In answer to questions regarding preliminary study investigating vaccination detox using HDT

IMG_3345

“Honest disagreement is often a good sign of progress” . – Ghandi. 

After publishing the results of my preliminary study examining the effects of homeopathic vaccination detox, I have of course been bombarded by ranting indignation from the ‘scientific’ (and I use this term loosely) fraternity.  In general, these individuals aren’t wanting any intelligent debate.  Mainly they wish to abuse, belittle, and profanely state their rigid beliefs…

However, one Andrew King – of origins and credentials unknown, posted a lengthy ‘comment’ at the bottom of my blog post.

I felt compelled to answer his questions, given that he had taken the time to write such a voluminous list.  I am responding in the form of a blog post.  His text is italicised:

IN RESPONSE TO ANDREW KING

Dear Anna Rayner,

I was interested to read your preliminary study and I have a few questions about your methodology.

1. What was the condition you were treating? At no point do you specify what the participants in question were suffering from. It was merely asserted that a child’s ‘health issues’ were noticed by parents to be temporally related to administration of vaccines.

My answer: Given that the damaging effects of vaccines can be as varied as there are humans in existence, there is no ‘condition’ that exemplifies what the damage might be.  It could be chronic GI disturbance (see work of Andrew Wakefield et al)., it could be rapid decline into autistic spectrum disorder, it could be appearance of extreme atopic eczema or asthma, it could be appearance of severe anaphylactic allergies to certain proteins, hyperactivity, chronic infections, sleep disorders, tics, encephalitis….the list goes on. Therefore, I was simply looking to find participants who knew that following vaccination, their child’s health deteriorated.  That is to say, they suffered ‘vaccine damage’.  Because as much as science wants to belittle a parent’s ability to observe their child, they are not imbeciles and can observe a temporal link.  To deny the observations of millions of parents worldwide is baffling.  Where there is smoke, there is fire.

So the short answer to your question is:  I am measuring the efficacy of Homeopathic Detox Therapy (which applies several homeopathic methodologies at the same time) in improving the highly variable, chronic deleterious effects of vaccination.  As homeopathy works using mechanisms of healing that I’m almost certain you don’t believe in, the notion that it can stimulate a healing response will of course be anathema to you. You are entitled to your beliefs, as I am entitled to mine – hopefully with some modicum of respect for another person’s diametrically opposed viewpoint.

2. Which treatment were you testing? You specify at least three different treatments to be administered simultaneously. How can you say with any confidence which of these were responsible for any changes seen?

My answer: No, in fact I discuss one treatment:  HDT (homeopathic detox therapy) which comprises a combination of isotherapy, low potency organ support remedies and constitutional prescribing, making it more effective than classical homeopathy alone.

3. Why did you not use a control group? Surely the intention of a preliminary study is to work out if there is any benefit from the treatment compared with no treatment i.e. a placebo, or the best available treatment currently? How can you state this with any certainty without a control group?

My answer: Oh the irony.  Control groups.  What a lovely idea! Surely the manufacturers of vaccinations given to babies with immature immune systems should also be held up to this ‘gold standard’ of research?  How I wait impatiently for that day!

I beg for a longitudinal study spanning years, comparing ALL health outcomes in a group of vaccinated and unvaccinated children.  Until then, we cannot pretend to know the effects of vaccination on long-term health.  We certainly cannot deem them ‘perfectly safe’ a priori.  The very issue you have with my observational set of case studies, is EXACTLY the problem I have with the existing body of vaccination research.  There are no studies with control groups on actual human children examining the long-term effects of mass vaccination… I wonder – have you contacted them with ‘concerns’  as to their research flaws?  If you are a man of standing in the scientific community, perhaps you could do me the honour of bringing up this issue.

But to return to my own study, again: IT IS PRELIMINARY QUALITATIVE, CASE-STUDY BASED, OBSERVATIONAL RESEARCH.  If you are from a science background, you should doubtless be aware that there is no need for a control group at this phase of research.  It is purely used to generate hypotheses for further research.  In a follow-up study, of course it makes sense to have double-blind, randomised groups.  In doing this preliminary research, I now have a concrete design formulated of how to proceed to the next stage.  This is because I was able to formulate a robust design through conducting this PRELIMINARY investigation.

4. What method of administration was used? I am assuming that this was oral? When vaccines are usually delivered via intramuscular injection how can you say that your treatment enters the blood stream in the same way as the vaccines?

My answer:  I don’t remember saying that my treatment enters the blood stream in the same way as vaccination.  You have simply chosen to infer this.  In actuality, without you believing in the concept of sub-molecular energetic medicine (which homeopathy is), you are unlikely to believe in even the possibility of its efficacy.  Unless one is able to entertain the possibility that there may be treatments that work clinically, but yet are not fully understood by the current scientific model, this is likely to be a rather circular argument.  ‘Science’ these days seems more prone to throwing out clinical observations that contradict existing theories, rather than adjusting the model to integrate the new observations.  That is, to my mind, the death of scientific thinking.

5. Why were only qualitative methods used? You state that a quantitative survey was completed by some participants, why not all? How can you draw significant conclusions from verbally reported outcomes? You must have a way comparing outcomes across large groups of people which can only be done by collecting quantitative data.

My answer: The ATEC test was something I was only made aware of halfway through this preliminary study. This is why it is not consistent throughout. This is one of the many useful things I learned in this preliminary set of case studies.  Of course in future studies, I could employ the use of this test from the start, giving ‘data’ both before, and 6 months after treatment.  Although I have no doubt that the ATEC would be ripped apart as a ‘subjective measure’ and any clinical study thereon would be tossed onto a pile of ‘unscientific research’.

6. Where is the binding? In order to take an objective measurement, someone removed from both the study participant and the study itself must collect the data, otherwise how can you be sure that there is no bias in conclusions drawn from the measurements?

My answer: Excuse my ignorance, but I don’t know what you mean by binding… did you perhaps mean blinding?  Given that I am doing this alone, and just for my own clinical information, without funding, and with no other agenda than looking for treatments that work more effectively, I don’t have the luxury of assistants. In any respect, there is no need for blinding at this stage, as it is preliminary observational research aimed only at informing future hypotheses.

7. On what basis do you state that vaccines can cause ongoing harm in the body? What is your evidence for this claim? You state that “unresolved viral elements” can cause this harm, what are “unresolved viral elements”?

My answer: On the basis of the overwhelming evidence from millions of parents worldwide who know this to be the case.  And the evidence from the studies that haven’t yet been quashed by the FDA or MHRA.  And from the numerous clinical examples where we can observe the signs chronic infection which started immediately after vaccination, but which is deemed ‘unrelated’ by the powers that be.  Also, from the reports of the hundreds of cases that I have taken.  And from the blood tests measuring titers, serum Ig levels etc.  I hypothesise that this measurable ongoing immune dysfunction is a result of injecting multiple viruses into a baby in one day, along with heavy metals, formaldehyde, animal DNA, antibiotics, and many other ‘perfectly safe’ things that the manufacturers aren’t even obliged to put on the label because someone deemed them ‘perfectly safe’.  It’s hard not to be frustrated at this point – especially if you’re a scientist.  I sometimes wonder if so-called scientists are being deliberately obtuse.  It’s as if they have their fingers stuck in their ears whilst singing ‘la la la’ in order to block out the noise.

I do agree with you on one point….. there is a complete lack of scientific research on this subject, because no-one will fund it or carry it out.  It is an area no-one will touch with a bargepole for fear of career suicide.  It is criminal – an entire generation of people being unwitting guinea pigs, and suffering the consequences.  You must be aware of the epidemic rise of childhood developmental disorders?  Or perhaps you prefer a less likely explanation that doesn’t threaten your world view?  In my mind, sometimes it doesn’t hurt to go with the obvious hypothesis:

over-vaccination and over medicalisation of infants is dangerous and has long-term consequences on health outcomes.  

By all means, prove me wrong… run a study of the design I mention, examining vaccinated and unvaccinated children… I dare you.  Kill my hypothesis with actual data, not inferred supposition.  If you are right, there should be nothing to fear.

In the meantime, here are the studies in existence that show I might have a point:  Studies Showing the Links Between Vaccines and Autism

8. What happened to the “non-responders”? How do you know that the people that did not respond had bad outcomes? In scientific literature participants in a study that drop out have to be included in the analysis on what is known as the “intention to treat” principle. Otherwise, how do you know that all the people that did not complete the study didn’t drop out because they became ill, or did not gain any benefit from the treatment?

My answer: All people who were sent a pack were kept in email contact.  Many didn’t want to do the vaccination detox at the time of the study, as they were pursuing other treatments which they wanted to see out before they tried HDT.  As I wanted to continue with this preliminary phase in a given time-frame, I only used those who went ahead with the treatment immediately. I regularly still receive emails from the ‘non-participants’ who eventually got around to doing it, often with good results.  I had one-such email just last week.  Homeopathy cannot make you ‘ill’.  It serves only to catalyse the body’s own healing response. Sometimes there are aggravations from treatment, which are always temporary and usually result in gains nonetheless at the end of an 8 week round.

9. What is your action plan? A “preliminary” study, by its very name, suggests that this is a pilot study and the actual study will proceed incorporating the lessons learned from the preliminary study. What do you plan to do next to see if your treatment actually works?

My answer: I intend to run a more comprehensive study, utilising the ATEC, control groups, and a stricter selection criteria (ASD subjects only, age 5 and under).  However, conducting this research will depend on the support that I can receive from relevant funding bodies.  I am one person, with a busy practice and a young family, so my time is limited.  I will be sure to keep you posted.

I have many more questions but most of them could be gleaned from a GCSE science syllabus so I will wait for a response to the above points before delving any deeper into the design of your “study”.

My answer: Wow – your patronising, self-righteous tone is really designed to irk. But I am not irked.  Instead, I find compassion for your rigid, reductionist, arrogant and erroneous thinking regarding health, vaccinations, drugs, pharmaceutical companies, and true ‘scientific’ research – which I believe has been dying a slow and painful death for at least 100 years.  But you are welcome to your views, as I am mine.  After all, any ‘scientist’ that bothers to question The Establishment generally has a very short career, so I do understand your position.

I am all for homeopathic remedies being tested for efficacy but if you are going to enter the scientific arena by using words such as “study” you should be prepared for criticism of your design.

My answer: I don’t remember entering any arena.  Science does not own the word ‘study’.  Here is the definition of ‘study’, in case you aren’t familiar:

Study:  a detailed investigation and analysis of a subject or situation.  To look at closely in order to observe or read.

So Andrew, I hope I have sufficiently answered your questions.

I also wondered, if you a man of science, whether you could help me with my concerns over mass-vaccination.

  1. How can we know the long-term effects of vaccination on the immune and neurological systems, and overall health, when there is no research looking into this (ie. no studies examining long-term health of vaccinated vs unvaccinated groups) nb:  I am not talking about research funded by the manufacturers: this would be a clear conflict of interest, which I’m sure your rigorous scientific mind would also take issue with. I am talking about independent research.
  2. Why is there not informed consent of possible risks of vaccination?  Surely this is highly irregular – it contravenes any basic code of ethics.  Every parent should be made aware of the potential risks of vaccination when they present at the doctors.  These risks are blatantly published on the manufacturers’ websites, so why aren’t the parents of children receiving vaccinations told of these risks, including a transparent list of exactly what is in the vaccines?
  3. Do you not see any problems with injecting animal DNA directly into human beings?  Could it not go some way to explaining how diseases of animal origin suddenly crop up in humans in mutated form?  Surely it’s worth at least considering as a ‘hypothesis’?
  4. Why has there been inclusion of childhood vaccines in the schedule that are under-researched, have shown to be highly damaging, and that have been fast-tracked to market (e.g. Gardasil)?  Why have this vaccine in particular not been removed in the UK, as it has been in several other countries?
  5. Why is there inclusion of vaccines in the childhood schedule in many countries that are wholly inappropriate in a child setting (e.g Hep B)?
  6. Why are there still vaccines in the childhood/pregnancy schedule that contain mercury compounds (e.g. flu shot, anti D)?
  7. Why would anyone include a poorly researched vaccine for an entirely innocuous disease like chicken pox?  Surely a natural immune response is going to be far superior, without any negative side effects?
  8. Why is it not made clear that herd immunity cannot be achieved through vaccination?  The term is banded about liberally, but is impossible to achieve through vaccination.
  9. What about the Amish?? The elephant in the room?  A pre-existing group of unvaccinated children already exists, and for some reason, it’s considered a complete coincidence that there is no autism in this cohort….  ‘scientific’ explanation please?  (please don’t cite ‘correlation without causation’ as a reason.  I would be forced to point out that this also applies to the practice of vaccination…).

Further food for thought

To suggests parents are ‘wrong’ when they watch their child disappear before their eyes, is arrogant to the extreme.  To belittle people who are committed to trying to undo the damage of common medical practices is not the best use of a keen scientific mind. The days of doctors and scientists owning and controlling the narrative are extremely numbered.  There are many intelligent people out there who are all able to read and objectively consider evidence, just as you assume yourself to be.  And for those without the millstone of accepted dogma, the alarm bells are bellowing in our ears.  The evidence is deafening once you start behaving like a rational thinker, and begin to question, question, question.

I am going to hazard a guess that you are heavily invested in your ‘theory’ that I am a quack to be squashed with your superior ‘scientific’ knowledge. Maybe your beliefs link to your career, maybe your livelihood depends on them being ‘true’.  Therefore you forfeit the ability to be objective.  Luckily for me, I am not forced to accept dogma.  My quest is in seeking truth, and long-term health.  Uncovering the cover-ups of the pharmaceutical industry that are busy destroying the health of humanity, just to line the coffers.

I find it odd that the majority of people are still so impressed by the preffix ‘doctor’ – when in fact the information learned in any medical degree has virtually nothing to do with preventative medicine, health and healing.  Ask any medic how much time was dedicated to nutrition during their 6 year degree.  The answer is shocking.  Past the basics of A&P, it would seem the majority of a medical degree is spent on learning the various names of seemingly ’causeless’ syndromes, the application of drugs, their side effects, the drugs needed to deal with side effects, the drugs needed to get rid of the side effects of the drugs given to get rid of side effects….. It doesn’t seem particularly sophisticated or effective from where I stand.

I do not wish to dismiss every doctor in the land, but it is as if they were asked to teach Chinese after 6 years spent learning French.  Newsflash:  modern medicine isn’t working!  Having a beating heart isn’t the same as being healthy.   Just take a look at any list of chronic diseases… how many does modern medicine claim to ‘cure’, or even understand in terms of aetiology?

Until the mainstream throws away their current model and has a complete rethink of how to approach disease from a more holistic viewpoint we will continue to be in the dark ages of medicine.  Words cannot describe the sadness I feel when I know that autism (amongst many other disorders) could be eradicated almost overnight with certain changes to current medical practices.  But the solution is not economically alluring, so it is shouted down and rubbished.  What a great tragedy for the future generations, and for all the families today who have to deal with this life-long challenge.

I have no ‘agenda’.  I am simply a problem solver.   I refuse to carry on believing a theory just because I’m told to, or because to question it might be uncomfortable or invite prejudice. I prefer to look at evidence on both sides of the argument, and make up my own mind.  I invite you to do the same.

Kind regards,

Anna Rayner

No comments yet.

Leave a Reply