Minutus

ANDY WROTE How do you view epidemics if you dont mind saying? (this could
clear some things up)

SHERI WROTE........Epidemics THEN and epidemics NOW and epidemics in US and
epidemics in Africa.........etc. All have to be looked at differently

I look at then and look behind what was going on then. Poor sanitation,
smallpox vaccination spreading smallpox-like illness for some. In more
recent times, toxic chemicals used as pesticides, toxic vaccines, and so
much more.

This is really hard to explain in an email and that is why I asked the
questions I did in one of my recent emails.

Now I will speak about the US (and Canada, W. Europe, Australia/NZ are
probably includable here). That is all I'm addressing here at the moment.

I don't see much risk of any epidemic at present due to improved sanitation
for one. Smallpox vaccine not being given spreading smallpox. What is
left? Polio - another long complicated story
Follow the links at http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/polio.htm
Polio complicatoins increased with use of DDT, tonsillectomies, DPT vaccine
which came out in 40's, increased sugar use, much more. Polio was commonly
acquired by most people and most just had minor symptoms, ie cold symptoms,
flu symptoms.
I am not going to debate this here but offer it for your information.

Most of the communicable diseases vaccinated for were already on decline
BEFORE vaccines. Deaths from those diseases were very low BEFORE the
vaccines (had already declined). Tetanus is another huge deception.
See my tetanus pages http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/tetanus.htm
Tetanus is not communicable and is not something that happens as an epidemic.

HIB - rare in breastfed children..............
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/hib.htm
and does not happen as epidemic

Pertussis - communicable, but tolerated well by most people, other than
small infants with tiny airways.
So now grave concern with most, but can be a concern if otherwise unhealthy
and in infants.

Diphtheria - pretty non-existent anymore

Measles - tolerated well by most children. Rarely problematic. Especially
with use of Vitamin A (which no allopath gives or talks about).

Mumps - tolerated well by most children..........rare complication after
puberty of sterility in males, but rare...........if testicles affected,
often only one. Lots of hype about this disease

Rubella - tolerated well by most. Problematic in early pregnancy for fetus
if mother not immune.

typhoid, cholera, paratyphoid, all of that - hardly a problem in the
countries I'm referring to.

Meningitis C - rarely a problem - seen commonly in universities - close
quarters, multiple vaccines given before school starts, close quarters,
away from home and not eatin properly as teens, stress..........so many
factors here. Certainly doesn't happen as an epidemic with large numbers
of people.

So the main issues are sanitation, toxic exposure, & susceptibility.
And in no way is this email extremely well thought out and perfect. I'm
just trying to answer quickly so you get the idea.

So what is everyone so worried about??????????

SHERI I have NO problem with homeopathic prophylaxis if needed in the
vicinity of

ANDY Because of your previously stated views, and because of the ambiguity
of the term, I'm not sure what you mean by "homeopathic prophylaxis".

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?

SHERI - IT IS POSSIBLY YOUR TERMS THAT ARE CONFUSING THIS
1. I DO NOT AGREE WITH ROUTINE USE OF REMEDIES TO PREVENT DISEASES USED
THE SAME WAY ALLOPATHIC VACCINES ARE - not in the presence of disease or
epidemic or risk
2. Isopathic prophylaxis used at the time a disease is present or near or
near enough for risk is fine and follows the principles used by Hahnemann
and others...........
is a risk anymore for the reasons given
susceptibility and risk into account
do for others what I would do for myself
the persons susceptibility
3. Isopathic prophylaxis in the past -
do not live then, I live now
factors very different from now
their times, even though homeopaths
programming of our time)
4. I question everything............and just don't accept anything at face
value and having blanket value for everyone
5. I have no problem with the nosode or the 'general facsimile' (as you
call it) if necessary
ANDY WROTE.......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 ?

SHERI WROTE = again we are not at risk for very much that would be an
epidemic. I see it as a moot issue at this time in history.
I never said that isopathic prophylaxis wasn't effective - I also know that
there is no 'proof' that it is as we can't go into a parallel universe and
see what wuold happen in that one if did something and this one did not. I
accept that it appears that they did work in the past when looking at the
numbers in the midst of an epidemic. So, I can hold both of those thoughts
- it appears to be effective, but I can KNOW for sure..........it doesn't
mean I don't think it works, it just means I can't know for sure. And am
NOT against using them if necessary. But again, see it as a moot point for
most of the conditions discussed. AND certainly don't see a need for
blanket routine homeopathic prophylaxis in lieu of allopathic vaccines.

ANDY WROTE........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?

SHERI WROTE.......explained above. My statement of NO evidence was in
reference to Golden-type vaccinations.
ANDY WROTE: 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.

SHERI WROTE - I don't completely reject. This is where you are stuck on
something that I didn't say.

ANDY WROTE - 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.

SHERI WROTE: I see no need for such a routine program as Goldens. I see
no epidemics that are likely - we are not living in those times. If there
truly WAS a smallpox epidemic for what ever reason (and most were due to
the use of the vaccine, by the way) I would use prophylaxis as used in the
past. (and there was much mis-diagnosis - measles was mis diagnosed as
smallpox, chickenpox was misdiagnoses as smallpox. And many people did
just fine with smallpox). I am not of the belief that we have to prevent
every little thing from happening, homeopathically. And I don't see giving
the routine 'h-vax' as helping peoples fear - it just palliates it and does
not cure it. I see people much freer once they understand the true risk of
exposure, the true risk of even getting the disease, the true risk of the
disease..............to me health is freedom. And having to take remedies
to feel better about disease and feel safe is not freedom. It is
palliation or suppression.
ANDY wrote - 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 - see above. You are in error when you think I said I was
against isopathic prophylaxis.

SHERI WROTE> You seem to want me to jump through some hoops of your making
in order to

ANDY WROTE 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.

SHERI WROTE - I have acknowledged it - you just haven't heard it, or
misread it, or misinterpreted it. I said 'none' for no proof for
homoepathic vaccination outside the presence of an epidemic or disease at
the door........and my use of ad nauseum was in reference to my replying ad
nauseum, not your data - you have misread that also.

I hope this has helped you to realize that you have misinterpreted and
reacted to something I never said and you misunderstood

In summary I basically view this whole issue probably the same or similar
to David Little, Steve Waldstein, Will Taylor, Magda Aguila, and others who
have spoken out on this list. I hope this clear thigns up once and for all
in relation to me.
Sheri

--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL
OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

SHERI WROTE
I hope this clear thigns up once and for all
in relation to me.

Dear Sheri,
Thanks for your reply. Many good things said. You finally clarified your statement
but are still trying to skirt around the only reason the thread was really extended
and led to frustration (your not explaining or correcting your statement that
prophylaxis had "no proof, none").

I do not wish to spend more time responding to you on the issue of prophylaxis. I
think there was learning that came out of the discussion, but it was pretty draining
for me and is not encouraging regarding list discussions in general.

SHERI WROTE
and my use of ad nauseum was in reference to my replying ad
nauseum, not your data - you have misread that also.

999 Just as a literary tip, people can use "ad nauseum" when they like in direct
reference to something previously said or not (in this case not), and that would not
be a "misreading".

SHERI WROTE - I have acknowledged it - you just haven't heard it, or
misread it, or misinterpreted it. I said 'none' for no proof for
homoepathic vaccination outside the presence of an epidemic or disease at
the door........

999 What you call misinterpretation, misunderstanding is in this case, due to your
making one nonfactual, illogical, and imprecise statement; and your not explaining
it further or correcting it until now, some number of days afterwards; after someone
spent a lot of time giving you data to assist its rectification.

My attempt to contribute was motivated by your important work on the vaccine damage
issue, and position as an authority in advising people. Lack of CIRCUMSPECTION (that
was implied in your statement) on ANY form of prophylaxis by someone in your field I
found very incongruous and worthy of reply.

I attempted to give you information to assist you since you said that the adjunct
techniques of prophylaxis lacked ANY proof worthy of your investigation and
exposition. Proof is certainly a relative term, but your blanket statement of NO
PROOF was, and remains, in my view nonfactual and misleading to anyone reading it.
If you say this about prophylaxis of scheduled OR "on-the-spot" then does it refer to
all prophylaxis of that type, and why? Really LATE you want to say that you only
meant scheduled, when what you said assailed the effectiveness of the preparations,
whether used during a local epidemic or prior to one, scheduled or not. Your
original statement was at best kind of sloppy, do you disagree? (Don't have to
answer cause I am done with the topic). In frustration, I made some unflattering
statements because of your LACK OF RESPONSE to this sloppy statement which you kept
reiterating (No proof, none, etc). For MY SAKE, I wish you had responded
appropriately after the first post.

Prior to the "discussion", I knew almost nothing of Golden's work, but I do have some
knowledge in the area of the history of use of prophylaxis by Classical Homeopaths,
and I contributed much of that. And I certainly have respect for those doing
research to further any area of homeopathy, including in the adjunct area of
prophylaxis, WHETHER I AGREE WITH THEIR APPROACH OR NOT. I do not use Golden's
immunization program, nor do I know anyone who does, but, as it is identical in
method, (if not in schedule, potency, and target) to what has been done by the VERY
BEST classical homeopaths WHEN REAL DANGERS EXISTED, then perhaps it is worthy of
study by all in the event it is needed as an adjunct tool.

A lot of information was presented from Andre Saine's research. Citation of research
does not require "worship" as you imply in your reply--the idea is ludicrous. If you
know of any better research than Andre's on the history of prophylaxis as used in
homeopathic practice, then please present it. Added to the discussion by a
participant was contemporary info from SK Banerjea, a reliable person in my
experience, and with vast experience from a family practicing homeopathy by the
methods used by HC Allen for about 100 years. Those in the past using prophylaxis
(even the "routine immunization" techniques) are of interest not because of
veneration, but simply because they were the best practitioners of their time and
probably would still be if their time was now.

From what you have said, it appears that your philosophy of real-world application of
prophylaxis is very similar to mine. People joining the discussion perhaps assumed
that there was a debate on style of practice. I was not giving you and the group
my OPINION, but attempting to contribute the history of the topic and my
understanding of it. It may have looked like a debate because you made what I
considered to be an incorrect factual statement (or as you would say, a statement
that was merely misunderstood); and would not explain it. My attempts to correct
this statement with data were kind of brushed aside with concern about personal
attack or simply defending yourself instead of addressing the question. Perhaps
this was partly a case of bad timing, coming when you were too busy-- but perhaps
not, and I hope that you can see how this could create frustration in others after
such a statement, and not responding to the point after a lot of effort made.

I certainly have ZERO interest in maligning anyone, including you. If I thought so
little that I wanted to malign, would I be taking your class?

I suggest avoidance of oversimplification of the issue of using adjunct preventive
techniques when they are judged appropriate. The issues around their use are not
simple. Some of them:

--How well the chronic simillimum protects against specific epidemic infectious
diseases.
--How likely it is that clients in a practice have received the best chronic
simillimum and that reaction to it has not lapsed
--How effective specific isopathic or homeopathic prophylactics have been
historically (and statistically, if possible) prior to epidemics or in prevention of
particular infectious dangers
--How likely it is that a group simillimum will exist after an epidemic has started
--How rapid, reliable, and time-consuming it is to contact members of a practice when
an epidemic enters a locality (for on-the-spot prophylaxis)
--How likely it is that a prophylactic or many prophylactics given in ascending
potencies will change the symptoms of a chronic case and "muddle" it
--How much it is the responsibility of the homeopath to protect the clients in a
practice from epidemic disease
--What diseases are truly harmful or represent significant risks; and which are not
harmful (or in fact are beneficial and important to experience especially at a
certain time in development)
--How much concern about epidemic disease by parents and clients is "anxiety about
health", or fueled by propaganda-- and how much shall a homeopath shape their
approach around what the client asks for as opposed to what is appropriate in
clinical judgement; given the best information available
--How dangerous conventional industrial mass vaccines are in individual cases and in
terms of the longterm health of people and nations; particularly in comparison with
prophylactic methods that are and have been used by classical homeopaths
--What are the legal issues surrounding offering a prophylactic measure in a world
consumed with an unquestioning "religion" of mass vaccination (in the US by the
so-called "Patriot Act" mandatory at threat of quarantine and with no direct legal
recourse against manufacturer in cases of vaccine damage).

Regarding list discussions in general:
In general, I find that discussions are most useful and satisfying when:

--participants are receptive and circumspect regarding INTELLECTUAL (as opposed to
emotional, visceral, doctrinal, or religious) DISCUSSIONS of data
--participants discuss with humility-- and not just on "where they stand" but on
looking at an issue from all angles Opinions given dictatorially or with religious
fervor (without logical substantiation) can have a way of stifling discussion.
Expansively valuing contributions made and magnanimously welcoming QUALITY viewpoints
is a sign of healthy minds which will make for a useful discussion forum
--participants don't merely defend their own point of view or assume they already
know everything about an issue--but have a true interest in examining IDEAS.
--participants are honest, and own up to what they have said in the past.
Sidestepping responsibility for what one did say (or did not say clearly) by
claiming misunderstanding or misinterpretation by others wastes the time of others.
A discussion will quickly dissolve when one party does this. It discourages
participation when one responds to a statement that later morphs at the will of the
original poster. This is not referring to discussions in which statements are worthy
of debate and were in FACT misunderstood, which of course does happen frequently.
--people read the previous parts of the thread and UNDERSTAND THEM before attempting
a contribution which, if simplistic, will degrade the quality of the discussion

Best regards,
Andy
Do not read the following with the idea I find many of your ideas lacking. Most of
the time, these ideas cut through illusion and are unique and helpful.