Taken to court 1: Two approaches to prevention
Posted: Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:59 am
I think Fran Sheffield and the HomeopathyPlus people are to be commended for taking a stand for homoeopathy, because they're really waging the battle for the rest of us and I for one feel remiss in not having helped more. But the positive part of this is it gives us a reason to get back in the game and really get into world health authority faces, and our own, for that matter, about what homoeopathy and "homeopathy" really is, and what "vaccines" and what homoeopathy are immunologically.
What everyone is having a hard time recognizing is that the most effective vaccines, such as the small pox vaccine, are actually homoeopathic, and therefore it can be said, and it should be said over and again, as it is startling true, that modern medicos saved the world from its most terrible scourge with the unwitting use of crude homoeopathy. This can be seen prima facie in the use of attenuated lymph from cow pox eruptions in cattle, the original "vaccine."
Hahnemann announced homoeopathy the same year Jenner announced his own discovery of the small pox vaccine, both in 1796. He makes 42 references to smallpox and Jenner in the Organon, but you don't need the Organon to see that it's true.
Anyone who isn't blinded by the prejudices taught by allopathy will have to admit this. Fran Sheffield has given us yet another opportunity to teach the world what real medicine is.
Emil von Behring, the first man to win the Nobel prize for Physics and Medicine said, “In spite of all scientific speculations and experiments regarding smallpox vaccination, Jenner’s discovery remained an erratic blocking medicine, till the biochemically [emphasis mine] thinking Pasteur, devoid of all medical classroom knowledge, traced the origin of this therapeutic block to a principle which cannot better be characterized than by Hahnemann’s word: homoeopathic. Indeed, what else causes the epidemiological immunity in sheep, vaccinated against anthrax than the influence previously exerted by a virus, similar in character to that of the fatal anthrax virus? And by what technical term could we more appropriately speak of this influence, exerted by a similar virus than by Hahnemann’s word ‘homoeopathy’? I am touching here upon a subject anathematized till very recently by medical penalty: but if I am to present these problems in historical illumination, dogmatic imprecations must not deter me.”
That statement, made by the world's first Nobel laureate, that the true science of immunology is homoeopathy, is demonstrated to be true in the historical record of epidemics, time after time, detailed in Thomas Bradford's "The Logic of Figures, comparative results of homoeopaathic and other treatments."
You can read this amazing story of the use of homoeopathy in epidemics, online, or download the free PDF at https://archive.org/details/logicoffiguresor00brad
You can also read my treatment of it, "The Logic of Epdemics"
at http://johnbenneth.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... epidemics/
The emphasis on "biochemically" is mine, as test after biochemical test by highly credible workers such as Behring; Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier; Wayne Jonas, MD, former director of the U.S. National Health Institutes; workers at the French National Institute of Medicine, led by Jacques Benveniste, and Moshe Frenkel at the MD Anderson Clinic in Houston, and in other countries throughout the world, have repeatedly demonstrated the action of these materials in vitro, biochemically,
These test tube tests, one replicated now 24 times beween the 1980's and 2007, are stark, objective evidence for homoeopathy, which both allopaths and homoeopaths have deliberately sidestepped, most notably George Vithoulkas, who teamed up with the world's number one homoeopathy basher, James "the Amazing" Randi, to denounce biochemical testing of ionized pharmaceuticals as used in homoeopathy. Only until Kaviraj and I began underlining the fact that by 2007 the test Vithoulkas helped Randi crucify Benveniste for had been successfully replicated over two dozen times, did at least one major homeopathic association acknowledge it.
The allopathic opponents of homoeopathy don't understand internal medicine, they never had and never will, and unfortunately, I don't see (m)any homoeopaths who understand what it is they're doing either. There really is very little or no leadership, or anybody for that matter, taking the lead for Fran and HP to flank the ACCC with facts about ionized pharmaceuticals.
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)
What everyone is having a hard time recognizing is that the most effective vaccines, such as the small pox vaccine, are actually homoeopathic, and therefore it can be said, and it should be said over and again, as it is startling true, that modern medicos saved the world from its most terrible scourge with the unwitting use of crude homoeopathy. This can be seen prima facie in the use of attenuated lymph from cow pox eruptions in cattle, the original "vaccine."
Hahnemann announced homoeopathy the same year Jenner announced his own discovery of the small pox vaccine, both in 1796. He makes 42 references to smallpox and Jenner in the Organon, but you don't need the Organon to see that it's true.
Anyone who isn't blinded by the prejudices taught by allopathy will have to admit this. Fran Sheffield has given us yet another opportunity to teach the world what real medicine is.
Emil von Behring, the first man to win the Nobel prize for Physics and Medicine said, “In spite of all scientific speculations and experiments regarding smallpox vaccination, Jenner’s discovery remained an erratic blocking medicine, till the biochemically [emphasis mine] thinking Pasteur, devoid of all medical classroom knowledge, traced the origin of this therapeutic block to a principle which cannot better be characterized than by Hahnemann’s word: homoeopathic. Indeed, what else causes the epidemiological immunity in sheep, vaccinated against anthrax than the influence previously exerted by a virus, similar in character to that of the fatal anthrax virus? And by what technical term could we more appropriately speak of this influence, exerted by a similar virus than by Hahnemann’s word ‘homoeopathy’? I am touching here upon a subject anathematized till very recently by medical penalty: but if I am to present these problems in historical illumination, dogmatic imprecations must not deter me.”
That statement, made by the world's first Nobel laureate, that the true science of immunology is homoeopathy, is demonstrated to be true in the historical record of epidemics, time after time, detailed in Thomas Bradford's "The Logic of Figures, comparative results of homoeopaathic and other treatments."
You can read this amazing story of the use of homoeopathy in epidemics, online, or download the free PDF at https://archive.org/details/logicoffiguresor00brad
You can also read my treatment of it, "The Logic of Epdemics"
at http://johnbenneth.wordpress.com/2010/1 ... epidemics/
The emphasis on "biochemically" is mine, as test after biochemical test by highly credible workers such as Behring; Nobel laureate Luc Montagnier; Wayne Jonas, MD, former director of the U.S. National Health Institutes; workers at the French National Institute of Medicine, led by Jacques Benveniste, and Moshe Frenkel at the MD Anderson Clinic in Houston, and in other countries throughout the world, have repeatedly demonstrated the action of these materials in vitro, biochemically,
These test tube tests, one replicated now 24 times beween the 1980's and 2007, are stark, objective evidence for homoeopathy, which both allopaths and homoeopaths have deliberately sidestepped, most notably George Vithoulkas, who teamed up with the world's number one homoeopathy basher, James "the Amazing" Randi, to denounce biochemical testing of ionized pharmaceuticals as used in homoeopathy. Only until Kaviraj and I began underlining the fact that by 2007 the test Vithoulkas helped Randi crucify Benveniste for had been successfully replicated over two dozen times, did at least one major homeopathic association acknowledge it.
The allopathic opponents of homoeopathy don't understand internal medicine, they never had and never will, and unfortunately, I don't see (m)any homoeopaths who understand what it is they're doing either. There really is very little or no leadership, or anybody for that matter, taking the lead for Fran and HP to flank the ACCC with facts about ionized pharmaceuticals.
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)
