Newborn - @ Chris G.

[andyh]

Hi Chris,
The 80% number was from Andre Saine's 1980's research of the entire
available homeopathic literature at U of Michigan, U of Calif-SF, and
other prominent homeopathic medical libraries in the US and Europe. He
used to travel around the country with a mini-copier. Much of the good
stuff was from journals, of which there were a dozen or more as you know.
He found the *original* handwritten 6th organon in the homeopathic section
(special access) at the Univ of California Library - and alerted the
librarians to its value (W Boericke was Prof of Materia Medica there in
San Francisco until the late 1920's and obtained the manuscript and it
stayed in the stacks until Andre found it there circa 1987 (though Naudin
and Kunzli may have copied it when they did their translation somewhat
before that).

But I *digress*. Isaac Golden's final thesis paper lists a number
*higher* than 80% protection for his empirical modern studies in
Australia. I cite the 80% to be safely conservative.

There are others on this list with precise up-to-date info from Golden's
work at their fingertips.

==========================================
Addendum to my earlier post which I had hoped was my last on this topic:

I neglected to point out that in the original discussion on Minutus a few
years back, I agreed with Sheri that use of isopathic prophylaxis for
benign diseases can go into gratuitous and improper use of the isopathic
technique (which is an adjunct to the primary chronic remedy being used).
IMHO, isopathic remedies should only be used for:

-- actual or suspected toxic/vacc/infectious/tox exposure NBWS or
suspected NBWS reactions which have no apparent or acting homeopathic
remedy;

--for prophylaxis of diseases with significant morbidity and mortality;

--for organic pathology situations (organ remedies for organs,
autotautopathy, etc when called for).

When a case is stalled from external cause; or iatrogenic injury is
suspected or potential; and the main remedy if known does not appear to be
working - then isopathy can be used. Some may give the isopathic
immediately when some issue arises referred to a vac or exposure injury.
This can be a valid approach and IMHO in proper hands the benefit exceeds
any actual harm which has about a *nil* likelihood. If/when a case is
disrupted by any adjunct potency, it can be sorted out like with any other
disruption - but I have never seen this happen due to use of an isopathic
in 21 years.

That I did not see it does not mean some harm to energetic constitution
was *not* done. But given the data cited by Saine, Golden, and my
experience and that of others -- it is very likely overconcern to suggest
that isopathic prescribing used *properly* and only as needed is any
hazard *whatsoever*. Indiscriminate use like some homeopathic
practitioners do with *any* type of remedy may be different. There are
cases that have taken scores of *homeopathic* remedies from *well-trained*
practitioners over many years without result or apparent harm beyond a
case which is confused. Most of the time those cases can be sorted out
over time; and have not been harmed beyond a colossal waste of client's
money and time. I agree incurability from a homeopathic standpoint *can*
occur. But IMHO only egregious and indiscriminate overuse or in certain
constitutions is this likely.

It should be recalled that Saine's discussions of use of isopathic
prophylaxis protocols similar to Golden's by HC Allen and other IHA
members from the late 1800s to 1960 or so was referring mostly to
dangerous diseases that were epidemic in the US (Smallpox, Cholera, etc)
or even endemic (Southern States --Malaria, Yellow Fever). Choice of use
of prophylaxis or tx of exposure injury (vac, chemical, infectious) should
be relative to the risk of what is the target of protection. As Sheri N.
has pointed out, isopathic prophylaxis can be way overdone on benign
disease "threats" which are *not* threats.

Also, of course the published IHA members used group totality
prophylactics when identified when the epidemic first nucleated in
homeopathically treated areas. Saine's research showed that in rural
unvaccinated and undrugged populations, the Genius epidemici reached
prophylactic and tx efficacy of over 95% to the epidemic tailored to
(typically smallpox and other serious diseases which accounts and
statistics reached the journals or even whole books (like Bradford's Logic
of Figures). Some of this was discussed on Minutus circa 2003.

IMHO judicious use of isopathic rx when needed is beneficial and at times
essential - because iatrogenic reactions can block cases as you know -
and in some cases the indicated homeopathic rx will not touch. The layer
will often yield to a 30C or so of the indicated isopathic, however. Also
there are instances of prophylactic need that are very important to
clients.

E.g. locally Lyme disease is a significant risk from walking in fields and
woodlands -- from deer ticks which cling to shrubs and grasses. One
client walking around on her own property used to get reinfected every
year.
This is an *example* of rationale for use of isopathic prophylactic
(Borrelia), when a hx of reinfection. The main remedy may not prevent
complications from infection, and though Ledum is a good first measure
when these tiny Ictodes ticks are noticed on the body, in some cases
another line of protection is warranted. A good measure in the spring,
with higher potency each year. Good results reported; nothing untoward to
report. Main rx used concurrently. Just one example.

Where in Irene's experience she finds it good to jump on something that
looks and smells like a bad iatro reaction right away - I see virtually no
risk when experience is the teacher. Case-by-case - but vastly more risk
from the iatro. reaction than if the isopathic specific is not needed
after all. Benefit exceeds the minute or absent risk markedly if the
suspected or actual reaction will block well-selected hom. remedy action
or cause other severe problems. Whereas an unneeded isopathic 30C will not
cause any problem except in hypersensitives, and that is a problem for any
potentized rx introduction, not a problem with use of an isopathic per se.

Irene's comments interesting about old versions of the nosode or pathogen
working better because less idem and more facsimile to the current strain.
The general idea (Organon 56 fn 1) that idem tends to be inferior to even
some degree of analogy in similarity matching -- may be at play here as
Irene says. If Irene's idea is correct, then our older nosode/vac rx are
same disease name, but not identical -- yet may work better than the idem
in instances calling for a specific isopathic/tautopathic. That would be
good news.

Written too much, do not wish to spend more time on this topic; but hope
answered your question. See Golden's work for more info or correspond
with folk in your beautiful country whom are up to date and using that
protocol in the field. At least one is on this list.

Cheers to you,
Andy

[muthu kumar]

pathogen
strain.
to even
rx are
idem
would be

Andy-

very good post. I would think that the vaccine or nosode prepared out
of one individual / or one strain is effective even in the same
infection in the general population.. the reason is a nosode (
vaccine) prepared from a pure strain is still different from the one
that is actually infecting an individual - the context is different-
Homeopathy is about interactions between substances and individuals-
a vaccine nosode out of a culture is not the same as an infected
individual being treated and so is not identical-

the one prepared from one individual is better used in others based on
a disease diagnosis- I have used amebiasis nosode like this with good
results...
The worst that can be said about this practice is that it is a
pathological simile- but we can do a lot worse than that- and as you
said there are many instances where the indicated medicine works
better after this-

[Irene de Villiers]

Chris Gillen wrote:

Dear Chris,
I find the word "judiciousness" an odd one to use here.
Golden's work only continues what Hahnemann showed already with
provings. As per Aph 141 - and I am paraphrasing here instead of quoting
literally - provings make the prover robust and healthier and more
resistant to illness or anything injurious. If you check, I believe
you'll find the wording not significantly different from my paraphrasing.

The difference between dosing for a proving and dosing for
homeoprophylaxis is that the latter stops short of proving symptoms.
The result however is the same - the person who is healthy and taking a
remedy, will develop resistance to the symptoms caused by that remedy.

In veterinary homeopathy this has been used since the beginning of
homeopathy to keep animals in herds healthy for example. It's not a new
concept.

Based on those two things, I'd hardly call Golden's work anything but a
logical extension of the use of remedies that was already well proven in
terms of beneficial results.

Every prover of a remedy will know they develop resistance to the
symptoms of the remedy. Just because Hahnemann did not label that
"homeoprophylaxis" is not reason to discount the fact that it occurs and
that Hahnemann DID document the increased health and resistance that
results.

I'd say therefore it was MOST judicious of Golden to do what he did -
and his results also prove that.

Namaste,
IRene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Sheri Nakken]

I agree totally, Chris, and thank you for your indepth explanation.
May I share this with parents who write me about considering Golden's nosodes?
Sheri
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian 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 - next ones March 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones March 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
March 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[Teresa Kramer]

Very nice answer, Irene (below). That reasoning per A141 really made sense to my lay-person’s mind. For me, that goes beyond just knowing that vets do it successfully—which is also very interesting and useful to know, of course. Teresa (Northern VA, USA)
As per Aph 141 - and I am paraphrasing here instead of quoting
literally - provings make the prover robust and healthier and more
resistant to illness or anything injurious. If you check, I believe
you'll find the wording not significantly different from my paraphrasing.

The difference between dosing for a proving and dosing for
homeoprophylaxis is that the latter stops short of proving symptoms.
The result however is the same - the person who is healthy and taking a
remedy, will develop resistance to the symptoms caused by that remedy.
Change the world one small loan at a time...

See www.kiva.org to find out how!

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Chris and all,
I understand why this could attract the ire of "the authorities"...
I wonder if it would fly any better for him to instead publish his
personal "statistics" of doses given and disease incidence seen, with a
summary to the effect that "this suggests a possible effectiveness
of..." or etc.?
As you note, he lets the parents decide whether they want to follow the
"full" schedule, or only some part of that. Do you feel that this
regimen could be any *more* risky than its allopathic version?
?? Why do you see this as an effort to "deliberately imprint the
artificial disease..."?
Would you say that is the basis of all homeoprophylaxis, or ??
Yes indeed! Which is why I'd find the measure of "heatlh" done by a
homeopath (e.g. Golden) particularly useful--do you have any reason to
think he is less than a competent homeopathic observer, or am I missing
your point?

Thanks for the thoughts,
Shannon

[andyh]

available homeopathic literature at U of Michigan, U of Calif-SF, and
other prominent homeopathic medical libraries in the US and Europe. He
used to travel around the country with a mini-copier. Much of the good
stuff was from journals, of which there were a dozen or more as you
know.
section (special access) at the Univ of California Library - and
alerted the librarians to its value (W Boericke was Prof of Materia
Medica there in San Francisco until the late 1920's and obtained the
manuscript and it stayed in the stacks until Andre found it there circa
1987 (though Naudin
before that).

But I *digress*. Isaac Golden's final thesis paper lists a number
*higher* than 80% protection for his empirical modern studies in
Australia. I cite the 80% to be safely conservative.
There are others on this list with precise up-to-date info from
Golden's work at their fingertips.

Chris wrote:
concerning the judiciousness of Isaac Golden's work and I already have
relatively up-to-date info at my fingertips. I was really asking you
whatit was that convinced you about the accuracy of Isaac Golden's
statistics, since you placed him in the same paragraph as such notable
experimenters and researchers, Hering, Allen, Saine etc. It seems instead
you're willing to take the results of Golden's work at face value, which
is not a criticism from me, since I often do the same thing unless
instinct sets off alarm bells. After instinct comes methodical
examination.

(((( Hi Chris, I have not made an attempt to show flaws in experimental
method, controls, or statistics. I cite Andre's lower number (80%) for
that reason. Knowing that isopathic prophylaxis is as effective as it is
from knowing history and my own experience -- if Isaac's results reflect
the real numbers under controlled circumstances (if protection is 90%)
then this would not surprise me at all. But I don't personally need
anyone to prove its efficacy further. I already got the message in 1988.
And Golden got it independently.
Chris wrote:
I don't really think
"isopathic" treatment)is comparable with standard use of HP, the latter
term epidemics of infectious disease.
(((( 1. The point is (and was in the discussion on this list in 2003) that
one cannot use Organon 101-104 HP with any certainty until AFTER the
epidemic has arrived - because one cannot find the group totality
simillimum without a group of already sick people. Isoprophylaxis is how
the masters dealt with this -- ascending potency isopathic "immunization"
despite no epidemic. This is a first line of defense. This worked
historically to an 80% efficacy. If one is responsible for protecting
one's entire practice from the worst diseases of humankind with no ABs
available; and the alternative was vacc which pts did not want and one
did not recommend to them; and there was no downside; -- then having three
lines of defense is the only rational method:

1. isopathic prophylaxis a priori
2. homeopathic prophylaxis as the last measure before people in ones
practice became ill with smallpox, cholera, yellow fever, etc - and one
was required to treat them (using the GE or from the group of GE's found
from the ALREADY sick to protect those as yet unaffected - if a GE was
found to be effective.
Chronic tx does not guarantee immunity from any, let alone high
morbity/high mortality infectious disease- except, according to Pierre
Schmidt, in extraordinarily stable cures which a practitioner would have
to make an "educated guess" are stable and profound enough for general
immunity by thorough miasmatic cleansing.
Chris wrote:
Golden's version of Homoeopathic Prophylaxis (he doesn't refer to it as
"isopathic" treatment)...

(((( Virtually all of the remedies you cite below are isopathic, with the
exception of Ledum, Oscillo, and Lathyrus. "HP" is a misnomer as most of
the protocol is isopathic. I assume this is a calculated misnomer for
public consumption--people have heard of homeopathy; isopathy is not a
common term.

Saine's conclusion (1988) about *homeopathic* prophylaxis:

--homeopathic specifics (e.g. lathyrus sativus for polio (e.g.study in
Buenos Aires 1957 involving 40,000 doses of lathyrus given and zero cases
of polio in that cohort))

OR

--group totality (Organon 101-104 genius epidemicus tailored for epidemic
*already extant* in use for even high morbidity and high mortality
diseases)

was that in published data the rate of protection was 95-100%.
-- have no homeopathic specific available;

and

-- no homeopathic Ge or group of Ge candidates can be found with certainty
until there is an epidemic ALREADY extant.

from dangerous infectious diseases with exceptions being
extraordinarily stable cures, as pointed out in an earlier post as per
Pierre Schmidt, who claimed general immunity required cycle of 30-MM of
"constitutional" twice in a stable case (in a day when cases were simpler
and far less tainted by other treatments).

first line of defense in law of similars prophylaxis. That is why the IHA
members used ascending potency protocols when no disease
was present in between epidemics. In place of vaccination, which
they could see the results of in their patients. To prevent
unnecessary illness and death in their practices. And with no
reported problems, and with good result, or they would not have
used the method. These are among the best medical homeopaths whom ever
lived*, working 50 years before widespread use of
antibiotics, and treating the most terrible diseases of humankind
with homeopathy.

*(others existed in India and Europe, and many practice in India NOW)
Chris wrote:
Golden's version of HP recommends an alternative to regular vaccination
programs in which a series of up to 10 different nosodes can be
administered in the first few years of life starting with Pertussin 200C
when the infant
period, at two months of age.
((( His program is aggressive, but harm or false claim?. How much an
improvement on the alternative? More a remarkable achievement that
homeopaths should become educated about.
Chris wrote:
It is up to the parent to decide which nosological cover of protection in
the the so-called HP protocol they want their child to receive. Golden
promises a long term effectiveness rate similar to,
or better than Allopathic vaccination. Consequently, he has been warned by
authorities, and also the Therapeutic Goods Administration which governs
our
dangerous advertising. In my view it would be a tragedy if our access to
valuable nosodes was legally restricted because of this so-called HP
alternative to immunization.

((( But if that were to happen, the isopathic prophylaxis program would
only be made a false flag excuse for what is desired anyway by those
interested in regulating alternatives out of existence - not because of
any inherent danger or problem in isopathic replacement of vacc.

Chris wrote:
Golden claims an astonishing 90.4% rate of long term effectiveness with
a less than 2% rate of adverse reactions seen in his patients.

((( Why is this "astonishing"? Are you objective in your observation?
Chris wrote:
He suggests using the 200C potency as a test dose to measure an infant's
general susceptibility to the nosode. Since the program is essentially a
preventative measure in the same way as an Allopathic vaccination
schedule,
polio, diphtheria, measles, mumps, chicken pox, tetanus, colds or flu
symptoms in the patient or in their immediate environment. The
recommended
preventative nosodes in Australia include Pnemococcal, Lathyrus sativus,
Haemophilis, Meningococcal, Tetanus (and Ledum), Morbillinum, Hep B,
Oscillococcinum in flu season - during the first five years of life and
may be given in repeated doses, e.g. 3 dry doses repeated in 24 hours
(plussed doses if you prefer), and later on in the 10M potency, again in a
triple dose in 24 hours. The 10M imprint of the artificial nosological
disease purportedly gives 5 to 10 years of maximum protection from that
'named' disease.

This is Golden's "educated guess".

((( What basis do you use for prescription of rx and choice of potency in
your practice? From what you write, you *must* use more science in your
prescrips than did Golden in designing protocols that were used by IHA
members, and which Golden has studied for some 15 years.
You seem to assume that anything that Hahnemann *himself* did not say or
condone is suspect... Is this doctrinal sectarianism in the context of a
very important topic (infectious disease prevention) which requires
objective scientific empiricism... Golden is only repeating the practice
of the IHA members in US of some 150 years ago and thereafter. He is not
reinventing the wheel, just putting it back on the road.

You are a longtime prac, but is there more out there that you do not
attract to your own practice that you could not handle without expanding
your horizons?

Chris wrote:
If this protocol seems a bit alarming and unnecessary and unfounded, then
you may unfortunately be statistically categorized as one of many
overreactive and hysterical Classicals attacking pioneering work.

((( Bring up some real evidence of problems from even Goldens
comprehensive coverage. Give valid criticism in hard evidence that has
some research behind it - not apparent doctrinalism.
Chris wrote:
Nevertheless, the objections are more than justified since the
medications are prescribed when there is no clear and present danger of any
infection in any localized epidemic, and since one is intending to
deliberately imprint the artificial disease from the nosode on to the
constitution of the patient (which once upon a time in Homoeopathy used to
be called an antipathic effect!

((( And, also a proving. And, also, isopathic prophylaxis.

Prophylaxis "means* *prevention*. The artificial disease is by
definition introduced prior to the fact of exposure - or with infection
it becomes *treatment*, not prophylaxis. This is true of both isopathic
(pre-epidemic) or homeopathic (extant epidemic) measures. Hahnemann touted
provings as improving health, not damaging it.

Is not the great value of a priori prevention unfairly discounted when
isopathic prophylaxis is reduced to "antipathic effect"? Can you take a
look at your sectarian bias which in context is doctrinaire, perhaps
beyond reason?

Hahnemann was in favor of prophylaxis, but did not use isopathy, so
recommended waiting until the epidemic was extant. He did not have the
technology for a priori prophylaxis, as isopathy was not developed to any
significant extent until well after Hering introduced nosodes in 1830.
Isopathic prophylaxis was a development mainly post-Hahnemann. Some
quotes:

================
From Saine lectures:
*1831- Hahnemann letter to Boenninghausen: "...when cholera comes, give 1
pellet of #13 poppy seed of cuprum 3CH once a day before breakfast for 1
week. This will not affect healthy people."

*HC Allen in editorial 1904 Medical Advance: "the curative nature of
Variolinum in treatment and prophylaxis of smallpox is certain". (my
comment --Variolinum =human smallpox = an isopathic). Before this time
members of the International Hahnemannian Assoc (IHA) the most prestigious
group of classical homoepaths to ever live, were using Isopathy
extensively, following the same schedule of crude vaccinations.

*Pierre Schmidt's prophylactic technique for smallpox which he used for
47 years was that of his teachers- Austin and JT Kent -- Ant-c 1/2 g in
water introduced into incision in skin. Then Variolinum 200, 1M, and 10M
24 hours apart. (Belgian Journal of Homeopathy 1963). (my note - Pierre
Schmidt was, according to Saine, the "type" "classical" prescriber of the
twentieth century - and he used this procedure for 47 years in a large
practice in Europe -- and taught other pracs the same thing).

These are just examples.
=================
Chris wrote:
but now apparently is "within the framework of the Law of

((( What other framework would it be under?
Chris wrote:
and since there was no actual examination of any kind of antibody reaction
in the patient at all used in the 15 year clinical trial. (Golden
collected his data from personal consultations, feedback reports from
parents, and constitutional evidence such as a lack of chronic
eczema and asthma in recipients as being the long term benefits of his HP).
((( Do you know that antibody reaction has a one-to-one correlation with
immunity?

Is not clinical reporting of disease/no disease the first and most valid
line of reasoning?
Chris wrote:
I'm really thankful you included various caveats in your post about the
inadvisability of injudicious dosing (of any remedy), but would
emphasize that it is a deep privilege to be invited to work with the
energetic field of another human being and a "messed up" case is actually
no small thing, vitally or otherwise, because the miasmatic consequences
can be
far-reaching in terms of individual life decisions and potential of an
individual.
((( Would you feel differently if your clients could get smallpox and you
were the one with the deep privilege to protect them?

Present some hard evidence that isopathic prophylaxis "messes up" cases,
and you will have more credibility. My viewpoint to spare isopathic
prophylaxis for real threats is not a safety caveat, primarily my
preference to "keep it simple" so the variables and need for schedules,
etc in ones caseload are minimized. If something is on the horizon or
there are specific prophylactic needs due to the living environment,
clients make informed choice for themselves.
Chris wrote:
As to the assumption that adverse reactions are mostly just a fiction or
delusion in the minds of Classical Homoeopaths then I would have to say
that some practitioners unfortunately would not discern the signs of the
sycotic miasm if was growing on the tip of their own nose. It is critical
to successful case management that any alteration in the symptom-complex
is correctly interpreted during treatment.

((( If sycosis is the terrain for vaccinosis then is isopathic
prophylaxis a worse choice? If in a sensitive case there is a problem with
use of a priori potentized prophylaxis, can adjustment be made? Or are
other homeopaths simply unable to notice a problem?

Sloppy homeopathy takes the system away from a reliable medical science
and into a flaky art. But Isopathic prophylaxis is not one of the
techniques that is at fault for "messed up" cases, and failures.

It is IMHO:

-- undisciplined shotgun prescribing;
--absence of confirmatory checks on prescriptions;
--ignoring new methods to finding the optimal simillimum;
--not using old methods of finding the optimal simillimum;
--deficiencies in knowledge, development, and use of lesional prescribing
when it is called for in cases of organic pathology

that cause most "messed up cases" and failures.
Chris wrote:
On a positive note, it is reassuring that
nosodes and dosages whenever he revises his standard protocol. As
Homoeopaths, we can't afford to be 'part-time Vitalists' just when it
suits us. We need to switch on our own lights, be a lot more discerning
about any material that is presented, no matter how academic it appears,
and not be lulled into a false sense of security and optimism just
because all the "right" words are seemingly used.

((( Do you have any respect for what happened after 1843? For your
colleagues? IMHO you are being quite harsh on someone who should be
lauded for his efforts.

His protocols may be somewhat overdone - but ideas they have done harm are
empty ideas. Demand from the clientele has no doubt shaped the protocols
into being overdone. People want protection. You say that batteries of
crude infectious materials and chemicals on humans right out of the womb
are *less* constitutionally invasive?

Accusations that his results are false claims are REALLY overdone and
shows no knowledge or respect for history after 1843. Golden has more or
less just repeated what was done by Hahnemannian homeopaths for most of a
century and which is still done - not just in Aussiland. Golden did not
invent isopathic protocols -- members of the IHA largely responsible for
making homeopathy into #2 extant system of medicine used them in place of
vaccination. Others in India and students of Saine worldwide carry on
this method.

As I have not tried to disprove Golden, I cite Saine's conclusion from the
literature for Isopathic pre-epidemic prophylaxis (80%). I don't really
need more proof that the effective protection may actually be 10% more
participants. If the IHA members used ascending potencies on a schedule a
priori; if Pierre Schmidt used isopathy a priori to spare chaos in finding
a Ge to protect all his patients when an epidemic of smallpox or other
severe or fatal diseases arose; if Saine's conclusion from years of
research of Hahnemannian homeopaths was that apart from ongoing chronic
tx- the FIRST prophylaxic defense is isopathic, the SECOND homeopathic
(Organon 101-104 group totality) - then I have no problem using isopathic
prophylaxis and have found zero harm.

Is vacc the better alternative... Boenninghausen considered vacc to
"foster much disease". It has tradeoffs, most people on the planet take
the risk or are led to; or forced to by laws passed which remove their
freedom of choice.

Or is the better alternative no protection at all except the really empty
and unscientific idea that ones chronic prescrip will protect from any
infectious disease?

Is Hahnemann pre 1843 ultra-purism valid in this case (when there a real
threat in ones geographic/epidemiologic zone)-- to wait until people get
sick and local prescribers can find the group totality remedy as a "first"
line of defense -- when it is really the last?

With respect,
Andy

[muthu kumar]

Andy- this is excellent- it is also apt to point out that Hahnemann
had just an inkling of infections and the field itself did not take
off until after his time...

empty
any
Regarding these comments it might be true that chronic treatment might
offer generalized immunity to a limited extent but not specific
immunity...

[Sheri Nakken]

Its really about susceptibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian 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 - next ones March 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones March 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
March 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[Sheri Nakken]

Its really about susceptibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian 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 - next ones March 2007
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - next ones March 2007
ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment next ones
March 2007
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936