Isopathic Mercury - Psuedo-homeoapthy?
Posted: Sat Jul 11, 2009 5:04 pm
I would like discuss a few reasons why practices that some people on the list would like to classify as homoeopathy - even though there is no evidence of symptom similarity - can never and should never be called homoeopathy. I would also like to do this from a practical perspective so that people can better understand the reasons why this is so.
One of the great benefits of homoeopathy, and something that Hahnemann always strived for, is that it is safe - but only if practised according to the Law of Similars and resultant symptom similarity.
I have seen several examples in my own practice where wrongly prescribed potentised remedies would appear to be anything but safe. I hope to send a few examples of this over coming days as time permits.
One issue is where people who have a heavy metal burden such as a high mercury level and, in the absence of symptoms to indicate it, have been prescribed potentised Mercury by others in order to help them excrete this metal. While the potentised Mercury has certainly done this, it some instances at least, it would also seem to have also harmed.
Mercury is a powerful and dangerous neurotoxin. Mercury should not be present within the healthy human body but if it is, the body will try to store it in the soft tissues.
It has been known for a long time that chemical chelation carries the risk that Mercury mobilised from the soft tissues and into the general circulation will be redistributed to the brain where it can then cause more damage and be harder, if not impossible, to remove.
This has happened in many documented instances when people being chelated chemically have gone on to develop neurological disorders such as epilepsy, schizophrenia, psychoses, multiple sclerosis, and tics - the very problems that chelation was meant to prevent. As a result, protocols are now being developed by some biomedical groups to minimise this risk.
On the other hand, it is assumed by the poorly informed or pseudo-homoeopathic community that 'homoeopathy' is intrinsically safe and that potentised Mercury will not do this. Of course these assumptions are difficult to counter because there is no way we can ethically conduct human research to check that this is so. The evidence of what I have seen in my practice though, leads me to think otherwise. See the following two examples ...
Case 1: About a year back I was treating a man in his 40's for OCD and delusions (being contaminated, poisoned, about to die, etc, etc). He had been like this in one form or another since childhood.
He lived with his mother and because he couldn't/wouldn't talk on the phone, most of the work was done through her. They were both on good organic wholefood diets and his mother had helped him avoid the conventional drugs the doctors wanted to use with him. When he had taken one or two of them they were quickly stopped by her because they caused side-effects for him.
Over a couple of months there were gradual improvements with the remedies I prescribed. His mother then decided to take him to a well known kinesiologist/naturopath who did a hair mineral analysis and found that his mercury levels were in the high to very high range.
All other metals were ok but his mother, encouraged by the naturopath, thought the merc was the problem and that he should be naturally chelated and detoxed. The Nat is well known for this work, has written on it, and lectures on the topic in colleges. So, his mother stopped homeopathy at that time to make way for the chelating / detoxing.
A range of supplements were given plus a combination 'homeopathic chelating drops' containing potentised Mercury.
Yesterday, she brought him back to me for his first homeopathic appointment with me in a year. As far as she was concerned, the naturopath's treatment had been completed and was a huge success because the merc was down to 'normal' - but her son's mental problems seemed to have deteriorated so she had decided to start the homeopathy again.
In fact, he was very much deteriorated - he was now very OCD with episodes of psychosis and was having periods where he was very threatening and abusive, and a danger to her - she sometimes had to sleep outside in the car at night as he became violent - something he had not previously been.
In fact, he had been so bad over the past year that he had been admitted to a mental health unit twice and commenced on Lovan - there had been no need for a psych admission at any time prior to the chelation/ detox treatment and his previous mental problems had certainly not been bad enough to medicate.
At the time of of his returning appointment he had just been released from mental health centre so his mother was bringing him in while she could.
I did not have the heart to tell this aging mother that the naturopath's treatment looked anything but a success to me and seemed to have caused some serious harm! She had no awareness that there may have been a connection between the two.
Case 2: I recently had one of my patients on the phone to me in tears about the state of her friend's little boy after he had been prescribed potentised Mercury in the absence of any symptoms indicating the need for it, apart from high levels in a hair mineral analysis. After months of detox the little boy was much much worse than he was at the beginning of treatment. When the mother questioned his deterioration she was told that this was normal and that if she kept dosing he would come out the other side - that it was a very common phenomenon.
Eventually he was so bad that she took him back to her hospital for reassessment where they wanted to know what had happened because they could not believe his deterioration from a little boy who was borderline ASD 6 months earlier to one being deeply autistic - now well and truly on the spectrum.
My patient was very upset because at the start of his treatment she had asked me about this because she was also hoping that this approach may be useful for her son's high lead levels. I warned her against it and explained why and said that the correct homeopathic remedy would open up his elimination and excretory channels with no need to force the body to do anything.
She passed this info on to her friend who chose to trust what the other practitioner told her and my patient was now very distressed about the outcome. In contrast, her little boy had his dramatically high lead levels (could not be placed on the chart) drop to high in a few months with the remedy prescribed by symptom totality - something chelation had not been able to do because he reacted so badly to it. He is still undergoing treatment and I am expecting the levels to fall further.
The above 2 cases are the sort of things I am seeing in my clinic. Because I do not prescribe Mercury or any other metal isopathically, but only if indicated by the symptoms, my direct 'cause and effect' observations are limited. Have others seen similar things - I would be interested to hear.
On the other hand, because I do see a number of children with autism who are also doing biomedical treatments, I have been subscribed to a couple of biomedical groups so I could better understand the biomedical approach. You may be interested to know that these groups are now expressly warning parents not to use homeopathy with these children as it 'loosens' the metals and is causing further neurological damage for them.
On enquiring further, I found that it was not homeopathy per se that was implicated but the routine prescribing of potentised Mercury in the absence of any symptoms indicating it except for elevated levels on hair mineral analyses and other tests.
And who is making these prescriptions and what are they called? 'Homeopathy' by doctors, naturopaths, DAN practitioners, and anyone else you care to think about.
Most concerning of all is that parents think they are receiving homeopathic treatment with this and other similar prescriptions and generally are reporting mixed or unfavourable results. The only parents who are speaking highly of homeopathy for autism (and I believe it should be the primary treatment of choice for ASD kids - it is that good at helping them) are those seeing 'classical' homeopaths. The problems is that the remainder of parents, and these groups are HUGE, are being freaked out about using homeopathy by reports from senior members of the groups that it can redistribute the metals in their children and that many children have deteriorated with severe neurological problems after being treated homeopathically.
So, in light of the above cases, where does that leave strongly argued proposals during recent discussions that terms homeopathy and homeopathic should incorporate what the community uses and wrongly understands of homeopathy as promoted by complex advertising and those unfamiliar with homeoapathy's basic tenets?
Should people have the right to prescribe potentised remedies in the absence of any symptoms to indicate them, and still be allowed to call them homeopathic?
Can we expect potentised remedies prescribed allopathically to always be as safe as those prescribed homeopathically?
Should homeopathy be expected to carry the can for any problems that result from such prescriptions?
Isn't it rather telling that some areas of the community seem to be far more aware of the potential dangers of potentised remedies than some who think of themselves as homeopaths but argue that homeopathy should be more inclusive of non-homeopathic approaches for pragmatic reasons?
--
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
One of the great benefits of homoeopathy, and something that Hahnemann always strived for, is that it is safe - but only if practised according to the Law of Similars and resultant symptom similarity.
I have seen several examples in my own practice where wrongly prescribed potentised remedies would appear to be anything but safe. I hope to send a few examples of this over coming days as time permits.
One issue is where people who have a heavy metal burden such as a high mercury level and, in the absence of symptoms to indicate it, have been prescribed potentised Mercury by others in order to help them excrete this metal. While the potentised Mercury has certainly done this, it some instances at least, it would also seem to have also harmed.
Mercury is a powerful and dangerous neurotoxin. Mercury should not be present within the healthy human body but if it is, the body will try to store it in the soft tissues.
It has been known for a long time that chemical chelation carries the risk that Mercury mobilised from the soft tissues and into the general circulation will be redistributed to the brain where it can then cause more damage and be harder, if not impossible, to remove.
This has happened in many documented instances when people being chelated chemically have gone on to develop neurological disorders such as epilepsy, schizophrenia, psychoses, multiple sclerosis, and tics - the very problems that chelation was meant to prevent. As a result, protocols are now being developed by some biomedical groups to minimise this risk.
On the other hand, it is assumed by the poorly informed or pseudo-homoeopathic community that 'homoeopathy' is intrinsically safe and that potentised Mercury will not do this. Of course these assumptions are difficult to counter because there is no way we can ethically conduct human research to check that this is so. The evidence of what I have seen in my practice though, leads me to think otherwise. See the following two examples ...
Case 1: About a year back I was treating a man in his 40's for OCD and delusions (being contaminated, poisoned, about to die, etc, etc). He had been like this in one form or another since childhood.
He lived with his mother and because he couldn't/wouldn't talk on the phone, most of the work was done through her. They were both on good organic wholefood diets and his mother had helped him avoid the conventional drugs the doctors wanted to use with him. When he had taken one or two of them they were quickly stopped by her because they caused side-effects for him.
Over a couple of months there were gradual improvements with the remedies I prescribed. His mother then decided to take him to a well known kinesiologist/naturopath who did a hair mineral analysis and found that his mercury levels were in the high to very high range.
All other metals were ok but his mother, encouraged by the naturopath, thought the merc was the problem and that he should be naturally chelated and detoxed. The Nat is well known for this work, has written on it, and lectures on the topic in colleges. So, his mother stopped homeopathy at that time to make way for the chelating / detoxing.
A range of supplements were given plus a combination 'homeopathic chelating drops' containing potentised Mercury.
Yesterday, she brought him back to me for his first homeopathic appointment with me in a year. As far as she was concerned, the naturopath's treatment had been completed and was a huge success because the merc was down to 'normal' - but her son's mental problems seemed to have deteriorated so she had decided to start the homeopathy again.
In fact, he was very much deteriorated - he was now very OCD with episodes of psychosis and was having periods where he was very threatening and abusive, and a danger to her - she sometimes had to sleep outside in the car at night as he became violent - something he had not previously been.
In fact, he had been so bad over the past year that he had been admitted to a mental health unit twice and commenced on Lovan - there had been no need for a psych admission at any time prior to the chelation/ detox treatment and his previous mental problems had certainly not been bad enough to medicate.
At the time of of his returning appointment he had just been released from mental health centre so his mother was bringing him in while she could.
I did not have the heart to tell this aging mother that the naturopath's treatment looked anything but a success to me and seemed to have caused some serious harm! She had no awareness that there may have been a connection between the two.
Case 2: I recently had one of my patients on the phone to me in tears about the state of her friend's little boy after he had been prescribed potentised Mercury in the absence of any symptoms indicating the need for it, apart from high levels in a hair mineral analysis. After months of detox the little boy was much much worse than he was at the beginning of treatment. When the mother questioned his deterioration she was told that this was normal and that if she kept dosing he would come out the other side - that it was a very common phenomenon.
Eventually he was so bad that she took him back to her hospital for reassessment where they wanted to know what had happened because they could not believe his deterioration from a little boy who was borderline ASD 6 months earlier to one being deeply autistic - now well and truly on the spectrum.
My patient was very upset because at the start of his treatment she had asked me about this because she was also hoping that this approach may be useful for her son's high lead levels. I warned her against it and explained why and said that the correct homeopathic remedy would open up his elimination and excretory channels with no need to force the body to do anything.
She passed this info on to her friend who chose to trust what the other practitioner told her and my patient was now very distressed about the outcome. In contrast, her little boy had his dramatically high lead levels (could not be placed on the chart) drop to high in a few months with the remedy prescribed by symptom totality - something chelation had not been able to do because he reacted so badly to it. He is still undergoing treatment and I am expecting the levels to fall further.
The above 2 cases are the sort of things I am seeing in my clinic. Because I do not prescribe Mercury or any other metal isopathically, but only if indicated by the symptoms, my direct 'cause and effect' observations are limited. Have others seen similar things - I would be interested to hear.
On the other hand, because I do see a number of children with autism who are also doing biomedical treatments, I have been subscribed to a couple of biomedical groups so I could better understand the biomedical approach. You may be interested to know that these groups are now expressly warning parents not to use homeopathy with these children as it 'loosens' the metals and is causing further neurological damage for them.
On enquiring further, I found that it was not homeopathy per se that was implicated but the routine prescribing of potentised Mercury in the absence of any symptoms indicating it except for elevated levels on hair mineral analyses and other tests.
And who is making these prescriptions and what are they called? 'Homeopathy' by doctors, naturopaths, DAN practitioners, and anyone else you care to think about.
Most concerning of all is that parents think they are receiving homeopathic treatment with this and other similar prescriptions and generally are reporting mixed or unfavourable results. The only parents who are speaking highly of homeopathy for autism (and I believe it should be the primary treatment of choice for ASD kids - it is that good at helping them) are those seeing 'classical' homeopaths. The problems is that the remainder of parents, and these groups are HUGE, are being freaked out about using homeopathy by reports from senior members of the groups that it can redistribute the metals in their children and that many children have deteriorated with severe neurological problems after being treated homeopathically.
So, in light of the above cases, where does that leave strongly argued proposals during recent discussions that terms homeopathy and homeopathic should incorporate what the community uses and wrongly understands of homeopathy as promoted by complex advertising and those unfamiliar with homeoapathy's basic tenets?
Should people have the right to prescribe potentised remedies in the absence of any symptoms to indicate them, and still be allowed to call them homeopathic?
Can we expect potentised remedies prescribed allopathically to always be as safe as those prescribed homeopathically?
Should homeopathy be expected to carry the can for any problems that result from such prescriptions?
Isn't it rather telling that some areas of the community seem to be far more aware of the potential dangers of potentised remedies than some who think of themselves as homeopaths but argue that homeopathy should be more inclusive of non-homeopathic approaches for pragmatic reasons?
--
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