Research on Homeoprophylaxis

[andyh]

Manish wrote:
to me homoeopathic remedy in high potency is far more dangerous ( if
wrongly used ) than the original substance itself. the crude substance
is toxic /
infectious at the worst and it's toxicity/infection itself becomes the
protective factor that guides it's use but in case of potentised remedy
- the long term
damage may be far more deeper. how homoeopathy may be dangerous and how
even homoeopathic remedies mat suppress may best be learnt from dr
prafull vijayakar, who is the best expert in this field.

c)these high potency nosodes may bring up many other deeply suppressed
things and how is that to be handled ?
999 Hi Manish, I would like to point out that (except for the Genus
epidemicus and the Chronic simillimum), prophylactic measures are NOT
applied according to the Hahnemannian totality, and are thus not
intended to be SIMILAR to the susceptibility of the PERSON, but are to a
lesser or greater degree DISSIMILAR to the chronic pattern of the
person. Therefore, prophylactics other than the latter two cases are
NOT "homeopathic" remedies in the Hahnemannian sense. Severity of
aggravations which they will produce definitely depends on
"Hahnemannian" similarity AND overall sensitivity of the person . Any
long term difficulties they could produce probably also depend on those
two factors. But in general, application of a dissimilar or even a
similar remedy is LIKE A PROVING, which, according to Hahnemann

(can anyone provide citations in Organon and/or elsewhere where he said
this_________________________??)

is BENEFICIAL and strengthening (to at least an already reasonably
healthy organism). There are reports of proving symptoms lasting a long
time. But are these numerous in the literature compared with the
number of remedies proved (probably numbering in the vicinity of
500-1000?). Such instances (equivalent to a botched prescription) can
often be dealt with, as a lingering proving is an energetic entity which
has grafted onto the spirit-like dynamis. It may not be easy to knock
it off, but it is possible. Somewhat different than, for example, crude
poisoning. So perhaps it is important to not make conclusions of
danger without evidence, when the basis of the science of homeopathy is
testing on the healthy, which may actually be strengthening. And it is
also important to use a policy which takes care to not give too high a
potency too soon or too high after a prophylactic is given and adjust
accordingly if it DOES aggravate (eg Golden's method which does start
quite high (200C) but leaves off anything higher if the isopathic
provokes an aggravation).

That having been said, there are obvious caveats (routine OR nonroutine
application of dissimilar prophylactics may not be possible in all
cases, or great care as to potency may be necessary, depending on
circumstances (eg (possibly) in pregnant individuals; or in people in
advanced stages of chronic disease or otherwise weak)).

But the general point is that all prophylactics are not the same type of
"animal",--(most are dissimilar and thus not homeopathic). To assist
with further discussion,
here is a contribution which I hope will be helpful.
(the below classification is COPYRIGHTED 2004 by me):

Here is one way to classify various prophylactic methods that have been
used in homeopathy since Hahnemann. Comments welcome (although I may
not have time to address them all)

==
1. PROPHYLACTIC MEASURE BASED ON THE CHARACTER OF THE HOST TO PROMOTE
OVERALL WELLNESS AND RESISTANCE TO ANY TYPE OF DIS-EASE (TYPICAL CHRONIC
CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT)
++CS-CHRONIC SIMILLIMUM

==
2.PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES BASED ON ANTICIPATED HARMFUL INFLUENCE
(INFECTIOUS)

++HP* HOMEOPATHIC PROPHYLACTIC*(note that the HP here is NOT equivalent
to Isaac Golden's acronym for his system of routine immunization, which
is a system which utilizes (in the present terms) HP (Homeopathic
prophylactics) AND IP (Isopathic prophylactics)

++IP-ISOPATHIC PROPHYLACTIC

++GP-GROUP PROPHYLACTIC

==
3. PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES BASED ON ANTICIPATED HARMFUL INFLUENCE
(NON-INFECTIOUS OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL)

++CP-CIRCUMSTANTIAL PROPHYLACTIC

==
4. PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES BASED ON AVOIDANCE OF HEREDITARY BIRTH DEFECTS
OR CONSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESS

++CS-CHRONIC SIMILLIMUM

++MP--MIASMATIC PROPHYLACTIC
====================================================
CLASSIFICATION OF PROPHYLAXIS METHODS IN USE SINCE HAHNEMANN AND THEIR
ORIGINAL AUTHOR WHERE AVAILABLE
====================================================
1. ***PROPHYLACTIC MEASURE BASED ON THE CHARACTER OF THE HOST TO PROMOTE
OVERALL WELLNESS AND RESISTANCE TO ANY TYPE OF DIS-EASE (TYPICAL CHRONIC
CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHIC TREATMENT)
====================================================
METHOD: USING HAHNEMANNIAN INDIVIDUALIZING METHOD AND APPLIED ACCORDING
TO RECORDED PROVINGS AND/OR CLINICAL EXPERIENCE
INTRODUCED BY: Hahnemann (in various formulations from 1796 to 1843)

++CS-CHRONIC SIMILLIMUM ((the stable one after removal of:
--manifested pathology (which may require a different remedy than the
characteristic and stable simillimum);
--iatrogenesis;
--injury effects;
--miasmatic blockages;
--and any other "layers" which are not the central organismal pattern
which is what presents the susceptibility and which remains present
unless that pattern is successfully found and eliminated by addressing
the totality in a Hahnemannian sense )

In the case of the CS, there is not much data concerning the certainty
about ability to confer specific immunity. Isaac Golden's research on
the effectiveness of the Chronic simillimum against specific epidemics
would be helpful. The following is Schmidt's experience (only one data
point but one by a student of Kent and one of the most reliable modern
practitioners of the healing art (according to Andre Saine))

Schmidt wrote that the following was required to have confidence of
protection by the CORRECT and STABLE and MAINTAINED chronic simillimum
(which we find 60% of the time, most likely, in practice (the BULLSEYE
as it were):

Schmidt wrote in 1920: "After the patient receiving the correct
constitutional remedy has been through two cycles of 30C to MM then the
patient will be in optimal health and immunized against epidemic
disease". (Saine, 1988)

EVEN if the CS was 100% effective in protection, we cannot find this
remedy 40% of the time (see earlier posts for method used for this
estimate). We cannot typically agree on what a "constitutional" remedy
is and how stable it is. We don't necessarily exercise the organism on
all the necessary levels with the potencies used as Schmidt suggests may
be necessary for longevity and totality of protection (because of
differing posology needs in different cases). We cannot monitor
everyone in a practice to ensure that their CS has not lapsed. People
leave the practice and don't have rx repetition when necessary. In large
practices, it may be impossible or unreliable to contact everyone who
may be vulnerable to get a prophylactic to them when an epidemic breaks
in the area. For these reasons, the Chronic Simillimum clearly needs
backing up in a practice in order for protection to be assured IF that
is the goal (and it certainly is the goal of the clients in most cases);
and IF there are endemic (i.e. in the country as a whole) or clearly
looming infectious dangers about which to be concerned.
2. ***PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES BASED ON ANTICIPATED HARMFUL INFLUENCE
(INFECTIOUS)
=======================================================================================

METHOD: USING CONVENTIONAL DISEASE CATEGORY AND THE RESULTS OF REMEDIES
WHICH IN PAST EPIDEMICS HAVE SHOWN A GENERAL PROTECTIVE AFFINITY FOR A
PARTICULAR CONVENTIONALLY DEFINED DISEASE
INTRODUCED BY: Hahnemann, 1799
++HP* (HOMEOPATHIC PROPHYLACTIC)-(eg Baptisia for typhoid, Malandrinum
for smallpox, Lathyrus for Polio, Belladonna for Sydenham Scarlatina
etc) These are applied either via a schedule of ascending potencies for
a priori longterm immunization, or only in the event of an immediate
threat)

*(note that the HP here is NOT equivalent to Isaac Golden's acronym for
his system of routine immunization, which is a system which utilizes (in
the present terms) HP (Homeopathic prophylactics) AND IP (Isopathic
prophylactics)

==================================
METHOD: USING CONVENTIONAL DISEASE CATEGORY AND APPLYING THE REMEDIES
NOT ACCORDING TO PROVINGS BUT BY THE NATURE OF THE DISEASE MATERIAL OR
OPPORTUNISTIC ORGANISM COMPRISING THE REMEDY
INTRODUCED BY: Hering 1830

++IP-(ISOPATHIC PROPHYLACTIC) (eg variolinum for smallpox, polio nosode
for polio, etc) These are applied either via a schedule of ascending
potencies for a priori longterm immunization, or only in the event of an
immediate threat)
==================================
METHOD: USING HAHNEMANNIAN GROUP CHARACTERIZATION METHOD AND REMEDY
APPLIED ACCORDING TO PROVINGS AND CLINICAL EXPERIENCE
INTRODUCED BY: Hahnemann (can anyone provide the quote and page in the
lesser writings he discusses the g.e. and the date first
employed________?--does anyone have the lesser writings in digital form
they could send to me)

++GP-GROUP PROPHYLACTIC (group simillimum which treats and protects all
individuals in the cohort from which it was derived given the group
characteristic symptoms). If one remedy can be found via
repertorization of many victims of the epidemic, that remedy was termed
by Hahnemann the Genus epidemicus (Ge). This method is useful only AFTER
an epidemic has erupted in a country or region, although a Ge from other
regions or countries of a concurrent epidemic; or from the immediate
previous epidemic of that disease may in rare cases be identical. The
Ge requires an epidemic with stable characteristics in order to apply to
every individual.
3. ***PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES BASED ON ANTICIPATED HARMFUL INFLUENCE
(NON-INFECTIOUS OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL)
=======================================================================================

METHOD: USING THE NATURE OF THE EXISTING OR ANTICIPATED CIRCUMSTANCE AND
APPLIED ACCORDING TO RECORDED PROVINGS AND/OR CLINICAL EXPERIENCE
INTRODUCED BY: Probably Hahnemann, date and first instance uncertain

++CP-CIRCUMSTANTIAL PROPHYLACTIC- One used for instances of
non-infectious or circumstantial threat as an a priori protection
measure:
For example :
--Arnica or other appropriate remedy for surgery, etc;
--Pyrogenium to prevent sepsis after major surgery
--Tabacum, Cocculus, Apomorphinum, Petroleum, or Euphorbia cor. when
motion sickness is anticipated, depending on the type of motion and
symptoms anticipated or previously experienced);
--Abelmoschus or Staphysagria to repel mosquitoes
--Pulsatilla at the correct time during pregnancy to correct fetal
position and prevent breech birth
4. ***PROPHYLACTIC MEASURES BASED ON AVOIDANCE OF HEREDITARY BIRTH
DEFECTS OR CONSTITUTIONAL WEAKNESS
=======================================================================================

METHOD: HAHNEMANNIAN INDIVIDUALIZATION
INTRODUCED BY: Hahnemann (over period1796-1843)

For example:
Hahnemannian totality:
++CS--Specific remedies to prevent birth defects (eg Harelip-cleft
palate prevention-Burnett-to prevent harelip, used Calc-sulph 6C BID to
mother for first 7 months of pregnancy. Case: A mother with 2 kids with
harelip was given Calc-s (on homeopathic indications) and had normal
child. (Saine, 1988)
METHOD: USING MIASMATIC THEORY, HEREDITY HISTORY, AND CLINICAL
EXPERIENCE
INTRODUCED BY: ???_________________

For example:
++MP--(MIASMATIC PROPHYLACTIC) Particular miasmatic remedies (eg nosodes
of the major miasms) applied via a schedule DURING GESTATION to prevent
birth defects if they exist in the family history

==================
Manish wrote:

- if we ( the homoeopaths ) do not have enough data / research with us
we cannot oppose the conventional vaccine programme. in that case we
will have to
accept it, till we have the right research. we are after facts / science
and not members of a sceptic society / religious belief group.
999 I suggest, Manish, that you get data from Sheri about the
cost/benefit of conventional vacc at this point in time, for comparison.

It would help to know exactly how effective CS, HP, IP, are (above) in
order to know how to proceed. We already have quite a bit of evidence as
discussed previously. GP is agent dependent and thus individual
epidemics can be studied, as they have been in the past (see previous
posts). Controlled studies like those of Golden will be very useful to
provide further statistical certainty about HP and IP (but must be done
for each remedy used). But chances are probably better than fair that
the CORRECT CS plus routine HP/IP when justified and desired; and GP
when available are both as; or more effective than Jennerian vacc, and
have virtually no cost in birth defects or ruined lives due to autism,
disease, or death.

There is at least 100 years of experience with routinized HP/IP
immunization in conjunction with CS (according to Saine 1988 quoted):
--International Hahnemannian Assoc (IHA), the most prestigious group of
classical homeopaths to ever live, were using Isopathy extensively,
following the same schedule as crude vaccinations. The IHA adopted
homeopathic prophylaxis as an official method.

--Classical homeopaths supported homeopathic prophylaxis not just in
epidemic disease, but routinely. This was the case for Pulford,
Grimmer, Tyler, and Schmidt, for example. Schmidt published in 1963
that he had used homeopathic prophylaxis as his teachers (Kent and
Austin) had (see Belgian Journal of Homeopathy 1963) for the past 47
years for Smallpox.
There is thus quite a precedent for routinized HP and IP (always in
addition to CS), without reports of difficulty (doesn't mean there was
not difficulty, but usually there is smoke where there is fire....)
Best,
Andy