Minutus

On the contrary as Hahnemann explains:
Let it not be imagined that such slight indispositions caused by taking medicines for the purpose of proving them can be in the main injurious to the health. Experience shows on the contrary, that the organism of the prover becomes, by these frequent attacks on his health, all the more expert in repelling all external influences inimical to his frame and all artificial and natural morbific noxious agents, and becomes more hardened to resist everything of an injurious character, by means of these moderate experiments on his own person with medicines. His health becomes more unalterable; he becomes more robust, as all experience shows.
Seems to me Hahnemann has the last word on this:-)
In practice the overwhelming effectivenes of homeopropylaxis (even of unrelated remedies as ina proving) has already been well proven in practice, with millions of people.
The fact that you do not understand it, does not make it disappear.
I do not find it hard to understand.
The timing is just different.
In illness the disease energy gets there first and is ousted by remedy energy.
In homeoprophylaxis the remedy energy is there first so the disease energy already has resistance in place and cannot occur.

My work in genetic type also shows that there is an alignment of energy with a set of inherited traits.
(From my previous research in genetics...We do not inherit traits randomly from our parents as was first theorized, but in discrete predetermined groups of traits) and my ongoing research shows that the SET of traits belonging to an individual happes to align with ONE remedy. Using thi8s remedy is shown to cause srengthening of the body's cells aganst attack, and also robustness of (or restoration of damaged) thymus - our first line of defence against all disease including chronic disease.

The point is that any remedy does act on the body in the direcetion of strength of resistance (see Hahnemann quote abvove) and that the way h omeopathy works in the forst place, is NOT to fight a disease organism but merely to restore the body's resistance so that the attacking ill health is unable to get a foothold.
For example in a bactgerial ear infection, a remedy does not kill any bacteria. All it does is make the ear cells too strong and resistant to be attacked. (The bacteria have no food and die).
In prophytlaxis the ear cells are being made strong BEFORE a bactyeria comes along. B ut the ACTION is the same.
The remedy makes the system resistant to whatever comes along - in advance - instead of during illnerss.

This is why Isaac Golden sees much greater overall health in those using homeoprophylaxis. The remedies make the body resistant to a lot m ore than just the nosode or other homeoprophylaxis effects.
Again - it is becasue ANY remedy builds robustness and resistance in an individual who is not currently diseased.
Exactly as stated in the above quote.

We should not ignore those words and that explanation by Hahnemann - when he says "as all experience shows".
And indeed all experience since then - of using remedies without presence of disease - has also showed it.
It's not in question - it's a known effect of homeopathic remedies since Hahnemann's time.
Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Good point. I also don't charge money. But I do raise children, and their emotional and intellectual welfare has depended upon my wife and I. And my children are in fact very happy and well-adjusted and respectful and sweet and responsible young adults. (:->) The moral of that lesson is that a good professional X is a person who can do X well and gets good results doing X.

Roger Bird
________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 20 May 2015 11:54:58 -0400
Subject: RE: [Minutus] Re: International Homeoprophylaxis ("HP") Conference - Dallas

As a philosopher, you aren't treating people and possibly harming them, if you don't know your craft, such as homeopathy
Sheri

At 10:57 AM 5/20/2015, you wrote:
________________________________
Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases

Please show me where he had a limit to the number of remedies he rcommneded that a homeopath shoud prove?
There was none!
The implication was that ALL of them would be a good idea:-)
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

It's the same as with the term "homeopathy": in today's context, some uses of it are consistent with Hahnemann's, and others are not. I do understand that some people take the view that *only* Hahnemann's usage of either of these terms should be accepted -- but that is not the fact of the matter; the genie is -- oops, I guess "the genies are" -- out of the bottle.

Better to discuss the issues on their own merit (and making it clear when one is arguing on the basis of "Hahnemann said").

E.g. with regard to Golden's protocol, the large numbers of very high potency doses are quite an eye-catcher… But surely here too, the aim should be (quoting Hahnemann), "Aude sapere" -- dare to know. Look at the *evidence* and see where it takes us. I would apply this not only to the current topic of homeoprophylaxis (by whatever method)...

Any examination of evidence becomes truly impossible in an environment where only one viewpoint is permitted, and that wasn't my understanding of Ardavan's intention for this list. Might be time to check in with him again, tho, about what's to be accepted here? (Soroush?)

Shannon

I appreciate all you're sharing, Irene.
As far as the potencies used for HP, Isaac explains his choices in chapter 7 of his book, The Complete Practitioner's Manual of Homeoprophylaxis. I would encourage anyone who would like to study HP further to carefully go through this book. The 200C and 10M potencies are also used by Ravi Roy and Carola Lage-Roy in their program in Germany-- they also use 1M. But please keep in mind that these are primarily for the program set up to be an example to stand against the vaccination protocol the CDC, etc. has established. But I emphasize-- and I know Isaac and Ravi and Carola and other homeopaths I know do as well emphasize that the individual must be taken into account. Actual age doesn't matter. As I've said here before, "One month" does not refer to age, but the beginning of the program. (What Kate Birch has on her protocol I feel should be re-worded.) And it is adaptable. If a child is sick, wait until the child is well before continuing on. The order of administration is made out in the program I share for convenience-- parents may adapt this as they desire. They may also add additional nosodes, if they feel they should. I simply counsel them to keep careful track in the booklets they are given.
In many cases, HP is done with a 30C. The choice of potencies was very carefully considered for many reasons. The individual to whom these are given must be considered.

When one considers, as well, that these nosodes are given no more frequently than once a month, and individual nosodes are given annually at best-- and, as you've shared, Irene, that is less frequently than what is done for a proving-- there really has not been any danger to health following this protocol.

I strongly encourage anyone here to read Isaac Golden's book.
In health!
- Cathy Lemmon, BA, CHP

List Owner, Homeopathy-and-SN

(http://groups.yahoo.com)
Co-Director and Organizer, Homeoprophylaxis: A Worldwide Choice

http://www.HPWorldwideChoice.com
Saupere Aude! (Dare to know!)
---In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote :

In the BFP era (Before Fibonacci Potencies era ) I used one dose of 30C followed a few weeks later by one dose of 200C and that was it, no multiple repetitions.
Then I became even more lazy and used only 200C, one dose, unless dealing with epidemic situations, like the "flu": when asked to prescribe preventively I told the patient to take one dose of 200C if it reached the country and one repeat when it reached the city...
Of course my patient did also receive a full homeopathic and naturopathic treatment, so it is honestly impossible to say whether this method had really any influence besides reassurance.

Since the Fibonacci era, I tend to use 3 doses: 34+55C, 1 week off, 89+144C, one week off, 233C, done. VERY few patients have chosen to go that way and again I cannot provide real proof of effectiveness. Same for traveller who want exotic diseases prophylaxis: I do not rely on one single method, why should I, my concern is the patient, not the technique.

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

Has it been your practice to do this only with (other than flu) whooping cough? Or am I misremembering -- or only if asked?

It is the system I would now use for any prophylaxis.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz