Sir, - In his July 4th letter comparing vaccination with homoeopathic treatment, Prof Denis G. Gill disseminated a not uncommon misunderstanding. The fact is that they are not alike and should not be confused.
Vaccination is the deliberate introduction of toxic material into the bloodstream, bypassing all the subtle levels of the immune system. The introduction of attenuated or killed viruses into the body has the objective of inducing immunity by causing the production of specific antibodies. However, research indicates that the disease products used in vaccination may have far deeper somatic and psychological consequences than simply to immunise against specific diseases. They may transpose aspects of pathology into overall systemic activity and thereby set in motion more intractable and exotic neurological disorders.
Homoeopathy is a system of healing which assists the natural tendency of the body to heal itself. Remedies - usually in the form of tablets which are allowed to dissolve in the mouth - work by stimulating the body's own healing power. There are no side effects. The more a homoeopathic remedy is diluted the more potent it becomes as a cure. This idea - the infinitesimal dose, as it is called - is a major stumbling block for the conventionally trained medical practitioner. Indeed, a common argument used against homoeopathy is that any beneficial outcome must be due to the placebo effect, since the remedy has virtually no material substance. Homoeopathy is based on a vitalistic principle more akin to Chinese than to conventional medicine.
In likening vaccination to homoeopathic treatment, it is unclear if Prof Gill was simply attempting to whitewash vaccination. In the event, however, he demonstrated his lack of understanding of the philosophy of homoeopathy. -Yours, etc., Myles Crowe,
Seapoint,
Co Dublin.