There is a better than even chance that if you ask someone at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or the World Health Organization (WHO) or your family physician who first discovered the poliovirus and when they did it, they would have a hard time coming up with the right answer. The answer, by the way, is Karl Landsteiner, MD and Erwin Popper, MD of Austria in 1908.12
At the same time, it is unlikely many at the CDC, WHO or most medical doctors would be able to tell you the name of the person who came up with the theory of “herd immunity,” which serves as the foundational basis for justifying mandatory vaccination campaigns. The name of that person is Dr. Arthur W. Hedrich, a health officer in Chicago, Illinois. He observed that, “during 1900-1930, outbreaks of measles in Boston, MA appeared to be suppressed when 68 percent of the children contracted the virus.”3
Later in the 1930s, Hedrich observed that after 55 percent of the child population in Baltimore, MD contracted measles the rest of the city’s population appeared to be immune to the disease. It was these observations that led to the formulation of the herd immunity theory.3But note that the theory was based on unvaccinated populations that were exposed to the disease and developed natural immunity to it. The protection came from the fact that each population was exposed to the disease and a certain percentage of the people got it.
The original theory of herd immunity had nothing to do with vaccination. The first mass vaccination campaigns for polio and measles in the United States, for example, did not occur until 1954-1955 and 1963 respectively.456That’s three decades after Hedrich constructed his theory. The underlying assumption of the theory was that a community as a whole would develop a certain degree of natural protection from an infectious disease after a portion of its members actually came down with the disease, recovered from it, and became immune to it.
In other words:
The more members of the herd (community) who were exposed to an infectious disease and developed natural immunity to it, the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).7
Somewhere along the line between the 1930s and 1950s the theory of herd immunity was corrupted and resurrected as:
The more members of a herd (community) who were vaccinated against an infectious disease and developed immunity to it, the less of a threat that disease posed to the entire herd (community).
Notice the clever sleight of hand there. Suddenly, the importance of exposure to an infectious disease was eliminated and replaced with vaccination, and the importance of natural immunity was diminished. That’s a problem, because both of those elements are key to Hedrich’s theory. Hedrich was not thinking about a vaccinated community or vaccine-induced—“temporary”—artificial immunity when he thought up his theory. He was thinking about the process of how a disease works its way through a community and how that community, eventually, naturally builds up a resistance to it as a result.
Dr. Hedrich would not recognize his theory today. He would likely be the first to speak up and say, “Uh, no, that’s not at all what I had in mind. You missed the central point.”
Just about anyone with the equivalent of a high school education can answer the question, “Who developed the theory of relativity.” Einstein, of course. The theory is central to the science of physics. Although some have tried to question it, no scientist or professor of physics of any note would dare try to misrepresent or redefine it.
Yet, ask any public health official or health care professional involved in giving vaccinations to correctly explain the theory of herd immunity and who developed it, many would probably fail on both counts. Why? Because they have not made an honest effort to study the history of the theory. They have erroneously accepted as truth the relatively new myth promoted by public health officials around the world that herd immunity can only be attained through a highly vaccinated population and that every unvaccinated individual threatens the health of and weakens the herd.
Hedrich’s theory of herd immunity has been twisted by the myth that vaccine acquired artificial immunity is identical to naturally acquired immunity, which is false. That myth serves to perpetuate the idea that only strict enforcement of mandatory vaccination laws will protect society from disease, which is also false.
Note: This commentary provides referenced information and perspective on a topic related to vaccine science, policy, law or ethics being discussed in public forums and by U.S. lawmakers. The websites of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) provide information and perspective of federal agencies responsible for vaccine research, development, regulation and policymaking.
Lombardo in Italy, the home of the first outbreak in Italy. A high rate of pollution, elderly population. A large contingent of Chinese traders for the clothing industry who travel back and forth to their factories in China.
Meningitis emergency, 34 thousand people vaccinated between Brescia and Bergamo
9200 people were vaccinated in Brescia through special clinics, in addition to 1,700 people treated by doctors and pediatricians, 1000 students and 300 workers
Almost 34 thousand people vaccinated in a few weeks against Meningocco C, with peaks of 70% of the expected target. Therefore, the first phase of the regional action plan may end, with the end of the activities of most of the 14 extraordinary clinics.
The councilor for Welfare of the Lombardy Region Giulio Gallera said, commenting on the results of the first step of the vaccination safety belt that the Lombardy Region, together with the ATS of Bergamo and Brescia and the reference ASST, activated in the Basso Sebino area and Grumello where, in the last month, 5 cases of sepsis have occurred from Meningococcus C, two of which are fatal.
“We will not let our guard down – continued the councilor – and from Monday 20 January it will still be possible to get vaccinated for free through general practitioners and free-choice pediatricians in their professional offices. In addition, planned vaccinations will continue in schools and companies that have shown their willingness to host them according to the schedule already defined. The extraordinary outpatient clinic in Villongo will remain open and the usual activities of the vaccination centers in Sarnico, Grumello del Monte and Iseo will continue ”.
“In the Municipalities of the province of Bergamo affected by the extraordinary plan – added Gallera – 21,331 citizens have been vaccinated, of which 1680 students directly in schools and 2414 workers in their companies. As many as 40 general practitioners in the area have joined this unprecedented operation, through the proactive call of their patients. In the Brescia area, on the other hand, 9200 people were vaccinated through special clinics, in addition to 1700 people by GPs and free-choice pediatricians, 1000 students and 300 workers in the company, for a total of 12,200 citizens “. (here the data released a few days ago on vaccinations ).
The extraordinary safety belt was started by the Lombardy Region starting from 24 December last with the free vaccination offer. It concerned resident citizens and permanent workers in the Basso Sebino and Grumello areas, aged between 18 and 60, in addition to the group of teenagers up to the age of 18, anticipating the call already envisaged by the regional plan.
For the elderly, but also for weaker groups such as chronically ill, family members and children at risk, the vaccine does not pay. The more numerous the vaccinated, the less frequent the cases of illness
The vaccination campaign against influenza in Lombardy has started . As happens throughout the national territory, from October to the end of December, citizens can get vaccinated against the flu and take shelter from the danger of complications due to the disease.
The Ministry of Health and the Lombardy region recommend vaccination for some categories of citizens and in particular to those over 65. For these sections of the population the vaccine is free .
women who are pregnant at the beginning of the winter season
those who suffer from some chronic diseases
children over 6 months, adults and adolescents at risk for specific diseases
family members of high risk individuals
who faces a surgical operation.
Flu vaccination campaign: why
For some categories of people, the flu can be more serious than a simple seasonal malaise. In fact, some pathologies increase the risk of complications.
In addition to those already reported, the cases are many. Among others:
chronic diseases of the respiratory system
chronic renal failure
long term hospitalization patients of any age.
For the World Health Organization and according to the 2017-19 National Vaccinal Prevention Plan, the minimum target is 75 percent coverage thanks to the vaccine. The ideal, in people over 65 and in risk groups, would be 95 percent . These percentages are calculated in relation to the fact that the more vaccinated citizens are , the less the disease spreads and therefore the fewer the risks.
How to get vaccinated
Getting vaccinated is simple. Ask for information from your family doctor or from Asst, the local social and health company. Bring your health card with you and check if you are entitled to vaccination without paying the ticket.
However, remember a few daily precautions that help limit contagion:
wash your hands often, especially after attending crowded places
cover your mouth and nose after a cough or sneeze
use disposable tissues
avoid contact with affected people
do not leave home during the first few days of a flu.
I postulate a premise that perhaps a vaccine might be found involved what the sick people who died during the COVD-19 , NOT the vaccine itself but the adjuvants which open the immune system. There is not enough data to assess this as a fact. However as a side note, we did find influenza A statistically in the small number we had on the database, was present in the blood. About 40%.
So homoeopathically speaking the body does not hold two similar diseases, so Covid 19 and Influenza A are two disimilar diseases…
I have been putting off writing this blog post for a while. As soon as it felt like I understood the ‘ what and how’, the ground shifted and the perspective changed. If you are here to find the ‘answer’ to a prophylactic, you may be disappointed in the lack of a singular remedy, but this missive may help you to work one out where you are.
The viewpoint here is not the viewpoint of the I.H.M. collectively, but rather my observations on the whole scenario, politics and all.
Through research and communications, I’m convinced that COVID-19 is not a natural virus. Lately, the proof for this has started to arise. I’m of the opinion that it continues to be yet another man-made bio development, and perhaps weaponised for use in a conflict. Coronavirus is the infecting agent, but the use of laboratory altered S proteins to allow it to dive deep without resistance from the immune system is a whole new ball game. It is my contention that we are dealing with not one, but two infections, the second coming on if the host has been sufficiently weakened by the initial infection, and has underlying health issues that will succumb to a powerful respiratory disorder.
You the reader do not have to accept a single thing I opine. Time will allow the truth to surface and I’m happy to wait.
I do not know who developed the virus. The finger is pointing to a single person in the Virology lab in Wuhan who specialised in developing the virus after extracting from bats. She has now disappeared, presumed to be the original spreader of the disease. Strangely enough, the wet market accused of being the source from bats……. Did not sell bats.
Recently, the CCP publically blamed the USA for releasing the virus.
Two reasons for that. First, they know that the virus will be reverse engineered (it has) and that a laboratory influence will be found, and secondly, well China blames the USA for everything. I have to say, for a statistically low death rate, the COVID-19 has shut the entire world down.
As for a large death percentage. Research shows that the actual mortality rate is @1%. You see, the higher figures quoted by sources do not contain the thousands who self isolate or do not go for testing. That means that all the figures are based on a false mathematical premise, but is useful to keep the public in a state of fear and mass toilet roll hoarding. Let us not forget the test only checks for coronavirus and not specifically COVD-19.. so in the amplification of the material, if you go to a specific rate, everyone will test positive.
People looking to the W.H.O. for honest answers will be disappointed. With the contradictory advice given by them, and with the allegiance of Dr Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus to his Communist roots, you might find that a high level of impartial information is missing. He is aiding in promoting China as the saviours of people from the Wuhan flu, where they hid the fact and have lied about the methods used to quell the virus. They said they stopped getting new cases fairly recently. Yet the reality is that they stopped testing. Now it is coming to light a lot of new cases in China.
The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation states that the answer lies in vaccinations for everyone to lead a normal life.
The good part of this infection is that 83 to 93% of people recover quickly, even though it can be painful.
The bad part is that if there are underlying health issues, it can kill.
I researched through the thousands of pieces of homoeopathic literature in my possession, reading all the relevant documents pertaining to endemics and pandemics that occurred in the past, and how homoeopathic physicians handled the situation medically, it was a fascinating and rewarding experience to do so. I came to see how the genus preventative remedy was found, and the rationale behind using it.
So. I did some independent research on the information available to me regarding symptoms of cases. I also read many homoeopaths thinking on the matter and found myself at odds with a lot of the choices. Why?
I think the answer lay in the evaluation of symptoms chosen.
You see, if COVID-19 is an artificial infection, it was necessary to distinguish what was the design of the infection, and therefore what was common to it.
The only symptoms to take into account, were the symptoms that were in the main infection. The secondary symptoms that led to influenza and pneumonia, were NOT common to the infection. They occurred after the immune system was drilled into by the HIV like S proteins, and affected weakened hosts, and therefore would require individual treatment. For a prophylactic, we concentrated on just the reaction to the infection.
3 remedies stood out. Bryonia, Arsenicum and Phosphorus. I spent days reading the remedies.
For me, in evaluation, I took only one aspect of the onset of influenza, and that was the fact that one remedy had a long-delayed start from infection, and that was Phosphorus.
I talked with my colleagues, one in Hong Kong, Guillermo Zamora in Mexico and Ed Nunnery in California. They all did independent research.
Guillermo and I have given over 250 prescriptions of the Phos, and thus far not a single infection has resulted. I had 4 cases of actual developed Virus and all four have recovered. Once a person develops secondary symptoms it will require individual prescribing, and in one case I had to give NUX VOMICA, and the patient responded well.
In the end, COVID-19 is a hybrid virus. I treat it as 2 infections. It’s a timed release for the second part. As 83-90% don’t get affected, I don’t take it into account.
Are we saying that PHOS is the prophylactic? We are saying so far it has warded off infection in 3 countries. If you have different prominent symptoms, you must take those into account.
As a homoeopath, be you a medically qualified professional or not, Coronavirus is at present out of your hands. The allopathic grip on the situation is what it is, and if a person is taken to hospital with the flu, then treatment will be as mandated by the prevailing thoughts at the time. There will be no allowance for any other treatment.
There is a scramble for finding a prophylactic remedy to prevent the virus from taking hold, yet the symptoms of the virus appear to vary from country to country… and the criteria for sx assessment vary from homoeopath to homoeopath… and some are very suspect indeed. Worse than that, there is a scarcity of symptoms that a homoeopath needs for differentiation between remedies.
Recently I have treated about 21 cases of influenza, and 2 cases of pneumonia, both in my locale and in America, and based on the sx of the affected persons, I gave Phos to members of the families, and no one else contracted the flu. (All the patients recovered swiftly) In examining the coronavirus, (for my locale) I see that Phos might be suitable for use as a prophylactic, however, that is only based on what SX I can find from my colleagues in hospitals and the internet.
So my advice is to just keep watching and reading and listening for ‘real’ Sx and not broad generic ones, and then at that point we can help protect our patients.
Facts: 80% of people contracting the virus have it mild. As with any other virus, death occurs in individuals having serious pre-existing disorders, like cancer, diabetes, respiratory problems, heart issues etc. Even in the 20% that have it bad, less than 2% succumb.
“a basic truth that explains or controls how something happens or works”
“a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.”
We have principles in homoeopathy. Medical principles that should guide us through all aspects of treatment and patient management. We have example after example with thousands of cases that show success in the face of mainstream and herbal medicine failure.
One principle that homoeopaths seem to neglect continuously, is acceptance of the law and principle of similars, this being the bedrock of the therapy of homoeopathy.
Too often I read homoeopaths suggesting or recommending other therapies like naturopathy, vitamins, acupuncture, TCM, reflexology etc as ‘helpful’ in the current coronavirus spread.
I’m disappointed. It would appear that people claiming to be homoeopaths are not prepared to lean on the principles of homoeopathy and pursue them vigorously to cure patients utilising the law of similars. Why is this? Do they think that other therapies are stronger than the law of similars? Did they forget that Hahnemann showed how naturopathy did not and could not work in the curative principle when he translated Cullens work?
For those wanting a prophylactic for the disease in their area, they need to STOP looking outside of the law of similars and find the similar as per the law. It is ridiculous to leave medical principles behind and look for combination remedies, or herbal solutions as the answer. Do not take any suggestions from naturopathy or Thai traditional or TCM or acupuncture as these do not conform to the law of similars. If a person claiming to be a homoeopath keeps pushing ‘solutions’ outside of the therapy, Let me remind them that they have committed to the principle of similars, and if they do not hold to it, my strong suggestion is that they should re-educate themselves or cease being known as a practitioner of Hahnemann’s therapy. They will do more damage than good.
Given that the majority of members of our profession subscribe to a false practice, it is essential that those wanting to be known as effectual practitioners, know what they are doing conforms to the directives as set by Hahnemann.
Don’t let an emergency cloud your training or judgement. Homoeopathy never fails, just the practitioner.
Homoeopathy faces enough criticism for the practice. Let us not add to it by encompassing other ineffective therapies that contradict the principles into it.
The IHM, at its inception in 1986 was primarily set up as a research and teaching Faculty. The goals and intentions have not changed in 34 years.
Most of the IHM practitioners are also teachers of Homoeopathy. It is important that the students of the practitioners see the clear distinction between Hahnemann’s advised practice methods and false ones. You cannot teach the principles and be seen to ignore them.
As the practice of homoeopathy has become more diluted and erroneous, we have stayed with the medical principles established by Hahnemann and continue to hold to them as the correct way to practice the therapy. We encourage experimentation and development of the therapy, but we do NOT ever overstep the boundaries that Hahnemann set the limits of usage of the medicines.
The law of similars is not peculiar to homoeopathy, but the practice as defined by Hahnemann utilises it as the sole rationale for the medical application of its therapeutics.
An IHM practitioner will adhere to the following principles:
Every medicine will be tested on healthy people to ascertain the symptoms that the substance produces. The substance will be prepared in the same manner every time and be prepared to Hahnemann’s directions. In this day and age, many medicines are prepared by dry weight, and whether or not this alters the effect in using as curative medicine, is something we need to take note of. I personally try and find original plant material and make it myself, or find a pharmacy to make it for me. In the main, most medicines act in the same way as the original manufacture.
In taking a case, the IHM practitioner will only observe what has changed, and not pay overly more attention to the mind/emotional symptoms and will base the case prescription SOLELY as defined by the provings without interpretation, and use in the main the Materia Medicae of Samuel Hahnemann, and Materia Medicas that hold to proper medicine provings and not based on clinical symptoms only.
Given these criteria. the IHM practitioners will not use:
1/.Schuessler’s tissues salts. The principles for use is not based on similars and each tissue salt contains both the potency indicated AND mother tincture.
2/. Any variety of flower remedies. The remedies are based on dream and ‘intuitive’ usages, have not been made in accordance with Hahnemann’s directions and therefore have no homoeopathic provings for which to prescribe. There is no room for Flower remedies within the practice of homoeopathy, and as such should not be found in the pharmacy of a homoeopathic clinic. Use or acceptance of flower remedies goes against the Hahnemannian principles and diminishes both the therapy and the practitioner.
3/. Polypharmacy remedies. This is the most practised false application of homoeopathy in existence today. There are no provings of polypharmacy medicines. The mix of remedies is based on the individual provings and used to cover all aspects of a disorder in the collection of medicines prescribed. However, A+B+C+D etc is now ABCD and has a collective set of symptoms which do not equal the individual components and becomes a non-valid prescription with no scientific basis in homoeopathy.
4/. Application of medicines will be done in accord with the prescribed methods outlined in the Organon. There is no place for radionics or hair transmission. The PHYSICAL giving of the remedy must take place.
5/. There are a number of pharmacies producing remedies with Radionics and the Korsakoff method. Given Hahnemann’s advice to use LM or Q potencies, we recommend that IHM practitioners follow this advice and purchase LM 0/1 made from the 3c potency and make the ascending potencies themselves, an easy task, and therefore establish the correctness of the medicine. Hahnemann also directed to start with the lowest LM potencies, 1 2 or 3 and proceed from there. There is a tendency among European countries to start high, at 15 or 25. There is no equivalency between the potency scales and to assume there is is a false premise.
Any IHM practitioner who does not follow the Hahnemannian directives in his or her homoeopathic practice will be invited to resign or be removed from the IHM listing after discussions with the IHM board. We have found that the current poor practice of the therapy is due to the acceptance of all forms of practice rather than adherence to the medical principles as established.
The prescribing doctor does not go to the doctor: “An 85-year-old patient should not go to the ICU”
A prestigious surgeon alerts in a provocative book against the unstoppable medicalization of our society
Dr. Antonio Sitges-Serra (Barcelona, 1951) has exercised 40 years in public health , between surgery, research and consultation. Know the system and its diseases as well as the bodies of the thousands of patients who have passed through their hands. But Sitges-Serra is not a normal doctor: in his book, ‘If you can, don’t go to the doctor’ , published by Debate and Libros del Zorzal, and extended by the philosopher Manuel Cruz , he faces the pharmaceutical industry and diagnoses the worst disease of the 21st century: medical technoutopism.
QUESTION. Recently, Amancio Ortega gave some machines to hospitals.
REPLY. High precision scanners, yes.
P. Some said that Amancio is a philanthropist and others that wash his face, but reading his book, I realized something that nobody raised: that perhaps having these machines is worse than not having them.
A. No one raised it because technology is the dominant ideology. Few of us discuss this utopia, but machines often give more problems to hospitals than they solve. High precision scanners can be harmful to the health of citizens.
Q. But everyone wants more and better machines in their hospital.
A. And new drugs, progress without limits. It is a mechanism of self-defense, we want to continue in it, more, more, more, as if we were going to defeat death. But I think it’s a bad road. For now, it has led us to overdiagnosis.
Q. What is overdiagnosis?
A. With the most advanced detection technology, there are diseases that are not really such. There are no symptoms, the patient is fine, he goes to a simple review and, with the new super-scanner of last generation, they find a cancer of two millimeters in the thyroid. The doctor tells you: “We have seen a cancer of two millimeters.” And you think you are a cancer patient, and they treat you as such, although nothing really happens to you.
Q. Can a cancer be harmless?
A. Yes. He may never show his face. But once you’re overdiagnosed, you fall into a vicious circle of reviews that will make you dependent on the hospital, in addition to stress, fear and anxiety. And that, in case the doctor on duty does not want to give you chemo or even operate, always with the best intention, unleashing an unnecessary carnage. Well, that carnage was not caused by your cancer but its diagnosis. This is how early detection technology becomes a serious problem for your health.
Early detection technology has become a serious problem for your health
Q. Are there many people out there with harmless cancers that nobody has seen?
R. Very much, of course. When someone dies from any cause, from old age, for example, it is very common to find thyroid cancer in the body. 20% of patients who die of anything have it. If you buy this machine so fantastic that it detects tumors of less than two millimeters, you can end up removing the thyroid to 20% of the population for nothing. In South Korea, an absolutely slave country of technology, it’s just what happened. It was a massacre. Thousands of thyroids removed by harmless cancers that would never have appeared.
Q. That is to say that if they detect a cancer of two millimeters, do I not have cancer?
R. Exactly. Diagnostics increase with ultramodern machines, but not mortality. Why? Because they detect cancers that do not kill or give symptoms or anything. Another example: 80% of men have prostate cancer at death. He has died of something else, for example, from a heart attack, but he had that cancer since when it was known, without anyone seeing it and without giving symptoms. For the patient’s life, it is best not to be detected.
Q. You say many things that defy intuition.
Q. I know. There is also another problem in hospitals with the most modern machines: that of interpretation. Radiographic reading of a mammogram or anything else requires experience. If you don’t have it, you will raise false positives. Machines always need trained professionals, and constant innovation plays at the expense of the doctors’ learning curve, and therefore against the patient.
Q. When did things get complicated?
A. The twentieth century has been very powerful in the technological progress of medicine, but now the benefits of the novelties are very small and the cost is enormous. For example, many surgical interventions have tripled their duration compared to those of the 1990s, to be robotized. Therefore, the number of operating rooms needed increases. The robot makes the surgery much more complicated, much more expensive, much longer, and the results are no better than without a robot. But industrialists want to sell their inventions, and politicians and citizens are dazzled. That’s the techoutopism.
Now, the benefits of medical news are very small and the cost is huge
Q. What does the economy of a hospital mean, for example, a robot to operate prostate?
A. An initial expense of one and a half million, and annual maintenance of more than 100,000 euros. Plus the cost of teaching doctors how to use it. The big problem of health is the increase in costs: the cost increases every year, largely because unnecessary, but glamorous, products are bought. Health is between 20 and 25% of GDP, and it grows every year. Last year, 6%, while GDP grew by only 2%. If it weren’t for technoplaism, the costs would be greatly reduced. More GDP money could be dedicated to Justice or dependency. And besides, there are plenty of doctors.
Q. How? The opposite is always said, that doctors are missing.
A: Yes, but this is because we have created a hypermedicalized and hypochondriacal society. Look: when they asked Oriol Bohigas, the great city planner, how he would solve the traffic problem in Barcelona, he said: “Well, very easy, making the streets narrower.” This paradox can also be applied to medicine. If you are generating needs, you will always have more demand. If you widen the roads, you will have more cars.
Q. You advocate setting limits.
A. And for rethinking our relationship with death. The specialist doctor lives with his back to death. He is little compassionate and always pulls forward. There is always another medicine, another instrument, etc.
Q. We always expect that miracle.
A. We hope you invent something, and it is irrational. Technoutopism requires us to live with our backs to death. You talk to oncologists and death does not exist. For them, there is a drug, a CT scan and a tumor. And with that they play until the thing explodes. If we seriously reconciled with death, we could in question this health system. But you cannot say that a patient in his eighties must never enter the ICU, because they call you everything.
Q. Why shouldn’t you log in?
A. Because we know that an 85-year-old patient who spends a week in the ICU has a 70% chance of dying in the hospital, and another 30% of dying during the following year. The cost-effectiveness margin of the treatment is null. But, as the system pays, this is not valued in public medicine. And it should be the guide.
Q. What other examples of technotopism in contemporary medicine?
A. The so-called ‘breast cancer prevention’ is a brutal example. I say that it is better to forget about mammograms and dedicate those resources to putting in more nurseries, so that women can give birth sooner. It influences more that you do not die of breast cancer than advance maternity than 20 mammograms in 20 years. Preventive medicine has to do with changing bad social habits for health, and not with subjecting all women to free scanners from the age of 40.
5% of these thousand women with mammography will suffer an inadmissible masectomy
Q. Do periodic mammograms prevent women from dying of breast cancer?
A. Throughout a woman’s life, between 40 and 90, she has a 10% chance of dying from breast cancer and 90% of dying from anything else. That is, mammography deals with a disease of low prevalence. That to begin with, but, in addition, comparative studies have been done: one thousand mammographed women and one thousand non-mammogram women. Well, in one group four die, and in the other five die. Who does mammograms, then says that he has died 20% less, but this is a trap: a patient of a thousand does not justify that the other 999 women get a mammogram a year. But there is more: of those thousand mammographed women, 200 give the false positive. That is: they have to repeat the mammogram or have a biopsy. Finally, 5% of these thousand women with mammography will suffer an inappropriate masectomy. So it is better for women who do not have mammograms.
Q. Everything is full of ads, however, telling them to make them. And let’s look at cholesterol, and what a joke.
R. A hypochondriacal and overmedicated society. Of course. Social hypochondria has many factors: the press, doctors, industry, scientific societies, and so on. The bombardment of news and announcements about the dangers of falling ill creates anxiety. And it is an anxiety endorsed by the Spanish Society of Cardiology.
Q. Reading your book, I have had the feeling that the debate about vaccines is poisoned, and that the fact that the anti-vaccines are stupid gives white letter to the pharmacists to give us vaccines that we don’t need.
R. That’s right. Vaccines are good for the pharmaceutical industry. The debate revolves around a false dilemma. Vaccines, hygiene, antibiotics and minor surgery are the four main pillars of health in the twentieth century. No doubt. Now, when the pediatric vaccine schedule assumes 45 doses in six years, I say: are you sure? Because maybe we are subjecting the immune system of these kids to a bombardment that we do not know what will end. Because one thing is that you vaccinate diseases such as smallpox, tetanus, whooping cough, diphtheria, polio, etc., and another that we begin to expand the market: that if meningitis, that if pneumococcus, that if papilloma. .. There we are going. There are vaccines that only interest pharmaceutical companies, and they pass them, in part, because the debate is polarized.
There are vaccines that only interest pharmaceutical companies, and they pass them, in part, because the debate is polarized
Q. It is part of the medicalization of society, which you describe.
R. Sure. We do not want to die, nor do we want to have pain or sadness. Then death, pain and sadness are medicalized, and the industry wins, not the people. What happens when they lower the acceptable limit of blood cholesterol? That you have millions of patients who will need millions of doses of medication. Not to mention that other thing they do, which is to invent diseases.
Q. Regarding pharmaceutical companies, you say that many medications are sold before knowing if they are safe.
R. It is something impressive. 40% of drugs that have been proven deadly after starting to sell take two years to be recalled. Why? Because the development of the drug has been expensive, and they try to amortize it in the first years. The industry squeezes a lot because it knows that either the medicine will end up revealing a problem, or it is not as effective as it is sold, or a competitor will come out. How do they get it? With propaganda, and convincing doctors, sometimes with little honest methods. In oncology, this is very normal. Oncology is one of the most corrupt practices of medicine.
Q. That phrase has cloth!
R. Ya, ya. When you scratch the specialty a little inside … The vast majority of oncologists of a certain reputation charge directly from the pharmaceutical industry, or through trials, or in kind, or through congresses. Oncology is one of the specialties with the most investment of all kinds.
Q. Monday was Blue Monday, the saddest day of the year, so we have to go shopping to heal. I think it’s a good synthesis of what your book tells.
R. Ha ha! Yes, it is the medicalization of life, until Monday. They turn into illness (with their corresponding drug) sadness, sex, nutrition, the rule, menopause, ugliness, stupidity … Everything human is susceptible to treatment, and the industry expands its market. As Huxley said, medicine advances so much that we will soon be all sick.
The most overlooked fact regarding homoeopathy is that it is a medical practice.
For those that have an allopathic medical degree, there (logically) should be an advantage, yet the truth is that the advantage lies in first aid, and disease diagnosis and understanding disease progression via knowledge of the prognosis. If a medically qualified person does not understand homoeopathy, then the other knowledge does not help.
Hahnemann’s writings on homoeopathy, and the principles he invokes, are MEDICAL principles and not suggestions. Each principle is based on years of experimentation, and not open to interpretation or change like the sensation method, remedy families, periodic table polarities, personality constitutional prescribing, polypharmacy etc. All these are breaches of the Hahnemannian design of homoeopathy, the practice. Homoeopathy is a practice built on this law with specific directives for the usage of the medicines and application of the same. Hahnemann does encourage experimentation and development, but not outside of the medical principles he established. Its a waste of time and energy as he has tested every permutation of differences.
We will examine each principle in detail in coming posts.
Before we can discuss Principles, it is vital that the practitioner understands the rationale behind the approach of a homoeopath towards a sick patient.
Homoeopathy is a science and is focused on patient management of Disease. The process of analytics in managing a disease is based on a holistic overview of patient reaction to a disease influence. What is evident today in the poor training a homoeopath receives, is the harmful influence of the Swedenborg School of thinking (KENT) which is contradictory to the scientific mode of application as defined by Hahnemann and expanded on by Boenninghausen and others.
Hering and Kent and the influence of the American school of Homoeopathy did not influence the medical practice in the positive way the therapy displays it to be.
Kent And Hahneman
S. Hehr, M.B.B.S., D.P.M.
(Originally Published in British Hom. Journal as “Was Kent a Hahnemannian?”, Vol. 73, No. 2, Re- edited by Dr R.S.Mann after consultations with Dr. G. S. Hehr)
Kent has been hailed as a true disciple of Hahnemann.1 There should be a reassessment in light of the following contrast between the view of Kent and Hahnemann:
On “authority” and “experience”
“We must begin by having respect for law … Let us acknowledge the authority.”2
“… and medicine today, outside of homoeopathy, is a medicine of experience…It is necessary that the exact and proper position of experience should be realized … Experience has … only a confirmatory place. It can only confirmed that which has been discovered by principle…Experience leads to no discoveries … One who has no doctrines…imagines he discoveries by his experience”.3
HAHNEMANN: “Medicine is the science of experience…”4
“The true healing art is in its nature a pure science of experience …”5
“…the complete true healing art can never be the work of self-satisfied ratiocination…, but that the requisite for this … are only to be discovered but due attention to nature by means of our senses, by careful honest observations and by experiments conducted with all possible purity and in no other way…6
“I demand no faith at all and do not demand that anybody should comprehend it. Neither do I comprehend it; it is enough that it is fact and nothing else. Experience alone declares it, and I believe more in experience than in my own intelligence.”7
“But what and how much …can be determined by no speculative reason or unreason, but experience alone must determine…and in the domain of facts there is no appeal from experience…”8
On the relation of skin symptoms to internal malady
KENT: “But this very scientific ignorant doctor has made a failure: he has driven what was upon the surface and harmless into the innermost precincts of the economy and the patient is going to die as a result of scientific ignorance.”9
HAHNEMANN: “The diseases … springing from such one-sided destruction of the chief skin symptom (eruption and itching) which acts vicariously and assuages the internal psora (which destruction is erroneously called ‘Driving the itch into the body’)…”10
“All miasmatic maladies … are always present as internal maladies … before they show their local (skin) symptoms.”11
“… when the development of the (internal) venereal disease has been completed, only then diseased nature endeavours to mitigate the internal evil and to soothe it, by producing a local symptom…”12
“…some wretched casuists have considered as resulting from driving back of the poison out of the chancre into the interior body…”13
KENT: “Psora is the beginning of all physical sickness. Had psora never been established as a miasm on the human race, the other two chronic diseases would have been impossible. All the diseases of man are built upon … it (psora) goes to the very primitive wrong of the human race … that is the spiritual sickness from which … the race progressed into … the true susceptibility to psora…”14
HAHNEMANN: “…the ailments and infirmities of body and soul … (if they do not belong to the two venereal diseases, syphilis and sycosis) are … manifestations of (psora).”15
“In Europe and also in other continents … only three chronic miasms are known…”16
“….and indeed so many that at least seven-eights of all chronic maladies spring from it (psora) … while the remaining eighth spring from syphilis and sycosis, or from a complication of two of these three … chronic diseases, or (which is very rare) from a complication of all the three of them….”17
KENT: “Hahnemann could perceive this immaterial vital principle. It was something he arrived at himself, from his own process of thinking (but all historians mention that it was Joseph Barthez, b.1734, d.1806, who introduced the term “vital principle”18).
There was a paucity of individual ideas at that time… but Hahnemann thought much, and by thinking he arrived at the ideas contained in this (i.e. the 9th paragraph of the 5th edition of the Organon), which only appeared in the last (i.e. 5th.edition of 1833).”19
(Allusion to “vital force” appeared in the Chronic Diseases20 published in 1828, and in the fourth edition of the Organon that we shall refer shortly, Kent substitutes “simple substance for “immaterial vital principle” in the paragraphs subsequent to the one sited above – vide reference 19. This new expression appears to be Kent’s own coinage. Imputation of “much thought” to Hahnemann appears to be Kent’s projection of his own thinking, the result of which was the new expression. Hahnemann’s views on reasoning and speculation are clear in reference 8).
KENT: “…simple substance is endowed with formative intelligence…”21
HAHNEMANN: “… the instinctive, irrational, unreasoning vital force (instinktarige, verstandlose. keiner Uberlegung Fahige .. Lebnskraft — this could also be translated: instinctive, unable to reason/understand, without the capacity for reflection) 22 (the contrast between Kent and Hahnemann over the attributes of vital force is obvious from these words)…
KENT: “Hahnemann did not adopt any such theory as bacteriology”.
HAHNEMANN: “… the cholera miasm … grows into an enormously increased brood of those excessively minute, invisible creatures …”24 (How else could one have described bacteria at that time!)
Why was Kent so often wobbling off the pivot? Perhaps it was not for nothing that Jouanny wrote:
“The second trap is to do what certain absent-minded homoeopathic doctors do, namely to consider only the symptoms of the patient in his reaction to his disease, and in particular his psychic signs. This was the attitude of Kent and his spiritualistic school which went so far as to say that the pathognomonic signs of the disease have no importance in the selection of the homoeopathic drug.”
“This is a philosophical attitude which makes homoeopathy into theology, and considers man to be made only of the soul. There is a great danger here…”
“This attitude has practically destroyed homoeopathy in America where it was at one time a flourishing discipline. It is now practised by a few esoteric doctors.”
“One can say that this attitude is not in conformity with the methods set out and defined by Hahnemann, because generally the ‘psychic symptoms’ taken into consideration by the followers of Kent, are not experimental changes in the mental behaviour of a patient, but the psychological characteristics of susceptible types of individuals. This is the result of the subjective interpretation of the experimenter and the patient. These doctors select the homoeopathic drugs on the basis of psychic symptoms … such a practice can be justifiably criticized …”25
Kent’s homoeopathy is not necessarily always Hahnemannian. As Campbell recently put it : “Nevertheless, it does not take a very detailed study of the history of homoeopathy to show that modern practice actually differs in quite significant ways from Hahnemann’s own practice. In both England as well as America, for example, the influence of J.T.Kent, who imported certain ideas derived from Swedenborg, has been paramount since shortly after the turn of the century”.26
Hahnemann’s distinction between the responses of the animate and the inanimate; his view about adaptive responses of the organisms”, 28 his stress on the value of signals in biology;29 his almost foreshadowing of “the law of initial value” of Joseph Wilder,30 his near modern views on nutrition31 and his suggestions for psychological exercise32 are all missing from Kent’s writings. One feels constrained to ponder how far the words of Inglis (on the relation of Galen to Hippocrates) would apply also to the relation of Kent to Hahnemann.
“Ostensibly by the Hippocratic School, he was to subvert its teachings. Hippocrates, Galen admitted, had led the way … ‘He opened the road, I have made it possible’ … Galen was able to impose his views on how the road should be followed; and as a prolific writer, he saw to it that they were published.33 Conclusion-
Kent was a Swedenborgian, and he can be accused of including the fundamental concept of a mystical correspondence between the spirit world and humans to Homoeopathy. Which distract the Homoeopathic philosophy from Hahnemann’s “Rationality” to Kent’s “Metaphysical”.
This shift from the basic nature of reality of the human system compelled Kent to start unrealistic and unbalanced emphasis on “Mind” or “Mental Symptoms” or “Mental Origin” of every disease. Hahnemann is realistic and balanced in his approach in an individual case of sickness, he searched for the totality where is actually lies but Kent arranged the “Mind” always on the beginning of a case. Kent pushed the basic methodology of Homoeopathy towards “Irrationalism”.
On Miasm, Hahnemann is certain about three different basic causes of diseases, Psora, Sycosis and Syphilis but for Kent, Psora is the only basic cause of all the diseases, including two other miasms too.
Hahnemann always talks about the “gentle restoration” of the sick with only mild aggravations, but Kent admitted his was to cure with severe and long homoeopathic aggravations.
Kent underlined the return of all the past symptoms, eliminations and exteriorization (developing skin lesions etc.) in a case is a good indication and path towards a cure, whereas Hahnemann marked them as organism’s defence or reaction against wrong prescriptions and excess of doses.
Dr Kent may have a good, efficient and ardent homoeopath but his concepts and theories vary from Dr Hahnemann on most of the basic understandings of Homoeopathy which make differences in approach, the methodology for the treatment of a patient.
7. So accepting Kent as a true disciple of Hahnemann, as Kent himself claims, undermines the value of Hahnemannian theory and concepts of Homoeopathy. We must read and practice Homoeopathy as Hahnemannian methods and Kentian Methods, with their respective theories, concepts and differences from each other.
One method generally leads to a low success rate, If not outright failure.
In taking a case. A correct diagnosis would have been of equal importance
to the therapeutist and to the surgeon if each disease had a distinct cause, as characteristic of itself, as the disease is distinct from all others, however, this is not the case.
The same disease may arise from different causes in different cases, hence to the
therapeutist the diagnosis is of subordinate importance as a basis of treatment. It can be shown that constitutional peculiarities of a patient manifest themselves through certain concomitant symptoms which make a difference in the aggregate
of symptoms in each case. In each case of diseases bearing the same name, we find that the patient exhibits not only the symptoms of the named disease but also concomitant symptoms peculiar to the diseased patient and different from other diseased patients with the same disease name. Hahnemann realised that this combination of expressions of sympathetic disorders in other parts of the body now had become ‘Constitutional’ in its affection, and thus stopped being a local symptom, and the expression of the diseased patient has become an all-encompassing state.
These concomitant symptoms, along with other knowledge, force the homoeopath to relinquish the belief that the malady along with its local expressions is the sole object of treatment. The homoeopath is now forced to view the patient from a ‘causality’ view and look at the pattern of progression of development from all symptoms present, not just the local disease and in effect come to see that the sum of the symptoms is greater than just this new affection.
A clinical history, the basis for disease development in every individual, will necessitate the remedy having or corresponding to the sequence of physiological effects matching the patient’s disease in development. This disease ‘constitution’ in the medicine will be required to enable the patient to receive help from the similar. However, the homoeopath will take the FULL history and other episodes of dis-ease into account as well as the current issue.
Rational reasoning indicates that the development of diseases (with the same name) owes the difference in symptom exhibition simply because of the constitutional differences of each patient. To a therapeutist, the symptoms appearing in its evolutionary sequence represent the cause or a combination of causes of a particular disease condition.
So long as the disease is viewed as a local or anatomical problem, the question of determining the basis or indications of treatment, cannot be answered. A study of the clinical history of each case supplies the key to the solution of this problem.
This is one of the major differences in approach to treatment from allopathic therapeutics.
1 Kanjilal et al – An Appeal to the Homoeopaths of India to Save Homoeopathy. Hahnemannian Gleanings 1979,XLVI,471
2 Kent J.T. – Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy. P.19,Chicago : Ehrhart & Karl, 1954.
3 Ibid – P.43.
4 Dudgeon R.E. – Lesser Writings of Samuel Hahnemann. P.439, New Delhi: Swaran (reprint of New York; Willian Radde, 1852 edition)
5 Hahnemann S. – Organon der Heilkunst, P.7, Dresden: Arnold, 1819.
6 Ibid – P.15 -16.
7 Dudley P ed. – The Chronic Diseases by Samuel Hahnemann, P.124, f.n. New Delhi, Jain Reprint
8 Ibid –P.325
9 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.27
10 Dudley P. – The Chronic Diseases, P.17.
11 Ibid – P.32.
12 Ibid – P.36.
13 Ibid – P.36 f.n.
14 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P146.
15 Dudley P. – The Chronic Diseases, P.8.
16 Ibid – P.9.
17 Ibid – P.14.
18 Castiglioni A. – A History of Medicine, P.586, New York: Alfred Knoff, 1958.
19 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.76-77.
20 Haehl R. – Samuel Hahnemann: His Life and Work. P.136, New Delhi, B.Jain Reprint.
21 Kent J.T. – Lectures.P.79.
22 Hahnemann S. – Organon der Heilkunst, P.IV, Dresden and Leipzig, Arnold, 1829.
23 Ibid – P.146.
24 Hehr G.S. – Bacteriology and Homoeopathy.Br.Hom.J. 1982, 71,62,64-5.
25 Jouanny J. – Essentials of Homoeopathic Therapeutics, P.39, Laboratories Boiron, 1980.