Newborn - @ Chris G.- Andy

[andyh]

>
experimental method, controls, or statistics. I cite Andre 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.
answered my initial question right there in your first paragraph. You're
willing to accept Isaac Golden's statistics on the basis you were
already convinced beforehand.
indiscriminantly for Isaacs work by telling you that the figure did not
come from Isaac. I did not evaluate his methods or studies which yielded
a higher figure. I thus have not accepted his higher figure. I wrote - if
90% was correct, it would not surprise me. Pretty easy to
understand. I am convinced of the 80% figure, began using isopathic proph
in 1988 based on it, and have not had to downgrade it. You seem to want
me to write -- or have written -- that my use of isopathic comes from my
automatic acceptance of Isaacs study - why? It seems like a backhanded
attempt to question my objectivity or discernnment. Why?

I used Andre's 80% figure for a priori isopathic protection based on his
1980's studies of the entire journal literature. I asked him to present
on the topic at a seminar in 1988 and it was superbly done, leaving no
doubt that Victorian homeopathic masters and stalwart Hahnemannians from
the IHA used isopathic scheduled prophylaxis; group totality (para
101-104) prophylaxis; and perennial specific prophylaxis (eg Lathyrus); in
addition to chronic tx. *Whether* one uses Andre's literature aggregate
statistical estimate or Isaac's 10% higher directly empirical value of
protection conferred - the point about the efficacy of the isopathic
method remains the same. Golden has, however, IMHO done a great service to
repopularize the method - and his number may be more accurate. I do not
have the time to spend evaluating it. But either way it does not matter.
80% a priori protection w/o dangers of other methods is a very good first
line of defense, backed up by the para 101-104 method which however cannot
be used until the epidemic has already arrived.

The rest of my last post covers briefly *why* I think the method is
warranted; and a bit of what I covered elsewhere about *when* it is
warranted; and why concern about it is overblown. "Tsunami" may indicate
that you did not "like" the post. No response means...?

Having written much on this topic, I am glad to not have to write more.

Namaste
Andy