Category Archives: Practitioner Comment

Olfaction and sensitive patients.

Over the years, I moved from Centesimal potencies to LM or Q potencies in line with Hahnemanns conclusions regarding their efficacy and more gentle action. Even in saying that, I have a number of patients who react strongly to the Q potencies and even after multiple dilutions, I had to go to olfactory doses.

One of the problems with Olfaction is that for the new patient, not yet used to homoeopathy and the methodology, the act of inhaling from a medicine bottle seems a little “weird”. A few years ago, I started an experiment using a nebuliser to dispense olfactory doses, and was surprised at the successful outcome with doing so. For whatever reason, the experiment ceased when I moved to the States of America.

Recently we purchased a portable unit, and made up an LM potency, (Q) for a problem that one of the I.H.M. staff developed, and are giving dosage in a 1 minute treatment of the medicine. As the problem is of a chronic nature as opposed to a sensitivity issue, it will be interesting to see the spacing between doses and the results from inhalation doses.

The effects are immediate and the medicine is taken deeply into the lungs just by breathing normally into the mask. Results are being analysed, and we feel that by using this method, patients will be more amenable to the treatment.

We are NOT advocating this method of application. We are just testing it to see if its effective over a range of patients and treatments.

Viewed through Provers! Platina and Dr. Gustav Wilhelm Gross

420094Any way you cut it, the proving of Platina is problematic.   Hughes’ comment at the beginning of the proving brings its reliability into question:  “To the above-named fellow-observer  (Gross) most of the symptoms of Platina are credited. They are taken from a proving instituted by him, chiefly on “a damsel both bodily and mentally healthy and blooming, though somewhat excitable,” who took does of the 1st trituration equivalent in all to between two and three grains of the mental. The results of this proving were originally published in Vol. I of the Archiv.”

There are modern provers who rely on one “golden prover” for most or all of the information regarding a remedy.  However, common sense decrees that in order to provide a reliable source of information,  more participants should be involved.  There are some very clear modalities in this proving however, which I’ll mention in my next blog post, but I find myself wishing that further provings would be done on Platina (rather than spending time and effort on proving bumblebees, warthog dung or whatever happens to be the next visionary “homoeopathic flavor (sorry) of the month”.)

Some approximate stats:  Of the 527 symptoms in this proving, 52 were contributed by Hahnemann together with at least one unnamed female prover or patient.  Around 40 symptoms contributed by Gross relate to a male prover, possibly Gross himself.  Which leaves us with at least 400 symptoms from one lone prover-ette – the excitable damsel mentioned above.

So at least four provers in total.  Better than just one anyway. It’s also important to note that Hahnemann included this proving in his work, under his name.  And Hahnemann was nothing if not pedantic.  This in itself adds to the value of the proving.  But what of the nature of Gross, the proving master here?

I’ve drawn heavily on Richard Haehl’s work for the following description of Gross, including paraphrasing and direct quotes.  What comes out most strongly in Haehl’s description, is that although he was greatly moved emotionally by events in his life, in his work Gross was highly knowledgeable, with a calm sense of balance and a clearly defined scientific orientation.  Something to bear in mind when reading the proving.  Read on for more on Gross…

Gustav Wilhelm Gross:

Gross was born on September 6th 1794 at Kaltenborn near Juterbog, not far from Leipzig, close to Wittenberg (of Martin Luther fame – the original, not the civil rights hero).  His father was a Pastor.  He studied medicine in Leipsig, which brought him in close touch with Hahnemann, who included him in his provings group.  Gross made his first experiments with Chamomilla.  Under Hahnemann’s supervision, he put his fine faculty of observation to work and acquired a knowledge of remedies such as few homoeopathic physicians possessed.

He received his final medical degree in 1818, having started his practice from the outset as a homoeopathic physician, and set up shop in his native Juterbog, where he remained till his death.  Word of his successful cures spread far and wide, and patients even came to him from Berlin, something that if done by car would take around one and a half hours, less by train – but if done on horseback or by carriage, could have taken two or three days of intensive travel during daylight hours, plus the cost of stopping at inns or hotels along the way.

The State authorities recognized his worth by appointing him a member of the Supreme Examining Board for Homoeopathic physicians (to grant permission for individual dispensing).  He became a zealous collaborator with Stapf on the “Archiv fur homoeopathische Heilkunst” which Stapf founded in 1822.

Gross wrote many scientifically critical reviews of books  of others, and also penned several works of his own.   In addition, Hahnemann’s posthumous writings included two thick volumes of a homoeopathic repertory, each of about 1,500 pages, in Dr. Gross’s handwriting with additions by Hahnemann.

Haehl describes Gross’s articles in the “Allgemeine Homoeopathische Zeitung”, (founded in 1832) to which he was an assiduous contributor, as “distinguished by his calm sense of balance and serious scientific outlook.  He despised fine flourishes of useless eloquence.  In his written work his whole nature is discernible; in his appearance he was almost angular and stiff.  To strangers he seemed gruff and unapproachable.  The impression was intensified by his features, somewhat bloated and bilious.”

Reports written by colleagues, while mentioning his external appearance, constantly echo a central theme:  true, honest, earnest, learned and knowledgeable,  inspired by new ideas and unafraid to speak out – even to the ascerbic and irascible Hahnemann himself – when he felt a point had to be made.  The esteem in which his colleagues held him shines through their comments.  You can read some of them here.

Gross suffered from liver trouble, to which were soon added gout, dropsy and lung trouble.  He treated himself, and was also treated by Stapf.  However the treatments were unsuccessful and he died on 18th September 1847, not long after Hahnemann’s death in 1843.  He was only fifty-three years old.

http://pandwisrael.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/viewed-through-provers-platina-and-dr-gustav-wilhelm-gross/

What Homoeopathy is not.

SHASHI_-COLOUR(Summary: Misconstruction has surrounded homeopathy ever since its inception. Even after 200 years, homeopathy has remained the most misunderstood or ill-understood medical science ever; unfortunately, within the homeopathic profession as well. Diversity of view-points on the scope of treatment in the profession may no be a healthy sign for the growth of the science. Homeopathy is among the youngest of medical sciences calling for modern approach and extensive research. Some points related to misinterpretation about various facets of homeopathy, by the homeopaths, are raised and discussed. )
From dictionaries to encyclopedia to websites and books, it is almost explicitly explained ‘what is homeopathy’; however, it is equally important to discuss about what homeopathy is not.
Homeopathy is one of the most mysterious science streams, which is highly ill-understood, misunderstood, over-understood and hence there exists confusion in the minds of not only the lay-people (patients) but also the homeopaths themselves.
After having spent almost three decades in the study, learning, practicing, teaching, promotion and research in the field of homeopathy, I will rightfully share my thoughts and concerns; explaining what actually is not homeopathy.

Homeopathy is not a miracle medicine:

Many people believe that homeopathy is a miracle science, it can make magical cure in even most incurable diseases such as cancer, comatose stages, paralysis, etc. Actually, it is not. Homeopathy is simple a science based on certain laws (law of similars, comparable with that of vaccinations); with its own scope and limitations. There are rules, parameters and methods of application, which determine the scope of treatment.
Homeopathy is very effective but please do not expect magic or miracles.

Homeopathy is not a panacea:

One of the myths about homeopathy is that it is a cure for all, a panacea. It is not. Homeopathy enjoys all the joys of scope of its application, as well as the limitations of the science. No medical science can be a panacea.
Homeopathy can cure early stages of Rheumatoid arthritis but not the deformities, which go with it, as an example.

Homeopathy is not just the mind-based medicine:

One of the hardest concepts about homeopathy is that homeopathy is based largely on the understanding of the mind. The homeopathic fraternally is also not fully saved of this mis-belief. The study of the mental attitudes, the emotions and the mind-set is one of the important aspects of patient-study in homeopathy. However, it is not the sole determining factor.
Many homeopaths, especially in the western world, have a delusion that homeopathy is almost identical with mind-medicine. Homeopathy study encompasses, actually, the disease, the nature of pathology, the kind of immunological or hormonal changes, the physical components (perspiration, thermal preference, sleep, etc) and the mental sphere; all or most of them put together, depending on the case.

Homeopathy is more than psychosomatic:

Many homeopaths tend to relate disease or pathology in patients to some emotional parameter, almost always as cause and effect phenomenon. For example, diabetes due to stress in relationship or arthritis due to grief due to death of a loved one, etc. Psychosomatism is profoundly comprehended and valued in homeopathy; however, not necessarily as a causal phenomenon, but more as a part of the totality. There is no need to forcibly connect major emotions as the cause for development of every disease in all patients.

Homeopathy is not spiritual:

Since homeopathy is based on potentised (incredibly minute) dose of the physical substance, which cannot be measured with the current scientific methods, many have theorized and connected homeopathy with spirituality. It seems interesting to read some correlation between the two; however, it may be detrimental for the growth of homeopathy if taken away from science and towards spirituality. Comparing ‘vital force’ with ‘sole’ and miasms with ‘Buddhism’ will take homeopathy away from scientific growth.
Homeopathy is not-yet-fully-understood science, so, to some, it might look like some form of spirituality.

Homeopathy is not placebo therapy:

The skeptics have always criticized homeopathy as placebo therapy, due to lack of adequate research as per modern medicine guidelines. Since the results using homeopathic medicines are fairly reproducible, measurable and documentable, I would strongly say that homeopathy is far beyond placebo therapy.

Homeopathy is not faith healing:

Next label from skeptics is that homeopathy is nothing but faith healing. Homeopathy has worked million times for those who did not believe in it. Also, babies, domestic and wild animals, respond to homeopathy; proving homeopathy to be more than placebo therapy.
Cases of Hepatitis C, for example, where objective parameter such as drastic reduction in viral load after homeopathic medicines; is very hard to achieve with faith healing.
The skeptics should try out homeopathy, I suggest.

Homeopathy is not necessarily ‘single remedy’ magic:

The homeopathic professionals have been taught to be dogmatic about the use of ‘single remedy’ at a time, for all patients, all the time. It is very hard to break this fixity and evolve from this rigid shell; which even the father of homeopathy, Dr Hahnemann, could not outgrow in his time. The homeopaths tend to be either emotional when it comes to talking about the use of more remedies in a give case or shy away from discussing about it. The profession has yet to enter into a scientific discussion about so-called poly-pharmacy (multiple medicines).
No complex case be cured using a single remedy forever, barring only a few exceptions.
I deal with very severe pathologies such as Ulcerative colitis, Ankylosing spondylitis, Trigeminal Neuralgia, Nephrotic Syndrome, etc. where it is not possible to administer a single remedy and wait. Every delay could be detrimental and not justified.

Homeopathy is not just ‘single dose’ therapy:

‘Single remedy, single dose’ are the magic phrases found in homeopathic textbooks; no more relevant in today’s medical practice. I have practiced the said phrases very religiously for over a decade and half; and have evolved from the dogmatism.
Sticking to the idea of single remedy and single dose could even lead to criminal intransigence.

Homeopathy is not dream-based treatment:

Some teachings have led to create a cloud of delusion amongst some homeopaths, which believe that the practice of homeopathy can be based on the understanding of patient’s dreams. Study of dreams is one of the twenty odd parameters in homeopathy; one of the most unreliable, indeed. Its importance should not be over emphasized.

Most treatments do not lead to suppression:

Over importance to the theory of suppression of diseases in homeopathy is misleading, vey often. Yes, use of immunosuppressive medicines such as corticosteroids, etc. leads to suppression of immune system, eventually taking the disease to deeper levels. This is very well understood in homeopathic philosophy.
However, extension of the concept of suppression, whereby some believe that anti-fever (paracetamol, Tylenol), pain killers, antibiotics, always lead to suppression; and must always be avoided. This is not true, in my opinion. This calls for scientific debate.

Homeopathy is not that slow:

The proponents of homeopathy claim that homeopathy is not slow. Actually, this is partly true and partly not. Homeopathy is not slow in chronic diseases. It relatively slow in acute diseases and could be very slow in the treatment of critical diseases.

Homeopathy is not very fast acting medicine:

Homeopathy is not very fast, either. Let me be honest. Homeopathy is neither very fast nor very slow. We need research to make homeopathy faster, I would say.

Homeopathy is not simply ‘constitutional medicine’:

Any contradiction to concept of the constitutional medicine is a potential trigger for third world war, amongst homeopaths at least. After twenty-five years of intense homeopathic practice, I believe that the ‘constitutional medicine’ is a hype created in the profession. It calls for a review and re-evaluation. It is a huge topic, cannot be discussed in length here.
In brief, I would say, all cases may not find a constitutional medicine and can still be treated with success.

Homeopathy is not suitable for all acute and critical diseases:

One school of thought is that homeopathy can cure each a every acute and critical disease such as cerebral malaria, bacterial meningitis, acute renal failure, severe pneumonia, acute myocardial infection (heart attack), and the like.
I strongly opine that it is not true. Homeopathy is a science having a limitation whereby severe acute and critical disease situations cannot be consistently treated with success. Please read the word ‘consistently’ with emphasis. Success with some cases, on some occasions, may not be enough. The results have to be comparable with the modern medicine; in order that we ethically claim success of homeopathy in severely acute and critical illnesses.

Every disease is not curable, even if the remedy is right

Many people and some homeopaths believe that if symptoms of the patient match with some medicines, every disease becomes curable. In other words, if the medicine selection is perfect, the cure is certain; irrespective of the nature of the disease. This is not true. The curability of any disease depends on several factors such as 1. Nature of the disease. For example, hepatitis (inflammation of liver) may be curable; while cirrhosis (scarring) of liver is not curable. 2. Extent of pathological change. For example, a fewer patches of Alopecia Areata (hair loss patches) are curable; but total hair loss (Alopecia totalis) is not curable. 3. Reversibility of the disease process and outcome. Inflammatory arthritis can be helped but Osteoarthritis (bony overgrowth) cannot be reversed. 4. Selection of the correct homeopathic remedies.

Homeopathy is not beyond the modern medical science:

The well-evolved medical knowledge acquired by medical science is very much required for the evolution of homeopathy. Homeopathy does not claim to be beyond the modern medical science. In fact, it is high time to understand that homeopathy and medical science are not distinctly different as far as the ‘medicine’ is concerned. They are not contrary but complementary and collaborating; belonging to the same medical science.

Homeopathy is not against the modern medicine:

Some may believe that ‘modern medicine’ and homeopathy against each other, contrary; kind of enemies! I have always wondered, how such concepts have grown in the minds of medicos, homeopaths and lay-people. Homeopathy is just a science; a part of medical science.
If we look at the evolution of engineering sciences, do we believe that computer engineering is contrary to the electronics; mechanical engineering opposing to electrical or civil engineering’s? Not really. They all are complementing each other. Why don’t we have maturity when it comes to medical sciences?

Homeopathy is not against surgery:

One of the myths among laypeople, modern medicos, as well as the surgeons is that homeopathy is against surgery. Surgery is a part of homeopathy. Surgery is a science and art by itself. Surgery is neither a property of modern medicines nor of homeopathy. It has to be understood that homeopathy is a therapeutic method of treating diseases in certain manner. Surgery is a method of treating diseases in a different manner, without medicines. Both are complementary to each other. Precisely, therefore, the homeopathic training in India trains every homeopath for basic surgery, at undergraduate level, as much as it trains a modern medico. Every qualified homeopath in India is a physician and a surgeon. This is not a case in the western world, though.
While evaluating what homeopathy is all about; it would be equally important to understand what homeopathy is not. I hope this piece of article will stimulate many.
.
Dr Shashi Mohan Sharma
Director & Principal
Hahnemann College of Homeopathy
Regal Court, 42 – 44 High Street
Slough, Berkshire SL1 1EL -UK
Mob: 0044 (0) 7799 168089

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.

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.

Allopathic treatment of whooping cough.

PertussisMainstream medical treatment of whooping cough is using antibiotics and “palliative” care.

First up…., it doesn’t work.  They know that…, I know that…, but they won’t tell you that, for the simple reason that… they have NOTHING else to offer you.

When you walk into your doctor’s office, the first thing they do- assuming they are even able to diagnose whooping cough correctly in the first place, is to rake you over the coals, if you’ve not vaccinated.

You will be told that, “Your child will be MORE infectious to other people and the symptoms far more serious”. Both of which are untrue, but who’s going to doubt the word of the doctor, other than those of us, who have been there done that, and proven them wrong?.

The second thing some parents experience, is being told that… “if they don’t use antibiotics their children will be much sicker”. Which is also a load of bollocks.  The reality is the opposite.  If you use antibiotics, you can just about guarantee your child WILL BE sicker.

Put simply, in terms of the infection process itself, antibiotics do not change the outcome of infection in any way, or make it better…. something confirmed by the 2007 Cochrane Review. However, it has been known since Trollfors 78, that antibiotics are useless. Tozzi 03 was one of many researchers who confirm that actually, antibiotics make whooping cough WORSE. Discussion of that is here.  While the medical profession talks about antibiotics making the infection less severe if you catch it very early, the real world reality is that because most of the carriers of whooping cough don’t know they have it, most often parents don’t know their children have it until about six week month AFTER they first contacted it:

Whooping cough is spread by carriers. The real world reality, is that most of the carriers of whooping cough don’t know they have it; most are asymptomatic (no symptoms) and most often parents don’t know their children have it until about four to six weeks AFTER they first contacted it:

Looking at the time frames, incubation is listed as 5 – 15 days . This is followed by an insignificant cold which lasts about a week, then goes away = 12 – 22 days.

After about a one week pause, = 19 – 31 days, the cough starts.

Most parents don’t get concerned until about two weeks into the cough, when it’s getting worse, and NOT going away.

So usually a parent doesn’t usually get the child to the doctor until around 33 – 45 days after initial contact.

If the mantra is that antibiotics only “work” to reduce severity within 3 weeks of contact, what parent is actually going to make it to the doctor in that time frame?

Because parents don’t usually know when or where a first contact was – or even the medically proven time frames above, they don’t know that diagnosis is usually made well after the three week period stated in the medical literature.

AFTER that time, the medical literature clearly shows that antibiotics made whooping cough worse, and prolong the duration.

Nevertheless, it’s very common for people who are prescribed antibiotics more than three weeks after contact, to praise the antibiotics for reducing it to just a serious disease. They proudly say, “Oh, but if I hadn’t taken antibiotics, I might have died.” A great advertorial, but the comment is a totally  non proveable, brainwashed assumption.

And as said before, we are ASSUMING that a doctor KNOWS how to diagnose whooping cough, which test to use, AND we are assuming that the tests are accurate, which they are not.  You can be in full bore whooping cough which eventually lasts for 100 days, yet all the tests can come back negative.

Doctors also say that antibiotics clear the bacteria from the bronchials and prevent it’s spread.   Yet, even were that true, antibiotics don’t shorten the time of the cough – the studies say antibiotics actually LENGTHEN the time of the cough by around 5 days.

Isn’t that odd?

Wouldn’t you think that if antibiotics “cleared” the bacteria they would shorten the cough?  I think there is something else going on, but have no proof for my theories so will stay silent on that.

That antibiotics don’t work, is probably not something your average GP will either know, or …. tell you, if they do know.

Until this year, erythromycin was considered the antibiotic of choice for whooping cough, even though…. it doesn’t work.

For parents, the biggest problem with Erythromycin, wasn’t that it didn’t work.  Erythromycin trashes the gut something awful, with huge numbers of babies and children having serious gut ache, diarrhoea – and their commensal gut flora trashed to oblivion. Not that anyone in the 1990s needed someone like Langley 04 to tell them that.  Parental “compliance” with erythromycin has always been very low. Parents could plainly see their kids were much worse off than just having whooping cough, even if doctors tried to pretend that the deterioration was just the whooping cough. Often, because these side effects were very quickly obvious, parents ditched the antibiotics so quickly, they never twigged that it wouldn’t have made any difference had they continued them. The fact that the medical literature says that antibiotics make whooping cough worse, is really embarrassing to the medical  profession, so they rely on the fact that most parents or doctors don’t KNOW that and assume that disease severity is determined by the individual.  The blame the patient game, is part of the medical profession’s tactics of “unproveable diversion”.   Yet, when parents toss the antibiotics within 48 hours, they notice the difference.  But of course, we are only the walking “anecdotes”.

As a result of the high rate of side effects with Erythromycin, and resultant “poor compliance”, a newer, much more expensive antibiotic, Azithromycin has been given the green light…, which doesn’t work either.  The NZ Governemtn is now promoting it “free”, to all and sundry with whooping cough . Note the word “free”.  You just pay out the back pocket of your taxes instead of the front pocket of your wallet.  No-one is being told that there is a new alert out about azithromycin regarding heart problems. Supposedly, that only relates to people with diabetes or heart problems, but nowhere can I find an explanation as to what it is that Azithromycin “does” in those people, which supposedly it doesn’t also do in everyone else.  And this doctor’s comment is quite accurate:

“Azithromycin is as effective and is able to be given once a day, as well as in a shorter course for both treatment and prevention if a little baby is exposed to whooping cough,” …

As “effective” a treatment as erythromycin, …which in terms of “fixing” the whooping cough is as useful as tits on a bull. So yes. Azithromycin fixes whooping cough, as badly as erythromycin ever did.

This of course, ignores the fact that Azithromycin has been known since 2007, not only to drive long term bacterial resistance, BUT to spread that to the rest of the family as well. Charming. And why would you want to do that, when the medical literature makes it perfectly clear that in terms of “fixing” whooping cough, antibiotics don’t work in the first place, and makes things worse?

Perhaps it all comes back to creating an illusion that the medical system is “doing something” — useful. After all, a medical profession that “does nothing useful” – isn’t much cop is it? Parents might start asking sticky questions, like, “What? In this day and age, you haven’t a clue how to deal usefully, with something like whooping cough?” Sobering thought, eh?!!!

Of course, if you start talking about using “alternative medicine”, then the medical system brings out all it’s cauldrons of brimstone and hellfire. “That stuff doesn’t work. It’s dangerous. It’s a placebo. It’s not tested. It’s not trialled.” The whining is legion.

Never mind that doctors prescribe antibiotics which they know are useless, and worse, which create far worse problems than the KNOWN lack of benefit for the poor kid coughing their guts up. Like:

Increasing the chances of asthma.

Permanently altering Gut Flora.

Causing serious metabolic disarray

These are just a FEW of the known problems which have led some doctors to start PLEADING with other doctors to stop using antibiotics.

How did we get to the point, or irony…. where NOW doctors blame parents for the unnecessary use of antibiotics?

For DECADES from about 1955, doctors started product branding antibiotics as the treatment of choice for all “normal” parents who cared about their children.  It’s called “social norming” .  Now the medical profession is back-peddling and blaming parents whereas in reality it was the medical profession who promoted, nurtured and cultivated parental acceptance of antibiotics, and created a generation who even to this day, assume antibiotics are as harmless as water. Social norming.  Everyone uses them.  You do it because everyone else does and because you “love” your children.  I know.  I’m the child of a scientist who was conned into believing just that, and thought that a prescription of antibiotics for his daughter was proof that he “cared”.

Social Norming, is also the current strategy all vaccine pushers use, to try to coerce high vaccine-compliance, and conformity levels.  Sorry. “Vaccine acceptance”, is their term. Like “Antibiotic acceptance”….  Vaccination social norming, though, creates problems for them when they find that it’s the better educated who are less likely to vaccinate.

NON-conventional treatment of whooping cough: Fortunately, there are two sorts of non-“medical” modalities which considerably reduce the coughing intensity and number of coughing spells per day.  Parents are usually delighted with the results.  If you expect your doctor to know them, you may be disappointed.  However, there are a few doctors who do, so if you happen to have your butt on the right chair, in the right surgery at the right time, and make the right unthreatening and encouraging noises, both methods may be whispered to you on the sly, but not written into your medical records.

The first is those dreaded two words which the conformed in the medical profession hates to hear. Wait for it. Vitamin C. Some doctors have actually incorporated this into their practices in New Zealand, and one overseas doctor, has written a very good paper on whooping cough treatment with vitamin C. She at least is grateful that there is a tool available to her which actually WORKS.

The second idea sounds even more far fetched. It involves going for a scenic flight in an unpressurised aircraft to 10,000 feet and staying up there, for at least half an hour. This treatment, which Auckland’s paediatrician, Dr Cameron Grant, famously called “a myth” is standard treatment for whooping cough in the British Military – and has been for over 60 years, as described in these articles from the BMJ. Why?

Because it works. How does it work? No-one knows. Those who know it works, don’t care how it works. A lot of older people in this country know that it works, and quite a few doctors have seen the evidence of it. Again, you have to have your butt in the right place, right seat, right surgery, right doctor to be told to go flying. They keep their heads below the parapet, obviously. Ask around. You’d be surprised how many ordinary people know, even if your regular Azithromycin-doctor falls off his chair laughing at your patently fruitloop ideas, and suggests a psychiatric evaluation instead.

What have you got to lose by flying?

Some money. Oh, yeah, and a cough.

What have you got to gain? Probably a decent educational aerial viewing of your local disrtict which you’ve never seen before. Not to mention the thanks of your aerodrome club pilot, who, after finding out it works, knows what to do with his vaccinated family when they come down with whooping cough.

There are of course, other modalities such as homeopathy, but in my experience, they are “hit and miss” and mostly “miss”.  The most commonly recommended remedy is Drosera, yet in reality the possible list is very long, and not easy to navigate.  I’ve had little success with homeopathy, but with vitamin C, we’ve always managed to get it under control within 24 hours.

BUT… you have to know how to do it.  And to know how to do it, you have to read the instructions CORRECTLY, do the maths CORRECTLY and apply the method CORRECTLY.  Fortunately, it’s certainly not rocket science. It requires the correct formulation of vitamin C, not the sugary pills or the ones with calcium  It just requires reading the directions ACCURATELY, a dose of commonsense, a bit of nouse, and a calm careful approach.

And remember.  Silence is golden.  Know when NOT to tell a doctor what you are doing

Editors note: Your lack of success with homoeopathy is simply the fact that you are not trained to deal with whooping cough using the homoeopathic method of application. Sadly, homoeopathy today has shot itself in the proverbial foot by not training practitioners properly.

http://www.beyondconformity.co.nz/_blog/Hilary%27s_Desk/post/Whooping_cough_treatment/

 

Bookmark and Share


 

There is no one left to trust with your health.

Pediatricians: Keep Thimerosal in Vaccines

article-2191181-149F3528000005DC-929_233x300By Todd Neale, Senior Staff Writer, MedPage Today

Published: December 17, 2012
Reviewed by Robert Jasmer, MD; Associate Clinical Professor of Medicine, University of California, San Francisco

 

The American Academy of Pediatrics has endorsed the World Health Organization’s stance that thimerosal — a mercury-based preservative — should be left in vaccines and should not be subject to a ban contained in a draft treaty from the United Nations Environment Program (UNEP).

In a brief statement published online inPediatrics, the academy supported the recommendations drafted by the WHO’s Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization at an April meeting. An AAP spokesperson said that the endorsement was adopted unanimously by the academy’s infectious diseases committee.

The Pediatrics Infectious Diseases Society and the International Pediatric Association have also thrown their support behind the guidance.

In 2009, UNEP requested that an Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee develop a binding treaty to reduce the hazards of environmental mercury. Included in the draft treaty, which will be debated and possibly finalized next month, is a provision banning the use of thimerosal in vaccines.

The WHO has called for the removal of that provision, with SAGE concluding that although it supports efforts to reduce environmental mercury, “it is essential that access to thimerosal-containing vaccines is not restricted under this global initiative.”

An Evolving Position on Thimerosal

Thimerosal has been used to prevent the growth of bacteria and fungi in multidose vials of vaccines since the 1930s. In recent decades, concerns have been raised about the potential neurotoxic effects of the preservative and a possible association with autism because it contains mercury in the form of organic ethyl mercury.

The FDA tackled the issue in the late 1990s, and its review showed that the cumulative amount of mercury from vaccines included in the routine immunization schedule for infants could exceed the safety threshold set by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency based on studies of inorganic methyl mercury. The amount did not, however, rise above the thresholds established by federal guidelines from the Agency for Toxic Substance Disease Registry and the FDA.

Based on those findings, and in addition to growing public pressure driven by congressional hearings and increasing media attention on potential adverse neurodevelopmental effects of thimerosal, the AAP and the U.S. Public Health Service (USPHS) in 1999 called for the removal of mercury from all vaccines.

“Once the FDA calculations revealed that even one federal guideline was exceeded, the AAP and USPHS were obligated to full public disclosure,” explained Louis Cooper, MD, of Columbia University in New York City, and Samuel Katz, MD, of Duke University in Durham, N.C., in a commentary accompanying the academy’s current endorsement.

“With that disclosure, it was important to demonstrate a response that could prevent exceeding the guideline levels and also to continue to protect infants by still ensuring full immunization,” wrote Cooper, a member of the AAP board of directors in 1999, and Katz, a former chair of the academy’s infectious diseases committee. “The joint statement met those obligations while demonstrating an abundance of caution: putting safety first.”

By 2001, thimerosal had been removed from most vaccines in the U.S. and other high-income countries; it can still be found in some seasonal influenza vaccines and other adult vaccines. In areas of the world with fewer resources, however, thimerosal is still widely used as a vaccine preservative.

At the time of the joint statement by the AAP and USPHS, there were no studies that had evaluated the potential harm of ethyl mercury — as opposed to its inorganic counterpart, methyl mercury — obtained through vaccines.

Since then, however, studies looking for harms from thimerosal-containing vaccines have failed to find such associations, whereas research has consistently demonstrated serious neurotoxic effects from methyl mercury.

The consistent lack of evidence of any harm from thimerosal in vaccines formed the basis of the AAP’s reversal of its 1999 stance, and Cooper and Katz suggested that the academy would not have issued the original statement with than knowledge in-hand.

Potential Fallout from a Thimerosal Ban

In another commentary, Walter Orenstein, MD, of Emory University in Atlanta, and colleagues explained the benefits of keeping thimerosal as an option for vaccines.

“Thimerosal allows the use of multiuse vials, which reduce vaccine cost and the demand on already constrained cold-chain systems,” they wrote.

They said banning use of the preservative could harm the world’s vaccine supply by increasing manufacturing costs, reducing manufacturing capacity because of the need to switch to single-dose vials, increase waste from single-dose packaging, and strain transportation and storage space.

“The resulting cold-chain requirements would be untenable in many areas of the world because of programmatic challenges and increased workload,” Orenstein and colleagues wrote.

“The continued benefits of thimerosal use in vaccine manufacturing clearly outweigh any perceived risks,” they added.

In its recommendations, the WHO’s SAGE noted that there are no viable alternatives to thimerosal.

“Replacement of thimerosal with an alternative preservative may affect the quality, safety, and efficacy of vaccines; re-registration would be required by the National Regulatory Authority in each jurisdiction where a reformulated product was intended to be used; currently available alternative preservatives interacted in unpredictable ways with existing vaccines, and there are no consensus alternative preservatives for the near- or mid-term,” according to the guidance.

Ultimately, it stated, a thimerosal ban could threaten access to certain vaccines — such as tetanus toxoid, diphtheria-tetanus-whole cell pertussis, and hepatitis B vaccines — around the world, particularly in developing countries.

“There would be a high risk of serious disruption to routine immunization programs and mass immunization campaigns if thimerosal-preserved multidose vials were not available for inactivated vaccines, with a predictable and sizable increase in mortality, for exceedingly limited environmental benefit,” the statement read.

In a third commentary, Katherine King, PhD, of St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, and colleagues noted that “some nongovernmental organizations oppose [removing the ban on thimerosal from vaccines from the draft treaty], arguing that it would be unjust to allow thimerosal to be used in low- and middle-income countries when its use has been all but phased out of wealthier nations.”

“This critique is misplaced,” they wrote, adding that there is no threat of injustice because of the lack of evidence of health risks.

“Rather,” they wrote, “the real threat of injustice comes from considering the removal of this currently necessary and irreplaceable compound from the global vaccine supply, and the avoidable increases in morbidity and mortality that would inevitably result from disruptions to vaccination programs targeting already marginalized populations in low- and middle-income countries.”

All authors of the AAP’s statement of endorsement have filed conflict of interest statements. Any conflicts have been resolved through a process approved by the academy’s board of directors. The AAP said it has neither solicited nor accepted any commercial involvement in the development of the content of the statement.

Cooper and Katz reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

King and colleagues reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

Orenstein and colleagues reported that they had no conflicts of interest.

 

Primary source: Pediatrics

Source reference:
Cooper L, Katz S. “Ban on thimerosal in draft treaty on mercury: why the AAP’s position in 2012 is so important”Pediatrics 2013;131:152-153.

Additional source: Pediatrics
Source reference:
AAP. “Statement of endorsement: recommendation of WHO Strategic Advisory Group of Experts (SAGE) on immunization” Pediatrics 2012.

Additional source: Pediatrics
Source reference:
King K, et al. “Global justice and the proposed ban on thimerosal-containing vaccines” Pediatrics 2013;131:154-156.

Flu Shot reaction

Patient, Male, early 50’s, had a flu shot in the UK in early October 2012. One week after the shot, mild vertigo, back ache, headache, recurring mildly from time to time. Had a flare up of a respiratory disorder and a “heavy cold’.  Patient suffers from  cigarette induced COPD and is taking steroids and bronchial dilators. Has not smoked for 8 years.

Went on holiday to hot country at end of October for 1 week. Came home, resumed his occupation as transport driver. Took 4 days off work due to another “heavy cold” and respiratory difficulties.

On 25th November, started to feel unwell and slowly developed another “heavy cold”. Missed two days of work, then resumed work but did not feel well and then went into a full blown influenza type picture.

I saw the patient on 30th November.

Patient complained of:

Frontal headache, temples to upper forehead.

Was chilled easily at change of temperature, would shiver and shake.

Lumbar area backaches, sometimes in legs.

Vertigo rising from seat, a mild unsteadiness.

Felt hot, no perspiration.

I heard a very upper chest cough, loose with no expectoration.

I asked the patient if he was experiencing anything else. He said he was just feeling like his bones were sore, not much, but just not right.

My personal observation of this patient that he was unusually mild in manner, whereas his normal mood is bantering and cutting and quite critical at times.

As I had some very specific symptoms, I ran a few physical checks and diagnosed to all intent and purposes, Influenza. My concern was to keep his airways clear so went to the Repertory (SYNOPSIS P & W Therapeutic pocket book by Boenninghausen) and put in the following SX.

(Click on picture to enlarge)

 

I have found through my career, that it is the key symptoms, as expressed by the patient, that represent the whole modality(ies) of the illness, AND represent the main symptoms produced by a remedy, are the ones to keep in view. This remains a constant even if the production of the modality in a medicine is NOT particularly in the same location as the patient is expressing the disorder. However, in this case, it became obvious that the medicine that covered the influenza was one of three.

All three remedies covered the rest of the case. The back, the vertigo the headache, there was nothing to distinguish between them. I asked for more details and none were to be had. At this point, the door opened and someone came in to give me details of the physical tests, and I noticed that the draft from the door, made the patient shiver. The draft was not colder than the room we were in, just the intake of fanned air from the heater in the corridor.

I made the choice for Rhus Toxidendron 0/1 potency. I gave the patient enough for 5 doses to be taken 1 dose an hour.

I was informed that the patients head ache increased that evening, and was restless. I instructed the patient go to bed and expect to get hot and even perspire some. In the event, the patient burst into perspiration for two hours, and then fell asleep and slept the whole night through. The next morning declared himself 90% better. although still a little weak and tired, and went off to work his driving job. I will now concentrate on his chronic respiratory ailment and run a few tests to see what the actual reality of diagnosis should be, and then evaluate what can be done for him homoeopathically.

 

 

 

 

Who is to blame for the decline of Homoeopathy?

When asked the question, who is to blame for the decline of homoeopathy? one immediate response is: ” The scientists. The scientists because they dare to use science to try to explain homeopathy”. One other response is “The Pharmaceutical industry, and the reason they are against Homoeopathy is because homoeopathic treatment and remedies are cheaper than allopathic drugs”. The final general response is “The Government. They do not believe Homoeopathy is safe”.

While all of these statements contain elements of truth, and truth is what we are searching for, we must examine each and every criticism and see what is valid and what is not factual.

The most common arguments that the profession of Homoeopathy uses in protection of itself, is that:

Allopaths and scientists

Allopaths or scientists cannot fathom the hidden essences of homeopathic remedies because the effects of the remedies are so infinite and subtle that they cannot be measured in conventional testing or be subject to current evaluation methods. The reality and sad truth is, that homeopathy cannot be understood by science simply because homoeopathy, as taught and promoted today by modern teachers is a dysfunctional, subjective and unscientific collection of nonsense. All traces of science have been carefully eliminated and replaced by quasi spiritual and bad psychological evaluation that have no basis for inclusion in the practice of Homoeopathic medicine. Because of this, homoeopathic remedies no longer follows a scientifically repeatable method of application due to unscientific prescriptions that will deliver objective results, even when compared and tested against placebo.

 The Pharmaceutical industry.

While it is a very obvious truth, that pharmaceutical industry is a profit-oriented business, (just like homeopathic teachers have their own profit-oriented business of delivering expensive, captivating, yet completely useless lectures – Rajan Sankaran’s seminars being a shining example), The pharmaceutical industry is subject to some form of accountability in production of a drug. Recent news reports show a shocking trend for circumventing these ‘safeguards’ in the pursuit of profit, and in some cases, apparent government collusion is involved. Be that as it may, each and every drug is sold with a long list of effects produced by taking that product. The prescribing physician is responsible for knowing the tested results and expected outcome of a patient using the drug.  (we can argue about side-effects, long-term efficiency, etc.), but truth be told if you talk to most homeopaths today, even they will usually recommend allopathy for a life threatening condition.

Homoeopathy, the Therapy, under the influence of modern teachers, has become a useless tool that can “heal” you if you believe in it, or if your condition is a psychosomatic problem. What we usually hear from people studying under these teachers is a recommendation to take the allopathics and once the patient is healthy, they give some homeopathic medicine to “clean up” after the allopathics. That’s right, homeopathy has been degraded to a position of a “complementary” treatment that does not work if the patient is actually sick.

 Governments

Governments have assumed the right and obligation to be seen to regulate the pharmaceutical and medicinal field to ensure that sick people get modern scientifically validated drugs according to the protocol of accepted science. Given that this is their stance, (albeit an increasingly corrupt one) it is no surprise that they are on a path to ban the modern practice of homoeopathy as taught today.

Why is this? There is no longer a scientific and repeatable and uniform method of practice in the Therapy. Every current Guru teaches something completely different. The only thing in common they share is the dismissal of the input and research of the founder of the therapy.

Can you blame the governments for attempting to ban this travesty of a therapy trading under the guise of Homoeopathy?
Some examples are Rajan Sankaran teaching meditation techniques, in order to take a case. Years ago, a colleague attending a clinic of Rajan Sankaran, watched him fall asleep during a case taking. It would appear that he has found a method of being able to do so now with no attendant criticism!

The teachers of modern Homoeopathy. have collectively turned the medical practice of Homoeopathy into a dangerous therapy, under the guise of it being a safe alternative in the face of conventional medicine. In not following the guidelines and modus operandi, Homoeopathy fails the patient during an actual sickness

Who is to blame?

We could say, that it is the modern teachers, the modern gurus, that are responsible. This would not be the complete truth. Although they are responsible for the non medical, non scientific, non rational quasi spiritual nonsense that they produce, they can only exist through the support of the community. There has been no concerted effort to study the Therapy or methodology for years. The credibility that these gurus appear to have, would easily be dismissed if people actually studied homoeopathy and not accept the false methodologies that is destroying the profession. Who is then to blame? If you were aware of this problem even before you read this article, simply look into the mirror and you will see the guilty party straight away. The rise of the modern teachers was made possible because of complacency of existing homeopathic teachers and homeopathic community. It was possible because not enough people were willing to stand in a direct opposition and persevere regardless of how popular the modern teachings were. Most of the homeopathic community either ignored the nonsense of modern teachings or simply adopted them because it brought profit. There are only a handful of teachers and homeopaths who actively point out the discrepancy between scientific homeopathy as taught by Hahnemann and “homeopathy-like” teachings of modern teachers.

So, when you see the next wave of seminars taught by the “modern masters”, spend a moment thinking about the effects this is going to have on all of us. Especially think about the patient who is not going to benefit in anyway from attending a homoeopathic consultation. And also reflect on the fact that a lack of application to studying real homoeopathy, will allow the removal of homoeopathy as a therapy in every country.

Francis Bacon “neither man nor his style should be the primary object of the audience’s concentration because ‘doctrines should be such as should make men fall in love with the lesson and not with the teacher’…”

Polony and Weaver. info@homeopathyonline.org

Modern gurus part 1

Misha Norland – the provings from somewhere over the rainbow

How is it possible that so many attacks have been made on homeopathy in the last couple of years ? The answer is very simple. Modern homeopathic gurus have successfully removed any trace of the empirical method and any trace of science and present their own rationalistic transcendental theories.

Let’s start with provings. Modern provings, do not comply with the Hahnemann protocol anymore. The authors and conductors  of modern provings proudly clam that they are conducted according to Jeremy Sherr’s, Paul Herscu’s. Kent’s or someone else’s proving protocol and methodology.

Indeed, it seems to be very fashionable to use the methods and approaches as defined by modern gurus. This fashionable approach holds more appeal than strictly scientific double blind trial methods used by modern medicine.

If these new methods are indeed better, the information from new provings should be even more reliable than ever before. Why is it then, that Roger Van Zandvoort, the author of the biggest homeopathic repertory, took it upon himself to remove 130,000 modern additions from the 2009 version of his repertory? This was almost one quarter of his newer source material. In doing so, not surprisingly, the repertory became more accurate in usage. (http://hpathy.com/homeopathy-repertory/complete-repertory-2009/).

Modern repertories are often criticized as containing too many new remedies and some repertories even went as far as creating “classic” versions that disregard all new materials altogether. If the new provings were accurate there would be no need for this.

Misha Norland is the Founder and Principal of The School of Homeopathy, Devon, England. Despite the fact that his proving methods are very unconventional and despite the fact that the conclusions he draws from the results of the provings are even more controversial than the methodology, his school has conducted about 25 provings, which are now included in most of the modern repertories.

One of the early clues that make it clear that the reader should be very cautious before using the results of these “provings” is the stellar company of Patrons of the school – Jan Scholten, Rajan Sankaran, Frans Vermeulen, Jeremy Sherr, Miranda Castro and Massimo Mangialavori. It comes as no surprise that the methodologies used by this school and by Misha Norland are far from Hahnemannian.

Proving of AIDS nosode

Before even starting to talk about whether this proving is Hahnemannian or not, let’s quote the introductory comments:

The procedures for conducting a proving were laid out by Hahnemann in § 105-145 of the Organon and on the whole there has been little need to change them. They have been commented on and clarified by:

1 JT Kent Lectures on Homœopathic Philosophy Lecture XXVIII2 Jeremy Sherr Dynamics and Methodology of Provings3 Paul Herscu Provings.

Clearly, the methodology of Hahnemann was not strictly followed, but REPLACED by methodology of Jeremy Sherr, Paul Herscu and J.T. Kent.

The section The group proving gives us even more unsettling overview of the methodology:

“…There appears to be a teletherapeutic effect produced by the field generated by the assembled provers, their experiences being in resonance. The whole group is involved and those members who have not taken the remedy may be as affected as those that have.

This means that the use of control provers who are given placebo is not possible as they are also likely to prove the remedy. Because of the group’s field effect It also means there is no need to repeat the dose if symptoms do not occur immediately…”

So, in other words, the observation is, that regardless of whether the person is taking placebo or remedy, their symptoms will be the symptoms of the remedy.

How is this possible? A clue might be gained by the section The Proving:

“This stimulus, perhaps because it is amplified by the many coexperiencers, and is ‘reawakened’ at monthly gatherings when experiences are recounted, is sufficient to produce long range effects.”

It I understand it correctly, provers actually exchange experiences about the remedy on a monthly basis. It is therefore clear that this “ teletherapeutic field” that mysteriously effects the group is simply interaction between provers. The desire to succeed and to be special is one of basic human traits. If other provers hear someone talking about interesting transcendental experiences, you can bet that they will start experiencing something similar. Mind is a mysterious thing and if you rely on dreams and mental images to give you the true meaning of an experience (things so easily influenced by wanting to experience something special), your experiences will be shaped by your interactions with other provers and by a wanting to experience something special.

Interestingly, the proving starts with everyone talking about mental images and impression immediately after taking the remedy. So, if one of the provers knows the remedy (and some of them do, since in some of the proving even the conductors of the provings take the remedy), this will set the tone of the proving and reveal whatever “essence” the conductors of the proving want to reveal.

This could also throw some light on another statement from the section The Proving:

“ Results, of the initial provings, though portraying some symptom pattern, did not convey the ‘shape’ of the remedy. Therefore, I sent some pillules to Mariette Honig in Holland who carried out a similarly exhaustive, yet, ultimately unilluminating, proving… However, the picture of the nosode emerged with flying colours when in 1994 we carried out two group provings amongst students at The School of Homoeopathy…”

Well this is now easy to understand. Is it possible, that the initial provings followed a more strict protocol and the provers were not influenced by experiences of other provers, so the results were “unilluminating”? Is it also possible that once we get a group of provers that is influenced by the gatherings, the symptoms will be more transcendental and more uniform? The symptoms will be closer to the symptoms that the conductors of the proving want to see rather than the real symptoms.

How else could we explain the phenomena that people taking placebo experience the same symptoms as people taking the remedy? It has not been observed in clinical trials and the control group taking placebo is used effectively to disregard symptoms that are not caused by the remedy but are caused by environmental effects.

We have two different experiences.

Experiences from properly conducted clinical trials that repeatedly show that people taking placebo do not develop the symptoms of the remedy.

And we have “provings” following a different “method” which allows free exchange of impressions on meetings, where some of the provers know the remedy and where usually the proving does not include a control group taking placebo.

Both of these methods yield different results and while the results of the clinical trials follow scientific protocol, and their results can be rationally explained, the proving method of Misha Norland must introduce the phenomena of “teletherapeutic fields” and “telepathy” and other mysterious phenomena affecting other provers to explain the similarity of experience, when the answer is quite simple. If a group of people can have a free interaction and sharing of mental and dream experiences, it is conceivable that vagueness of these phenomena can be interpreted as having a similarity on a certain level. It is also conceivable that if there is a sharing of experiences, people will consciously or sub-consciously have a desire to experience something interesting leading to similar experiences, dreams, etc.

Proving of the Dream Potency

Some of the problems with this proving are that the original potentized substance are unknown.

A bigger problem however is, that out of a fairly small group of 15 provers only one was taking placebo. Out of 15 provers 10 were women, so it is not surprising that a common experience of the provers was, that they felt feminine. 

Proving of Salix Fragilis

Once again, the proving group is incredibly small and unbalanced. Out of 7 people, there is only 1 person taking placebo and interestingly enough, the person taking the placebo is the only man in the group. Yes, all the provers were women.

The worst problem is though that this starts as a meditative proving and the “symptoms” of the only prover taking the placebo are taken into account as well. To give you an example of his mental stability, the symptom that was included was: “During the proving my wife and I both experienced the presence of a ghost in our house.“ This “symptom” was recorded in the proving despite the fact that the prover was taking placebo and despite the fact that no other prover has experienced this. So despite a very dissimilar experience, it was recorded in the proving.

Proving of North Wales Slate

This “proving” is a dream proving, where the provers have recorded their dreams which could be of value if the proving would not be supervised by the very people who taking the remedy as well and might have influenced the direction of the proving by sharing their experiences with the rest of the group and even discussing the substance the remedy was made of. Since the methodology is compromised in this way, the symptoms gained from this “proving” are of little value.

I could go on discussing the problems in other provings conducted by Misha Norland and the members of the School of Homeopathy, but I would present only more and more of the same evidence. Evidence being, that information gathered in these provings should not be used in homeopathy, because it was gathered using controversial and questionable non – scientific methods which do not produce objective information but may be largely influenced by the people conducting the proving.

Group and Proving Phenomena

To outline the method followed by Misha Norland and the School of Homeopathy, let’s discuss the article Group and Proving Phenomena by Misha Norland published in The Homoeopath No.72.

“At the School we have achieved results using a variety of stimuli: using

material substance, by holding it, looking at it, meditating upon it, as well as with the 30th to 200th potencies. We have invoked group provings by one member ‘holding’ the concept/image of a thing.”

 In other words, aside from actually taking the remedy, other approaches are used. The “provers” either think about the substance, hold it or simply look at it. That’s right, there’s no need to even take the remedy. Apparently if you look, hold it or even think about it, you will experience this elusive “essence” of the remedy. It is not surprising that the “essences” of remedies gathered in this way prove the doctrine of signatures. If you think about a falcon, or look at it, what other “images” can you get than flying, freedom, good vision, clarity of sight, predator, aggressivity, etc. Let us just compare the main ideas from the proving of Falco Peregrinus Disciplinatus. The main ideas are: Freedom, Focused, Clear Vision, Clarity, Above it all, Speed, Fierce and Passionate, Explosive anger, etc.

The proving has succeeded at simply brainstorming about the falcon and proves nothing, except the fact that if you know what is the remedy proven and you do a brainstorming session, results will be quite predictable. You will get the same “essence” as you would think when you gather your thoughts about the particular subject. In order to actually prove the remedy, and avoid these brainstorming sessions, nothing else than the double blind trial will do. When analyzing the provings done in such a way or with a more objectivity, you can discern a lot of new information about the remedy, especially things you would not suspect when thinking about the substance. There are plenty of examples in the old literature. Symptoms are discovered that seem odd and seem to have nothing to do with the original plant/animal/mineral, yet they are key to a correct prescription.

A quote from the same article will give us some clues about why the group of the provers  experience similar things and why “essences” are closely related to the original substance.

 This stimulus, perhaps because it is amplified by the many co-experiencers, and its ‘reawakening’ at monthly ‘gatherings’ when experiences are recounted, is sufficient to produce long range effects.“.

 Not only do the provings contain people who know the original substance, they can freely influence everyone in these monthly interactions, so that it is made certain, that the proving will yield the desired result. There is no mystery why even the people not taking the remedy are included in the proving and experience similar symptoms. They are influenced by the recollection of other people’s experiences and placebo effect takes over.

 “In addition to following Jeremy’s [Sherr] proving methodology, we record our experiences some minutes after beginning the proving. We get images (such as black grave stones, waterfalls, orange flowers, and responses to these images such as associated feelings, sensations or thoughts); feelings (such as joy, sadness, and their responses such as smiling or weeping); sensations (such as floating, burning, itching, and their responses such as restlessness or scratching); thoughts and concepts which in turn may evoke images, feelings and sensations. This then is our primary data. It would be in accordance with tradition to say that proving responses are headed up by image at the top of a  natural hierarchy which proceeds down the levels, through thoughts to feelings to sensations.”

It has been established by multiple provings, that the symptoms of the remedy start manifesting some time after starting the proving. It can be minutes, but usually takes hours and even days. It is debatable, whether all the people were affected by the remedy just minutes after starting taking it, or whether they are influenced by other factors, such as meal they have just eaten, impressions of the day or actually knowing the proven substance and wanting to experience something right away. This data is then used as the primary data for the proving.

 Naturally I felt obliged to run a proving of placebo. You see, I had speculated as to whether we were proving ourselves, our group psyche, whether a group’s theme or themes would emerge. The result was that no theme emerged within the group. This was a distinctly different experience from being under the influence of the proving of a thing, where common imagery, feelings and sensations dominate.

No big surprise here. If provers know that they are taking a certain remedy, especially a substance that they are familiar with (a well-known animal or a plant) it is almost certain, that even before they start doing the proving, they will have some mental images and preconceptions. It is then easy to understand why these images are experienced in the provings, especially, when simply “meditating” about the substance. Placebo (or an unknown substance) would be a different thing. Proving where provers do not know what to expect and when they cannot form a mental image of the substance they are proving. It could be argued therefore, that emergence of an “image” about the remedy is then actually a good indication that the proving is biased and its results should not be used. This would be the case for nearly all the provings and especially all the provings done by Misha Norland and the School of Homeopathy.

 A proving begins, in a literal sense, with the intention to prove a thing, with it being imagined, identified, obtained, and possibly potentised…It is common experience amongst provers that certain individuals … develop symptoms which subsequently are confirmed as belonging to the proving before anyone else had ‘taken’ the thing. I have parenthesised ‘taken’ because those who meditate upon the thing come up with results which are no less pertinent. Furthermore, we have found that those individuals within the group who wished to remain outside of the proving have been unable to do so; they are automatically included.

This is true, the moment people know that something is about to be proven, they will expect something to happen and if they even know which remedy is going to be proven, they will form a mental image of the original substance. It is then no mystery, that the moment they will think about the proving, they will get the “right essence”.

 It is only matter that is bound to space and time. The immaterial essence of the thing, actuated by the intention of the proving group constellates the action field. … the thing that we are dealing with is essence, spirit, … and is not bound within the constraints of space and time. Those who key into it are part of it irrespective of distance or time; they know it telepathically.

I would not call the phenomena telepathy. It is simply thought and mental image. The moment you know the substance, the mental image you form about the substance will determine your experiences. It can be hardly called a telepathy. If I tell to a group of people to avoid at all costs thinking about monkeys, they will not be able to stop thinking about monkeys all the time.

Similar in proving an interesting substance. If I announce that at some stage “condom” will be proved, guess what everyone will be thinking of? STDs, condoms, pregnancy, AIDS, HIV, bubble, trapped inside of something… It is not surprising that the proving of condom has “discovered” exactly these “essences”.

 The spiritual dynamis of intention, having no material substance, is not bound to  either space or time. Should we accept this, then it follows that proving experiences may not uncommonly predate a proving. However, the experiencer would not know what to make of these experiences for they must be held within the framework of the proving and  given its context to make sense.

 This means, that the experiences are gathered even before the proving has begun and before anyone has taken anything.

 The summary of key points from modern “provings” can be summarized thusly:

– taking the remedy is not necessary to experience the remedy

– it is not necessary for the proving to begin to start experience the symptoms

 – it does not matter if you take placebo or not. You will experience valuable symptoms

 – proving experiences are based on telepathy.

 In the researched opinion of P & W,, that all information compiled by the above methods, and called “Provings”, with its complete lack of scientific protocol and a lack of Hahnemannian compliance in which the data has been assembled, negates the ‘worth’ of the information and should be discarded completely and removed from Materia Medica’s and Repertories immediately.

When did we as a specialist therapy, exchange science for telepathy and spirituality and give away the foundation of credibility in modern homoeopathy? The only conclusion that can be made is that the teachers, gurus and leading lights of modernistic homoeopathy are not homoeopaths.

 What defines a homoeopath? For the answer, and against the trend of modern homoeopathic wisdom, we must look to the medical doctor, pharmacist, and scientist upon whose research, the accurate prescriber and homoeopathic physician should take his or her counsel from, in order to practice medicine properly. Homoeopathy is a medical therapeutic specialty, and as such, needs these words taken to heart.

Aphorism 285, 6th Edition, footnote”

A fundamental principle of the homoeopathic physician (which distinguishes him from every physician of all older schools) is this, that he never employs for any patient a medicine, whose effects on the healthy human has not previously been carefully proven and thus made known to him.

 To prescribe for the sick on mere conjecture of some possible usefulness for some similar disease or from hearsay “that a remedy has helped in such and such a disease” – such conscienceless venture the philanthropic homoeopathist will leave to the allopath.

 A genuine physician and practitioner or our art will therefore never send the sick to any of the numerous mineral baths, because almost all are unknown so far as their accurate, positive effects on the healthy human organism is concerned, and when misused, must be counted among the most violent and dangerous drugs. In this way, out of a thousand sent to the most celebrated of these baths by ignorant physicians allopathically uncured and blindly sent there perhaps one or two are cured by chance more often return only apparently cured and the miracle is proclaimed aloud. Hundreds, meanwhile sneak quietly away, more or less worse and the rest remain to prepare themselves for their eternal resting place, a fact that is verified by the presence of numerous well-filled graveyards surrounding the most celebrated of these spas.*

 * A true homoeopathic physician, one who never acts without correct fundamental principles, never gambles with the life of the sick entrusted to him as in a lottery where the winner is in the ratio of 1 to 500 or 1000 (blanks here consisting of aggravation or death), will never expose any one of his patients to such danger and send him for good luck to a mineral bath, as is done so frequently by allopath’s in order to get rid of the sick in an acceptable manner spoiled by him or others.

 Homoeopaths today. Should read and re-read this directive. It defines what a homoeopath is and what a person claiming to be is or is not. To give a MEDICINE to someone require intimate knowledge of it’s accurately, scientifically researched, and reproducible symptom producing capabilities.

In releasing the provings, as conducted, upon the homoeopathic medical community, Misha Norland has joined the ranks of pseudo homoeopaths, and his provings, along with other modern guru’s, are putting the lives of patients in danger EXACTLY in the manner as described by Hahnemann.

Sadly for one young lady, it went beyond danger.

A 9 year old girl Nahkira Harris came to hospital where she was diagnosed with diabetes. Her parents elected to treat with homoeopathy. Had the homoeopath in question, been someone who heeded Hahnemann’s advice, principles and direction, the child might have received proper homoeopathic treatment with a defined case taking assessment and prescription of a proven medicine, and lived to prove its efficacy.

(To prescribe for the sick on mere conjecture of some possible usefulness for some similar disease or from hearsay “that a remedy has helped in such and such a disease” – such conscienceless venture the philanthropic homoeopathist will leave to the allopath)

 Misha Norland, a homeopath based in Devon, suggested the Harrises give Nahkira syzygium,  a remedy popular in India but less effective than insulin. It served only to mask Nahkira’s symptoms, making her appear well when in reality she was becoming dangerously ill…” (Quote from the article)

Unfortunately, Nakhira died, because she did not receive the treatment she deserved. This outcome of this case resulted in a world-wide criticism of homeopathy.

We offer no criticism of the individual other than the practitioner claims to be a homoeopath and follows Hahnemannian standards. This is clearly NOT the case and needs to be stated publically, and real practitioners of Homoeopathy distance themselves from this type of practise.

Giving a prescription of a medicine, unknown to the practitioner, and without a proper proving, and with the unfortunate outcome, should have been warning enough to cease with the non Hahnemannian and scientific protocols in his own flawed attempts to establish the action of substances for homoeopathic use.

As Hahnemann states: “A true homoeopathic physician, one who never acts without correct fundamental principles, never gambles with the life of the sick entrusted to him as in a lottery where the winner is in the ratio of 1 to 500 or 1000 (blanks here consisting of aggravation or death), will never expose any one of his patients to such danger.”

 

 

Newspaper Report

Case (source)

published in Dec 6, 1993 by the http://www.independent.co.uk.

(The original link no longer works http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/the-girl-that-nobody-saved-1465753.html)

 The death of nine-year-old Nahkira Harris from diabetes led to her parents being pilloried as crazed, homeopathic Rastafarians. Found guilty of manslaughter, Dwight Harris was sent to jail and his wife Beverley was given a suspended sentence. True, the Harrises made mistakes, but they were also failed by the healthcare system. They have now lodged an appeal. Steve Boggan has spoken to Beverley and tells the Harrises’ side of the story.

By the time she was admitted to hospital, Nahkira Harris had no discernible blood pressure. Despite massive blood and plasma transfusions, despite the desperate attempts of doctors to revive her, she never regained consciousness.

 

 Nahkira was nine years old. She died not from a rare or incurable disease but from simple diabetes – and from the confusion and bad communication that surrounded her.

The tabloids and the courts said it was her parents’ fault. Beverley and Dwight Harris were described as extremist vegan Rastafarians, crazed homeopathic nutcases and just plain cruel. Rumours spread that they had taken Nahkira to Africa for tribal medicine and given her homeopathic remedies rather than let her take insulin.

After a trial last month in which they were accused of gross negligence in the handling of their daughter’s condition, Beverley and Dwight were convicted of manslaughter. The authorities said they prevented Nahkira receiving insulin, but the couple say they had no objection to the drug and simply wanted someone to discuss it with them before their daughter embarked on a life of daily injections. What really happened may never be fully known. There is no doubt, however, that someone let Nahkira down.

Dwight Harris, 32, describes himself as a moderate Christian although he also adheres to Rastafarian teachings and is a vegetarian – a lifestyle he encourages in his five other children. He also tells them to filter their water and avoid additives, but he is not opposed to modern medicine and he had never resorted to homeopathic remedies before Nahkira fell ill in December 1991.

Dwight is in Lincoln prison serving two and a half years; Beverley, 34, is free, but with an 18-month suspended sentence. Last week she and her children moved into a new home in Nottingham.

On 14 December 1991 Nahkira, a lively child who liked dancing and baking cakes, was feeling unwell. Her father immediately took her to see Dr Naomi Phillips, their GP, who suspected diabetes and made an appointment for her to have blood tests at the Queen’s Medical Centre, Nottingham. These confirmed that she was a diabetic, and four days later the Harrises took her to the paediatric department at Queen’s to find out what to do next.

At this point communications began to break down. At the hospital they spoke to Dr Shirley-Anne Derrick, who was just beginning her 32nd hour on duty. The Harrises wanted to know about insulin: was it made from animal products? Was there an alternative? Could it be tested in Nahkira’s blood outside her body, because she had a number of allergies? All these questions were later linked to a religious zealotry that did not exist. Hospital staff insist that Dwight had vowed not to give Nahkira insulin, but he denies this. Being a Rastafarian does not preclude the taking of insulin or modern medicines.

The exhausted Dr Derrick did what she could, eventually telling the Harrises quite simply that without insulin, Nahkira would die. The family say she made this assertion in front of the child. Nahkira burst into tears; the Harrises asked to see a consultant. It was 4.30pm; they were told to return at 8pm. They signed a ‘discharged against medical advice’ form and took their daughter home for a meal.

When they returned – without Nahkira – they found that no appointment had been arranged with Dr Derek Johnston, the consultant in charge of the paediatric team. The couple were late (the hospital says they were one hour 45 minutes late), although they had telephoned to say they would be. The paediatric registrar on duty, Dr Stephanie Anne Smith, was not available. The Harrises, bewildered and angry, were told to go home.

 ‘Later we were accused of not getting treatment for Nahkira, but we did try,’ Beverley says. ‘We have no objections to insulin and there is nothing in our beliefs that would have prevented Nahkira taking it. We just wanted someone to talk to us about it first.

 ‘No one at any point told us that Nahkira needed insulin now. We knew diabetes was something she was developing, but she was nine and had been fine. We thought insulin was something she would need eventually.’

Dwight went back to see the GP, Dr Phillips, on 23 December. He asked for another appointment to be made – but not with Dr Derrick. Dr Phillips said she could not interfere in the choice of doctor; no further appointment was made. Between 18 and 20 December both the hospital and the Nottinghamshire social services department had been trying to find the family, but they complained later that they had not been told about Dwight’s visit to Dr Phillips on the 23rd.

 Dr Johnston, the paediatric consultant, had learnt of the problem with the Harrises and asked Margaret Hosking, a community diabetic nurse, to contact the family. She went to their home on 20 December but the Harrises were staying with a friend nearby because a business venture had collapsed and their electricity had been cut off. The authorities wrongly assumed the family had gone to ground.

 A social worker, Parminder Soar, was dispatched to try to contact the family. Her speciality was racial affairs, but she does not appear to have been told that Nahkira was in imminent danger. She left a note that puzzled the Harrises: ‘Hello] I am a black social worker and I work at the Queen’s Medical Centre. I was asked to become involved because I too am black: although I am Asian I do understand and face the racism we all do as black people.’ She went on to say she understood why the Harrises were angry with the hospital.

Dwight and Beverley, who collected mail from their home each day, ignored that letter but they did respond to a note left by Ms Hosking – Dwight left a message on her answerphone later that day, a Friday, but nothing was done.

The Independent has obtained confidential minutes of a case conference held in February 1992 after Nahkira’s death. These show that Ms Hosking felt she had done all she could, particularly since Dwight had left no details of where he could be contacted. (It was obvious, however, that he had received her note at the family home in Radford.)

The minutes say that tracing the Harrises ‘was taking up a lot of time and she did not think it was her job to trace the family further . . .’ She thought involving the police would be ‘too confrontational’. At the trial, she said that Dr Johnston agreed she had done all she could and should stop looking. The social workers closed the case on 6 January, even though Nahkira was supposed to be desperately ill.

 At the case conference, Dr Johnston said he had told David Sheard, the group principal social worker, that Nahkira’s condition was ‘potentially life-threatening’ and said it might be necessary to invoke the Children Act, under which an emergency protection order could give the authorities the power to find Nahkira, take her into care and administer whatever treatment was necessary.

 The minutes show that Mr Sheard denies the Children Act was ever discussed. In an addendum to the minutes, he adds: ‘I also noted that the parents were told if she didn’t receive insulin she would die, but that no indication re time scales was given to them.’

 It is common ground that the urgency of the need for immediate treatment was not conveyed to the Harrises.

 Beverley says: ‘We didn’t know what we could do next. We had been to the hospital twice, and we were sent away without seeing anybody, we had replied to the special nurse’s note and we had been back to our GP, but we still didn’t have another appointment.

 ‘We thought it must be a question of waiting for an appointment to come through and in the meantime a friend suggested we try homeopathic remedies.’

Misha Norland, a homeopath based in Devon, suggested the Harrises give Nahkira syzygium, a remedy popular in India but less effective than insulin. It served only to mask Nahkira’s symptoms, making her appear well when in reality she was becoming dangerously ill. Dr Phillips had given the Harrises a bundle of urine sticks to check Nahkira’s urine/sugar level daily. According to Beverley, the readings were normal.

 In court it was alleged that Nahkira had lost nearly one-third of her weight during the six weeks between the diagnosis and her death. But the record of her weight on 18 December was missing, so a nurse submitted a ‘recollection’ of about 30kg (4st10lb). Nahkira’s corpse weighed 23kg (3st9lb), but family friends say her normal weight was around 25kg.

 The prosecution argued that Dwight and Beverley must have seen their daughter wasting away; her parents said she lost a little weight, but they put that down to a new, carefully monitored diet.

 On 31 January Nahkira developed what looked like flu. Beverley and Dwight took her to see Chris Hammond, a GP who was also a homeopath. He noted that she appeared to be slipping into a coma and, after talking to the parents about her condition, arranged for her to be taken to hospital for insulin. But Nahkira slipped deeper into her coma on the way to the hospital and did not recover.

 The coroner asked the police to investigate after Dr Johnston, the head paediatrician at Queen’s, wrote to him to say Nahkira’s death was entirely avoidable. This was the conclusion the jury reached, laying all the blame on the parents.

It may be argued that they failed Nahkira in some way, but they have to live with that. Were they bad parents? Tony Normington, Nahkira’s headmaster at the Elms primary school, told the court they were excellent and loving parents, if anything a little ‘over-protective’. Their MP, Alan Simpson, believes they have been made scapegoats for the failures of the hospital and the social services.

 ‘I don’t believe the Harrises were bad parents,’ he says. ‘They may have made some poor judgements, but the mechanisms were there to avoid putting them in the position where they could make those judgements. The hospital, which knew more than the Harrises about how ill Nahkira really was, and the social services had the power to seek an emergency protection order, but they did not do so.

 ‘The Harrises were convicted for supposedly being negligent. But if they failed that child, they were not alone.’