PROPHYLAXIS AS CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY

[andyh]

Dear Sheri:

convincing if I've given a remedy and the person

AND YOU DON'T HEAR ME. THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW, EVEN THOUGH I THINK
THAT
IT IS APPROPRIATE TO GIVE THE NOSODE OR REMEDY AS
PREVENTATIVE..........WE
DON'T REALLY KNOW DO WE?

******* This is a bit of a cop out. All that needs to happen is for you
to find the morbidity and mortality records for some of epidemics that I
cited from Andre Saine’s information. Compare the percentage of death,
morbidity, or contagion as reported IN TOTO in the city or area by the
local public health authorities in their subsequent reports WITH what
Andre Saine found reported in the homeopathic journals (some examples of
which I posted). It shouldn’t be all that difficult. At the very
least, one of the cases should provide at least a coarse context to show
how unexpected (or not remarkable) the homeopathic prophylaxis or use of
the GE was in the particular epidemic.

For example,, one can do at least crude statistical analysis and further
investigation on results such as this:
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 receive 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.
You will find out how EVERYBODY ELSE IN THAT TOWN fared. Please DON’T
JOIN THE LA SKEPTICS.
Some of the reports are self evident, but maybe some of the data is also
enhanceable.

Some of this type of work has already been done. There is a book I do
not have (and which I am told is out of print) called “The Logic of
Figures” about the Yellow Fever epidemic in the American Southeast in (I
believe) the 1870’s, during which Crotalus horridus (and possibly other
rx) were used as the simillimum for the epidemic. I do not know whether
Yellow Fever nosode was used also as an isopathic measure. As I recall
(perhaps J Winston has the figures at hand and can share if desired) the
contrast under homeopathic treatment was night and day (or morgue or
not). Similar work has been done regarding epidemics of Cholera. This
can tell us more about isopathic efficacy (eg cholera nosode for
cholera) and General prophylactic efficacy (eg Cuprum for cholera) or
the simillimum found for the epidemic (the Genus epidemicus-eg Veratrum
for the French Cholera epidemic during the Napoleonic reign). BUT—we
already know a LOT about this, which I have posted from Andre’s work,
and furthered with info from A. Currim (Grimmer) and (significant data)
from Rochelle about Banerjea in today’s post.

In your original assertion which set me off (about Golden’s protocol)
you said:

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........
In response to that I (though I rather cordially said)
Andy 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 best
immunization system available on the planet because of a poor foundation
of knowledge.

*********Now was that asking very much of you? I followed that with all
the best research sweated out by Dr. Saine. Did that help? No. It
apparently takes someone to literally insult you to get you to get off
your horse. Is that the only language you know?

There is LOTS OF proof about Isaac Golden’s protocol. You don’t have to
study his results in Australia (which he anyway has done and is further
refining—he reported 90% efficacy in his post the other day supposedly
using statistical methods he has gone to grad school to learn to
employ-quite a bit of effort whether one agrees with it or not. At
least treat a collegue with respect). But what he is reporting is only
confirming what we know generally already (caveat-the results are a bit
different in India—see today other post).

One need only look at history and use INFERENCE because the targets and
posology of the masters using scheduled isopathic and homeopathic
prophylaxis were very similar to Golden’s, It’s just not appropriate to
get so hot under your bonnet with religious fervor that something HAS NO
PROOF. That is LA SKEPTICS TALK.
Sheri wrote:
Andy you have misunderstood me.

******** I DID NOT misunderstand you as you assert. I understood you
perfectly. You did not realize that the best classical homeopaths used
ROUTINE protocols not unlike Golden’s. That is ok, except before my post
yesterday, YOU STILL did not know it even after 3 very long posts. Even
that would be fine with me, except that you are a SPOKESPERSON FOR
HOMEOPATHY, which is the only reason I bothered to call you on your
incorrect information, a burden which I would like to shed, because you
comport yourself as someone who is stubborn and prejudiced. NOT VERY
SCIENTIFIC. Is this really the case?

Sheri wrote:
Seems like you are pretty upset with me for something you have
misunderstood. Andy, I think you are upset over some problem that
doesn't
exist as far as I am concerned. My issues were with blanket remedies
given
in serial doses of high potencies routinely to children over months and
years for things that are not that grave of a concern in most cases for
most children and aren't even threatening thme at the moment.
********I am WITH YOU about that schedule in toto being overkill, as I
said previously. Whether Golden’s current choices and multiplicity of
disease targets and level of aggressiveness is called for is a matter
of clinical judgement. It is overkill (particularly the Measles, Mumps
as we discussed) but it BEATS VACCINATION anyday, and is likely more
effective without causing any of the dire consequences that you and
others squeamishly apparently FEAR My guess is the worst result is an
aggravation of several days duration using his aggressive posology,
something which happens with conventional vaccinations, only we all know
the difference. For many parents, a few days aggravation (if that were
to occur) IS WORTH IT, particularly because now they don’t have to worry
about ADD, autism, and all the possible side effects that you are an
authority on, because they used STRUCTURED WATER instead of injections.
I have given you data that you can use to INFER PROOF of efficacy. And
you can evaluate Golden’s own stats which he may be ready to email to
you in more detail. And yet YOU SAID (after 3 long posts of mine on
most aspects of the topic and giving you on a silver platter the best
historical information available on homeopathic and isopathic
prophylaxis):

Sheri wrote:

*******This is why you sound for all the world like someone right out of
the LA Skeptics society. Will you please GET CIRCUMSPECT ?

Golden is the researcher SWEATING out the work on behalf of homeopathy,
and we all can learn from that. And what you displayed was only
derision and casting an accusation that he might be a money grubber.

What I am starting to suspect is that Golden is an unheralded genius,
because, given by all the reports of homeopaths being called re:
homeopathic immunizations, it is catching on in Aussieland solely
because of his efforts. People are being drawn into homeopathy and away
from vaccinations via this mechanism. In that light, you might realize
that, if you can get over your squeamishness and remove a few diseases
from his protocol, Golden is accomplishing in Australia in a different
way exactly what you are trying to accomplish in this hemisphere. You
and others are overemphasizing the danger from this type of protocol.
WHY? Because as I have demonstrated, it is JUST LIKE what classical
homeopaths have done in the US, India, and elsewhere with a long history
of NO PROBLEMS.

Yes, I too OF COURSE agree with Will Taylor’s assessment that you
posted: that homeopathy is about providing a mimic of the largest
totality in the client in order to annhilate disease and provoke natural
immunity. That GOES WITHOUT SAYING ?this is what we discuss on this
list day in and day out. That is not to be lost sight of in this VERY
DIFFICULT effort to get you to see why you are spreading disinformation
and how you can utilize Hering’s system of isopathic proph and
Hahnemann’s system of homeopathic proph to help clients depressurize
from conventional healthcare (and help homeopaths provide protection
from severe epidemics when and if they come. YOU NEED TO INTEGRATE THIS
INFO (by studying Golden and the stuff I have provided for you) INTO
YOUR TEACHING.

If you read and understood my posts (I won’t believe THAT til I see it)
and (if you agree) that we are only about 60% effective at finding the
chronic simillimum AT BEST, and must be vigilant to maintain that
immunity via posology and followups, then you may FINALLY understand.
You may GET IT why I am saying that these prophylactic systems are an
INTEGRAL part of homeopathic practice, have been since even before
Hering, and that SCHEDULED PROTOCOLS are not merely an attempt to copy
allopaths and appease parents and organizations, although that may be
how they begin in MANY cases. Golden may be your “mate” in your
efforts, and you might be wise to say “ G’day” to him and WORK TOGETHER
on your common MISSION instead of being a religious fanatic about
posology and concern about aggravations from high potencies which in the
end are harmless when coupled with chronic treatment (and paring down of
the number of interventions) (and provide a BRIDGE between the
conventional parent and the homeopathic one). My guess was (and is)
that Golden’s protocol is the total schedule—and that parent and
practitioner pick and choose what they want from it and do not use the
remainder. But if one does not inquire and INVESTIGATE INSTEAD OF
CASTIGATE, then one JUST DOESN’T KNOW, DOES ONE?

So to say .........

Sheri wrote:
.WE DON'T REALLY KNOW DO WE?

********is really not true. We can determine the efficacy, just as SK
Banerjea has done in Rochelle’s post, that Andre Saine investigated,
(and was done by all the researchers in all the studies he found) which
you STILL FIND TO HAVE ZERO VALUE.

So please, as I said in my FIRST ATTEMPT to say I was pissed off at YOUR
sloppy statements that there is no proof of use of isopathic
prophylactic systems, (which includes scheduled or otherwise since there
is not much difference between them in terms of efficacy, only strategy
and level of medication).

Andy wrote:
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:
(followed by the research which I hope you have kept).

********I am severely behind here in work, and I would sure like it if
you would say:

---that THERE IS PLENTY OF EVIDENCE FOR THESE PROPHYLACTIC SYSTEMS, and
that you will use this research in your teaching of homeopaths both new
and old who have not been exposed to this particular info.

---that you will consider FURTHER INVESTIGATION of the efficacy (or
commission such work by others) in looking at past epidemiological info
to strengthen the case of this data)

---That in conjunction with your ongoing conversion of people onto
homeopathic healthcare, you will tell them about the options that exist
that back up the simillimum, and CAN BE USED if deemed appropriate by
parent and practitioner. (This may require some effort in helping
practitioners as well as clients)

---and that you will CONTACT ISAAC GOLDEN AND TREAT HIM LIKE A COLLEAGUE
and discuss your concerns

---that you will BE AN ACCURATE SPOKESPERSON AND NOT A RELIGIOUS ZEALOT

If you do this, then I can say these posts were not A COMPLETE WASTE OF
TIME.

Andy
There are in fact two things, science and opinion; the former begets
knowledge, the latter ignorance.
Hippocrates (460 BC - 377 BC), Law
DISCLAIMER: None of the above should be construed as medical advice.
What you do in your own healthcare is your own business and purview.
Consult your health practitioner.

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

Here is again some of the research that Andre presented in 1988 and
which is undoubtedly part of his video program:
How Efficacious is Homeopathic and Isopathic Prophylaxis? Some examples
of Studies (Research by Andre Saine, ND and copyrighted by him)

==========================================
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.

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

[Sheri Nakken]

Enough already Andy.
I have explained myself ad nauseum - I can't tell what is my writing and
what is your writing below anymore.
It is clear where I stand and I also view so-called epidemics very
differently
I have NO problem with homeopathic prophylaxis if needed in the vicinity of
disease
You seem to want me to jump through some hoops of your making in order to
be happy with me and I'll just have to be OK with you not being happy with
me, I guess.

Sheri

At 01:16 PM 04/17/2004 -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