Advice To Parents About Health

©2004 by Gary Krasner
Revised June 2011

The following information is by no means definitive and complete. I just felt it important to introduce parents to concepts and ideas about health which may be novel to them.

An important disclaimer: I’m not a clinician. I’m an amateur with a point of view. Each parent must consider this a general guide and a basis for further investigation, by you. YOU are responsible for your child’s health. That is what our fight for medical freedom of choice is all about.

PREFACE: Legal Risks of Not Vaccinating Your Children

There are important issues that parents must consider. They are interrelated to some extent. The first consideration relates to legal jeopardy. Vaccination is the accepted prophylaxis against disease in our society. Society has established legal jurisdiction over the welfare of children. As a parent, you will not be given an opportunity to challenge that legal doctrine and medical paradigm. Instead, there may come a time where you will have to satisfy authorities that your child is not at risk, in spite of being unvaccinated or under-vaccinated. And should it get to a point where you would have to demonstrate that, then perhaps the only means to do so—simply enough—is to have a child who stays healthy.

And that is where your child’s health and your legal protections intersect. Parents may legally refrain from vaccinating their children and remain reasonably free from legal and social harassment. Granted that anyone can report to Children’s Services that your child is unvaccinated. Since vaccination status is included in the risk assessment instrument, it must be investigated in most states. Fortunately, vaccination status alone will not be sufficient grounds for having the child removed from your care.

(CFIC would like such investigations to be discontinued in all states, once case workers discover that parents made an intentional decision based upon medical or religious considerations—similar to laws enacted in Illinois and Texas.)

But parents cannot maintain that immunity from scrutiny or legal penalties once their unvaccinated child becomes sick. If your unvaccinated child becomes sick and remains sick for some duration of time, then there are many busybodies—school officials; clinic doctors; neighbors; vindictive former spouses; etc.—who can then allege that you’re medically negligent. Vaccination will inevitably be among the grounds for that allegation, and you may find yourself having to persuade a CPS case worker, the child’s law guardian, or a family court judge that there’s no relation to your child’s health, and his/her vaccination status. Good luck with that! Even if it’s entertained you would need an expensive lawyer and equally expensive experts to testify on your behalf.

You might also have to justify your employment of non-medical therapies that you had used, or are using on your child. Anything from herbs to homeopathic remedies, etc. Unfortunately, no matter how articulate you are about the therapies you’ve chosen, family court is not the venue for assessing the comparative efficacies of different healing philosophies. The only thing that will matter is that your child is sick, and only medical tests and determinations will be considered by the court. Perhaps the best you can hope for is to find a pediatrician willing to testify that antipyretics, antibiotics, analgesics, etc. are contraindicated for your child’s inflammatory disease (i.e.: cough, fever, rash, swelling, etc.). In other words, some medical rationale, albeit outside the mainstream.


Parents must NEVER inform people outside their family about the application of any forms of holistic health remedies or non-meat or non-dairy diets on their children. You have the right to privacy. Moreover, do not think for one minute that you can persuade any third parties or government authorities that these are efficacious and enlightened approaches to health. Instead, such information will be held against you.

CFIC provides members (in NYS) with additional resources. Athough anyone may find on the internet what their rights are and how to avoid entanglement with Children’s Services. Just one place is, <> where parents can learn about their legal rights and how to avoid or deal with unwarranted investigations.

Health Concerns for Unvaccinated Children

I’ll say a word about children’s health now, because for unvaccinating parents, a sick child could involve legal consequences as I alluded to. And because parents often ask me what should be done if their unvaccinated children become sick.

I do this reluctantly, because I’m not a health clinician. So I will remain general, and only introduce a health philosophy that’s not widely known.

The most common question for a new parent is whether or not to listen to a doctor? The simple answer is that you should generally heed the advice of a medical doctor, if your choice of therapy/treatment involves medicine. You should generally heed the advice of a chiropractor if your choice of therapy/treatment is spinal-skeletal manipulation. You should generally heed the advice of a Natural Hygienist if your choice of therapy/treatment is the passive, self-healing modalities of Hygiene, such as fasting.

In other words, first obtain a proper diagnosis from a clinician best trained in diagnosis. That’s usually an “allopathic” doctor—one who’s trained in internal medicine. There’s also the value of getting a second opinion, if the test results are equivocal. After getting an accurate diagnosis, then decide which healing philosophy for that particular illness makes the most sense to you. That involves research on your part.

The entire discussion here pertains solely to infectious (Hygienists call them “inflammatory”) illnesses. Mainstream allopathic medicine does a fine job in many areas: Proficiency in diagnosis is one area. Some diagnostic tests are efficacious. Scanning technologies being developed are safer than x-rays. There have been unqualified advances in emergency medicine, skin grafting, treatments for burns, microsurgery, reconstructive surgery, and prosthetic devices. In cases of poisoning, various drugs are able to chelate or bind ingested or injected toxins, rendering them inert.

There are many areas in which allopathic medicine excels. Where it fails miserably is in their understanding and treatments for inflammatory (“infectious”) illnesses, and for chronic diseases. Often, their treatment for the former leads to the later. No amount of technology can make up for the misunderstanding in viewing the cessation of symptoms as equivalent to the termination of the cause of the illness. Even their proficiency in differential diagnosis is of no help, as microbial pleomorphism and artifacts in isolation methods leads them astray—that’s even assuming that the germ—as opposed to the soil—is the cause.

In other words, during an infectious disease, the suspected microbial pathogen (and only biological agents are considered; rarely are chemical toxins) is merely present in the body during illness (along with many other viruses), and often no established mechanisms exist for how the pathogen is causing the symptoms. That is even true for polio virus.

Second, parents should not be too doctrinaire by adhering to any single diet or healing philosophy. Not when children are involved. Health and disease involve complicated applications, whose outcomes do not share the certainty one sees in the physical sciences. Even a “natural” substance may be given at an inappropriate time and be harmful. Instead, be open to all options and take an eclectic approach by selecting from a consensus of opinion. Get an accurate differential diagnosis from allopathic medicine, then decide which healing philosophy you feel best expresses the problem and the solution. (If an MD prescribes a drug, keep proof of purchase in case later you need to prove to CPS that you followed the MD’s advice.)

There are conditions for which allopathy and homeopathy can each claim legitimate successes. But when it comes to infectious (inflammatory) type illnesses, I’ve always felt that Natural Hygiene was the easiest to understand, and the safest to implement its remedial measures. But no matter which you decide to go with, if you’re not seeing the expected outcomes, then try something else. Don’t rigidly adhere to any one healing modality.

With that caveat, I’ll provide my general recommendation for a child exhibiting catarrhal symptoms. Before I do that, parents must understand a little about the two opposing theories of disease:

The Origins of Modern Medicine in a Nutshell

Over two centuries ago, among the many healing philosophies in America were Natural Hygiene and the German Allopathic school. The allopathic school was the discipline that employed chemical substances—intentionally toxic to the body—based on observations that poisons in sub-lethal doses seemed to trigger responses by the body which they deemed positive. The response could be say, an increase in pulse rate, or the visual suppression of symptom associated with disease. These physicians would even keep drinking water away from the sick patient. They believed that air, water, and light itself brought disease, or exacerbated illness. To prove that treatment was more powerful than disease, it followed that the more dangerous a drug or procedure, the more powerful a remedy it would be. For example, blisters, induced by mustard plaster, were a common treatment for many diseases. It was used intensively, even though it was known to lead to convulsions, gangrene, and death. Calomel—a toxic mercury salt—was the common drug for most illnesses. Extreme bloodletting, sometimes to the point of loss of consciousness and pulse, was the most common medical procedure of these early allopaths.

In response to their own failures, and competition from other healing approaches, these regular physicians resorted to even greater doses of their therapies, believing that any change in a patient’s gross symptoms was a good sign. This was the medical orthodoxy going into the 19th century, when the greatest degree of public dissatisfaction with it had developed. Thomas Jefferson called them an “inexperienced and presumptuous band of medical tyros let loose upon the world.” Allopathic medicine’s greatest success and influence occurred later on, in the 20th century. Today, medicine’s antipyretic and antipruritic drugs are far less toxic, but are still responsible for the bulk of iatrogenic injury and death.

Natural Hygienists, on the other hand, interpreted symptoms differently than the allopaths: The familiar catarrhal symptoms of say, runny nose (sinus exudate), cough, fever, diarrhea, muscle fatigue or stiffness, and the numerous kinds of rashes, swellings, lesions, and eruptions through the skin are all manifestations of the same cause—the buildup of uneliminated metabolic waste in our blood and cells, or in organs like the tonsils or appendix. This “crisis of elimination”, through abnormal channels of our bodies (i.e. skin or lungs), is an emergency effort by the body to preserve health, and may be triggered from among a number of different types of traumas or stress events. Uncomfortable as it is, this purging of waste must proceed free from symptom-suppressing effects of drugs, food and herbs.

Thus, Hygiene requires that symptoms run their course unencumbered. That inflammation and fever also not be suppressed. It’s the opposing theories of the nature and cause of infectious/inflammatory disease which accounts for the different ways each healing philosophy responds to the same symptoms.

For example, In 1996 I experienced chills while sleeping near an open window without a shirt on. This caused a nerve trauma that triggered a release of toxins by way of a rash that developed afterward. A doctor diagnosed it as shingles and claimed that the rash somehow (i.e. exact mechanisms for HOW microbial pathogens supposedly cause the symptoms are never proven, even in instances in which they are provided.) had been caused by herpes zoster virus in my body that suddenly decided to become “active” at that time. (Viruses are not even living organisms, let alone ones with a conscious mind to act on its own.) Since I believed in the NH theory, I fasted on distilled water when the full blown characteristic rash appeared on my chest and back. By day 2 of the fast, the pain subsided. By day 8, I was able to break the fast, because all symptoms were gone. No residual scares and no recurrences. By contrast, someone who believed in the allopathic theory would have taken the doctor’s antipyretic drugs to suppress the discharge of waste through the skin (i.e. the rash). Pushing metabolic waste back into the body is the allopathic “cure”, merely because the symptoms and pain were halted. (“Orthapathy”, a branch of Natural Hygiene, literally means, “correct suffering”.)

Doctrines and Precepts

Each theory establishes principles that proponents contend are supported by the evidence. Since the basic theories differ, it follows that the corollaries, proofs and conclusions would too. One example is, Immunity vs. Tolerance.

Most people support the conventional theory of disease. Even many who refrain from vaccinations. So it follows that they support allopathy’s concept of “immunity”. In particular, there’s a theory that has emerged of late which is in accord with standard immunity theory, known as the ‘Hygiene hypothesis’. The theory is misnamed, because the theory which predates it—Natural Hygiene (“NH”)—accounts for the observations in a totally opposite manner.

At any rate, ‘Hygiene hypothesis’ holds that when children early in life are exposed to too few viruses, bacteria and other microorganisms found in the natural environment, their immune system development is affected in a way that raises the risk of abnormal immune reactions.

Even though many who are averse to taking vaccines might prefer this theory of “natural immunity” from wild strains of pathogens, it is nonetheless contrary to how NH accounts for the observations. A person who experiences no clinical symptoms associated with disease (actually, vicarious elimination) is considered to have effective immunity. Natural Hygienists instead believe the person is experiencing “toleration”.

First, a distinction: Viruses are harmless gene fragments that are absorbed by bacteria as food, and used by bacteria to aid them in adaptation. Bacteria that feed off waste excrete toxins. The effects of endotoxins and chemical toxins are the same. They kill cells. And when they build up too much, the body is forced to expel them through the abnormal channels of the skin and lungs. That’s what doctors call “disease” and something that’s bad. Hygienists just call it necessary, and say it’s important to allow it to proceed.

Now, back to the point, since all poisons have the same effect on cells (even though the ultimate symptoms that are expressed vary), would you say that a person who doesn’t get “sick” (no vicarious elimination) from the poisons from alcohol, nicotine, caffeine, cocaine, heroin, etc. had built up an “immunity” to those substances?!

Of course you wouldn’t. What happens is that we take these poisonous substances in small doses at first. Because at too high a dose initially, our bodies correctly see them as poison and expel them quickly and vicariously via lungs or skin. But with each indulgence, we are able to increase the dose (i.e., to smoke more, or drink more, etc.), because the effects of poisoning gradually reduces our vitality to expel poisons. You’ll recall your first cigarette as a teen caused labored breathing, coughing, nausea, vomiting, dizziness, flushing, accelerated heart beat and pulse. Fifty cigarette packs later, the symptoms are gone. Did you built up an immunity to nicotine, or a tolerance to it?

Why these diseases occur predominantly in childhood was best described by Henry Bieler, MD, from his best seller, “Food is Your Best Medicine”: “The childhood years should be the healthiest of all. It is during those early years that the endocrine glands and the liver are in their best functional capacity, giving the healthy child his natural state of exuberance, inexhaustible energy, and faultless elimination”.

Legacies of Natural Hygiene

This was the essence of the Natural Hygiene philosophy begun in the U.S. well over a century ago by Sylvester Graham, William Alcott, Mary Grove, Isaac Jennings, Russell Trall, John Tilden and others. Hygienists and sanitary reformers since the mid-19th century—such as Florence Nightingale—believe microbes are transmissible, but not the diseases that are attributable to them.

Pathogenic bacteria, for example, proliferates on waste—not healthy cells—and acts in the vital role as scavengers to attack and devour weakened, injured and dead cells. Allopathic drugs and poisons kill good and bad bacteria, as well as debilitate the body to the point where it can’t continue to expel waste through abnormal avenues—the symptom suppression effects we see when we take an aspirin or other antipyretic.

The hygienic and naturopathic philosophy of “remedy” was asepsis, rather than allopathy’s antisepsis. The former cleans the environment of waste (i.e. “morbid” matter; or dead things that will decay and devolve into the kind of bacteria—”pathogenic”—that excretes waste that is toxic). The latter involves the application of germicides to kill bacteria. The asepsis approach requires that you clean the dishes to keep roaches away. The antisepsis approach requires that you spray insecticide on the dirty dishes. The asepsis approach is to fast on distilled water to enable your liver and kidneys to focus exclusively on processing waste for elimination (i.e. cleaning the host environment). The antisepsis approach is to take sublethal doses of poisons (i.e. drugs) that kills cells and bacteria, and weakens the body sufficiently to check elimination of waste (i.e. disease symptoms).

According to hygienic theory, even an aseptic (i.e. clean) projectile or bullet is capable of starting the abnormal evolution of the living intracellular elements to produce pathogenic bacteria, solely by way of the mechanical action that kills cells (which will decay) and which alters the normal state of the environment. Hygienists remove the foreign object, clean the wound and allow air to get to it. They believe inflammations, swellings, fevers (etc.) are neither good or bad things. They’re just necessary. Under allopathic medicine, specifically designed chemicals terminate these normal processes. When general antibiotics and other germ killers are used, they adversely affect the delicate balance of bacteria, including the strains at the end stages of digestion which convert the residues of what you ate into waste for elimination.

By logic, it’s a “cure” when you successfully treat what’s causing the disease. For medical doctors, the “cure” is marked by the disappearance of clinical symptoms of catarrhal diseases. But symptoms are merely the effects, and obviously a cause and an effect cannot be one in the same. When you stop the body from discharging waste, you are not treating the disease; you are merely stopping the effects of the disease. There is no healing philosophy that may claim responsibility for “curing” inflammatory or catarrhal diseases. Because the symptoms themselves—the remedial actions initiated by our own bodies—represents the actual “cure”.

Pidoux expressed the theories of microbiologists Antoine Bechamp and Jules Tissot (but to the annoyance of Louis Pasteur) most succinctly when he wrote: “Diseases are born of us and in us.”

Microbial vs. Non-Microbial Parasites

One last point that sometimes gets overlooked—the distinction between microbial and non-microbial parasites determines how differently they must be dealt with.

Let’s examine the microbial ones first. Allopathic medicine considers microbial parasites to be dangerous. Bacteria and viruses are supposedly external attacks upon our bodies, which harm us. But the Hygienic, or “Cellular” theory considers these microbes to be endogenic. They are mostly derived from dead cells inside our bodies. They are not, by and large, exogenic. A section in my article, Introduction To The Vaccination Issue, goes into this subject of viruses and bacteria in more detail. Viruses have a different function, so I won’t discuss them here.

The only point I wish to make now is that the condition of the environment in our bodies (the “soil”) determines the character and functions of microbial activity inside us. If we can avoid excessive waste to build up, we avoid the buildup of harmful strains of bacteria. Solely killing the bacteria merely poisons the environment further, while doing nothing about the bacteria. Germicides will kill bacteria, to be sure, but the waste that’s still present will continue to generate bacteria, especially strains more resistant to the germicide.

To understand this, you just need to ask yourself what is the effect of police raiding an apartment building where illicit drugs are being sold? They merely arrest the drug dealers there. They do not do anything to the “environment” that spawns the drug dealers—such as the illegal drug laws which makes the black market profitable. So despite “swatting the flies” on that one day, new drug dealers will return there by the next day. You accomplished nothing.

As an analogy, one can do things to the environment to eradicate a parasite, like the mosquito. You can drain the swamp, for one. You can also build bat roosts to allow a natural predator to reduce the mosquito population. They’re all safe things which are done to the environment to have an effect on the parasite. One thing you should not do add poison to the environment, because that would kill other kinds of life besides mosquitoes. An ineffective thing would be to use a fly swatter.

When it comes to microbial parasites, the imperative and efficacy to act upon the environment is even greater, because of a phenomenon known as bacterial pleomorphism—an observation that had plagued (pun intended) proponents of the germ theory.

Pleomorphism refers to the transformation of one distinct strain of bacteria into other strains within a single life cycle. For example, the virulent tubercle bacillus could be made to degenerate into harmless non “acid-fast” cocci, and then into “diphtheroid” coccobacilli just by altering their food or environment. Ultraviolet light can induce the rod-shaped anthrax bacillus to transform into the spherical coccus. Fixed species of bacteria is the central part of the biomedical model of specific etiology of disease (classifying a specific germ as the singular causative agent of a specific disease). But Pleomorphism implies that it is based upon a faulty construct.

Pasteur attempted to brush aside the contradiction, alleging that pleomorphism was just an aberration that occurs from prior contamination of the specimen. Others disputed variability of bacteria to different degrees. Later, bacteriologists allowed for some transformations, but only between some strains, and restricted in range and degree. Today, what bacteriologists actually think of this phenomenon is no longer an issue in any practical sense. The classical Germ Theory has become institutionalized and entrenched into modern clinical medicine. Microbiological research is guided by the economic needs of that structure.

What does all this mean? It means that attempting to kill bacteria (which are microbial parasites) is futile. And they morph into other strains. Where there is life, there must be bacteria. You have no control over that. Their strain and pathogenicity is determined by the environment—which you DO have control over.

Now the distinction: While it is futile to use direct measures to kill bacteria, that is not the case with non-microbial parasites like mites, fleas, fungi, etc. Chemicals which can kill non-microbial parasites are effective. But don't overlook non-toxic methods, such as diatomacious earth. Either way, it's important here as well to condition the "soil" to make it inhospitable to these parasites: Healthy people and animals are less susceptible to these larger parasites. When you eat the correct diet, for example, your blood doesn’t carry the waste which is the breeding ground for malaria. Why does the runt of the litter, for example, exhibit symptoms (i.e. hair loss) of ringworm, but not his more robust and healthier sibling? And why does ringworm disappear on its own over time? Health prevails.

Safe Measures Parents Can Take For Their Children

To allow elimination (symptoms) to proceed unencumbered, physiological rest is essential, and that includes fasting on distilled water. If the particular organs that are initiating this vicarious elimination must stop what they’re doing to digest food, then elimination will end precipitously. Of course this is seen as a positive outcome by allopathic physicians, because under their disease paradigm, an end of the symptoms means that the pathogens that were (purportedly) causing them must be gone. In reality though, pathogens can be found during sickness and health, but proliferate in higher amounts where there is decaying matter—either in bad food or undernourished tissue cells of your body. In other words, biological pathogens are derived from the diseased state of the host. Simpler still, disease causes germs.

Thus, after the “housecleaning” has completed, and symptoms subside, a nutritious diet that’s properly assimilated and digested will feed his/her cells normal food, and good health should be restored and maintained.

How to safely conduct a fast for a child, and when and how to terminate it is extremely important to understand. I recommend parents use this website as a resource:

And read the following sublinks:

The last link discusses the important special guidelines for putting children on a fast when stricken with certain types of illnesses. Be sure to read that one. Also, if the server is down or the link becomes dead, let me know via email and I’ll send you the text.


I wrote several articles on vaccination and health that parents or researchers may find informative. They’re not to be construed as individual clinical advice. They’re located at:

The webpage allows one to either display each of the articles on your screen (html), or to download them in any number of different file formats—the most compatible and best formatted being PDF.

If the website is down, I can email the articles to you at your request. These articles are written for the layperson, and are useful for persuading a friend or spouse that you made the correct decision for your child. If that is your task, then I would recommend you supply that person these articles in this order:

Chicken Pox: Why Do Children Die?

Introduction To The Vaccination Issue

Polio Awareness Day

Anthrax - Gov Comp. - Bioshield


Try to learn general principles of Natural Hygiene, which can stand as a guide in dealing with many kinds of symptoms. Understand, for example, The Seven Stages of Disease Progression. These two websites display it:

A link that explains a lot of Hygienic principles and theories is:

Parents with infants should look at

Especially its articles and list of recommended websites and books.


There are fine complete books on Natural Hygiene at

Click on the Health Library.

On this site, Steve Soloman of Tazmania had scanned in and uploaded the complete volumes of the great books on Natural Hygiene and related sciences. I assisted him with some books I have which are out-of-print.

A good one to start with is Shelton’s The Hygienic Care of Children. After all, as a parent, you must learn what to correctly do, and not do, should your child exhibit symptoms associated with infectious (inflammatory) illnesses. It’s one of many fine books intended for parents who don’t know what to do when their children become ill with infectious (inflammatory) symptoms. Another one to download would be John Tilden’s, M.D. Children: Their Health and Happiness.

My favorites are:

Food Is You Best Medicine, excellent for parents with young children, and how to keep them healthy.

Rational Bacteriology, an excellent technical resource that describes the work and theories of French bacteriologist Jules Tissot. It debunks the conventional theory of infectious disease. Share it with someone who believes that microbes cause disease.


Are There Any Pediatricians In New York
Who Support The Hygienic Approach?

Now that you have an idea of the alternative theory of “infectious” disease, as a parent, you should want to know that there are many clinicians with medical degrees who support this view. One of the great ones is Lawrence B. Palevsky, MD, FAAP, ABHM

Dr. Palevsky’s views on childhood diseases and acute illnesses are described here:

General Guidance If Your Child is Sick

Dr. Palevsky often remarks that “children need to be allowed to experience symptoms of acute illness in order for their bodies to appropriately cleanse the wastes and toxins from their systems, and so they can go forward in their lives toward greater optimal health and wellness.” Rarely does Dr. Palevsky ever need to prescribe antibiotics for children in his practice. On average, he writes one antibiotic prescription per year. This is because he has come to understand that most illnesses in children are not caused by infections, and therefore, don’t require antibiotic treatment. Dr. Palevsky recommends that parents read this section of his website in great detail so that they can better understand and address any perceived challenges to their children’s health.

Dr. Palevsky’s philosophy on health and wellness is described in the following article. This excerpt of his speech will help you gain insight into Dr. Palevsky’s philosophy and practice:

Rethinking Childhood Illness:
A New Approach to Keeping Children Healthy


Lawrence B. Palevsky, MD, FAAP, ABHM
Holistic Integrative Health Care for
Infants, Children & Adolescents
Offices in Manhattan & Long Island
For General Inquiries
email info --

Speaking Engagements
To book Dr. Palevsky for a speaking engagement, or for more information, please contact Elin Morgan at email: speakingengagements --

Ed Note: Replace the " -- " in the above 2 email addresses with the usual "@"

For Media/Press Inquiries:
email media --
Ed Note: Replace the " -- " in the above email address with the usual "@"

Dr. Palevsky is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, President of the American Holistic Medical Association (, co-founder and Dr. Palevsky is a Fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics, President of the American Holistic Medical Association (, co-founder and President of the Holistic Pediatric Association (, a Diplomate of the American Board of Holistic Medicine and a medical advisory board member to the Natural Gourmet Cookery School in New York City, Develomental Delay Resources (, Families for Natural Living and the National Vaccine Information Center. Dr. Palevsky teaches holistic integrative pediatric & adolescent medicine to parents and medical and allied health professionals both nationally & internationally.