Introduction From a personal perspective, vaccination is an emotive subject and one that is still causing some debate within my personal life. At four years of age (1970s) I was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s Lymphoma, which in the medical field was and still is extremely rare at that age due to being a cancer of the lymphatic system, associated with late teens or middle age as a demographic for diagnosis. A consequence of the treatment I received resulted in a total splenectomy with a chemotherapy regime that has now been discontinued due to the side effects still experienced today such as further immune system dysfunction, heart problems and other malignancies, This combined with the removal of the spleen has resulted in the medical label of immune dysfunction including daily antibiotics (another debate entirely) and an expectation from medical practitioners that I receive a myriad of vaccinations as ‘research’ dictates. Although still receiving some vaccines as required, my experience of, and studies in homeopathy have opened my eyes to the conditioning I have received on vaccination by medical professionals and I am beginning to refuse to have certain serums as a result with more debates to follow of which I am sure. Although everyone is different and the circumstances they find themselves making decisions varies, my personal opinions on vaccination and the medical theories asserted are based on the following evidence and philosophical thinking about health, immunity and treatment. Discussion Health and Immunity Firstly, it is important to consider the philosophy of health and immunity, prior to challenging the vaccination theory that is becoming more debated in society today. Health can be described in many ways; however, two theories are key to this discussion. Firstly, the allopathic view of health being ‘free from disease’, and the alternative view of health being ‘high vitality.’_ Both views echo the great debate in medicine that occurred in the 1800s between Bechamp and Pasteur and their terrain versus germ theories. Pasteur asserted that the germ itself is the cause of disease and the only way to health is to kill, avoid or protect oneself from the germ organism. Whereas, Bechamp in his wisdom stated that the ‘soil’ of the individual and levels of toxicity cause disease within them, thus supporting the definition of high vitality, I.E. A healthy lifestyle supporting and supported by positive physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing. A main difference between the two trains of thought within the vaccination debate is the concept of susceptibility and how by adopting the theories of Pasteur, allopathic doctors are looking at the models of herd immunity rather than individualistic approaches to health. Bechamp on the other hand, echoes Hahnemann, Kent and Vithoulkas’ theories of susceptibility. Hahnemann_ described health as the vital force (dynamis) animating the material human organism reigning in supreme sovereignty. When someone feels ill it is this vitality imbalance that causes the symptomatic picture presented. Kent_ stated that the health and susceptibility to natural diseases works in accordance with the ‘plane’ the individual is on with regard to physical, psychological and emotional wellbeing at the time of contagion, thus affecting the degree of impact the disease has on them, if at all. Vithoulkas_ describes susceptibility as being a ‘morbific stimulus which resonates with a particular level of susceptibility to the organism. Such stimuli, called the exciting cause, could be a micro-organism, foreign chemical, emotional shock or other influence. Miasmatic theory is another key aspect to take into consideration; that of the inherited predisposition which allows disease to take root and such diseases are delayed, accelerated or modified in individuals as a result of such inheritance._ In summary such predispositions are resultant of historical family suppression of disease symptoms without curing the cause, thus the original disease itself laying deep within the body and affecting the physical, psychological and emotional homeostasis in the longer term impacting on the individual’s susceptibility and immunity. Here, Bechamp shines through and immunity being linked directly with the state of health in individuals. Taking these points into consideration it can be argued that vitality in health is indeed the natural state of immunity. Interestingly, another argument that needs to be considered against allopathic thought in vaccination is their belief in mutation and genus epidemicus at times of widespread symptom pictures. An epidemic is defined as a widespread occurrence of an infectious disease in a community at a particular time such as childhood measles and other illnesses and influenza. By taking the stance of herd immunity/ susceptibility, allopathic medical schools and the supporting pharmaceutical industries, create mass vaccination serums and programmes in order to ‘protect’ the communities from spread. A vaccine is defined as a substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity against one or several diseases. However, here the first flaw in my opinion is evident. The substance for instance does not necessarily mean the actual disease component being vaccinated against, but rather a changed, adapted or biological synthetic with added chemicals, with the theory that the immune response will mimic that of the true disease. How can it? Surely one’s body will respond in a different manner to specific organisms and therefore the response to the mainly artificial substances will be different again? Of note is the 2012/13 flu vaccine campaign leaflet that states, ‘Most people who have the flu vaccination will not get flu. However, like any vaccine, it does not give 100% protection.’_ Isn’t this the same as susceptibility and the soil as advocated by Bechamp and dismissed by allopathic medicine as it recognises the fact of individual susceptibility? Clinical Immunology also reflects such thinking as taught to doctors in training by stating that, ‘genetically controlled constitutional factors …..play a dominant role in influencing the vulnerability of a given individual to infection.’_ However, sadly these key aspects are lost and the only benefit of ignoring them are to those manufacturers and the medics who get paid per serum administration. Within vaccination theory, the concept of the mutation of the organism places the requirement for newer vaccines to be developed and the introduction of annual flu campaigns to ‘immunise’ against the strain of flu currently doing the rounds. I believe that such mutations do occur within organisms that cause disease and the MRSA bacteria is one such example. By over prescribing of antibiotics such Staphylococcus Aureus infections have become resistant to the drug treatment and mutated to avoid it taking an effect. Such vaccines, with their chemical and sometimes harmful components may cause further hybrid strains that do not respond to treatment as a result thus supporting the theory that pharmaceutical medicine causes mutation of the organisms they are meant to cure. Hahnemann discovered that during an epidemic, the symptom picture can be similar in characteristics. As long as the prescribing technique follows the ‘collation of symptoms of a number of cases during the epidemic being analysed to form an image of the disease in its entirety, a cure can be found by choosing a remedy that holds the greatest similarity to the characteristics of the complete disease image. If then found to be curative, it can be known to be the genus epidemicus of that particular epidemic._ Such a successful remedy can then be used as a prophylaxis or indeed vaccine to that epidemic for those who have not suffered the symptoms at that point. It is possible to conclude that although mutation of organisms can occur, it is the larger symptomology picture that matters in homeopathy, rather than the organism itself. This applied to childhood diseases such as measles that occur within the same geographical location could result in a more realistic curative programme and safer vaccination protocol than offered by doctors. Homeopathic Treatment during Epidemics As stated above the homeopathic treatment and vaccine regime would depend on the individual being treated or the wider picture of symptoms during an epidemic. Acute treatments can take the form of initial doses of 200c, however, individual susceptibility to remedies also needs to be considered. With a deep pathology picture, weak immune system or weak vitality commencing treatment with a 6c increasing to 30 on a regular basis would be of more benefit especially with a more physical symptomatic picture. Higher potencies beyond 200c would be more indicated when the direction of disease is affecting the psychological and emotional aspects more than the physical being. After speaking to some homeopaths regarding their prescribing methods during such epidemics the theme of a prophylactic remedy being given at 200c weekly occurred but with acute cases in children who’s vitality are usually strong, a prescription of 200c twice daily thus supporting the acute prescribing method above, however, the homeopath must take into consideration individual severity of symptoms being experienced. Homeopathic Treatment for NBWS Vaccination For someone who has never been well since vaccination a homeopath should assess the totality of symptoms presented with the patient they are treating. How is this affecting them on a physical. emotional and psychological level? What is the underlying miasmatic influence that is affecting their picture, curative possibilities with minimising return of symptoms experienced? The originating nosode (diseased tissue) remedy could be prescribed at a potency relating to the patient’s picture to treat on a like cures like basis or targeting the miasm identified. Some availability of the individual vaccines given in allopathic medicine are available in homeopathic form and these can be administered to counteract the negative impact it has had on the patient. Some detoxification homeopathic prescribing techniques have been used when the rubric. Vaccinations, reactions, ailments from is indicated. Remedies to support this include Thuja and Silica as key remedies. Conclusion Although the information contained in this assignment is from a personal position and possible bias needs to be noted, the evidence of homeopathic philosophy and treatment regimes is overwhelmingly in support of Bechamps’ original evolutionist view of toxicity of the soil rather than Pasteur’s germ theory, which it is reported that he retracted in support of Bechamp before he died. Through careful case taking or by applying techniques to identify the genus epidemicus, homeopathy can play an important part in the battle of disease and health. Should allopathic medicine adopt a more pure approach to vaccination for example, utilising the true organism instead of the addition of chemicals that have the potential to cause harm, then the concept of like cures like would be more evident in their practice and compliance with vaccination regimes could be increased. However, the current climate indicates that the debate will continue for some time. Until then , the homeopathic practice will continue to take cases of people affected by such allopathic regimes and will support the curative process homeopathic remedies brings with them through their clinics by taking in depth histories and prescribing to the totality of symptoms presented either on an individual basis or with larger groups when applying the genus epidemicus. Leaving the last words to Hahnemann, the founding father of Homeopathy, ‘it is only the pathologically untuned vital force that causes diseases.’_ and by careful, focussed homeopathic prescribing the vital force can be supported to become back in tune and restore vitality to its optimum high level and bring about health and immunity in its true meaning.