ISOPATHY

[Joy Lucas]

The one point here to make, which is the one I tried to point out to Shannon when she used Swan's work as an example is that he was referring to 'infectious' acute miasm so that is not a useful comparison to make here unless you are suggesting that a part of a chronic case that 'might' be due to individual susceptibilities towards any particular vaccine is acute and not chronic.

I think I will pass on the data gathering though, I am part of a small group that is preparing extensive work on rx from the periodic table (whenever we get back to it) and as well as student work and my own caseload and other interests, that's enough for me
Hope to get back to posts next week, have filming to do. Have a nice weekend.
Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.streetcollege.co.uk

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

You seem to believe that I or the late Tinus or others do use only an isotherapic and throw the patient away.
That is certainly not the case.
Like Tinus (read his book, it is only 180 pages), this is based on clinical experience of many years and many cases, where the indicated remedy had no or very little influence, but as soon as the isotherapic (and not only the vaccine nosode but any substance that was considered as being the trigger of the clinical situation) was given, the picture cleared up and allowed to retake the case and find the proper remedy to continue with total cure.
If someone limits himself to isotherapy, then yes indeed the basic problem of susceptibility is still there, compounded by the fact it has been stirred and modified by the vaccine AND the isotherapic treatment; this is asking for trouble.
So all this methodology is not theorising at all, it is practical, clinical, daily work, compilation of hundreds of cases.
Nobody ever said or wrote that isotherapy was a homeopathic treatment, I even wrote an email summarizing the clear difference for those who did not know. Same as leaving a damp dwelling is real estate and not homeopathy, but not doing it will prevent the cure, and also doing it might cause an aggravation because you need a bigger mortgage and you cannot pay it eventually......not homeopathy either, but pathological to the patient and not curable with remedies.
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

[John Harvey]

The reason for the circular nature of this discussion is a failure to draw three distinctions.
(1) One is the distinction between
(a) a substance with the potential to be prescribed isopathically -- a substance such as Psorinum or Pertussin -- and
(b) matter without that potential, such as the MMR mixture (which clearly is not a single, simple substance and equally clearly will never, ever result in a stable symptomatology).
This is one distinction that Joy's original quote addresses implicitly, as Hahnemann's definition of homoeopathy never deviated from a requirement that the substance prescribed be known to cause the patient's symptoms -- which therefore appears
(i) to exclude all mixtures that cannot be encompassed by the term "single, simple substance" (so, whilst it does not exclude water solutions or whole plant parts, it does exclude MMR mixtures), because homoeopathy does not use such mixtures, and
(ii) to exclude also any substances that (though they may once have been presumed to cause them) we now know we should not presume can cause the patient's symptoms. Remember the repeated exhortations not to fall into the mire of speculative prescription?
(2) A second is the distinction between taking a substance -- whether
(i) isopathically prescribable, such as pertussin, or
(ii) not isopathically prescribable, such as MMR mixture (see above)
-- and
(a) prescribing it on the basis of the part it has played in causing the patient's present illness and
(b) prescribing it on the basis of a hypothesis that is may have played a part.
This is the failure that Rik's scenario has primarily addressed.
(3) Yet another readily overlooked distinction is that between
(a) prescribing an isopathically prescribable substance (see above) on an isopathic basis and
(b) prescribing it on a homoeopathic basis.
This is the distinction that causes the most trouble, partly because Hahnemann at first failed to draw it, as may be apparent in Joy's quote from Chronic Diseases.
Even Hahnemann was capable, however, of being wrong.
Unlike us poor imitators, though, Hahnemann was also capable of recognising and correcting his mistakes. His thinking on the matter is clarified in several places, including in a discussion of Psorinum (my apologies, but my memory of where this appears fails me) in which he stated clearly that the basis for Psorinum's prescription should never be presence of the "itch", scabies (his chief remedy against which was not Psorinum, the scabies nosode, but Sulphur) but only and always symptom similarity.
The perpetuation of this last confusion by any number of great homoeopaths does not negate its significance.
The perpetuation of the other two confusions by any number of poor thinkers claiming to practise homoeopathy, though a great embarrassment to homoeopathy and to all who understand it, does not alter the distinctions! This powerlessness to overcome fact using wishful thinking applies even to confusions whose most notorious proponents gloss over them in order to apply the most laughable speculations in the name of homoeopathy.
Whenever we fail to be aware of and to respect all three distinctions, conversation on this topic will be confused and at cross-purposes.
Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The individual should not be asked to share equally with society the risk of error when the possible injury to the individual is significantly greater than any possible harm to the state."
— Addington vs Texas, 441 US 418; 99 S Ct 1804; 60 L. Ed. 2d 323, Supreme Court of the United States, 1979

[Fran Sheffield]

Hi everyone, just a few comments from many interspersed with Joe's e-mail below, and certainly not directed at Joe specifically.
Like Tinus (read his book, it is only 180 pages), this is based on clinical experience of many years and many cases, where the indicated remedy had no or very little influence, but as soon as the isotherapic (and not only the vaccine nosode but any substance that was considered as being the trigger of the clinical situation) was given, the picture cleared up and allowed to retake the case and find the proper remedy to continue with total cure.
I was asked to do a review of Tinus' book and so have read it on the basis.

It is misleading to think that all the cases in the book were only treated isopathically once the simillimum had failed. From memory, most of the cases were treated isopathically from start.

From my perspective, there were many problems for Tinus wrote. I'll list of those that come to mind:
1. Tinus speaks disparagingly of classical homoeopathy

If someone limits himself to isotherapy, then yes indeed the basic problem of susceptibility is still there, compounded by the fact it has been stirred and modified by the vaccine AND the isotherapic treatment; this is asking for trouble.
So all this methodology is not theorising at all, it is practical, clinical, daily work, compilation of hundreds of cases.
Nobody ever said or wrote that isotherapy was a homeopathic treatment, I even wrote an email summarizing the clear difference for those who did not know. Same as leaving a damp dwelling is real estate and not homeopathy, but not doing it will prevent the cure, and also doing it might cause an aggravation because you need a bigger mortgage and you cannot pay it eventually......not homeopathy either, but pathological to the patient and not curable with remedies.
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

[Fran Sheffield]

Ignore this email - I am still in the process of writing it - my computer sent it before I had finished!
Like Tinus (read his book, it is only 180 pages), this is based on clinical experience of many years and many cases, where the indicated remedy had no or very little influence, but as soon as the isotherapic (and not only the vaccine nosode but any substance that was considered as being the trigger of the clinical situation) was given, the picture cleared up and allowed to retake the case and find the proper remedy to continue with total cure.
If someone limits himself to isotherapy, then yes indeed the basic problem of susceptibility is still there, compounded by the fact it has been stirred and modified by the vaccine AND the isotherapic treatment; this is asking for trouble.
So all this methodology is not theorising at all, it is practical, clinical, daily work, compilation of hundreds of cases.
Nobody ever said or wrote that isotherapy was a homeopathic treatment, I even wrote an email summarizing the clear difference for those who did not know. Same as leaving a damp dwelling is real estate and not homeopathy, but not doing it will prevent the cure, and also doing it might cause an aggravation because you need a bigger mortgage and you cannot pay it eventually......not homeopathy either, but pathological to the patient and not curable with remedies.
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

[Fran Sheffield]

Hi everyone, just a few comments followowing a clip from Joe's e-mail below, and certainly not directed at Joe specifically.

Because my reply is lengthy, I have tried to simplify it for reading by placing it in point form.
Like Tinus (read his book, it is only 180 pages), this is based on clinical experience of many years and many cases, where the indicated remedy had no or very little influence, but as soon as the isotherapic (and not only the vaccine nosode but any substance that was considered as being the trigger of the clinical situation) was given, the picture cleared up and allowed to retake the case and find the proper remedy to continue with total cure.
I was asked to do a review of Tinus' book and so have read it on the basis.

It is misleading to think that all the cases in the book were only treated isopathically once the simillimum had failed. From memory, most of the cases were treated isopathically from start.

From my perspective, there were several concerns regarding what Tinus wrote. I'll list of those that immediately come to mind:
1. Tinus speaks disparagingly of classical homoeopathy. I don't like the term classical, preferring to use the word 'Hahnemannian' if any at all does have to be used, but for the sake of discussion let's assume he was referring to the same thing. If this was so, then from the information he gives he had a very poor understanding and grasp of classical/Hahnemannian homoeopathy. One doesn't have the right to disparage what is considered best practice and say that something else is much better if one reveals that he or she has not yet fully understood what that practice is. I found Tinus' frequent statements disparaging Hahnemannian homoeopathy regrettable and as he has been seen as a homoeopathic master and teacher wondered at what teachings he had passed on to others who may have absorbed them unquestioningly.
2. As someone with a practice and clinic that sees large numbers of children with autism I was interested to read the cases Tinus presented as a way of comparing treatment strategies. Not to disparage Tinus' efforts, I did not find his cases producing results better than what we see in our Hahnemannian clinic. I sometimes felt frustrated by the delay in progress in some of the children. I was also concerned by the severe and prolonged aggravations some experienced - this is not something that would be permitted or encouraged with Hahnemannian homoeopathy.
3. Another concern was the constant focus on the next 'obstacle to cure'. Treatment along these lines requires a parent to be constantly racking their brains for possible toxic exposures either before or during or after pregnancy. If one is identified that is not yet potentised, treatment then has to be withheld until that remedy becomes available. in seeing this being discussed and demonstrated in the book, I wanted to scream, "Just look at the symptoms and prescribe on them - forget about the exposure". Overall, little attention seemed to be paid to symptom totality, grading of symptoms according to their importance within the case, prescribing on these and then providing appropriate management according to the child's response.

I would also like to make some other observations from our clinical experience in relation to this overall discussion.
1. I think people are all too quick to cry, "obstacle to cure", these days as a way of justifying practice that may be second best for patient outcomes. When I look at the cases involved I see that they are often poorly taken (resulting in poor prescriptions) or poorly managed. Homoeopathy is an art as well as a science. Each year of practice sees us prescribing better and better. I wish there was an easier way but there's not. Isopathic prescribing is appealing because the process is simplified - nothing to it. All we have to do is work out the toxic exposures in the reverse order of their occurrence and give those in potentised form and all our problems are solved - any monkey can do it. It seems to me that this is the real reason the isopathy's popularity because as I will go on to discuss it often fails to deliver what it promises. And yes, we do have cases ending up at our clinic that have been treated by this approach because either the aggravations were too much or they weren't seeing the improvement hoped for.
2. If homoeopaths think that only they have access to isopathy then they aren't being confronted with what we are dealing with here in Australia. Here, we have a range of practitioners, notably kinesiologists, who are using different types of bio resonance machines to diagnosed and prescribe homeopathIcally and isopathically. Again, we have many cases at our clinic that have either come from this or are trying to use this approach in conjunction with our treatment. We do see symptoms being pushed around but nothing making the improvements that a well prescribed simillimum does.
3. At times we will prescribe an isopathically for a patient. We do this when: (1) the parent has heard about it, is sure that a particular vaccine or toxin has caused their child's problem, and will not be happy until it is tried, and (2) where it is obvious to blind freddy the child's current state is a direct result of a particular toxin or vaccine. Having these experiences, this is what I can report - more often than not results are disappointing, even when a clear link between toxin and symptoms can be established. Sometimes we do see improvements in isolated symptoms but not across the board as you would expect with a similar remedy. Often any improvements are short lived. Often we see nothing. This is not something that just I am saying - our parents who have tired will tell you this also. I have no explanation why Tinus and others report different results to what we see.
4. in terms of any potentised vaccines used isopathically, the one with the best results so far has not been the MMR that many parents consider responsible for their child's autism but the DTP. This is perhaps because the DTP, during a limited proving, was shown to produce symptoms similar to autism.

As a final point I would like to ask why, if we truly understand homoeopathy and the body's response to its disease state, why some of us are so quick to use isopathy in preference to homoeopathy. If we truly understand that symptoms are the way the body in its own wisdom has chosen to respond to its particular health problem, why do we prefer to ignore it and use isopathy rather then copy that response and support it with homoeopathy?

I hope it makes sense. Unfortunately there is not the time to reply at length to any ongoing discussion but I hope others will follow on with any points I have made in my place.

Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield.

[Paul Booyse]

* Hi John

[John Harvey]

Hi, Paul --

Good question. Incidental contaminants such as appear in Hepar sulph and Causticum may or may not make some difference; according to the understanding of potentisation that Colin B. Lessell communicates in The Infinitesimal Dose, an understanding that concerns the transmission, through succussion, of molecular-bond vibrations to surrounding H-O bonds in H-O-H molecules in particular, a clearly subdominant solute will, with sufficient dynamisation steps, play no part in the total medicinal effect. According to the way the molecular bond motions are thought to populate, or perhaps infect, nearby H-O bonds through resonance, it is predictable that the lower the degree of impurity, the fewer the steps necessary in order to eliminate or virtually eliminate their medicinal effect.

A useful day-to-day analogy may be to the "founder effect", wherein, for instance, the smaller a proportion of, blue-eyed people in an isolated and generally brown-eyed population, the fewer the iterations of natural selection that will result in their complete elimination from the population.

This may explain why Hepar sulph and Causticum, despite their contaminants, appear to have a reliable symptom picture. With the degree of contaminants sufficiently low and perhaps the contaminants sufficiently innocuous (or insoluble) in any case, it may only take a degree or two of potentisation to stabilise the medicine's total dynamic effect.

It may, incidentally, also explain why homoeopathic remedies obtained from plants have continued to enjoy such success world wide as they have in spite of regional and temporal variations in the conditions of those plants' growth: prescribed in sufficiently high potency, the differences between them in dynamic effect have been overwhelmed by resonance with the plant's chief soluble ingredients.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"The individual should not be asked to share equally with society the risk of error when the possible injury to the individual is significantly greater than any possible harm to the state."
— Addington vs Texas, 441 US 418; 99 S Ct 1804; 60 L. Ed. 2d 323, Supreme Court of the United States, 1979

[Pongo]

100% I agree.

It does make sense to me.

Pongo

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Fran Sheffield wrote: