J. Compton Burnett and Vaccinosis
The next critical reference to vaccination came in the form of a small booklet entitled Vaccinosis by J. Compton Burnett, an iconoclastic British homeopath of the late 19th century. Here he raised, for the first time in the English homeopathic literature, the idea that vaccination can inculcate a disease state onto the vital force, which Burnett called "vaccinosis." He distinguished this from the well-known immediate reactions to vaccination, then known as "vaccinia." Burnett's views were based on articles in the German homeopathic journals which he read widely and fully credited (admirably following Hahnemann in his willingness to acknowledge intellectual debts). Burnett's ideas formed the basis of the homeopathic view of vaccination. In Burnett's time, as in Hahnemann's, vaccination meant the use of cowpox or attenuated smallpox. Burnett promoted the discoveries of German homeopaths such as Rummel, Boenninghausen, Grauvogel, Kunkel, and Goullon, who spoke of the ill-effects of smallpox vaccination and the use of Thuja to cure it. He credits Boenninghausen as the first to notice the homeopathicity of Thuja to smallpox, and Kukel and Goullon with using this observation to treat the ill-effects of vaccination.
Burnett was the first to forcefully state the dangers of vaccination, or the use of actual disease matter to try to protect against serious disease states. This zeal led to Burnett's castigation of Koch for his disastrous application of material doses of the tuberculosis germ. Koch was forced into exile in Egypt, where he proposed the use of a homeopathic potency of the germ, which he called Tuberculinum. For Burnett, vaccination generated a state of disease. This is due to the fact that it is pathogenic material. That it is given to protect does not detract from the fact that it is also disease-generating. If a vaccination works, then it does because it generates a response on the part of the vital force, on account of its homeopathicity to a latent weakness in the vital force.
This weakness is the sycotic miasm of Hahnemann, whose main remedy against it and gonorrhea was also Thuja. Burnett introduced the radical idea that the vaccine reaction, vaccinia, was not the sign of whether a vaccination had "taken," i.e., had been successful. Burnett argued that if the vital force mounted a strong response to the vaccination, through local reactions and fever, then the vital force was strong enough to fight it and the full natural disease. He also argued that if the person did not respond to the vaccination and the prophylaxis did not "take" it was because the vaccination had implanted itself on the vital force as a disease state, representing a serious condition leading to chronic problems he termed vaccinosis.
The vaccinated person is poisoned by the vaccine virus; what is called the 'taking' is, in point of fact, the constitutional re-action whereby the organism frees itself more or less from the inserted virus. If the person do [sic not 'take', and the VIRUS HAS BEEN ABSORBED, the 'taking' becomes a chronic process paresis, neuralgias, cephalalgias, pimples, acne, &c. The less a person 'takes', therefore (in such a case), the MORE is he likely to suffer from chronic vaccinosis, i.e., from the genuine vaccination disease in its chronic form, very frequently a neuralgia or paresis. (J. Compton Burnett, Vaccinosis, p. 22)
For Burnett, any protection afforded by vaccination could only be by the creation of a disease state rendering the vital force no longer susceptible, as it normally would be, to responding to the natural disease agent. And this "protection" comes at the cost of a deep grip on the internal economy: The vaccinate is one who is suffering from vaccinosis . . . it is his diseased condition that protects him from smallpox. . . . Hence I must call attention to what I believe is fact, viz.: that it often does take deep hold of the constitution without calling forth any local phenomenon. (Burnett, ibid, p. 20) Burnett also made several other important points regarding vaccination: Vaccination protection results in a decrease in the number of people catching the disease state (morbidity rate), but does not really change the rate at which people die from it (mortality rate). He argued this was due to the fact that the vaccination, which was a weaker form of the disease, only protected people who had a low susceptibility to the disease state and did not really protect those who were very susceptible.
Vaccination protection varies over time and according to dose. This means that epidemics will still occur with regularity. Vaccination is not homeopathy because homeopathy is a system of cure, not prevention, but that vaccination does operate on the principle of similars and, thus, can be more properly called "homeoprophylaxis." Vaccination as practised by Pasteur and Jenner, using material doses, will eventually end in disaster because it is temporary protection, does not individualize the dose, and brings long-term chronic consequences. Also, it will actually increase the mortality rate because in addition to the vaccinosis, if the person also catches the disease the prophylaxis was intended to prevent, he is more likely to die than if he had just caught the disease without the vaccination.
The only safe way to effect homeoprophylaxis is through potentisation of the disease agent. Burnett saw this as essential. He does not say, but seems to imply, that even homeopathic prophylaxis is temporary and reduced in time by the vital force re-asserting health.
Back to:
Vaccinosis
Homeopathy
Adverse Reactions
Vaccination
A to Z
The next critical reference to vaccination came in the form of a small booklet entitled Vaccinosis by J. Compton Burnett, an iconoclastic British homeopath of the late 19th century. Here he raised, for the first time in the English homeopathic literature, the idea that vaccination can inculcate a disease state onto the vital force, which Burnett called "vaccinosis." He distinguished this from the well-known immediate reactions to vaccination, then known as "vaccinia." Burnett's views were based on articles in the German homeopathic journals which he read widely and fully credited (admirably following Hahnemann in his willingness to acknowledge intellectual debts). Burnett's ideas formed the basis of the homeopathic view of vaccination. In Burnett's time, as in Hahnemann's, vaccination meant the use of cowpox or attenuated smallpox. Burnett promoted the discoveries of German homeopaths such as Rummel, Boenninghausen, Grauvogel, Kunkel, and Goullon, who spoke of the ill-effects of smallpox vaccination and the use of Thuja to cure it. He credits Boenninghausen as the first to notice the homeopathicity of Thuja to smallpox, and Kukel and Goullon with using this observation to treat the ill-effects of vaccination.
Burnett was the first to forcefully state the dangers of vaccination, or the use of actual disease matter to try to protect against serious disease states. This zeal led to Burnett's castigation of Koch for his disastrous application of material doses of the tuberculosis germ. Koch was forced into exile in Egypt, where he proposed the use of a homeopathic potency of the germ, which he called Tuberculinum. For Burnett, vaccination generated a state of disease. This is due to the fact that it is pathogenic material. That it is given to protect does not detract from the fact that it is also disease-generating. If a vaccination works, then it does because it generates a response on the part of the vital force, on account of its homeopathicity to a latent weakness in the vital force.
This weakness is the sycotic miasm of Hahnemann, whose main remedy against it and gonorrhea was also Thuja. Burnett introduced the radical idea that the vaccine reaction, vaccinia, was not the sign of whether a vaccination had "taken," i.e., had been successful. Burnett argued that if the vital force mounted a strong response to the vaccination, through local reactions and fever, then the vital force was strong enough to fight it and the full natural disease. He also argued that if the person did not respond to the vaccination and the prophylaxis did not "take" it was because the vaccination had implanted itself on the vital force as a disease state, representing a serious condition leading to chronic problems he termed vaccinosis.
The vaccinated person is poisoned by the vaccine virus; what is called the 'taking' is, in point of fact, the constitutional re-action whereby the organism frees itself more or less from the inserted virus. If the person do [sic not 'take', and the VIRUS HAS BEEN ABSORBED, the 'taking' becomes a chronic process paresis, neuralgias, cephalalgias, pimples, acne, &c. The less a person 'takes', therefore (in such a case), the MORE is he likely to suffer from chronic vaccinosis, i.e., from the genuine vaccination disease in its chronic form, very frequently a neuralgia or paresis. (J. Compton Burnett, Vaccinosis, p. 22)
For Burnett, any protection afforded by vaccination could only be by the creation of a disease state rendering the vital force no longer susceptible, as it normally would be, to responding to the natural disease agent. And this "protection" comes at the cost of a deep grip on the internal economy: The vaccinate is one who is suffering from vaccinosis . . . it is his diseased condition that protects him from smallpox. . . . Hence I must call attention to what I believe is fact, viz.: that it often does take deep hold of the constitution without calling forth any local phenomenon. (Burnett, ibid, p. 20) Burnett also made several other important points regarding vaccination: Vaccination protection results in a decrease in the number of people catching the disease state (morbidity rate), but does not really change the rate at which people die from it (mortality rate). He argued this was due to the fact that the vaccination, which was a weaker form of the disease, only protected people who had a low susceptibility to the disease state and did not really protect those who were very susceptible.
Vaccination protection varies over time and according to dose. This means that epidemics will still occur with regularity. Vaccination is not homeopathy because homeopathy is a system of cure, not prevention, but that vaccination does operate on the principle of similars and, thus, can be more properly called "homeoprophylaxis." Vaccination as practised by Pasteur and Jenner, using material doses, will eventually end in disaster because it is temporary protection, does not individualize the dose, and brings long-term chronic consequences. Also, it will actually increase the mortality rate because in addition to the vaccinosis, if the person also catches the disease the prophylaxis was intended to prevent, he is more likely to die than if he had just caught the disease without the vaccination.
The only safe way to effect homeoprophylaxis is through potentisation of the disease agent. Burnett saw this as essential. He does not say, but seems to imply, that even homeopathic prophylaxis is temporary and reduced in time by the vital force re-asserting health.
Back to:
Vaccinosis
Homeopathy
Adverse Reactions
Vaccination
A to Z