UK Debate : Does Homeopathy Work?

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Thursday 30 November, 19.00

The Darwin Centre Studio Natural History Museum - South Kensington London
As Homeopathy becomes increasingly popular, with an estimated 400,000 users,
several questions remain unanswered.

Is there any evidence it works?

Reviews of clinical trials fail to provide convincing evidence, yet it is
available on the NHS. Should it be?

Homeopathic products can legally claim to cure ailments, is this right when
their effectiveness is still contested by many scientists?

Join us to debate the evidence on both sides with Dr Peter Fisher, Clinical
Director of the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital and Dr Ben Goldacre,
medical writer and broadcaster, and decide for yourself.

Tickets are free, but booking is essential as places are limited, please
call 020 7942 5555. Refreshments will be provided.

For more information please visit: www.nhm.ac.uk/nature-online/nature-live

Rgds
Soroush
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.430 / Virus Database: 268.14.14/547 - Release Date: 22/11/2006
17:41

[Irene de Villiers]

Finrod wrote:

According to?
Just BIH alone has more than 80,000 graduates and they definitely have
more than 5 clients or "users" each in a lifetime:-)) I for one have had
"users" in the thousands already:-)
By whom?
Yes but most of the people looking at it have their eyes closed.
(And are rather illiterate.....can't read the Organon among other texts
before criticizing it).

Small example:
Nobody uses the TB vaccine any more, because it does not work. IF
people opened their eyes they'd SEE the homeopathic principle that
explains why TB vaccine helps millions (is that a statistically
significant enough number?) of people to avoid leprosy but not TB.

Another little example:
How come no vet ever cures FIP, but homeopathy has many successes?
Can you measure water with a ruler?
No, so we should remove water from the public distribution system right?
The RIGHT standards and yardsticks apply to each entity - and clinical
trials are inappropriate for measurement of an individualized system
just as rulers are inappropriate for measuring water.
Good grief how much more obvious is that error of logic?
Let's see. "Scientists" know sweet fanny adams about homeopathy - so
that qualifies them to judge anything and everything about homeopathy?
Who cares what someone in another profession thinks about one they know
nothing about.
Do you see a candystriper for brain surgery or a plumber to find an
electrical fault or a lawyer to landscape your garden?
When homeopathic remedies kill as many people as drugs, they can
start to compare results:-)
No offence but why debate the obvious?
The premises upon which this conference is based are so obviously
incorrect.

I have clients to help.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Shannon Nelson]

Could you explain that?
Why does the vaccine help avoid leprosy but not TB?
(I suppose this is a stupid question, but oh well...)
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Law of Similars............TB is caused by Mycobacterium Tuberculosis,
leprosy by Mycobacterium Hansenii, a related but different bacteria for
which the TB vaccine appears to be the homeoprophylactic simillimum.........
.would even act better in potency, cheaper and without injection, a lot more
practical.
Another accidental demonstration of the Law of Similars...........
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

[Shannon Nelson]

Thank you!
Can you offer any explanation for why a specific prophylactic would be
(and I realize this is not an exception!) something *other* than the
isode itself? I understand that it *is* so, but I still don't really
understand *why*.

In the case of "homeopathy versus isopathy" in treating disease or
poisoning I don't find it so confusing, because in those cases we are
treating a *system*, or "pathogen-plus-patient". But in the area of
specific prophylaxis, I don't understand... (Hope this makes sense.)
Thanks,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Irene de Villiers]

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

I'm not sure anyone does yet. It's how homeopathy works in nature; we
have merely copied it and refined it a bit, to bend it to our need for
more examples than are found in nature. Nature did not supply an
explanation of why it works
To me it "feels" like common sense that if you apply smallpox
material to a smallpox patient - it does no good. SO I can easily
believe an isode is not a great curative - but exactly why a simillimum
(eg cowpox) should have such power in nature (eg over smallpox), is a
tantalizing mystery to physicists still

There is a principle of replacement per Hahnemann (Aph 45, analogy of
sunlight replacing light from a candle) - the one disease replaces the
other.
Prophylaxis is merely an extension of a proving exercise - done in such
a way as to induce the health improvement (resistance) without incurring
the actual proving symptoms - as if those go "under the radar".
As it says in the Organon - provers will develop resistance to the
symptoms they proved (Aph 141) and be more robust, healthier, etc. This
*does* involve isode resistance.

One has to combine the two principles - the stronger light overtaking
the candle - with the proving principle in developing resistance - to
manage an *effective* prophylaxis in my view.
With TB and Leprosy or other very similar systems - the replacement
will happen without an abnormally high strength of remedy being needed.
To get replacement of identical symptoms you need a lot higher strength
(sunshine as compared to a candle) and that is NOT available in TB
versus Leprosy vaccines as the vaccines used are akin to tincture -
there is no potency involved.

In my work with cats, I find that a protocol of prevention using
potentized remedy of at least 30C (and sometimes 200C is needed) DOES
prevent the same disease - as well as similar diseases. But the isode
will not be useful in overcoming an existing same disease, unless it is
very high potency (like the sun and candle).

Example: Cat flu changes annually, just enough to make an isode from
1996 into a simillimum for 2006. So this 1996 remedy at 30C will both
prevent cat flu and treat it in 2006.
However the Bordetella bronchiseptica organism (bacterial and does not
change rapidly - nor does TB) at 30C can prevent the disease but not
help in a case of the disease at all. It is too similar. However the
Bordetella bronchiseptica used at 200C then 1M and maybe 10M during
disease, WILL help a case of illness with that organism - and I think
this is the sunshine over candle flame principle at work.

Doesn't answer your "why" question - but hopefully adds a thought or two
in the right direction?

Namaste,
IRene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks Irene,
Your info re the cats' prophy and cure with isodes is fascinating! Ah,
good ol' personal experience!

And it does make sense that the vaccine, being "crude substance", would
have less effectiveness in a homeopathic exercise; but tuberculinum in
high potency can (some say ) give prophylaxis against TB, even
tho the vaccine itself does not. (Is there acknowledgement in the
mainstream that the TB vaccine is not effective in preventing
tuberculosis?)

As to why "similar" is more effective in homeopathy than "same"--I had
another thought... I suppose that "same" (isode) is just not as
effective in giving the body an "objective overview" of the disease, in
the way that a good, close similar is. In the same way that if one is
"too close" to a problem it's harder to solve it, versus a problem
that's close *enough* to be familiar, something we have experience
with, yet with enough distance that we can still think clearly about
it. E.g. often so much easier to solve *other* people's problems than
one's own! )

Well, having thought it thru more, it now makes sense to me.
Thanks very much for your input--thought-provoking!
Cheers,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

It is not specific............it would be interesting to see whether the TB
vaccination had an effect of other Mycobacterium infections related to other
types of the same family (some lung diseases, cutaneous infections,....) but
as those are very rare and not reportable, I doubt we will ever know.
I could try to elaborate some vague theory to answer your question, but I'd
rather not as this would really be theorizing without any basis..........
will let it seep and rest for a while, if I come up with some clever
explanation, I will write back.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

[Shannon Nelson]

Okay, clever explanations always welcome!

Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[andyh]

> Okay, clever explanations always welcome!
SUMMARY FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION:
Not very substantiated nor clever, but will add a couple of cents...
AH

To summarize for further discussion, at least two questions are being
posed here:

1. Why does (a crude TB preparation at some place and time reportedly)
protect against Leprosy but not against TB?

2 Why in this case does a (crude form attenuated pathogen) appear to work
homeopathically for prophylaxis ( Leprosy protection) when its isopathic
properties (TB protection) do not apparently operate. (This question has
further extensions in order to try to understand:

-- if (potentized or unpotentized) isopathy and homeopathy work by the
same mechanism;

- why isopathy generally works in prophylaxis but not in settled disease;
while homeopathy can work in both cases…)

==============================================

A.IDEA: Dr. J (paraphrased, I hope accurately): Mycobacterium tub and
Myco. Hansenii are taxonomic relatives and thus a nonspecific could
(either provoke humoral immunity, or act via resonance or other mechanism
to eliminate a sufficient portion of miasmatic susceptibility – not sure
Dr. J specified one or the other or both of the latter as mechanism).

B. IDEA: Irene: There is a principle of replacement per Hahnemann (Aph 45,
analogy of sunlight replacing light from a candle) - the one disease
replaces the other.

Prophylaxis is merely an extension of a proving exercise - done in such
a way as to induce the health improvement (resistance) without incurring
the actual proving symptoms - as if those go "under the radar".

As it says in the Organon - provers will develop resistance to the
symptoms they proved (Aph 141) and be more robust, healthier, etc. This
*does* involve isode resistance.

One has to combine the two principles - the stronger light overtaking
the candle - with the proving principle in developing resistance - to
manage an *effective* prophylaxis in my view.

With TB and Leprosy or other very similar systems - the replacement
will happen without an abnormally high strength of remedy being needed.
To get replacement of identical symptoms you need a lot higher strength
(sunshine as compared to a candle) and that is NOT available in TB
versus Leprosy vaccines as the vaccines used are akin to tincture -
there is no potency involved. (Irene)

===============================
C. Analysis and further ideas for discussion (AH):
===============================
Assumption analysis:
First Assumption --Where is the data (common medical knowledge, or
statistically proven?) of this phenomenon. How widespread is it? Is there
a TB vaccine that appears to "work" for prophylaxis of TB?

Second Assumption -- These questions mix the ideas of antigenic
provocation (humoral immunity effects); and resonance (based on pattern
similarity in the language of symptoms) effect on miasm (inherited
infectious disease remnants in the host). The crude vaccine may do both,
though resonance effect may also be absent because it is unpotentized and
not of the optimal potency.

So that is one problem in our beginning assumptions, as Irene suggests.
We compare crude preparations - with our theory based on potentized ones.
Not that crude ones cannot have law of similars effects – we know that
they can. But it is a different analysis to compare our theory using
mostly potentized isopathics – with crude isopathic preparations.
**Potency** IS a significant variable as well as similarity, as Dr. P.
Banerjea has proven extensively.

In Law of Similars medicine we usually deal with potentized rx with no
chemicals or biological antigens – the effect from these can ONLY be
nonphysical (mostly, we posit, by similarity (pattern resonance). The
target is miasmatic terrain which is highly likely to be only nonphysical
-- as its transmission between generations occurs without apparent
physical bodies (although those bodies identified by Bechamp, etc and
ignored by mainstream microbiology are a possibility). Vaccines have
crude antigens AND pathogenic (symptom-producing) properties (effects on
miasmatic terrain if potency correct). So potentized and crude isopathic
preparations are different animals, difficult to compare one-to-one.

This is not to say that **potentized** isopathics do not affect antigen
receptors and provoke humoral immunity. The mechanism of potentized
isopathy may include some effect there, as antigen receptors may respond
to nonphysical as well as chemical stimulus, as the cell is animated by a
template which is its double, yet nonphysical. But it seems likely that
potentized isopathy (when it works) works mostly by the same principle as
homeopathicity. Destructive resonance of nonphysical pathogens (foreign
vital bodies inherited from the parents = miasms) seems the most likely
mechanism. Grafting a replacement state temporarily is not here considered
to be either homeopathy or isopathy, though Irene is likely correct that
this is anyway one possible mechanism of some of the homeopathic
prophylaxis remedies we use.

=========
Comments (AH):
=========
Dr. J points out that prophylaxis of the nontarget disease (Leprosy) is
here provoked by a **simile** (“closeenoughicum”) (TB vaccine) without
premeditation, (as opposed to an isopathic or homeopathic prophylactic
based on preordained theory). As happens occasionally, an empirical
result by law of similars from an "allopathic" intervention goes
unexplained and uninvestigated by the "orthodoxy". But the phenomenon
remains for us to discuss from the perspective of resonance (Law of
Similars) medicine.

Dr. J’s hypothesis presents that symptom similarity and resulting
prophylactic action here is related to **taxonomic relation**. We know
there is a relation between conventional taxonomy and symptom producing
capability to some significant extent. We know this from other areas of
homeopathy, in plants, animals, fungi, and even elements. So one view is
that the Linnean/genetic relative Myco. tub apparently provokes immunity
to Myco. hansenii by homeopathic similarity – in this case empirically by
happenstance. Irene discusses this phenomena in her analogy using
smallpox and cowpox. Related animal diseases can be used for homeopathic
prophylaxis, e.g. Malandrinum (horse grease) for smallpox. Malandrinum
may be a horse expression of smallpox, or a related pathogen.

Irene also suggests that the effect of Leprosy prophylaxis in this case
could be one of disease-grafting.

========================================================
WHY DOES ISOPATHY FAIL FOR PROPHYLAXIS IN THIS SITUATION?
========================================================
If the isopathic effect (TB prophylaxis) of this crude preparation is
absent, this IMO does not present a question of failure of isopathy as we
think of it. Mode of preparation (not enough strains used, etc) could
be one variable. Vaccine contamination another. Potency issue (TB miasm
not affected by crude when would be affected by potentized…) might be the
most **likely** explanation.

We do not see isopathy ever failing **completely** for prophylaxis. That
isopathic prophylaxis can work with a high degree of efficacy is strongly
suggested by records and statistics taken in epidemics extending back into
the 1830’s, after Hering introduced nosodes and invented isopathic
prophylaxis. This was already presented ad nauseum on minutus a couple of
years back. Saine (1988) from exhaustive literature search and personal
experience, cites an isopathic as - across the board -- 80% effective in
prophylaxis.

I suggest that the anomaly in isopathic failure of TB in this situation
from a crude preparation -- is not in a vagary of isopathic mechanism --
but is related either to the formula for the vaccine (strains);
contamination/method of prep of the vaccine; or (perhaps most likely) a
potency issue.

======================================
Why does the Leprosy prophylaxis occur here?
======================================
As to why the Leprosy prophylaxis would happen in absence of TB
prophylaxis, both Dr. J and Irene’s proposed explanations are attractive.
Either symptom similarity is happening (homeopathic by taxonomic
relation); or the vaccine is grafting a low-level disease which is similar
and long-lived enough to replace the miasmatic (my hypothesis: inherited
nonphysical microbial vital body) level of susceptibility that exists on
the surface of those whom would otherwise have been infected by the
Leprosy pathogen. Either or both could be occurring. As Dr. J says, it
could be a game of speculation -- without a study that would take funding
and full-time research.

==================================================
Why does Isopathy work for prevention, but not treatment of extant disease?
==================================================
Idem (remedy from identical source substance) is specific to the
pathogenic organism with or without its physical body; **not** its
expression in the host as a "disease" or "suffering" (pathy)). The "pathy"
involves the complex nonphysical (miasmatic) taints of the individual
sufferer and the pattern produced by its interaction with an whole-microbe
infection. Only an agent in resonance similar to that pattern of
**suffering** will “knock off” that state.

So isopathic will work by (probably) partial resonant destruction of
nonphysical microbes in a host **before** a colonization occurs. - or
possibly early in one. But *after* a colonization starts to become an
“infection” - the remedy must be similar to the whole response of the
organismal unit, as Shannon points out. It must be similar to the
suffering (homeopathic). This complex of suffering response is in turn a
representation of presence of nonphysical microbe vital bodies which
accelerated the colonization and allowed the infection (this is my
hypothesis). Iatrogenic influences mix up the situation and make
explanations difficult, and most of the population has some degree of this
modification.

Hypothesis: the suffering already occurring is stopped by resonance with
the pattern which is both the susceptibility and the extant disease *as
expressed*. The susceptibility itself is due (my hypothesis) to foreign
vital force bodies of the same specie (or close enough) of the infecting
whole microbes being already present in the host - so as to greatly
accelerate reproduction. Exponential increase of daughter cells is
effected, as there are already nonphysical microbial vital bodies of that
species existing in the host that can occupy the bodies of dividing cells.
This idea is still at the hypothesis stage as explanation of what a miasm
IS (cf. paragraph 148- sixth edition).

Isopathy is for the dormant miasm only. Homeopathy is matched to the
extant disease which is a reflection of that dormant miasm and the same or
close specie whole microbe (vital program plus physical vessel) which the
host imbibes; and the whole state of the organism before the imbibement.

So isopathy does not work when the response and symptoms of the disease
are EXTANT – because the remedy made from the pathogen is not similar to
the whole complex of miasmatic susceptibility. That complex results in
the expression of symptoms on which we base our similarity between
organismal state and remedy.

=======================
Homeopathic Prophylaxis
=======================
**Homeopathic*** prophylaxis has various angles for similarity, and is
more hit-and-miss than isopathic (we have, for example many suggested
homeopathic prophylactics for Malaria).

Genius epidemicus (in the special case of the single-remedy epidemic
(typically a virulent (e.g. mutated) strain in an unsuppressed population
which now is only found in isolated rural areas)) – is close to 100%
effective in both prophylaxis and treatment of the disease extant . But
requires advance information on the symptom picture. So can only be used
as a prophylactic when the disease is already nearby.

Some perennial homeopathic prophylactics “specific homeopathic
prophylactics” exist also, e.g. Bell for Smooth scarlatina. The latter
also have good prophylactic track records, but there are few that have
been identified as natural substances (Ramakrishnan and Mitra are doing
very good work on this; Chappell makes these specifics electromagnetically
based on the group totality of the peculiars of the disease, acute or
chronic).

But other homeopathic prophylactics have been successfully used which are
neither recent and local genius epidemici nor “specifics” – (e.g. Nat-m,
China, for Malaria). The latter are occasional genius epidemici, and so
may be closeenoughicums...or they fail.

======================
Summary of Prophylaxis
======================
So, for prophylaxis, we first have chronic treatment, but this must be
going very well, and have gone up the scale of potencies (Kentian method)
according to Pierre Schmidt, in order to confer broad immunity.

For proactive methods, we have isopathics and homeopathic “specifics” as
first line of defense.

When the extant dangerous disease has erupted nearby, if Genius group
totality remedy or remedies have been identified, then a very good
homeopathic prophylactic might be identified *a priori* to arrival
locally, based on info provided by homeopaths elsewhere.

But otherwise, we have mostly hit or miss homeopathic prophylactics, some
with better records than others. Level of success is in part probably a
matter of nature of the miasmatic terrain of the local populace, and the
local strains of the pathogen. The typical local expression of the
disease in the population will have a homeopathic “closeenoughicum” which
local practitioners will find empirically.

==========================================
Grafting of State as a means of Prophylaxis by Replacement
==========================================
Remedies that are neither genius epidemici nor “specifics” can also be
used for homeopathic prophylaxis. As Irene posits, some of our homeopathic
prophylaxis may well have to do with temporary grafting of a “replacement
state” which takes the organism as a whole out of the spectrum of
resonance with certain pathogenic influences. If so, this is a more crude
and artificial form of the art of prophylaxis -- as we are not destroying
a relevant portion of the miasmatic susceptibility in the host terrain.
But still valuable, of course, and markedly less damaging than its crude
counterpart.
=========================================================
POSTS RECORD ABOUT TB/Leprosy prophylaxis flip-flop phenomenon:
From: Robert & Shannon Nelson
Date: 26/11/2006 12:23:27 p.m.
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] UK Debate : Does Homeopathy Work?
Could you explain that?
Why does the vaccine help avoid leprosy but not TB?
(I suppose this is a stupid question, but oh well...)
Shannon

Subject: Re: [Minutus] UK Debate : Does Homeopathy Work?
From: "Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD,NMD."
Date: Sat, November 25, 2006 3:52 pm
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Priority: Normal
Options: View Full Header | View Printable Version | View as HTML |
Add to Addressbook
Law of Similars............TB is caused by Mycobacterium Tuberculosis,
leprosy by Mycobacterium Hansenii, a related but different bacteria for
which the TB vaccine appears to be the homeoprophylactic simillimum.........
.would even act better in potency, cheaper and without injection, a lot more
practical.
Another accidental demonstration of the Law of Similars...........

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".