Monthly Archives: January 2012

Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day

Baby Dies After 9 Vaccines in One Day

By | January 19th, 2012 | Category:

Babies Stacy and Lesly Sirjacobs

The end of last year was masked with sadness for Belgium parents Raphaël Sirjacobs & Béatrice Dupont, as their nine week old daughter Stacy Sirjacobs lost her fight for life. Stacy died just one week after her first vaccinations and left her twin sister Lesly behind. Devastated by their loss their parents are convinced that vaccines and hospital failures were the cause of their beautiful daughters death.

Stacy and Lesly were born one month premature by Caesarean section and spent the next four days in an incubator. Stacy needed resuscitation at birth.

Following medical advice parents Sirjacobs and Dupont decided to have the twins vaccinated. Stacy was slightly unwell with a cold on the day of her vaccinations but doctors assured her parents that it was safe to give her the vaccinations.

(It is worth noting that there is a history of Sudden Infant Death and allergies in the family. The twins were being prescribed a milk supplement due to a milk allergy at the time Stacy became ill)

The twins received Prevenar, a vaccine against meningitis and pneumonia, Infanrix Hexa, a six in one vaccination for diphtheria, tetanus, polio, pertussis, hepatitis B and Haemophilus type B, and finally the Rotarix, a preventive vaccine for gastroenteritis.

This means that these tiny vulnerable babies received a staggering nine vaccines in one day, vaccines that may have caused one of them to die.

A week after her vaccinations Stacy became unwell with a fever of 39.9 degrees C. Her parents decided to administer Perdolan to lower her fever. As their daughter was still very poorly they called the hospital who advised them to bring their daughter in.

The medical staff diagnosed Stacy with a slight chest infection and infection in her blood and told her parents not to worry as this was “not serious”. Stacy was then given medication and put on a drip feed and kept in for observation.

Stacy’s father informed me that all links to the vaccines were strongly denied.


Despite Stacy having a heartbeat of 200 to 230 beats per minute
the pediatrician told her parents that she was fine and that she was probably suffering from gastroenteritis (an illness that this little girl had been vaccinated against!).

The worried couple decided not to leave their daughter and remained by her bedside. During the evening they informed the nurse that their daughter had diarrhea but to their astonishment, they were told that the baby had been changed and they were to let her get some sleep and change her when she woke up.

During the night, Stacy continued to suffer ‘abnormal diarrhea’, and despite frantic pleas from her parents the nurse refused to do anything, even though by this time Stacy was restless and in obvious distress. Stacy’s father says that they reported to nursing staff that Stacy was covered in small red spots and had difficulty breathing.

According to Stacy’s father, Stacy’s medical records states that at 19.45 a doctor telephoned his brother to ask his permission to do a lumbar puncture and put Stacy on the antibiotic Ampire, while they were awaiting the results. Authorization was denied …

Stacy died a short time later.

Stacy’s father says: (translated from French by Google translate)

 

“The nurse 23h phone to the pediatrician to inform him that the little Stacy is worse, this one happens to 11:45 p.m. ET begins to make attempts at resuscitation. He informed at the time the parents that the baby is not breathing on their own, and asks them to leave the room. Would follow three hours, during which everything is sought to revive the girl, who is declared dead at 3am. But in fact, the heart stopped beating Stacy at midnight.

The pediatrician then began to explain to parents that the little one died of sepsis and meningitis, while in order to make such a diagnosis, it would have had to do a lumbar puncture which was not performed, or that would have required at least one blood culture or stool, the results will not be known until 3 or 4 days”.

 

Stacy’s death was recorded as: Meningitis.

It is interesting and extremely sad that this little girl died of an illness that she was vaccinated against just one week before she died. It is obvious from the information that I have from the father that this tiny vulnerable baby was left to suffer in considerable pain, dirty and in distress, whilst the pleas of her parents were ignored.

Vaccinations are administered to a child based on the age of the child from the day that they are born. Due to the advances in medicine, babies are being saved at an earlier and earlier stage in their development. We know that Stacy was born at approx one month premature, which means that she was given her eight week old vaccinations at just a month old; she was also unwell at the time she was vaccinated. It is my opinion that her small immature immune system could not cope with the onslaught of deadly toxins and chemicals that are in our vaccines today.

Stacy’s devastated parents are so outraged by what they have discovered since their baby’s death, that they are now asking the world to join them in a worldwide protest. They want the world to hold a global event in memory of Stacy and the many hundreds of children that have been killed or injured by vaccinations worldwide. They feel that vaccine deaths are being covered up and ask the citizens of the world to stand united for one day against vaccine damage. They say:

We are the parents of Stacy, who died a week after HER first vaccines; we are organizing a global event in honor of Stacy, Nova and all other vaccine victims worldwide. We are summoning every citizen of every country to take to the streets in their own cities, towns and villages: things must now change!

Remember to invite local journalists, the media and any victims or parents of victims prepared to tell their story. Make placards, banners and signs: UNCENSORED VACCINE INFORMATION, FREEDOM OF CHOICE!

The event is to be held on the January 20th 2012. If it is not possible for you to attend one of the many protests that are being held, then perhaps you could go along to your local church and light a candle to register your protest at what is happening around the world.

Sirjacobs and Dupont are right; something radical does need to be done to make the authorities listen to parents

Vaccine deaths are being reported around the world at an alarming rate. In May 2010 The Times of India (2) reported that 128 deaths had occurred during the previous year and the figure appeared to be rising with each year. Their report suggested that the Indian government was covering up vaccine deaths. Arun Ram reporting for the Times wrote:

“The government tries to pass on every death as unrelated to vaccine. It sometimes merely does a culture of the vaccine in question. Just because a vaccine is not found to be contaminated, it doesn’t mean the vaccine has not caused the death,” says Dr Puliyel.

In March 2011 Neil Z miller (3) wrote that in the USA more than 2,000 babies died after receiving pneumococcal and Hib vaccines and yet nothing whatsoever was done. He reported that whilst these vaccines were suspended in Japan after just four deaths, the news of over 2000 deaths in the USA was barely even reported. According to Miller Paul Offit had called the Japanese authorities foolish, saying that the babies probably died of SIDS (Sudden Infant Death Syndrome). In fact he passed their deaths off as anything he could, except the vaccines that is. Miller wrote:

According to Paul Offit, media spokesperson for the vaccine industry, “the Japanese Ministry of Health was foolish to suspend the Hib and pneumococcal programs.” Offit thinks the deaths were probably caused by SIDS, or underlying conditions, or another cause – anything except the vaccines. Often, children get sick and die by chance.

Actually, Paul Offit could be right, many of the vaccinated babies could be dying as a result of SIDS because in May 2011 an interesting article hit the internet by storm stating that a study published in the Journal of Human and Experimental Toxicology found that the countries that administered the highest number of vaccines during the first year of life experienced higher infant mortality rates. (4)

This is not new because studies have been stating that vaccines were causing children to die for many years.

The Pourcyrous study (5) was the first study to examine the impact of multi-vaccinations on the immature brain. It is clear from the results of this study that the more vaccines a child has, the larger impact the vaccines have on the child’s brain.  Massroor Pourcyrous, MD,  Sheldon B. Korones, MD,  Kristopher L. Arheart PhD,  Henrietta S. Bada, MD studied 239 preterm infants who were given either a single vaccine or multiple vaccines, their results are as follows:

Abnormal elevation of CRP level occurred in 85% of infants administered multiple vaccines and up to 70% of those given a single vaccine. Overall, 16% of infants had vaccine-associated cardiorespiratory events within 48 hours postimmunization. In logistic regression analysis, abnormal CRP values were associated with multiple vaccines (OR, 15.77; 95% CI 5.10-48.77) and severe intraventricular hemorrhage (IVH) (OR, 2.28; 95% CI 1.02-5.13). Cardiorespiratory events were associated marginally with receipt of multiple injections (OR, 3.62; 95% CI 0.99-13.25) and significantly with gastroesophageal reflux (GER) (OR, 4.76; 95% CI 1.22-18.52).

This study has had so much impact that it has now being quoted in papers and books on adverse reactions to vaccines and SIDS worldwide.

As today saw the news that yet another vaccine is to be added to babies vaccine schedule, the Meningitis B vaccine (6), we to ask ourselves how many Stacy’s will it take before action is taken?

This article has been written in memory of Stacy Sirjacobs and the many hundreds of babies who have lost their life after receiving what the governments tell us are ‘safe vaccines’.

 

Sources:

1. Citizen Action for Uncensored Vaccine Information and Freedom of Vaccination Choice – 20th January 2012 http://sanevax.org/citizen-action-for-uncensored-vaccine-information-and-freedom-of-vaccination-choice-20th-january-2012/
2. Daily Paul reporting on The Times of India article written by Ron Paul http://www.dailypaul.com/166249/128-kids-died-after-vaccine-in-2010-govt-cant-say-why-the-times-of-india
3. Neil Z Miller http://ebookcashstreams.com/HotNewsBlog/2011/03/2000-babies-died-in-the-united-states-after-receiving-vaccines/
4. New Study: More Vaccines Increase Infant Mortality Rates http://het.sagepub.com/content/early/2011/05/04/0960327111407644
5. The Pourcyrous Study The Journal of Pediatrics http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476%2807%2900185-0/abstract
6. Daily Mail – New vaccine against deadly meningitis B ‘will be available in the spring’ by Jenny Hope http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2088176/New-vaccine-deadly-meningitis-B-available-spring.html#ixzz1jpErW3Ff

 

Christina was born and educated in London, U.K. She left school to work in a children’s library, specializing in story telling and book buying. In 1978 Christina changed her career path to dedicate her time to caring for the elderly and was awarded the title of Care Giver of the Year for her work with the elderly in 1980.

After dedicating much of her spare time helping disabled children in a special school, she then worked in a respite unit in a leading teaching hospital.

In 1990 Christina adopted the first of two disabled boys, both with challenging behavior, complex disabilities, and medical needs. In 1999 she was accused of Munchausen by Proxy after many failed attempts to get the boys’ complex needs met. Finally, she was cleared of all accusations after an independent psychologist Lisa Blakemore-Brown gave both boys the diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder and ADHD as part of a complex tapestry of disorders. During the assessments Ms Blakemore-Brown discovered through the foster care diaries that the eldest boy had reacted adversely to the MMR vaccine.

After taking A Level in Psychology and a BTEC in Learning Disabilities Ms. England then spent many years researching vaccines and adverse reactions. She went on to gain an HND in journalism and media and is currently writing for the American Chronicle, the Weekly Blitz, VacTruth and Namaste UK on immunization safety and efficacy.

England’s main areas of expertise are researching false allegations of child abuse and adverse reactions to vaccines. Her work is now read internationally and has been translated into many languages. England has been a guest on Holy Hormones Honey – The Greatest Story Never Told! on KRFC FM 88.9 in, Colorado. She has spoken at seminars worldwide and including Canada in 2011 and recently co authored the book ‘Shaken Baby Syndrome or Vaccine Induced Encephalitis – Are Parents Being Falsely Accused?’ with Dr Harold Buttram.

Long awaited English translation of Swiss federal report published: Homeopathy is effective, cost-effective and safe

December 31st 2011

Homeopathy is effective, cost-effective and safe – concludes the Swiss Health Technology Assessment (HTA) report on homeopathy.
To read extracts or order a full copy of the report click here.

The 2006 HTA report on homeopathy was commissioned by the Federal Social Insurance Office (FSIO) within the context of an overall evaluation of Complementary and Alternative Medicines (CAMs). It was written by a team of German speaking academics and edited by G Bornhöft & F Matthiessen of Witten/Herdecke University in Germany.

Interestingly, the HTA methodology, unlike meta-analyses and systematic reports such as the Cochrane Collaboration, does not just ask the question of effectiveness of a particular intervention, it also addresses the questions of effectiveness of a therapy in everyday use (i.e. real world effectiveness), how it is used, its safety and its cost-effectiveness.

This report, amounting to 300 pages, exhaustively reviews the scientific literature in homeopathy. It summarises 22 reviews, 20 of which show positive results for homeopathy. Four of these showed strong evidence that homeopathy, as a system of medicine, is efficacious. It also finds strong supporting evidence for the homeopathic treatment of allergies and upper-respiratory tract infections.

Shang et al comparative meta-analysis which appeared in the Lancet in 2005 and was heralded by the Lancet’s editor as “The end of homeopathy” was, according to Bornhöft & Matthiessen, commissioned by the FSIO as a part of this same assessment of CAMs. It was originally meant to investigate the quality of homeopathy trials compared to those of conventional medicine. In the HTA report the authors analyse the Shang et al 2005 study, stating that, “Although we cannot conclude from the previous remarks [about the Shang et al 2005 study] the opposite conclusion – that homeopathy is effective – we can say with certainty that the Shang et al 2005 study does not prove that homeopathy has no effect.” The report also presents the results of the quality assessment of homeopathy trials, concluding that “studies of homeopathy and phytotherapy were of better quality than comparable conventional medicine studies”.

The Bornhöft & Matthiessen HTA report ends with this statement: “In summary, it can be said that there is sufficient evidence for the preclinical effectiveness and the clinical efficacy of homeopathy (evidence grades I and II) and for its safety and economy compared with conventional treatment……It is a highly popular intervention. Future research must respect the unique qualities of homeopathy by attaching more weight to single case evaluations, by including practically and expertly applied homeopathic treatment into research and clinical practice in order to identify its real potential and limitations.”

With the publication of the English translation of the HTA report, we hope that the debate will finally move from the question, ‘Does homeopathy work?’ to the more pressing questions of ‘How does homeopathy work?’ and ‘What conditions can homeopathy treat effectively and cost-efficiently?’.

‘Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs’by Gudrun Bornhöft and Peter F. Matthiessen (Editors)
Original title:‘Homöopathie in der Krankenversorgung. Wirksamkeit, Nutzen, Sicherheit und Wirtschaftlichkeit’

Author: Alex Tournier

Millions were in germ war tests

Millions were in germ war tests

Much of Britain was exposed to bacteria sprayed in secret trials

The Ministry of Defence turned large parts of the country into a giant laboratory to conduct a series of secret germ warfare tests on the public.A government report just released provides for the first time a comprehensive official history of Britain’s biological weapons trials between 1940 and 1979.

Many of these tests involved releasing potentially dangerous chemicals and micro-organisms over vast swaths of the population without the public being told.

While details of some secret trials have emerged in recent years, the 60-page report reveals new information about more than 100 covert experiments.

The report reveals that military personnel were briefed to tell any ‘inquisitive inquirer’ the trials were part of research projects into weather and air pollution.

The tests, carried out by government scientists at Porton Down, were designed to help the MoD assess Britain’s vulnerability if the Russians were to have released clouds of deadly germs over the country.

In most cases, the trials did not use biological weapons but alternatives which scientists believed would mimic germ warfare and which the MoD claimed were harmless. But families in certain areas of the country who have children with birth defects are demanding a public inquiry.

One chapter of the report, ‘The Fluorescent Particle Trials’, reveals how between 1955 and 1963 planes flew from north-east England to the tip of Cornwall along the south and west coasts, dropping huge amounts of zinc cadmium sulphide on the population. The chemical drifted miles inland, its fluorescence allowing the spread to be monitored. In another trial using zinc cadmium sulphide, a generator was towed along a road near Frome in Somerset where it spewed the chemical for an hour.

While the Government has insisted the chemical is safe, cadmium is recognised as a cause of lung cancer and during the Second World War was considered by the Allies as a chemical weapon.

In another chapter, ‘Large Area Coverage Trials’, the MoD describes how between 1961 and 1968 more than a million people along the south coast of England, from Torquay to the New Forest, were exposed to bacteria including e.coli and bacillus globigii , which mimics anthrax. These releases came from a military ship, the Icewhale, anchored off the Dorset coast, which sprayed the micro-organisms in a five to 10-mile radius.

The report also reveals details of the DICE trials in south Dorset between 1971 and 1975. These involved US and UK military scientists spraying into the air massive quantities of serratia marcescens bacteria, with an anthrax simulant and phenol.

Similar bacteria were released in ‘The Sabotage Trials’ between 1952 and 1964. These were tests to determine the vulnerability of large government buildings and public transport to attack. In 1956 bacteria were released on the London Underground at lunchtime along the Northern Line between Colliers Wood and Tooting Broadway. The results show that the organism dispersed about 10 miles. Similar tests were conducted in tunnels running under government buildings in Whitehall.

Experiments conducted between 1964 and 1973 involved attaching germs to the threads of spiders’ webs in boxes to test how the germs would survive in different environments. These tests were carried out in a dozen locations across the country, including London’s West End, Southampton and Swindon. The report also gives details of more than a dozen smaller field trials between 1968 and 1977.

In recent years, the MoD has commissioned two scientists to review the safety of these tests. Both reported that there was no risk to public health, although one suggested the elderly or people suffering from breathing illnesses may have been seriously harmed if they inhaled sufficient quantities of micro-organisms.

However, some families in areas which bore the brunt of the secret tests are convinced the experiments have led to their children suffering birth defects, physical handicaps and learning difficulties.

David Orman, an army officer from Bournemouth, is demanding a public inquiry. His wife, Janette, was born in East Lulworth in Dorset, close to where many of the trials took place. She had a miscarriage, then gave birth to a son with cerebral palsy. Janette’s three sisters, also born in the village while the tests were being carried out, have also given birth to children with unexplained problems, as have a number of their neighbours.

The local health authority has denied there is a cluster, but Orman believes otherwise. He said: ‘I am convinced something terrible has happened. The village was a close-knit community and to have so many birth defects over such a short space of time has to be more than coincidence.’

Successive governments have tried to keep details of the germ warfare tests secret. While reports of a number of the trials have emerged over the years through the Public Records Office, this latest MoD document – which was released to Liberal Democrat MP Norman Baker – gives the fullest official version of the biological warfare trials yet.

Baker said: ‘I welcome the fact that the Government has finally released this information, but question why it has taken so long. It is unacceptable that the public were treated as guinea pigs without their knowledge, and I want to be sure that the Ministry of Defence’s claims that these chemicals and bacteria used were safe is true.’

The MoD report traces the history of the UK’s research into germ warfare since the Second World War when Porton Down produced five million cattle cakes filled with deadly anthrax spores which would have been dropped in Germany to kill their livestock. It also gives details of the infamous anthrax experiments on Gruinard on the Scottish coast which left the island so contaminated it could not be inhabited until the late 1980s.

The report also confirms the use of anthrax and other deadly germs on tests aboard ships in the Caribbean and off the Scottish coast during the 1950s. The document states: ‘Tacit approval for simulant trials where the public might be exposed was strongly influenced by defence security considerations aimed obviously at restricting public knowledge. An important corollary to this was the need to avoid public alarm and disquiet about the vulnerability of the civil population to BW [biological warfare] attack.’

Sue Ellison, spokeswoman for Porton Down, said: ‘Independent reports by eminent scientists have shown there was no danger to public health from these releases which were carried out to protect the public.

‘The results from these trials_ will save lives, should the country or our forces face an attack by chemical and biological weapons.’

Asked whether such tests are still being carried out, she said: ‘It is not our policy to discuss ongoing research.’

antony.barnett@observer.co.uk

Question regarding First prescription

What are we prescribing for?

First of all, results of first prescription are NOT the same as completely curing the case. But the first prescription has to match the disease state and effect the change that is curative in direction. I take my stance for matching the disease from aphorism 6 in the Organon 5th and 6th edition: viz::

The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

This means an accurate tracing of the disease state, and prescribing based on the totality of the symptoms that are presented before him. Further reading of the Organon and of the case notes of Hahnemann in his Case books, has revealed the comprehension that Hahnemann had in understanding that the prevailing presentation of symptoms, need to be dealt with, as they are the picture of the “disease”. In simple terms, if a patient presents with Eczema, and on the way across the street gets hit by a car, which do you treat FIRST? obviously the present and maintaining disorder caused by vehicular impact. Its a different disease state.

This crude explanation of a methodology, shows that the understanding of “WHAT” constitutes a single MAINTAINING disease state, is vital in treating.

How many times has a patient presented with mental and physical symptoms, and in repertorising the case, we have not been able to come to a single remedy that covers all the expressions of the disease? The answer is simple, IT IS NOT ONE DISEASE!

Hahnemann went on to explain that he would then treat the PRESENTING symptoms until the presentation of the disease state for the one disease he was treating ameliorated or CHANGED in a large way, and then he would swap remedies to treat that other disease state…based only on the symptoms presented as a totality. These symptoms can and WILL switch between states necessitating following them with the appropriate remedy when required.

He did stress that the body could not hold similar disease states, BUT different one could co-exist happily.

Given that is the case, careful evaluation of the presentation of the symptoms before you, and extraction of the main PRESENTING ones that are affecting the patient, and are deviations from his normal state..BE IT THAT THE NORMAL STATE for the patient is also perhaps diseased… the presenting symptoms need to be removed and then treat each complete disease picture as it is presented. Sometimes the presenting disease state is the whole disease and treatment will remove it in its entirety by focusing on the presentation of symptoms.

Another example is that a patient presents with a heavy bronchial infection, and we know has a history of allopathically treated gonorrhea (with no symptoms) We would, according to Hahnemann treat the presenting symptoms first, (the bronchial affection) and then treat the STD appropriately as and when or if, symptoms possibly arise.. EXCEPT.. where the presenting symptoms do not ameliorate to the application of remedies, and the STD is the maintaining cause of the lack of reaction to the application of correctly prescribed remedies.

There is so much information to be gleaned from his case books. At first when I read them, I did not comprehend why it took so long for him to cure patients in some cases. As I started to compare cases together, and in reading Chronic diseases again, I finally understood his ability to see disease states as separate entities, and then the reason for his work on miasms came clear. Even within the infecting agents of PSORA, there can be DIFFERENT infecting agents. For this we need different remedies, differential diagnosis for disease STATES.

Modern medicine confirms Hahnemann’s observations regarding layers of infection and reaction.

On this methodology, which is Hahnemanns, I claim a 75-80% success rate for careful first prescription in starting to remove the disease OR DISEASES and will work through the presentations of symptoms as they arise, for the complete removal of a single disease state, or the alternation of separate disease states in the patient utilising different remedies as required.

Aphorism 5 gives credence to this.

§ 5
Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are the particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease, as also the most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease, to enable him to discover its fundamental cause, which is generally due to a chronic miasm. In these investigations, the ascertainable physical constitution of the patient (especially when the disease is chronic), his moral and intellectual character, his occupation, mode of living and habits, his social and domestic relations, his age, sexual function, etc., are to be taken into consideration.

Two thoughts on Rubrics and use of….

One of the biggest issues in repertorization, is finding the correct rubrics for consideration. At first glance, one might assume that this is not as difficult as it appears, and yet the experienced practitioner will tell you it takes quite a while to learn the correct understanding of rubrics given that language and meaning of the words have changed over the years.

Vladimir and myself spent many hours in discussion over each and every rubric in the Therapeutic Pocket book. Working from the original Boenninghausen manuscripts and the first edition in German, we carefully went through every word and phrase with the aid of several German language dictionaries and medical books of the time period, so that we could determine the true intent of the words used by Boenninghausen and not confuse them with our modern understanding of the words today.

This process, which took nearly two years to do, resulted in a completed facsimili of the original German work, translated into English, Spanish and shortly Hebrew. It was not our intention with the 2011 version (which was actually released in 2010) to alter the layout or methodology of use of the repertory. By leaving the structure intact, it allowed us to insert the complete table of Concordances for assistance in finding the next remedy for prescription.

Use of the P and W Therapeutic Pocket Book in practice.

Boenninghausen compiled the Therapeutic Pocket book as a memory guide to the Materia Medica. It is a collection of symptoms which have been disassembled into their component parts, and placed in the relevant chapters of the book for re-assembling according to the symptoms expressed by the patient. In utilising this schema, Boenninghausen allowed for an analysis of a case to be made quickly, without having to wade through section after section to select a specific rubric that included all the aspects of a symptom. (such as Kents repertory).

Take for example a patient complaining of a headache. This headache always appears on one side or the other. The headache is of a throbbing nature. It comes on after drinking milk or alcohol. If the patient gets angry the headache appears. If the patient touchs anything cold, the headache can appear, although lighter than any of the other causations.

Using the P and W, we can go straight into the individual elements of the case.

Under sensations and complaints, in inner parts (head pain is inner) we choose Throbbing.

Under Aggravations we choose Milk, Alcohol and Anger.

Under aggravations we also choose touching cold object.

For the location, we can pick inner head, one sided.

 

 

 

Immediately from the repertorization chart, we can see that the combination of the elements of a SINGLE SYMPTOM with location, sensation and modalities, have defined the whole disease state of the patient, which are produced in PROVINGS of the medicine Natrum Muriaticum. If we read the Materia Medica, confirmation of the remedy being the correct one or not can be made. In this case, a long standing concommitant symptom confirmed the choice.

You may ask, why one Symptom when the patient is a complex collection of desires, thoughts, hereditary paths of weaknesses etc. Actually, it again comes back to Hahnemanns observations of what we treat, and in what order, and Why.  Again, for consideration, I point out to you Aphorism 6 of the Organon:

The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease.

As this single presenting and predominating headache, in its entirety, and its completeness represented the dis-ease that the patient was suffering, the sum total of the elements IS the problem. By treating the symptoms of the disorder, given no other presenting symptoms, and removing the whole disorder, we have allowed the organism to be healed of the problem. These are the ONLY SYMPTOMS we can treat as that is all that is presented. The expression of them through the patient, agg by milk, touching cold objects, anger and alcohol, are individual triggers that combine to form a picture of both the disease AND the remedy which can produce those symptoms.

Do not be misled by investigating everything about the patient that is of no value in terms of prescribing for the diseased state. Do not prescribe on anything except ACCURATE PRESCRIBING SYMPTOMS,. or else you will be confused by personality, likes, dislikes, something that happened 40 years ago that is not relevant today.

We treat diseased patients.

Dr Gary Weaver

 

 

Case taking muses.

One of the things that is always in the forefront of my mind when taking a case, is that I need a picture of the diseased state in a complete form. It is often said in anecdote that homoeopaths treat the person and not the disease. Sadly, this is not quite the case, and for many physicians, has led to confused patient treatment and failure to halt or remove the disorder the patient is suffering from.

I do not need a picture of the patients preferences or desires, I need a picture of the disease as EXPRESSED by the patient.

For the observing physician, the above statement should encourage the re reading of case taking directives by Samuel Hahnemann, especially Aphorism 6. Without a full comprehension of what is involved in case taking, the physician will flounder and drown in too much irrelevant detail and become overwhelmed with the pages of notes that has been collected.

For those of you who have been through the various college systems, I can almost guarantee that you have not been taught Hahnemann case taking, as refined through the years of observation and experimentation by the originator himself. Im pretty sure that you have been sidelined by the new and wonderful methods of modern gurus of homoeopathy, which have deviated from the real medical practice of homoeopathy so much that our profession is in danger of imploding through lack of proper medical application.

I would expect from myself and staff in a busy clinic setting, and Im talking about a case load of 30-70 patients a day, a first prescription accurate matching of remedy to disease state of 75%-80%. In order to achieve these results, there has to be scrupulous adherence to protocol in the case taking, an accurate repertory, and a willingness to quickly review the Materia Medica as final arbiter for prescription.

Please read the following and see what useful information you can glean for your own practice.

§ 6 Sixth Edition
The unprejudiced observer – well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can receive no confirmation from experience – be his powers of penetration ever so great, takes note of nothing in every individual disease, except the changes in the health of the body and of the mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses; that is to say, he notices only the deviations from the former healthy state of the now diseased individual, which are felt by the patient himself, remarked by those around him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its whole extent, that is, together they form the true and only conceivable portrait of the disease

Gary Weaver

Doctors going broke

Whilst we do not agree with the therapeutics employed in allopathic medicine for treatment, it is becoming plainly obvious that the Pharmacies have been dictating the course of medical practice through the years. The relevant government appointed medical authorities are allowing health care facilities to become a luxury in order to maintain control over every facet of our lives, and enforce their treatment of choice upon our families. You have been warned.

 

By Parija Kavilanz @CNNMoneyJanuary 5, 2012: 12:37 PM ET

Doctor Mike Gorman has taken out an small business loan to keep his rural solo practice running in Logandale, Nev.Dr. Mike Gorman has taken out an SBA loan to keep his rural solo practice running in Logandale, Nev. “If things don’t improve fast, I will have no choice but to close my doors,” he said.

NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — Doctors in America are harboring an embarrassing secret: Many of them are going broke.

This quiet reality, which is spreading nationwide, is claiming a wide range of casualties, including family physicians, cardiologists and oncologists.

Industry watchers say the trend is worrisome. Half of all doctors in the nation operate a private practice. So if a cash crunch forces the death of an independent practice, it robs a community of a vital health care resource.

“A lot of independent practices are starting to see serious financial issues,” said Marc Lion, CEO of Lion & Company CPAs, LLC, which advises independent doctor practices about their finances.

Doctors list shrinking insurance reimbursements, changing regulations, rising business and drug costs among the factors preventing them from keeping their practices afloat. But some experts counter that doctors’ lack of business acumen is also to blame.

Loans to make payroll: Dr. William Pentz, 47, a cardiologist with a Philadelphia private practice, and his partners had to tap into their personal assets to make payroll for employees last year. “And we still barely made payroll last paycheck,” he said. “Many of us are also skimping on our own pay.”

Pentz said recent steep 35% to 40% cuts in Medicare reimbursements for key cardiovascular services, such as stress tests and echocardiograms, have taken a substantial toll on revenue. “Our total revenue was down about 9% last year compared to 2010,” he said.

12 entrepreneurs reinventing health care

“These cuts have destabilized private cardiology practices,” he said. “A third of our patients are on Medicare. So these Medicare cuts are by far the biggest factor. Private insurers follow Medicare rates. So those reimbursements are going down as well.”

Pentz is thinking about an out. “If this continues, I might seriously consider leaving medicine,” he said. “I can’t keep working this way.”

Also on his mind, the impending 27.4% Medicare pay cut for doctors. “If that goes through, it will put us under,” he said.

Federal law requires that Medicare reimbursement rates be adjusted annually based on a formula tied to the health of the economy. That law says rates should be cut every year to keep Medicare financially sound.

Although Congress has blocked those cuts from happening 13 times over the past decade, most recently on Dec. 23 with a two-month temporary “patch,” this dilemma continues to haunt doctors every year.

Beau Donegan, senior executive with a hospital cancer center in Newport Beach, Calif., is well aware of physicians’ financial woes.

“Many are too proud to admit that they are on the verge of bankruptcy,” she said. “These physicians see no way out of the downward spiral of reimbursement, escalating costs of treating patients and insurance companies deciding when and how much they will pay them.”

Donegan knows an oncologist “with a stellar reputation in the community” who hasn’t taken a salary from his private practice in over a year. He owes drug companies $1.6 million, which he wasn’t reimbursed for.

Dr. Neil Barth is that oncologist. He has been in the top 10% of oncologists in his region, according to U.S. News Top Doctors’ ranking. Still, he is contemplating personal bankruptcy.

That move could shutter his 31-year-old clinical practice and force 6,000 cancer patients to look for a new doctor.

Changes in drug reimbursements have hurt him badly. Until the mid-2000’s, drugs sales were big profit generators for oncologists.

In oncology, doctors were allowed to profit from drug sales. So doctors would buy expensive cancer drugs at bulk prices from drugmakers and then sell them at much higher prices to their patients.

“I grew up in that system. I was spending $1.5 million a month on buying treatment drugs,” he said. In 2005, Medicare revised the reimbursement guidelines for cancer drugs, which effectively made reimbursements for many expensive cancer drugs fall to less than the actual cost of the drugs.

“Our reimbursements plummeted,” Barth said.

Still, Barth continued to push ahead with innovative research, treating patients with cutting-edge expensive therapies, accepting patients who were underinsured only to realize later that insurers would not pay him back for much of his care.

“I was $3.2 million in debt by mid 2010,” said Barth. “It was a sickening feeling. I could no longer care for patients with catastrophic illnesses without scrutinizing every penny first.”

He’s since halved his debt and taken on a second job as a consultant to hospitals. But he’s still struggling and considering closing his practice in the next six months.

“The economics of providing health care in this country need to change. It’s too expensive for doctors,” he said. “I love medicine. I will find a way to refinance my debt and not lose my home or my practice.”

If he does declare bankruptcy, he loses all of it and has to find a way to start over at 60. Until then, he’s turning away new patients whose care he can no longer subsidize.

“I recently got a call from a divorced woman with two kids who is unemployed, house in foreclosure with advanced breast cancer,” he said. “The moment has come to this that you now say, ‘sorry, we don’t have the capacity to care for you.’ ”

Small business 101: A private practice is like a small business. “The only thing different is that a third party, and not the customer, is paying for the service,” said Lion.

“Many times I shake my head,” he said. “Doctors are trained in medicine but not how to run a business.” His biggest challenge is getting doctors to realize where and how their profits are leaking.

My biggest tax nightmare!

“On average, there’s a 10% to 15% profit leak in a private practice,” he said. Much of that is tied to money owed to the practice by patients or insurers. “This is also why they are seeing a cash crunch.”

Dr. Mike Gorman, a family physician in Loganvale, Nev., recently took out an SBA loan to keep his practice running and pay his five employees.

“It is embarrassing,” he said. “Doctors don’t want to talk about being in debt.” But he’s planning a new strategy to deal with his rising business expenses and falling reimbursements.

“I will see more patients, but I won’t check all of their complaints at one time,” he explained. “If I do, insurance will bundle my reimbursement into one payment.” Patients will have to make repeat visits — an arrangement that he acknowledges is “inconvenient.”

“This system pits doctor against patient,” he said. “But it’s the only way to beat the system and get paid.”