Side-effects of Vaccinations / Medications

This report comes from the Association of Registerd Homeopaths UK February 2008

A decade ago, Françoise Joët, a French teacher of Spanish who ran ALIS (Association Liberté et Information Santé - Health Freedom and Information Association) and Dr. Xavier Uriate, a Spanish naturopath, created a group whose purpose was to do research on just this, i.e. what Joe Public felt he had experienced in the way of side effects from vaccinations. They contacted similar associations and individuals in various EU countries, put together a questionnaire which was distributed to vaccine damaged individuals through homeopaths and groups like JABS, VAN and The Informed Parent. The research was conducted over a number of years and in six different EU countries. The group met each year in July in France, over a weekend, and continued working on the project throughout the year. They eventually came up with the name European Forun for Vaccine Vigilance (EFVV), completed the research, analysed it and prepared a report (available on CD for £10 from either myself or Lesley King MARH) which was then submitted in six languages to the European late 2005. A press conference was held in Brussels to coincide with presentation of the report, but sadly, it was poorly attended.

Here is the page on Pharmacovigilance:


The American authorities have acknowledged that although reporting of the adverse effects of pharmaceutical drugs is theoretically mandatory in the United States, only 1 to 10% of these events are actually reported by practitioners. It is therefore highly probable that when it comes to vaccines, which the medical profession virtually never questions, the reporting rate is even lower, both in the United States and in Europe. This widespread under-reporting highlights basic flaws in the vaccination system: we are in fact totally ignorant of the truth underlying the vaccine damage issue. In addition, immunised individuals are not monitored over time, and there is no thorough investigation into a patient's medical history prior to vaccination, all of which makes vaccination a very risky and dangerous practice.

In fact, nearly all the patients who sent us testimonies specified that their cases had not been reported to the pharmacovigilance authorities. How therefore can the figures published by these authorities be considered reliable? In an attempt to go to the source, we wrote several letters, in 2002, 2003 and 2004, to various regional pharmacovigilance authorities, as well as to the European unit which is located in Uppsala, Sweden. Most of these letters remained unanswered. We are attaching herewith the responses received, which demonstrate the attitude of these departments. Clearly, they do not seem inclined to divulge comprehensive information on vaccine damage to the general public. This same public is nonetheless coerced, either legally or indirectly, into vaccination. Does this refusal to communicate vital information not constitute a serious breach of our democratic rights?

Taking France as an example, the case files of the Hepatitis B vaccine victims have been "buried" by the AFFSAPS, leaving these sufferers unable to obtain recognition of their pathologies which all developed following vaccination. Most of the time, the pharmacovigilance authorities, which are inextricably linked to the large pharmaceutical groups, only report the adverse effects which are benign and transitory. It is not as if the medical profession were totally unaware of the more serious risks of vaccines. These risks are well-known but never revealed to the general public. What are the reasons for this?

In 1998, a dedicated pharmacovigilance department for vaccines was set up in the United States, under the name VAERS[1] [Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System]. Nothing of this nature exists in Europe. Sadly, due to the under-reporting mentioned above, VAERS does not reflect the reality of this problem. In addition, it is not easy for a member of the general public to consult these data. The situation appears to be the same worldwide: those required to be immunised do not have access to in-depth information on the undesirable effects of vaccines. This deliberately hidden facet of vaccinology casts suspicion on all acts of vaccination.

[1] 1 - VAERS, PO Box 1100, Rockville, Maryland 20849 - 1100 USA

Tel: (+1) 301 827 3974; Fax: (+1) 301 827 3529;

Here are the abridged conclusions of the report:


Our research was based on approximately 1000 cases of individuals ranging from birth to 75 years of age, and covered a six-year period (from 1999 to 2004). Most of the pathologies testified by the authors of these cases had not been recognised as post-vaccinal complications and had consequently not been reported to the pharmacovigilance services.

The patients all admitted that from the very beginning, they had linked their first symptoms with a vaccination, but the medical profession did not monitor them and denied any cause and effect link. Most of the patients complained that their doctors had treated them with disregard and scorn, even to the point of ridicule, refusing to accept that a vaccine could have been responsible for the often poorly defined ailments they were experiencing (see attached letters).

The following points are worth noting, among others, as significant:

Types of Ailment

The post-vaccinal complications observed ranged from an abnormally high and persistant fever or an inexplicable hypothermia all the way to death, including a whole series of pathologies involving all bodily systems. (A list of ailments followed - removed)

Types of Vaccines Blamed

The multiple vaccine containing Diphtheria, Tetanus, Polio, Whooping Cough and/or Hib was the most frequently blamed for neurological pathologies. The Hepatitis B vaccine was the most often blamed for autoimmune and joint diseases and various poorly defined pathologies falling under the generic term of "chronic fatigue". The triple MMR (Measles, Mumps, Rubella) vaccine was considered to be responsible for the appearance of diabetes, ENT and kidney problems, and also arthritis. The flu vaccine seemed to result in respiratory problems and various flu-type ailments. All the other vaccines, whether combined or not, managed in one way or another to trigger ailments whose intensity and sequelae varied depending on the individual.

Length of Time before Symptoms Appeared

For three quarters of the victims, the length of time before the post-vaccinal reactions occurred ranged from hours after the injection up to around 60 days after the injection. Other reactions occurred beyond the first two months after the injection. For a few victims, the significant undesirable effects only became apparent several years after the injection.



The European Forum on Vaccine Vigilance has been working actively in around ten European countries for the last six years. This work, which has involved research into the undesirable effects caused by vaccination, has culminated in the conviction that vaccination must never be enforced as mandatory and its adverse effects must be acknowledged on a much greater scale.

Absence of Pre-vaccination Pharmacovigilance

Our work has revealed a blatant absence of pharmacovigilance, reflected in the consistent lack of consideration of the patient's background prior to vaccination. If vaccination is designed to be a disease prevention tool, in-depth awareness of each individual's medical history is a prerequisite to its administration. Current knowledge in the field of immunology (and particularly information on the HLA system) necessitates investigation into susceptibilities, predispositions and the individual diathesis before any vaccination may be administered.

Absence of Post-vaccination Pharmacovigilance

No pharmacovigilance worthy of such a name exists in any country. It would therefore seem of utmost urgency today to institute a comprehensive and independent system whereby the impact of vaccinations on our populations would be monitored. At present, the effects of vaccinations are observed in the short term (three months at most) which is totally insufficient for detecting the adverse effects of antigenic stimulation. Vaccines cause long-term physical changes to the human body and it is therefore in the long term where we must consider the validity of any preventative technique.

We have observed that routine vaccination causes a gradual destabilisation of the body resulting in the emergence of new diseases, chronic degenerative diseases whose development is progressive and diffuse, often inconspicuous and insignificant at first, diseases against which conventional therapies often remain ineffective. This realisation has become clear not only in all the European countries in which our group has worked but also across the globe, regardless of race, geography or culture.

Combined Vaccines Make Cause and Effect Links Difficult to Establish

At present, the use of multiple vaccines (up to seven antigenic stimulations at once) makes it difficult, if not impossible, using any kind of allopathic medical method, to establish a cause-and-effect link between a specific vaccine and subsequent ill health. Non-conventional medicines can however offer us insight into this potential relationship. The large number of combined vaccines in use today has made cause-and-effect research hopelessly entangled. This does not however justify the acceptance of these risks, or the acceptance that ensuing problems have simply a temporal rather than a causative association. Such an attitude is ethically unsound. Now, after 100 years of mass vaccination, we have observed that the number of post-vaccinal pathologies far exceeds the number of diseases which were supposed to be eliminated by vaccination. Is this progress? What is the real impact of mass vaccination on our health?

There is no single definition of health, and illness is usually multi-faceted. This makes it difficult to draw a clear link between cause and effect. We must therefore stop demanding "absolute proof" (as in criminal law) and err on the side of caution, basing our decisions on clusters of scientific probability. We must, above all, listen to the plaintiffs and take their "dis-ease" into consideration. Human beings are more than simple numbers in statistical tables; to reduce them to a profit and loss statement is nothing less than tragic.

We therefore propose:

I - Assuming Constitutional Equality

1 - That mandatory vaccination be abolished in all European countries

No law can justify the practice of vaccination because mandatory vaccination is an assault on our physical integrity and therefore a breach of all texts guaranteeing the fundamental liberties advocated across Europe (human rights, the EU Charter of Fundamental rights, the EU Code of Medical Ethics, the precautionary principle.).

Abolition of mandatory vaccination would eliminate the possibility of restrictions being imposed against children attending school or individuals at work. All direct or indirect, physical or moral obligations or coercions to immunise must therefore also be abolished.

2. Barring full abolition of mandatory vaccination, that a conscience clause be applicable

This implies that all citizens will be governed by a conscience clause whereby, following examination of their soul and conscience, and assuming full responsibility, they have the right to make the choice themselves as to whether or not they will be immunised and whether they will immunise their children. When it comes to vaccination, freedom of choice is a fundamental human right; consequently non-compliance may not ever constitute grounds for criminal proceedings.

3. That there be no discrimination in the eyes of the law

This implies equal rights for all in all matters of law, employment and health. No discrimination will therefore be tolerated between those who have been immunised and those who have not. The choice not to immunise a child must never be considered an offence which might incriminate a parent in a personal conflict (e.g. in divorce proceedings).

It goes therefore without saying that this freedom, which is clearly stipulated in law, must be enforced across Europe, in all countries without exception and in the same way.

4. That the physical integrity of every European citizen deserves total respect

Enforced vaccination is an assault on an individual's physical integrity, as defined in all the texts which guarantee fundamental liberties in the European Union. It is intolerable that vaccination might be an exception to this rule or fall outside the law. By claiming protection of the masses, vaccination somehow manages to evade our system of private law whereby all citizens are guaranteed control of their bodies. We insist that vaccination be a matter only of personal and individual choice, without any governmental, medical or economic pressure of any kind on anyone.

II - That Everyone be Fully Informed of the Adverse effects of Vaccinations

1. That both the health authorities and the public be informed

Doctors and the pharmaceutical industry are required by law to inform their patients and the general public of the risks associated with their treatments. As such, notification of the accidents which might occur as a result of a vaccination must be compulsory. Data on this subject must be accessible to all, in their entirety, without lies or omissions, and in complete transparency. They must not be concealed, censored or denied by the medical profession. In fact, they could be the basis of a pre-vaccination discussion between a patient and his general practitioner, enabling the patient to make an informed decision. The GP's duty must be to reduce any possible vaccination risk (e.g. through the use of a standard questionnaire). It is essential that all medical students receive in-depth training on both the risks and the benefits of vaccination and that a broad range of both medical and para-medical research be consulted for this purpose.

2. That the experts be informed

We insist that the full range of medical disciplines and options with respect to health and disease prevention be democratically represented in all European governmental bodies where decisions are taken.

3. That patients be informed

All the different ingredients contained in a vaccine must be specified on the leaflet supplied by the manufacturer for the consumer. Manufacturers failing to provide this information must be fined and brought to account. These ingredients must also be specified in all specialised medical dictionaries (Vidal, Martindale, Red Book, Medex, etc.)

III - That an Effective and Independent Pharmacovigilance Unit be Created.

1. That the precautionary principle be respected

Based on their ingredients alone, vaccines are highly toxic substances. In addition, the live or attenuated germs from which they are made present a direct risk, as there is always the potential for these germs to revert to their original state. What is more, far too much of the information disseminated on the effectiveness, the harmlessness and the duration of the protection vaccines impart remains uncertain, making vaccination extremely risky. Vaccinations are also given to individuals who are totally different one from another, which can result in unexpected and unpredictable reactions. It is vital, in such a case, that the precautionary principle, whereby no action is taken if there is the slightest shadow of a doubt, must be respected. Against this background, it would be absolutely impossible for the doctors who prepare vaccine contraindication literature to be put under any kind of pressure.

At the same time, parents who choose to delay vaccination for their children, must be allowed to postpone the start date until the child is at least age two.

Considering the damage that heavy metals cause in the human body, it is crucial that all mercury, aluminium and other composites whose adverse effects are well known, be removed from vaccines.

2. That an exhaustive survey be conducted of the adverse effects of vaccines

It is imperative that there be a dedicated pharmacovigilance unit for vaccinations alone. The data collected by this unit must be accessible to the general public, to the medical profession, to all healthcare practitioners, to associations, to patients, etc.

This unit, which would operate in all EU countries, would report to independent scientific bodies. It would be the responsibility of these pharmacovigilance authorities to receive and dispense (in the standard format of drugs side effects leaflets) all information on the effects of vaccinations, without restrictions of any kind. The medical profession would be required to notify this unit of any post-vaccination events and anyone would have the right to file a complaint for non-compliance with these rules.

The idea of a European Vaccinovigilance Centre or a European Observatory for the Adverse Effects of Vaccination was already proposed long ago, during the intergroup meeting of the European Parliament held with Professor Levy on the 7th of July 1996 in Strasbourg. To be truly effective, such a vaccinovigilance unit would have to be dedicated to the service of consumers, not the vaccine manufacturers. As such, a broad range of independent opinions would be required before any research study could be considered to be valid.

IV - Compensation for all Vaccine Damage

It is also imperative that all European Union countries institute a system for systematic compensation of vaccine damage victims. The procedure which victims must follow to obtain recognition of the damage they have suffered, and for the medical profession to take their conditions seriously, needs to be simplified. Far too often, the complaints of these victims are minimised to the point of ridicule, as soon as vaccination is blamed. If adequate compensation for vaccine damage pathologies is to be considered without dispute, a dramatic change of attitude will be required on all levels. It is then, and only then, that it will become possible to assess the true cost of vaccination for our society and to reverse the risk/benefit balance.

(Text prepared and signed by all members of EFVV)

Sadly, after the poorly-attended press conference in November 2005, the group disbanded and no more work has been done. There is a website: (was originally but the person in charge neglected to renew the domain name in time and we lost it!) but it desperately needs updating and completion.

That's the story. So much work and some very interesting research results but not enough impact.


Helen Kimball-Brooke LCPH MCHE RMANM
Registered Homeopath & Qualified Life Coach
Ealing, London W5 2DJ
T: +44 (0) 208 998 1204
F: +44 (0) 208 998 1162

Back to the top