Prophylaxis
Posted: Sat Apr 17, 2004 1:24 am
Dear Sheri,
Sheri Nakken wrote:
Will Taylor, MD wrote:
888 Of course, but if one's practice is not fully protected, is it all that harmful? If it is SO harmful, why does Saine use it, why did the Masters from IHA use it (scheduled immunizations says Andre, although it is obvious that many practitioners acted also (with unprotected clients) only when the epidemic arrived, and danger was upon their clients, if they had a small practice and not too many people had to be sent the message by pony express to come over in their buggy and get the prophylactic (much easier a priori in a huge practice). I dont agree with the aggressiveness
and the targets of Golden's particular protocol either. But the methodology is Classical and proven. I MORE SO disagree with someone in an advisory position and posting to 7000 people that homeopathic proph is unworkable ("has no proof") when it has 180 or so years of use, WHEN you are advising others about dropping vaccinations.
Will wrote
888 Looks like Will Taylor uses homeopathic prophylaxis. Does that help Sheri?
Will wrote
888 That is his clinical judgement--that he feels he has no one vulnerable in his practice and nothing is endemic that he is worried about. That is my policy also but if it wasnt (and I had a large pediatric practice), and there was anything endemic, I would not hesitate to use what was necessary and had 180 or so years of experience extending back to Hahnemann. What originally angered me is that you find this idea has "no proof" you say when it is part of homeopathy and you are a spokesperson for it. This is just incomprehensible to me. And posting what I did apparently had
no effect.
Here's another way to look at the VULNERABLE CLIENTS rationale for routine prophylaxis when thought warranted for those in a high volume pediatric practice :
================================
Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Jahr, Hering, and their reliable followers gave us two systems of health care based on the law of similars:
Treatment and Prophylaxis of Chronic Disease
Treatment and Prophylaxis of Acute Disease
=================================
Treatment and Prophylaxis of Chronic Disease
Purpose: remediation of manifested chronic pathology, functional limitations, miasmatic inheritance, life challenges, and tuning/ordering of the vital force for maximum general immunity. Ultimate goal (after removal of obstacles e.g. iatrogenesis, poisoning, lifestyle problems, injury and emotional/physical trauma effects eg layers IF they are present) is the Hahnemannian simillimum for the largest totality which addresses the susceptibilities, physical tendencies, and (if possible) the "metaphor" of the client's life (i.e the "BULLSEYE")
Reliability: 60% OPTIMAL modern success on aggregate (not talking about small, highly time intensive practices by themselves, but all practices added together; before persistence and money of client expended)
this figure derived from:
Mangialavori: 1/3 of clients helped a lot, 1/3 helped some, 1/3 not helped
Sherr: overall 50%
Wansbrough and Linnane: 60% (this is the only classical homeopathy clinic in the world that I know of that uses the entire materia medica as needed while also being open to all methods (eg Sankaran, Mangialavori's brand of taxonomic analysis, Scholten etc) in case taking to find the rx WHILE ALSO using technology to successfully objectively measure the level of similitude between remedy and client (Biolumanetic photography) in order to find the BULLSEYE, and being able to verify it before administration. For a volume clinic, it is probably approaching the optimal success
rate at present in chronic cases (although who knows about the Athens clinic).
==========================
Treatment and Prophylaxis of Acute Disease
Purpose: provision of a priori SPECIFIC immunity when concern exists that in a virulent epidemic of a dangerous disease there are vulnerable clients under one's care. AND finding of a simillimum (genus epidemicus) for treatment and prophylaxis after the epidemic has arrived and enough cases have amassed to determine that remedy through assessment of groups of cases and through trial and error among cooperating practitioners.
Reliability: historically 90% for isopathic, near 100% when genus epidemicus is available in a stable one-remedy epidemic. Dana Ullman can correct me if I am wrong, but my guess is that there is far more proof that specific homeopathic prophylaxis is effective than there is that chronically treated people are immune to specific epidemics (I doubt there are ANY studies on that. ) Of course we all assume that chronic treatment will be protective. But that is more anecdotal than the studies I posted that Andre Saine found in the literature about homeopathic
prophylaxis.
==========================
So when people you are advising ask you what homeopaths do when a virulent epidemic of something dangerous comes along, are you going to tell them that homeopathy has NO SPECIFIC MEASURES because Sheri Nakken doesn't "believe" they work and that they are "not necessary" as you say? That she knows better than Hering, Grimmer, Schmidt, and Saine? That they are all protected because homeopaths get bullseyes in 100% of their pediatric and other cases, conferring perfect general and specific immunity?
Sheri wrote
888 I did not and do not care what you do or "believe", my concern was with you advising people with the correct facts IF you bothered to read the post!
888 Do you belong to the skeptics society, or can you just not get a hint from statistics, even if they are not well controlled, but very consistent? Did you read the studies or are you too busy? Maybe you should look at the rubric "religious affections?"
I said nothing to you about "fear based". But I think concern about protection is going to be high among people who switch and have a large family. That is a big issue for families. They should know what homeopathy can provide IF NECESSARY. You spoke as if you thought the homeopathic and isopathic prophylaxis were
complete nonsense, (and SO DANGEROUS) and even after the posts, apparently still do. So you still will not tell people that prophylaxis is an option that they can ask their homeopath about if it concerns them?
I spent quite a bit of time and sent you the history and research on isopathic and homeopathic prophylaxis. I did this so you would not spread disinformation by leaving out a component of homeopathy which impinges exactly on your area (for people that switch from vaccinations to homeopathy).
If that research and the use of scheduled protocols by members of the IHA at the turn of the century did not make a dent in your prejudice, then there is something wrong with your processor. Are you sure you read the file? I told you I was not defending routine prophylaxis or anyone's protocol, just the fact that prophylaxis was part of classical Hahnemannian homeopathy, which you seem to still fail to understand.
This has not to do with the germ theory. It has to do with vulnerability of clients in a large practice when finding of an effective chronic simillimum for people is on aggregate only 50-60% successful in modern practice. Small practices have better results, but with an aggregate success rate of 60% then one leaves a portion of one's clientele vulnerable. It takes some time (Schmidt said 2 cycles of the potency scale up to MM in his way of practicing) to confer (what was in his opinion) good general immunity (which MIGHT translate into specific immunity.) If an epidemic of
something serious is in your area, do you let your clients go with the chronic remedy you have given and just see what happens? Then furiously call all of them in when (and if ) the genus epidemicus is found?
Sheri wrote:
As Julian said, if 'the wolf is at the door', it is a little more convincing if I've given a remedy and the person
888 Are you a member of the LA Skeptics Society?
Sheri wrote
888 You act as if an isopathic prophylactic is truly dangerous!
888 For me, it is MAINLY an issue of concern for one's clients, not about how many ask for it, although that might also be a consideration.
Sheri wrote:
There is no way to prove it in my opinion. And I just see no need.
888 Did you read any of the files I sent? Do you really care about true knowledge, or just your own opinion?
888 Fear is not the only forcing factor in immunity to epidemic disease, is it? Can you be "brave" and get smallpox? Of course. So your statements in this regard, while relavant to your work with people on vacc, are not too relevant to whether there is any proof to hom. prophylaxis are they?
Sheri wrote
So to be criticized regarding
888 Not a personal criticism, if you happened to read the posts (maybe you should read them again). I may have gotten a little less cordial after hearing your monotone responses but I would not waste my time if I did not like you AND think you were doing something important. When someone in a position of advising others in anything important gets their facts wrong, then they are irresponsible. End of concern. In your area (matters of dropping vaccination and moving to homeopathic treatment) leaving out something as relevant to that as homeopathic prophylaxis (which you
STILL SAY there is no proof of) then that is VERY lame, in my humble opinion, and frankly angered me a bit, hence my posts. Apparently did not do a BIT of good. Amazing.
888 Who said you could? Sounds like you are too busy to bother reading or understanding what someone else is saying when they obviously put a lot of effort into trying to give you high quality information. You would sooner accuse a practitioner (eg Isaac Golden) of being a money grubber than try to understand what was going on with his protocol, whether it was something you would use or not. I am a little surprised that I am bothering to answer this and being uncharacteristically uncivil now that you in fact show yourself to care more about your own opinion than the facts.
Why should I care about you now? You will probably miss my point again and think that I am attacking you personally. Get the point, please, and acknowledge that you do (IF you do after three long emails), and I will never address you again, seeing as it is a complete waste of time. I think everybody else reading the posts I labored on for quite a while got what was said. But not you, whom I did them for. You appear to care more about your own bull-headed opinion than you do about the facts that impinge on the people you are advising.
Andy
Sheri Nakken wrote:
Will Taylor, MD wrote:
888 Of course, but if one's practice is not fully protected, is it all that harmful? If it is SO harmful, why does Saine use it, why did the Masters from IHA use it (scheduled immunizations says Andre, although it is obvious that many practitioners acted also (with unprotected clients) only when the epidemic arrived, and danger was upon their clients, if they had a small practice and not too many people had to be sent the message by pony express to come over in their buggy and get the prophylactic (much easier a priori in a huge practice). I dont agree with the aggressiveness
and the targets of Golden's particular protocol either. But the methodology is Classical and proven. I MORE SO disagree with someone in an advisory position and posting to 7000 people that homeopathic proph is unworkable ("has no proof") when it has 180 or so years of use, WHEN you are advising others about dropping vaccinations.
Will wrote
888 Looks like Will Taylor uses homeopathic prophylaxis. Does that help Sheri?
Will wrote
888 That is his clinical judgement--that he feels he has no one vulnerable in his practice and nothing is endemic that he is worried about. That is my policy also but if it wasnt (and I had a large pediatric practice), and there was anything endemic, I would not hesitate to use what was necessary and had 180 or so years of experience extending back to Hahnemann. What originally angered me is that you find this idea has "no proof" you say when it is part of homeopathy and you are a spokesperson for it. This is just incomprehensible to me. And posting what I did apparently had
no effect.
Here's another way to look at the VULNERABLE CLIENTS rationale for routine prophylaxis when thought warranted for those in a high volume pediatric practice :
================================
Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Jahr, Hering, and their reliable followers gave us two systems of health care based on the law of similars:
Treatment and Prophylaxis of Chronic Disease
Treatment and Prophylaxis of Acute Disease
=================================
Treatment and Prophylaxis of Chronic Disease
Purpose: remediation of manifested chronic pathology, functional limitations, miasmatic inheritance, life challenges, and tuning/ordering of the vital force for maximum general immunity. Ultimate goal (after removal of obstacles e.g. iatrogenesis, poisoning, lifestyle problems, injury and emotional/physical trauma effects eg layers IF they are present) is the Hahnemannian simillimum for the largest totality which addresses the susceptibilities, physical tendencies, and (if possible) the "metaphor" of the client's life (i.e the "BULLSEYE")
Reliability: 60% OPTIMAL modern success on aggregate (not talking about small, highly time intensive practices by themselves, but all practices added together; before persistence and money of client expended)
this figure derived from:
Mangialavori: 1/3 of clients helped a lot, 1/3 helped some, 1/3 not helped
Sherr: overall 50%
Wansbrough and Linnane: 60% (this is the only classical homeopathy clinic in the world that I know of that uses the entire materia medica as needed while also being open to all methods (eg Sankaran, Mangialavori's brand of taxonomic analysis, Scholten etc) in case taking to find the rx WHILE ALSO using technology to successfully objectively measure the level of similitude between remedy and client (Biolumanetic photography) in order to find the BULLSEYE, and being able to verify it before administration. For a volume clinic, it is probably approaching the optimal success
rate at present in chronic cases (although who knows about the Athens clinic).
==========================
Treatment and Prophylaxis of Acute Disease
Purpose: provision of a priori SPECIFIC immunity when concern exists that in a virulent epidemic of a dangerous disease there are vulnerable clients under one's care. AND finding of a simillimum (genus epidemicus) for treatment and prophylaxis after the epidemic has arrived and enough cases have amassed to determine that remedy through assessment of groups of cases and through trial and error among cooperating practitioners.
Reliability: historically 90% for isopathic, near 100% when genus epidemicus is available in a stable one-remedy epidemic. Dana Ullman can correct me if I am wrong, but my guess is that there is far more proof that specific homeopathic prophylaxis is effective than there is that chronically treated people are immune to specific epidemics (I doubt there are ANY studies on that. ) Of course we all assume that chronic treatment will be protective. But that is more anecdotal than the studies I posted that Andre Saine found in the literature about homeopathic
prophylaxis.
==========================
So when people you are advising ask you what homeopaths do when a virulent epidemic of something dangerous comes along, are you going to tell them that homeopathy has NO SPECIFIC MEASURES because Sheri Nakken doesn't "believe" they work and that they are "not necessary" as you say? That she knows better than Hering, Grimmer, Schmidt, and Saine? That they are all protected because homeopaths get bullseyes in 100% of their pediatric and other cases, conferring perfect general and specific immunity?
Sheri wrote
888 I did not and do not care what you do or "believe", my concern was with you advising people with the correct facts IF you bothered to read the post!
888 Do you belong to the skeptics society, or can you just not get a hint from statistics, even if they are not well controlled, but very consistent? Did you read the studies or are you too busy? Maybe you should look at the rubric "religious affections?"
I said nothing to you about "fear based". But I think concern about protection is going to be high among people who switch and have a large family. That is a big issue for families. They should know what homeopathy can provide IF NECESSARY. You spoke as if you thought the homeopathic and isopathic prophylaxis were
complete nonsense, (and SO DANGEROUS) and even after the posts, apparently still do. So you still will not tell people that prophylaxis is an option that they can ask their homeopath about if it concerns them?
I spent quite a bit of time and sent you the history and research on isopathic and homeopathic prophylaxis. I did this so you would not spread disinformation by leaving out a component of homeopathy which impinges exactly on your area (for people that switch from vaccinations to homeopathy).
If that research and the use of scheduled protocols by members of the IHA at the turn of the century did not make a dent in your prejudice, then there is something wrong with your processor. Are you sure you read the file? I told you I was not defending routine prophylaxis or anyone's protocol, just the fact that prophylaxis was part of classical Hahnemannian homeopathy, which you seem to still fail to understand.
This has not to do with the germ theory. It has to do with vulnerability of clients in a large practice when finding of an effective chronic simillimum for people is on aggregate only 50-60% successful in modern practice. Small practices have better results, but with an aggregate success rate of 60% then one leaves a portion of one's clientele vulnerable. It takes some time (Schmidt said 2 cycles of the potency scale up to MM in his way of practicing) to confer (what was in his opinion) good general immunity (which MIGHT translate into specific immunity.) If an epidemic of
something serious is in your area, do you let your clients go with the chronic remedy you have given and just see what happens? Then furiously call all of them in when (and if ) the genus epidemicus is found?
Sheri wrote:
As Julian said, if 'the wolf is at the door', it is a little more convincing if I've given a remedy and the person
888 Are you a member of the LA Skeptics Society?
Sheri wrote
888 You act as if an isopathic prophylactic is truly dangerous!
888 For me, it is MAINLY an issue of concern for one's clients, not about how many ask for it, although that might also be a consideration.
Sheri wrote:
There is no way to prove it in my opinion. And I just see no need.
888 Did you read any of the files I sent? Do you really care about true knowledge, or just your own opinion?
888 Fear is not the only forcing factor in immunity to epidemic disease, is it? Can you be "brave" and get smallpox? Of course. So your statements in this regard, while relavant to your work with people on vacc, are not too relevant to whether there is any proof to hom. prophylaxis are they?
Sheri wrote
So to be criticized regarding
888 Not a personal criticism, if you happened to read the posts (maybe you should read them again). I may have gotten a little less cordial after hearing your monotone responses but I would not waste my time if I did not like you AND think you were doing something important. When someone in a position of advising others in anything important gets their facts wrong, then they are irresponsible. End of concern. In your area (matters of dropping vaccination and moving to homeopathic treatment) leaving out something as relevant to that as homeopathic prophylaxis (which you
STILL SAY there is no proof of) then that is VERY lame, in my humble opinion, and frankly angered me a bit, hence my posts. Apparently did not do a BIT of good. Amazing.
888 Who said you could? Sounds like you are too busy to bother reading or understanding what someone else is saying when they obviously put a lot of effort into trying to give you high quality information. You would sooner accuse a practitioner (eg Isaac Golden) of being a money grubber than try to understand what was going on with his protocol, whether it was something you would use or not. I am a little surprised that I am bothering to answer this and being uncharacteristically uncivil now that you in fact show yourself to care more about your own opinion than the facts.
Why should I care about you now? You will probably miss my point again and think that I am attacking you personally. Get the point, please, and acknowledge that you do (IF you do after three long emails), and I will never address you again, seeing as it is a complete waste of time. I think everybody else reading the posts I labored on for quite a while got what was said. But not you, whom I did them for. You appear to care more about your own bull-headed opinion than you do about the facts that impinge on the people you are advising.
Andy