Minutus

You mentioned you have no issue using it sparingly. But using it sparingly means that there is some reservation, an issue. I was wondering what that was?
Regards,
Paul
________________________________
________________________________

Something else to add to the mix ...

See below.

Paul Booyse wrote:
It has been often speculated that the reason why the childhood diseases are so important is that they help to shed some of the miasmatic burden the child is carrying, especially with disease that externalise with a rash - that its natures way of improving health that is less than what it should be because of inheritance - that genes of subsequent offspring are stronger as a result (but how do we test this?).

Now, assuming this may be so, could the same thing be happening with prophylaxis when the remedies being used are nosodes and so especially relevant to any miasmatic weakness? Do these nosodes not just prevent disease but actually strengthen the child at a vital level by relieving any miasmatic weakness / taint? Is this the reason why the children in the Golden study who were immunised with nosodes had the lowest incidence of chronic disease of the four groups?
--
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

well i dont have a lot of expertise in this arena. really i've only used it with my kids for Lyme disease and with several patients for meningitis. isaac golden suggests "Frequency will depend on the potential exposure - if exposure high then give weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly. Then less after 6 mths...If low exposure give 3 monthly doses, then a dose every 3 months" (i happen to still have his email in my inbox, as luck would have it!) obviously it is laid out in far more detail in his book but as it happens, i bought the wrong book that does not discuss the protocol in detail (will be buying the right book soon i hope!)
i gave less than this prescription, and left/will leave more time in between doses. i found symptoms came up right away and i did not feel comfortable repeating as often as he suggested.

________________________________

From: Paul Booyse
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 6:26:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] homeopathic vaccinations

You mentioned you have no issue using it sparingly. But using it sparingly means that there is some reservation, an issue. I was wondering what that was?
Regards,
Paul
________________________________
________________________________

well also i should say, that i dont see the point in working to prevent mumps, chicken pox, etc. i only recommend prevention for meningitis and lyme disease in my area, with measles being something to consider. isaac golden does not recommend preventing all of the childhood diseases either - however he recognizes that in some cases, parents will insist on having some protection, and if that is so, then the homeopathic option is certainly superior to conventional vaccination.
________________________________

From: Rachel
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 7:29:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] homeopathic vaccinations
well i dont have a lot of expertise in this arena. really i've only used it with my kids for Lyme disease and with several patients for meningitis. isaac golden suggests "Frequency will depend on the potential exposure - if exposure high then give weekly for 4 weeks, then monthly. Then less after 6 mths...If low exposure give 3 monthly doses, then a dose every 3 months" (i happen to still have his email in my inbox, as luck would have it!) obviously it is laid out in far more detail in his book but as it happens, i bought the wrong book that does not discuss the protocol in detail (will be buying the right book soon i hope!)
i gave less than this prescription, and left/will leave more time in between doses. i found symptoms came up right away and i did not feel comfortable repeating as often as he suggested.

________________________________

From: Paul Booyse
To: minutus@yahoogroups .com
Sent: Tue, March 30, 2010 6:26:09 AM
Subject: Re: [Minutus] homeopathic vaccinations

You mentioned you have no issue using it sparingly. But using it sparingly means that there is some reservation, an issue. I was wondering what that was?
Regards,
Paul
________________________________
________________________________

Hi Paul,
Yes, and both the prevention and the "stronger, medicinal disease" are temporary, easily removed by the VF, leaving behind a state of health--per Organon.

Have you read Golden's study? I would rather let him and his results argue the major issue here, rather than myself... However, briefly, his results found two things: one was that yes, the "homeopathic immunization" was effective in (nearly) preventing cases of the targeted diseases; and the second was that the children so treated actually were *healthier*, down the 20-year timeline, than those treated either by (a) regular "constitutional" homeopathic treatment and (b) particularly conscientious "natural" upbringing (which, he mentions, is the approach had had *assumed* would yield the best results).

So I think the assumption, from homeopathic standpoint, is that the "homeopathic immunizations" did their job of preventing new cases of illness *because* they were removing (satisfying) "susceptibility" in the children; in other words, that they were removing elements of the children's *chronic* (tho in most cases presumably mild) dis-ease.

However--when you've read his study, perhaps a different explanation for the results will occur to you, which of course I would be very interested to hear--I find it a compelling question!
Right--a *temporary* medicinal disease, easily removed by the VF, etc., as above...
I'm not interested in speculating about what either Kent or Hahnemann meant--not because I don't think there's ample material to do so, but just because I don't have the time right now. I'd rather keep the discussion to how homeoprophylaxis has been *practiced*, and the *results* it has produced--with Golden's study being the most thorough test and explanation that I'm aware of. (Tho Fran's site and experience is also full of wonderful information--I need to read her current offerings more thoroughly! That's the www.homeopathyplus.co.au that I mentioned earlier.)
I share your lack of "fear" about the childhood diseases! My own approach was--and would be again today--to try to *arrange* for my kids to get them at a time that was (to the extent that it ever could be) convenient for us (we only managed chicken pox, due to lack of availability of the others!). However, if you read Golden's study, it does appear that his approach carries added benefits. And for e.g. includes "homeopathic immunization" for diseases such as tuberculosis, which are *not* childhood diseases, and not diseases one would seek to contract on purpose, etc.--again, if you are interested, you should read his study, read his results, and then be in a more informed position to pass judgment based on the *realities* of the practice, not merely theory!

Oh, and I of course agree with your suggestions re individualization--and I am of course not saying that everybody should have "immunization against everything" even via the homeopathic method--but, read his study!!

Best wishes,
Shannon

Phew, much more succinct than my attempt--thanks, Fran.

> Hi Shannon,
((( This does not apply to isopathy. Recall that Hahnemann did not use
isopathy (idem). *Isopathic* prophylaxis (pioneered by Lux, Hering, and
others starting in mid-1820s has a different mechanism than homeopathic
prophylaxis. This is (in my opinion) because an isopathic prophylactic is
a preparation in potency of the specific foreign vitality. That vitality
will accelerate a whole-microbe colonization into an immune-system
overwhelm. Knocking down the load of that SPECIFIC vitality causes this
portion of the susceptibility equation to be lessened. As Fran points
out, when used systematically for several diseases it also reduces overall
chronic miasmatic load to some extent.

*Homeopathic* prophylaxis does not use idem. It uses a *facsimile* of an
extant disease pattern (in a client (individualized) or in many clients
(group totality - individualized as if one client (para 101-104)). The
individual remedy depends on individual sx already extant; the group
totality remedy on a group with sx already extant (unless there is a
general homeopathic prophylactic such as Bell for smooth scarlatina or
lathyrus for polio).

But isopathic prophylaxis can be given before any extant epidemic is
available on which to find symptoms. That is its advantage. In the ideal
situation in homeopathic practice, it isopathy allows a priori
prophylaxis, preventing sacrifice of clients in order to obtain sx on
which to determine the group totality (so-called genus epidemicus).
((( "Homeoprophylaxis" is a misnomer. Virtually all of Isaac Golden's
procedures are Isoprophylaxis.

((( As I recall from 1988 lecture by Andre Saine without looking at notes
- Austin, Kent's practice partner for many years, used ant-c and
variolinum routinely for smallpox prevention. There is more to this story
of isopathic prophylaxis than most classical homeopaths realize. HC Allen,
and many other IHA members, the most Hahnemannian prescribers with a
survival record in acute disease that exceeds that of today for all fatal
diseases (source A. Saine ND from Insurance companies of the 1880s) used
isopathic prophylaxis in ascending potency schedule routinely for most or
all of their careers.

Best,
A