A few days ago, a colleague of mine outlined a health issue with a young male family member. It was a difficult situation involving a stroke, various underlying problems that all would appear on the surface to be well suited to homoeopathic treatment. My colleague was lamenting the fact that he had to suffer in silence in not being in a position to treat the patient.
For those of us who have been in practice a while, we have become accustomed to this scenario. As young thrusting homoeopaths, we wanted to treat everyone and everything, and then we learned that many do not want what is offered. Even Family, especially family. We learn about free will and choice and stand back as people get sick and take strong suppressive medication and slowly get worse in the long term.
When we take on a patient, sometimes we see that life style changes are required. This involves telling the patient that they have to adopt new ways of doing things, and even a job change to get better. Not always going to go down well with the patient.
If we are not medically qualified, we always have to make sure that we treat diseases with the knowledge that our actions are going to be scrutinised heavily by the medical profession in the event of a fatality.
Many homoeopaths ‘choose’ to work with the patient seeing an allopath at the same time, and ‘manage’ the allopathic prescriptions given, letting the patient decide what they want to take and don’t want to take. A person consulting a homoeopath usually makes their own decision after reading the effects of prescribed medicine.
My professional life and successes has the phrase ‘spontaneous remission’ litter throughout. Annoying isn’t it..
Oh, my colleagues relative died. In the end we can only do what we can do.
I’m sat on the IHM boat in Hemel Hemsted, currently with either battery or inverter issues…. either way is a fistful of money to fix. Things happen.
Watching the events of the last few months, and how the countries are pushing towards vaccines as the answer, and how the populace are either worried to distraction or are against the lockdowns ………. I’m seeing how homoeopathy is being denigrated and indeed being removed by the fact-checkers on google and Facebook and other sites. We seem to be sidelined in favour of ‘proper treatment’.
Well, I worked out a prophylactic remedy a few months ago, and of the 600 plus people that I and other members of the IMH have given in 4 countries…. not a single case…
Guillermo Zamora and I have treated individuals with COVID sx to a good resolution………but who is listening…………?
The world is changing. Nothing will ever be the same. WE need to accept and be prepared to change how we do things and still be homoeopaths in mind and action. We need to make the room for us.
We at the IHM do not make claims to ‘cure’ COVID or offer alternative vaccines. We treat each case individually as per our Hahnemann protocols and will give the prophylactic to be taken once a week or every two weeks. Some give daily, my experience with taking more than once a week was a massive proving and difficulties until it wore off…So I advocate once a week simply because, in truth, I don’t know how long the protection lasts……. I know that weekly or even 2 weekly seems to hold.
We have to stand firm on the principles and be sure we know what we are prescribing for, the essential symptoms that need treating…… not just the remedy with the most symptoms covered.
The IHM uses the TPB of Boenninghausen simply because it follows the Hahnemannian protocols, and will work in 98% of cases both acute and chronic. We do not discount the use of other well-proved remedies and advocate a thorough knowledge of them before prescribing. The essence of using the TPB is a well-taken case and extracting the symptoms according to aphorism 153.
Every disease has a centre. The disease symptoms are known, and the patient exhibits symptoms ‘peculiar’ to the patient its either intensity or prominence. These all may have other symptoms not noted as pertaining to the disease state.
WE have to find these symptoms out of the collection of altered sensations that the patient feels. We have to remember that many symptoms are the result of the causative condition and therefore NOT prescribing symptoms per se.
Since 2016We have conducted a 4-day intensive seminar for application to become a member of the IHM. The students are all long time homoeopaths who increased their knowledge base by learning the Boenninghausen method and tidying up the loose ends that were muddied by Kent and others. The original venue was at our clinic in Seville Spain and has now relocated to The London area on our IHM Widebeam vessel.
We will offer a free bedroom aboard the vessel for individual applicants, and will just ask for a contribution toward food. The fee for the 4 days intensive will remain at the same cost as from 2016. It will be Sterling £900.
We will be fitting out boat for teaching in the next weeks, and be ready for the new year……..to get going government permitting. We already (with the help of members Abdul Malik and Imran Khan) are putting together a clinic for when we are ready to start…
The IHM has a 4 day training opportunity, starting in 2021. We dont claim to have all the answers, but we do feel we can teach the Hahnemanninan methodology in case taking.
What we teach:
The rationale of homoeopathic medicine and the use of the Therapeutic Pocket Book in everyday casework.
The examination of the patient according to defined parameters of eliciting prescribing symptoms without the filter of all the variants of non-Hahnemann practices as taught by teachers today.
An in depth look at the Miasm theory in the light of infection and infectious disease models that are the accepted protocols in modern medicine.
Patient management utilising Hahnemannian directives for medicine administration and potency choice, frequency of dose, withdrawal of repetition of medicine on well-indicated grounds, observation of medicinal action and when to change the medicine.
Use of LM or Q potencies.
Chronic and acute prescribing and when to finish prescribing.
In depth explanation and use of the Therapeutic Pocket Book. The T.P.B. was devised by Boenninghausen as a synthetic approach approximating Hahnemanns thoughts on case analysis so as to find a close similimum by extracting the correct proving symptoms that match the disease state.
How to understand the meaning of rubrics via the patient’s symptoms.
Lots of case examples and analysis by Gary Weaver.
Help in re-examining some of the students’ intractable cases.
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.
This year, I have come to see that the problem in our therapy is a very simple one. People professing to be homoeopaths have not studied the principles and ethics as outlined by Samuel Hahnemann, Most have no idea of what homoeopathy is in reality. We are in the midst of false assumptions and wrong teachings on a scale never seen before.
To this end, The IHM will be presenting a series of posts outlining the most important requirements and unnegotiable standards to adhere to in order to be a successful practitioner. These are culled from Hahnemann’s own writings and therefore are not supposition or the IHMs thoughts and interpretation.
This urgent message today is requesting that you do two very important things:
Submit a comment to the FDA (U.S. Food & Drug Administration) docket about homeopathy – telling the agency that we need a 180-day extension in order to respond adequately to the FDA’s latest proposed Rules. When you’re ready to do that, click on https://homeopathychoice.org/fda-comments-landing/
Forward this email to your contacts and get every family member in each household—regardless of age—to submit a comment to the docket.
You may have heard about proposed new rules for homeopathy put out by the FDA. We were glad that the previous conceptually flawed and poorly worded rules (called “Guidance” by the FDA) were withdrawn recently.
In their place the FDA proposed a revised Guidance. This revised Guidance has some helpful changes and some detrimental ones.
Unfortunately, the detrimental ones are very detrimental, and we must now pressure the FDA to revise this guidance considerably.
We can do that by getting a very large number of people to ask for an extension while commenting on this new draft.
If you are familiar with the changes the FDA made, you can go directly to the FDA Comments page on the Americans for Homeopathy Choice site (https://homeopathychoice.org) There you’ll find out how to make a comment that will help us get an extension.
If you want to know more about the changes, here’s a summary of the most important points:
The new Draft Guidance, if adopted, will allow the FDA to withdraw even properly manufactured and labeled homeopathic medicines from the marketplace. This is puzzling because these have never posed any sort of safety concern according to an initial review of public FDA records by Americans for Homeopathy Choice.
It is clear that the FDA intends to use this authority and has even mentioned specific homeopathic medicines such as Belladonna, Rhus toxicodendron, Nux vomica and Lachesis muta in its public statements regarding enforcement.
The authority for this kind of assault on homeopathy will result from the declaration by the FDA that all homeopathic medicines are “new drugs.” We all know that legally speaking, this is nonsense. Homeopathic medicines have been around for 200 years.
But this nonsense declaration means that under federal law all homeopathic drugs will become technically “illegal” and subject to withdrawal from the marketplace. If the FDA just thinks there is a problem with a homeopathic medicine, it can withdraw it forever without conducting any sort of investigation.
Since the agency has already told us that it thinks that Belladonna, Rhus tox, Nux vomica, Lachesis muta and several other remedies are dangerous, we can anticipate that it will try to remove them from the marketplace as soon as the guidance is finalized.
Once this happens, the only conceivable way these remedies could be reinstated is to go through what the FDA calls a New Drug Application (NDA). But that’s not going to happen for two reasons:
First, no one can patent homeopathic remedies because they are made from common substances. So, no company would be able to make back the huge cost of going through the NDA.
Second, the NDA is designed for pharmaceuticals and is unable to test the effectiveness of a medicine that is tailored to each individual rather than given to a large mass of people who supposedly have the same condition. Hence, it is unlikely that any homeopathic medicine would be ruled both safe and effective by the FDA.
That means that when the FDA removes a homeopathic remedy from the market, it will be the equivalent of banning it forever. And, don’t think that you’ll be able to order your remedies from abroad. The FDA will just stop them at the border.
I could tell you more, but what I’ve told you so far should convince you that we must get the FDA to change its unreasonable and misinformed guidance to reflect the realities of homeopathic medicines: They are nontoxic, mild, effective and have few, if any, side-effects.
And, homeopaths use them in ways that individualize treatment. That this is the best way to treat patients was discovered by Samuel Hahnemann 200 years ago. (Pharmaceutical companies are only now discovering that Hahnemann was right. But this hasn’t sunk in at the FDA.)
Help us get an extension so that there will be enough time to prepare a response properly. We need the time in order to show the FDA step-by-step how to change the Draft Guidance in ways that will protect rather than imperil homeopathy.
Please click on the button below to go to a form that will allow you to make a comment to the FDA in just a minute or two.