differences:
homeoprophylaxis involves the use of individual remedies, selected in an
individualized and non-routine manner, to reduce or eliminate the
morbidity of epidemic and sporadic contagious acute diseases in the
short term .
per Hahnemann's Organon of Medicine, aph. 73
Homoeopathic vaccination borrows from the practice of allopathic
vaccination; whereas homoeoprophylaxis is well rooted in classical
homeopathic practice.
"no epidemic disease should be taken for any previous one and treated in
the same way, since all that break out at different times are different
from each other"
Hahnemann, Organon of Medicine; Samuel Hahnemann; Footnote b to aphorism 81
Lynn
homeoprophylaxis vs homoeopathic vaccination
-
Lynn Cremona
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:00 pm
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: homeoprophylaxis vs homoeopathic vaccination
Hi Lynn,
Taking the discussion a little further ....
Homeopathic vaccination is a misnomer. Vaccines are are of allopathy (as you have said) and the allopaths rightly become very upset if we use their term for what we do when we prevent or immunise (according to its true definition) with homeopathy - we are not vaccinating anyone and we do not use vaccines.
We should not use this term if we don't want homeopathy ridiculed in public forums by the allopath - they will turn on this misuse and use it to their own advantage (as they have done in the past in Australian media) quicker than anything if we don't take care with our names and definitions - and this is true of even the name 'homeopathy', as I think is happening in a different discussion.
Aphorism 73 refers to existing acute and/or epidemic diseases. Hahnemann makes a distinction between the general acutes such as fevers, saying that one fever is not the same as another so they should not be treated in the same way as allopathy would - ie., treatment should be individualised.
He then goes on to say in reference to the epidemic diseases that they are the ones that recur in the same manner and so always have the same disease name.
In the footnote he points out a situation in which this was confused - ie., when a kind of pupura miliaris was confused with Scarlet fever and attempts were made to treat or prevent it as if it was scarlet fever - one would assume this was unsuccessful (I think I read this was so in his Lesser Writings).
He then goes on to say that Belladonna is the treatment and prevention for scarlet fever (the fixed epidemic disease according to the symptoms we all recognise as Scarlet Fever symptoms - my comment).
He is not saying that there are different types of scarlet fever that will require different remedies for prophylaxis - just that one has to carefully diagnose that the epidemic disease for which treatment or prophylaxis is being attempted is truly scarlet fever.
In the footnote to aphorism 81, Hahnemann seems to be referring to epidemic diseases that do not have a fixed symptom pattern but regardless of that, people still try to give them a name and treat them according to that name even though all sufferers may only have one thing in common, such as a fever.
It seems as if Hahnemann is saying on one hand, that where an epidemic infectious disease has a repeatable and fixed, recognisable symptom pattern, it is quite appropriate to name and treat ir prevent it accordingly (I am thinking of diseases such as scarlet fever, meningococcal disease, diphtheria, etc). On the other hand, if an infectious epidemic disease has not fixed or repeatable symptom pattern, and may only have one symptom in common between all sufferers such as perhaps a fever or a diarrhoea, the individualised remedy has to be prescribed (and I think we would all agree on this).
So, perhaps we need to classify epidemic diseases according to whether their symptomatology is fixed and unchanging from one outbreak to another (as in the epidemic diseases of childhood), or changing from one epidemic to another and from sufferer to sufferer (such as with colds, and flus, and gastro bugs) AND either treat or prevent accordingly.
Prevention is much easier than treatment. In prevention, we are only blocking the symptoms that are common to all infections of that disease - its characteristic symptoms - so the choice is easily narrowed to just a handful of remedies. Once a person is infected (I know, Sheri) we have to treat the individual experience or expression of that disease. Even in fixed and unchanging epidemic diseases, treatment has to be individualised for best results and so require us to carefully consider a much greater number of remedies.
As a final comment, I often think that the school that says we should only try to prevent once disease is in place is speaking from the comfort and security of western affluence - it sounds good in theory but if applied in practice in many parts of the world that truly suffer from epidemic disease, results in disability and loss of life.
Two examples, pregnant women are particularly susceptible to death from malaria. As a result, there are thousands of children orphaned each year by that one disease that homeopathy does offer protection against. Meningococcal disease not only kills - it maims causing mental impairment and loss of limbs and other body parts. We have fantastic research showing that homeopathy provides good protection against this disease. Should we wait until an epidemic is in place before we decide whether it is appropriate to use meningococcinum for protection?
Homeopathic theory is there to serve people and inform practice - it is not the other way around. My thoughts.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
Lynn Cremona wrote:
Taking the discussion a little further ....
Homeopathic vaccination is a misnomer. Vaccines are are of allopathy (as you have said) and the allopaths rightly become very upset if we use their term for what we do when we prevent or immunise (according to its true definition) with homeopathy - we are not vaccinating anyone and we do not use vaccines.
We should not use this term if we don't want homeopathy ridiculed in public forums by the allopath - they will turn on this misuse and use it to their own advantage (as they have done in the past in Australian media) quicker than anything if we don't take care with our names and definitions - and this is true of even the name 'homeopathy', as I think is happening in a different discussion.
Aphorism 73 refers to existing acute and/or epidemic diseases. Hahnemann makes a distinction between the general acutes such as fevers, saying that one fever is not the same as another so they should not be treated in the same way as allopathy would - ie., treatment should be individualised.
He then goes on to say in reference to the epidemic diseases that they are the ones that recur in the same manner and so always have the same disease name.
In the footnote he points out a situation in which this was confused - ie., when a kind of pupura miliaris was confused with Scarlet fever and attempts were made to treat or prevent it as if it was scarlet fever - one would assume this was unsuccessful (I think I read this was so in his Lesser Writings).
He then goes on to say that Belladonna is the treatment and prevention for scarlet fever (the fixed epidemic disease according to the symptoms we all recognise as Scarlet Fever symptoms - my comment).
He is not saying that there are different types of scarlet fever that will require different remedies for prophylaxis - just that one has to carefully diagnose that the epidemic disease for which treatment or prophylaxis is being attempted is truly scarlet fever.
In the footnote to aphorism 81, Hahnemann seems to be referring to epidemic diseases that do not have a fixed symptom pattern but regardless of that, people still try to give them a name and treat them according to that name even though all sufferers may only have one thing in common, such as a fever.
It seems as if Hahnemann is saying on one hand, that where an epidemic infectious disease has a repeatable and fixed, recognisable symptom pattern, it is quite appropriate to name and treat ir prevent it accordingly (I am thinking of diseases such as scarlet fever, meningococcal disease, diphtheria, etc). On the other hand, if an infectious epidemic disease has not fixed or repeatable symptom pattern, and may only have one symptom in common between all sufferers such as perhaps a fever or a diarrhoea, the individualised remedy has to be prescribed (and I think we would all agree on this).
So, perhaps we need to classify epidemic diseases according to whether their symptomatology is fixed and unchanging from one outbreak to another (as in the epidemic diseases of childhood), or changing from one epidemic to another and from sufferer to sufferer (such as with colds, and flus, and gastro bugs) AND either treat or prevent accordingly.
Prevention is much easier than treatment. In prevention, we are only blocking the symptoms that are common to all infections of that disease - its characteristic symptoms - so the choice is easily narrowed to just a handful of remedies. Once a person is infected (I know, Sheri) we have to treat the individual experience or expression of that disease. Even in fixed and unchanging epidemic diseases, treatment has to be individualised for best results and so require us to carefully consider a much greater number of remedies.
As a final comment, I often think that the school that says we should only try to prevent once disease is in place is speaking from the comfort and security of western affluence - it sounds good in theory but if applied in practice in many parts of the world that truly suffer from epidemic disease, results in disability and loss of life.
Two examples, pregnant women are particularly susceptible to death from malaria. As a result, there are thousands of children orphaned each year by that one disease that homeopathy does offer protection against. Meningococcal disease not only kills - it maims causing mental impairment and loss of limbs and other body parts. We have fantastic research showing that homeopathy provides good protection against this disease. Should we wait until an epidemic is in place before we decide whether it is appropriate to use meningococcinum for protection?
Homeopathic theory is there to serve people and inform practice - it is not the other way around. My thoughts.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
Lynn Cremona wrote:
-
Lynn Cremona
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: homeoprophylaxis vs homoeopathic vaccination
Excellent
Thank you
Lynn
-------------------------
Fran Sheffield wrote:
--
Imagine Peace
Thank you
Lynn
-------------------------
Fran Sheffield wrote:
--
Imagine Peace
-
Luise Kunkle
- Posts: 1180
- Joined: Thu Aug 31, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: homeoprophylaxis vs homoeopathic vaccination
Hi Fran,
Thank you for this post.
Regards
Luise
PS: You remembered correctly about Hahnemann and scarlet fever viz.
the miliary eruption illness "Frieseln" was the name he used - he
contrasted it to the "smooth Sydenham's Scarlet Fever" - judging from
the name, the eruption of Frieseln would have been more like red
pimples.
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
Thank you for this post.
Regards
Luise
PS: You remembered correctly about Hahnemann and scarlet fever viz.
the miliary eruption illness "Frieseln" was the name he used - he
contrasted it to the "smooth Sydenham's Scarlet Fever" - judging from
the name, the eruption of Frieseln would have been more like red
pimples.
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========