Monthly Archives: March 2013

THE U.S. MEDICAL SYSTEM IS THE NATION’S NUMBER ONE KILLER

 

 

By Rob Pell
March 11, 2013
NewsWithViews.com

Ideas for reducing unnecessary, preventable deaths in this country have been in the news a lot lately. Where shall we begin? Annual gun related homicides total about 11,000 and automobile fatalities are about 35,000 per year.

Would you be surprised to learn that the leading cause of death in the US appears to be the medical system itself. This is the startling conclusion reached in a report published by medical researchers: Gary Null, PhD; Carolyn Dean MD, ND; Martin Feldman, MD; Debora Rasio, MD; and Dorothy Smith, PhD.

Deaths resulting from inadvertent, adverse effects or complications from medical treatment or diagnostic proceedures are known as Iatrogenisis, meaning: Brought forth by a healer (from the Greek iatros, healer).Their report places the number of annnual iatrgenic (brought forth by a healer) deaths in the US at 783,936.

Hippocrates is often regarded as the father of western medicine and 98% of American medical students swear to some form of the Hippocratic Oath before practicing medicine. One of the underlying principals of the Oath is: “first, do no harm.” I’m not sure if that’s sad or ironic.

The largest single contributor to iatrogenic deaths are prescription drugs, being used as directed. According to a report issued by Medical News Today, over 4 billion prescriptions were written for drugs in America in 2011 . That’s an average of over 13 for each man, woman and child. The average number of prescriptions written annually for a senior citizen is 28 per year. That doesn’t include over- the-counter medications or vaccines. If these drugs could successfully treat and cure disease, the United States would have the healthiest inhabitants on the planet.

The possible adverse reaction warnings on TV drug commercials have become a punch line for comedian’s routines, but, life-threatening side-effects are no laughing matter. Common side-effects of individual drugs are well publicized but it’s impossible for physicians or pharmacists to reliably predict what possible side-effects will occur when combining three, four, 13 or 28 different drugs.

I was recently saddened to read the obituary of one of my customers, a strongly-built Military Veteran in his mid-seventies, who appeared to me to be in excellent health five years ago. His son told me that he had reviewed his Dad’s prescriptions with him and was shocked to discover that 9 of the 12 drugs his father was taking had been prescribed to treat side-effects from one of the other drugs. His father was found dead, lying on the floor of his residence. No autopsy was performed.

The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) published a study by Dr. Barbara Starfield, an MD with a Master’s degree in Public Health, revealing the extremely poor performance of the United States health care system in a number of areas.

One of Starfield’s main concerns is the lack of systematic recording and studying of adverse events stemming from prescription drugs. If a patient dies, there is no routine procedure to notify their physician, even if the patient is autopsied. Therefore, there is almost no way for the average doctor to link a patient’s death to a possible adverse reaction to a prescribed medication.

This is especially troubling because another article published in JAMA concluded prescription drugs, being used as directed, cause about 106,000 deaths a year and over two million serious injuries annually in the U.S. This makes prescription drugs the single largest factor in deaths induced by the medical establishment.

Nationally, only about 20% of all deaths are subject to investigation by a coronor or medical examiner. If the cause of death was made certain in all cases by autopsy, I’m quite sure that the number of deaths actually caused by prescription drugs, being used as directed, would dwarf the 106,000 per year the JAMA report acknowleged.

I’ve seen enough to believe that in many cases Big-Pharma is far more concerned with creating repeat, lifetime customers rather than finding cures. Joining the drug companies, the FDA and insurance companies are the kingpins behind this profit-driven business model. Some call doctors well-meaning, unsuspecting pawns of Big-Pharma. Others call them street level pushers for FDA sanctioned drug cartels. Either way, the kingpins couldn’t do it without medical doctors helping them complete the drug delivery system.

Due to concerns about dangerous side-effects from long-term use, many prescription drugs were, at one time, specifically prescribed only for short-term use Now, just a few years later, many of the same drugs are routinely prescribed, indefinitely, for the rest of your life.

Further, the Null-Dean report showed that the number of people exposed to unnecessary hospitalization annually is 8.9 million per year. This is cause for concern because a 2008 study issued by the Office of Inspector General for the Department of Health and Human Services, reported that one in seven Medicare beneficiaries who is hospitalized will be harmed as a result of the medical care they receive in the hospital.

Prescription drugs and hospital visits are very risky business. Unlike with other more well publicized causes of death, simply taking greater personal responsibility for our own health and well-being could save hundreds of thousands of lives every year. Unfortunately, more gun or traffic laws will do nothing to save us from what is actually the Nation’s number one killer, the U.S.medical system.

Scientists say homeopathy is undiluted hogwash. But it CAN work – and that’s all that matters

Scientists say homeopathy is undiluted hogwash. But it CAN work – and that’s all that matters

By James Delingpole
UPDATED: 10:52, 1 March 2011

 

Believers: Some homeopathists argue that water is capable of retaining some form of 'memory'Believers: Some homeopathists argue that water is capable of retaining some form of ‘memory’

Just what is it that makes so many people so angry about homeopathy? I’ve been using it on and off for years — arnica tablets for when the kids fall over, a magic box of special remedies which helped cure my hay-fever. I’ve always thought it was something harmless, something all of us did now and again.

Apparently not, though. In the past few months, whenever I’ve mentioned my guilty homeopathy secret to friends, it’s as if I’ve confessed to a penchant for child sacrifice.

‘What?’ the general reaction has been. ‘Don’t you realise all homeopaths are charlatans; their remedies are nothing more than sugar pills; they’re a drain on the NHS; they’ve resulted in the deaths of gullible innocents all over the world?’

This surprises and saddens me, for there have been times in my life when I’ve found homeopathy beneficial. I wouldn’t class myself as an ardent believer — I won’t shun coffee or mint toothpaste, or any of those other boring things you’re supposed to do if your remedies are to work properly. But I’m not a virulent sceptic, either.

Probably the greatest success I’ve had has been with my hayfever. It made my childhood summers a misery of itchy eyes, sneezing and almost flu-like debilitation.

Yet by my mid-30s it had all but vanished thanks to a wonderful little Welsh firm called Ffynnonwen (which makes a special homeopathic anti-hayfever kit) and to the miracle worker who sent me there, a homeopath called Fiona Gross.

Fiona was just an ordinary London housewife who got into the business quite by accident when her daughter broke out in terrible eczema which conventional medicine couldn’t cure. After much reading, research and experimentation, Fiona did cure it, and decided thereafter to make a career of her new-found expertise.

One of her recent success stories was a woman struck down with a mysterious  respiratory illness acquired on holiday in Greece.

Using her Sherlock Holmes-like skills, Fiona eventually narrowed it down to the pollen of olive blossom. She sent some olive blossom to Ffynnonwen, which made up a remedial homeopathic tincture. Within a few days, the woman’s problems had gone.

Almost as interesting as Fiona’s cure was the reaction of the woman’s GP: he was livid.

Though he’d failed to cure the problem himself, he refused to accept that homeopathy could have done the trick. Clearly, her illness had been all in the mind.

Of course, I understand why the medical establishment is sceptical. As campaigners such as science journalist Ben Goldacre tirelessly remind us, homeopathic remedies are so dilute that they’re unlikely to contain any pharmacologically active molecules.

Success story: The greatest success James Delingpole had with homeopathy has been with his hayfeverSuccess story: The greatest success James Delingpole had with homeopathy has been with his hayfever

And I’m well aware that in countless tests, homeopathic remedies have been shown to be no more effective than sugar pills. In other words, its power may lie purely in the placebo effect.

Perhaps they’re right. Certainly, almost everything I’ve read on homeopathy convinces me it’s bunk. That’s why, every time I take a homeopathic remedy, I mutter to myself: ‘You don’t really believe in this nonsense, do you?’

And why, though I use homeopathy for routine ailments, I very much doubt I’d rely on it, say, as a prophylactic against malaria or as a miracle cure for cancer. Well, not except as a last resort — which is how most people come to homeopathy anyway.

Where I seriously find myself in disagreement with the anti-homeopathy lobby, though, is over the shrillness of their bullying intolerance.

They pride themselves on their rationalism, yet the foaming fury with which they pursue this modern heresy owes more to the religious fervour of Witchfinders General or Spanish inquisitors.

There’s often something insufferably smug about their attitude, too: ‘See how clever and rational I am! I know my science, I do. That’s why I hate homeopathy! I am a real sceptic, me.’

Well, yes, I too am all for the principles of post-Enlightenment rationalism. But surely one of those principles is a healthy awareness that none of us yet knows everything there is to know about everything. The history of scientific progress, after all, is the history of old ‘consensus’ theories being discredited and being replaced by new theories.

Until the 1880s, the experts would have laughed in your face if you’d suggested that malaria was caused by anything other than the miasma of foul air that emanated from swamps.

Until the Seventies, you’d have been ridiculed for positing that stomach ulcers were caused by a bacterium; until 1934, nobody even suspected that the major part of the universe might comprise something called ‘dark matter’.

Does that mean that everyone was totally thick then, and that we have all the answers now? One day, perhaps, scientists will prove beyond all doubt that homeopathy is hocus pocus nonsense. But there are other possibilities, too.

The principle of homeopathy is that a remedy can be as dilute as Goldacre points out because the water retains the memory of the active ingredient; it doesn’t need lots of the remedy to work. This has been scoffed out of court by the sceptics.

However, Dr Luc Montagnier, the French virologist who won the Nobel Prize for discovering the Aids virus, and Nobel Prize-winning Cambridge physicist Brian Josephson both argue that water is capable of retaining some form of ‘memory’.

Josephson accuses homeopathy’s critics of ‘pathological disbelief’ — that is, they hold the unscientific view that ‘even if it were true, I still wouldn’t believe in it’.

‘The practitioners I’ve known have been sincere, thoughtful people who give their clients the kind of attention you’d almost certainly never get from a GP these days’

Not being a scientist, I’m keeping an open mind. What I’m wholeheartedly against are the anti-homeopathy brigade and their attempts to destroy this harmless cottage industry through expensive over-regulation.

I find their complaints about homeopathy on the NHS overdone (just £4 million out of the NHS’s annual £104 billion budget goes on homeopathy: that’s a mere 0.004 per cent).

Nor am I persuaded by their line that homeopathy is denying genuinely sick people proper medical treatment.

No one is forcing cancer sufferers to use pulsatilla extract rather than radiotherapy and chemotherapy. Almost everyone who uses homeopathy does so out of informed choice, rather than ignorance — often after they’ve been through all the conventional remedies and found them not to work.

And if we’re going to come down hard on ‘sugar pills’, what about all the cases where the pharmaceutical industry’s licensed drugs have done far greater damage — such as the teenage suicides linked to the antidepressant Seroxat, or the increased risk of heart disease caused by the diabetes drug Avandia?

That’s why I’m laying my neck on the line and sticking up for homeopathy. Not because I know for certain it’s true, but because I’ve met too many people whom it has helped not to give it the benefit of the doubt.

The practitioners I’ve known have been sincere, thoughtful people who give their clients the kind of attention you’d almost certainly never get from a GP these days.

Homeopathy has helped many thousands of people feel healthier and happier than they were before, fairly inexpensively and without any unpleasant side-effects.

Call them gullible fools, call them what you will: the point, surely, is that it worked for them — and that’s all that really matters.

Australian Competition and Consumer Commission attack on alternative views of illness and treatment of.

Alert

This is the latest from http://www.homoeopathyinfo.com/?p=2206

UPCOMING COURT CASE – WILL YOU HELP?
(This is a redacted version of the original post. If we had not removed certain points by midnight tonight, we may have been in sub judice and tomorrow, in goal. Please continue to help by sharing this post as much as possible).

You are probably aware that the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) commenced proceedings against Homeopathy Plus, my husband and me last week in the Federal Court of Australia.

(If this is news to you, you may like to read: A Letter from Fran Sheffield – Today I will be in Court).

At last we are free to tell what happened, and we hope you will read to the story’s end as the events involved have the potential to affect you as much as us. We also have four important areas in which you may be able to help.

AT THE BEGINNING
When the ACCC decided to commence fast-tracked proceedings against us we had little more than a week’s notice to prepare for the Directions Hearing. The ACCC was concerned that three pages on our website (one of which had been removed almost a year ago) were misleading or deceptive. These pages contained information about whooping cough, the whooping cough vaccine, and [REDACTED].

When we were advised that proceedings would be commenced, we decided to defend the action as we believed (and still believe) the information we provided was correct.

THE DIRECTIONS HEARING
At the Directions Hearing in the Federal Court last Friday (March 1, 2013), the ACCC sought immediate orders and a fast-tracked date for when the case would be heard in full.

So what was the outcome of this hearing? Thanks to excellent representation by our barrister, the Justice removed the fast-tracking; the case is now scheduled for late August, at which time we intend to defend our position vigorously. In the meantime we have agreed to remove the pages in question from our website until the case is heard.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?
There is still a long way to go. The case is significant and a lot is at stake – not just for us but for anyone who accesses and wants to continue to access information on vaccines and healthcare from an alternative viewpoint.

When our case reaches court in August, the following questions will be asked:

1. [REDACTED]
2. [REDACTED]

You may be wondering if the repercussions of this case will extend beyond Homeopathy Plus, my husband and me. You may also wonder if a precedent will be set that not only affects the practice of homeopathy in Australia but also the practice and supply of information by many other complementary and alternative therapies. And, like others, you may be asking, “Is it fair for someone to be prosecuted by a government agency just for questioning certain aspects of government health policy and offering an alternative view?”

We have received advice that the right to publicly question government information about vaccines and provide alternative information on homeopathy will be a central issue in this case (i.e. the extent of those rights and when they can be censored) so obviously, important issues are at stake.

We cannot say more at this time about the details of the case, but we hope this has gone some way to explaining its significance. We need your support and are asking you to help in a number of important areas.

THE FIGHTING FUND
If you have ever practiced or been helped by homeopathy, now is the time to show your support. A conservative estimate for legal and court costs in this case is at least $50,000 – an incredible amount of money in one lump, but not so much if divided between many. Just 500 homeopaths donating $50 each would create a fund of $25,000 right there!

If other alternative therapists – chiropractors, naturopaths, herbalists, acupuncturists (the list goes on and on) – joined with us, we would all be in a much stronger position.

And for those who want to protect their right to alternative information and natural healthcare, your donation, no matter how big or small, will help provide strong and effective legal representation.

You can donate in any of the following ways:

1. Fax your credit card details and the amount you want to give to 02 4044 0153 (international faxes: +612 4044 0153)

2. Make a PayPal payment at: fransheffield@homeopathyplus.com.au – Remember to add FIGHTING FUND in the comments section and we will send you a receipt.

3. Direct deposit funds into the following designated account – be sure to email us at office@homeopathyplus.com.au with the amount and FIGHTING FUND in the subject line so we can send you a receipt:

Westpac Account: Fighting Fund
BSB: 032 627
Account: 198475

4. Pay by card over the phone at 02 4304 0822 (International callers: +612 4304 0822)

5. Mail your cheque to Homeopathy Plus at:
7b/1 Pioneer Avenue
Tuggerah NSW 2259

Remember to provide your name and address so we can send you a receipt.

To those who have already contacted us with offers of help and donations, thank you so much! Your support is greatly appreciated and means a lot to us.

OUR LEGAL TEAM
Our legal team is still being assembled for this important case. If you are a solicitor, barrister or Queen’s Counsel and would like to be involved, please contact us on 02 4304 0822 or send an email to fransheffield@homeopathyplus.com.au

CALLING ALL EXPERTS
If have expertise in the area of whooping cough, vaccines, or the [REDACTED] and would like to help with the case, please contact us on 02 4304 0822 or send an email to fransheffield@homeopathyplus.com.au

GETTING THE STORY OUT
Help spread the word about this case in any way you can. Tell your family, friends and patients about it and the implications it may have for their access to alternative health information and treatment. Post it on your blog and Facebook pages. Tweet it and pin it up on Pinterest. Share it on other social media sites. Send the information to any email lists you may be involved with. It is important to get the word out to as many people as possible, as quickly as possible.

IN CONCLUSION
If you love homeopathy and want continued access to information on vaccines and healthcare from an alternative viewpoint you MUST choose to act. Please help us and please help homeopathy. By doing that, you will also help yourself.

Thanking you so much,

Fran Sheffield.

17 Examples of Admitted Vaccine Failure

Feb 23rd, 2013 | By | Category: Jeffry John Aufderheide, Top Storiesvaccine-effectiveness

Let’s face it.

As parents, we’re inundated with mixed messages about vaccines.

On one hand, doctors and mainstream media tell you how effective and safe vaccines are. On the other hand, you have parents like me who claim vaccines injured their children, or, in this case, that vaccines really “don’t work” as advertised.

What is often quickly forgotten is how often (and badly) vaccines fail. Ask yourself, “Why don’t these vaccine failures regularly make the news?”

If you can imagine in your mind’s eye, for a moment, the cash register “cha-chinging” while Big Pharma is pulling out a wad of cash, I think you may be getting close to the real answer. There’s big money in making sure the vaccine program is perceived as a success by you.

But this isn’t why you’re here.

Before I give you the 17 examples of how vaccines have failed, please investigate the United States vaccine schedule. Children are injected with 36 vaccines by the time they are 6 years of age.

number-vaccines

The United States has the most aggressive vaccine schedule in the world.

You’ll notice a common theme that when vaccines fail, the proposed solution is often more vaccines, even when the child has already received multiple doses to “protect” them.

As promised, here are examples of the children being injected with toxic and ineffective vaccines, which their parents trusted would protect their children from getting the disease.

Vaccine Failure #1 – Mumps Outbreak in Orthodox Jewish Communities in the United States (2010)

A large mumps outbreak occurred among highly vaccinated U.S. Orthodox Jewish communities during 2009 and 2010. Of the teenagers vaccinated,

  • 89% had previously received two doses of a mumps-containing vaccine
  • 8% had received one dose

Those infected who received a vaccine: 97%. [1]

 

Vaccine Failure #2 – Mumps Epidemic in Iowa (2006)

In March, 2006, a total of 219 mumps cases had been reported in Iowa – the largest epidemic of mumps in the United States since 1988.

Of the 219 cases reported in Iowa, the average age of infection was 21. Of the 133 patients investigated with a vaccine history,

  • 87 (65%) had received 2 doses
  • 19 (14%) had received 1 dose
  • 8 (6%) had no doses
  • 19 (14%) vaccine status could not be documented

Those infected who received a vaccine: 79% (at least). [2]

 

Vaccine Failure #3 – Mumps Outbreak at a Summer Camp in New York (2005)

On July 26, 2005, the New York State Department of Health identified 31 cases of mumps, possibly introduced by an unvaccinated camp counselor from the United Kingdom (UK). The vaccine coverage for the entire camp was 96%. Of the infected 31,

  • 16 (52%) had received 2 doses
  • 4 (13%) had received 1 dose
  • 9 (29%) had no doses
  • 2 (6%) vaccine status could not be documented

20 of the 31 people infected (65%) of the people infected were vaccinated.

Vaccine coverage for the camp: 96%. [3]

 

Vaccine Failure #4 – Mumps Outbreak in a Highly Vaccinated Population (1989)

From October 1988 to April 1989, an outbreak involving 269 cases of mumps occurred in Douglas County, Kansas. Of the 269 cases, 208 (77.3%) occurred among primary and secondary school students, of whom 203 (97.6%) had received a mumps vaccination. [4]

 

Vaccine Failure #5 – Two Fully Vaccinated Doctors Get Measles (2009)

A measles outbreak in 2009 exposed and infected two physicians, both of whom had been fully vaccinated with two doses of the MMR vaccine. These physicians were suspected of having been infected by treating patients diagnosed with measles.

Scoreboard: Measles 2 – Vaccinated Doctors 0. [5]

 

Vaccine Failure #6 – Major Measles Epidemic in Quebec Despite 99% Vaccine Coverage (1989)

The 1989 measles outbreak infecting 1,363 people in the province of Quebec was attempted to be explained away as occurring because of “incomplete vaccination coverage.”

However, upon further investigation, it was discovered the vaccination coverage among cases was at least 84.5%. Vaccination coverage for the total population was 99.0%.

Vaccine coverage for population: 99% [6]

 

Vaccine Failure #7–Outbreak of Measles Despite Appropriate Control Measures (1985)

In 1985, of 118 cases of measles which occurred on a Blackfeet reservation in Montana, 82% were vaccinated. Twenty-three of those cases occurred in the schools in Browning, Montana, where 98.7% of students were vaccinated. [7]

 

Vaccine Failure #8 – Measles Outbreak in a Fully Immunized Secondary-School Population (1985)

In 1985, an outbreak of measles occurred in a secondary school located in Corpus Christi, Texas. More than 99% had records of vaccination with live measles vaccine. The investigators concluded “that outbreaks of measles can occur in secondary schools, even when more than 99 percent of the students have been vaccinated and more than 95 percent are immune.

Vaccine coverage for school: 99%. [8]

 

Vaccine Failure #9 – Measles in an Immunized School-Aged Population in New Mexico (1984)

The story keeps repeating.

In 1984, 76 cases of measles were reported in Hobbs, New Mexico. Forty-seven cases (62%) occurred among students. The school reported that 98% of students were vaccinated against measles before the outbreak began.

Vaccine coverage for school: 98% [9]

 

Vaccine Failure #10 – Measles Outbreak Among Vaccinated High School Students in Illinois (1984)

In 1984, 21 cases of measles occurred in Sangamon County, Illinois.

  • 16 (76%) were vaccinated
  • 4 (19%) were unvaccinated preschool children
  • 1 (5%) vaccinated college student

All 411 students of the local high school were documented as having received the vaccination on or after their first birthday. Investigators remarked, “This outbreak demonstrates that transmission of measles can occur within a school population with a documented immunization level of 100%.

Vaccine coverage in school children contracting measles: 100% [10]

 

Vaccine Failure #11 – Analysis of Measles Epidemic; Possible Role of Vaccine Failures (1975)

In 1975, a measles epidemic occurred in schools in Greensville, Ontario. Out of the 47 cases of measles,

  • 26 (55.3%) had been vaccinated
  • 18 (18.3%) had not been vaccinated
  • 3 (6.4%) vaccine status unknown

Researchers concluded one vaccine isn’t enough to protect children. They recommended children be injected with an additional measles vaccine.

Cases of measles in vaccinated children: 55.3%. [11]

 

Vaccine Failure #12 – Unexpectedly Limited Durability of Immunity Following Acellular Pertussis Vaccination in Pre-Adolescents in a North American Outbreak (2012)

In 2012, doctors at Kaiser Permanente Medical Center identified 171 cases of pertussis – 132 in children. They noticed increased cases in children between the ages 8-12. They claim vaccine effectiveness was as follows:

  • For ages 2-7: 41% effective (?!?)
  • For ages 8-12: 24% effective (?!?)
  • For ages 13-18: 79% effective

Outside of using colorful adjectives such as garbage, worthless, or junk, the doctors hypothesized children need more vaccines to become “adequately protected.”

Vaccine effectiveness for ages 8-12: 24%. [12]

 

Vaccine Failure #13 – Clinical Presentation of Pertussis in Fully Immunized Children in Lithuania (2001)

In 2001, Lithuania’s vaccine coverage was 94.6% as a country. From May to December of that year, 53 children showed a serological confirmation of pertussis. Of the 53 children,

  • 32 (60.4%) were fully vaccinated
  • 21 (39.6%) were partially vaccinated or unvaccinated

Researchers conveniently grouped both partially vaccinated and unvaccinated children together. Twenty-eight of 32 fully vaccinated children (87.5%) had also received antibiotics.

Vaccinated children (who received at least three DTP vaccine doses) represented 43.2% of all pertussis cases diagnosed in 2001.

Vaccine coverage for Lithuania: 94.6%. [13]

 

Vaccine Failure #14 – Pertussis Infection in Fully Vaccinated Children in Day Care Centers (2000)

Many health professionals are adamant that vaccines protect against infection. Evidence from a field investigation in Israel challenges this belief.

In 2000, a child died suspected of having pertussis. The baby received the first dose of DTP at two months of age – all family members were completely vaccinated with four doses of DTP.

The day care centers that two siblings had attended during the child’s illness were investigated. All the children in the day care had been vaccinated in infancy with four doses of diphtheria-tetanus toxoid pertussis (DTP) vaccine, and a booster dose at 12 months of age.

Five fully vaccinated children were found to be colonized with Bordetella pertussis.

At the conclusion of the investigation, researchers stressed the following information:

Vaccinated adolescents and adults may serve as reservoirs for silent infection and become potential transmitters to unprotected infants. The whole-cell vaccine for pertussis is protective only against clinical disease, not against infection. Therefore, even young, recently vaccinated children may serve as reservoirs and potential transmitters of infection.

They re-emphasized again, “Our results indicate that children ages 5-6 years and possibly younger, ages 2-3 years, play a role as silent reservoirs in the transmission of pertussis in the community.

Vaccine coverage in daycare: 100% [14]

Vaccine Failure #15 – Pertussis Outbreak in Vermont (1996)

In 1996, over 280 cases of pertussis cases were identified in Vermont. Here is the breakdown of the age groups of those infected:

  • 12 (4%) were aged less than 1 year
  • 32 (11%) were 1-4 years
  • 42 (15%) were 5-9 years
  • 129 (46%) were 10-19 years
  • 65 (23%) were greater than or equal to 20 years

How many of these 215 children were vaccinated? According to the report, of the children who had a known vaccine status,

  • 5 children aged 7-47 months were partially vaccinated
  • 14 children aged 7-47 months were vaccinated with 3 doses
  • 49 children aged 7-18 years were partially vaccinated
  • 106 children aged 7-18 years were fully vaccinated

Disturbingly, 174 children were vaccinated and over half (61%) of the school children were considered “fully vaccinated!” It’s also important to keep in mind that in 1996, 97% of children aged 19-35 months in Vermont had received three or more doses of DT or DTP vaccine.

Complete failure in vaccinated children: at least 80.9% [15]

 

Vaccine Failure #16 – Outbreak of Varicella at a Day Care Center Despite Vaccination (2012)

Sometimes instead of saying a vaccine is a complete failure, a term such as “breakthrough varicella” is used to describe how children get the disease for which they were vaccinated.

In December of 2012, an outbreak occurred in a private day care center in a small community near Concord, New Hampshire. There were a total of 25 cases of varicella reported in children.

  • 17 (68%) were vaccinated
  • 8 (32%) were unvaccinated – two of these children were vaccinated in late December and classified as “unvaccinated”

The investigators lamented that the vaccine was 44% effective, saying, “The reasons for the poor performance of the vaccine are not apparent…the findings in this investigation raise concern that the current vaccination strategy may not protect all children adequately.

Vaccine coverage: 73.1% [16]

 

Vaccine Failure #17 – An Outbreak of Chickenpox in Elementary School Children with Two-Dose Varicella Vaccine Recipients (2006)

When it is apparent one vaccine isn’t working, the answer is almost always more vaccines… ever notice?

In June 2006, a second dose of the chickenpox (varicella) vaccine was recommended for school entry. Shortly after school had begun, the Arkansas Department of Health was notified of a varicella outbreak in students.

Vaccination information was available for 871 (99%) of the 880 children. Ninety-seven percent of the children had been vaccinated for varicella! In this outbreak, 84 cases were reported.

Vaccine coverage: 97%. [17]

 

Conclusion

As you can see from the above examples, vaccines fail and do so often. Trust me, there are many more examples I didn’t cover here.

Here’s a tip for you if you want to look for more information. Open your browser right now. Go to Google.com and do a search for the terms “previously immunized for (x)” or “breakthrough (x) in school.” X, of course, represents a “vaccine preventable” disease such as pertussis, measles, varicella, etc., – you get the point.

As a parent, you trust doctors to provide you with accurate information. When doctors say vaccines work and they are effective, from whom are they getting their information?

Maybe even more importantly, why aren’t the vaccine failures covered by mainstream media to inform you? The likely answer is the organizations who really need protection from the truth are the members of Big Pharma – and I don’t think there is a vaccine for that (although they may try to create one).

If you find other examples, please post them below (with the link to PubMed) for other parents to read.

 

References

 

  1. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1202865
  2. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm55d330a1.htm
  3. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5507a2.htm
  4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1861205
  5. http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/content/204/suppl_1/S559.full.pdf+html
  6. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1884314
  7. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=3618578
  8. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198703263161303
  9. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000476.htm
  10. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000359.htm
  11. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1956577/
  12. http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2012/03/13/cid.cis287
  13. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15918913
  14. http://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/6/5/00-0512_article.htm
  15. http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00049244.htm
  16. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa021662
  17. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19593254

A small rant.

sad-doctorI get a little tired of the attacks on homoeopathy, refered to as “pseudo science, and quackery, and dangerous bullsh*t.” I just read an article where the author is Dean of a famous university, as if this is all the qualification he needs to pontificate on life and what constitutes real medicine. His speciality is not even medicine.

I occasionally watch TV and see learned men espouse their opinion on science, creation, modern medical marvels, progress, achievements and watch them smug in their own self justification of purported knowledge and being the arbiters of what is good for mankind and how their way is the only way.

Sad to say, and it sad, for I wish with my heart that what they present as truth, was truth. Only it isnt. Sadder still, the people who originate the claims, in the main, are in full knowledge of the real truth, and sacrifice ethics for power and money. Historical evidence released by their own people, time and time again reveal the truth about their truth.

The time is coming when the strength of liberalism, for that is what it is, and total disregard for the opinions that do not match their own, will destroy All forms of medical treatment save allopathy, and that will be the only choice.

I am weary of the claims of this new world order that all governments are pushing for. It will not be better. It will be totalitarian and it will be lacking in freedom and choice.

There is nothing much to destroy in the practice of homoeopathy. The therapists have done a good job of that themselves. What we have in the West in the main, is a bastardized, even completely different therapy than what Hahnemann created. There is no science, or adherence to the principles  in the quasi psychology methodology employed by Sankaran sensation method practitioners, or users of Scholtens methods, or employment of tissue salts or radiology or distance healing etc etc. That is not homoeopathy, never was and never will be.  It will be no loss if these methods are closed down.

Sadly, for those who adhere to the principles of the real therapy, those who have studied and researched and proven time and time again the efficacy of Hahnemanns protocol… they will lose out. And so will the world, who will lament the passing of real medicine.

Homoeopathy is hard enough to practice in this day and age due to dealing with a multitude of allopathic interventions in a patients life from birth, vaccines, antibiotics, suppression treatments etc, but it still proves its worth when prescribed properly and the case managed correctly. Any other type of treatment is guesswork and deserving of scorn from everyone.

Its time for the colleges to wake up to the very real danger that they have placed themselves in, and start teaching properly. But then again, if they had really cared in the first place, and had teachers who had studied source materials, we wouldnt be in this mess that we are in.

All it takes is for people to think for themselves and read.

 

 

Herings Law?

Posted by Dr. Jose Guillermo Zamora De La Paz, UAG Medical Doctor, Homeopath by the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.

It is essential to have an original conception of Hahnemann miasmatic theory from his own observations to understand the purpose of raising a complete model of chronic diseases. Can not display exactly this legacy, if you only have the highly personal opinions of some authors who have misinterpreted Hahnemann. [1]

From any of us begin the study of homeopathy, we have instilled in our education that the second “law” to be learned (after similar law) is the law of involution or Hering law.

We are taught that “a chronic healing occurs in the reverse direction from carrying the disease course. That is, current symptoms are the first to disappear, returning the patient to states that had previously submitted. When initial symptoms reappear and heal your illness with such medicine, healing will come. “

“As a corollary, we very often the symptoms will disappear from the top down, from the center to the periphery of most important organ to less important organ.”

Point by point we have:

I-Conversely, in time, the course it has followed the disease.

II-From top to bottom.

III-From the center to the periphery.

IV-important organ to less important organ.

“The item I is the most important of the four, the other three will be subordinated to the first. At the beginning of homeopathic treatment, the above symptoms disappear, which continues up to the primary or initial symptoms. “[2]

Apparently this has caused a conflict from the frustration of many, as it has been considered as a criterion of cure to a set of observations concerning a direction of healing, not always the case [3]. From the available literature by contemporary homeopaths, you realize that there are different positions on the matter, in which a claim is not case law and have only seen a few cases where something happens, and others passing mention a thousand times if case taking, analysis, diagnosis and homeopathic dosage are adequate. [4]

Many “teachers” of homeopathy, motivated by pre-conceived notions of essentially metaphysical teachings (Swedenborg) claimed that this “Law” Hering is an application that always occur during practice. Kent at second reading of 1900 for the Post-Graduate School of Homœopathics not specify whether this application is for all diseases, acute and chronic, or when including venereal miasms. Here what I find important to say is that Kent was who first gave the title of “law” to a series of observations made ​​by Hering [5] and that although he coined, is the same Hering who gives credit to Hahnemann having been the first to make such observations of the direction of healing [6, 7] as we can see in the following extracts from Organon (6th. Ed.) and chronic diseases:

  • “Rising early symptoms of chronic disease can only occur at the end of treatment when the cure is almost or completely finished.” Organon § 161
  • … “Will continue as long as the patient experiences improvement and therefore not present any discomfort that has never had before, during his life.” Organon § 248

 

  • “Among the signs that in all diseases, especially those of an acute nature, principle announced a slight improvement or aggravation is not for everyone perceptible, are the safest and instructions that reveal the mental state of the patient and their behavior. In case there is a relief, albeit very light, it shows a greater degree of wellness, tranquility and enhances the freedom of the mind and spirit is stronger, it verifies a kind of return to the natural state. In the event of aggravation, although very slight, it will have an opposite state previous character withdrawal, despair of mind, pitiable behavior in all its gestures, postures and actions, all of which is easily perceived by through careful observation, but it is difficult to express in words “Organon § 253

 

  • “The old medicine or allopathy … wrongly consider all conditions that occupy the outer parts of the body as purely local, isolated and independent, and believes if any curing has eliminated when using topical requiring the internal condition move elsewhere nobler and more important. “Introduction, Organon
  • “… Other times when the remedy was working more smoothly in the local affection, perhaps still recent, exercised a sort of external homeopatismo on local symptom that nature had given birth in the skin to relieve the internal condition, also renewed the latter, to bind to a greater danger, and exposed to the life force, by this local symptom suppression, to produce a more dangerous noblest somewhere. Instead ensuing rebel ophthalmia, deafness, stomach spasms, epileptic seizures, fits of suffocation, seizures, mental illness, etc.. 1 “
  • 1 “These are the natural consequences of the suppression of local symptoms in question, allopathic medical consequences that often looks as new diseases and entirely different” Introduction, Organon

 

  • “… Reviewing … all … and checking symptoms so do not suffer from any other new symptoms and that the ancients did not have worsened. If this is the case, and if there has been improvement in the character and mind, is an indication that the drug must have made ​​a positive decrease of the disease, or if not enough time has passed for this to be done, soon will be. “Organon § 255

 

  • “Consequently, I can not advise, for example, local destruction of cancer of the lips or face (the result of a highly developed psora and often linked to syphilis) with arsenical ointment Fray Cosme, not only because This method is very painful, and often fails, but also and especially because such a dynamic environment, although locally the body free of cancerous ulcer, does not diminish the underlying disease, so that the vital force of life are conservative forced to transferring the focus of the great evil that exists inside a nobler part (as in all metastases) and thereby produce blindness, deafness, dementia, suffocating asthma, dropsy, apoplexy, so. “Organon § 205 Footnote.

 

  • “There are rare cases, the disease calls threatening bodily existence as lung suppuration, altering any other noble organ, or in some other acute, as puerperal fever, etc., In which increasing Quickly symptom intensity moral degenerates into madness disease, a kind of melancholy or mania, to which physical symptoms are no longer dangerous and improve almost to perfect health or rather decrease to such an extent that their presence faded … “Organon § 216 Footnote.

 

  • “… When the Psora raise its head again, either with the same symptoms as before, or the like, but gradually more annoying than the first, or developed symptoms in the most noble of the organism” (Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann Par.: 153, page 140, translated by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.)
  • “Only when the old symptoms are eradicated or very much diminished by the latest and previous medications, start to emerge again, for a few days, or are significantly aggravated, then it is time to give a Homoeopathically dose as appropriate.” (Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, Par.: 219, page 167, by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.)
  • “The recent symptoms that have appeared in the chronic diseases that have been left to themselves, (and thus have not been aggravated by wrong medical treatments) are always the first to go on an anti-psoric, but the oldest and disorders those who have been most constant and unchanged, among which are the constant local disorders, are the last to disappear, and this is only achieved when all permanent disorders have disappeared and health is restored on all orders almost completely. “(Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, Par.: 245, pages 184-185, Translated by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.)

Utility

From here it seems important to state that the direction of healing should not be taken as law for determining the cure of chronic diseases, nor as dogmas that must be taken with blind faith come from the word of a great teacher [3 , 8], but as data coming from the inductance [17], ie, observations and experience gathered by Hahnemann, that without being able to deny [9], they should not have a declarative connotation that are taken as a event that always occurs in all cases (law). (See point 8 of the conclusion)

Once you have reviewed many cases of Hahnemann, we have observed that in many (not all), when a patient could not be cured, then the analysis would be on anti-psoric remedy, not with the intention of prescribe based on a miasma, but the anti-psoric fell in automatic selection from similimum itself (the same goes for the other two chronic miasms). Is thus evident that healing always cases determined by the similarity of the chosen remedy for this disease and NO by the fact that the remedy was anti-psoric [10, 11]. The usefulness of all observations in the direction that leads to a cure is to understand that all deployments are symptomatic at different times during homeopathic treatment are not independent or separate, but are related to the same disease, so that often (not always) makes it possible to determine the course, course and prognosis that has a certain disease, that is, whether it is curable or incurable, or if you approach to healing. Hahnemann always sought a model to explain the observation of symptoms of chronic disease he saw. Your understanding and comprehension of infective agents along with the nature of the disease, led him to fill the gap in knowledge of chronicity when it releases the connection of all points in the etiology of the disease, since infection to different stages in visual reactional dimensional modern medicine still used for some diseases.

However, I have to say from a critical position, as Hahnemann himself demanded of all homeopathic [8], the major flaw in his model is the lack of a clear demarcation between a post-primary data observed during the first reaction which is taken as the origin of the disease, the primary symptom of itchy rash from the Psora which takes its name and whose presence indicates that the (Psora) has settled into the individual or has been cured when presented from a reverse direction before applying Similia. From a single statement, it is not definable sense in intensity, that is, if it was always observed such symptoms or only often enough to be a fact that confirms that a cure or remedy cured because it was anti-psoric [18]. Being a “Law”, this itchy rash so would invariably present even during healing. However, although this inconsistency still remains to determine the onset of psoricidad both the disease and the remedy, in other paragraphs Hahnemann frequency intensity clarifies saying that such primary skin eruption is not final nor necessary. [19]

Healing Address

In short, about the direction in the therapeutic healing of chronic diseases, we can conclude the following from the compiled’s own observation and experience:

1.-No person shall deliver this address all healing.

2. – The reverse order of progression occurs occasionally in cases where symptoms have been deleted, or where they have disappeared spontaneously, or where previous symptoms were apparently “resolved” allopathically, ie by any other means.

3.-Not all cases will be cured by a single remedy, most need up to 3 or 4 changes of remedy.

4.-Few cases are cured with a single dose and / or a single remedy.

5.-Every case is “moving” in individualized toward healing.

6.-The best health information to which we have to take our patient are the same data as the basis of their previous health serve us as a reference. Hahnemann himself put his health condition relative to collect data miasmatic disease. [12]

7.-The best evidence to know that a patient has eased or healing approaches are:

  • Note that their mood, their spheres of consciousness in space-and time-instead, tend toward improvement even in very mild. [13].
  • His face: facial expression, gestures, postures and actions, weight, hydration status, color of their skin (outer habitus) returns to its pre-illness.
  • Involution of his injuries, but when he has gone to truly homeopathic treatment, ruling out suppression.
  • The “normalization” of the results of laboratory and, of subjective and objective data of physical examination, which guide us to nobler organs are functioning as they should, and / or has removed the miasma infective (eg , microorganisms).

8.-The observed data by Hahnemann in relation to the direction of healing should be classified as a rule (rule) in the context of a theory and not a law. [14, 17, 18, 19]

9.-not always a given group of symptoms characterized as a chronic miasma, require a specific remedy for this miasma. Many times if a remedy Anti-Syphilitic (Mercury) or an anti-sycotic remedy (Thuja) fits the current collective symptoms by similarity, act curatively for those symptoms are present even when a Psora, like an anti-psoric acts curatively in any of the venereal miasms. [15]

10.-When the signs and symptoms of a case are properly embonados remedy each time [15] is required, and remedies relations [16] are used properly, will eliminate the susceptibility to infection and miasmatic therefore be resolved chronicity of the disease-reaction can be confirmed by then cured. One need not know whether the remedy is Anti-X, as it usually will fall into the correct category alone.

Recommended works:

The Theory of Chronic Disease According To Hahnemann George Dimitriadis.

“Hering’s Law: law, rule, or dogma” by Andre Saine in the Winter issue of Simillimum, Vol VI no. April 1993.

References:

[1] To those readers without prejudice is recommended to compare the observations of Hahnemann with the following authors:

  • Observations have misinterpreted Hahnemann
  1. Allen, JH: …………. The Chronic Miasma
  2. Dhawale, ML: …… Principles and Practice of Homoeopathy
  3. Kent, JT: Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy ……………
  4. Ortega, P.: Notes on Miasms ……………
  5. Roberts, HA: …….. Principles and Art of Cure
  • Han (at least partly) correctly represented observations Hahnemann
  1. Close, S.: ……………. The Genius of Homoeopathy
  2. Choudhury, H.: ……. Indications of Miasm
  3. Dudgeon, RE: ……. Lectures on the Theory and Practice of Homoeopathy.
  4. Sarkar, BK: Essays on Homoeopathy …………
  • Organon of medicine with comments
  1. Tyler, ML: ………… Hahnemann’s Conception of Chronic Disease as by Parasitic Micro-Organisms
  2. Kanjilal, JN: Writings on Homoeopathy ……… (2 volumes)
  • Other books to compare:
  1. Hughes, R.: …………. A Manual of pharmacodynamics, pp.839-842
  2. Leeser, O.: ………….. Textbook of Homoeopathic Materia Medica, pp.31-40

Sure to compare *** is required to have read and understood completely, as works of Hahnemann: Organon, Chronic Disease and minor writings.

[2] Excerpts taken from the New Homeopathic Pharmacopoeia, Zepeda Luis Castañeda, 2000, Pages. 12, 20

[3] Wikipedia: An Act are natural phenomena that recur constantly under certain conditions.

Webster Dictionary: A law is defined as the sequence of events that occur with unvarying uniformity.

A rule or standard allows exceptions.

A dogma is based on an established opinion.

An opinion is an idea that is not verifiable, and that neither can be verified but not falsified.

[4] David Little and Andre Saine have written in detail about:

David Little – Hahnemann’s Direction of Cure and Hering’s Laws.

David Little: Hering’s Preface to the Chronic Diseases (1845)

“Hering’s Law: law, rule, or dogma” by Andre Saine in the Winter issue of Simillimum, Vol VI no. April 1993.

[5] In 1911, Kent formalizes these observations made ​​by Hahnemann and Hering as a “law” in an article written in the first volume of the Transactions of the Society of Homœopathicians called “Correspondence of Organs, and the Directorate of Healing”. Kent says:

“Hering was the first to introduce the law of address symptoms: From the inside out, from top to bottom, in reverse order of their appearance. That does not happen in the writings of Hahnemann. Spoken about as Hering’s Law. There is very little of this literature homœopática law, except the observation of symptoms ranging from top to the extremities, rashes that appear on the skin and mucous membranes downloads or ulcers that appear in the legs and internal symptoms have disappeared.

Nonspecific information exists in the literature, except as indicated in the lectures on the philosophy of the Graduate School. “

[6] Kent and Swedenborg: Julian Winston in response to the article by Shirley Reischman, Author: Julian Winston. Hpathy Ezine, May, 2004. Julian Winston answers:

“The way Hering reached its” direction of cure “was simply through observation. This is described by him in the preface he wrote for the first American edition of Hahnemann’s Chronic Diseases. This is the only place where this paper was published Hering. In; Hering says that “Each homeopathic physician must have observed that improvement * when pain * takes place from top to bottom, and in diseases, from the inside out.” Then mentions, “…. The most important organs are relieved first , the condition happens in the order in which organs are involved, the more important is relieved first, then the least, and the skin at the end. “

In 1865 Hering wrote an article in the “Monthly Hahnemannian” which reiterates the ideas of direction, giving credit to Hahnemann to be the first to have made ​​the “general comments”. In 1875 in “Analytical Therapeutics” Hering says that only patients who have “freed of their symptoms in the reverse order of development” can actually be cured. All this comes through observation of patients. Nothing comes from an idea based on pre-existing Swedenborg.

Of all the homeopaths were Swedenborgians, only Kent, who was merged religion with homeopathy-the rest of them remained more or less apart, and that included Hering. His “healing direction” gave from observation and not their religion Swedenborgiana. “

[7] In 1845, Hering published an excerpt from his essay “Guide to the Progressive Development of Homoeopathy” in the Introduction of the American version of Chronic Diseases.

[8] Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, a footnote to Paragraph 221, pages 168.169.

“However this theorem is true not recognized among those who should understand, nor between those who would ask a blind faith, I demand that no faith at all, and not demand that anyone should understand: it is sufficient to be a fact and nothing more. Experience alone declares it and think more on experience than on my own understanding

[9] Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, a footnote to paragraph 100, page 111.

“It is easy to doubt things that can not be put before our eyes, but certainly does not prove anything in itself, recalling the ancient rule of logic: Denial is not to prove.”

[10] During the prescription of a drug that eliminates the symptoms of one or more of its three designated chronic diseases, Hahnemann remedies were assigned to anti-names like syphilis or sycosis or anti-anti-psoric. However, there is no evidence (from cases) proving that he prescribed based on a miasma.

[11] § 7 Organon, 6th. Edition.

“Now, as a disease, which has no obvious exciting cause or supportive, to remove (cause occasional), 54 we can not perceive anything but the symptoms should (taking into account the possibility of a miasma and circumstances accessory) they only be the means by which the disease requests and indicates the appropriate remedy to ease, and further, all of the symptoms of this reflected image outside the inner core of the disease, namely the condition of the life force, should be the main and only means by which the disease discloses the remedy you need, the only thing that determines the choice of the most appropriate remedy, and so, in a word, the whole (** *) of symptoms should be the primary and only real thing that the doctor must deal with in each case and remove disease through his art, so that the disease transformed into health. “

[12] Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, the Par Footnote.: 88, page 64, translated by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.

“It’s easier for me than for many hundreds of others to discover and recognize the signs of Psora, both when latent and still asleep inside, as when it is grown considerable chronic disease, by careful comparison of the health status of all these people with my own, as a rare case, as I have never been afflicted with Psora, and therefore from birth, yet so far in my eightieth year, I have been free of the (minor and major) disorders listed Here, and later, however, I have been generally very likely to acquire acute epidemic diseases and have been exposed to many thousands of mental effort and vexations of spirit “

Organon § 6, 6th Edition

“The observer devoid of prejudice and well aware of the futility of transcendental speculations which can not be confirmed by experience, to each individual case of disease-only notes Through its power of penetration exercised full-of health changes your body and mind (morbid phenomena, accidents, symptoms) which can be perceived externally by means of the senses, ie he only warns deviations based on the previous health status now take up the individual patient, which are felt by the patient, confirmed by those who live with him and observed by the physician. All these perceptible signs represent the disease in its entirety or whether, as a whole, constitute the real picture and the only conceivable, of disease.

[13] As I took a Case Dr. Hahnemann (Case 1) by Dr. Guillermo Zamora

[14] In referring to observations that occur as a rule, I mean dataset that are seen with certain patterns of behavior, but that does not always happen. See reference [17, 18 and 19]

[15] § 153 Organon

[16] “The Relationship of Remedies” Von Boenninghausen. Translated by Dr. Guillermo Zamora.

[17] “Hypothetical Inductive Method”, by Dr. Guillermo Zamora.

“Scientificity of Homoeopathy”, by George Dimitriadis, translated by Dr. Guillermo Zamora.

[18] Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, the Par Footnote.: 22, page 10, translated by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.

“Observations and assistance provided by the anti-psoric remedies that were added during these eleven years, I have always shown how often this source are not only modest, but the most severe and very severe chronic ‘

[19] “Even in the rash that follows immediately after infection, no such unalterable constancy and persistence on the skin as showing the chancre and condylomata about where you come first … That’s why the doctor should not waste of time even with the original eruption … “(Chronic Disease, Samuel Hahnemann, Par.: 139, 140, page 131-132, Translated by Dr. Jose Antonio Ugartechea G.)

Treating cancer with dissimilar disease

By Dr. Guillermo Zamora, a surgeon UAG, Homeopath (Dhom. Med) by the Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.

Herpes

For those who question the strength of the inductive method of reasoning applied to medicine proposed by Hahnemann, put as an example if not its antithesis, if it is unduly partial observation of an event, the report that for several days been going on for the journal Public Library of Science Pathogens [1] and has been published in various journals, conferences, websites, and magazines [2].

This report mentions that a genetically modified virus [“oncolytic” herpes simplex virus (HSV)] has been created, and is able to block the spread of ovarian cancer and breast cancer in mice. It seems important to mention that different sources of conventional medicine, have been saying this for several years.

Chief Scientist, Professor Gabriella Campadelli-Fiume, University of Bologna in Italy, said: “Many laboratories worldwide are using more specific viruses as weapons against cancer cells, called oncolytic viruses.”

“Safety concerns prevailed so far, and all oncolytic herpes virus now in clinical trials are weakened viruses, effective only against a fraction of tumors.”

“We were the first to obtain a reprogrammed herpes virus to enter positive tumor cells, unable to infect other cells, but retains the same ability to kill in order that the wild-type HSV.”

According to Dr. Kevin Harrington, Institute of Cancer Research in London, who is leading oncolytic virotherapy studies [3], has been obtained “success” in up to 93% of cases in which the virus (and other viruses such as reovirus and adenovirus) has been modified to not infect healthy tissue (?) and according to the studies could become successful treatment in the fight against head and neck cancer.

With FDA approval, studies (including multicenter) are carried out in different phases using intratumoral injection in order to evaluate the response of colony stimulating factor-granulocyte macrophage [JS1/34.5-/47-/granulocyte -macrophage colony-stimulating factor (GM-CSF)] in different types of advanced cancer. Studies may include combinations of chemotherapy with cyclophosphamide, docetaxel, 3-AP Triapine (3-aminopyridine-2-carboxaldehyde thiosemicarbazone), radiation therapy, or combined chemoradiation in which studies show is “synergy” between all therapies. Side effects such as anemia, nausea, and fatigue are often reported, and neutropenia. One speaks of proviral states as vascular endothelial growth factor (vascular endothelial growth factor or VEGF) during which the reovirus can replicate oncolytic administered systemically in the endothelium, thereby inducing immune-mediated vascular collapse with significant antitumor properties.

Many studies show how are you amazing results with proven results in the treatment of certain cancers. However, the long term effects of drug-biological treatments, dependence and the tendency to acquire another disease state or immune weakness, are some maxims that should worry us. No medical intervention or treatment should be given without a long period of experimentation and testing (*). A Hahnemann It took eight years before he started dealing with Homoeopathy. There are many books, documents and writings and research experiments on the reactions, similarities, and results before he carefully follow each step with your therapy.

(*) This warning applies also for studies with the name “Homoeopathy” is conducted for cancer treatment (for example the protocol Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation), especially when real has not been practiced homeopathy for decades for most of the “homeopathic”.

Something that has not been taken into account is that one thing is the infectious agent with whom you work for any purpose, and one is the reaction-disease so mild, moderate or severe body generates all contacts that agent. Any modified agent however, can not be discriminative enough not to cause a reaction in the center of the life force (wherever it is), as we saw with the immediate side effects reported as anemia, nausea, fatigue and neutropenia.

The experimental study is developed with the herpes virus, derived from observation (as I said at the beginning, unduly partial) that people with cancer and at the same time acquire or come into contact with people infected with the herpes virus appear stop development of its initial cancerous state, and even reverse it [4]. (I translate an extract of the reference number 4 on the history of oncolytic therapy, for the convenience of our readers)

“It seems that the use of viruses in cancer treatment was not the result of some insightful theory of alternative therapy, but rather only derived from the observation that, occasionally, cancer patients who contracted an infectious disease had brief periods clinical remission. “

So, we put a lot of attention. We must not lose the entire complex under which certain conditions are favoring the experimental subjects, who were either inmunosuprime (even when it is intended to search a localized immune response), or causes them to weaken their disease through chemo and / or radiation while trying to “attack” the tumor with the modified virus. This means that protocols require that artificially weaken, suppress or maintain and produce a susceptibility to opportunistic infectious miasm widely known, but enough to make it amended as yet unknown. With this, it will be predicted drug dependence or ultimately death because desarmonizado balance that sustains life. We will see later why.

This herpes and cancer research leads me to remember what Hahnemann had observed about through simple inductance and I would have liked to have been taken into account by the researchers (or perhaps if they knew about it?). This would comment that we do not object to people using their preferred therapy or oppose personal opinions. What we would like is that these observations are considered under Baconian establish a new era in science as applied to medicine.

I can not leave out, mention the fact that prior experimentation on animals has serious drawbacks, including:

  • Animals can not express subjective symptoms produced during the experiment.
  • Infective agents (read infecting agent perspective Hahnemanniana) act differently in each species.
  • Humans and animals react differently to these infectious agents.
  • There are substances in animals may be harmless, while for men can be highly toxic and vice versa.
  • Man or animal (host) can act as a reservoir and in turn so individualized in each body of each species cause changes (mutations) to infective agents making them more potent complexes, reactivándolos (eg after attenuated) or increasing their virulence ( **).

(**) Vaccines may also be applied to the same vial containing three viruses or vaccines contaminated with unknown viruses. [5, 6.7 to cite some references, but there is enough hemerography about]

As I mentioned before and want to accept it or not researchers oncolytic viral therapy (they did not know, did not understand, did not care or did purposely. No) [4], for almost 200 years, Hahnemann had already observed in As regards to the reaction-disease, three circumstances where two dissimilar diseases coexist in the body of a human being, I quote two of those three circumstances with some of his remarks and references:

Aphorism § 38, Organon, 6th. edition

“II. – New to dissimilar disease is the strongest. – In this case the disease under which the patient lived primitively, being the weakest, will be arrested and suspended by the emergence of stronger, until it cross its course or be cured, then the old reappears uncured.

  • “As noted Tulpius 72 two children suffering from some form of epilepsy, were free of attacks after being infested with ringworm (instep), but as soon as the eruption of epilepsy head disappeared again as before. (72 Obs., lib. i, obs. 8)

 

  • Scabies, as noted Schopf 73 submitted scurvy disappeared, but after it healed, that reappeared. (72 Obs., lib. i, obs. 8)

 

  • So also remained stationary pulmonary tuberculosis patient being attacked by a violent typhus, but continued their march after typhus ran its course. 74   (74 Chevalier, in Hufeland’s Neuesten Annalen der Französiche, Heiljunde, ii, p. 192)

 

  • When the measles and smallpox together dominate, and both attack the same child, measles-existing, generally is contained by smallpox appeared later; measles does not end until it ends its course smallpox, but not uncommon it happens that the smallpox infection is suspended for four days by the supervening of measles, after which scaling complete your smallpox, as observed by Manget. 76 (76 In Edimb. Med Comment., Pt. I, I)

 

  • So with all dissimilar diseases, the strongest stops development of the weakest (if not complicated which is rare in acute diseases), but never a cure to the other. “(My emphasis)

 

The aphorism § 40, 6th Organon. Editing refers to a combined response (or response miasmatic disease combined mutant)

“III. – The new disease, after he had worked a long time in the body, finally joins that is unlike the former, and forms with it a complex disease, so that each occupies a special location in the body, ie organs peculiarly adapted to it and only that particular location belongs, while leaving the remaining organs other disease that is unlike … For two dissimilar diseases can not be destroyed, can not be cured to one another … not However, there have also been major epidemics of this kind, in which two dissimilar acute and, in rare cases, have occurred simultaneously in one and the same body, and combined, as it were, for a short time with each other … then, though not completely incurable, but can be transformed into health with very great difficulty. “

  • “Rainey 86 witnessed the simultaneous occurrence of measles and smallpox in two girls. (86 Edinb. Med Comment, iii, p. 480)
  • J. Maurice 87 throughout its practice observed only two cases of this kind. (87 in Phys Med and Journ., 1,805)
  • Similar cases are found in the works of Ettmüller 88 and in the writings of some others. (88 Opera, ii, pi, chap. 10)
  • Lencker 89 vaccine was go full term together with measles and purple. (89 Hufeland’s Journal, X v ii) “

 

This latter circumstance applies for malnourished patients, and / or with certain addictions, and / or debilitating conditions, and / or in immunosuppressed patients, etc. A clear example of this would be all diseases “new” appearance as acquired immunodeficiency syndrome (AIDS), in which you can combine various diseases caused by two or more types of the herpes family (***) and microorganisms and other viral, bacterial, fungal, etc..

(***) In the last 100 years have discovered 8 different types of herpes.

1.-TYPE herpes simplex virus I.

2.-Herpes Simplex Virus Type II

3.-varicella-zoster virus.

4.-Epstein-Barr virus.

5.-CITAMEGALOVIRUS.

6.-herpesvirus-6-6-B AY. (HHV-6)

7.-herpesvirus 7 (HHV-7)

8.-human herpesvirus 8 (Kaposi’s sarcoma)

If we reflect the foregoing, we find that Hahnemann makes complete observations (and NO partial), deep and detailed the circumstances between two dissimilar diseases coexist, including the aftermath of the same, so we can see that the inductance in science, observe the experienced (even from the same accident or toxicity), helps predict the outcome of an event. Take into account the principles established by Hahnemann in the Organon for experimentation and the coexistence of two dissimilar diseases is not a minor thing. Accept and understand our limitations, our achievements, and the consequences of such applications in medicine is vital to our future and wellbeing.

References

[1] http://www.plospathogens.org/

[2] Huffingtonpost, Herpes Virus Could Be Key To Breast And Ovarian Cancer Treatment, The Huffington Post UK | Posted: 31/01/2013 22:16 GMT

GM virus blocks spread of cancer, Press Association – Thu, Jan 31, 2013, yahoo news.

Herpes virus, “new weapon” against cancer Join BBC Science, August 2, 2010 – 13:39 GMT

The herpes virus shows promise in treating breast cancer, Isaude, Science and Technology, published on 26/10/2011 at 13h58: 00

HERPES VIRUS SHOWS PROMISE IN TREATING EARLY TRIPLE-NEGATIVE BREAST CANCER Oncolytic viral therapy shows great potential for treating an aggressive form of breast cancer, News from the Clinical Congress, Yuman Fong, MD, FACS Sepideh Gholami, MD, Monday, October 24, 1:00 pm

[3] Donnelly, OG., Errington-Mais, F., Prestwich, R., Harrington, K., Pandha, H., Vile, R. & Melcher, AA. (2012) Recent Clinical Experience with oncolytic Viruses Current Pharmaceutical Biotechnology, Vol.13 (9), pp.1834-1841, ISSN: 1389-2010.

Adair, RA., Roulstone, V., Scott, KJ., Morgan, R., Nuovo, GJ., Fuller, M., Beirne, D., West, EJ., Jennings, VA., Rose, A., et al. (2012) Cell Carriage, Delivery, and Selective Replication of an oncolytic virus in Tumor in Patients Science Translational Medicine, Vol.4 (138), ISSN: 1946-6234.

Karapanagiotou, MS., Roulstone, V., Twigger, K., Ball, M., Tanay, M., Nutting, C., Newbold, K., Gore, ME., Larkin, J., Syrigos, KN., et al. (2012) Phase I / II trial of carboplatin and paclitaxel chemotherapy in combination with intravenous oncolytic reovirus in patients with Advanced Malignancies. Clin Cancer Res, Vol.18 (7), pp.2080-2089, ISSN: 1078-0432 .

Simpson, GR., Horvath, A., Annels, NE., Pencavel, T., Metcalf, S., Seth, R., Peschard, P., Price, T., Coffin, RS., Mostafid, H., et al. (2012) Combination of a fusogenic glycoprotein, pro-drug activation and oncolytic HSV as an intravesical therapy for bladder cancer Surface British Journal of Cancer, Vol.106 (3), pp.496-507, ISSN: 0007-0920 .

Kottke, T., Chester, J., Ilett, E., Thompson, J., Diaz, R., Coffey, M. Selby, P., Nuovo, G., Pulido, J., Mukhopadhyay, D., et al. (2011) Precise Scheduling of Chemotherapy Primes VEGF-producing Tumors for Successful Systemic oncolytic virotherapy MOL THER, Vol.19 (10), pp.1802-1812, ISSN: 1525-0016.

Heinemann, L., Simpson, GR., Boxall, A., Kottke, T., Relph, KL., Vile, R., Melcher, A., Prestwich, R., Harrington, KJ., Morgan, R., et al. (2011) Synergistic effects of oncolytic reovirus and docetaxel chemotherapy in prostate cancer BMC CANCER, Vol.11 ISSN: 1471-2407.

Touchefeu, Y., Vassaux, G. & Harrington, KJ. (2011) oncolytic viruses in radiation oncology Radiother Oncol, vol.99 (3), pp.262-270, ISSN: 0167-8140.

Ilett, EJ., Barcena, M., Errington-Mais, F., Griffin, S., Harrington, KJ., Pandha, HS., Coffey, M., Selby, PJ., Limpens, RWAL., Mommaas, M . et al. (2011) Internalization of oncolytic Reovirus by Human Dendritic Cell Carriers from the Virus Neutralization Protects Clin Cancer Res, Vol.17 (9), pp.2767-2776, ISSN: 1078-0432.

Willmon, C., Diaz, RM., Wongthida, P., Galivo, F., Kottke, T., Thompson, J., Albelda, S., Harrington, K., Melcher, A. & Vile, R. (2011) Vesicular Stomatitis Virus-induced Suppressor Cells Immune Antagonism Between Intratumoral oncolytic Generate Virus and Cyclophosphamide Mol Ther, Vol.19 (1), pp.140-149, ISSN: 1525-0016.

Senzer, NN., Kaufman, HL., Amatruda, T., Nemunaitis, M., Reid, T., Daniels, G., Gonzalez, R., Glaspy, J., Whitman, E., Harrington, K., et al. (2009) Phase II Clinical Trial of a Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-Encoding, Second-Generation oncolytic herpesvirus in unresectable Patients With Metastatic Melanoma J CLIN ONCOL, Vol.27 (34), pp.5763-5771, ISSN: 0732-183x.

Harrington, KJ. (2010) Topical treatment for oral Cancers Winners and Losers and oncolytic adenoviruses: who should be down in the mouth? GENE THER, Vol.17 (12), pp.1421-1422, ISSN: 0969-7128.

Harrington, KJ., Hingorani, M., Tanay, MA., Hickey, J., Bhide, SA., Clarke, PM., Renouf, LC., Thway, K., Sibtain, A., McNeish, IA., et al. (2010) Phase I / II Study of oncolytic HSVGM-CSF in Combination with Cisplatin in Untreated Radiotherapy and Stage III / IV Squamous Cell Cancer of the Head and Neck Clin Cancer Res, Vol.16 (15), pp.4005 -4015, ISSN: 1078-0432.

Merron, A., Baril, P., Martin-Duque, P., de la Vieja, A., Tran, L., Briat, A., Harrington, KJ., McNeish, IA. & Vassaux, G. (2010 ) Assessment of the Na / I symporter gene as a reporter to visualize oncolytic adenovirus propagation in peritoneal Tumours Eur J Nucl Med MOL I, Vol.37 (7), pp.1377-1385, ISSN: 1619-7070.

Kottke, T., Hall, G., Pulido, J., Diaz, RM., Thompson, J., Chong, H., Selby, P., Coffey, M., Pandha, H., Chester, J., et al. (2010) Antiangiogenic cancer therapy combined with oncolytic virotherapy leads to regression of tumors in mice Established J CLIN INVEST, Vol.120 (5), pp.1551-1560, ISSN: 0021-9738.

Harrington, KJ., Vile, RG., Melcher, A., Chester, J. & Pandha, HS. (2010) Clinical trials with oncolytic reovirus: moving beyond phase I into combinations with standard therapeutics. Cytokine Growth Factor Rev, Vol.21 (2-3), pp.91-98.

Senzer, NN., Kaufman, HL., Amatruda, T., Nemunaitis, M., Reid, T., Daniels, G., Gonzalez, R., Glaspy, J., Whitman, E., Harrington, K., et al. (2009) Phase II Clinical Trial of a Granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor-Encoding, Second-Generation oncolytic herpesvirus in unresectable Patients With Metastatic Melanoma J CLIN ONCOL, Vol.27 (34), pp.5763-5771, ISSN: 0732-183x.

Willmon, C., Harrington, K. Kottke, T., Prestwich, R. Melcher, A. & Vile, R. (2009) Cell Carriers for oncolytic Viruses: Fed Ex for Cancer Therapy MOL THER, Vol.17 (10), pp.1667-1676, ISSN: 1525-0016.

Prestwich, RJ., Errington, F., Steele, LP., Ilett, EJ., Morgan, RSM., Harrington, KJ., Pandha, HS., Selby, PJ., Vile, RG. & Melcher, AA. (2009) Reciprocal Human Dendritic Cell-Induced Natural Killer Cell Interactions Following Antitumor Activity Tumor Cell Reovirus Infection by oncolytic J Immunol, Vol.183 (7), pp.4312-4321, ISSN: 0022-1767.

Pandha, HS., Heinemann, L., Simpson, GR., Melcher, A., Prestwich, R., Errington, F., Coffey, M., Harrington, KJ. & Morgan, R. (2009) Synergistic Effects of oncolytic Reovirus and Cisplatin Chemotherapy in Murine Malignant Melanoma CLIN CANCER RES, Vol.15 (19), pp.6158-6166, ISSN: 1078-0432.

Prestwich, RJ., Errington, F., Diaz, RM., Pandha, HS., Harrington, KJ., Melcher, AA. & Vile, RG. (2009) The Case of oncolytic Viruses Versus the Immune System: Waiting on the Judgment of Solomon HUM GENE THER, Vol.20 (10), pp.1119-1132, ISSN: 1043-0342.

Prestwich, RJ., Ilett, EJ., Errington, F., Diaz, RM., Steele, LP., Kottke, T., Thompson, J., Galivo, F., Harrington, KJ., Pandha, HS., et al. (2009) Immune-Mediated Antitumor Activity of Reovirus Is Required for Therapy and Is Independent of Direct Viral Replication Oncolysis and CLIN CANCER RES, Vol.15 (13), pp.4374-4381, ISSN: 1078-0432.

Pandha, H., Melcher, A., Harrington, K. & Vile, R. (2009) oncolytic Viruses: Time to Compare, Contrast, and Combine? MOL THER, Vol.17 (6), pp.934-935, ISSN: 1525-0016.

Ilett, EJ., Prestwich, RJ., Kottke, T., Errington, F., Thompson, JM., Harrington, KJ., Pandha, HS., Coffey, M., Selby, PJ., Vile, RG., et al. (2009) Dendritic cells and T cells deliver Tumour killing oncolytic DESPITE reovirus for pre-existing anti-viral immunity Gene Ther, Vol.16 (5), pp.689-699, ISSN: 0969-7128.

Kottke, T., Thompson, J., Diaz, RM., Pulido, J., Willmon, C., Coffey, M., Selby, P., Melcher, A., Harrington, K. & Vile, RG. (2009) Improved Systemic Delivery of Established Tumors to Reovirus oncolytic Using Preconditioning with Cyclophosphamide-Mediated Treg Modulation and Interleukin-2 Clin Cancer Res, Vol.15 (2), pp.561-569, ISSN: 1078 – 0432.

Prestwich, RJ., Errington, F., Ilett, EJ., Morgan, RSM., Scott, KJ., Kottke, T., Thompson, J., Morrison, EE., Harrington, KJ., Pandha, HS., et al. (2008) Tumor Infection by oncolytic Reovirus Primes Adaptive Antitumor Immunity CLIN CANCER RES, Vol.14 (22), pp.7358-7366, ISSN: 1078-0432.

Prestwich, RJ., Harrington, KJ., Pandha, HS., Vile, RG., Melcher, AA. & Errington, F. (2008) oncolytic viruses: a novel form of immunotherapy EXPERT ANTICANC REV, Vol.8 (10), pp.1581-1588, ISSN: 1473-7140.

Harrington, KJ., Melcher, A., Vassaux, G., Pandha, HS. & Vile, RG. (2008) Exploiting Synergies Between radiation and oncolytic viruses. Curr Opin Mol Ther, Vol.10 (4), pp.362-370, ISSN: 1464-8431.

Prestwich, RJ., Harrington, KJ., Vile, RG. & Melcher, AA. (2008) immunotherapeutic potential of oncolytic virotherapy LANCET ONCOL, Vol.9 (7), pp.610-612, ISSN: 1470-2045.

Kottke, T., Galivo, F., Wongthida, P., Diaz, RM., Thompson, J., Jevremovic, D., Barber, GN., Hall, G., Chester, J., Selby, P., et al. (2008) Treg depletion-enhanced IL-2 therapy of treatment Facilitates Established tumors delivered systemically using oncolytic virus Mol Ther, Vol.16 (7), pp.1217-1226, ISSN: 1525-0016.

White, CL., Twigger, KR., Vidal, L., De Bono, JS., Coffey, M., Heinemann, L., Morgan, R., Merrick, A., Errington, F., Vile, RG. , et al. (2008) Characterization of the adaptive and innate immune response to intravenous oncolytic reovirus (Dearing type 3) during a phase I clinical trial. Gene Ther, Vol.15 (12), pp.911-920.

Qiao, J., Kottke, T., Willmon, C., Galivo, F., Wongthida, P., Diaz, RM., Thompson, J., Ryno, P., Barber, GN., Chester, J., et al. (2008) Purging metastases in lymphoid organs using a combination of antigen-nonspecific adoptive T cell therapy, immunotherapy and virotherapy oncolytic Nat Med, Vol.14 (1), pp.37-44, ISSN: 1078-8956.

Hu, JC., Coffin, RS., Davis, CJ., Graham, NJ., Groves, N., Guest, PJ., Harrington, KJ., James, ND., Love, CA., McNeish, I., et al. (2006) A phase I study of OncoVEXGM-CSF, a second-generation oncolytic herpes simplex virus expressing granulocyte macrophage colony-stimulating factor. Clin Cancer Res, Vol.12 (22), pp.6737-6747, ISSN: 1078-0432.

[4] NATURE, Molecular Therapy (2007) 15 4, 651-659 doi: 10.10, “History of oncolytic Viruses: Genesis to Genetic Engineering”, Elizabeth Kelly and Stephen J Russell:

“It Appears That the use of viruses in the treatment of cancer was not the result of some perspicacious theory of an alternative therapy but Rather stemmed from the observation just That, occasionally, Contracted cancer patients who went into an infectious disease brief periods of clinical remission . “

[5] Modulation of immune responses during canine distemper virus infection: implications for therapeutic and vaccine development, Céspedes PF *, P Cruz, CO Navarro, Faculty of Veterinary and Animal Sciences, Laboratory of Animal Virology, University of Chile , Santiago, Chile. Arch Med Vet 42, 15-28 (2010):

“This last statement is based on evidence of the ability of the attenuated vaccine virus to revert to virulence so fleeting and cause lethal encephalitis in dogs following immunization and, similarly, a multisystem box of 90-100% morbidity and lethality in ferrets blacklegged (Mustela putorius furo) (Summers and Appel 1994, von Messling et al 2003). “

[6] Reverse Genetics for Live Attenuated Virus Vaccine Development Kun Yao, * and Zaishi Wang

“… An attenuated virus can still replicate in the Vaccinated Individuals, Therefore, the virus has the potential to revert to virulent phenotypes. Moreover, some of live vaccines can be Transmitted from the person to non immunized Vaccinated Individuals … “

“These are particularly important safety Concerns for Certain human RNA human parainfluenza viruses Such as virus (PIV), respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) and HIV, since viruses These RNA, RNA-dependent RNA Whose polymerases do not have a proofreading function and a high Could Occur During mutation rate virus replication. “

[7] Altered Virulence of Vaccine Strains of Measles Virus after Prolonged Replication in Human Tissue, Alexandra Valsamakis et al, J Virol. October 1999, 73 (10): 8791-8797.

Homoeopathy in the News.

 

Alert

A Letter From Fran Sheffield

Today I will be in court – the Federal Court of Australia.

By the end of today I may no longer be allowed to speak or write on the homeopathic treatment and prevention of whooping cough. Why would this be?

On the 18th February 2013, I received two emails with letters attached from Lauren White, Assistant Director of the Enforcement Operations of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC). One was to the company Homeopathy Plus Australia Pty Ltd of which I am a Director and the other was to me personally as a registrant of the Homeopathy Plus website domain name.

We were advised by Ms White that two pages on our website that referred to whooping cough, the whooping cough vaccine, and the homeopathic treatment and prevention of whooping cough contained potentially misleading and deceptive statements. One of those pages was not in the public domain but in a private members’ area.

The letters also referred to prior concerns about a third page that was no longer on the website. That page also spoke about homeopathy and whooping cough but had been removed in April 2012 to allay the concerns of the ACCC. At the time we believed the matter to be resolved, but this was apparently not so as it too was resurrected as a basis for action; Ms White’s letter advised that the ACCC would seek orders regarding these three pages for:

  1. Declarations;
  2. Injunctions (including an interlocutory injunction);
  3. Pecuniary penalties; and
  4. Costs.

We were told the ACCC would consider settling this matter by consent if we did not contest liability and agreed to the orders sought by the ACCC. This was something Homeopathy Plus and I could not do because we fundamentally still believe the information we supplied to be correct.

Two days later we received another email advising that a date had been set for a fast-tracked Directions Hearing at the Federal Court of Australia (Sydney) in which the above “relief” points would be sought.

So, today, I find myself in court.

What was so shocking and misleading in those pages that led the ACCC to take such action? The following paragraphs are those identified by the ACCC as responsible:


Page 1
“Most developed countries are currently in the grip of the whooping cough epidemic. To stop its spread, health officials are calling for the vaccination of adults as well as children. But is large-scale vaccination the best solution? Not only is protection from the current vaccine short-lived and unreliable, but side-effects are common. Recent research also suggests that the bacterium has mutated to a strain against which the vaccine is no longer effective. The homeopathic approach to this problem offers a safe and sensible solution. Homeopathy has a 200 year history of treating and preventing whooping cough without the risk of dangerous side-effects. It can also be used as a 2nd line of defence should vaccine from whooping cough already have been given.” (This page has not been on the website since April 2012).


Page 2
“Many of those affected by whooping cough have already been vaccinated. Recent studies show that the vaccine has limited effect. To stop the spread of the current epidemic, health officials are calling for the vaccination of adults as well as children. But is large-scale vaccination the best solution when protection from the current vaccine appears unreliable at best and side-effects are common? Perhaps it is time to revisit Homeopathy – Homeopaths certainly think so. Homeopathy offers an alternative or ancillary approach to whooping cough management. It is been used by medical and non-medical Homeopaths during the past 200 years for that purpose and has an excellent safety record.”
(This page is not in the public domain but in the private members area.)


Page 3
Government Data Shows Whooping Cough Vaccine a Failure.

Australia, along with other countries, has seen a meteoric rise in the number of notified cases of whooping cough in the past few years. Lack of vaccination is often blamed but now information from the Australian government shows that the whooping cough vaccine has been largely ineffective. Between 2008 and 2010, of children aged 0-4 years whose vaccination status was known and who had contracted whooping cough, 75% were fully vaccinated and a further 14% were partly vaccinated. Only 11% were un-vaccinated. Why was the Australian government so slow to release this information? Do records from other countries show this vaccine has been equally unsuccessful? What is the future recommendation from government about whooping cough prevention? In the absence of an effective vaccine for this dangerous disease, it is also wise to know about homeopathy and whooping cough.

(This article was in the public area and linked to the following material: http://vaccinationdilemma.com/whooping-cough-australian-children-how-many-were-vaccinated – It is now in the private members area)


What do you think? Are these paragraphs misleading and deceptive? Do they warrant fast-tracking in the Federal Court? What does it mean when a government body breaches the terms and conditions of a private members’ area? How does material, no longer on a website, mislead and deceive people today? Should people have the right to freely access alternative health information?

These and many more questions are waiting to be answered.

In the meantime I would like to send a very warm “thank you” to all who have offered support. The week has been extraordinarily hectic and I have been unable to reply to many of you, something I hope to rectify during the next few days. Please know that your words of encouragement and well-wishes have meant a lot.

I will keep you informed about this affair as it progresses.

Fran Sheffield
Homeopath and Director of Homeopathy Plus