vaccination antidote

[Shannon Nelson]

I'd think that *if* you've already identified the preexisting chronic
remedy, that would be an ever better starting place? (But if not, then
local sxs plus any general changes.)

[Sheri Nakken]

If you have a new acute illness, you don't use the chronic remedy, although there may be clues to acutes associated with it.
Sheri

At 02:12 PM 5/31/2008, you wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Practices differ, as do circumstances...
If the new sxs are strong, and point clearly to an acute or traumatic
remedy, then there's a stronger case for starting there--and even in
that case, some prescribers *will* have the patient try the chronic
remedy first (I know this, because I worked with two who usually
proceeded that way), and in some cases the chronic remedy *will* be
100% effective, even in circumstances where the presenting acute or
traumatic sxs are not especially emphasized in the picture of the
chronic remedy. I know this, because on many of the handful of
occasions where I was given, and followed, that advice, it worked just
fine. Apparently *part* of the issue is how deep the correspondence is
between the chronic remedy and the patient. It wouldn't be appropriate
to *insist* that any acute or injury situation "must" yield to whatever
chronic remedy has been so far identified (I worked with another
prescriber who went that went that route, month after month, until I
finally stopped homeopathic treatment for several years, while I dealt
with the problem thru other means, sob. And yeah, then got another
good several years from the chronic rx that had not served for the
initial injury). But there are times when you *aren't* certain about
the acute etc. remedy, and you *do* have an identified and well-serving
chronic remedy. In that case it's an entirely reasonable thing to try.

Thinking by analogy, it's like the difference between giving a
"struggling student" (i.e. the "vital force", or body's homeostatic
mechanisms) specific advice on a problem ("notice that's a right
triangle there? How about applying the Pythagorean Theorem...") versus
giving them a more general boost ("Okay, you can do this. Think
carefully... Are there any clues that could give you a toehold?)
Shannon

[usrardr]

plaease read tinus smits post vaccination syndrome. its avaible on
net. thanks dr israr ul haque islamabad
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette"
wrote:

[Sheri Nakken]

At 02:42 PM 5/31/2008, you wrote:
Where do you find that way of practicing in the organon?
How does it meet the criteria of like cures like - the simillimum?
The chronic should be being repeated on a specific dosage schedule in water by the frequency determined after the test dose and follow up doses.
Sheri

[Sheri Nakken]

Yes, that is there

but from another list
At 02:51 PM 5/31/2008, you wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

On May 31, 2008, at 9:15 AM, Sheri Nakken wrote:
It would be more similar to the difference between the method described
in Organon and that "expanded" understanding which Hahnmemann (still
Hahmeman) developed in Chronic Diseases.

Usually the symptoms being produced are covered by many remedies,
likely including the person's chronic remedy, so one could say it's a
matter of emphasis.

In finding a chronic remedy we cannot simply prescribe on the
collection of presented symptoms; well, sometimes that works, but other
times we need to also consider e.g. the processes and tissue
associations etc. Other times we will find an "atypical" presentation
of the remedy, e.g. (remembering an example from class) a case which
*seemed* an open-and-shut Pulsatilla (on basis of both symptoms and
"presentation" / personality etc.), yet Puls did *nothing*. Eventually
the needed remedy was found to be Lachesis. The key? A clearer
(deeper) understanding of certain things the patient was saying. Both
remedies covered her presenting complaint, but only one of them suited
her--per processes, her deeper "what needs to be cured"--sufficiently
well to do the job.

I'm sure anyone who's treated any number of people will have similar
cases, where the remedy initially *seemed* clear, yet a deeper
understanding was needed.

Treating miasmatically is another example of similar situation, where
you need to "cast the net wider". Treating with the chronic remedy is
in many cases simply casting a "wider net".

The advantage, of course, is that when a problem is resolved with the
chronic remedy, then the chronic level is being *addressed* and healed,
not just the acute level. If you treat acutely and then *follow up*
with the chronic, that's fine too. Sometimes, tho, one doesn't get the
chance; in other cases one would get the chance, but it's easier on
everyone to simply "cut to the chase" and give the chronic remedy.

I'm not saying everyone *should* treat this way; I'm only saying that
in some cases it does have advantages. In particular, if the chronic
remedy is already known.
Sure, if that's how you're treating. Even in that case, I would guess
that in some cases it would serve as well to use the same remedy but in
a different potency or dosage schedule. But I'm only guessing.
Best wishes,
Shannon

[Irene de Villiers]

I've not used that specific one but I use them all the time to
antidote vaccines in animals - it is VERY effective.
Even better, is the use of them before during and after vaccination
that is forced on one - then it prevents the problem.

Only long after a vaccine, when there is not just direct damage but
other consequential damage - then it is too late for this approach
and you need to repertorize to match the consequential results of
vaccine damage.

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]

http://www.hpathy.com/interviews/schepp ... sation.asp

A severe acute disease will suspend the old chronic one. If one continues the chronic remedy where an acute is indicated, one is basically treating with a dissimilar remedy and as a result, you will add accessory symptoms (unhomeopathic to the case of course), creating a more complex medicinal disease. When a moderate to severe acute disease occurs, an acute intercurrent is needed, NOT the continuation of the chronic remedy! This is according to the Law of Similars!



For instance: The patient was on Aurum for a chronic depression when he now suffers from a severe Arsenicum flu. This flu will suspend the Aurum depression and Arsenicum in acute doses/potency has to be used as an intercurrent. After the flu, as if by "miracle" the depression which apparently was alleviated, if not gone, returns with the same force as before! Constant allopathic and yes, homeopathic suppression, besides new physical and emotional incidents, produce new layers needing a new remedy (has such person never heard of the Law of Similars and the occurrence of dissimilar diseases?). This unfortunate message seems to reverberate with certain homeopaths who claim that "they never need an acute nor chronic (nosode) intercurrent." I am baffled by such bold statements and would, in light of the above aphorisms, like to receive their explanation. When we talk about the need for an acute intercurrent, I refer the reader to Aphorism 73, which defines where this intercurrent is needed. I would like to hear why, in the case of a severe Gelsemium flu, the homeopath should continue the previous, let's say grief remedy, Pulsatilla? How is it possible to treat with dissimilar remedies?

At 04:48 PM 5/31/2008, you wrote:

[McPhee Family]

I have to respond since my own son recovered from autism with the DTP remedy. As with any case, you let the totality of symptoms be your guide but also in cases of obvious vaccine reaction, the vaccine pathode *may* be indicated. Len Marlow (homeopath) has put together a Materia Medica regarding DTP: http://www.homeopathyonline.org.uk/mm%20dpt.html . In hindsight, it does fit my son's case and he did have an obvious reaction to DTP. I would also consider the reactions listed in the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System to be symptomatic of an "accidental" proving.
Like any other nosode (sarcode, pathode), a chronic remedy should follow to address the underlying weakness of the constitution which allowed the reaction to occur in the first place. However, I'm not fully convinced we were created to withstand any foreign substance injected into us but in any event, constitutional treatment should follow to finish the case. As pointed out, autism is not *only* caused by the DTP remedy - there are many causes - thus constitutional treatment is necessary to prevent other causes from repeating the insult - whatever they may be. And in many cases, a chronic remedy is clearly the best first choice [over a vaccine pathode] even in clear cases of vaccine reaction.
Where we run into trouble is when vaccine remedies are used blindly, based on no principle other than the theory vaccines cause autism. For the record, Dr. Luc mentions using the DTP remedy in his books in at least 5 different places in circumstances of reaction to DTP but has now decided it has no place in homeopathic treatment. He has successfully convinced me my son was "incredibly lucky" to have recovered using the DTP remedy. However, just like any other remedy - including Lachesis - there is no "one size fits all" treatment for autism. Don't look for a protocol (as Dr. Smits does), look at what the patient is showing you.
Lastly, I respectfully disagree with Dr. Luc in that I wouldn't rule out the DTP remedy completely - it has its place and usefulness when used appropriately. I have since used it sparingly but successfully in other circumstances - including my unvaccinated child. Used appropriately, I think it has value. FWIW.
Truly,
Erica
www.recoveredfromautism.com