Minutus

Hello Shannon,

Time is short so I will respond the best I can.

Monday, June 5, 2006, 11:44:58 PM, you wrote:

RSN> E.g. you write:
RSN> Immunisation by HP only, was associated with a lower than average
RSN> chance of acquiring asthma or eczema and less risk of developing
RSN> allergies.
RSN> 2. The incidence of asthma (3%) in children who were immunised only by
RSN> HP was well below the national average of 19%.
RSN> 3. The incidence of behavioural problems in children immunised by HP
RSN> was extremely low compared to the other methods of immunisation.
RSN> 4. In relation to asthma, immunising a child with HP alone was 15 times
RSN> safer than immunising by vaccines, and 6 times safer than doing nothing
RSN> for immunisation.
RSN> 5. In relation to eczema, immunising only with HP was 7.4 times safer
RSN> than immunising with vaccines and 2.8 times safer than doing nothing
RSN> about immunisation.
RSN> 6. In relation to allergies, immunising only with HP was 5 times safer
RSN> than by vaccines and 2 times safer than no method of immunisation.

RSN> Meaning, apparently, that the HP-treated groups had only a fraction of
RSN> the incidence of allergies, eczema, asthma, behavior disorders or
RSN> allergies, compared with the *completely unvaccinated* group--and an
RSN> even teenier fraction of the incidence in the conventionally vaccinated
RSN> group.

You will have to obtain Isaac's studies to understand completely what
is stated above - they are available in book/manual/treatise form and,
as with any data and analysis requires lengthy reading and
concentration. The above statements are conclusions that have been
drawn from the research. I asked Isaac to check the facts in my
article re his research. What you have quoted above is drawn from his
writing and considered as accurate by Isaac and those who supervised
his work.

I checked with Isaac at the time of writing the article if he was
happy for people to contact him if they had questions. He is happy to
answer any relevant questions and engage in discussion but of course,
is not interested in rewriting his research in extensive emails for
those who cannot be bothered to read it for themselves and just want
to argue (not suggesting you are in this category). In other words,
don't expect him to explain again what he has already explained in the
books. Those who are prepared to make the effort, he is more than
happy to dialogue with, whether they agree with him or not.

Briefly to say here that the different groups had varying levels of
risk/less risk, depending on which measure was being examined.
Overall, the vaccinated group fared the worst while overall, the
"natural" group was not that far behind the HP group. Overall, the HP
group was the healthiest - the degree to which this was so depended on
the measure being used and the group being compared.
RSN> I was also intrigued to read that this had been achieved with
RSN> only single doses of "low to medium" potencies.

This is a misunderstanding. The low and single potencies were from the
Brazilian study of the first article - HP for Meningococcal disease.
The Golden study of the second article generally used higher potencies
and which appear to produce longer/greater protection - more research
is needed in this area.
--
Best regards,
Fran mailto:FranSheffield@homeopathyplus.com.au

Hi Chris,

Tuesday, June 6, 2006, 2:19:52 PM, you wrote:

CG> I don't understand this leap in drawing statistical conclusions that
CG> "homoeopathic immunization" by itself leaves children healthier than before.

Best to read the research that consisted of two separate studies - too
lengthy to present here in a way that will satisfactorily answer your
questions.

CG> In one part the link simply says that the children in the study did not fall
CG> sick from any epidemic disease during a one year period following
CG> "homoeopathic immunization" due to any of the specific infectious miasms.
CG> Were there any comparable outbreaks of diphtheria, whooping cough, tetanus
CG> etc within the same family groups as these "immunized" children? Were there
CG> any serological exams performed that showed there actually was any immediate
CG> exposure to the said infectious miasms during this period?

Best to read the research that consisted of two separate studies - too
lengthy to present here in a way that will satisfactorily answer your
questions.

CG> I understand no form of immunization claims to be 100% effective
CG> in all cases, but has there ever been any deliberate exposure
CG> after "homoeopathic immunization" to test antibody responses to
CG> any of these miasms?

In two studies with Diphtherinum, a positive Schick test was produced,
indicating immunity. In other studies (not for Diphtherinum), no
antibody production. More research needed. Do be aware that antibody
production does not mean immunity - only means exposure - natural or
vaccine. Can be "infected" even though high antibody levels exist -
especially in the vaccinated. It has been known and acknowledged
conventionally for decades that antibody levels tell very little about
immunity. They are still used and referred to because they are the
only things that can be measured.

CG> I do understand the role of genus epidemicus
CG> remedies for susceptible people in epidemics and I know all the
CG> relevant aphorisms too, I also know how statistics can be used to
CG> illustrate any for-or-against position, but can someone just
CG> explain the actual homoeopathic similarity mechanism at work where
CG> the Vital Force supposedly immunizes itself against a future
CG> pathogen that is not even present in its environment, and without
CG> any evidence of individual susceptibility via symptomatology?

Creates an "energetic" change/reaction in the person's VF that
reduces/eliminates susceptibility IF susceptibility was there in the
first place. If susceptibility was not present, no big deal. What
Isaac's research would seem to indicate is that unneeded potencies, in
controlled doses do not disorder the vital force, as some of us had
wondered.
--
Best regards,
Fran mailto:FranSheffield@homeopathyplus.com.au

Hi Chris,

Wednesday, June 7, 2006, 5:03:00 PM, you wrote:

CG> I would want to establish first of all what the mechanism is that is being
CG> tested before interpretating the results. If homoeopathic nosological
CG> remedies are being touted as having the same (albeit "safer") immunological
CG> effect as 'regular' vaccinations then I would need to see serological proof
CG> that this is indeed what is happening

You will be waiting a long time as there is no way of gathering
reliable serological evidence - antibodies are not reliable indicators
of immunity. We, as of yet have no other test, short of exposure, that
is.

CG> Otherwise...if I was to take an HIV
CG> nosode and in 20 years time remained HIV-, and had not developed asthma or
CG> eczema, does that mean I can say that "homoeopathic HIV prophylaxis"
CG> promotes overall better health? Why should we stop with a protocol for
CG> tetanus, measles, mumps, diphtheria etc? Hmm, could I then go through
CG> Boericke's MM from A-Z and prophylactically take each remedy so I would
CG> never get an Aconite fever, a Belladonna delusion, a Chamomile temper, a
CG> Dioscorea colic, an Equisetum urinary tract infection....or does it only
CG> work with nosodes?

Well, Hahnemann did say that controlled exposure to substances
(potentised or otherwise, and even if the person's symptoms did not
indicate that they needed such exposure) improved health - provings I
think he called them.

Seriously, though, it has been noted historically that the match
between remedy and symptoms needs to be less accurate for prevention
than for treatment. This is what has been observed in practice and
application.

The other reason why we can so effectively use HP for epidemic diseases
is that many of them have fixed and unchanging symptoms, meaning that
the same remedy will always be useful in their prevention. Where an
epidemic disease has differing symptom pictures between epidemics, or
over the course of time, this is less so.

Some homeopaths react strongly to the topic of HP but from what I see
they are either jumping at shadows, reacting to misinformation (and
sometimes promulgating it), or having deeply held beliefs threatened.
Rational debate minus the character assassinations would be far better.

CG> Professional homoeopathic groups in this country are quite vehement that
CG> homoeopathic prophylaxis (which unfortunately has become synonymous with
CG> Golden's HP) is NOT presented to the general public as a substitute for
CG> 'regular' immunization protocols.

I would have to dispute this, Chris. As you would know, the Australian
Homeopathic Association is by far and away the largest homeopathic
association in Australia and the only national association. In their
position statement on HP you will read:

"In Australia we have a national government-endorsed set of
competencies pertaining to what constitutes best practice in the
profession of Homeopathy ... In particular, element 6 of that unit
concerns the provision of prophylactic care and refers (among others)
to a range of therapeutic expectations which includes: "protection
from contracted disease", and Homeopathic Prophylaxis is specifically
mentioned in the range of variables."

and,

"The National Council of the AHA:

...

- recognises that HP is a legitimate part of Homeopathy, as
demonstrated by the support received from Hahnemann and other eminent
prescribers, by its consistency with The Law of Similars, and by its
safety and apparent relative efficacy.

- asserts that HP is an important part of the homeopathic tradition
and is a valid and reasonable option for parents or guardians.
Therefore, it advocates that HP should be available on request to all
parents who have made the decision not to vaccinate their children; and
that any parent who chooses an appropriate method of HP should not be
discriminated against in any way.

- recommends that research into HP should be undertaken, preferably
in co-operation with State and Federal Health Departments, to build a
data base of reliable information on this method of treatment."

This document can be read in full at:

www.homeopathyoz.org/downloads/AHA%20HP%20Statement.pdf

(I note that the AHA website is not functioning fully at the present -
if this link does not initiate, try again later.)

CG> I don't feel particularly impressed by the statistics at all, (after seeing
CG> the way Golden surveyed Australian homoeopaths about their interest and use
CG> of prophylaxis). Who is it that is being represented in these comparisons?
CG> If the national average for asthma in Australia is19% then that figure must
CG> represent a broad range of asthma cases from a broad section of the
CG> population. For instance, asthma occurs more frequently amongst Aboriginal
CG> and Torres Strait Islander populations where indigenous health and poverty
CG> is always well below general community standards. Asthma presentations in
CG> ED's (Emergency Departments) are also more prevalent amongst persons of
CG> non-English speaking backgrounds. How many of the small HP-only group were
CG> indigenous or first generation migrants? The national average figures don't
CG> distinguish between URTI virus-induced wheezes, airway hyperresponsiveness,
CG> or non-asthma cases so the national percentages are going to be high. To
CG> make a general statistical comparison between two groups is fine, but for
CG> the purposes of making a methodical analysis between two kinds of medical
CG> treatments one would at least expect the same variables to be represented in
CG> the control groups. I doubt this has happened, and until then, the numbers
CG> are just numbers and seem unduly slanted in favour of the HP position. You
CG> know that old saying, "when something appears too good to be true, it
CG> usually is"...?

Chris, I have always enjoyed your posts in the past but surely this is
beneath you? Wouldn't it be better to read the research, speak with
Isaac, and obtain the answers to your questions and then make your
conclusions before casting aspersions?

Anyway, I hope the topic does not develop too much heat as time is
short for me at the present.
--
Best regards,
Fran mailto:FranSheffield@homeopathyplus.com.au