calomel and also bleeding the patient.  

(Note—digitalis is still prescribed today for heart problems while mercury and
formaldehyde is used in vaccines!).  

One of the more famous drugs that contained both mercury and arsenic was
used to
“cure” syphilis: Salversan made a quick fortune for it’s German
manufacturer after Paul Erlich had been awarded the Nobel Prize in 1908 for
developing it.  

This was before others realized that it could only
“kill” syphilis only if it killed
the patient along with it.  Salversan vanished unnoticed from the world’s
pharmacopeia.  

Paul Ehrlich kept his Nobel Prize, and Hollywood later made a popular movie
glorifying Ehrlich and his
“discovery”.  

Patients did very poorly on all of these early allopathic treatments.  This is why
allopathic treatments were the least favored by the public at that time.  The
joke then (and should still be today) was,
“is there any cure for the doctor’s
treatment?”  

Therefore, real “progress” in medicine has actually been due to the shift
towards less toxic sub-lethal doses of poisons in their attempts to check
necessary bodily eliminations.  

Allopathic medicine does not distinguish between symptoms and cause.  
Hence, they
“treat” only symptoms.  

By successfully suppressing elimination, conventional doctors believe that
they are curing disease.  Instead, they are driving it deeper into our bodies.  
The symptoms associated with disease are actually indicators of a cure in
progress, if it is left to run its course unmedicated, and if the person still has
the capacity to recover.  

You can kill a germ with a drug.  But then they become an even greater toxic
load than when they were alive.  The feeding cells of the immune system
(macrophages, granulocytes, and monocytes) then have to work harder.  

The germ will also return in a more resistant form if you fail to alter the nutritive
medium that they prefer.  Meanwhile, you’re still left with the waste matter that
they were feeding upon—as well as an imbalance in the population of
microorganisms as a result of the drug.  

Add to this the toxic, debilitating effects of the drug itself, and the result is a
body that cannot efficiently process and eliminate waste.  For a cell with this
problem, death is the result.  

For complex animals, death usually approaches gradually, in the form of
chronic and degenerative diseases—which is the real epidemic in
“advanced”
societies.  

Remember, a pathogenic germ’s only destructive effect on you is caused by
the byproducts of its metabolism, or how it may compete with the host for
some factor essential to vital processes.  The more of them, the more of an
effect they have.  

Germs are formed from the cells of the food that you provide your body by
way of diet, as well as from the nuclear material derived from your own body
cells after they expire.  

If you consume normal food for a human (predominantly vegetables, fruits,
nuts, seeds, sprouts, whole course grains, legumes), then normal bacteria will
develop.  Your body only becomes
“infected” by what you supply it, and not
by someone coughing in your direction.  

                                                 Options For Parents
There are other theories of “infectious” (inflammatory) disease and immunity
advocated by scientists and physicians in medicine and by practitioners in
other disciplines.  Their modalities of prevention & treatment have been
practically applied by parents and health practitioners for generations with
clinical success.  

Succeeding generations of
Hygienic practitioners have added to our
understanding of the natural healing process, which is comparably superior to
vaccines and drugs.  

The prevention of inflammatory diseases, and the ensuing complications from
drugging or even feeding during the illness, would be better achieved through
non-toxic, holistic approaches.  

Childhood
“infectious” diseases are not “killer” diseases, despite what some
doctors may tell you.  

Mortalities from
“infectious” diseases are rare, but when they do occur, they
are the result of pre-existing malnutrition, or treatment with antibiotics and
other drugs.  Even feeding a child during these severe eliminative crises may
be fatal.  

Children treated in accord with the principles of
Natural Hygiene, without
drugs, do not die from
“infectious” diseases.  

Even if there were some benefit from vaccination, would any sum of money be
adequate compensation for the care of a physically or mentally impaired child
for the remainder of his/her life?  

Before you subject your child to these risks, make every effort to become
informed.  You are ultimately responsible for your child’s health—not your
doctor, and not the Health Dept.  

As the parent, the decision is yours alone to make.  At this point you should
have many questions.  But considering what you may have learned thus far,
you cannot defer this decision to your doctor.  Most doctors will urge you to
vaccinate.  That’s what they were taught.  

Doctors were taught to do many things that were later discovered to be
wrong, despite warnings from
Natural Hygienists and outspoken critics within
medicine.  

As parents, you are ultimately responsible for your child’s health—not your
doctor or any state medical bureaucracy.  You now have some facts.  

Some parents (your neighbors) can describe for you the life-long nightmare of
raising a brain-damaged or physically impaired child from vaccination.  

On the other hand, mortalities from infectious diseases are rare and are the
direct result of inappropriate treatment, such as with drugs and antibiotics.  

Once again, Children treated in accord with the principles of
Natural Hygiene,
without the use of drugs, do not die from infectious diseases.  

By: Gary Krasner

Article: Refusing Vaccination: Informed Choice
http://www.vaclib.org/basic/gk/INTRODUCTION%20TO%20VACCINATION%
20ISSUE.html  

More Articles
By: Gary Krasner:
http://www.vaclib.org/basic/gk/index.htm