Minutus

Hi Jon,

Tuesday, February 28, 2006, 2:47:02 PM, you wrote:

JvH> I have read one of his books, in which he relates the reults of his research
JvH> project.
JvH> One of his conclusions is that the children who received homoeopathic
JvH> prophylactic remedies were even healthier than the children who just
JvH> received constitutional homoeopathic treatment. He syas this conclusion
JvH> surprised himself as much as I am sure it surprises everyone else here.

Just a small correction here. From what I understand, when Isaac talks
about the group of children in his study who had constitutional
treatment, he was not talking about homeopathic but naturopathic
treatment that strengthened and protected the child's constitution,
ie., chiropractic, naturopathic, osteopathic treatments and organic
foods,etc, but not homeopathy.

This "natural" group was the one he expected to be the healthiest
because the parents chose very healthy lifestyles for their children.
He was suprised to find that the group that received the HP, whether
dining at MacDonalds or not, were the healthiest (closely followed by
this other group).

--
Best regards,
Fran mailto:FranSheffield@homeopathyplus.com.au

Hi Fran,
Do you know whether he made any comparison between a HP-only group and
a constitutional (homeopathic) only group? Or, as I'd think a more
meaningful comparison, between constitutional(homeopathic) only versus
constitutional-plus-HP? Because to me, there would no question at all
that constitutional homeopathic treatment is even more health-promoting
than is healthy lifestyle alone; but I would love to see comparisons
between HP and *homeopathic* constitutional care, with and without HP.
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]