Re: Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
Posted: Fri Jul 10, 2009 9:25 am
Hi, Irene --
Oh -- do you mean that it is not true after all that all four viruses have the same pathogenesis, as you previously stated they do [1]? Or does each have the same pathogenesis but require the others in order to address all of its own pathogenesis curatively? Or are you confusing the pathogenesis of the virus in the wild with the pathogenetic effects of a virus embedded in the compound vaccine you have had potentised?
Let me put to you that you simply make all of this up to explain what you believe to be your successes: (1) that you have no first idea what the pathogenesis of any of the four viruses is, (2) that you have only the vaguest idea of the symptoms that the multivalent vaccine you have inappropriately been using as a homoeopathic vaccine rather than a genus epidemicus causes, and (3) that you are still unable to answer the most basic of questions: what this (extremely) compound remedy's pathogenetic symptoms are, and what cases have been cured with it.
I'm sure all homoeopaths reading that would be very interested to see an explanation of how you obtain -- as you've now claimed more than once you have -- an organism from disease symptoms. Presumably it is this ability that obviates, as you claim, all need for provings. Would you kindly tell us how this is done?
So instead of your previously quoted theory that a remedy that is "less identical" becomes "more homoeopathic" [2], we have a slight variation: that a remedy is "more effective" (whatever that means, and regardless of whether anybody will ever know how you gauge that) if it is "more similar" rather than "more identical". So not "less identical" any more, but "more similar"; but not "more identical".
Maybe you could make some sense of this for us all?
And now you claim that the combination of the four organisms, each of which previously you said had the same curative potential, gives "wider coverage".
Or else that you can, with effectively four vaccines, prevent "four separate diseases with same/similar symptoms".
If you have no idea of the overlap in pathogenetic symptoms between the four vaccines and no idea of their differences and no idea of their combined effect and no idea of whether the diseases have the same or similar symptoms -- I wonder how you can prescribe them, as you say, homoeopathically? Would you like to tell us how you do it?
This demonstrate yet again that what you call similarity relies on disease names rather than on comparative symptomatology, doesn't it?
So once again, no symptoms need be noted?
And again?
Is this confusion between prevention of an epidemic disease and the effects resulting from the vaccine an accidental one, or do you see no reason to discriminate between them?
This further confirmation that you do not rely on the symptoms of the individual cat in order to prescribe this "preventive' potentised mixture gives no indication even of looking for a genus epidemicus. It's as easy as using "URI" for all cat flus and any illness with symptoms similar to a cat flu. Is that correct?
Yes, if one ignores the differences between batches and the differences between trivalent and tetravalent vaccines. It's true, though, isn't it, that you are using this mixed vaccine potency to prevent cat flus and to treat cat flus routinely rather than to treat a similar vaccine-induced chronic state?
Cheers --
John
References
[1] (65) "There are four versions of cat flu and even a good vet can not distinguish one from another as the symptoms are so similar...
"So that leads me to the one I am using - but people use many separately made ones, as they are stocked by all the reputable homeopathic pharmacies. I call the one I use URI 30C... The 4-valent components that
cause cat flu symptoms are:
Feline rhinotracheitis (a form of herpes virus)
Feline Calici virus
Feline Panleukopenia virus (a parvo type virus)
Chlamydia (a bacteria) (6 Jul 09)"
[2] (76) "I did not know or care if my version correlated with others - I wanted to get the job done.
"I currently prefer to use that old one however, and not the annually new ones made - as I suspect it is less identical to current strains, and thus more homeopathic." (6 Jul 09)
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
Oh -- do you mean that it is not true after all that all four viruses have the same pathogenesis, as you previously stated they do [1]? Or does each have the same pathogenesis but require the others in order to address all of its own pathogenesis curatively? Or are you confusing the pathogenesis of the virus in the wild with the pathogenetic effects of a virus embedded in the compound vaccine you have had potentised?
Let me put to you that you simply make all of this up to explain what you believe to be your successes: (1) that you have no first idea what the pathogenesis of any of the four viruses is, (2) that you have only the vaguest idea of the symptoms that the multivalent vaccine you have inappropriately been using as a homoeopathic vaccine rather than a genus epidemicus causes, and (3) that you are still unable to answer the most basic of questions: what this (extremely) compound remedy's pathogenetic symptoms are, and what cases have been cured with it.
I'm sure all homoeopaths reading that would be very interested to see an explanation of how you obtain -- as you've now claimed more than once you have -- an organism from disease symptoms. Presumably it is this ability that obviates, as you claim, all need for provings. Would you kindly tell us how this is done?
So instead of your previously quoted theory that a remedy that is "less identical" becomes "more homoeopathic" [2], we have a slight variation: that a remedy is "more effective" (whatever that means, and regardless of whether anybody will ever know how you gauge that) if it is "more similar" rather than "more identical". So not "less identical" any more, but "more similar"; but not "more identical".
Maybe you could make some sense of this for us all?
And now you claim that the combination of the four organisms, each of which previously you said had the same curative potential, gives "wider coverage".
Or else that you can, with effectively four vaccines, prevent "four separate diseases with same/similar symptoms".
If you have no idea of the overlap in pathogenetic symptoms between the four vaccines and no idea of their differences and no idea of their combined effect and no idea of whether the diseases have the same or similar symptoms -- I wonder how you can prescribe them, as you say, homoeopathically? Would you like to tell us how you do it?
This demonstrate yet again that what you call similarity relies on disease names rather than on comparative symptomatology, doesn't it?
So once again, no symptoms need be noted?
And again?
Is this confusion between prevention of an epidemic disease and the effects resulting from the vaccine an accidental one, or do you see no reason to discriminate between them?
This further confirmation that you do not rely on the symptoms of the individual cat in order to prescribe this "preventive' potentised mixture gives no indication even of looking for a genus epidemicus. It's as easy as using "URI" for all cat flus and any illness with symptoms similar to a cat flu. Is that correct?
Yes, if one ignores the differences between batches and the differences between trivalent and tetravalent vaccines. It's true, though, isn't it, that you are using this mixed vaccine potency to prevent cat flus and to treat cat flus routinely rather than to treat a similar vaccine-induced chronic state?
Cheers --
John
References
[1] (65) "There are four versions of cat flu and even a good vet can not distinguish one from another as the symptoms are so similar...
"So that leads me to the one I am using - but people use many separately made ones, as they are stocked by all the reputable homeopathic pharmacies. I call the one I use URI 30C... The 4-valent components that
cause cat flu symptoms are:
Feline rhinotracheitis (a form of herpes virus)
Feline Calici virus
Feline Panleukopenia virus (a parvo type virus)
Chlamydia (a bacteria) (6 Jul 09)"
[2] (76) "I did not know or care if my version correlated with others - I wanted to get the job done.
"I currently prefer to use that old one however, and not the annually new ones made - as I suspect it is less identical to current strains, and thus more homeopathic." (6 Jul 09)
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)