Jumping in quickly ...
From what I have read, Irene is using a mix of 4 vaccines. I have not been able to read all responses but in light of this ....
Has anyone yet commented on the fact the vaccines are a poor choice for prophylaxis and should only be used as a last resort?
That the virus, attenuated or not, is just a very small part of several other components such as mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium and whatever else is sitting there - I have not had time to check. (Place this in context of the Law of Similars tro see how it then becomes illogical to call potentised vaccines the genus epidemicus)
That the true nosode is a far better option for prophylaxis (as is the most similar non-nosodal remedy)?
That protection by vaccine should be attempted as a last resort - only when there is nothing better at hand?
That vaccines are best used tautopathically for the treatment of vaccine damage rather than for protection (and my experience in this area is that the similimum still works much better - and why shouldn't it?).
Can anyone recall a discussion that took place a year or so back about Tinus Smits reporting a low protection rate for homeoprophylaxis (about 40 - 50% if I remember correctly) but then it was found that he was using potentised vaccines rather than the most similar remedy or nosode? That this was the probable reason for his poor results when historically and with recent research, the rate of protection by nosodes has been much higher?
--
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
suriya56 wrote:
Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
Jumping in quickly ...
From what I have read, Irene is using a mix of 4 vaccines. I have not been able to read all responses but in light of this ....
Has anyone yet commented on the fact the vaccines are a poor choice for prophylaxis and should only be used as a last resort?
That the virus, attenuated or not, is just a very small part of several other components such as mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium and whatever else is sitting there - I have not had time to check. (Place this in context of the Law of Similars tro see how it then becomes illogical to call potentised vaccines the genus epidemicus)
That the true nosode is a far better option for prophylaxis (as is the most similar non-nosodal remedy)?
That protection by vaccine should be attempted as a last resort - only when there is nothing better at hand?
That vaccines are best used tautopathically for the treatment of vaccine damage rather than for protection (and my experience in this area is that the similimum still works much better - and why shouldn't it?).
Can anyone recall a discussion that took place a year or so back about Tinus Smits reporting a low protection rate for homeoprophylaxis (about 40 - 50% if I remember correctly) but then it was found that he was using potentised vaccines rather than the most similar remedy or nosode? That this was the probable reason for his poor results when historically and with recent research, the rate of protection by nosodes has been much higher?
--
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
suriya56 wrote:
--
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
From what I have read, Irene is using a mix of 4 vaccines. I have not been able to read all responses but in light of this ....
Has anyone yet commented on the fact the vaccines are a poor choice for prophylaxis and should only be used as a last resort?
That the virus, attenuated or not, is just a very small part of several other components such as mercury, formaldehyde, aluminium and whatever else is sitting there - I have not had time to check. (Place this in context of the Law of Similars tro see how it then becomes illogical to call potentised vaccines the genus epidemicus)
That the true nosode is a far better option for prophylaxis (as is the most similar non-nosodal remedy)?
That protection by vaccine should be attempted as a last resort - only when there is nothing better at hand?
That vaccines are best used tautopathically for the treatment of vaccine damage rather than for protection (and my experience in this area is that the similimum still works much better - and why shouldn't it?).
Can anyone recall a discussion that took place a year or so back about Tinus Smits reporting a low protection rate for homeoprophylaxis (about 40 - 50% if I remember correctly) but then it was found that he was using potentised vaccines rather than the most similar remedy or nosode? That this was the probable reason for his poor results when historically and with recent research, the rate of protection by nosodes has been much higher?
--
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
suriya56 wrote:
--
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
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
I agree with this 100 %
Exactly- did we forget Thuja / Silica for example
I have used causticum / zinc etc for vaccine related problems with very good results based on the presenting symptoms... get the totality irrespective of causation - nosodes work at times and I have used them as intercurrents but primarily indicated remedy is the mainstay...
Kind regards,
Exactly- did we forget Thuja / Silica for example
I have used causticum / zinc etc for vaccine related problems with very good results based on the presenting symptoms... get the totality irrespective of causation - nosodes work at times and I have used them as intercurrents but primarily indicated remedy is the mainstay...
Kind regards,
-
Magda Aguila net
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Fran Sheffield wrote:
##### Fran, THANK YOU!!!!! I would like to take this one step further. Most cats and dogs are routinely vaccinated. Most of them present with a clear and unmistable set of symptoms that are related to the chronic effects of the damage done by these vaccines (vaccinosis!). It has been proven in scientific research that vaccines change the DNA in humans, no such study has been made in animals (what would be the purpose, right??) but animals are vaccinated in a much more aggressive manner than humans are (pretty much yearly) so DNA damage is much more possible in animals and those of us who have been breeding dogs/cats for years and years, have seen the increase in diseases that are created by vaccines, being passed on from one generation to the other even when the new generations are not being vaccinated at all.
So my point is, that HOW can Irene claim that these cats are not genetically pre-disposed to flu-like symptoms by the inherited vaccinosis? Therefore rendering them susceptible to the disease? And how does she know that they would succumb to the disease if it were not for her so-called homeopathic prophylactic intervention?
I know that in my own dogs, I have seen many so-called "normal" symptoms (breeders love to coin them 'breed specific') disappear after two or three generations of non vaccinated animals who have also been treated from a constitutional/miasmatic point. I have also completely eradicated common acute diseases in dogs, such as Parvo once I stopped vaccinating them.
In the days when my poor grasp of proper homeopathic prophylaxis led me to the use of nosodes (from the disease matter and not vaccines) to "prevent" Parvo when there was not an epidemic, all I got was Parvo with every single litter I had. Once I realized that this was not proper use of Homeopathic Prophylaxis and allowed the dogs to be healthy and have a strong lifeforce to deal with the disease on their own and only intervene when there were SYMPTOMS present, I have not had a single case of Parvo. I like to call this "the proof is in the pudding".
It would be interesting to see if Irene takes the time to DOCUMENT (a document that can be loaded to the list Files and we all can read and study) all the cases in which she has used this 'remedy' and see if indeed the use of prophylactic indeed improved the health of the cats, or like in my experience, rendered them more susceptible to the disease!
Magda
##### Fran, THANK YOU!!!!! I would like to take this one step further. Most cats and dogs are routinely vaccinated. Most of them present with a clear and unmistable set of symptoms that are related to the chronic effects of the damage done by these vaccines (vaccinosis!). It has been proven in scientific research that vaccines change the DNA in humans, no such study has been made in animals (what would be the purpose, right??) but animals are vaccinated in a much more aggressive manner than humans are (pretty much yearly) so DNA damage is much more possible in animals and those of us who have been breeding dogs/cats for years and years, have seen the increase in diseases that are created by vaccines, being passed on from one generation to the other even when the new generations are not being vaccinated at all.
So my point is, that HOW can Irene claim that these cats are not genetically pre-disposed to flu-like symptoms by the inherited vaccinosis? Therefore rendering them susceptible to the disease? And how does she know that they would succumb to the disease if it were not for her so-called homeopathic prophylactic intervention?
I know that in my own dogs, I have seen many so-called "normal" symptoms (breeders love to coin them 'breed specific') disappear after two or three generations of non vaccinated animals who have also been treated from a constitutional/miasmatic point. I have also completely eradicated common acute diseases in dogs, such as Parvo once I stopped vaccinating them.
In the days when my poor grasp of proper homeopathic prophylaxis led me to the use of nosodes (from the disease matter and not vaccines) to "prevent" Parvo when there was not an epidemic, all I got was Parvo with every single litter I had. Once I realized that this was not proper use of Homeopathic Prophylaxis and allowed the dogs to be healthy and have a strong lifeforce to deal with the disease on their own and only intervene when there were SYMPTOMS present, I have not had a single case of Parvo. I like to call this "the proof is in the pudding".
It would be interesting to see if Irene takes the time to DOCUMENT (a document that can be loaded to the list Files and we all can read and study) all the cases in which she has used this 'remedy' and see if indeed the use of prophylactic indeed improved the health of the cats, or like in my experience, rendered them more susceptible to the disease!
Magda
-
Lynn Cremona
- Posts: 633
- Joined: Thu Apr 22, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
re Magda's comments on previously vaccinated animals
Just finished reading a bit from Burnett:
Re the relation of vaccination to disease
An important source on this phenomenon is the book Vaccinosis and Its
Cure by Thuja with Remarks on Homeoprophylaxis by J. Compton Burnett, M.D
It is here that vaccination is first clearly described as a chronic disease. The effect of vaccination, besides the physical effects of
stimulating an antibody response, is to establish a chronic disease — one that is long-lasting, indeed, in some cases a life-long, condition.
Burnett refers to the chronic disease that results from vaccination by the name Vaccinosis.
Vaccinosis is to be understood as the disturbance of the vital force by vaccination that results in mental, emotional, and physical changes that
can, in some cases, be a permanent condition.
Burnett gives several cases that demonstrate this. Several of them are in infants and children, showing the profound effects of vaccination on
the growing organism. However, I wish to emphasize the long-standing effects of vaccination so will mention a couple of example cases to you.
It was Burnett’s observation that the person that is most susceptible to
contracting the disease being vaccinated against,is more likely to die when they do come in contact with it.
In other words, rather than protecting some individuals as planned, it actually makes them more susceptible.
The vaccination having created a chronic disease ahead of time, can predispose the patient to a more serious natural illness which combines with the established vaccinosis.
Burnett declared vaccinosis a variant of the Sycosis miasm.
Sycosis is characterized by affections of the skin, the lymphatics, the immune system, susceptibility to fungal infections, susceptibility to
cold, damp weather, arthritis, affections of the blood, and many other symptoms of this sort. Most importantly, it is typical of the Sycotic miasm, and therefore of vaccinosis, to develop growths of all types: cysts, polyps, warts, tumors and cancers.
Some of Burnett’s other books, especially
Tumors of the Breast and their Treatment and Cure by Medicines
Curability of Tumors by Medicines
Delicate, Backward, Puny and Stunted Children
bring out some of the variety inherent in vaccinosis and the tremendous damage it can do once established.
-----------------
Most cats and dogs are routinely vaccinated.
Most of them present with a clear and unmistable set of symptoms that are related to the chronic effects of the damage done by these vaccines (vaccinosis!). It has been proven in scientific research that vaccines change the DNA in humans, no such study has been made in animals (what would be the purpose, right??) but animals are vaccinated in a much more aggressive manner than humans are (pretty much yearly) so DNA damage is much more possible in animals and those of us who have been breeding dogs/cats for years and years, have seen the increase in diseases that are created by vaccines, being passed on from one generation to the other even when the new generations are not being vaccinated at all.
So my point is, that HOW can Irene claim that these cats are not genetically pre-disposed to flu-like symptoms by the inherited vaccinosis? Therefore rendering them susceptible to the disease? And how does she know that they would succumb to the disease if it were not for her so-called homeopathic prophylactic intervention?
I know that in my own dogs, I have seen many so-called "normal" symptoms (breeders love to coin them 'breed specific') disappear after two or three generations of non vaccinated animals who have also been treated from a constitutional/miasmatic point. I have also completely eradicated common acute diseases in dogs, such as Parvo once I stopped vaccinating them.
In the days when my poor grasp of proper homeopathic prophylaxis led me to the use of nosodes (from the disease matter and not vaccines) to "prevent" Parvo when there was not an epidemic, all I got was Parvo with every single litter I had. Once I realized that this was not proper use of Homeopathic Prophylaxis and allowed the dogs to be healthy and have a strong lifeforce to deal with the disease on their own and only intervene when there were SYMPTOMS present, I have not had a single case of Parvo. I like to call this "the proof is in the pudding".
It would be interesting to see if Irene takes the time to DOCUMENT (a document that can be loaded to the list Files and we all can read and study) all the cases in which she has used this 'remedy' and see if indeed the use of prophylactic indeed improved the health of the cats, or like in my experience, rendered them more susceptible to the disease!
Magda
--
Imagine Peace
Just finished reading a bit from Burnett:
Re the relation of vaccination to disease
An important source on this phenomenon is the book Vaccinosis and Its
Cure by Thuja with Remarks on Homeoprophylaxis by J. Compton Burnett, M.D
It is here that vaccination is first clearly described as a chronic disease. The effect of vaccination, besides the physical effects of
stimulating an antibody response, is to establish a chronic disease — one that is long-lasting, indeed, in some cases a life-long, condition.
Burnett refers to the chronic disease that results from vaccination by the name Vaccinosis.
Vaccinosis is to be understood as the disturbance of the vital force by vaccination that results in mental, emotional, and physical changes that
can, in some cases, be a permanent condition.
Burnett gives several cases that demonstrate this. Several of them are in infants and children, showing the profound effects of vaccination on
the growing organism. However, I wish to emphasize the long-standing effects of vaccination so will mention a couple of example cases to you.
It was Burnett’s observation that the person that is most susceptible to
contracting the disease being vaccinated against,is more likely to die when they do come in contact with it.
In other words, rather than protecting some individuals as planned, it actually makes them more susceptible.
The vaccination having created a chronic disease ahead of time, can predispose the patient to a more serious natural illness which combines with the established vaccinosis.
Burnett declared vaccinosis a variant of the Sycosis miasm.
Sycosis is characterized by affections of the skin, the lymphatics, the immune system, susceptibility to fungal infections, susceptibility to
cold, damp weather, arthritis, affections of the blood, and many other symptoms of this sort. Most importantly, it is typical of the Sycotic miasm, and therefore of vaccinosis, to develop growths of all types: cysts, polyps, warts, tumors and cancers.
Some of Burnett’s other books, especially
Tumors of the Breast and their Treatment and Cure by Medicines
Curability of Tumors by Medicines
Delicate, Backward, Puny and Stunted Children
bring out some of the variety inherent in vaccinosis and the tremendous damage it can do once established.
-----------------
Most cats and dogs are routinely vaccinated.
Most of them present with a clear and unmistable set of symptoms that are related to the chronic effects of the damage done by these vaccines (vaccinosis!). It has been proven in scientific research that vaccines change the DNA in humans, no such study has been made in animals (what would be the purpose, right??) but animals are vaccinated in a much more aggressive manner than humans are (pretty much yearly) so DNA damage is much more possible in animals and those of us who have been breeding dogs/cats for years and years, have seen the increase in diseases that are created by vaccines, being passed on from one generation to the other even when the new generations are not being vaccinated at all.
So my point is, that HOW can Irene claim that these cats are not genetically pre-disposed to flu-like symptoms by the inherited vaccinosis? Therefore rendering them susceptible to the disease? And how does she know that they would succumb to the disease if it were not for her so-called homeopathic prophylactic intervention?
I know that in my own dogs, I have seen many so-called "normal" symptoms (breeders love to coin them 'breed specific') disappear after two or three generations of non vaccinated animals who have also been treated from a constitutional/miasmatic point. I have also completely eradicated common acute diseases in dogs, such as Parvo once I stopped vaccinating them.
In the days when my poor grasp of proper homeopathic prophylaxis led me to the use of nosodes (from the disease matter and not vaccines) to "prevent" Parvo when there was not an epidemic, all I got was Parvo with every single litter I had. Once I realized that this was not proper use of Homeopathic Prophylaxis and allowed the dogs to be healthy and have a strong lifeforce to deal with the disease on their own and only intervene when there were SYMPTOMS present, I have not had a single case of Parvo. I like to call this "the proof is in the pudding".
It would be interesting to see if Irene takes the time to DOCUMENT (a document that can be loaded to the list Files and we all can read and study) all the cases in which she has used this 'remedy' and see if indeed the use of prophylactic indeed improved the health of the cats, or like in my experience, rendered them more susceptible to the disease!
Magda
--
Imagine Peace
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
Dear Lynn
Indeed yes - but how does this in your view impact on Irene's practise? She is using potentised material.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Cremona
Sent: 08 July 2009 23:42
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Re: Definition)
re Magda's comments on previously vaccinated animals
Just finished reading a bit from Burnett:
Re the relation of vaccination to disease
An important source on this phenomenon is the book Vaccinosis and Its
Cure by Thuja with Remarks on Homeoprophylaxis by J. Compton Burnett, M.D
It is here that vaccination is first clearly described as a chronic disease. The effect of vaccination, besides the physical effects of
stimulating an antibody response, is to establish a chronic disease — one that is long-lasting, indeed, in some cases a life-long, condition.
Burnett refers to the chronic disease that results from vaccination by the name Vaccinosis.
Vaccinosis is to be understood as the disturbance of the vital force by vaccination that results in mental, emotional, and physical changes that
can, in some cases, be a permanent condition.
Burnett gives several cases that demonstrate this. Several of them are in infants and children, showing the profound effects of vaccination on
the growing organism. However, I wish to emphasize the long-standing effects of vaccination so will mention a couple of example cases to you.
It was Burnett’s observation that the person that is most susceptible to
contracting the disease being vaccinated against,is more likely to die when they do come in contact with it.
In other words, rather than protecting some individuals as planned, it actually makes them more susceptible.
The vaccination having created a chronic disease ahead of time, can predispose the patient to a more serious natural illness which combines with the established vaccinosis.
Burnett declared vaccinosis a variant of the Sycosis miasm.
Sycosis is characterized by affections of the skin, the lymphatics, the immune system, susceptibility to fungal infections, susceptibility to
cold, damp weather, arthritis, affections of the blood, and many other symptoms of this sort. Most importantly, it is typical of the Sycotic miasm, and therefore of vaccinosis, to develop growths of all types: cysts, polyps, warts, tumors and cancers.
Some of Burnett’s other books, especially
Tumors of the Breast and their Treatment and Cure by Medicines
Curability of Tumors by Medicines
Delicate, Backward, Puny and Stunted Children
bring out some of the variety inherent in vaccinosis and the tremendous damage it can do once established.
-----------------
Most cats and dogs are routinely vaccinated.
Most of them present with a clear and unmistable set of symptoms that are related to the chronic effects of the damage done by these vaccines (vaccinosis!). It has been proven in scientific research that vaccines change the DNA in humans, no such study has been made in animals (what would be the purpose, right??) but animals are vaccinated in a much more aggressive manner than humans are (pretty much yearly) so DNA damage is much more possible in animals and those of us who have been breeding dogs/cats for years and years, have seen the increase in diseases that are created by vaccines, being passed on from one generation to the other even when the new generations are not being vaccinated at all.
So my point is, that HOW can Irene claim that these cats are not genetically pre-disposed to flu-like symptoms by the inherited vaccinosis? Therefore rendering them susceptible to the disease? And how does she know that they would succumb to the disease if it were not for her so-called homeopathic prophylactic intervention?
I know that in my own dogs, I have seen many so-called "normal" symptoms (breeders love to coin them 'breed specific') disappear after two or three generations of non vaccinated animals who have also been treated from a constitutional/miasmatic point. I have also completely eradicated common acute diseases in dogs, such as Parvo once I stopped vaccinating them.
In the days when my poor grasp of proper homeopathic prophylaxis led me to the use of nosodes (from the disease matter and not vaccines) to "prevent" Parvo when there was not an epidemic, all I got was Parvo with every single litter I had. Once I realized that this was not proper use of Homeopathic Prophylaxis and allowed the dogs to be healthy and have a strong lifeforce to deal with the disease on their own and only intervene when there were SYMPTOMS present, I have not had a single case of Parvo. I like to call this "the proof is in the pudding".
It would be interesting to see if Irene takes the time to DOCUMENT (a document that can be loaded to the list Files and we all can read and study) all the cases in which she has used this 'remedy' and see if indeed the use of prophylactic indeed improved the health of the cats, or like in my experience, rendered them more susceptible to the disease!
Magda
--
Imagine Peace
Indeed yes - but how does this in your view impact on Irene's practise? She is using potentised material.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Lynn Cremona
Sent: 08 July 2009 23:42
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Re: Definition)
re Magda's comments on previously vaccinated animals
Just finished reading a bit from Burnett:
Re the relation of vaccination to disease
An important source on this phenomenon is the book Vaccinosis and Its
Cure by Thuja with Remarks on Homeoprophylaxis by J. Compton Burnett, M.D
It is here that vaccination is first clearly described as a chronic disease. The effect of vaccination, besides the physical effects of
stimulating an antibody response, is to establish a chronic disease — one that is long-lasting, indeed, in some cases a life-long, condition.
Burnett refers to the chronic disease that results from vaccination by the name Vaccinosis.
Vaccinosis is to be understood as the disturbance of the vital force by vaccination that results in mental, emotional, and physical changes that
can, in some cases, be a permanent condition.
Burnett gives several cases that demonstrate this. Several of them are in infants and children, showing the profound effects of vaccination on
the growing organism. However, I wish to emphasize the long-standing effects of vaccination so will mention a couple of example cases to you.
It was Burnett’s observation that the person that is most susceptible to
contracting the disease being vaccinated against,is more likely to die when they do come in contact with it.
In other words, rather than protecting some individuals as planned, it actually makes them more susceptible.
The vaccination having created a chronic disease ahead of time, can predispose the patient to a more serious natural illness which combines with the established vaccinosis.
Burnett declared vaccinosis a variant of the Sycosis miasm.
Sycosis is characterized by affections of the skin, the lymphatics, the immune system, susceptibility to fungal infections, susceptibility to
cold, damp weather, arthritis, affections of the blood, and many other symptoms of this sort. Most importantly, it is typical of the Sycotic miasm, and therefore of vaccinosis, to develop growths of all types: cysts, polyps, warts, tumors and cancers.
Some of Burnett’s other books, especially
Tumors of the Breast and their Treatment and Cure by Medicines
Curability of Tumors by Medicines
Delicate, Backward, Puny and Stunted Children
bring out some of the variety inherent in vaccinosis and the tremendous damage it can do once established.
-----------------
Most cats and dogs are routinely vaccinated.
Most of them present with a clear and unmistable set of symptoms that are related to the chronic effects of the damage done by these vaccines (vaccinosis!). It has been proven in scientific research that vaccines change the DNA in humans, no such study has been made in animals (what would be the purpose, right??) but animals are vaccinated in a much more aggressive manner than humans are (pretty much yearly) so DNA damage is much more possible in animals and those of us who have been breeding dogs/cats for years and years, have seen the increase in diseases that are created by vaccines, being passed on from one generation to the other even when the new generations are not being vaccinated at all.
So my point is, that HOW can Irene claim that these cats are not genetically pre-disposed to flu-like symptoms by the inherited vaccinosis? Therefore rendering them susceptible to the disease? And how does she know that they would succumb to the disease if it were not for her so-called homeopathic prophylactic intervention?
I know that in my own dogs, I have seen many so-called "normal" symptoms (breeders love to coin them 'breed specific') disappear after two or three generations of non vaccinated animals who have also been treated from a constitutional/miasmatic point. I have also completely eradicated common acute diseases in dogs, such as Parvo once I stopped vaccinating them.
In the days when my poor grasp of proper homeopathic prophylaxis led me to the use of nosodes (from the disease matter and not vaccines) to "prevent" Parvo when there was not an epidemic, all I got was Parvo with every single litter I had. Once I realized that this was not proper use of Homeopathic Prophylaxis and allowed the dogs to be healthy and have a strong lifeforce to deal with the disease on their own and only intervene when there were SYMPTOMS present, I have not had a single case of Parvo. I like to call this "the proof is in the pudding".
It would be interesting to see if Irene takes the time to DOCUMENT (a document that can be loaded to the list Files and we all can read and study) all the cases in which she has used this 'remedy' and see if indeed the use of prophylactic indeed improved the health of the cats, or like in my experience, rendered them more susceptible to the disease!
Magda
--
Imagine Peace
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
Hi Fran,
Try not to read John's words
He invents.
No it is one vaccine, which contains 4 organisms.
It is used because it is effective in almost 100% of cases - I'm not
sure why my posts were missed (I said all this before)
It is also used because vaccine remedies from vaccines with ONE
organism tend to be much less effective.
This particular point did not come up before - that single organism
vaccine remedies are less effective than those with more organisms
for the SAME disease symptoms - as is the case in URI 30C from URI
vaccine I(and also in one other vaccine with more than one organism
for SAME category illness (FIP/FeLV/FIV 30C from its vaccine).
The latter also is more effective in prevention (no failure to date)
than FIP, FeLV, or FIV vaccine remedy made individually.
My *theory* abort why the group which causes similar symptoms is
better than a single organism that causes those symptoms - is that
the remedy is more effective if it is "more similar" rather than
"more identical" to the disease that may come along and which of
course varies - maybe the broader cover of say four organisms with
similar disease - prevents more illness as it has wider coverage. Or
maybe it simply is a case of prevention of four separate diseases
with same/similar symptoms.
Whatever the reason - the URI 30C works better and so does the FIP/
FIV/FeLV 30C - than a remedy made using one of the organisms
contained (though for cat flu they no longer make single organism
vaccines, they did last century)
It's actually not "a fact".
They in fact work very well for prophylaxis
But again - the combined organisms in one vaccine for similar illness
- works best.
I started using the URI 30C in 1996, and a lot of cats have received
it thanks to me - and I know of one failure. A Birman cat got sick
and died 2 or 3 years ago, though it was not to the usual cat flu
but a new mutated version that had mutated to dogs then back to cats.
Nevertheless it was a form of cat flu and this cat was not resistant.
(All the vaccinated cats died from it, but only the one with URI 30C
prophylaxis)
Organisms are the main part but yes one (not three) adjuvant is used
to irritate the heck out of the immune system in the incorrect hope
that the "vaccine will work better" that way. I contend the remedy
needs to include that component as the main cause of cat flu these
days is overuse of the vaccine to cause a vaccine miasm - making the
URI 30C remedy useful also for the miasm.
I did/do
Does not work well, for the reason stated. Not similar - the disease
is triggered by the vaccine.
And the natural disease is similar enough even for new strains. So
the remedy as used is effective all round:
* Prevention of any cat flu; (for example 100% effective against the
new Plane Flu in cats in 1997/8 or so)
* Prevention of vaccine reactions
* Overcoming vaccine reactions
* Acute infection by any cat flu caught in early stages (Smillimum is
needed if it gets worse or does not improve within 3 days);
* Overcoming miasm caused by vaccine overuse/inherited
First resort - perhaps because the disease is usually also vaccine-
induced. And the few cases not vaccine induced are also prevented/
helped by it.
What could be better?
The problem with simillimum is that it varies from cat to cat - and
kittens especially can die overnight from cat flu, and sooner if
newborn.
Hence Simillimum is not usable in advance, while URI 30C is usable
for prevention with close to perfect record of success.
There are 82 million cats just in in USA, and too few vethoms to help
them find a simillimum - a general remedy is essential and this one
works.
I first saw it in my own cats - when newborns were born to a queen
infected with Plane Flu (which is not even included in the organisms
of the remedy). Whole litters were dying in the area, mine got URI
30C twice a day for 5 days, one drop aqueous doses, and never
developed a symptom. Almost twenty other queens lost all their
kittens that month, none living past 24 hrs.
Animal work often has a time component - and remedy availability -
and homeopath availability - and quantity component - that is easy to
forget when working with humans.
It has to be all taken into account and seen in context.
Human-proved simillimums are LESS fast to find in animals (as eg
the keys are different, and there is different emphasis) because the
same illness causes different symptoms in different species. The
vaccine remedy however is known - well known - for what it does in
THAT species.
I do not recall.
But I think each situation has to be seen in the right context.
There is no question the URI 30C in cats works exceptionally well,
and has done so since the 60s at least.
(Personally I believe if it had 1 organism in it instead of four, it
would work less well.)
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."
Try not to read John's words
He invents.No it is one vaccine, which contains 4 organisms.
It is used because it is effective in almost 100% of cases - I'm not
sure why my posts were missed (I said all this before)
It is also used because vaccine remedies from vaccines with ONE
organism tend to be much less effective.
This particular point did not come up before - that single organism
vaccine remedies are less effective than those with more organisms
for the SAME disease symptoms - as is the case in URI 30C from URI
vaccine I(and also in one other vaccine with more than one organism
for SAME category illness (FIP/FeLV/FIV 30C from its vaccine).
The latter also is more effective in prevention (no failure to date)
than FIP, FeLV, or FIV vaccine remedy made individually.
My *theory* abort why the group which causes similar symptoms is
better than a single organism that causes those symptoms - is that
the remedy is more effective if it is "more similar" rather than
"more identical" to the disease that may come along and which of
course varies - maybe the broader cover of say four organisms with
similar disease - prevents more illness as it has wider coverage. Or
maybe it simply is a case of prevention of four separate diseases
with same/similar symptoms.
Whatever the reason - the URI 30C works better and so does the FIP/
FIV/FeLV 30C - than a remedy made using one of the organisms
contained (though for cat flu they no longer make single organism
vaccines, they did last century)
It's actually not "a fact".
They in fact work very well for prophylaxis
But again - the combined organisms in one vaccine for similar illness
- works best.
I started using the URI 30C in 1996, and a lot of cats have received
it thanks to me - and I know of one failure. A Birman cat got sick
and died 2 or 3 years ago, though it was not to the usual cat flu
but a new mutated version that had mutated to dogs then back to cats.
Nevertheless it was a form of cat flu and this cat was not resistant.
(All the vaccinated cats died from it, but only the one with URI 30C
prophylaxis)
Organisms are the main part but yes one (not three) adjuvant is used
to irritate the heck out of the immune system in the incorrect hope
that the "vaccine will work better" that way. I contend the remedy
needs to include that component as the main cause of cat flu these
days is overuse of the vaccine to cause a vaccine miasm - making the
URI 30C remedy useful also for the miasm.
I did/do
Does not work well, for the reason stated. Not similar - the disease
is triggered by the vaccine.
And the natural disease is similar enough even for new strains. So
the remedy as used is effective all round:
* Prevention of any cat flu; (for example 100% effective against the
new Plane Flu in cats in 1997/8 or so)
* Prevention of vaccine reactions
* Overcoming vaccine reactions
* Acute infection by any cat flu caught in early stages (Smillimum is
needed if it gets worse or does not improve within 3 days);
* Overcoming miasm caused by vaccine overuse/inherited
First resort - perhaps because the disease is usually also vaccine-
induced. And the few cases not vaccine induced are also prevented/
helped by it.
What could be better?
The problem with simillimum is that it varies from cat to cat - and
kittens especially can die overnight from cat flu, and sooner if
newborn.
Hence Simillimum is not usable in advance, while URI 30C is usable
for prevention with close to perfect record of success.
There are 82 million cats just in in USA, and too few vethoms to help
them find a simillimum - a general remedy is essential and this one
works.
I first saw it in my own cats - when newborns were born to a queen
infected with Plane Flu (which is not even included in the organisms
of the remedy). Whole litters were dying in the area, mine got URI
30C twice a day for 5 days, one drop aqueous doses, and never
developed a symptom. Almost twenty other queens lost all their
kittens that month, none living past 24 hrs.
Animal work often has a time component - and remedy availability -
and homeopath availability - and quantity component - that is easy to
forget when working with humans.
It has to be all taken into account and seen in context.
Human-proved simillimums are LESS fast to find in animals (as eg
the keys are different, and there is different emphasis) because the
same illness causes different symptoms in different species. The
vaccine remedy however is known - well known - for what it does in
THAT species.
I do not recall.
But I think each situation has to be seen in the right context.
There is no question the URI 30C in cats works exceptionally well,
and has done so since the 60s at least.
(Personally I believe if it had 1 organism in it instead of four, it
would work less well.)
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."
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
Very interesting reading Lynn, and exactly similar to what is
happening in cats with cat flu.
Of course Thuja matches the vaccinosis seen in people esp from
smallpox vaccine (which is no longer used thank goodness.)
In cats the URI 30C is effective in the miasm caused by cat flu
vaccination, however one uses it in chroni dising and not the way it
is used in an acute infection. In addition there is a separate disese
which can develop after an acute one is suppressed by antibiotics
(which is horribly comon and "usual
in cats and this needs a simillimum as it is not vaccinosis or cat
flu.
You still have to later use the URI 30C as a miasm remedy or the next
generations will be susceptible to cat flu, and will potentially die
easily from it.
I agree.
and more - it is passed on to offspring. (Implies a DNA change?)
Agree the principle: I do not call it vaccinosis though because
there is more than one vaccinosis, and so I refer to cat flu miasm
for example, or immune compromise miasm (from FIP, FeLV, FIV in cats)
or Bordetella bronchiseptica miasm, and so on.
Actually this last nasty infection "repeats" a lot and seems to
induce the miasm without vaccinosis especially IF it's acute form is
suppressed with inappropriate drugs. The same occurs for any of the
miasms.
A few cases of cat flu for example, will resolve as acute disease,
with no after effects - it is the suppressed ones or those not
handled by good prompt homeopathy, that sink into miasm.
A case in point:
I do not hase exact dates, but about 1996/7, a new kind of cat flu
was causing deaths in cats overnighting in the Amsterdam airport
kennels, so it was soon spread world-wide. It took a while to pick up
the problem as Plane Flu causes no immediate symptoms, they develop
after a very long incubation of 7 to 10 days, by which time cvats
arriving on international flights, have been checked thboroough
customes and b y receivers vet and found healthy, and usually
integrated into the cattery population. When they then start with cat
flu symptoms, the other cats have had a week of exposure, and if
preganant it endangers the kittens too. Plane Flu can kill in 3
months as in addition to the usual URI symptoms it has a diffuse
involvement of the lungs - on X-ray you see the entire lung ares is
opaque. My vet in Rondebosch, (Partner of Su Hayes, veterinary
homeopath there) worked with me and with Ondersteport veterinary
University on identification of the virus - and with the apparent
source in Amsterdam.
By then we had at least three catteries affected, mine being one (I
had imported a cat who was exposed en route) , a total of about 200
cats exposed, as a result of imports via Amsterdam. (I had only 20
cats total, but the Maine Coon cattery was the biggest but one
cattery in the area with a large staff and also had boarding kennels
attached and a veterinary clinic specializing in orthpedics....so for
them this was potentially especially devastating. Luckily I had
worked with the breeder before using homeopathy so she was more then
ready to use it.
We decided to use the URI 30C prophylactically as cats were
dying and newborn kittens were dying overnight, and the allopaths
were keen to help but had no real options, and we had no other remedy
we felt confident about. The URI 30C had gotten us through outbreaks
before.
From the day we started using it, (and I gave it to my newborns)
there were no more losses (indeed I had none), and after a week no
more new cases either except in the one cattery where they refused to
use such witchcraft. They had horrible losses - and also spread it to
other catteries due to apparently healthy kittens who'd been exposed,
being shipped to new homes. The vet clinic where the cattery went who
did not use homeopathy, also spread the virus to more people, and
many of them did not want the URI 30C "witchcraft" but the vet in
question saw after a week or so, how well it was working and helped
persuade people to get on board as nothing else was working
(allopathically).
I had three cases of kittens shipped to new homes after exposure as
well, and had to go help the three catteries so involved to also use
the URI 30C prophylactically, which they all did and so they had no
cases - though we all kept kittens till age 6 months before rehoming
for a while to ensure we'd cleared the risk.
No more cases ensued.
An epidemic like this can spread fast in cats. But the URI 30C did
indeed save the day, for already exposed cats, and for not yet
exposed ones and for active cases. It put a fast stop to the
epidemic, with the exception of the cattery not using homeopathy and
their associated vet clinic who initiallly did not use it.
To their credit, I must say Amsterdam kennels followed my vet's
recommendations immediately regarding kennel management to prevent
further cases from being associated with travel through there. We did
however dub this "Plane Flu". I did hear of a few deaths in other
countries, but we spread the word as far and wide as we could, and
this flu seems to have died out or is hiding.
(Rather like the new strain in CA a few yrs back. It also seems to
have died out.)
This situation was not a vaccinosis epidemic, just a new acute
cat flu. However i was later to discover that cats NOT treated with
homeopathy and instead given antibiotics etc - did in some cases
recover but were not fully healthy after that. In those cases I
consider a miasm developed, even though there was no specific vaccine
to THIS version of cat flu which Onderstepoort confirmed was a new
and different virus..
I see that too, in all the animals getting vaccines, especially
repeated ones, wih suppressed immediate vaccinosis.
I tend to call it vacciosis if it is a reaction immediatyely after
the vaccine - an acute response - and a miasm if it is the chronic
condition form a vaccine or suppressed acute. Different semantics -
I'm on the same page as Burnett here.
I see that too.
And it is passed on to next generations if not treated.
I see that too.
I think cat flu miasm may vary - Vaccinosis MIGHT also depend what
vaccinosis/miasm is developed, as to which variant miasm it may be,
or it might be its own discrete miasm with its own discrete
characteristics, not so much a "variant".
Th fact that the miasm is inherited by offspring is strong evidence
of DNA change if only to methylate or un-methylate a gene that is
there. Even foods are now known to cause activation or deactivation
of genes on a regular basis by this method. So it is no longer
considered true that genes are stuck and unchangeable during an
ordinary lifetime.
and worse:-(
Exactly, such as the Burmese cat mentioned earlier who despite
homeoprophylaxis and no vaccines did die of a new cat flu.
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."
happening in cats with cat flu.
Of course Thuja matches the vaccinosis seen in people esp from
smallpox vaccine (which is no longer used thank goodness.)
In cats the URI 30C is effective in the miasm caused by cat flu
vaccination, however one uses it in chroni dising and not the way it
is used in an acute infection. In addition there is a separate disese
which can develop after an acute one is suppressed by antibiotics
(which is horribly comon and "usual
in cats and this needs a simillimum as it is not vaccinosis or cat
flu.
You still have to later use the URI 30C as a miasm remedy or the next
generations will be susceptible to cat flu, and will potentially die
easily from it.
I agree.
and more - it is passed on to offspring. (Implies a DNA change?)
Agree the principle: I do not call it vaccinosis though because
there is more than one vaccinosis, and so I refer to cat flu miasm
for example, or immune compromise miasm (from FIP, FeLV, FIV in cats)
or Bordetella bronchiseptica miasm, and so on.
Actually this last nasty infection "repeats" a lot and seems to
induce the miasm without vaccinosis especially IF it's acute form is
suppressed with inappropriate drugs. The same occurs for any of the
miasms.
A few cases of cat flu for example, will resolve as acute disease,
with no after effects - it is the suppressed ones or those not
handled by good prompt homeopathy, that sink into miasm.
A case in point:
I do not hase exact dates, but about 1996/7, a new kind of cat flu
was causing deaths in cats overnighting in the Amsterdam airport
kennels, so it was soon spread world-wide. It took a while to pick up
the problem as Plane Flu causes no immediate symptoms, they develop
after a very long incubation of 7 to 10 days, by which time cvats
arriving on international flights, have been checked thboroough
customes and b y receivers vet and found healthy, and usually
integrated into the cattery population. When they then start with cat
flu symptoms, the other cats have had a week of exposure, and if
preganant it endangers the kittens too. Plane Flu can kill in 3
months as in addition to the usual URI symptoms it has a diffuse
involvement of the lungs - on X-ray you see the entire lung ares is
opaque. My vet in Rondebosch, (Partner of Su Hayes, veterinary
homeopath there) worked with me and with Ondersteport veterinary
University on identification of the virus - and with the apparent
source in Amsterdam.
By then we had at least three catteries affected, mine being one (I
had imported a cat who was exposed en route) , a total of about 200
cats exposed, as a result of imports via Amsterdam. (I had only 20
cats total, but the Maine Coon cattery was the biggest but one
cattery in the area with a large staff and also had boarding kennels
attached and a veterinary clinic specializing in orthpedics....so for
them this was potentially especially devastating. Luckily I had
worked with the breeder before using homeopathy so she was more then
ready to use it.
We decided to use the URI 30C prophylactically as cats were
dying and newborn kittens were dying overnight, and the allopaths
were keen to help but had no real options, and we had no other remedy
we felt confident about. The URI 30C had gotten us through outbreaks
before.
From the day we started using it, (and I gave it to my newborns)
there were no more losses (indeed I had none), and after a week no
more new cases either except in the one cattery where they refused to
use such witchcraft. They had horrible losses - and also spread it to
other catteries due to apparently healthy kittens who'd been exposed,
being shipped to new homes. The vet clinic where the cattery went who
did not use homeopathy, also spread the virus to more people, and
many of them did not want the URI 30C "witchcraft" but the vet in
question saw after a week or so, how well it was working and helped
persuade people to get on board as nothing else was working
(allopathically).
I had three cases of kittens shipped to new homes after exposure as
well, and had to go help the three catteries so involved to also use
the URI 30C prophylactically, which they all did and so they had no
cases - though we all kept kittens till age 6 months before rehoming
for a while to ensure we'd cleared the risk.
No more cases ensued.
An epidemic like this can spread fast in cats. But the URI 30C did
indeed save the day, for already exposed cats, and for not yet
exposed ones and for active cases. It put a fast stop to the
epidemic, with the exception of the cattery not using homeopathy and
their associated vet clinic who initiallly did not use it.
To their credit, I must say Amsterdam kennels followed my vet's
recommendations immediately regarding kennel management to prevent
further cases from being associated with travel through there. We did
however dub this "Plane Flu". I did hear of a few deaths in other
countries, but we spread the word as far and wide as we could, and
this flu seems to have died out or is hiding.
(Rather like the new strain in CA a few yrs back. It also seems to
have died out.)
This situation was not a vaccinosis epidemic, just a new acute
cat flu. However i was later to discover that cats NOT treated with
homeopathy and instead given antibiotics etc - did in some cases
recover but were not fully healthy after that. In those cases I
consider a miasm developed, even though there was no specific vaccine
to THIS version of cat flu which Onderstepoort confirmed was a new
and different virus..
I see that too, in all the animals getting vaccines, especially
repeated ones, wih suppressed immediate vaccinosis.
I tend to call it vacciosis if it is a reaction immediatyely after
the vaccine - an acute response - and a miasm if it is the chronic
condition form a vaccine or suppressed acute. Different semantics -
I'm on the same page as Burnett here.
I see that too.
And it is passed on to next generations if not treated.
I see that too.
I think cat flu miasm may vary - Vaccinosis MIGHT also depend what
vaccinosis/miasm is developed, as to which variant miasm it may be,
or it might be its own discrete miasm with its own discrete
characteristics, not so much a "variant".
Th fact that the miasm is inherited by offspring is strong evidence
of DNA change if only to methylate or un-methylate a gene that is
there. Even foods are now known to cause activation or deactivation
of genes on a regular basis by this method. So it is no longer
considered true that genes are stuck and unchangeable during an
ordinary lifetime.
and worse:-(
Exactly, such as the Burmese cat mentioned earlier who despite
homeoprophylaxis and no vaccines did die of a new cat flu.
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."
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
On Jul 8, 2009, at 3:51 PM,
wrote:
Perhaps my response email to this will show some of that relevance?
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."
wrote:
Perhaps my response email to this will show some of that relevance?
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."
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Vaccines make poor prophylactics (was Definition)
Hi, Irene --
Oh -- do you mean that it is not true after all that all four viruses have the same pathogenesis, as you previously stated they do [1]? Or does each have the same pathogenesis but require the others in order to address all of its own pathogenesis curatively? Or are you confusing the pathogenesis of the virus in the wild with the pathogenetic effects of a virus embedded in the compound vaccine you have had potentised?
Let me put to you that you simply make all of this up to explain what you believe to be your successes: (1) that you have no first idea what the pathogenesis of any of the four viruses is, (2) that you have only the vaguest idea of the symptoms that the multivalent vaccine you have inappropriately been using as a homoeopathic vaccine rather than a genus epidemicus causes, and (3) that you are still unable to answer the most basic of questions: what this (extremely) compound remedy's pathogenetic symptoms are, and what cases have been cured with it.
I'm sure all homoeopaths reading that would be very interested to see an explanation of how you obtain -- as you've now claimed more than once you have -- an organism from disease symptoms. Presumably it is this ability that obviates, as you claim, all need for provings. Would you kindly tell us how this is done?
So instead of your previously quoted theory that a remedy that is "less identical" becomes "more homoeopathic" [2], we have a slight variation: that a remedy is "more effective" (whatever that means, and regardless of whether anybody will ever know how you gauge that) if it is "more similar" rather than "more identical". So not "less identical" any more, but "more similar"; but not "more identical".
Maybe you could make some sense of this for us all?
And now you claim that the combination of the four organisms, each of which previously you said had the same curative potential, gives "wider coverage".
Or else that you can, with effectively four vaccines, prevent "four separate diseases with same/similar symptoms".
If you have no idea of the overlap in pathogenetic symptoms between the four vaccines and no idea of their differences and no idea of their combined effect and no idea of whether the diseases have the same or similar symptoms -- I wonder how you can prescribe them, as you say, homoeopathically? Would you like to tell us how you do it?
This demonstrate yet again that what you call similarity relies on disease names rather than on comparative symptomatology, doesn't it?
So once again, no symptoms need be noted?
And again?
Is this confusion between prevention of an epidemic disease and the effects resulting from the vaccine an accidental one, or do you see no reason to discriminate between them?
This further confirmation that you do not rely on the symptoms of the individual cat in order to prescribe this "preventive' potentised mixture gives no indication even of looking for a genus epidemicus. It's as easy as using "URI" for all cat flus and any illness with symptoms similar to a cat flu. Is that correct?
Yes, if one ignores the differences between batches and the differences between trivalent and tetravalent vaccines. It's true, though, isn't it, that you are using this mixed vaccine potency to prevent cat flus and to treat cat flus routinely rather than to treat a similar vaccine-induced chronic state?
Cheers --
John
References
[1] (65) "There are four versions of cat flu and even a good vet can not distinguish one from another as the symptoms are so similar...
"So that leads me to the one I am using - but people use many separately made ones, as they are stocked by all the reputable homeopathic pharmacies. I call the one I use URI 30C... The 4-valent components that
cause cat flu symptoms are:
Feline rhinotracheitis (a form of herpes virus)
Feline Calici virus
Feline Panleukopenia virus (a parvo type virus)
Chlamydia (a bacteria) (6 Jul 09)"
[2] (76) "I did not know or care if my version correlated with others - I wanted to get the job done.
"I currently prefer to use that old one however, and not the annually new ones made - as I suspect it is less identical to current strains, and thus more homeopathic." (6 Jul 09)
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
Oh -- do you mean that it is not true after all that all four viruses have the same pathogenesis, as you previously stated they do [1]? Or does each have the same pathogenesis but require the others in order to address all of its own pathogenesis curatively? Or are you confusing the pathogenesis of the virus in the wild with the pathogenetic effects of a virus embedded in the compound vaccine you have had potentised?
Let me put to you that you simply make all of this up to explain what you believe to be your successes: (1) that you have no first idea what the pathogenesis of any of the four viruses is, (2) that you have only the vaguest idea of the symptoms that the multivalent vaccine you have inappropriately been using as a homoeopathic vaccine rather than a genus epidemicus causes, and (3) that you are still unable to answer the most basic of questions: what this (extremely) compound remedy's pathogenetic symptoms are, and what cases have been cured with it.
I'm sure all homoeopaths reading that would be very interested to see an explanation of how you obtain -- as you've now claimed more than once you have -- an organism from disease symptoms. Presumably it is this ability that obviates, as you claim, all need for provings. Would you kindly tell us how this is done?
So instead of your previously quoted theory that a remedy that is "less identical" becomes "more homoeopathic" [2], we have a slight variation: that a remedy is "more effective" (whatever that means, and regardless of whether anybody will ever know how you gauge that) if it is "more similar" rather than "more identical". So not "less identical" any more, but "more similar"; but not "more identical".
Maybe you could make some sense of this for us all?
And now you claim that the combination of the four organisms, each of which previously you said had the same curative potential, gives "wider coverage".
Or else that you can, with effectively four vaccines, prevent "four separate diseases with same/similar symptoms".
If you have no idea of the overlap in pathogenetic symptoms between the four vaccines and no idea of their differences and no idea of their combined effect and no idea of whether the diseases have the same or similar symptoms -- I wonder how you can prescribe them, as you say, homoeopathically? Would you like to tell us how you do it?
This demonstrate yet again that what you call similarity relies on disease names rather than on comparative symptomatology, doesn't it?
So once again, no symptoms need be noted?
And again?
Is this confusion between prevention of an epidemic disease and the effects resulting from the vaccine an accidental one, or do you see no reason to discriminate between them?
This further confirmation that you do not rely on the symptoms of the individual cat in order to prescribe this "preventive' potentised mixture gives no indication even of looking for a genus epidemicus. It's as easy as using "URI" for all cat flus and any illness with symptoms similar to a cat flu. Is that correct?
Yes, if one ignores the differences between batches and the differences between trivalent and tetravalent vaccines. It's true, though, isn't it, that you are using this mixed vaccine potency to prevent cat flus and to treat cat flus routinely rather than to treat a similar vaccine-induced chronic state?
Cheers --
John
References
[1] (65) "There are four versions of cat flu and even a good vet can not distinguish one from another as the symptoms are so similar...
"So that leads me to the one I am using - but people use many separately made ones, as they are stocked by all the reputable homeopathic pharmacies. I call the one I use URI 30C... The 4-valent components that
cause cat flu symptoms are:
Feline rhinotracheitis (a form of herpes virus)
Feline Calici virus
Feline Panleukopenia virus (a parvo type virus)
Chlamydia (a bacteria) (6 Jul 09)"
[2] (76) "I did not know or care if my version correlated with others - I wanted to get the job done.
"I currently prefer to use that old one however, and not the annually new ones made - as I suspect it is less identical to current strains, and thus more homeopathic." (6 Jul 09)
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)