PROPHYLAXIS AS PART OF CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY
Posted: Sun Apr 18, 2004 5:34 am
SHERI WROTE
999 No, it is not. Please answer the below questions so I have a prayer of discerning your logic. I think I understand your general viewpoint, but your logic escapes me.
999 How do you view epidemics if you dont mind saying? (this could clear some things up)
999 You view epidemics differently from what other view?
SHERI WROTE
999 Because of your previously stated views, and because of the ambiguity of the term, I'm not sure what you mean by "homeopathic prophylaxis".
DO YOU MEAN:
Homeopathic prophylaxis (a general facsimile eg Baptisia for typhoid)? What if there is no homeopathic prophylactic of this type for the epidemic disease in question? I assume you would not use an isopathic prophylactic because there is no evidence that they work?
DO YOU MEAN:
the "Genus epidemicus"? The GE, (if it exists as one remedy for an epidemic) comes into play WELL AFTER the epidemic is already in full swing in one's "backyard"; as the curative simillimum for the group totality/susceptibility in those affected; AND to protect those as yet exposed or affected. It is somewhat to greatly more effective than isopathic, but not very A PRIORI and may be difficult to find; may be not one, but a series of remedies; or may be impossible to find at all or before the epidemic has done much damage. The best method (recommended by Saine) is to use
isopathic first (as the epidemic gets closer but before it arrives in "backyard" as it were), and the GE IF it can later be found. However, you say there is NO evidence for the isopathic variety of prophylaxis being effective, and I quote: "None" you said, so I suppose the isopathic option is not tenable for you. By "homeopathic prophylaxis" were you then referring only to the Genus epidemicus ?
DO YOU MEAN:
Isopathic prophylaxis? How does one do isopathic prophylaxis with any confidence when the epidemic is approaching the vicinity if there is no evidence for it being effective, "none"? So when you say "homeopathic prophylaxis" I assume you DO NOT mean isopathic prophylaxis. Is this interpretation of your view correct or not?
I would appreciate it if you could clarify your position because it is a mystery to me how you come up with the conclusions you have stated. I am really not trying to be a pain here--you set me off-- and I have been unable to understand how you completely reject isopathic prophylaxis.
ROUTINE ISOPATHIC "IMMUNIZATIONS"
You say you will not touch routine isopathic or general homeopathic (ex ) "immunization" type prophylaxis in ascending potencies, despite its use for the past 120+ years by the very best classical homeopaths when chronic simillimum is unclear or unestablished, in unhealthy clients, or (possible other reasons): to back up in large pediatric/family practices, to avoid a flurry of work during each epidemic? I assume this must be mostly because you find that isopathic prophylaxis has absolutely no evidence that it works?; But you also have implied that you oppose it because those
currently using it most visibly in a modern context (eg Isaac Golden) are using it "gratuitously" for non-dangerous conditions, (as you have presented) partly to appease fearful people with an artificially imposed homeopathic version of an allopathic approach to immunity. What of this interpretation of your view is mostly your problem with this approach? Please explain.
If you really do accept isopathic prophylaxis, but make a distinction between it given to clients as routine "immunization" when disease is endemic in the country but not in the vicinity VERSUS when given when disease is in the vicinity, then for my thinking, you have made a false distinction and moreover, not explained yourself at all in a long discussion. In my mind, isopathic prophylaxis is isopathic prophylaxis and provokes the same in the organism no matter when it is given. So if you reject isopathic prophylaxis because you find no evidence for it, you reject it whenever
it might be given. However, perhaps your "different" view of epidemics can tell us that there somehow IS a distinction depending on when the isopathic is given? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
SHERI WROTE
999 No hoops. You have yet to acknowledge that isopathic prophylaxis, a tool of homeopathy, has any evidence supporting its effectiveness (you said it had "none", after "ad nauseum" data poured your way. That contradiction is not an issue of happiness, but of logic. The discussion was incited because I care that people represent the facts correctly to others when they represent the field of endeavor to others. I have an issue about that. I still cannot discern your logic so you do a great service by explaining.
Best,
Andy
999 No, it is not. Please answer the below questions so I have a prayer of discerning your logic. I think I understand your general viewpoint, but your logic escapes me.
999 How do you view epidemics if you dont mind saying? (this could clear some things up)
999 You view epidemics differently from what other view?
SHERI WROTE
999 Because of your previously stated views, and because of the ambiguity of the term, I'm not sure what you mean by "homeopathic prophylaxis".
DO YOU MEAN:
Homeopathic prophylaxis (a general facsimile eg Baptisia for typhoid)? What if there is no homeopathic prophylactic of this type for the epidemic disease in question? I assume you would not use an isopathic prophylactic because there is no evidence that they work?
DO YOU MEAN:
the "Genus epidemicus"? The GE, (if it exists as one remedy for an epidemic) comes into play WELL AFTER the epidemic is already in full swing in one's "backyard"; as the curative simillimum for the group totality/susceptibility in those affected; AND to protect those as yet exposed or affected. It is somewhat to greatly more effective than isopathic, but not very A PRIORI and may be difficult to find; may be not one, but a series of remedies; or may be impossible to find at all or before the epidemic has done much damage. The best method (recommended by Saine) is to use
isopathic first (as the epidemic gets closer but before it arrives in "backyard" as it were), and the GE IF it can later be found. However, you say there is NO evidence for the isopathic variety of prophylaxis being effective, and I quote: "None" you said, so I suppose the isopathic option is not tenable for you. By "homeopathic prophylaxis" were you then referring only to the Genus epidemicus ?
DO YOU MEAN:
Isopathic prophylaxis? How does one do isopathic prophylaxis with any confidence when the epidemic is approaching the vicinity if there is no evidence for it being effective, "none"? So when you say "homeopathic prophylaxis" I assume you DO NOT mean isopathic prophylaxis. Is this interpretation of your view correct or not?
I would appreciate it if you could clarify your position because it is a mystery to me how you come up with the conclusions you have stated. I am really not trying to be a pain here--you set me off-- and I have been unable to understand how you completely reject isopathic prophylaxis.
ROUTINE ISOPATHIC "IMMUNIZATIONS"
You say you will not touch routine isopathic or general homeopathic (ex ) "immunization" type prophylaxis in ascending potencies, despite its use for the past 120+ years by the very best classical homeopaths when chronic simillimum is unclear or unestablished, in unhealthy clients, or (possible other reasons): to back up in large pediatric/family practices, to avoid a flurry of work during each epidemic? I assume this must be mostly because you find that isopathic prophylaxis has absolutely no evidence that it works?; But you also have implied that you oppose it because those
currently using it most visibly in a modern context (eg Isaac Golden) are using it "gratuitously" for non-dangerous conditions, (as you have presented) partly to appease fearful people with an artificially imposed homeopathic version of an allopathic approach to immunity. What of this interpretation of your view is mostly your problem with this approach? Please explain.
If you really do accept isopathic prophylaxis, but make a distinction between it given to clients as routine "immunization" when disease is endemic in the country but not in the vicinity VERSUS when given when disease is in the vicinity, then for my thinking, you have made a false distinction and moreover, not explained yourself at all in a long discussion. In my mind, isopathic prophylaxis is isopathic prophylaxis and provokes the same in the organism no matter when it is given. So if you reject isopathic prophylaxis because you find no evidence for it, you reject it whenever
it might be given. However, perhaps your "different" view of epidemics can tell us that there somehow IS a distinction depending on when the isopathic is given? PLEASE EXPLAIN.
SHERI WROTE
999 No hoops. You have yet to acknowledge that isopathic prophylaxis, a tool of homeopathy, has any evidence supporting its effectiveness (you said it had "none", after "ad nauseum" data poured your way. That contradiction is not an issue of happiness, but of logic. The discussion was incited because I care that people represent the facts correctly to others when they represent the field of endeavor to others. I have an issue about that. I still cannot discern your logic so you do a great service by explaining.
Best,
Andy