I don't know how you and I can read the same material and come up with such
different impressions! I have made some comments below.
[snip]
Thanks Andy, there have been long debates in Australia for many years
concerning the judiciousness of Isaac Golden's work
In the past, some of those debates were justified but not now. Since the
conclusion and presentation of Isaac's research many of the concerns that
fuelled those debates have been put to bed. For example, one concern was
that potencies given to infants for protection rather than treatment may
cause disruption to their Vital Force. The results of the Golden's research
indicate that they do not - something that has also been noted for 200 years
in clinical practice. On the contrary, vitality seems to be strengthened by
these exposures. While homeopaths in this country may differ philosophically
about homeoprophylaxis some of the old concerns are no longer valid and only
aired speculatively by those unfamiliar with the research.
and I already have
relatively up-to-date info at my fingertips. I was really asking you what it
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.
And not such a bad thing to do. He has certainly done the hard yards of
research in the face of stiff opposition and contributed significantly to
our knowledge of prophylaxis
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. I don't really think
Golden's version of Homoeopathic Prophylaxis (he doesn't refer to it as
"isopathic" treatment) is comparable with standard use of HP, the latter
being used to such great effect, historically and currently, in short term
epidemics of infectious disease.
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
is only one month old, and repeated in a triple dose, in a 24 hour period,
at two months of age. 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.
Golden makes no such promise. I think you must be referring to his
statements about the data he analysed during his research. That claim was
accurate for that data. There is a big difference in his statements
retrospectively about the data analysed and predictive statements you claim
he has made.
Consequently, he has been warned by
authorities, and also the Therapeutic Goods Administration which governs our
accessibility to all Homoeopathic medicines in Australia about false and
dangerous advertising.
Again, this statement is inaccurate and misleading. Golden has not been
convicted or even charged with "false or misleading advertising". Each
attempt to vilify him by government authorities has been dismissed by the
investigating bodies on the basis that he has "no case to answer".
He has been stopped from providing prophylactics outside his home state of
Victoria by the threat of a $28,000 fine on each breach. While the legal
advice has been that this restriction could probably be contested
successfully in a court of law, Golden does not have the financial
where-with-all to do it and so has had to comply with this restriction. The
restriction had nothing to do with him making false claims or misleading
advertising but more to do with the government using a loophole within the
Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) act to stop him providing
prophylactics.
Unlike standard homeopathics, nosodes, being from animal/human disease
products, have not been tested for safety and registered with the TGA the
way conventional medicines prepared from animal or human products have been
required to. To do so would cost tens of thousands of dollars for each
nosode which the Australian homeopathic community and pharmacies cannot
afford especially when the nosodes could not be patented in the manner or
conventional drugs to recoup costs at completion. While we know potentised
high dilutions makes the nosodes safe and that there has never been a
reported case of disease transmission via a potentised nosode, this counts
for nothing with the TGA. The fact that the nosodes have not been tested and
registered in the manner required for other human/animal products has
allowed the government to threaten Golden with fines for any breach. The TGA
know that nosodes are being used by the wider homeopathic community but so
far have turned a blind eye to this.
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.
Our access to nosodes is indeed under threat - legislation is currently in
place to stop their use and it can be applied at whim at any time whether
nosodes are being used for prophylaxis or disease treatment. To creep around
on tip-toes so that we do not upset "them" is not the best way to go. The
only long-term protection we and the nosodes will have should homeopathy
become a greater threat to conventional medicine is if the non-homeopathic
community becomes more aware of their irreplaceable benefits and stands up
to demand their protection and funded research should they be threatened.
Any benefactors out there? Please see the link to The Do No Harm Initiative
in my signature line.
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".
Where did you get these "length of protection" figures from? I do not recall
Golden claiming these, even as an "educated guess." He does refer to
Diphtheria studies that show a negative Schick test some ten years after
exposure but also says a lack of studies generally in the area prophylactics
means that claims cannot be made. Also, who has said anything about
imprinting a nosological disease? Nobody wants to do that and nor is there
any evidence over the last 200 years that this has ever happened with the
appropriate use of prophylactics.
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.
If people do choose to attack pioneering work with inaccurate facts,
insinuations, and scare-mongering, well ....
Most appreciate valid critique but if a person who has tried to conduct
serious research (at a tertiary level that has been independently
scrutinised by experts in the field before release by the supervising
university) is disparaged by colleagues who seem more concerned with
protecting pre-existing prejudices than considering the possible
implications, it does start to sound like sour grapes or professional
jealousy.
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! but now apparently is "within the framework of the Law of
Similars"), 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.
Sheri, where are you? I am surprised you did not jump in here to point out
that antibodies mean very little when talking about immunity.
Goldenhimself points out that doing this would been meaningless for the study.
(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).
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.
This was the concern I had before the Golden research but isn't it
interesting and potentially exciting that the reverse of this appears true
if prophylaxis is used in a controlled way (and cannot think of anyone who
has suggested using it in an uncontrolled manner)? The implications and
potential benefits are huge not only for us but also for some of the world's
more vulnerable populations. Consider malaria and the loss of life that
results. Look at the information on it at The Do No Harm Initiative site.
Prophylaxis could also be the area in which homeopathic effect is validated
in the eyes of the greater scientific community because the hypothesis can
be so easily tested. Just think of it - the Brazilian study on Meningococcal
infections is a case in point.
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. On a positive note, it is reassuring that
Golden is increasingly reducing the number of completely unnecessary 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.
A true statements, Chris, and it cuts both ways.
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.
Again true.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--
A note to Sheri:
Sheri, because of your work in the anti-vaccination area some people with no
other source of information about homeoprophylaxis will listen to what you
say. I hope you convey the truth of the facts to them rather than the truth
as you may like it to be because many will be placing their trust in you -
quite a responsibility!
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Information - Education - Treatment)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
The Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org