Vaccine Safety – Reply to Dr. Hariharan

By James Ong

Reproduced below is the text of my letter to Dr. Hariharan, after learning, with great surprise, that only two vaccines are really compulsory.  I am aware that when parents are enrolling their children into Primary One, the schools do check that the children have completed their vaccinations according to the National Childhood Immunisation Programme.  So, it’s getting complicated.  MoH says eight of the ten vaccines are not mandatory but MoE has the right, it appears, to refuse school enrolment for any child who did not complete all his vaccinations.  Does this mean that parents who refuse any or most of the other eight vaccines for their child have to home-school their kids or find a private school willing to take them?  There seems to be no justice in all this.

Dear Dr. Hariharan,

Thank you so much for your reply to my emails, on behalf of the Health Minister.

I am quite relieved that the PCV-7 and many other childhood vaccines are not compulsory in Singapore. It has renewed my faith that the Ministry of Health honors parents’ right of medical freedom. As I have stated in my first email, the prevention (PCV-7) appears to be more dangerous than the disease itself, based on the clinical trials and US VAERS data.

At the same time however, I am concerned that many parents in Singapore are not aware of their rights. Parents are routinely “coerced” into vaccinating their children according to the immunization schedule. I believe the general public is of the impression that they have to vaccinate their children with all the vaccines in the Childhood Immunization Program or risk certain repercussions.

I would like to offer the following feedback and suggestons which I hope the MoH will look into seriously:

1. MoH should publicly clarify in the local newspapers and on its website and the HPB’s website that only two vaccines – measles and diphtheria – are compulsory by law; the rest are entirely voluntary.

2. Parents should be made aware that they have a legal right to delay or postpone even compulsory vaccinations like measles and diphtheria. This can be covered in the same announcement stated in point one above.

3. Doctors, nurses and hospitals should not “coerce” or unduly influence parents into vaccinating their children with non-compulsory vaccines. I was told that newborns are not permitted to leave the hospital until the BCG and Hep B jabs are given. As far as I am aware, parents are hardly ever consulted whether they would agree to have their children vaccinated. The vaccines are just routinely given as if they were a must.

4. MoH should ensure that there is no discrimination by publicly-run schools or kindergartens against children who have not been vaccinated with the non-compulsory vaccines. It is my understanding that the MoE requires all the recommended vaccinations to be completed before a child can be enrolled into Primary One. I hope that the MoH and MoE can work together to ensure that no child is discriminated against just because of incomplete adherence to the recommended childhood vaccination schedule.

5. Parents should be given all the facts regarding the risks vs. benefits of each vaccine and asked to sign a consent form before the vaccine is given.

6. After any vaccine is given, parents should be advised to observe their child for at least 30 days to see if there are any adverse reactions and notify the HSA immediately (with a hotline number given) by means of a formal reporting system and to seek medical help if necessary. This advisory should be in the form of a printed handout. An online notification system should also be developed as soon as possible to facilitate online reporting. Parents should also be advised as to their legal right to claim damages should there be a serious adverse reaction following vaccination. Who is responsible? The clinic, vaccine supplier or the MoH?

7. Since only the measles and diphtheria vaccines are compulsory, MoH should ensure that single vaccines for measles and diphtheria are available at all polyclinics and private clinics, to meet the demand by parents for these single vaccines. I feel that parents should not be forced to have their children vaccinated with 3-in-1s like MMR and DtaP just because there are no alternatives?

8. MoH should put in more effort to educate parents on how to build their children’s immunity, beyond just a balanced diet, sleep, exercise and personal hygiene. The officers responsible for infectious disease policy and control should read books like “Beyond Antibiotics” by Dr. Michael Schmidt and “Herbal Antibiotics” by Stephen Harrod Buhner and then teach the public how to prevent infectious diseases through all natural means possible and improve the chances of a speedy, uncomplicated recovery should their child succumb to the disease, by fortifying the immune system. This should apply to all the other diseases now covered by the Childhood Immunization Program – mumps, rubella, tetanus, polio, Hep B, etc.

9. MoH should evaluate the use of natural medicines for the treatment of infectious diseases in light of the growing resistance of many types of pathogenic bacteria to antibiotics and the threat of dengue fever, HFMD, chikungunya disease, H5N1 bird flu, H1N1 swine flu and SARS. It is an accepted medical fact that many antibiotics are fast becoming powerless against drug-resistant bacteria.

10. MoH should rename the “National Childhood Immunization Program” as the “National Childhood Vaccination Program” because vaccination is not synonymous with immunization. People should not be complacently led to believe that they are immune from a disease just because they have been vaccinated against it. Vaccines are not 100% effective and do not confer lifelong immunity. For instance, a child can still be infected with invasive pneumococcal disease caused by other strains of bacteria not covered in the PCV-7.

Further to the above, I would like to request MoH to provide answers to the following questions:

1. Why the oral polio vaccine is still being given when it has already been replaced in many countries by the injectable form which is safer. Oral polio vaccine was responsible for causing several cases of polio in the West.

2. Are there still any routine childhood vaccines that contain thimerosal or ethylmercury as preservatives (these have been banned in many Western countries)?

3. If all childhood vaccines are thimerosal- or ethylmercury-free now, when were they removed from childhood vaccines? MoH should provide a timetable showing the dates they were removed.

4. In view of almost universal coverage for the BCG, Hep B, MMR and DtaP vaccines, why are there still significant numbers of cases of tuberculosis, measles, hepatitis B, mumps, rubella and pertussis in Singapore each year?

Finally I wish to personally testify that I have not consumed a single antibiotic, antiviral or medical drug (except for an antifungal medication once for a bad foot fungal infection) over the last eight years. I am confident that thousands of Singaporeans who know how to support their immune system naturally also share the same experience. I am pleased to enclose herewith several papers showing the power of natural medicines such as elderberry, zinc, vitamin C, oregano, cumin, sage and cinnamon against viral and bacterial pathogens for your review. There is evidence that such natural medicines are also effective against HFMD, dengue fever, chikungunya disease, chicken pox and rubella.

Best regards,

I await Dr. Hariharan’s reply.  It looks like parents may have to address their concerns to the Ministry of Education as well.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Reply from the Ministry of Health – Vaccine Safety

By James Ong

The day following my second letter of appeal, Dr. Hariharan Subramony sent me a reply on behalf of the Minister for Health.  Reproduced below is the full content of the letter:

Dear Mr Ong

We refer to your email to Mr Khaw Boon Wan, Minister for Health, dated 19 Nov in which you raised various points on vaccine safety. We thank you for your feedback, and would like to provide the following information.

The National Childhood Immunisation Programme is a recommended schedule of vaccinations for infants and young children aimed at preventing dangerous diseases which may result in significant morbidity or mortality. These diseases include diptheria, measles, mumps, rubella, pertussis, tetanus, poliomyelitis, hepatitis B, tuberculosis and pneumococcal disease. The safety and efficacy of a vaccine is reviewed by MOH’s Expert Committee on Immunisation before a decision is made to include that vaccine in the NCIP.

With respect to this statement in your email : “…….there has been no response from your Ministry regarding the concerns raised about the decision to make pneumococcal vaccination compulsory for all children under the age of five”,

we would like to clarify that of the vaccinations included in the NCIP, only 2 (measles and diptheria) are compulsory. The remaining vaccinations, including pneumococcal conjugate vaccine (PCV), are recommended, but are not compulsory by law.

Possible side-effects after PCV vaccination include reactions at the injection site (eg pain, redness, swelling) and fever. These are generally self-limiting. So far, no serious reactions have been causally linked to this vaccine. In Holland, authorities have banned a batch of Prevnar following the deaths of 3 babies who received Prevnar. However, a definite link between the use of Prevnar and the deaths has not been established, and other batches of Prevnar continue to be used in Holland. In Singapore, adverse reactions to vaccines are monitored by the Health Sciences Authority (HSA). If there is any evidence to suggest that a vaccine is unsafe, HSA and MOH will provide appropriate guidance.

Invasive pneumococcal disease is a serious disease. Between 2000 and 2008, there were a total of 157 deaths from invasive pneumococcal disease in Singapore, of whom 5 were under the age of 5 years. Neurologic sequelae may occur among those who survive. Vaccination against pneumococcal aims to minimise the mortality and morbidity associated with the disease. Nonetheless, no vaccine can be guaranteed to be 100% effective or to be totally free of side-effects. The decision whether or not to vaccinate a child with PCV should be made in consultation with a medical practitioner, and an understanding of the risks associated with the disease, and the potential risk of vaccine-related adverse reactions.

Regards

In Dr. Hariharan’s own words, no vaccine can be guaranteed to be 100% effective or to be totally free of side effects.  Parents beware!  What came as a real surprise to me and I am sure, to many parents as well, is that only two vaccines are compulsory by law – measles and diphtheria.  You will get fined if you do not vaccinate your child with these two vaccines.  The fine can be as high as $10,000 and could carry jail sentences as well.  The rest of the ten vaccines are only recommended.  I wonder how many parents are aware of this.  Isn’t it true that children are routinely vaccinated with all the prescribed vaccines according to schedule?  I doubt parents are ever told their rights and asked if they would like to postpone or refuse any vaccines for their children.  So I wrote another letter, this time addressed directly to Dr. Hariharan.  This will be in the next post.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

An Appeal for Vaccine Sanity – Second Letter

By James Ong

Here is the second letter that I sent to the Minister for Health, Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, after having waited for seven days without reply:

Dear Minister Khaw,

I am rather concerned that despite my email of November 12 (sent a week ago), there has been no response from your Ministry regarding the concerns raised about the decision to make pneumococcal vaccination compulsory for all children under the age of five. As the safety of innocent babies are at stake here, I would expect the Ministry to respond swiftly to these queries.

A recent special report by Generation Rescue (USA) revealed that countries that have fewer mandatory vaccines have much lower rates of autism. It is pertinent that Iceland and Sweden, which lead the world in under-five mortality rates, have far fewer mandatory vaccines than the USA, UK, Australia and New Zealand (countries cited by the Ministry as partial support for the decision to introduce compulsory pneumococcal vaccinations here). A copy of the report is enclosed.

Also enclosed is a document of the findings by the US House of Representatives Subcommittee hearings on vaccines and their risks. There is strong evidence that vaccines are responsible for epidemic levels of autism in the USA and other developed countries.

Autism now affects roughly 1 in 600 children in Singapore today. It is the leading cause of disability among children here. Has the MoH ever considered that vaccinations could have contributed to this problem and conduct a thorough investigation into the causes?

As all vaccinations carry risk of injury (despite what the MoH says), parents should be given all the facts – the scientific studies relied upon, the declaration of any potential conflicts of interest among the panel of experts, risk-benefit analyses done, etc. In the USA, investigations have revealed that the experts that sit on immunization committees do, on occasion, have links with manufacturers of vaccines or stand to gain financially if the vaccines were approved for mass use, which may have influenced their decisions.

The Expert Committee presupposes that a vaccine such as Prevnar is the only weapon in preventing this disease. That is because they received their training only in conventional medicine. In truth, many knowledgeable parents know that if they breastfeed their babies for 6-12 months, feed their children with nutritious foods and fortify their diets with supplements (cod liver oil, multivitamins/minerals, probiotics, colostrum); do not send them to daycare centers at a young age, and exercise good hygiene and sanitation at home, their children are at a very low risk of contracting invasive pneumococcal infection. These parents should not be forced to vaccinate their children.

All parents do have a constitutional right of life and personal liberty and religious freedom to choose what is best for their children. The right to make an informed choice/refusal is a universally-accepted medical ethic.

I do look forward to hearing from your Ministry soon regarding this matter.

Meanwhile, I urge that healthcare policy makers watch this video documentary, Vaccine Nation, that dispels the myth that vaccines are safe or is the answer for control of infectious diseases:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6531447125053615129&ei=trAES5SNM5S8wgP82LmICg&q=Vaccine+Nation#

Another important video is “Vaccines: What the CDC Documents and Science Reveal” by Dr. Sherri J. Tenpenny. It is available from www.amazon.com.

Best regards,

You can get a copy of the Generation Rescue Special Report and Report of the US House of Representatives Subcommittee on Human Rights and Wellness Hearing (which lasted three years) by going to:

http://www.generationrescue.org/documents/SPECIAL%20REPORT%20AUTISM%202.pdf

http://www.generationrescue.org/pdf/burton.pdf

You will learn about the dangers of mercury in vaccines; yet children were routinely injected with thimerosal-laden vaccines until 2002, when most of the children’s vaccines became mercury-free.  Most flu vaccines still contain thimerosal.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

An Appeal for Vaccine Sanity

By James Ong

In late October 2009, the Ministry of Health (MoH) announced that it had adopted the recommendation of the Expert Committee on Immunisation and included pneumococcal vaccination as the tenth vaccine in the National Childhood Immunisation Programme.  Parents can draw on their Medisave, Baby Bonus or Child Development Account to pay for the three shots of vaccines, which will cost them slightly over $500 in total.  As the announcement is silent on whether parents have the right to opt out of the vaccine, I was rather concerned that children are now to be given a total of 16 shots by the time they are two.  Vaccines have been implicated in the dramatic rise in autism and neurological and learning disorders seen in children around the world.  Further, vaccines have been known to cause severe adverse reactions, even death and permanent disability.  By the way, it should be borne in mind that the money in parents’ Medisave, Baby Bonus and Child Development Accounts are their money.  So, it is as if the MoH wants you to vaccinate your children but you have to pay for them!  This is the same scenario with the Hepatits B vaccine, which costs roughly the same amount.  I did some investigations on the incidence and severity of invasive pneumococcal disease (PD) in Singapore and the risks versus benefits of the current PCV-7 vaccine (the number 7 indicates that is meant to deal with only 7 strains of bacteria that causes invasive PD), which carries the trade name Prevnar.  What I found shocked me and you will find out why by reading the letter below.

I therefore wrote an appeal letter to the Minster for Health, Mr. Khaw Boon Wan, asking him to make the vaccine entirely voluntary.  Reproduced below is the letter in its entirety:

Dear Minister Khaw,

It is regrettable that the Ministry of Health has made pneumococcal vaccination compulsory for all children under the age of 5. This makes a total of 15 vaccine shots by the time a child is two.

Based on the Ministry of Health’s (MOH) own studies, the incidence of hospitalization for invasive pneumococcal infection is below 0.04 percent for children below five. For children aged 5-14, it is 0.0124 percent. Since 2000, there have been only seven deaths (less than one a year).

The only large-scale clinical trial on the Prevnar pneumococcus vaccine, involving some 17,000 children, resulted in at least 12 deaths. Side effects included seizures, irritability, high fevers, vomiting, swelling and anaphylactic shock.

Since the vaccine’s introduction in the US, there have been more than 28,000 adverse events reported, more than 12,000 of which were serious, including 558 deaths, 555 life-threatening situations and 238 permanent disabilities (as of November 11, 2009). Evidently, the prevention is more deadly than the disease!

Recently, 3 babies died in Holland within two weeks of receiving the Prevnar vaccine, causing the Dutch health authorities to ban the particular batch of vaccines used.

Moreover, Prevnar covers only seven types of bacteria. With vaccination, more people are now affected by about 80 other types of bacteria that cause pneumonia. There will be greater problems ahead.

Vaccines are being made compulsory by heath authorities because antibiotics are no longer effective, as the overuse of antibiotics (in medicine and farming) has led to bacteria developing antibiotic resistance. Conventional medicine is fast running out of options, yet doctors and the MOH do not explore safer, natural alternatives: breastfeeding, good diet, exercise, sunshine, fresh air, sleep, hygiene and sanitation (in homes and childcare centers), dietary supplements, herbs and aromatic essential oils.

According to the WHO and UNICEF, the best solution to infectious diseases is an adequate diet (for infants, that includes breastfeeding) with good sanitation and hygiene. In many third world countries, Vitamin A, zinc and iron supplements have achieved excellent results in combating infection.

I need to reiterate that all of the above assertions and statements are based on either reliable media reports or the scientific literature.

We need greater transparency. How were the members of the Expert Committee on Immunization selected? Have they any financial ties (present or previous) to pharmaceutical companies that manufacture vaccines, e.g. research grants, Board positions, etc? What are the studies they relied on? Have they considered why other industrialized countries have not made the vaccine compulsory? Will the ministry be setting up an independent agency to monitor adverse effects of the vaccine?

Children are gifts from the Divine, not the offspring of the State. Compulsory vaccinations deny parents their Divinely-given and fundamental human right to choose what is best for their children. This, I feel, is morally irresponsible, especially when the recommendations are based on shadowy science and the vaccine subjects their children to a measurable level of risk of serious injury or even death. The vaccine is freely available to the public and they can use their Baby Bonus or Medisave to pay for it. Why not just keep it that way?

Finally, I need to point out too that there is no universal consensus among scientists on the value of vaccinations in the prevention of infectious diseases. There is however overwhelming consensus that proper nutrition, clean drinking water, food safety, hygiene and sanitation have done more to prevent the spread of such diseases than vaccines. And for this, we have to thank our civil engineers, food safety and environmental health officers.

I therefore urge the Minister to call for a comprehensive review of the decision to make the pneumococcal vaccine compulsory.

Best regards,

I waited for a week and did not receive any reply from the Minister.  So I followed up with a second letter, as a chaser.  Please see the next post for the contents of the second letter.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Defeating Disease: How the Bible Can Help

By Douglas S. Winnail

World leaders are realizing that medicines, money, research and legislation cannot by themselves win the battle against disease. As we face global plagues and deadly new diseases, can we find in the Bible a prescription for true health?

The history of the human race is the story of an endless struggle against disease. We declare war on cancer and heart disease—yet they remain leading causes of death. Mammoth efforts were expended to eradicate malaria—a disease that helped topple the Roman Empire—yet it is returning with a vengeance. Citizens of the world are urged to fight against AIDS—yet this new disease is ravaging nations and destroying lives around the globe.  Billions of dollars are spent annually in the battle against disease, but the problems continue to grow. Is there something we have failed to see?

     As a new millennium dawns, leaders in government and the medical community are beginning to realize that medicines, money, research and legislation alone cannot win the battle against disease. Winning the battle will require utilizing every tool available—and learning more effective ways to address problems. The situation we face on a global scale is serious. Old plagues once thought conquered are reemerging. Deadly new diseases are appearing. Health systems in many nations are deteriorating under the strain of burgeoning populations and limited financial resources. While the cry of “health for all” appears a noble and attainable goal, Dr. Gro Harlem Brundtland, director-general of the World Health Organization, acknowledges that “it remains elusive”—an illusion that keeps slipping over the horizon (Foreign Policy, Jan-Feb 2002, p. 25).
     Perhaps it is time to ask: Why have we failed to win the battle against disease? Have real solutions been ignored? Can religion play a fundamental role in this crucial struggle? Did a loving and all-wise Creator reveal fundamental concepts that would revolutionize our approach to health? Does the Bible contain practical principles that could effectively eliminate the incredible burden of sickness that plagues the world?

A Global Curse

     In the early 1900s, infectious diseases were the leading causes of suffering and death in America and Europe. With improved sanitation and the introduction of antibiotics, these plagues were significantly reduced, but new killers have emerged. Today in America 725,000 people die annually from heart disease, and about 540,000 die from cancer. While these diseases kill less than 1 percent of the population, the suffering and pain inflicted is real—and the financial burden is huge. Americans spend more than $1 trillion a year treating disease! Yet to really grasp the curse of disease we need a global perspective.
     Outside the developed world, we see a sobering picture, as infectious diseases ravage incredible numbers of people. In Africa, Central and South America, the Middle East, Southeast Asia and the Western Pacific, preventable and curable diseases like diarrhea, respiratory disease, tuberculosis and malaria kill more than 13 million people a year—with children taking the hardest hit. However, the number of people who live with and suffer from these diseases is almost mind-boggling!
     Between 300–500 million people contract malaria each year. Every day 3,000 children die of malaria—mostly in sub-Saharan Africa. Tuberculosis (endemic in much of Africa and Southeast Asia) is spreading rapidly in Russia and Eastern Europe. In the next 20 years, tuberculosis will infect one billion new people and kill 35 million. AIDS is rapidly becoming the greatest threat to health, economic development and national stability in many African and Asian countries. More than 2.5 billion people are at risk from mosquito-borne Dengue fever in tropical and sub-tropical countries. There are 50 million cases and 25,000 Dengue-related fatalities each year. More than 60 million are exposed to sleeping sickness and about 500,000 contract the disease each year. Five hundred million are at risk for schistosomiasis (bilharzia, snail fever) and 200 million are afflicted. Intestinal worm infections plague one half of the human race—three billion people. More than 146 million suffer from bacteria-transmitted trachoma that has left six million blind. More than 120 million people are at risk for onchocerciasis (river blindness) and 18 million are infected annually. Measles infects 30 million and kills nearly a million each year. Leprosy still disables between one and two million people (WHO Fact Sheets at www.who.int).
     Tragically, the heaviest burden of infectious disease falls on the poorest, least-developed countries of the world. Many of these countries are also burdened with crushing debt, crumbling infrastructures, and rampant corruption (see World Press Review, October 2001, pp. 3–15), and are simply unable to deal with such horrendous problems—so people continue to suffer under the global curse of disease. A British colonial physician once wrote that “the great mass of Africa… has carried a more grievous burden of disease than any other region of the world… the present inhabitants of tropical Africa host a wider variety of human parasites than any other people” (Bid the Sickness Cease, Ransford, 1983, pp. 7, 13). In some regions of tropical Africa, 60–90 percent of the population carries parasites. To eliminate this agonizing burden of disease, we must understand and address the true causes of the problem.

Causative Factors

     For many, the solution to the problem of infectious disease is finding more money to buy medications and establish clinics to deliver treatments. This alleviates suffering by treating the symptoms—but does not address the underlying causes of the problem. That is why the World Health Organization and the United Nations have focused on breaking the “vicious cycle of poverty, ignorance and disease.” Most infectious diseases that plague developing countries are associated with poverty—crowded, unsanitary living conditions, lack of clean water, failure to properly dispose of human waste and garbage, lack of protection against disease-bearing insects (window screens, mosquito nets, repellants and insecticides). People living in poverty and governments strapped for cash simply do not have access to, or cannot provide, these health-promoting means (see World Press Review, June 2001, pp. 3–15).
     Ignorance also plays a critical role. People living in poor rural areas often do not know that mosquito bites and tsetse flies transmit disease. Countless millions do not realize that sexual activity and injecting street drugs can transmit AIDS. Many who do not understand disease transmission use water from streams, lakes and waterholes contaminated by human and animal wastes—because it is the only water available. Unknowing consumption of animals and other organisms that transmit diseases is also a factor in contracting serious illnesses. Close contact with sick people and their personal items and traveling to and from disease-ridden areas aids the spread of disease.
     Motivation is a critical factor in promoting health and preventing disease. Many know what to do to avoid becoming sick, yet do not act accordingly. People smoke in spite of warnings that smoking causes cancer. Many eat diets rich in fat and calories in spite of warnings that such diets lead to heart disease, cancer and diabetes. Many know that hands should be washed carefully after urinating or defecating and before preparing or eating food, but simply do not do it. Changing individual behavior is a major challenge in the battle against disease. These fundamental issues must be addressed before the burden of sickness will be lifted and the battle against disease will be won.

A New Perspective

     But how do you banish ignorance? How do you change human behavior? How do you motivate people to think and act differently? How can you eliminate disease and consequences of poverty without money? These are generally not areas of expertise for medical doctors, health planners, government ministers and economists—yet finding answers in these areas is critical to lifting the burden of disease. Education obviously must play a major role in banishing ignorance. What a person believes is a major factor in motivating behavior change. Addressing the consequences of poverty and eliminating disease without money will require rethinking how we tackle the problem. We must find ways to impact large numbers of people without building more schools, hiring more teachers or putting more people on government payrolls. We need to ask—is there anyone already positioned who is capable of doing the job?
     Believe it or not, religious leaders occupy an ideal position for eliminating ignorance and promoting behaviors that can defeat disease. Religious leaders have regular weekly contact with large numbers of people—usually all age groups. They promote values that influence personal behavior. Many are already paid by a private organization. The major problem is that religious leaders have not been prepared to function in this vital role of preventing disease and promoting health. In fact, many religious leaders are simply unaware of the powerful potential of their position. Most government, clergy and medical personnel assume the primary role of religion is to comfort the sick and console the bereaved. While this is helpful, it overlooks a God-intended role for religious leaders that is clearly outlined in the Bible.

Biblical Principles

     The Bible states that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning [starting point] of knowledge” (Proverbs 1:7). When we look to Scripture for instructions about health, it is remarkable what our Creator has revealed. God told the ancient nation of Israel that it could avoid the curse of disease if it obeyed His commandments and statutes (Exodus 15:26). The commandments of God recorded in the Bible contain powerful tools designed to prevent disease and promote health. Sadly, many theologians assume these instructions no longer apply today—and ignore them. Because of this mistaken belief, most people—the medical community included—are unaware of the potential contribution biblical religion could make in the field of public health.
     The Bible reference to clean and unclean animals is no secret. Yet many assume these ancient dietary regulations are no longer relevant and that Christians have been liberated from “outdated” restrictions. Such assumptions thrive because theologians do not understand the reasons for, or the benefits of, these instructions. Commentaries often spiritualize away these important laws. However, in its comments on Leviticus 14:1, the Expositor’s Bible Commentary states: “Priests were public health officers in addition to their religious role.” Religious leaders in ancient Israel taught people not to eat unclean animals (Leviticus 11; Deuteronomy 14). Many of these animals carry disease-causing organisms. Eating undercooked flesh of pigs, bears, rabbits, dogs and horses can transmit tularemia and trichinosis to humans (see Control of Communicable Diseases Manual, Benenson, 1995). All shellfish are considered unclean. Crayfish and lobsters are scavengers that feed on dead organisms that can transmit disease. Filter-feeding clams and oysters concentrate viruses that cause hepatitis and paralytic or neurotoxic shellfish poisoning (ibid.). Liver fluke infections are common where raw fish and crayfish are widely consumed. These diseases can be prevented by not eating foods the Bible calls “unclean”—which is cheaper and more effective than treating disease.
     Biblical admonitions also include avoiding contact with animals that have died or with whatever has touched them (see Leviticus 11:32–40). Porous earthen vessels, potentially contaminated, were to be destroyed to avoid spreading disease. These biblical regulations are consistent with sound microbiological techniques, and are fundamentally important in fighting infectious disease. It was the priests’ job to teach and explain these laws. Priests were to designate as unclean those who had contagious diseases characterized by skin rashes, such as leprosy, measles, smallpox and scarlet fever. Such individuals were to be isolated from others to prevent the spread of disease (see Leviticus 13). These biblical guidelines are the basis of medically sound quarantine procedures that have been used for centuries. Bible guidelines include avoiding contact with personal items of sick people that could transmit germs (Leviticus 13:47–59). Contaminated items were to be washed or burned (which destroys microorganisms). Biblical health instructions even applied to dwellings—mold or fungal growth had to be scraped off, or a house would be quarantined or demolished. Cracks, which harbor ticks and other disease-bearing bugs, were to be plastered (Leviticus 14:33–48). The priest functioned as both a public health educator and a building inspector, to promote health and prevent disease.
     The Bible acknowledges that body fluids can be a vehicle for transmitting disease (Leviticus 15). Contact with human waste materials, nasal discharges, tears, saliva and other fluids, or contact with soiled towels or linen, can spread infectious disease. Trachoma—a leading cause of blindness—is spread by contact with soiled hand towels and eye-seeking flies. Those coming into contact with fluids from a sick person had to wash their hands and clothes in water, bathe, and remain isolated from other people until evening as a precaution against spreading disease (Leviticus 15:11). Men and women were to bathe after having sexual relations (Leviticus 15:18). The purpose of these sanitary laws was to promote health and prevent disease (Leviticus 15:31). They were not just ceremonial rituals.
     One of the most practical and powerful biblical admonitions states that when people dwell together, human wastes are to be deposited outside the living area and buried (Deuteronomy 23:12–14). This prevents waste materials from coming in contact with people, flies and other organisms that transmit disease. It also prevents the contamination of water supplies. Many diseases, such as diarrhea, dysentery, hookworm, roundworms, cholera and typhoid, result from contact with human waste. Wearing shoes and not using human waste as fertilizer are also important preventive measures. The sanitary disposal of human waste, and access to clean water, are two of the most important ways of preventing disease (see Water and Dirt—matters of life and death, World Health Forum, 1997, Vol. 18, pp. 266–268). One physician stated that if these two goals could be achieved, nearly 75 percent of Africa’s diseases would disappear! God instructed Israel’s religious leaders to promote these goals—to protect health and to provide an example for other peoples (Deuteronomy 4:1–8). Sadly, modern religious leaders have failed to grasp the importance of their God-given role in promoting behaviors that defeat disease.
     The Bible also takes a strong stand against adultery, fornication, homosexuality and other unhealthy sexual activities (Leviticus 18). Sex outside marriage is labeled a sin, and in many cases was punishable by death in Old Testament times (see Leviticus 20:10–13). In sharp contrast to the modern notion that unrestricted sexual activity is liberating, the Bible pointedly states that “whoever commits adultery… lacks understanding” (Proverbs 6:32), and that sexually promiscuous people sin against their own bodies (1 Corinthians 6:16–18). Public policies like this—promoted by religious leaders and backed by civil authority—were designed to prevent the spread of sexually transmitted diseases—including AIDS. Those who downplay this effective approach are helping to foster epidemic diseases. An “ounce of prevention is [still] worth a pound of cure”—and is much less expensive in dollars and lives! This was the biblical message religious leaders were to convey—but it is a message often ignored today!
     The clear thrust of many biblical principles is to prevent problems before they arise. Proverbs 22:3 states that “a prudent man foresees evil and hides himself, but the simple pass on and are punished.” From a public health perspective many diseases can be prevented—saving money and lives—by taking wise precautions ahead of time. Malaria can be prevented by installing screens on doors and windows, using mosquito nets, insect repellants, wearing protective clothing and eliminating breeding sites for mosquitoes—in standing water, old tires and garbage dumps. The sanitary disposal of human and animal waste prevents contact with people, flies and other organisms that can spread disease. Sexually transmitted diseases—including AIDS—can be prevented by obeying biblical instructions. That is why God instructed religious leaders to promote these behaviors.

The Coming Restitution

     One of the tragic consequences of the modern separation of church and state has been the loss of an important alliance between civil and religious leaders in the struggle to defeat disease and promote health. Doctors and theologians often become antagonists working within the confines of their separate disciplines. As a result of this split, religious leaders have failed to perceive or perform an important role. Dr. Richard Muga, Director of Medical Services in Kenya, commented in an interview that religious leaders can do much to lift the burden of disease. He made the remarkable observation that “perhaps churches do not know what they should be doing” and that “someone needs to remove the blindness.”
     The facts of history and Bible prophecy attest to the accuracy of Dr. Muga’s astute assessment. Scripture indicates that Satan has deceived the whole world (Revelation 12:9), and that leaders are often blind to obvious solutions (Isaiah 56:9–10; Matthew 15:14). Blindness can result from mistaken assumptions. Modern theologians do not understand their God-given role in preventing disease and promoting health, because of events that occurred early in Church history. As the number of Gentile Christians increased, pressures mounted to make a clear distinction between Christianity and Judaism. Arguments were devised discouraging observance of the Sabbath, Holy Days and biblical health laws (see From Sabbath to Sunday, Bacchiocchi, 1995, chapter 2). Scholars called these practices burdens, intended only for Jews, and claimed that Jesus “nailed these regulations to the cross” as no longer relevant. Yet in fact, Jesus instructed His disciples to keep even the least of God’s commandments (Matthew 5:17–19; John 14:15), and taught that our sins—not God’s laws—were nailed to the cross (Colossians 2:13–14), when Jesus was made “to be sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21). Scripture further teaches that Paul’s writings would be twisted out of context (2 Peter 3:16), and that a time is coming when the whole world will learn to live by the laws of God (see Jeremiah 31:31–33; Ezekiel 11:14–20; 36:24–27; Zechariah 14).
     The Bible reveals that while the “whole creation groans” (Romans 8:18–23), a “restitution of all things” lies just ahead (Acts 3:19–21). Jesus Christ will return to Earth to establish the kingdom of God, and God’s law will be proclaimed to the whole world from Jerusalem (Isaiah 2:2–4; 9:6–7). In this coming world-ruling government, Church and state will be reunited (Revelation 5:10). During this millennial period, Jesus Christ and the saints will teach people to obey the laws and statutes of God (Isaiah 30:20–21). The burden of suffering will be lifted. The battle against sickness will be won, and disease will begin to disappear (Isaiah 35:5–6; Jeremiah 30:17). While this sounds incredible today, it is part of the gospel—the good news of what the future holds!
     In tomorrow’s world, the blindness that has obscured the true role of biblical religion will be removed (Isaiah 42:7). Religious leaders, in partnership with health professionals, will defeat disease and promote health—using biblical educational principles—backed by God’s supernatural power (Revelation 11:15–18). Leaders today who have the vision and courage to structure health policies around a sound biblical model will ride the crest of a wave that is destined to sweep over the earth in the years just ahead. Anyone brave enough to examine the Bible will find that it challenges assumptions that have blinded generations, and can play a vital role in defeating disease!

 

Copyright © 2009 Tomorrow’s World

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Diseases Don’t Just Happen

Posted by James Ong

I encourage everyone to watch this series of videos about the true causes of almost all chronic, degenerative diseases, presented by Dr. Lorraine Day, a former Associate Professor of Orthopedic Surgery, who recovered from advanced stage breast cancer 17 years ago without chemotherapy or radiation:

Part 1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8L0Fb5ybcg

Part 2herald_2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xloV0S-26Q&feature=related

Part 3
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gg1kMoMIyo&feature=related

Part 4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HDdFt7u-nTk&feature=related

Part 5
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aRavEIEwlc&feature=related

Part 6
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezjmxYSZw2w&feature=related

Part 7
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ezjmxYSZw2w&feature=related

For the rest of the 14 part video, just follow the screen directions when you are in YouTube and click on the appropriate screen icons on the right.

To learn more about Dr. Lorraine Day, visit her website at:  www.drday.com.  Her profile can be found at:  http://www.goodnewsaboutgod.com/studies/dr_day/doc_day.htm.

So, what is the true cause of almost all chronic, degenerative diseases?  Dietary, lifestyle and stress factors!  So, the answer for them cannot be found in drugs or surgery.

  • Share/Save/Bookmark

Is Fluoridated Water Safe?

Posted by James Ong

42-15614989Our local health authorities and the PUB have been assuring us, over the years, that fluoridated water (i.e. water coming out of our taps) is safe to drink.  It helps prevent tooth decay, they say.  It may shock or surprise you that there is now a huge number of scientists, more than 2,000  (comprising medical doctors, dentists, environmental scientists, lawyers, naturopathic doctors, nurses, etc.) calling for a worldwide ban on the fluoridation of drinking water.

What we need to know is that only about 60 countries worldwide, comprising a population of only about 330 million, fluoridate their drinking water.  Many of the advanced European nations do not fluoridate their water.  The vast majority of the world’s population (6 billion less 330 million) do not drink fluoridated water.  Studies show that those countries which do not fluoridate their drinking  water do not suffer from higher rates of tooth decay at all.  The answer to tooth decay is simple – avoiding sugary, refined and processed foods, eating nutritious foods that are high in calcium and other minerals and brushing teeth regularly.  Use of topical fluoride toothpaste may be of some benefit but not absolutely necessary so long as the other dietary and lifestyle habits are in place.  You see, fluoride works best topically, not when ingested.

In Singapore, drinking water is fluoridated at 0.7 parts per million.  That means that for every liter of water you drink, you are getting 0.7 milligram of fluoride.  Assuming an average person drinks 2 liters of water a day, over a lifespan of 80 years, he or she will be ingesting 40 kilograms of fluoride.  Many people drink more than 2 liters a day.  Fluoride is a known neurotoxin and carcinogen.  In fact, it is one of the most harmful substances known to man, almost on par with mercury.  Fluoride has been implicated in osteoporosis, arthrities, endocrine disorders, infertility, certain cancers, dementia, ADHD and autism.  All these diseases have been on the rise since fluoridation began in 1956.

I strongly encourage you to watch the following two videos which highlight the dangers of fluoridating drinking water:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/ You will see a video screen entitled, “Professional Perspectives on Water Fluoridation”.  Click on the “Play” button to watch the video.

The Fluoride Deception Video

You will learn there there is no solid science behind the purported benefits of fluoridation.  You will learn that fluorides are toxic, chemical waste products of American industry.  These industries found a clever way of cheaply disposing of them without further treatment to make them non-toxic:  by convincing the water authorities that adding fluoride to drinking water will prevent tooth decay.  Once again, we find our local health authorities merely “parroting” the official statements of organizations like the FDA, AMA, ADA, WHO, etc., without doing any independent research or literature review of their own.  These are the same organizations that used to say that smoking is safe; encouraged women to smoke, and that lead in petrol is safe.  We now know these to be untrue.

Even the American Dental Association (ADA) has issued an official statement warning that infants should not be fed formula milk made up from fluoridated water because the levels of fluoride in that water may be harmful to the infants.  Yet, our local health authorities have not looked into this issue at all and mothers in Singapore still prepare infant formula with regular, fluoridated water.

Richer households can simply circumvent this problem by installing expensive water filters to remove the fluoride.  Poorer households cannot afford to do so.  They are thus most vulnerable to the cumulative toxic effects of fluoride.

If you would like to learn more about the dangers of fluorides, do visit the videos page of the Fluoride Action Network’s website:

http://www.fluoridealert.org/videos1.html

  • Share/Save/Bookmark