the currently ongoing debate about micro-organisms prompts me to jump
in.
Sheri has her convictions and she is able to back it up with many
articles.
On the other hand microbiology has a longstanding tradition, and it's
also backed up by 2 centuries of experiences, experiments, studies etc.
What is fact and what is belief or conviction? Not always easy to
define, especially in our quickly changing scientific world.
I'm sure there is a LOT of things we still don't know, in the
micro-world as well as in the macro-world.
So it may well be that more bacteria are only so-called commensales
(i.e. organisms that happen to be there, because the environment
encourages them to multiply happily, as e.g. Helicobacter pylori, where
there is still much discussion if he is causing the stomach problems or
if he is just benefitting from the diseased stomach).
Yet infectiology has a long, long tradition, and our older homoeopaths
had their experiences with it, didn't they?
They had to treat epidemics like Cholera, Small-pox, influenza and
others.
Let's especially talk about Cholera: during the early years of
homoeopathy there were several pandemics of this terrible disease:
- 1st 1817 - 1823
- 2nd 1826 - 1837
- 3rd 1841 - 1862
(Just to mention: In 1848/49, within about 6 months, in Greatbritain
53000 people died from Cholera!)
- 4th 1864 - 1875
Scientists, like Pasteur, Koch and others, who explored the disease and
the possibly involved micro-organisms had to be very cautious during
their experiments with excrements of Cholera patients.
September 17. 1883, Thuiller (only 27 years old), one of Pasteur's best
disciples, who was sent to Egypt to explore the disease, died within 2
days with vomiting and diarrhea: a victim of the Cholera explorations.
February 2, 1884, Koch was able to minutely describe the characteristics
of the Cholera bacillus (as it was called then. Nowadays the correct
term is Vibrio cholerae). Koch pointed to the tight correlation between
disease and micro-organism, which was found in the intestines of
Cholera-victims nearly in pure form.
The postulate to be able to infect others in the beginnings wasn't done
by animal experiments, but by a so-called Quasi-experiment, which
happened by chance in India. In a small region with a pond, 17 deaths
from Cholera were reported. The clothes of one patient had been washed
in the pond, where others took their daily water from. Vibrio cholerae
was found in the pond.
Of course, as always, everything had its opponents. Pettenkofer wasn't
d'accord with Pasteurs experiments. Even in a Cholera conference they
couldn't solve it. Then in 1892 a Cholera epidemic started in Hamburg:
within a few weeks 17000 people got sick, 8600 died. They checked the
water and found Vibrio cholerae.
Then Pettenkofer and one of his partners did a self-trial: he took 1 ccm
of freshly isolated Cholera culture-bouillon, on Octobre 7, 1892.
In Pettenkofer's stool (he had had cholera in 1854) afterwards Vibrio
cholerae were detected, but he didn't get sick (probably because of
immunity after getting the infection in 1854).
His friend, Emmerich, did the same 10 days later, had in the same
night a severe Cholera attack and nearly died.
----------------------
To make a long story short:
Obviously Vibrio cholerae exists. We have enough knowledge, experiences
and experiments to assume with a very high probability that it can cause
a disease.
We cannot exclude that there are other factors involved (which we aren't
able to see with electron microscopes or others), but for the time being
I would not advise anyone to drink a raw bouillon of Cholera bacillae.
Does that mean every micro-organism can cause a disease?
Of course not.
Is every micro-organism found in a disease the one who causes it?
Of course not.
Do micro-organisms exist at all?
Yes.
Is that simply my opinion or a fact?
Hmh. I tend to say: both!
I've seen and cultered colonies of bacteria (long ago), looked through
electron-microscopes, know quite a bit about antibody formation re:
viruses, can tell you about laboratory testing methods...so yes, I know
a little bit about them.
Does that mean because of this knowledge I must use antibiotics or
vaccination instead of homoeopathy?
Of course not. Why should I?
But I know what can happen in serious diseases and infections, and it
can happen quite quickly.
(If you ever have seen - yes I did, it was my left arm - those nice red
streaks developping in a beginning sepsis/lymphangitis, slowly crawling
up from thumb via wrist, then next day a little bit more, well, then you
have to know what is to expect...... and then it's good to find the
right remedy quickly, otherwise you'll be in trouble).
Why should knowledge be something that is limiting? In my opinion it can
open another way for a better understanding.
I do respect micro-organisms, yes, definitely. They are very potent,
often helpful, necessary, but of course there is also the other side of
the coin.
In my opinion they could teach us a lot, because the principle of
naturally acquired immunity is a wonderful one in some diseases. Like a
lesson: learnt once, and you are done with it. Finis. For ever.
-------------------
that said:
I do respect Sheri's opinion, and Stephan Lanka's and others.
And I'm sure Sheri respects mine.
It's difficult to find THE truth.
I remember Will Taylor saying, often it's not the Simillimum you find,
but a Close-Enoughicum will also do.
Concerning THE scientific truth:
I'm happy if I get close enough!
All the best,
Gaby
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler, DVM
Germany
rottler@curantur.de
http://www.curantur.de
***Scriptum homoeopathicum***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~