Isaac Golden's Immunizations

[andyh]

Sheri Nakken wrote:
999 Dear Sheri,
Your vaccination damage documentation is excellent. Please do not take
the following in the wrong part, but it must be said:

PLEASE; before you start ranting against isopathic vaccination protocols
(which were not invented by Dr. Golden, though he is a valuable
contemporary exponent who has furthered their development); and
homeopathic prophylaxis in general; STUDY it as deeply as you have
studied allopathic vaccination. If you do not, you will be incorrectly
shooting down our very legitimate and well proven systems of prophylaxis
in homeopathy (which BTW are rarely taught well in homeopathic
colleges). I am SURE you do not want to shoot down the tenets of the
best immunization system available on the planet because of a poor
foundation of knowledge.

=======
To get a full coverage, then you will need to obtain one of the
following by Andre Saine:

---PAHM (now PAH in San Francisco operated by Richard Pitt) seminar
December 1988 (I don't know, however, if tape sets of this are still
available--includes an excellent segment on homeopathic prophylaxis all
the way from Hahnemann to today with the research studies that have been
done and the record of homeopathic prophylaxis (which, among the best
practitioners, was unbelievably good (ie 100% or close to it) using the
GENUS EPIDEMICUS in Smallpox, Cholera and any typical infectious disease
to which prophylaxis specifically was applied; and good (a bit less
than 100% typically but still very good if posology correct) using
ISOPATHIC PROPHYLAXIS (the type which makes up much of what Isaac Golden
uses and has done modern studies of).

---Andre Saine's video course module offered by him now from his website
(part of a larger video course costing several thousand dollars in toto)
(an easy search to find his really good website). Andre is an
outstanding instructor steeped in the history of homeopathy and
practicing at a high level, and more "classical" than the pope is
catholic. If you think homeopathic prophylaxis is not classical, then
study what the arch classical homeopath in the world today says about
prophylaxis (which he has used since he started practicing in the '80s,
following what he found that all the great masters did and did with
astounding success). If you want to discuss homeopathic prophylaxis,
please STUDY it first, and he is the one source of the best information
on it available.

=======
David Little's website also has some information on homeopathic
prophylaxis
=======

Homeopaths in general are ignorant about homeopathic and isopathic
prophylaxis because :
--few study the actual history (and Andre is one of the leading
authorities on homeopathic history)
--teachers in most of the Homeopathic colleges were not taught
homeopathic prophylaxis and in some cases are even biased against it
--there is reticence by those who use it (with exception of diligent
people like Dr. Golden) to discuss it loudly in a world of people
brainwashed about Jennerian vaccination as being unassailable.
--as you point out, so many homeopaths feel they have to appease
parents and acquiesce to vaccinations as usual, thinking the damage can
be mopped up in all cases, not desiring to raise the ire of any
authorities or hazard any (what would be considered perhaps malpractice
in conventional terms by not recommending Jennerian injected
vaccinations), and not having been taught about homeopathic prophylaxis.

evidence IS NOT SCANTY. So please study and route people to Dr. Saine's
material.

I will give you SOME info here as I am sure you do not want to have as
much fear of homeopathic prophylaxis as you warn homeopaths to be
careful about with their fear of disease (which drives doctors and
patients to the more dire consequences of vaccinosis and the extensive
and tragic effects of vaccination iatrogenesis as you aptly document).
Homeopathic prophylaxis must be reclaimed by homeopaths or it leaves
people without a sense of protection if they are counselled that there
is nothing else. IT IS A PROFOUND DISSERVICE TO INCORRECTLY DENIGRATE
HOMEOPATHIC AND ISOPATHIC PROPHYLAXIS. The correct chronic remedy (or
what many call the "constitutional remedy") IS a very good prophylactic
measure, BUT:

1-it is not always going to confer the immunity needed in virulent
epidemics unless the correct remedy has been applied in the correct
posology for sufficient duraton of time. Pierre Schmidt wrote in 1920
(regarding the immunity conferred by the correct chronic remedy):
"After the patient receiving the correct constitutional remedy has been
through two cycles of 30C to MM then the patient will be in optimal
health and immunized against epidemic disease".
Since this kind of certainty is rare except in the best practices, thus
will be needed the added measure of: (for general protection)-isopathic
immunization protocols or the general homeopathic prophylactic (in
ascending potencies over time to prevent aggravation)(e.g.Lathyrus in
Polio); AND/OR -(when the epidemic is on the way or has arrived
locally): the Genus Epidemicus (simillimum for the epidemic) when it has
been identified for a specific epidemic.

2-what percentage of a client load at any given time have been given
their correct chronic remedy? By no means 100% (!!), so a good portion
of the practice is vulnerable unless specific prophylaxis measures are
used, particularly when an epidemic becomes local; but also as prior
routine protection as per the isopathic protocols such as Dr. Golden's
(which some homeopaths seem to find objectionable, (even though it is a
safe and straightforward alternative to conventional vaccination(!)-how
many reports of autism (for example) has anyone heard about from routine
isopathic immunization? If posology is ramped up appropriately, it is
largely not even noticed, and involves no injection of anything. WHY is
this SO objectionable? Please see the practicality and safety of this
method and cease uneducated rants against someone who has done a lot of
valuable work for homeopathy or anyone who does not practice by the
"religion" of how one was taught. They may know more than you or be
pushing homeopathy further ahead. Human beings are typically
prejudiced. Homeopaths cannot be prejudiced to be effective in the
important task of protecting health and relieving suffering.
============================================================
Here is enough information (from lecture by Dr Saine) so that, after
reading this, if an individual is STILL BIASED against homeopathic and
isopathic prophylaxis, or thinks it is not "Classical", then they
cannot take a hint from uniform statistical results, in some cases
involving thousands of cases; do not understand homeopathy; and
arguably should not be practicing (because they are prejudiced and
homeopathy is a field in which one cannot be prejudiced and succeed):
============================================================

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The Opinions of the Developers of Homeopathy on Homeopathic and
Isopathic Prophylaxis: (Research by Andre Saine, ND and copyrighted 1988
and beyond by him)

Hahnemann
============
Boenninghausen
=============
Boenninghausen: "Homeopathy is the most sure prophylactic. The remedy
that will cure is also the remedy to protect". So-during an epidemic
disease, the remedy that cures members of a family will be the
prophylactic for as yet unaffected individuals in that family. This
remedy is the Genus epidemicus, and when it is correctly identified and
applied in an epidemic of ANY DISEASE (emphasis added), it is 100 %
effective.
Hering
============
Hering and Dunham were the only true scientists in homeopathy beside
Hahnemann. Hering had no respect for Hahnemann's theories until
clinical evidence bore the theories out. Hering approved of homeopathic
prophylaxis, and was a member of a London society for the abolution of
compulsory vaccination. Hering utilized vaccination only in want of
something better, until it was demonstrated that homeopathic prophylaxis
was the best protection, and gave up vaccination.
History of the Use of Isopathic nosodes (an Innovation of C. Hering, the
chief progenitor of homeopathy in America)
==================================

In Organon, paragraph 56, Hahnemann states that nosodes from animals
can be used to prevent and treat human disease. Hering pioneered the
use of nosodes for prevention in 1830. Hydrophobinum was his first
nosode.

Pacific Coast Journal of Homeopathy: 1830. When a nosode is used
(Variolinum for smallpox) every case was saved in prevention and
treatment.
The International Hahnemannian Association (IHA)
=============
As of 1904, members of the International Hahnemannian Assoc (IHA), the
most prestigious group of classical homeopaths to ever live, were using
isopathic prophylaxis extensively, FOLLOWING THE SAME SCHEDULE AS CRUDE
VACCINATIONS (emphasis added)..

(Aside: Andre Saine warns that isopathy, being not curative in all
cases, is thus is not protective in all cases-so the protection by
isopathic immunization protocols alone will not be 100%, though it may
be close to that. But isopathic prophylaxis is the best method if there
is no general homeopathic (facsimile as opposed to idem) prophylactic
known (eg a specific prophylactic such as Lathyrus for Polio); AND if
the Genus Epidemicus, which is the curative and protective remedy for a
given epidemic) is not yet known (when an epidemic is looming). Thus
isopathic immunization (concurrently with the continuously applied
indicated chronic remedy) is used for routine protection, and when an
epidemic appears but the Genus epidemicus is not yet found or the
epidemic is highly variable. Isopathic immunization IS VERY APPROPRIATE
FOR THIS TASK, EVEN if the list of remedies seems long. If used
properly, they are not indiscriminately applied, and they are not
applied without concurrent use of the best simillimum for the person.)
The IHA officially adopted homeopathic prophylaxis as an accepted
method. (THE IHA IS THE GROUP OF HAHNEMANNIAN HOMEOPATHS (e.g. H.C
Allen, Grimmer, etc) FROM WHOM WE INHERITED WHAT WE CALL HOMEOPATHY;
AND WHOSE BOOKS WE CONSULT EVERY DAY )
Kent
=============
Lockjaw-Kent recommended Ledum (first stage) prophylactic and Hypericum
(2nd stage)

Kent-Lecture 29, Lesser Writings- "The other and greater prophylactic is
the homeopathic remedy". He discusses the genus epidemicus. Also, the
simile (e.g. the isopathic) WILL STILL WORK IN PROPHYLAXIS (emphasis
mine) --(it is not as critical to find the simillimum in prophylaxis as
it is in treatment).
Homeopaths After Kent
=============
Classical homeopaths after Kent supported homeopathic prophylaxis not
just in epidemic disease, but routinely. This was the case for Pulford,
Grimmer, Tyler, and Schmidt.
Pierre Schmidt was perhaps the premier classical homeopath in the 20th
century (after Kent and before Vithoulkas and others) (although Grimmer
his contemporary was probably Schmidt's peer in every respect )
=============
Schmidt published in 1963 that he had used homeopathic prophylaxis as
his teachers (Kent and Austin) had (see Belgian Journal of Homeopathy
1963) for the past 47 years for Smallpox. (EMPHASIS-THE PREMIER
CLASSICAL HOMEOPATH OF THE MID-20TH CENTURY (WHO WAS TAUGHT BY KENT)
USED HOMEOPATHIC PROPHYLAXIS FOR SMALLPOX (A DISEASE WITH UP TO 30% OR
SO FATALITY RATE AND DISFIGURING) HIGHLY SUCCESSFULLY FOR
DOES ANYONE WANT TO DISPUTE THAT HOMEOPATHIC PROPHYLAXIS IS NOT
CLASSICAL?)
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
==========================================
British Homeopathic Journal, 1843-A review of Scarlatina prophylaxis by
Blake. Of 4628 cases immunized with Belladonna, 4534 (98%) were
protected, the other 2% developed the disease.

Texas Homeopathic Palette, 1883- Vaccininum (homeopathic cowpox) was
used, and completely protected against smallpox, even those eating and
playing with those that had smallpox.

1870-Swan (American) and Fincke introduced nosodes, and Variolinum was
one introduced. In 100 families that already had smallpox in the family,
Variolinum was protective of the remaining members. Remember, smallpox
is extremely contagious.

1871-Sarracenia (Pitcher Plant)(which was developed by Hering) was the
genus epidemicus of a smallpox epidemic in Belgium. No deaths occurred
in those immunized homeopathically. All the names and addresses were
documented.

1941 U.S. smallpox outbreak-homoepathic prophylaxis recorded a 98-99%
effectiveness.

Dorothy Shepherd-working in an orphanage, used homeopathic proph.
against pertussis (whooping cough), which is very contagious. As a
test, one child in a class of 21 was immunized with pertussinum 30C,
once daily. 18 got whooping cough, 2 already had it, and the one
immunized was protected.

Diptheria-Paul Chevanaux (sp?). A positive Shick test indicates
susceptibility to diptheria. He treated a group with diptherinum 6C,
12C, 30C, 200C, 4M, and 8M (each patient received a different potency).
Of those treated with 6C, only a few became negative for the Shick
test. Those treated wiht 4M -95% were protected, and with 8M, 100%.

Polio-Taylor Smith and Johannes Borg-1850-they immunized 82 people in an
epidemic area with Lathyrus sativa 30C every 16 days. 12 of the 82 were
part of a family, and in direct contact with family members. No polio
cases occurred in the population of 82.

Lathyrus sativa has cured and prevented polio. Dr. John Bastyr-1953,
56, and 57 was involved in Polio epidemics, and had no polio cases in
over 5000 patients. Chickens are susceptible to polio. Bastyr would
know polio was in the are from watching the chickens. In the 1950's he
would give Lathyrus 200C, 3 doses the first year, 8 months later a
booster of Lathyrus 1M, and 1 year after that another booster of 10M.

1957 polio epidemic- Chicago (where Grimmer practiced) and San Francisco
(where Pierre Schmidt's brother Roger Schmidt practiced), 300 children
were on Lathyrus without any cases of Polio, whereas many children on
the Salk vaccine contracted the disease.

A.H. Grimmer gave Lathyrus "vaccinations"in 5000 cases, with 100%
protection. Grimmer recommended:
-Lathyrus 30C once a month for 3 months for kids 1-3 years old
-2 months later, Lathyrus 200C every other month for 2 doses
-then Lathyrus 1M 2 months later
-then Lathyrus 70M twice a year for 5 years

His idea was to build the potency and the immunity. Hahnemann had
recommended giving prophylaxis only when the epidemic was in the area.
Grimmer would build up the immunity regardless.

1957 Buenos Aires Polio epidemic- Lathyrus was the genus epidemicus, and
Lathyrus was distributed freely by the pharmacies. 40,000 doses were
given. Not one case was reported among this group.

1960-Belgian homeopath-For the last 40 years, had given polio nosode and
Lathyrus 8 days apart from each other. No cases of polio in the
practice for past 20 years. (aside-the polio nosode is made from spinal
tissue)

Asian influenza-a study was done in an industrial setting: 630 people
were given Asian flu nosode 30C once a week for 4 weeks, and then every
2nd week for 6 weeks. Of 630, 53 (8.4%) got the flu. 152 workdays were
lost, or .25days per worker. 907 in the same industry were not
immunized at all. 188 got the Asian flu (21%) and lost 1,115 days of
work, or 5.9 days per worker (20 times mor lost work hours).

Brazil- 1974-Meningitis AB epidemic. In a town of 78000, 18000 kids
below age 5, and 640 between 5 and 15 yrs were homeopathically immunized
with meningococcinum 10CH, 1 drop (the potency was so low because the
governments help was employed, and 10C is a dilution level below
Avogadro's number, which presumably helped enlist the govt assistance).
6340 people who did not recieve the immunization were checked. 25
developed meningitis. Of 18,640 immunized with the nosode, 7 cases were
recorded. One case developed 2 days after the immunization, and 2
developed 3 months later. 4 out of 18640 developed the disease after
the immunization procedure was complete.

Francisco Eizayaga -Argentina-tested influenzinum on nuns in an unheated
convent. He gave influenzinum 200C. There were 73 nuns in the
convent. 72 were protected from the flu. There was 1 case- an older nun
who declined to participate in the study.

David Cassill study done in Brazil in 1985-Schistosomiasis 30C given
before exposure protected from damage from the parasite.
Incidences of Failure recorded for homeopathic prophylaxis:
===================================
British Journal of Homeopathy, 1858-Belladonna tincture diluted with H2O
2x/day for 2 months. 75% not treated this way developed Scarlatina. Of
the treated group, 53% developed the disease. Conclusion: only a
tincture was used (posology and potency were wrong).

Belladonna is specific for Syderham smooth scarlatina. An incidence of
failure was reported using Belladonna on non-Syderhams.
Conclusion
===================================
From this and the history outlined, it may be gleaned that routine
isopathic immunization was adopted as a classical technique by the great
homeopaths of the 19th and 20th centuries. Also, when an epidemic is
variable, then the nosode of the disease may be better than using the
genus epidemicus (which even in a nonvariable epidemic, may be difficult
to find). The best measure is both the isopathic nosode (given as a
routine prophylaxis beforehand and when an epidemic exists somewhere)
and the Genus epidemicus (which when found in an epidemic with unvarying
characteristics, will protect 100%, as the above data intimates.) As
has been presented, the homeopathic community of old witnessed the
efficacy of homeopathic prophylaxis. But we are separated from our
past. The past unearthed from the vast resource of homeopathic
periodical literature demonstrates that homeopaths could be taking more
steps to prevent suffering.

I hope it was ok with Andre Saine that much of his research was posted.
This material was unearthed by him and is copyrighted by him. It was
posted because important exponents of vaccination education, MUST give
out the correct information about homeopathic and isopathic prophylaxis.

There is a lot of specific information on homeopathic and isopathic
prophylaxis for diseases which is currently being compiled and is also
available via Dr. Saine's aforementioned materials.
So this TYPE of protocol, believe it or not, could be considered as
"classical", if the IHA (International Hahnemannian Association), Pierre
Schmidt, and Andre Saine (among many other of the purest classical
homeopaths who ever lived) are considered "classical":

Age Recommended Remedy Potency
1 month Pertussin 200
2 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M
4 months Lathyrus Sativus 200
5 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
6 months Haemophilis M
7 months Haemophilis M, M, M
9 months Diphtherinum 200
10 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M
11 months Tetanus Toxin 200
12 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M
13 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M
14 months Morbillinum 200
15 months Morbillinum 200, M, 10M
16 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
17 months Haemophilis M, M, M
19 months Parotidinum 200
20 months Parotidinum 200, M, 10M
22 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M
24 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M
26 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
28 months Haemophilis M, M, M
32 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M
41 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M
46 months Haemophilis M, M, M
50 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M
54 months Morbillinum 200, M, 10M
56 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
60 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M

While a faster ramping of potencies (i.e. no ramping at all if these
given simultaneously) than what Grimmer used (for example) in Polio, you
can see that, while more aggressive, this protocol by Isaac Golden is
comparable to what Grimmer (arguably Kent's chief disciple, who used to
substitute lecture for him although still a student, and who took over
Kent's Chicago practice after practicing with him for a few years) did:

POLIO
A.H. Grimmer gave Lathyrus "vaccinations"in 5000 cases, with 100%
protection. Grimmer recommended:
-Lathyrus 30C once a month for 3 months for kids 1-3 years old
-2 months later, Lathyrus 200C every other month for 2 doses
-then Lathyrus 1M 2 months later
-then Lathyrus 70M twice a year for 5 years

That was just for Polio, which was rampant during parts of Grimmer's
career. The above protocol is just a modern (somewhat expanded and
somewhat more aggressive) corollary (based on Golden's extensive
research) of what Grimmer did, which was a corollary of what was done by
the members of the IHA, and Hering before them.

============================================================================

[Sheri Nakken]

Hi Andy, I actually have researched the history of prophylactic homeopathy
and it is NOT this huge list that Isaac Golden does. Never in a million
years.

I know Hahnemann's work with it. I know Grimmer's work (& I'm not in much
agreement with his either as I have a very different view as to what polio
even was). I have researched it. I even wrote a huge paper on it in school.

I certainly believe in homeopathic prophylaxis in the vicinity and energy
of the disease at the moment IF it is necessary - IF a huge
risk............but NEVER in a million years given such as this in such
high potencies and so routinely at the months chosen.

Andy, why do you think what you have written and shared is at all like
Golden's stuff.
Polio is NOT what we are led to believe #1
Measles, mumps, rubella? Come on.

And so many of the rest. Just playing on the fears of people and following
the arbitrary dates set up for allopathic vaccines.

I have looked at the whole issue in depth.

At 01:28 PM 04/14/2004 -0700, andyh@mcn.org wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL
OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[Julian Winston]

At 1:28 PM -0700 4/14/04, andyh@mcn.org wrote:
[snip]

The one piece that is not mentioned here is the difference between
the work of Hahnemann, Grimmer, etc. and that of Golden.
The old masters used prophylaxis ONLY when the "wolf was at the
door"-- when Polio was in the neighborhood, Lathrus was given. When
Smallpox was in the neighborhood, Variolinum was given.
When I say "in the neighborhood" I mean it literally. The community
in which you are living is seeing an outbreak. It is NOT in the next
state. It is IN the community.
That is very different than using the Golden system which caters to
the FEAR of the parents that their child will get sick and thus load
the child up with stuff that they might never in their natural
lifetime need.
Even Conventional Vaccines have been bastardized in this way. Most
were developed for a specific population-- the Mumps vaccine was
designed to protect teenage boys when *it was determined they were in
immediate danger.* Sorry to say, the concept stretched from
"immediate" to "probable" to "might as well".
I look at the list of "immunizations" that Golden gives and I am horrified.
WHY do this to anyone who is NOT in danger. What chance is there of a
kid getting whooping cough, mumps, measles, or polio these days?
And... if whooping cough, mumps, or measles come-- isn't there
adequate homeopathic treatment for it?
I've head of three kids locally who got "whooping cough" and the GP
could do nothing about the whoop. A visit to the homeopath resolved
it in a few days.

What that whole list is about is FEAR and a desire to satisfy the
authorities that the kids are immunized-- and THAT runs on fear as
well.

Use homeopathy for prophylaxis WHEN required-- as the masters did--
not as a shotgun to ally fear and do possible untold damage to the
kids.

JW

[Julian Winston]

At 9:51 PM +0100 4/14/04, Sheri Nakken wrote:

[snip the rest]

HEY GUYS!! I'M NOT KIDDING ON THIS ONE!!!!

Sheri:
YOU ENCLOSED ANDY'S WHOLE 24 K WITH YOUR REPLY!

PLEASE!!!!!!!!!

EDIT THE REPLIES. I"VE ALREADY SEEN ANDY'S LONG THING!!!

And for those who say, "CAPS" are yelling.... YES I am yelling.
People on this more, lore than any other list I'm on, do NOT edit
their replies and just push "reply" without, obviously, any thought.

PLEASE EDIT!!!

JW

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Yes, fear....
Yes, pharmaceutical greed.....
Yes, in too many countries, the legal obligation to do so or else......
We may repeat that until the cows come home.

So what you DO when confronted with that situation?

And I mean DO, not theorise.........

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind""

[Chua Ching Yee]

on 15/4/04 6:41 pm, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:
Yup, BBIGGGG difference! Definitely don't subscribe to Golden's approach.

[snip]
I feel queasy every time I look down the list!

http://www.lyghtforce.com/HomeopathyOnL ... den_t1.htm
Age Recommended Remedy Potency
1 month Pertussin 200
2 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M
4 months Lathyrus Sativus 200
5 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
6 months Haemophilis M
7 months Haemophilis M, M, M
9 months Diphtherinum 200
10 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M
11 months Tetanus Toxin 200
12 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M
13 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M
14 months Morbillinum 200
15 months Morbillinum 200, M, 10M
16 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
17 months Haemophilis M, M, M
19 months Parotidinum 200
20 months Parotidinum 200, M, 10M
22 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M
24 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M
26 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
28 months Haemophilis M, M, M
32 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M
41 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M
46 months Haemophilis M, M, M
50 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M
54 months Morbillinum 200, M, 10M
56 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
60 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M
Remedy-Disease Relationship: Pertussin -- Whooping Cough; Tetanus Toxin --
Tetanus; Parotidinum -- Mumps; Haemophilis -- Hib Influenzae; Lathyrus
Sativus – Polio; Diphtherinum – Diphtheria; Morbillinum -- Measles:

Ching Yee
"Time makes more converts than reason." ~ Thomas Paine

[andyh]

Sheri Nakken wrote:
Age Recommended Remedy Potency
1 month Pertussin 200
2 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M
4 months Lathyrus Sativus 200
5 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
6 months Haemophilis M
7 months Haemophilis M, M, M
9 months Diphtherinum 200
10 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M
11 months Tetanus Toxin 200
12 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M
13 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M
14 months Morbillinum 200
15 months Morbillinum 200, M, 10M
16 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
17 months Haemophilis M, M, M
19 months Parotidinum 200
20 months Parotidinum 200, M, 10M
22 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M
24 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M
26 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
28 months Haemophilis M, M, M
32 months Pertussin 200, M, 10M
41 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M
46 months Haemophilis M, M, M
50 months Diphtherinum 200, M, 10M
54 months Morbillinum 200, M, 10M
56 months Lathyrus Sativus 200, M, 10M
60 months Tetanus Toxin 200, M, 10M

999 I am not out to defend Isaac Golden (though I by no means disagree with this
type of protocol, I think it is too agressive and several of these unnecessary
(and a judgement call by parents and practitioner if the chronic care is good).
There are 6 different nosodes and Lathyrus being used. Of them, maybe only
Lathyrus (Polio), Diptherinum, Tetanus, and Pertussis really present
life-threatening or maiming possibilities that a parent might really worry
about. Haemophilus is typically rampant and widespread and extremely infectious,
so that one is understandable to use. That leaves Measles and Mumps as the only
ones that could be called unnecessary in almost any situation, if the chronic
care has holes in it (which it almost always will for some percentage of a
practice). The dose schedule is a bit aggressive, but not really all too
different than Grimmer giving 70M twice yearly for 5000 children. How many
children did Grimmer report had problems with that schedule? Zero. I doubt
there is any problem with a system like this replacing injections when it is felt
necessary because the parents want it and it is called for by local history (eg
local epidemiology). It is more progressive than Andre Saine's
recommendations, but mainly in the fact that Golden gives three potencies in 24
hours instead of ramping up over time.

However, more to the point, I did not post Saine material to defend Golden or
this specific protocol, I posted that material ONLY because you--by (correctly)
pointing out the bankruptcy of Jennerian vaccination as it is now practiced (and
was practiced in the past) and THEN (incorrectly) denigrating the isopathic and
homeopathic portion of a COMPLETE and EFFECTIVE system of prophylaxis, you are
telling people that there is NO PROPHYLAXIS they can do a priori besides the
chronic rx. This is misleading and does not correctly represent all that
homeopathy has to offer parents and children.

Sheri wrote:

There is just no proof of efficacy with Isaac Goldens' vaccinations......no
proof at all - didn't get the illness; exposed to the illness and didn't
get it...........this is NOT proof of any kind whatsoever........

999 What kind of spokesperson ARE you for homeopathy when you make comments like
this? If you do not agree with the protocol per se then fine, but GET YOUR
FACTS STRAIGHT about proof of the efficacy of the principle. You are
representing a whole system of therapeutics. This type of protocol is backed up
by information like the following regarding prophylaxis with NO SIDE EFFECTS:

===
POLIO (for example)
**Lathyrus sativa has cured and prevented polio. Dr. John Bastyr-1953, 56, and
57 was involved in Polio epidemics, and had no polio cases in over 5000 patients.

Chickens are susceptible to polio. Bastyr would know polio was in the are from
watching the chickens. In the 1950's he would give Lathyrus 200C, 3 doses the
first year, 8 months later a booster of Lathyrus 1M, and 1 year after that
another booster of 10M.

**1957 polio epidemic- Chicago (where Grimmer practiced) and San Francisco (where
Pierre Schmidt's brother Roger Schmidt practiced), 300 children were on
Lathyrus without any cases of Polio, whereas many children on the Salk vaccine
contracted the disease.

A.H. Grimmer gave Lathyrus "vaccinations"in 5000 cases, with 100% protection.
Grimmer recommended:
-Lathyrus 30C once a month for 3 months for kids 1-3 years old
-2 months later, Lathyrus 200C every other month for 2 doses
-then Lathyrus 1M 2 months later
-then Lathyrus 70M twice a year for 5 years

1957 Buenos Aires Polio epidemic- Lathyrus was the genus epidemicus, and Lathyrus
was distributed freely by the pharmacies. 40,000 doses were given. Not one
case was reported among this group.
===
SMALLPOX (for example)

Texas Homeopathic Palette, 1883- Vaccininum (homeopathic cowpox) was used, and
completely protected against smallpox, even those eating and playing with those
that had smallpox.

1870-Swan (American) and Fincke introduced nosodes, and Variolinum was one
introduced. In 100 families that already had smallpox in the family, Variolinum
was
protective of the remaining members. Remember, smallpox is extremely contagious.

1871-Sarracenia (Pitcher Plant)(which was developed by Hering) was the genus
epidemicus of a smallpox epidemic in Belgium. No deaths occurred in those
immunized homeopathically. All the names and addresses were documented.
999 How is that for statistics? Nearly PERFECT immunization. Lathyrus,
Sarracenia, Vaccininum examples of homeopathic prophylaxis, Variolinum of
isopathic. Compare it with chronic treatment alone (what percentage of a
practice gets the simillimum? -Mangialavori in an interview says 1/3 of his
clients do really well, 1/3 do fairly well, and 1/3 arent helped AT ALL. Many of
us do higher percentages than that in small practices, but in a volume practice
that sees a broad spectrum, children are vulnerable at any given time. That is
WHY Hering, the IHA members, Grimmer, Schmidt, and... Isaac Golden complement the
chronic treatment with isopathic prophylaxis. To help their clients and their
parents who don't want injections, and yet don't want to rely on only one
measure. As written in the previous post:
====
Pierre Schmidt wrote in 1920 (regarding the immunity conferred by the correct
chronic remedy): "After the patient receiving the correct constitutional remedy
has been through two cycles of 30C to MM then the patient will be in optimal
health and immunized against epidemic disease".
Since this kind of certainty is rare except in the best practices and clearest
cases, thus will be needed the added measure of: (for general
protection)-isopathic immunization protocols AND general homeopathic
prophylactics (e.g Lathyrus in Polio) (in ascending potencies over time to
prevent aggravation); AND-(when the epidemic is on the way or has arrived
locally): the Genus Epidemicus (simillimum for the epidemic) when it has (and if
it has) been identified for a specific epidemic.
====

So, it is up to the practitioner and parents what they want to give specific
immunity boosters against, and it may not be necessary in many cases. But
(especially compared with conventional injections) does it hurt the child? Is
there record of that?. What did Hahnemann say about doing provings? That they
are strengthening? Unless the chronic care is a complete failure and the child
is really ill, isopathics (albeit less progressive and less inclusive than
Golden is done by most using such protocols) will not hurt a child.
999 Go ahead and say what Polio really was if it won't get us all killed
But was it not a syndrome and could it not become epidemic regardless of the
forcing function? The above results with Lathyrus (PERFECT IMMUNITY for some
40,000 children in Buenos Aires in the midst of an epidemic in which children are
being crippled? That was not a fake disease. People did get crippled by it.
But not in Grimmer's practice. Sure, maybe Grimmers superlative chronic care was
really doing it, not the 70M Lathyrus given twice a year. But in Buenos Aires,
all the homeopaths were not Grimmer. And those 40,000 were not all under chronic
care. So the Chickpea (Lathyrus) wins. And whatever your view of what polio is,
Herings isopathic prophylaxis has 150+ years track record and it is not cool to
tell 7000 listees otherwise when you are telling people to throw out conventional
vacc. and implying that the chronic rx is all that homeopathy has to offer in its
place.
999 Fine. That is clinical judgement. But you said this:
Sheri wrote:
999 Because Andre Saine's protocol (which I use) is just a less aggressive
version of the same thing. And Andre is more "classical" than the Pope is
Catholic. As I said, Golden is more aggressive and progressive in application
(by his triple ramped dose in 24 hours instead of ramping over months), but the
principle and the PROOF goes right back to Hering and those who founded the
system. Did you miss that? Your post could be interpreted to say that isopathic
prophylaxis had NO PROOF. If you are going to be that sloppy, then please don't
comment to the outside world or lists of 7000 people on homeopathic or isopathic
prophylaxis. Because this misleads people. You are representing more than just
Sheri's opinion. Do you understand why I was incited to post that info? It is
not a small point. Everyone appreciates your courage in getting out a tough
message re vacc.. Please also get it right about homeopathic prophylaxis without
wiping out a whole component of it.
999 Why is that relevant to the discussion? Did not Lathyrus appear to provide
perfect immunity WHATEVER polio IS or WAS? What does it have to do with your
statement that (in essence can be interpreted as) throwing out Hering's
isopathic prophylaxis as having NO PROOF (which is a false and misleading
statement)?
999 I didnt see rubella on his list. I agree that measles and mumps takes it
too far. Still some parents may want it even as it is not indicated nor helpful.
999 The point IS not about the specific protocol of Golden's -- but about your
statement regarding proof and misleading people about one part of the homeopathic
system which is already poorly taught. For your large audience, please be a bit
more measured in the way you criticize things by using more precise
communication.
999 That is not evident unless you communicate it without misleading people.
All I have to say. Point made, back to work.....

Best to all,
Andy

[Julian Winston]

At 10:53 AM +1200 4/15/04, Dr. J. Rozencwajg. MD. PhD. wrote:

I believe that in NZ, immunizations are NOT mandatory. There are
child care facilities that will not take children without
immunization.
What to do? Either stay at home with the kid or find one which will
do what most schools do-- take the kid (sans immunization) and then
IF there is an epidemic, the child has to stay home for the duration.
I know people in the USA who are committed enough to no immunizations
that they will home school the kids rather than immunize them.
I have heard of people moving to another state to avoid immunizations.
That is what to DO.
I know docs who will NOT immunize children. If the parents want it,
they go elsewhere.

JW

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Yes indeed we are lucky in NZ, there are no mandatory vaccinations.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind""

[Sheri Nakken]

we all goof occasionally
and life has been VERY challenging on my end......
thanks

At 09:50 AM 04/15/2004 +0000, you wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL
OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936