Peter Baratosy, M.B., B.S., Ph.D.

An Australian medical practitioner, he uses alternative medicine in his general practice and combined with complementary and orthodox medicines for the maximal benefit for his patients.

Writing in response to some of the accusations raised against Dr. Lanctot, he notes: "That as far as her promoting a campaign of fear and discouraging people, especially children, from being vaccinated, people have a right to know about what is being done to them. Immunization is one of those cases where they are encouraged to have it done but are not told the truth about risks and dangers. Telling the truth and giving relevant facts about immunization is not a "campaign of fear".... In Australia, the High Court, in a decision in the early 1 9201s, dealt with the concept of "informed choice". This means that the person must be given all the information, even if they did not ask, so that they can choose whether to have the treatment or not...

As for her duping the public and undermining the credibility of and the public's confidence in the medical profession, he believes that the medical profession has done this to itself. People have been moving away from orthodoxy to alternatives for some time now. A study from the U.S. has shown that there were more alternative consultations than orthodox consultations and more money was spent on these than orthodox medicine. The public is already suspicious of the medical profession, drugs and surgery and is moving away...

Being accused of undermining vaccination campaigns only means that Dr. Lanctot is giving information so that parents can make an informed choice. It is not a crime, especially if immunization is not compulsory. Parents must be told the truth so that they can decide whether to go ahead and immunize or not... (is this a quote?)

It is incorrect to accuse Dr. Lanctot of prejudicing the population’s health and welfare. By advocating safer, alternative treatments, people’s health and welfare will only improve. If we examine orthodox treatments we will find that up to 20% of admissions to hospitals are caused by iatrogenesis, that is, doctor induced problems. Most orthodox treatments have not been proven scientifically. Prof. J. Garrow was quoted in the Australian Doctor’s Weekly (28 June 91) as saying that 65% of conventional medical treatment was not proven. The U.S. Congress publication, "Assessing the efficacy and safety of medical technologies" (1978) quoted 80% to 90% as being unproved. When there were doctor’s strikes in the U.S., Israel and Colombia, death rates fell. A study by J. and S. McKinlay of Boston University, concluded that only up to 3.5% of the decline in disease was due to medical measures. I think that the medical establishment has over-estimated its usefulness... (end of quote?)

As far as her discouraging cancer patients from following recognized treatments of surgery, chemotherapy and radiotherapy, and instead advocating non-recognized 714X treatment, he noted that cancer specialists themselves have admitted that the war against cancer has been lost. After 50 to 60 years of the same treatments, that is, surgery, radiation and chemicals, the survival rate has not improved (there are few exceptions such as leukemia). Figures from a London hospital have shown that the death rate from breast cancer, from 1805 to 1933 without any treatment, was as good as survival with treatment. Another study done in the U.S., between 1950 and 1973, showed the same thing. We must have a clear picture of the treatment and whether the treatment is worse than the disease. In the treatment of breast cancer, there is little difference in the survival rates between radical mastectomy, mastectomy, lumpectomy and any of these, plus or minus radiation or chemotherapy. What I am trying to say is that even the orthodoxy does not know which is the best treatment (so we can say that at present treatment is experimental) and there is evidence to show that no treatment may be just as successful...

I see many children in my practice. Some are immunized and some are not, my own children are not. I see the difference between the immunized and the non-immunized. They’re much healthier and have less infections, colds, otitis media and tonsillitis. Dr. Michael Odent has written a letter in the JAMA (1994) where his figures show a five times higher rate of asthma in pertussis immunized children compared to non-immunized children. He is also quoted in the International Vaccination Newsletter (Sept. 1994): "Immunized children have more ear infections and spend more days in hospital."

This, I believe is an indication of immune system suppression due to vaccines. One of the flaws in studies of vaccines is that there are no true placebo groups. The vaccine is tested in one group of immunized children and is compared to another group of immunized children. My advantage is that I have a group of children under my care whose parents have decided not to immunize and I can compare these children with immunized children. The un-immunized are definitely more healthy and so far none have caught any nasty illnesses. The irritability that children experience after immunization is a mild form of encephalitis, which can produce a minimal brain damage. The severity of the initial encephalitis bears no relationship to the eventual damage. This mild damage can cause autism, learning difficulties and hyperactivity. In one study a large proportion of juvenile offenders were discovered to be minimally brain damaged. Minimally brain damaged children were more likely to behave in a violent way.

So far, there is no evidence that immunizations have abolished any disease. Countries such as the U.S. which have compulsory immunization have similar rates of disease as those which do not. The U.S. has the highest expenditure in the world on medical services. It has compulsory immunization, yet it has the 20th worst infant death rate. Japan, where immunization is given at age two, the infant death rate is one of the lowest in the world. This is similar in Sweden where the pertussis vaccine is not used.

Reproduced with permission of Here’s The Key Inc, CP309, Waterloo, Qc JOE 2NO, Canada. Tel: 001 450 297 2533. Fax: 001 450 297 4140

Selected extracts taken from The Trial of the Medical Mafia by Jochim Schafer ISBN 2921783029.

To reach Guylaine Lanctot, M.D. Tel: 001 514 297 4128. Fax: 001 514 297 4140

Book: There is Always an Alternative--Peter Baratosy MB BS (Australian)  ISBN 0646 222112
Chapter 6; Pt Vaccination

[1998 AUS] Vaccination: The Hidden Truth (Documentary)  Bronwyn Hancock article

Articles [Source]
About Vaccines  A must read article for anyone questioning the use of vaccines and pharmaceutical medicines. Dr Peter Baratosy offers alternative ways to view our health and the health of our children. He explains the need for parents to make an informed choice when considering their family’s wellbeing and offers alternatives to vaccines.

Chicken Pox Dr Peter Baratosy discusses The Chicken Pox Vaccine by examining a history of the illness, the use and effectiveness of the vaccine, natural immunity and the use of prescription drugs to treat the illness.

Pneumococcal Vaccine Dr Peter Baratosy looks into the recently released pneumococcal vaccine designed for children under two years of age. He delves into the pharmaceutical industry, exposing the many flaws between manufacturers and researchers.

Small Pox There has been a lot of hype in the media lately about Smallpox vaccination and as usual, most of this is myth and/or dis-information. It is timely that we explore the topic more closely.  Smallpox vaccination has a long history and it is interesting to point out that the in-effectiveness of this procedure had been known for a long time.

[Vaccination]    [Dr Lanctot]