Homeopathy
Home Scarlet Fever

"The highest ideal of cure is the rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health by removal and annihilation of the whole disease in the shortest, most reliable way."
- Samuel Hahnemann

Excerpted from: Discovering Homeopathy: Medicine for the 21st Century,
Berkeley: North Atlantic, 1991.
 Dana Ullman, M.P.H.

Discovering Homeopathy
Dana Ullman, MPH
Homeopathic Educational Services
2124 Kittredge St.
Berkeley, CA. 94704
(510)649-0294
(800)359-9051 (orders only in the U.S.)
(510)649-1955 (fax)
email@homeopathic.com
http://www.homeopathic.com
 
Towards the end of Louis Pasteur's life, he confessed that germs may not be the cause of disease after all, but may simply be another symptom of disease. He had come to realize that germs seem to lead to illness primarily when the person's immune and defense system (what biologists call "host resistance") is not strong enough to combat them. The "cause" of disease is not simply a bacteria but also the factors that compromise host resistance, including the person's hereditary endowment, his nutritional state, the stresses in his life, and his psychological state. In describing one of his experiments with silkworms, Pasteur asserted that the microorganisms present in such large numbers in the intestinal tract of the sick worms were "more an effect than a cause of disease." (1)

With these far-reaching insights Pasteur conceived an ecological understanding of infectious disease. Infectious disease does not simply have a single cause but is the result of a complex web of interactions within and outside the individual. The Homeopathic and Ecological View of  Infectious Disease An analogy to help develop an understanding of the ecological perspective of infectious disease can be developed from the situation of mosquitoes  and swamps. It is commonly known that mosquitoes infest swamps because swamps provide the still waters necessary for the mosquitoes to lay their eggs and for them to hatch without disruption. In essence, swamps are a perfect environment for the mosquitoes to reproduce.

A farmer might try to rid his land of mosquitoes by spraying insecticide over the swamps. If lucky, he will kill all the mosquitoes. However, because the swamp is still a swamp, it is still a perfect environment for new mosquitoes to fly in and to lay their eggs. The farmer then sprays his insecticide again, only to find that more mosquitoes infest the swamp. Over time, some mosquitoes do not get sprayed with fatal doses of the insecticide. Instead, they adapt to the insecticide that they have ingested, and with each generation they are able to pass an increased immunity to the insecticide on to their offspring.

Soon, the farmer must use stronger and stronger varieties of insecticide, but as the result of their adaption, some mosquitoes are able to survive, despite exposure to the insecticide. Similarly, finding streptococcus in a child's throat does not necessarily mean that the strep "caused" a sore throat, any more than one could say that the swamp "caused" the mosquitoes. Streptococcus often inhabits the throat of healthy people without leading to a sore throat. Symptoms of strep throat only begin if there are favorable conditions for the strep to reproduce rapidly and aggressively invade the throat tissue. Strep, like mosquitoes, will only settle and grow in conditions which are conducive for them.

The child with the strep throat generally gets treated with antibiotics. Although the antibiotics may be effective in getting rid of the bacteria temporarily, they do not change the factors that led to the infection in the first place. When the farmer sprays with insecticide or the physician prescribes antibiotics but doesn't change the conditions which created the problem, the mosquitoes and the bacteria are able to return to those environments that are favorable for their growth.

To make matters worse, the antibiotics kill the beneficial bacteria along with the harmful bacteria. Since the beneficial bacteria play an important role in digestion, the individual's ability to assimilate necessary nutrients to his body is temporarily limited, ultimately making him more
prone to reinfection or other illness in the meantime.

Marc Lappe', PhD, University of Illinois professor and author of When Antibiotics Fail, notes that, "When these more benevolent counterparts die off, they leave behind a literal wasteland of vacant tissue and organs. These sites, previously occupied with normal bacteria, are now free to be colonized with new ones. Some of these new ones have caused serious and previously unrecognized diseases." (2)

Some clinicians have found that inappropriate antibiotic usage can transform common vaginal "yeast" infections (candida albicans), which are characterized by simple itching, into a system-wide candida infection which can cause a variety of acute and chronic problems. (3) Although the
diagnosis of "systemic candidiasis" is controversial, there is general consensus that frequent antibiotic use can also transform bacteria that normally live in our bodies without creating any problems into irritating and occasionally serious infections in the elderly, the infirm, and the
immunodepressed. (4)

And of course, the bacteria learn to adapt to and survive antibiotics. Scientists then must slightly change the antibiotics (there are over 300 varieties of penicillin alone), or make stronger and stronger antibiotics (which generally also have more and more serious side effects). Despite the
best efforts of scientists, Dr. Lappe' asserts that we are creating many more germs than we are medicines, since each new antibiotic brings to life literally millions of Benedict Arnolds.

Just 15-20 years ago penicillin was virtually always successful in treating gonorrhea. Now there are gonorrhea bacteria which have learned to resist penicillin, and these bacteria have now been found in all fifty states as well as throughout the world. From 1983 to 1984 alone the number of cases in the U.S. with resistant strains of gonorrhea doubled. (5)

Alexander Fleming, the scientist who discovered penicillin, cautioned against the overuse of antibiotics. Unless the scientific community and the general public heed his warning, Harvard professor Walter Gilbert, a Nobel prizewinner in chemistry, asserted, "There may be a time down the road when 80% to 90% of infections will be resistant to all known antibiotics." (6)

The scientific community and the general public have ignored the insights of the late Pasteur and have ignored the importance of host resistance in preventing illness. Most scientists broadly accepted the germ theory, while only rare individuals have since acknowledged the importance of the ecological balance of microorganisms in the body. But the wisdom of Pasteur remains relevant, and more and more scientists are beginning to acknowledge the importance of alternatives to antibiotics. Even an editorial in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine affirmed the need for the treatment of infections with "less ecologically disturbing techniques." (7) Homeopathic medicines will inevitably play a major role as one of these alternatives.

Are Antibiotics Helpful in Ear and Throat Infections? Claude Bernard, the esteemed "father of experimental physiology," affirmed Pasteur's contention that bacteria are not the cause of disease. In his most famous book, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine, Bernard said, "If the exciting cause were the principle factor, for instance, in pneumonia, everyone exposed to cold would come down with this disease, whereas only an occassional case of chilll turns into pneumonia. Unless the subject is predisposed, the most powerful causes will have no effect on him. Predisposition is the 'pivot of all experimental physiology' and the real cause of most disease." (8)

At a health conference in 1976 Jonas Salk noted that there are basically two ways to heal sick people. First, one can try to control the individual symptoms the sick person is experiencing, and second, one can try to stimulate the person's own immune and defense system to enable the body to heal itself. (9) Whereas conventional medicine's allegiance is to the first approach, homeopathy and a wide variety of natural healing systems attempt the latter.

A good example of the questionable value of antibiotic use is their application in children's earache. Ear infection has become one of the most common childhood illness. The infection of the middle ear and eardrum is called "otitis media," a condition for which most physicians prescribe
antibiotics. Several researchers, however, have found that antibiotics do not improve health of children compared to those not given antibiotics. (10) Others have found that antibiotics provide a brief relief of symptoms, but subsequently there was no difference compared to those children given placebo. (11) Still others have found that 70% of children with otitis media still had fluid in the ear after four weeks of treatment and that 50% of children experience another ear infection within three months. (12)

Although some physicians assert that antibiotics ar e responsible for the presently low incidence of complications from ear infections such as mastoiditis, research has shown that there no evidence that antibiotics reduce the incidence of mastoiditis. (13) Homeopaths claim a similarly low complication rate without the use of antibiotics. (14)
 
One of the more significant studies showed that patients with ear infection who were treated with antibiotics had appreciably more recurrences (as much as 2.9 times) than those people who didn't use any treatment. (15)

In chronic ear infection it has become standard procedure for physicians to use ear tubes in conjunction with antibiotics or in place of it. These tubes help drain the pus from the ear, but this treatment only deals with the results of the problem; it does nothing to treat the reason the infection was able to spread in the first place. This physiological fact may be the reason ear tubes have been found to be of questionable value. (16) Antibiotics and ear tubes treat symptoms of a problem. They do not strengthen the organism so that it can fight the infection itself, nor do they make the organism less resistant to future infection.

Another myth which continues to be perpetuated is that of the value of antibiotics in treating sore throats. The primary rationale for using antibiotics to treat a sore throat has been to prevent the person from getting rheumatic fever, a potentially fatal condition. Researchers point out that there is presently an extremely low incidence of rheumatic fever. (17)* This low incidence is not the result of antibiotic use because there was a decrease in rheumatic fever incidence even prior to antibiotic use.

[* In 1986 there have been some reports of new outbreaks of rheumatic fever in some parts of the United States. However, Ellen Wald, M.D., medical director of Children's Hospital of Pittsburgh, noted that too-early treatment with antibiotics may impair the body's normal immunlogic response and open up the possibility of reinfection, and that this problem must be weighed against the benefit of possibly preventing rheumatic fever. One study showed that those children who were treated with antibiotics immediately upon diagnosis had eight times the recurrent rate of strep throat compared to those children who delayed treatment. (18) In the context of other studies cited in this chapter, it may be worthwhile to compare those who received delayed treatment with those who received no antibiotics. It may also be worthwhile to compare these groups with a group of people prescribed a homeopathic medicine.]

Recent research has even determined that today's strains of streptococcus very rarely cause rheumatic fever (19) and that antibiotics do not even eradicate the strep in 25-40% of the cases, despite demonstrated sensitivity of the organism to the antibiotic. (20)

Also, it is widely recognized that most strep infections are left untreated, and yet, a vast majority of these people do not get rheumatic fever. Further, from 33% to 50% of the cases of rheumatic fever occur without sore throat symptoms. (21) A recent outbreak of rheumatic fever was reported in the New England Journal of Medicine. (22) Two-thirds of the children with this disease had no clearcut history of a sore throat within a three month period preceding the onset of their condition. Of particular significance, of the 11 children who had throat symptoms and who thus had a throat culture performed, 8 tested positive for strep. These children were prescribed antibiotics, and yet, each still developed rheumatic fever.

New evidence shows that antibiotics do help reduce the symptoms of sore throat faster than placebo. However, it is questionable if antibiotics should be used simply to relieve self-limited conditions. It is certainly understandable that antibiotic use be considered when there is a life-threatening condition. However, it is uncertain how effective they are in preventing one rare disease. It is also uncertain if it is worth prescribing these powerful drugs to mass numbers of children in the hope that a very small number might benefit.

Antibiotics should definately not be given routinely to children with suspected strep throat. Recent research has now shown that 60% of children's sore throats are virally caused for which antibiotics are useless. (23)  This evidence strongly suggests that alternatives to antibiotic usage should be sought for ear and throat infection. Homeopathy offers a viable alternative.

Homeopathic Treatment of Infectious Disease  When people think about the successes of modern medicine, they often assert that we are now living considerably longer than our parents or their parents. They also usually point to modern medicine's successes in treating the infectious diseases that raged during previous centuries such as the plague, cholera, scarlet fever, yellow fever, and typhoid.

Scientists and historians alike agree that these assumptions are myths, pure myths. Scientists point out that we are now living longer than ever before, but this has not primarily been the result of new medical technologies. Rather, our lengthening life is mostly because of a significant decrease in infant mortality, which is the result of better hygiene during birth (hurray for soap!), better nutrition (the creation of cities has enabled more people to have access to a greater variety of foods, thereby decreasing malnutrition), and improvements in various public health measures such as sanitation, better sewage, cleaner water, and pest control. (24)

Even with all these considerations, the increase in life expectancy for adults has not been very significant. Statistics show that the average white male who reached 40 years of age in 1960 lives to be 71.9; whereas an average white male who reached 40 years of age in 1920 lives to be 69.9. The average white male  who reached 50 years of age in 1982 lives to be 75.6 years, while the average white male who reached 50 years of age in 1912, survived until 72.2 years. (25)

Nobel Prize-winning microbiologist Rene Dubos noted, "the life expectancy of adults is not very different now from what it was a few generations ago, nor is it greater in areas where medical services are highly developed than in less prosperous countries." (26)

Historians remind us that conventional medicine was not at all responsible for the disappearance or decrease in the fatal infectious diseases of the 15th to 19th century. Antibiotics were not even available until the 1940s and 1950s, and no other conventional drugs were successfully used to treat most of the infectious epidemics of the past. Even mortality (incidence of death) from tuberculosis, pneumonia, bronchitis, influenza, and whooping cough were on the sharp decline prior to the introduction of any conventional medical treatment for them. An important exception was the decrease in the death rate from polio after the introduction of the polio vaccine.

A little known fact of history is that homeopathic medicine developed its popularity in the United States as well as in Europe because of its successes in treating the infectious epidemics that raged during the 19th century. Dr. Thomas L. Bradford's The Logic of Figures, published in 1900, compares in detail the death rate in homeopathic versus allopathic (conventional) medical hospitals and shows that death rates per 100 patients in homeopathic hospitals were often one-half or even one-eighth that of conventional medical hospitals. (27)

In 1849 the homeopaths of Cincinnati claimed that in over a thousand cases of cholera only 3% of the patients died. To substantiate their results they even printed the names and addresses of patients who died or who survived in a newspaper. (28) The death rate of patients with cholera who used conventional medicines generally ranged from 40 to 70%.

The success of treating yellow fever with homeopathy was so impressive that a report from the United States Government's Board of Experts included several homeopathic medicines, despite the fact that the Board of Experts was primarily composed of conventional physicians who despised homeopathy.
(29)

The success of homeopathy in treating modern-day infections is comparable to its successes in treating the infectious diseases of the last century. It is common knowledge that homeopathic practitioners rarely resort to using antibiotics or other drugs commonly given for infectious conditions. Homeopaths, like any good medical professional, will use antibiotics when clearly necessary, but it is worthwhile having alternatives that work.

Homeopath Randall Neustaedter of Palo Alto, California, notes that acute ear infection is "a simple problem to manage with acute (homeopathic) remedies." (30) Common acute ear infection medicines are Belladonna (deadly nightshade), Chamomilla (chamomille), Pulsatilla (windflower), Ferrum phos (phosphate of iron), and Hepar sulph (Hahnemann's calcium sulphide).

If the child gets treated with antibiotics and then has recurrent ear infections, homeopathic treatment generally takes more time but is often curative. Such recurrent problems, Neustaedter asserts, require the homeopathic "constitutional approach," the approach where a homeopathic
medicine is prescribed based on the totality of present symptoms as well as on an evaluation of the patient's past history. While it is common for parents to prescribe successfully for acute ear infections, it is recommended that children receive professional care for recurrent ear infections or for  any chronic condition.

Homeopaths have also found great success in treating a wide variety of other bacterial infections. Throat infections are commonly treated with Belladonna (deadly nightshade), Arsenicum (arsenic), Rhus tox (poison ivy), Mercurius (mercury), Hepar sulph, Lachesis (venom of the bushmaster), Apis
(bee venom), or Phytolacca (pokeroot). Boils which result from bacterial infection are often successfully treated with Belladonna, Hepar sulph, Silica (silica), Arsenicum, or Lachesis. And styes, which usually result from a Staphylococcus infection, are effectively treated with Pulsatilla (windflower), Hepar sulph (Hahnemann's calcium sulphide), Apis (bee venom), Graphities (graphite), and Staphysagria (stavesacre).

Homeopathic Treatment of Viral Conditions  Conventional drugs at least relieve the symptoms of bacterial infection; however, there is little in conventional medicine has to treat most viral conditions. Since homeopathic medicines stimulate the body's own defenses rather than directly attack specific pathogens, homeopathy again has much to offer in the treatment of viral diseases.

In recent research on viruses that attack chicken embryos, 8 of the 10 homeopathic medicines tested inhibited the growth of the viruses 50 to 100%. (31) This research is of particular significance because conventional science knows only a very select number of drugs that have antiviral action, and none of these drugs are as safe as the homeopathic medicines.

Homeopaths commonly treat people suffering from acute and chronic viral conditions. People with viral respiratory and digestive conditions, viral infection of the nervous system, herpes, and even a few with AIDS have reported significant improvement using homeopathic medicines. Sometimes this improvement is dramatic and immediate, though most of the time there is a slow, progressive improvement in the person's overall health. British physician Richard Savage notes, "While the search goes on to find specific antiviral preparations which are free from side effects, homeopathy can be used effectively to treat patients in four ways:

1) Prophylaxis to generate resistance to the infection;

2) Treatment in the acute illness to reduce the length and severity of the illness;

3) Restoration to revitalize the patient during convalescence; and

4) Corrrection of the chronic sequelae to restore the patient to his former state of health." (32)

PROPHYLAXIS

Homeopaths have found that their medicines can prevent and treat various infections. There is not much research demonstrating the efficacy of the homeopathic medicines in preventing viral conditions, though there is some evidence that the medicines can be used to prevent other infectious diseases. Homeopathic microdoses can be used as immunizations; for instance, a single dose of Meningococcin 10c (a homeopathic preparation of Neisseria meningitidis), 18,000 people in Brazil were immunized in 1974. The immunized group had significantly less meningitis infections than a control group. (33)

In the 1800s homeopaths commonly used medicines to prevent or cure what later came to be understood as bacterial or viral infections. Aconite and Ferrum phos were frequently given at the early onset of fever and aches as a way to prevent influenza. Belladonna was the most common medicine for preventing or treating scarlet fever, and Camphora (camphor) was the major medicine used to prevent or treat cholera. The dramatic success of the medicines in the prevention and treatment of these dread diseases gained homeopathy a large following.

Homeopaths commonly find that successful treatment of acute or chronic disease with homeopathic medicines often leads to stronger and healthier people who do not get severely or recurrently ill. During the late 1800s many life insurance companies offered lower rates to people who went to homeopathic physicians because actuarial statistics showed that homeopathic patients were healthier and lived longer. (34) There is also a record that these life insurance companies paid out larger sums of money to homeopathic patients since they lived longer than those under conventional medical care. (35)

TREATMENT OF ACUTE ILLNESS

One of the additional advantages of using homeopathy in treating viral conditions is that homeopathic medicines can be prescribed even before a definitive diagnosis has been made. This is because homeopaths prescribe based on the totality of symptoms, and laboratory work is not always necessary to find the correct medicine. Since some viral conditions are difficult to diagnose even after laboratory tests, one is often able to cure people with homeopathy before a conventional medical diagnosis can be made.

Antibiotics are only helpful in certain bacterial infections, and since viral diseases are particularly common, conventional medicine offers little help. In comparison, homeopaths often successfully treat acute viral conditions such as the common cold, virus-induced coughs, influenza, gastroenteritis (sometimes called the "stomach flu"), and viral hepatitis.

Homeopaths use Allium cepa (onion), Euphrasia (eyebright), Natrum mur (salt), or other individually chosen medicines for the common cold. Aconite (monkshood), Belladonna, Bryonia (wild hops), Phosphorous (phosphorous), or others are helpful in treating common viral respiratory infections.

Influenza is a condition which results from viral infection, and it is also a condition that is easily treated with homeopathy. Although individualization of homeopathic medicines is generally a necessity in order to them to work, there are conditions in which certain medicines are particularly effective. Oscillococcinum (pronounced o-cill-o-cock-i-num) is a medicine that homeopaths have found particularly effective in treating the flu. Its manufacturer, Boiron Laboratories of Lyon, France, have found that it is 80-90% effective in treating the flu when taken within 48 hours of onset of symptoms. Its success is so widely known in France that it is the most widely used treatment for the flu in that country.

Interestingly enough, Oscillococcinum is a microdose of the heart and liver of a duck. One might easily wonder how such a substance might ever be beneficial for the flu, but there actually is some sound logic to it. Perhaps you too heard about the research at the Mayo Clinic that showed that chicken soup has some antiviral action. Since chicken soup is basically a broth of the organs of chickens, perhaps Oscillococcinum is effective because it is "duck soup."

Ben Hole, M.D., a practicing homeopath in Spokane, Washington, reports, "Oscillococcinum is impressively successful, but if in the rare situations where it doesn't work or isn't available, there are several other homeopathic medicines which can be used with excellent results when they are individually prescribed." Otherher commonly used homeopathic medicines for the flu include Gelsemium (yellow jasmine), Bryonia, Rhus tox, and Eupatorium perfoliatum (boneset).

RESTORATION FROM RECURRENT OR LONGLASTING VIRAL INFECTION

Although conventional medicine offers very little relief for recurrent or
longlasting viral infections, homeopaths have observed that microdoses relieve the symptoms of various chronic viral conditions such as herpes simplex, herpes genitales, chronic Epstein-Barr virus, and warts. One cannot claim that homeopathic medicines actually "cure" these viral conditions since the virus is assumed to remain in the body throughout one's life, though homeopaths find that their patients get significantly less severe bouts of infection or do not get any symptoms for long periods of time.

The homeopathic approach to treating all these disorders includes a thorough analysis of the person's totality of symptoms. There is thus no one medicine for a specific disease.

CORRECTION OF THE CHRONIC SEQUELAE

After a viral (or even bacterial) infection people sometimes feel they are still not back to their same healthy self. Generally, an individually chosen homeopathic medicine is prescribed. If the individualized medicine is not working, homeopaths will occasionally give a potentized dose of the specific virus which previously infected the person as a way to strengthen their ability to regain health. Varicellinum (the chickenpox virus) is commonly given in a safe microdose for symptoms that linger after the chickenpox, and Parotidinum (the mumps virus) is often given for symptoms that linger after the mumps.

For the post-herpetic neuralgias, the common medicines are Hypericum (St. John's Wort), Kalmia (mountain laurel), Magnesia phosphoria (phosphate of magnesia), Causticum (Hahnemann's potassium hydrate), Mezereum (spurge olive), or Arsenicum.

A state of weakness after a bout of influenza is often treated with China (cinchona bark), Gelsemium, Sulphur (sulphur), Phosphoricum acidum (phosphoric acid), Cadmium (cadmium), and Avena sativa (oat).

Respiratory infections occasionally linger creating chronic nasal discharge, sinusitis, and ear infections. Some of the common medicines given are Kali bichromium (bichromate of potash), Kali iodatum (potassium iodide), Kali carbonicum (potassium carbonate), Kali muriaticum (Chloride of potassium), Kali sulphuricum (potassium sulphate), Silica, Mercurius, Pulsatilla, Alumina (aluminum), Nux vomica (poison nut), and Conium (hemlock).

REFERENCES

1. Rene Dubos, Mirage of Health, San Francisco: Harper and Row, 1959, 93-94.

2. Marc Lappe', When Antibiotics Fail, Berkeley: North Atlantic, 1986, xii.

3. William Crook, The Yeast Connection, New York: Vintage, 1986.

4. Lappe', xiii.

5. Lappe', xvii.

6. R. Cave, editor. "Those Overworked Miracle Drugs," Newsweek, August 17, 1981, 63.

7. R.B. Sack, "Prophylactic Antibiotics? The Individual Versus the Community," New England Journal of Medicine, 300, 1979, 1107-1108.

8. Claude Bernard, An Introduction to the Study of Experimental Medicine,New York: Dover, 1957 (originally written in 1865), 160-163.

9. Jonas Salk, Mandala Holistic Health Conference, San Diego, September,1976. Proceedings published in Journal of Holistic Health, 1976.

10. F.L. Buchem, "Therapy of Acute Otitis Media: Myringotomy, Antibiotics, or Neither? A Double-Blind Study in Children," Lancet, 883, October 24, 1981.

11. J. Thomsen, "Penicillin and Acute Ototis Media: Short and Long-term Results," Annals of Otolology, Rhinology, and Laryngology. Supplement. 68:271, 1980.

12. E.M Mandel, et.al., "Effifacy of Amoxicillin with and without Decongestant--Antihistamine for Otitis Media with Effusion in Children," New England Journal of Medicine, 316:8, February 19, 1987, 432-437.

13. Buchem.

14. Randall Neustaedter, "Management of Otitis Media with Effusion in Homeopathic Practice," Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy, 79(3-4)87-99, 133-140, September- December, 1986.

15. M. Diamant, "Abuse and Timing of Use of Antibiotics inAcute Otitis Media," Archives of Otolaryngology, 100:226, 1974.

16. D. Kilby, "Grommets and Glue Ears: Two Year Results," Journal of Laryngology and Otology, 86:105, 1972. M.J.K.M. Brown, "Grommets and Glue ear: A Fie-year Followup of a Controlled Trial," Journal of Social Medicine, 71:353, 1978. T. Lildholdt, "Ventilation Tubes in Secretory Otitis Media," Acta Otolaryngology. Supplement. 398:1, 1983.

17. Bisno, 1983. M. Land, "Acute Rheumatic Fever: A Vanishing Disease in Suburbia," JAMA, 249:895-898, 1983.

18. "Pediatricians Urge Confirmatory Test for Suspected Strep Throat,"Medical World News, January 12, 1987, 42.

19. Alan L. Bisno, "Where Has All the Rheumatic Fever Gone?" Clinical Pediatrics, December, 1983, 804-805.

20. A. Gastanaduy, "Failure of Penicillin to Eradicate Group A Streptococci During an Outbreak of Pharyngitis," Lancet, 8193:498- 502, 1980. E. Kaplan,"The Role of the Carrier in Treatment Failures After Antibiotic Therapy for Group A Streptococci in the Upper Respiratory Tract," Journal of Laboratory and Clinical Medicine, 98:326-335, 1981.

21. Alan L. Bisno, The Concept of Rheumatogenic and Non-rheumatogenic Group A Stregtococci," in Red: Streptococcal Diseases and the Immune Response,
New York: Academic Press, 1980, 789-803. Alan L. Bisno, "Streptococcal Infections that Fail to Cause Recurrences of Rheumatic Fever," Journal of Infectious Disease, 136:278-285, 1977.

22. A. George Veasy, et.al., "Resurgence of Acute Rheumatic Fever in the Intermountain Area of the United States," New England Journal of Medicine,316,8, February 19, 1987, 421-426.

23. Health Facts, 12, 96, May, 1987, 2.

24. Rene Dubos, Mirage of Health, New York: Harper and Row, 1959. Thomas McKeown, The Role of Medicine, Princeton: Princeton University, 1979.

25. Vital Statistics of the United States, 1982, Life Tables, volume II, section 6, Hyattsville, Md.: National Center for Health Statistics, 13.

26. Rene Dubos, Man Adapting, New Haven: Yale University Press, 1965, 346.

27. Thomas L. Bradford, The Logic of Figures or Comparative Results of Homoeopathic and Others Treatments, Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1900.

28. Ibid., 68.

29. Harris L. Coulter, Divided Legacy: The Conflict Between Homoeopathy and the American Medical Association, Berkeley: North Atlantic, 1973, 302.

30. Neustaedter, 87.

31. L.M. Singh and Girish Gupa, "Antiviral Efficacy of Homoeopathic Drugs Against Animal Viruses," British Homoeopathic Journal, 74(3):168-174, July,1985.

32. Richard Savage, "Homoeopathy: When No Effective Alternative," British Homoeopathic Journal, 73(2):75-83, April, 1984.

33. "Sesenta mil Brasilenos se Vuelcan en Farmacias Homeopaticas: Cunde la Meningitis," (front page headline), Excelsior, July 29, 1974.

34. Transactions of the New York State Homoeopathic Medical Society, 1867,57-59.

35. "Report of Life Insurance Committee," Transactions of the American Institute of Homoeopathy, 1897, 53-58; 1898, 81-90.

36. Victor Gong, Understanding AIDS: A Comprehensive Guide, New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University, 1985, 77-89.

37. Richard Smith (editor), Newsweek, August 12, 1985, 22.

38. Physicians' Desk Reference, Oradell, N.J.: Medical Economics Co., 1985.

39. Hans H. Neumann, "Use of Steroid Creams as a Possible Cause of Immunosuppression in Homosexuals," New England Journal of Medicine, 306,15, 935, April 15, 1982.

40. Personal Communication. For additional information, see Mike Strange, "Aid: What Homoeopathy Can Offer," The Homoeopath: Journal of the Society of Homoeopaths, 6,3, 1987, 117-124.

41. Singh and Gupa.42. R.G. Gibson, et.al., "Homoeopathic Therapy in Rheumatoid Arthritis: Evaluation by Double-Blind Clinical Therapeutic Trial," British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 1980,9, 453- 459.



 

DANA ULLMAN, MPH, is one of America's leading advocates for homeopathy. He has authored 10 books, including The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy, Homeopathy A-Z, Homeopathic Medicines for Children and Infants, Discovering Homeopathy, and (the best-selling) Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines (with Stephen Cummings, MD). Dana also authored an ebook that is a continually growing resource to 200+ clinical studies published in peer-review medical journals testing homeopathic medicines. This ebook combines the descriptions of these studies with practical clinical information on how to use homeopathic medicines for 100+ common ailments. This ebook is entitled Homeopathic Family Medicine: Evidence Based Nano-pharmacology, and it is an invaluable resource.

He is the founder of Homeopathic Educational Services, America's leading resource center for homeopathic books, tapes, medicines, software, and correspondence courses. Homeopathic Educational Services has co-published over 35 books on homeopathy with North Atlantic Books.

Dana writes a regular column for the wildly popular website, www.huffingtonpost.com (to access these articles, click HERE!)


 

http://www.homeopathy.ca/articles/what_is.html
What is Homeopathy?
by Dr. André Saine

Homeopathy is the art of healing par excellence. When homeopathy is well practiced, it is generally the medicine of choice to recover one's health. Homeopathy is a scientific method of treatment which is based on the application of the law of similars. For thousands of years, man searched for a method to promote healing which is efficient, gentle and permanent. Samuel Hahnemann, a German physician who lived between 1755-1843, pursued this philosophical and scientific quest by developing an ideal system of therapeutics by bringing together a number of discoveries and reflections found throughout the history of medicine. After years of perfecting this therapeutic method, he called it homeopathy, by uniting two Greek roots, homoios meaning "similar," and pathos meaning "what one feels." Homeopathy consists of treating sick people with remedies which, in crude doses, would produce in healthy people symptoms similar (homoios) to those of the disease needed to be overcome.

Remedies used by homeopaths come from natural sources and are prepared in such a way that they are devoid of all chemical toxicity. In conventional medicine, drugs are generally given for their effects on the organism, while in homeopathy, a single remedy is given to provoke a reaction of the organism. This reaction is the healing reaction. Since only the living organism can heal itself, the homeopathic remedy is merely an influence used to provoke a reaction to bring about recovery. The greater the degree of similarity between the symptoms that are provoked by the remedy on a healthy person and the symptoms displayed by the person who is sick, the greater will be the recovery.

Generally speaking, people affected with chronic diseases do not expect their level of health to improve with the years when treated with conventional medicine. This is not the case with homeopathy because homeopathic treatment, in the majority of cases, directly targets the fundamental cause of the disease.

The fundamental cause of disease or the basic reason why a person becomes sick is their intrinsic susceptibility to be sick. In general, one can assert that disease is a state of imbalance resulting from the combination of several factors. To simplify, we can use three main groups to summarize these factors or causes: first, the general susceptibility of the individual to be sick, determined by heredity; second, the environment and all factors of stress; and third, the way one conducts his life which includes hygiene (diet, exercise and mental hygiene).

Years of experience enabled homeopathic physicians to confirm that in the great majority of cases, the fundamental cause of disease is the predisposition of the individual to be sick. The imbalance, which is the disease state, is in fact only the expression of this predisposition to be sick once the conjuncture of other factors has become favorable to its expression. With the most similar remedy (or in other words, the most homeopathic), the organism re-balances itself globally so that the tendency to be sick is greatly decreased. This explains the extraordinary result achieved by homeopathy!

The person who is afflicted with an acute disease (due to an infection, a poisoning, an accident, an emotional shock, etc.), or with a chronic disease (of psychological, emotional or physical nature), is in a state of imbalance which is unique to him. The role of the homeopathic physician will be to gain all the symptoms associated with a general understanding of the patient to be able to find the remedy that will be the most specific for this individual in that state.

How does a visit to a homeopathic physician take place? You will be asked to describe all your problems in detail as well as a complete description of everything that characterizes you, especially your feelings, sensations, sensitivity, psyche, and all that concerns your organism in terms of  energy, sleep, appetite, digestion, etc. The homeopathic physician will complete this study with a physical examination. This thorough and initial interview requires approximately two to three hours. The better the homeopathic physician understands his patient and his problems, the better he can individualize to find the specific and most similar remedy for this patient's morbid condition.

This remedy will usually be administered in a single dose, once, until the next follow-up visit. During the follow-up visit, which generally takes place two to six weeks after the original consultation for people afflicted with chronic diseases and earlier in acute cases, the homeopathic physician will review all the changes which have occurred since the initial homeopathic remedy was taken. A follow-up visit lasts 20 to 30 minutes on the average. If the patient reacted favorably to the remedy, the homeopathic physician will choose the ideal time for the second dose. The remedy does not need to be given continually. It is not the remedy that heals. Only the life force within can heal. No treatment, no doctor, no acupuncture needle or homeopathic remedy can heal, only the life force. The right remedy triggers the healing response like a spark that triggers the furnace to go on. As long as the furnace is on, there is no need to respark it. As long as the patient improves, there is no need to redose. Redosing too quickly disturbs the healing process.

Which diseases can be treated with homeopathy? This may sound strange but in homeopathy we do not treat diseases, but treat the person who is sick. Whether a person has a chronic or an acute disease, all of their symptoms, whether physical, mental or emotional form a whole representing a state of imbalance very specific to this individual. The goal of the physician is to recognize through the unique expression of symptoms of a patient the pattern of disturbed energy and identify among the great number of remedies available the one most homeopathic, or most similar to, the patient's disease.

Can a pregnant woman or a newborn baby benefit from homeopathy? Since homeopathic remedies are devoid of all chemical toxicity, homeopathy is the ideal system of medicine for people of all ages, even the most sensitive like an expectant mother or a newborn baby. Difficulties during pregnancy and the delivery or its aftermath as well as all the problems experienced by the newborn can be dealt with very efficiently and without side-effects with homeopathy.

How does homeopathy deal with patients affected with mental grid, emotional  problems, resulting from emotional trauma, severe grief, or the consequence of mood disorders such as anger, depression or anxiety? As incredible as it may seem, all such emotional problems normalize with the application of the homeopathic remedy that is the most similar to the state of the patient. Patients who are already under psychotherapy find out as a rule that they recover far more rapidly after they begin homeopathic treatment.

How does homeopathy address patients with infectious diseases? Homeopathic treatment is ideal to optimize the body's natural defenses against microbes. With the appropriate homeopathic treatment, people recover from infectious diseases, even the most serious ones, gently and rapidly. During past great epidemics such as diphtheria, scarlet fever, typhoid, cholera, yellow fever, malaria, etc., homeopathy decreased mortality by 10 to 30 times versus conventional medicine. During the infamous Spanish flu epidemic of 1918-19, it has been estimated that 25 to 50 million people died worldwide. In the United States alone, 550,000 died, approximately 10% of the people afflicted with the flu. Homeopathic physicians documented then more than 62,000 patients treated with homeopathy resulting in a mortality of 0.7%. For people who were sick enough to be hospitalized, conventional medicine had a mortality of 30% while with 27,000 documented hospitalized cases, homeopathy was reporting a mortality of 1.05% (Journal of the American Institute of Homeopathy 1921; 13:1028-43).

Which conditions are outside the scope of homeopathy? If a patient has a problem that necessitates a surgical intervention, the homeopathic physician will be the first to refer this patient to a surgeon. But as surgical interventions are a shock to the organism, homeopathic treatment will be ideal to prepare the patient for surgery and help them recover from the operation. Of course, cases with dislocation or fracture will be dealt with by an orthopedic doctor. For less serious mechanical physical problems, patients will be referred to a chiropractor, osteopath, massotherapist or other appropriate therapist. Generally, people afflicted with genetic, congenital, or fixed metabolic diseases or with very advanced degeneration cannot always expect full recovery, but more often a palliative relief with homeopathy, free of side effects usually expected when palliation is done with modern drugs.

With careful application of the law of similars homeopathy grows and evolves and yesterday's limits are continually pushed further back. Homeopathy makes the most of the organism's capacity to heal itself. The
limits of homeopathy are in fact only those of the organism to heal itself, which are in fact extraordinary when put to work. With its truly scientific research, homeopathy continues to fully explore the greatly underestimated organism's capacity for self-healing (in an editorial of the British Medical Journal, it was reported that only 1% of articles published in the 30,000 biomedical journals in existence is scientifically sound. British Medical Journal, 1991; 303:798-9).

To achieve the greatest success, a homeopathic physician must undertake long and rigorous studies to understand the subtleties of the human being, whether healthy or sick, to be able to give a precise diagnosis before choosing the remedy that will restore the healing process. The better the physicians skill as a diagnostician, the greater will be his success. What has been the position of conventional medicine towards homeopathy? Since the beginning, conventional medicine has tried to halt the progress of homeopathy. At best, it accuses it of giving "placebos" despite double blind studies which demonstrate the absolutely undeniable efficacy of homeopathic treatments. If homeopathy is so extraordinary, why is it not recognized universally? Although homeopathy has been practiced for more than two hundred years, it is still in its early period of growth. It is probably the most difficult medical discipline to master because it is based on the pure observation of nature, and the strict application of a natural law. Until very recently, of all the physicians who had studied homeopathy, only a very small minority had succeeded in mastering this discipline. Today with the general disillusionment in conventional medicine, homeopathy is beginning to bloom again and spread throughout the world. People find in homeopathy a system of medicine that not only displays more common sense by its respect for the whole person, but which is also more efficient in restoring health to the sick since it optimizes the extraordinary innate self-healing powers of the organism. With the advent of modern communication, the teaching of homeopathy has improved and a better comprehension and practice of homeopathy has been observed in certain circles.

Homeopathic remedies are to be found in almost all pharmacies in Europe. At least 40% of the British population receives a homeopathic prescription every year and more than one third of the French are treated with homeopathy. Famous people that have used homeopathy include John D. Rockefeller (who lived 99 years), three American presidents, Mahatma Gandhi, Mark Twain, Samuel Morse, Sir Yehudi Mehuhin, a great part of the aristocracy and European royalty (i.e. members of the British royal family such as the Queen mother, the present Queen Elizabeth II, her son Prince Charles) and a number of popes including Pius X and the current pope, John Paul II.

In some countries, homeopathy is taught at universities and is recognized as official medicine. In Germany, by a mandate of the government, all medical students must now learn the basics of homeopathy. In other
countries such as Canada, homeopathy has until now been reserved to an elite. In Montreal, the Queen Elizabeth Hospital was formerly called the Montreal Homeopathic Hospital. In Toronto, the Princess Margaret Hospital was once a homeopathic hospital. In almost all pharmacies of Europe and Quebec, one can find a homeopathic department. One day, maybe in the near future, homeopathic medicine will be the most sought out medicine in the world because of its efficacy and gentleness. Choosing homeopathy for
ourselves or our families should not be a question of belief, but a decision based on knowledge acquired through experience. One does not believe in homeopathy, one experiences it.

Copyright © 2000, The Canadian Academy of Homeopathy 
 

http://www.mercola.com/2002/oct/16/homeopathy.htm

Homeopathy, Economics, and Government


By Linda Johnston, MD, DHt

The history of the regulation of alternative medical therapies, particularly Homeopathy, is extremely interesting and sheds a great deal of light on the current regulatory environment. In this short review of that history, it can be seen that the current attempts at regulation have roots as far back as 200 years ago.

The early 1800's was a time of great transition in medicine. Whereas the standard, allopathic form of treatment was dominant at the turn of that century, that was not to last. The two most popular alternatives to the orthodox practice were herbal medicine and Homeopathy.

By the time Homeopathy was introduced to America in 1825, herbal medicine was already well established. Equally well established was the allopathic doctors' animosity towards any competition. The rise of Homeopathy particularly coincided with a dramatic decline in the prestige of allopathic medicine and its methods. There was a general and pervasive disdain and mistrust of allopathic medicine. One author concluded that "to many people the interests of the medical profession as a whole were opposed to the best interests of society."

Within 15 years of being introduced to America, Homeopathy was offering serious competition to allopathic medicine and by 1860, Homeopathy was flourishing with many doctors available in every state. The biggest asset to the spread of Homeopathy was the home prescriber, or unlicensed lay practitioner. America of the 1800's was predominantly rural and most areas had no physician close at hand.

Mothers treating their children's problems easily and inexpensively caused the news of Homeopathy to spread like a brush fire throughout the mid-west and eastern seaboard. While political battles and turf wars raged between the doctors, many people successfully treated typhoid, cholera, measles, mumps, tuberculosis, smallpox and other diseases with their Homeopathic remedies and without doctors.

Even the press of the day were favorable to Homeopathy and its articles often reflected the general public's contempt for allopathic medicine. One such article condemned "the rigidly anti-innovative attitude which the Old School doctors have so consistently maintained for centuries" and recommended that there be free and open competition between the two systems, "where the public will act as umpires, deciding after a careful perusal of the undertakers bills on either side."

As a consequence, extreme hatred and economic jealousy was aroused in the allopaths. These economic concerns were well documented. One review wrote of Homeopathy, "quackery .... by fraud and deception, too frequently triumphs and grows rich, where wiser and better men scarcely escape starvation." In 1846, The New York Journal of Medicine stated, "quackery occasions a large pecuniary loss to us."

The public was quite willing to pay high fees for Homeopathy, much to the consternation of the economically struggling allopaths. Most Homeopaths had higher incomes than their allopathic counterparts, having busy, thriving practices in the same areas where allopaths couldn't earn enough to live. The annual income for an allopath in 1871 averaged $1000, whereas a Homeopath's averaged $4000.

The allopaths blamed the public for the situation, contemptuously regarding them as ignorant, undiscriminating and easily deceived, clearly needing to be protected from their own perverse ignorance. It never occurred to the allopathic doctors that the public, rather than being ignorant of orthodox medicine, were very familiar with it and consequently didn't like it.

If you think doctors have outgrown this attitude from 1800, I will refer you to the recent article in the prestigious allopathic journal The New England Journal of Medicine. After reviewing the habits of a large cohort of patients, it was concluded that one third of Americans use some method of non-conventional medical treatment and pay more out of their own pocket to do so than the combined money spent on all primary care allopathic office visits.

As a result of this startling finding, the authors did not suggest further investigation as to why such a large number of patients prefer non-traditional treatment, nor was it suggested that these treatments must have something valuable to offer. Instead, in a move reminiscent of attitudes over 150 years old, the authors advised that doctors inquire if their patients are using some form of non-conventional therapy so that they can better bring these errant patients back to conventional treatment.

The brunt of the blame for declining allopathic fortunes was laid at the door of the Homeopaths. The allopaths had concern about the growing competition from Homeopathy, stated as "quackery in the profession." They felt the apparently declining standards of medical education was the cause of physicians converting to Homeopathy and these ideas were the prime motives in the founding of the American Medical Association in 1847.

It is interesting to note that the professional organization for Homeopathy equivalent to the AMA, the American Institute of Homeopathy, was founded earlier in 1844, making it the oldest professional medical organization.

Many efforts were used to advance the allopaths by discrediting, restricting and abolishing the Homeopaths. Typical were the laws passed in the early 1800's to prevent any practitioners of medicine other than the allopaths from being able to go to court to collect non-payment of fees. In every case, these and other similar laws were unenforceable and extremely unpopular with the citizenry. All were repealed within a few years.

Undaunted, the allopathic doctors then turned to their own medical societies rather than the legislative process to carry out their desire for effective restriction of Homeopathy. Allopaths granted themselves the right to restrict society membership, which was tantamount to licensing powers. Fines were levied against anyone practicing medicine without such a society membership. They had successfully usurped the power to control who could practice. Eventually even these fines were also rescinded due to unpopularity with the citizens.

Pennsylvania and New York were the first states to forbid membership in the society by medical doctors who practiced Homeopathy. State medical society membership and representation in the AMA required that these societies purge themselves of any member Homeopaths.

After 1847, all state societies did this, except Massachusetts. In addition, professional exchange, consultation and even conversation between allopaths and Homeopaths were banned. This ban on interaction between the two groups is a striking example of how a private organization, the AMA, could completely flout the public will, and take punitive action for something that was totally legal.

All this speaks of the restraint of trade. All professions have used laws, licensing, legislation, unions and guilds to protect their own economic interests. Not surprisingly, the suppression of Homeopathy, then and continuing to this very day, is seeped with the same motives.

None of the efforts at abolishing Homeopathy, including state society expulsion, were particularly effective until the turn of this century. Then, it wasn't legislation or licensing that was responsible for the decline of Homeopathy. The infusion of large amounts of money from Carnegie and Rockefeller to the cause of allopathic medicine was instrumental in tipping the scales in its favor. It is ironic that Rockefeller, a beneficiary of Homeopathic treatment himself, should fund its demise. The final shove out the door of popularity was the discovery of antibiotics and the dawning of the age of chemical therapeutics.

By the middle of this century, Homeopathy was all but eliminated. The thousands of practitioners had vanished, the hundred or so medical schools had closed and the vast majority of the general population had never even heard of Homeopathy.

The reemergence of Homeopathy started in the early 1970's as disillusionment with the pharmaceutical approach of medical therapeutics began to surface. Natural foods, exercise, natural living, concern about pollution and chemical toxins in our bodies and the environment began to take center stage. In addition to which, the sterling reputation of technological and pharmacological medicine for invincible prowess and superiority was becoming more and more tarnished. Just as occurred 150 years ago, the public had experienced the side effects, personal cost and problems of allopathic medicine and was voting with their feet.

Now Homeopathy becomes more and more popular each and every year. In the 5 years between 1985 and 1990, the sale of Homeopathic products increased 1000%. Now when I tell the person seated next to me on the plane that I am a doctor who practices Homeopathy, he doesn't mistake that for making house calls.


The vast majority of people prescribing and administering Homeopathy today are in the group of non-licensed lay practitioners. There are thousands of such practitioners and their numbers continue to grow. This small army undoubtedly has an impact on the allopathic medical revenues and public attitudes. Laws and legislation do not now and never have curbed the growth in the ranks of this category of practitioner.

Historically, Homeopathy has always had a large number of non-medical unlicensed people practicing. In the 1800s America's rural culture and lack of clear laws about who could and could not practice medicine created a permissive environment for these non-licensed practitioners. Today, the situation is quite different. Although strong in number, they are all practicing illegally and are at risk for legal problems.

As the twentieth century progressed there has been increasing legislative control of the practice of medicine, both at the state and federal level. State medical societies have been replaced by official government sanctioned state licensing bodies. Although Homeopathy is no longer proscribed by name, review of individual state laws governing the practice of medicine shows that 20 out of 50 states have a clause which distinctly applies to any doctor wishing to practice Homeopathy.

These laws, called the Standard of Practice provisions, declare that each physician must practice up to the standard of care of his community, as the other doctors in the state practice. Although these provisions are promoted as a way of keeping incompetent doctors from practicing, they also are extremely effective in keeping any doctor from practicing differently from the majority. The first doctor in a state to advocate nutrition, exercise, grief counseling, Homeopathy or any other cutting edge idea is, by law, proscripted from doing so. The lone innovator or Homeopath is at risk. George Guess, a licensed medical doctor practicing Homeopathy in the state of North Carolina discovered this the hard way. The Medical Board of North Carolina took away his medical license in 1985 because he practiced Homeopathy which was not consistent with the standard of care of the medical community. How could it be; he was the only Homeopath in the state. The battle was long and bloody.

Over the 8 years in and out of courts, including the state supreme court and spending in excessive of $150,000, it was concluded that Dr. Guess was a knowledgeable doctor, had not harmed anyone, had the support of his patients and was generally a credit to his profession except, he was not doing what all the other doctors were doing - allopathic medicine. When the favorable decision of the state superior court exonerating Dr. Guess was overturned on appeal, the ACLU agreed to sponsor his case before the US Federal Court.

The highest court refused to hear the case, necessitating Dr. Guess to leave his home and move to another state to practice. While he was gone, North Carolina legislature passed a law allowing for the practice of alternative medicine by doctors. Although the price for this was the devastation and upheaval of Dr. Guess's life and career, at least now one more state had a definite law protecting Homeopaths.

Although few Homeopaths have had or will have the ordeal that Dr. Guess faced, the law provides that they could. The biggest protections now for licensed medical doctors wanting to practice Homeopathy is the public sentiment so favorably disposed to Homeopathy. The verdict in the court of public opinion is definitely not so predisposed to the persecution of alternative therapies as it once was.

Today, the legal standing of Homeopathy and Homeopaths is in limbo. Whereas in all but a few states, the restrictive laws are still on the books yet Homeopathy is thriving and riding high on a tidal wave of popular support. There is definitely an economic impact of all this popularity, yet much of it cannot be measured because the majority of Homeopaths are illegal practitioners whose work is not counted in statistics.

Efforts at restricting the practice of Homeopathy today, as in the last century, have proven almost completely ineffective. People want Homeopathy and for that reason alone, it is here to stay and so is its impact on the economics of medicine.

Lew Rockwell.com October 3, 2002
 

This newsletter is from Washington Homeopathic Products --
 http://www.homeopathyworks.com or 800-336-1695.  The newsletter offers a
 Special of the Month, Info on Homeopathy, and News About Homeopathy.


  *****Homeopathy in the News***** -

Leonard Torok, MD held a meeting with the administrators of his hospital in  Media, OH (just south of Cleveland) the newspapers and general public were  invited.  What he presented was a homeopathic protocol the hospital could  follow in case there was a Small Pox event - The protocol covered both  prevention and treatment.  He presented historical/statistical support for  use of homeopathy which showed the use of homeopathic medicine (per public  health records) resulted in 90+% rate of prevention and 90+% rate of cure of  those who were infected.

 The hospitalis considering his proposal - they already have a homeopathic  pharmacy - maybe the only one in the U.S.A. - so it's not such a stretch for  them to be prepared - they would be the only ones in the country.  The  protocol is something you could give to your doctor allopathic or homeopathic.

 From the news media - not a peep.

 * The Washington Post article on the increase in flu deaths (more deaths from  flu than AIDS) also noted that 500,000 died in the flu epidemic circa 1918 -
 They didn't know/mention that homeopaths had an incredibly high survival  rate. (There's a book on the subject of homeopathy and the flu epidemic of  1918).

 

INTRODUCTION:
Who Needs Homeopathy?

When I began studying homeopathy in 1974, neither the sleepy little town where the course was held nor the advanced age and semi-retired status of the instructors augured well for the future of the movement. By the time my wife and I moved to Boston eight years later, no homeopathic physician had prescribed in the area for twenty-five years, as if a whole generation of active, full-time practitioners had never materialized. With no full-time schools, clinics, and teaching hospitals to its name, and very few local pharmacies to send patients to, American homeopathy seemed obsolete and unlikely to survive much longer.1

Today, against all odds, reputable schools and training programs for physicians and allied health professionals are thriving as never before, while homeopathic ideas and products enjoy growing popularity and visibility both in the media and at the retail level. After generations of aging and decline, this surge of interest in a method nearly two centuries old is so improbable that it is only fair to ask why Americans seem ready to discover it now, as if for the first time.

To that little conundrum should be added the deeper mystery of homeopathy itself. Its basic claim that medicines have healing power over the same array of symptoms they can elicit in healthy people is far from self-evident, to say the least, and has never been proved or disproved in the same way that ordinary scientific hypotheses are expected to be. Still less has anyone ever satisfactorily explained how a dose too minute to be detected chemically could possibly have any effect on a patient, let alone a beneficial one.2 Confronted at every turn with riddles like these, I can't help feeling a little uneasy when patients seem prepared to swallow them whole without comment or demur.

Finally, homeopathic theory and practice have changed very little in an era when technical achievements like surgical anesthesia, blood transfusion, the germ theory of disease, and the detailed anatomy and physiology of the human body have transformed how we live and think almost beyond recognition. If homeopathy cannot match or even keep up with these developments, why should we bother to resurrect it today, when the same forces that once defeated it now control the entire health care system? Before attempting to explain it, then, it seems appropriate to ask a more basic question: Who needs homeopathy?

Why Patients Seek Homeopathic Treatment.

The short answer is to be found among the reasons our patients give for coming to see us, which turn out to be much the same as those reported by other alternative practitioners. One is simple curiosity about other philosophies of healing, coupled with the natural instinct to try a gentler approach first, before their conditions worsen to the point that drastic methods are called for. Seriously and chronically ill patients, on the other hand, are more likely to seek homeopathic treatment as a last resort, after conventional methods have failed or created even worse problems of their own.

Common to both groups is the assumption that natural methods will at least be less harsh and dangerous than drugs or surgery, coupled with a healthy skepticism about their effectiveness. Much the same mix of feelings are expressed by patients wanting evaluation and treatment of strange ailments as yet undiagnosed, and by many with no pressing complaints at all, who seek both a suitable physician and a healing approach that feels more congenial than the prevailing one. In short, the growing interest in homeopathy is no ignorant repudiation of science as such, but simply a  faithful indicator of public dissatisfaction with the shortcomings of the medical system.3

Why I Became a Homeopath.

A more detailed answer is provided by the autobiographical state-ments and life histories of homeopaths and other like-minded physicians, many of whom choose to give up more prominent, lucrative, or respectable careers for the sake of approaches still regarded as unscientific if not heretical by the bulk of the profession. Why do they do it?

My own core beliefs and attitudes about doctoring grew out of my experiences as a medical student in the 1960´s, long before I had ever heard of alternative medicine.4 The practical dilemmas I encountered on the wards of a large city hospital impelled me to study philosophy before going into practice and have continued to shape my career ever since.

First, the often glaring discrepancy between how patients really feel and function and how we expect them to behave as specimens of their disease taught me to trust our subjective feelings and intuitive hunches at least as much as the objective measurement of the abnormalities we were trained to substitute for them.

Second, clinical practice soon convinced me that drugs powerful enough to control life functions automatically pose a significant threat of destructive force, one that is multiplied exponentially when the treatment must be continued over extended periods of time.

As a result, my first priority as a physician became simply to avoid invasive diagnostic procedures, elective surgery, and chemical drugs for long-term maintenance as much as possible. I began investigating older, more traditional methods like acupuncture, herbal medicine, and home birth, all of which are effective only to the extent that they are compatible with the individuality and self-healing capacity of the patient. Training myself not to order people what to do or how to live has also taught me how to cultivate their self-awareness and enlist their active participation at every stage.

From that point of view, conventional drugs and surgery are best held in reserve as extreme measures for special situations, exemplifying a type of causal thinking that is far too rigid to accommodate the richness and complexity of human illness, in which all aspects of experience are represented, a wide variety of influences are discernible, and patients tend to respond more or less uniquely and unpredictably to them.

Even before I had seen it work in a patient, homeopathy offered just the kind of elegant and systematic philosophy of health, illness, and the art of medicine that I had been searching for all along. Ideally gentle and non-invasive, it uses tiny doses of natural remedies artfully chosen to match the individuality of the patient and thus assist the self-healing capacity. Conducive to building non-adversarial relationships based on consensus and mutual respect, it also suggests holistic models of medical research that could be of great benefit to the profession as a whole. Quite apart from its practical value in diagnosing and treating the sick, it merits a respectful hearing and careful study as a patient-centered approach and a humanistic style of doctoring.

The Bottom Line: Does It Work?

On top of that, my career itself bears witness to the effectiveness of the method, which has helped me practice family medicine for twenty-six years without needing to write prescriptions or refer patients for surgery except as a last resort. Having used remedies successfully in every phase of pregnancy and childbirth, 5 and in many other acute and threatening situations, I have seen them save life, ease the pain of death, and give dramatic, long-lasting relief in situations where conventional methods had failed or seemed totally inapplicable. Two examples from long ago come immediately to mind.

The first was an eight-pound baby girl, born covered with thick, green meconium, who took one gasp and then breathed no more. Brisk suctioning produced only more of the same. At this point the child was limp, white, and motionless, with a heartbeat of 40 per minute, responding feebly to mouth-to-mouth resuscitation but unable to breathe on her own. I put a few tiny granules of Arsenicum album 200 on her tongue, and she awoke with a jolt, crying and flailing, her heart pounding at 140 per minute, her skin glowing pink with the flame of new life. The whole evolution took no more than a few seconds. After a night in the hospital to be on the safe side, mother and baby went home in the morning with no outward sign that anything untoward had happened. Experiences like these are etched for all time in every practitioner´s mind.

The second was a 34-year-old R. N. with severe endometriosis since her teens. After four surgeries to remove large blood-filled cysts from her bladder and pelvic organs, and several courses of male hormones to suppress the condition, she came seeking only to restore her menstrual cycle, having long since abandoned any hope of childbearing. While quite painful at first, her periods had become scanty, "dead," and dark-brown as a result of so many operations and years of hormones and oral contraceptives in the past.

In the course of the treatment her menstrual flow became fuller and richer, and within six months she was pregnant. By the time I next saw her for a different ailment eight years later, she had had two healthy children after uncomplicated pregnancies and normal vaginal births, and had remained in good health ever since. While no one can attribute such an outcome to a remedy or indeed to any other agency in precise, linear fashion, my patient has never stopped thanking me for it, which is reason enough to honor and be grateful for a process by its very nature catalytic and persuasive rather than forcible or compulsory.

Furthermore, it would be a great mistake to impute these happy endings to any unusual skill of mine, since they are entirely comparable to what every experienced prescriber has seen or could easily duplicate, and I could just as well cite other patients whose conditions were far from hopeless, who believed in the remedies and in me, but whom for whatever reason I was unable to help.

Finally, I am deeply grateful that homeopathic remedies are avail-able without prescription, and that the knowledge of how to use them is readily accessible to everyone with or without professional training. This state of affairs I take as further proof that self-healing and self-care are fundamental elements of our experience, and even a political and human right, which no government or medical bureaucracy can justly abridge or take away.

Remedies as Placebos: a Double-Edged Sword.

I do not believe and have never taught that homeopathy is the only way to heal people or the best way for everyone. But the usual argument that remedies are merely placebos cuts both ways. In the first place, it is plain wrong, since the method also has an impressive track record in the treatment of animals, newborn babies, and comatose patients, for whom the influence of suggestion is presumably negligible.

Second, if giving placebo or natural remedies or doing nothing at all can accomplish the same result as suppressive drugs or crippling surgery, then it is at least highly questionable which method works better, and who of sound mind would not prefer the cheaper and safer alternative, at least to begin with.

Third, it is certainly true that when homeopathic remedies succeed, our patients rightly feel that they have healed themselves, and may even wonder if they might not have done so on their own without any help at all. But to my mind this delicious quandary is hardly cause for complaint. I can think of no higher compliment to pay to a medicine than that its action cannot easily be distinguished from a gentle, spontaneous, long-lasting cure requiring no further treatment.

Indeed, I would argue, the irony lies wholly on the other side, that this optimal response is relegated to the placebo side of the equation, while drugs are considered effective only to the extent that they can overpower the basic physiology of as many patients for as long a time as possible. It is absurd if not contemptible to boast of standards that prize brute force over elegance of fit, and subordinate healing the patient to manipulating virtually every identifiable biological function artificially and more or less at will.

The Homeopathic Phenomenon as a Legitimate Object of Study.

However precise and useful it may be in extreme circumstances, the ideal of technical mastery tends to work like a straitjacket in restraining not only alternative methods but also medicine and surgery themselves, by insisting on standards too rigid to accept any but the most punishing treatments, and too old-fashioned to make use of the most promising trends in contemporary science.

What J. Robert Oppenheimer once told a group of psychologists is even more relevant for the medical community:


We inherited at the beginning of the century a notion of the physical world as a causal one, in which every event could be accounted for if we were ingenious, a world characterized by number, where everything interesting could be measured, [and] anything that went on could be broken down and analyzed. This extremely rigid picture left out a great deal of common sense which we can now understand with a complete lack of ambiguity and phenomenal technical success. One is that the world is not completely determinate. There are predictions you can make about it, but they are purely statistical. Every event has in it the nature of a surprise, a miracle, or something you could not figure out. Every pair of observations taking the form "we know this and can predict that" is global and cannot be broken down. Every atomic event is individual: it is not in its essentials reproducible.6


Historically, the basic argument against homeopathic remedies has always been not that they don´t work, which would require careful and unbiased study, but merely that they can´t work, that their use flatly contradicts the atomic theory of matter and therefore does not warrant serious consideration. That homeopathy does challenge some deeply cherished scientific beliefs I freely admit. But two hundred years of experience with it furnishes ample reason for a serious, dispassionate investigation of the method on its own terms, free of the rigid standards that are themselves so much in question.

From Copernicus and Galileo to Darwin and Freud, the history of culture has repeatedly been enriched by scientific discoveries that were considered repugnant or impossible by leading thinkers of the time, because they presupposed major "paradigm shifts" in our knowledge of the natural world, and in how such knowledge can be acquired and verified.7

In future generations, even if homeopathy as currently practiced becomes obsolete, the easily verifiable phenomena on which it is based and the more comprehensive ways of looking at health and illness that have resulted from it will continue to stretch the envelope of what we can perceive, and thereby contribute to a more integrated and wholesome medicine of humanity. In that spirit of inquiry I have tried to write this book, and will feel amply rewarded if I can interest my readers enough simply to consider this extraordinary idea and try it for themselves.
 

Chicken pox, measles, and more - Homeopathy for childhood illnesses
by Miranda Castro, FSHom, RSHom(NA), CCH

Each child has their own pattern of falling ill and will experience different symptoms in a childhood illness. For example, one child may feel hot with a high fever, while another may feel chilly and shiver. Another may be irritable, intolerant of any disturbance and need to be kept warm, while another may feel achy and restless, may moan and complain. One child may sweat profusely, be thirsty, and slightly delirious; another may want company or prefer to be alone. Each child with a fever or illness may need a different homeopathic remedy depending on their emotional state and general symptoms.

A child whose temperature soars may look and feel very ill, therefore giving more cause for concern, but is usually ill for a shorter time and recovers sooner than one whose temperature is lower. My friend Maggi's youngest boy always falls ill in a sudden and dramatic fashion. With the mumps his temperature soared to 105°F within a matter of hours and he was in a lot of pain from swollen glands. We gave him Jaborandi for a day to alleviate the pain, he slept and drank a lot and was over his mumps in two days with no further assistance from us! His older sister was unwell for several days (but not feverish) before her mumps appeared! And then her temperature never rose above 100°F. She was ill for a week altogether and needed Pulsatilla to help her during the acute phase of the illness and Phosphoric acid during the convalescent stage to help her get her vitality back.

Homeopathic treatment can help at all stages of a childhood illness: with an itchy rash or painful, swollen glands; with an accompanying cough or sore, sticky eyes; and children usually recover more quickly and easily-and without complications.

Antibiotic treatment is ineffective for viral infections (except scarlet fever which is bacterial) and will only add to your child's stress load. Avoid them during this time and use homeopathic remedies to help stimulate your child's inner healer.

Chicken pox
Chicken pox generally occurs in a mild form in young babies-the younger they are the milder it is. Some babies have only a couple of spots. It starts with a fever, loss of appetite, and some irritability. As the spots come out they form blisters which are itchy and go through a pus stage before crusting over. Dress your child in loose cotton clothes and cut their fingernails or use mitts on a baby to prevent scratching, as chicken pox rash can leave scars.

German measles
German measles, or rubella, is generally a short-lived, mild infection. A faint pink rash of tiny spots starts behind the ears or on the face and spreads down the body. It may be accompanied by watery eyes and swollen glands at the back of the neck and/or behind the ears, under the arms or in the groin. Avoid contact with pregnant women while your child has German measles and notify pregnant women with whom you were in contact in the three-week period before the spots came out (when your child was incubating rubella), as rubella can cause birth defects.

Measles
If you suspect your baby is incubating measles look for small spots like grains of sand (known as Koplick's spots) in the mouth, inside the cheeks. Measles lasts up to two weeks. It starts with a high fever and watery, red eyes that are sensitive to light. The rash will appear a few days later, starting behind the ears and spreading down the body, and as it does so the fever will begin to drop. It is a blotchy, itchy rash with raised spots in the blotches. Children need careful nursing through measles to reduce the possibility of complications (cough, earache, etc.) developing. Do keep a child with measles and sore eyes out of bright light, with curtains partially closed and lights dimmed.

Mumps
Mumps usually occurs as a mild childhood infection, especially in infants. The most common (and often the first) symptom is the swelling of one or both of the salivary glands (in front of the ear and just above the angle of the jaw), which gives a hamster-cheeked appearance. The glands under the tongue and jaw may also swell. Give drinks through a straw or from a bottle if it is painful to open the mouth. Wrap a hot water bottle in a towel and let your child lie on it to soothe painful swellings.

Roseola
Roseola is a mild, infectious illness that rarely needs treating. The rash is very similar to German measles, and the two are sometimes confused. In German measles the rash appears with the fever, and in roseola it appears when the fever has come down.

Scarlet fever
This highly infectious disease is caused by the streptococcus bacteria, and, although it is rare nowadays, when it comes, it can sweep through whole neighborhoods or schools. The symptoms are a sore throat, followed a day or two later by a rash of tiny spots which begins on the neck and chest and spreads over the whole body, giving the skin a texture like sandpaper. There is vomiting, fever, and a flushed face (though the area around the mouth may be pale). The tongue may also have a red and white "strawberry" appearance. It is important that you consult your doctor if you suspect your child has scarlet fever.

Whooping cough
The first signs of whooping cough are a slight fever and runny nose. This is followed by a loose cough. The mucus then thickens, and extended, uncontrollable coughing fits occur to bring it up, after which the child draws air convulsively back into the lungs resulting in the characteristic whoop. Whooping cough is often accompanied by retching and/or vomiting. Complications in babies have been well publicized but they are rare in children over a year old. Young babies may not be able to breathe in properly after a coughing fit and may also find feeding difficult if they vomit frequently.

Children who have been vaccinated can still contract whooping cough although it tends not to be as severe; there is rarely the characteristic whoop. This can lead to the unfortunate situation where doctors prescribe repeated courses of antibiotics for what is essentially a viral illness. Parents with children who have a stubborn cough should always suspect a "mutated" whooping cough, especially if antibiotic treatment has proved ineffective. Whooping cough can last from three weeks to all winter long and is a long and tiring infection for both child and parent. Since homeopathic treatment is so effective, do consult a professional homeopath if home prescribing does not quickly help.

Homeopathic treatment

The remedies below are those most commonly indicated for children with childhood illnesses. These remedies can also be used for adults who are experiencing similar symptoms with any type of illness.

Aconite. First stage of any childhood illness that starts suddenly and is accompanied by a high fever; a runny nose; a hard, dry, croupy cough; red, sore eyes and/or a sore throat. Rashes burn and itch. Children are restless, anxious and fearful-and may even say they are scared of dying. They are generally thirsty for cold water; feel worse for warmth and at night; better for fresh air and for uncovering.

Antimonium crudum. Childhood illnesses are accompanied by a tickling cough and nausea. Children are sulky and extremely irritable, they do not want to be touched or examined, or even looked at. They have cracks at the corners of their mouth and/or nostrils. The tongue may be white-as if it has been painted. They are drowsy, thirstless, and worse in a hot room.

Antimonium tartaricum. Chicken pox where the rash is slow to come out. Children are irritable and drowsy. They are very sweaty and nauseous, and develop a stubborn cough, which is loose, loud, and rattling. There is lots of mucus that can't be brought up.

Apis. The rash is slow to come out; when it does it itches and stings. Face and eyelids are puffy and red. Affected parts (rash, glands, etc.) are puffy also and itch and sting. Children are extremely restless, anxious, clingy, and cry out in their sleep. They are generally thirstless; cannot bear the heat or pressure of any sort-they do not want to be touched. They have a high fever with scanty urine, and feel better for cold and cool bathing.

Arsenicum. For restless, anxious, chilly children who want to be covered. They are terribly weak and only want hot drinks which they will only drink a sip at a time. They may have diarrhea with the fever. In mumps, the breasts and testes may be swollen.

Belladonna. The illness starts suddenly and can be accompanied by bedwetting; a runny nose; a cough; sore throat; a throbbing headache and/or burning, dry, red eyes. The head is hot, the face red, and the extremities feel cold. The pupils are dilated, and the tongue is red with white spots (like a strawberry). The rash is red, hot, dry, burning, and very itchy. Children are restless and irritable, and delirious with a high, dry fever. With mumps the glands are hot and swollen and sensitive to touch. Children are generally thirstless (although they may ask for lemonade). They feel worse in the afternoon and cannot bear light, noise, or pressure. They like rest and warmth.

Bryonia alba. Illness is slow to develop-the rash is slow to appear or doesn't come out fully. There is a hard, dry, painful cough, which is worse for movement and may be accompanied by a bursting, frontal headache. Children are irritable and want to be alone, they do not want to be disturbed or moved. They are generally thirsty for large quantities (gulping them) at infrequent intervals. They are worse for heat-or movement of any sort.

Calcarea phosphorica. Children are weak and tired after a childhood illness. They are irritable, hard to please and have no "go" in them. They are pale and anemic and can't wake up in the mornings.

Coccus cacti. Whooping cough with a choking, racking, tickling cough. Coughing fits end in retching and coughing up copious mucus which hangs in strings. They are generally worse in stuffy rooms and around midnight; better from fresh air.

Drosera. Whooping cough (or for cough after measles) with severe, violent cough with vomiting and nosebleeds. Face may go blue with each coughing fit. Voice becomes hoarse. The cough is worse when lying down, talking or laughing; better from fresh air.

Euphrasia. Measles with very sore, swollen, burning, watery eyes which are sensitive to light. The nose streams also but does not irritate. There may be a harsh, dry cough, which is worse in the day and better when lying down, and a headache, which is better once the rash appears.

Gelsemium. For measles that comes on slowly in warm weather with cold or flu-like symptoms that are accompanied by a great weariness and heaviness. The eyes are swollen and watery. Children are generally apathetic and thirstless and feverish with chills. They feel better after urinating.

Ipecacuanha. For measles where the rash is slow to come out and there is a constant nausea (with a clear, red tongue) which isn't helped by vomiting. There is a rattly cough (with nausea) which is dry and comes in fits which end in choking and gagging. Children are hard to please, and are generally thirstless and worse for heat.

Jaborandi. Mumps with exhaustion. Glands swollen making swallowing and talking difficult. Profuse sweating and salivation (with a dry mouth). Breasts, ovaries, or testicles become painful. Generally thirsty; worse for cold and after sweating.

Kali bichromicum. For the later stages of measles where there is stubborn mucus which is stringy and ropy, with swollen glands and/or earache and deafness from mucus in the Eustachian tubes.

Kali sulphuricum. Whooping cough with a rattly, wheezy chest. The mucus  (from nose and chest) is yellow and thick, or yellow-green. It is hard to cough up; it comes into the throat and is swallowed. Children are worse for getting over-heated (especially indoors) and better in the  fresh air. The tongue is often slimy and yellow-coated.

Lachesis. Left-sided mumps with glands that are very painful and sensitive to the slightest touch or pressure. The throat is very sore and it is difficult to swallow anything except for hard foods like toast or chips. Children are much worse from heat and when they wake after a sleep.

Mercurius solubilis. Glands swollen and painful, especially on the right side. Pains shoot to ears and/or neck. Illness may be accompanied by a runny nose; earache; sticky eyes; sore throat. Profuse, smelly sweating and salivation. Metallic taste in mouth (may have mouth ulcers) and smelly breath. The tongue is swollen and coated and may show indents around the edges from the teeth. Generally feels worse at night, for extremes of temperature (for heat and cold), and for sweating; better for resting.

Phosphoric acid. Children are weak and tired after a childhood illness. They can appear depressed, are apathetic and uncommunicative. They are pale with dark rings under their eyes and have no appetite.

Phosphorus. Childhood illness with a bad cough, which is dry, hacking, and tickling. It is worse for cold air and any change in temperature. Great thirst for cold drinks, especially ice-cold water. Face is very flushed with a high fever. Children may want to play in spite of being quite ill, or they can become apathetic and debilitated. They need lots of reassurance and love to be cuddled and massaged. They are generally worse in the mornings and the evenings.

Phytolacca. Mumps with glands that are hard and swollen. The pains radiate to the ears on swallowing; they are better for cold drinks and worse for hot drinks. The throat hurts, especially when sticking out the tongue. The tongue is red-tipped, and the breath smells. There is copious sweating and salivation. Children are floppy and tearful. Pains may spread to breasts, ovaries, and testicles.

Pulsatilla. The illness is accompanied by swollen glands; thick, yellow mucus; bedwetting; a cough which is dry at night and loose in the morning; sticky eyes; earache and/or a fever. Symptoms are changeable and worse in the evenings. In mumps the breasts, ovaries, or testicles are painful. Children are weepy, whiny, pathetic, and clingy. Small children want to be carried everywhere. They are generally thirstless; worse for warmth and when lying down at night; better for fresh air.

Rhus toxicodendron. Illness is accompanied by swollen glands; aching joints and/or sore eyes. The rash is hot, dry, and very itchy and causes great restlessness. It isn't alleviated by scratching it. The tongue has a red tip. Children are restless and depressed. In mumps the left side is more swollen. They are generally worse for cold and at night; better for warmth and a hot bath or shower. They like to be tucked in bed and don't like to be uncovered-their symptoms are worse then.

Sulphur. Illness is accompanied by bedwetting; earache (on the left side); sore, red eyes; fever and/or runny nose. Tongue is white with a red tip and edges. Rash is red, hot, burns, and itches maddeningly. Children are sweaty, restless, and irritable. They are generally thirsty for cold drinks (usually water); are worse in the mid-morning and worse for heat and bathing; better for fresh air.

Zincum metallicum. The rash, especially with measles and scarlet fever, doesn't come out properly, or as it recedes the child becomes lethargic. Children are fretful and easily startled. They are generally restless, exhausted and twitchy-suffering from restless legs which are worse in bed at night. They may have a bad headache, which is better for pressure.

Dosage of homeopathic medicines
Tablets or granules can be given on the tongue or diluted in water.
• Give one dose (of the 6 or 30 potency) every 2 hours for up to 6 doses, then three times daily once it has started to help.
• Stop once symptoms are considerably better.
• Change the remedy after a day if there is no improvement, or if it has stopped helping; or seek advice from a homeopathic practitioner.

Seek help if
• your feverish, sick child (especially a baby under six months old) is drinking less than usual or refusing drinks and has become lethargic.
• a baby under six months old has a fever.
• an older baby has a fever of over 104°F that doesn't respond to sponging, homeopathic treatment, or conventional treatment within 12 hours.
• your child's fever is 105°F or higher.
• there is a lack of reaction (listlessness and limpness) which can imply that a serious illness such as pneumonia or meningitis has developed.
• your child is screaming and is obviously in pain but you don't know where.
• a rash becomes infected.

A child who doesn't recover well from a childhood illness always needs constitutional treatment from a homeopathic practitioner.

National Center for Homeopathy
http://www.homeopathic.org/crart.htm#Todd
 

The World's No.1 Science & Technology News Service

http://www.newscientist.com/news/news.jsp?id=ns99991532

Bizarre chemical discovery gives homeopathic hint
19:00 07 November 01

It is a chance discovery so unexpected it defies belief and threatens to reignite debate about whether there is a scientific basis for thinking homeopathic medicines really work. A team in South Korea has discovered a whole new dimension to just about the simplest chemical reaction in the book - what happens when you dissolve a substance in water and then add more water. Conventional wisdom says that the dissolved molecules simply spread further and further apart as a solution is diluted.  But two chemists have found that some do the opposite: they clump together, first as clusters of molecules, then as bigger aggregates of those clusters.  Far from drifting apart from their neighbours, they got closer together.

The discovery has stunned chemists, and could provide the first scientific insight into how some homeopathic remedies work.  Homeopaths repeatedly dilute medications, believing that the higher the dilution, the more potent the remedy becomes.

Some dilute to "infinity" until no molecules of the remedy remain.  They believe that water holds a memory, or "imprint" of the active ingredient which is more potent than the ingredient itself.  But others use less dilute solutions - often diluting a remedy six-fold.  The Korean findings might at last go some way to reconciling the potency of these less dilute solutions with orthodox science.


Completely counterintuitive German chemist Kurt Geckeler and his colleague Shashadhar Samal stumbled on the effect while investigating fullerenes at their lab in the Kwangju Institute of Science and Technology in South Korea.  They found that the football-shaped buckyball molecules kept forming untidy aggregates in solution, and Geckler asked Samal to look for ways to control how these clumps formed. What he discovered was a phenomenon new to chemistry.  "When he diluted the solution, the size of the fullerene particles increased," says Geckeler.  "It was completely counterintuitive," he says.

Further work showed it was no fluke.  To make the otherwise insoluble buckyball dissolve in water, the chemists had mixed it with a circular sugar-like molecule called a cyclodextrin.  When they did the same experiments with just cyclodextrin molecules, they found they behaved the same way.  So did the organic molecule sodium guanosine monophosphate, DNA and plain old sodium chloride.
Dilution typically made the molecules cluster into aggregates five to 10 times as big as those in the original solutions.  The growth was not linear, and it depended on the concentration of the original.

"The history of the solution is important.  The more dilute it starts, the larger the aggregates," says Geckeler.  Also, it only worked in polar solvents like water, in which one end of the molecule has a pronounced positive charge while the other end is negative. Biologically active But the finding may provide a mechanism for how some homeopathic medicines work - something that has defied scientific explanation till now.  Diluting a remedy may increase the size of the particles to the point when they become biologically active.

It also echoes the controversial claims of French immunologist Jacques Benveniste.  In 1988, Benveniste claimed in a Nature paper that a solution that had once contained antibodies still activated human white blood cells. Benveniste claimed the solution still worked because it contained ghostly "imprints" in the water structure where the antibodies had been.

Other researchers failed to reproduce Benveniste's experiments, but homeopaths still believe he may have been onto something.  Benveniste himself does not think the new findings explain his results because the solutions were not dilute enough.  "This [phenomenon] cannot apply to high dilution," he says.

Fred Pearce of University College London, who tried to repeat Benveniste's experiments, agrees.  But it could offer some clues as to why other less dilute homeopathic remedies work, he says.  Large clusters and aggregates might interact more easily with biological tissue.


Double-check Chemist Jan Enberts of the University of Groningen in the Netherlands is more cautious.  "It's still a totally open question," he says.  "To say the phenomenon has biological significance is pure speculation." But he has no doubt Samal and Geckeler have discovered something new.  "It's surprising and worrying," he says.

The two chemists were at pains to double-check their astonishing results.  Initially they had used the scattering of a laser to reveal the size and distribution of the dissolved particles.  To check, they used a scanning electron microscope to photograph films of the solutions spread over slides.  This, too, showed that dissolved substances cluster together as dilution increased.

Related Stories Research separating useless and beneficial alternative therapies should be paid for by governments, says a report 28 November 2000 For more related stories search the print edition Archive Weblinks Kwangju Institute of Science and Technology Royal London Homeopathic Hospital Chemical Communications "It doesn't prove homeopathy, but it's congruent with what we think and is very encouraging," says Peter Fisher, director of medical research at the Royal London Homeopathic Hospital.

"The whole idea of high-dilution homeopathy hangs on the idea that water has properties which are not understood," he says.  "The fact that the new effect happens with a variety of substances suggests it's the solvent that's responsible.  It's in line with what many homeopaths say, that you can only make homeopathic medicines in polar solvents."

Geckeler and Samal are now anxious that other researchers follow up their work.  "We want people to repeat it," says Geckeler.  "If it's confirmed it will be groundbreaking".

Journal reference: Chemical Communications (2001, p 2224)
Andy Coghlan
 

I thought this would be a good time to give an update on our progress with homeopathy. I wrote a little bit in an earlier message but wanted to write this for Lynda's benefit (if it helps).  These are pointed before and after behaviors/changes for my son. We have been doing homeopathy since early November. He is by no means cured, but even the homeopath can't believe it is the same child. Our first visit, he sat on the floor for 45 minutes and "colored" with a pen. He didn't interact, he didn't look at anyone, he didn't answer when spoken to. He didn't recognize any words or names, etc. He did not acknowledge toys put out for him to play with. This was an improvement as he had already been on the gf/cf/soy free/corn free diet since June.

Before homeopathy:

  a.. Did not play (either pretend or with a toy).
  b.. Did not acknowledge he had a sibling (5 year old sister).
  c.. Banged his head repeatedly up to 5 incidences per day.
  d.. Spinning.
  e.. Had never pointed.
  f.. Had never noticed another child.
  g.. Had never noticed an animal.
  h.. "Watched" TV with no change of expression for hours if allowed.
  i.. Headbutted me in the face.
  j.. Would not respond to name at all.
  k.. Could not follow something pointed out.
  l.. Did not say or note mama or dada.
  m.. Did not communicate wants - gestures or otherwise.
  n.. Did not respond to simple questions.
  o.. Could not follow simple one step task.
  p.. Sing songy babble.
  q.. Stim words - "hi," "hot," and "phew."
  r.. Did not sleep through the night.
  s.. Delayed response (waves 5 minutes after someone leaves).
  t.. Extremely sensitive to touch (did not like fingers, toes, and ears touched).
  u.. Completely freaked out by loud noises, vacuum, blender.
At our last visit, he smiled at our homeopath upon entering, he walked around the room, noticing everything, coming over to me and pointing things out. He discovered a little basket of toys and gestured if he could play with them. He played with them then investigated the plant. The whole time babbling away, looking to me as if to show me everything.  Our homeopath was blown away and so mad at herself for not video taping his first appointment!

After the remedy:

  a.. Plays with toys.
  b.. Plays extensively with sister!
  c.. Engages in pretend play.
  d.. Knows his mother and father and calls us by name.
  e.. Can respond to multi-part tasks. (Can you pick up that tissue and throw it in the garbage.)
  f.. Sleeps 12 hours per night.
  g.. Points to everything!
  h.. Can follow things we point out.
  i.. Notices animals and other children with utter delight!
  j.. Has only head banged twice in the past two weeks.
  k.. Has not head butted me since early January.
  l.. Becomes frightened by something he sees on tv.
  m.. Watches TV with interest and points things out to others while watching.
  n.. No longer obsessed with "coloring."
  o.. No longer obsessed with his boots (OK, maybe a little. :)
  p.. Responds to his name on the first try.
  q.. Does not even flinch at food processor, sometimes isn't bothered by vacuum.
  r.. Will let me clip his finger nails and toenails without a boo!
  s.. Makes his wants known all too well!
  t.. Is a very happy, loving, sweet boy!
He still has bad days and still has to eat a completely casein/gluten/soy/corn/almost phenol free diet. He still has hypotomia and is still developmentally behind about 7 months (he is 19 months old). He is trying so hard to talk although nothing really sounds like much yet (he can't form words properly). He does not stim on "hi," "hot," or "phew" anymore but he only really says "hi" now. He still has fits and still pushes his head along the carpet some.  But I tell you what... he is a completely different child. :)

I hope that helps in some way understand the miracle homeopathy can do for some children. It has made me and my husband 100% believers.  Even Child Development Services is absolutely stunned at his improvements so quickly.  At our last team assessment, according to their checklist, he now falls in the PDD range. He'll be starting speech, OT, and developmental therapy shortly.

Now if we can just introduce more foods, we would never ask for another thing! :)

By the way... our nightmare started at 13 weeks right after his first round of shots. DPT still had thimerosal. Also... I was revaxed with MMR in college with severe reaction and subsequent health problems.

Truly,
Erica

 

Modern Medicine is not a science
By Dr. Vernon Coleman

Doctors, medical researchers and drug companies like to persuade all present and potential consumers of health care that medicine is a science and has advanced far beyond the mystical incantations and witch doctor remedies of the past. But modern medicine is not a science and modern clinicians and medical researchers are not scientists. Modern clinicians may use scientific techniques but in the way that they treat their patients they are still quacks.

The foundation of modern, 20th century medical thinking is the Cartesian principle that although the mind and the body are linked they are essentially separate entities. Accordingly, doctors treat the lesion or the organ that they believe to be failing to function properly rather than the patient, his or her fears, and symptoms. They organise laboratory tests and then believe that by treating abnormalities they are acting scientifically.

But since doctors have very little idea of what 'normal' blood levels are (since they ever measure the blood levels of people who are ill) the success of treatment is usually measured by how successful the doctor is at changing the laboratory results rather than at making the patient better. When a patient complains of pain the doctor does tests to find out why, but doesn't treat the pain because that would interfere with the results of the tests. Meanwhile, the patient suffers so much from the pain that s/he becomes even more severely ill. With that sort of background it is hardly surprising that the reputation of allopathic medicine as a healing branch of science is crumbling rapidly. Too many modern doctors neither cure nor care.

The modern clinician and the medical researcher base their opinions and conclusions almost exclusively on subjective observations and wishful expectations which are likely to be based on inaccurate historical perspectives and experimental experiences with members of another species.

Superstition and suspicion are the principal foundations of 20th century medical science. Error is built upon error and unproven theories are used as building blocks for new ideas. Assumptions, prejudices and hearsay compete with subjective observations and personal interpretations of symptoms and signs for the doctor's attention and allegiance. To be truly scientific, doctors would have to subordinate their personal opinions to impartial knowledge gained by analysis and experimentation; but if they did this doctors would lose the mystique and authority which has traditionally been a part of the medicine man's armoury. By becoming scientists, doctors would become technicians and lose their god-like powers.

In true science an idea is born and then tested before conclusions are drawn. Without testing there can be no science and an idea can never be more than an opinion or a hypothesis. True scientists will do everything they can to disprove their hypotheses, excluding probability, chance, coincidence and the placebo effect, and ignoring pride, vanity and all commercial pressures in their search for the truth. Sadly such devotion is rare indeed within the world of medicine. All too frequently doctors use case reports as testimonials. They will admit that all patients are different and then they will draw conclusions about the treatment of thousands of patients from single case reports published in a medical journal. Statistics are essential for determining probabilities, for making predictions and for choosing the best possible remedy, but doctors frequently use their own interpretations of statistics. A doctor will say: "I have seen 300 patients with this disease over the last 5 years and this treatment or that remedy is best." He will forget that (???)ably never considered and he will ignore the fact that some of his patients may have died and many  of them may have got no better. When case histories are viewed subjectively the mind of the viewer can and often will lie and distort in order to protect the viewer's pride and vanity.

Most patients probably assume that when a doctor proposes to use an established treatment to conquer a disease he will be using a treatment which has been tested, examined and proven. But this is not the case. The savage truth is that most medical research is organised, paid for, commissioned or subsidised by the drug industry (and the food, tobacco and alcohol industries). This type of research is designed, quite simply, to find evidence showing a new product is of commercial value. The companies which commission such research are not terribly bothered about evidence; what they are looking for are conclusions which will enable them to sell their product. Drug company sponsored research is done more to get good reviews than to find out the truth.

Today's medical training is based upon pronouncement and opinion rather than on investigation and scientific experience. In medical schools students are bombarded with information but denied the time or the opportunity to question the ex-cathedra statements which are made from an archaic medical culture. Time and again new treatments and new techniques are introduced on a massive scale without there being any scientific support for them and without doctors knowing what the long term consequences are likely to be. Instead of experimenting and then practising tried and trusted techniques, modern medical practitioners use all their patients as guinea pigs and practice their black art as a massive international experiment.

High dose contraceptive pills were prescribed for years for millions of patients without anyone knowing exactly what was likely to happen. When it became clear that such pills were killing hundreds of women lower dose contraceptive pills were introduced. As I pointed out in the 1960s, we still don't know what effect the contraceptive pill is likely to have on the children of women who took it. Medicine doesn't anticipate disasters - it simple reacts to them. This sort of approach can hardly be described as 'scientific'.

Three specific examples illustrate how medical techniques are adopted on a mass scale without doctors having any idea what is likely to happen to the patients who are involved. The use of drugs to lower blood cholesterol levels, for example. If you have a high level of cholesterol in your blood should you try to do something about it - such as taking a drug? Or van lowering your blood cholesterol level prove more dangerous than leaving it alone?

For years now many doctors and patients have believed that a patient who has a high blood cholesterol level will probably be more likely to suffer from heart trouble, high blood pressure or a stroke. Millions of pounds have been spent on screening patients for blood cholesterol levels. And many patients have been frightened half to death by finding out that their blood cholesterol levels were too high. As a result of this belief the drug-industry has for some years planned to introduce cholesterol lowering drugs on a large scale. The cholesterol lowering drugs are everybody's dream. The drug companies love them because they know that there is a massive, long term international market, and they love massive long term international markets. And patients love the idea of taking a pill to lower blood cholesterol because although they believe that a high cholesterol level means a high heart attack risk they don't want to stop eating the fatty food that cause a high blood cholesterol.

So I believe that the biggest growth area in the 90s for the drugs industry is likely to be in the sale of drugs which lower blood cholesterol levels and there is already some evidence that the explosion has already started. Between 1986 and 1990 the number of prescriptions for cholesterol lowering drugs trebled in the U.K. alone. For the health service and for governments all around the world the prescribing of cholesterol lowering drugs will be an expensive business. A huge proportion of apparently healthy population will be turned into regular pill takers. The profits for the international drug companies will run
into billions.

Some trials seem to suggest that simply lowering the blood cholesterol level may not always be wise. For example, a low cholesterol level may be linked to death from injury or suicide. Some doctors have even argued that a cholesterol level that is too low may lead to a high cancer risk. But doctors, encouraged by drug companies, are nevertheless busy writing out prescriptions for drugs to lower blood cholesterol levels.

Let us now look at 'surgical experiment' which involves male patients vasectomy - and one which involves female patients - breast enlargement - as two examples of widely used medical techniques of doubtful safety. Both experiments are surgical procedures which are performed on healthy, young adults. Vasectomies have been popular for several decades and around the world many millions of men have already had the operation. It is a fairly quick and simple surgical procedure and the number of men having the operation is steadily increasing. The tubes which lead from the testes (where the sperm are produced) to the penis are simply cut or sealed and so sperm cannot get through. By the end of 1991 approximately 50 million young and healthy men around the world were believed to have had the operation.

In recent years, however, some doctors have started to have fears about the safety of the operation, as independent studies have indicated that the operation may be linked to cancer of the testes or prostate, to heart disease, to immunological disorders, to a lack of interest in sex or to premature ageing. The possible links to cancer are particularly worrying. For example, a study of 3,000 men in Scotland who had
undergone vasectomy showed that 8 developed testicular cancer within four years of the operation.

Likewise the fact that there might be real dangers associated with breast enlargement operations using silicone gel implants exploded into public view in early 1992 although the operation to increase breast size had, like vasectomy for men, been popular for several decades - and worries about the operation had been voice many years before.

Right from the start surgeons had realised that the widespread fashion for large breasts could become big business and they struggled hard to justify what come cynics saw as little more than an opportunity to make money.

In the early 1980's, the American Society of Plastic and Reconstructive Surgeons argued that there is a substantial and enlarging body of medical information and opinion to the effect that these deformities (small breast) are really a disease. Plastic surgeons gave the disease a name - micromastia - and did their best to stamp it out. It is estimated that in the last 30 years over 2 million victims of micromastia have been identified and 'cured' by plastic surgeons in America alone.

To start with, surgeons injected silicone directly into the breast but when it became clear that this might cause problems as the silicone wandered around the recipient's body and started to trigger all sorts of reactions and possible problems (not least the fact that the enhanced breast quickly started to shrink as its silicone boost disappeared), surgeons started to install their silicone breast enlargers in small plastic bags which were thought to be safer.

At the end of 1991, however, a huge controversy blew up over the safety of these implants. On January 6, 1992, the FDA asked doctors to stop using silicone gel implants while they reviewed new evidence suggesting that the gel might cause autoimmune reactions or connective tissue disorders leading to weakness, immune system damage, poor memory, fatigue, chronic flu-like illness and so on.

The absence of scientific evidence supporting medical practices is apparent in all areas of medicine. With a very few exceptions there are no certainties in medicine. What the patient gets will depend more on chance and the doctor's personal prejudices than on science. This problem isn't a new one, of course. In the preface to this play The doctor's dilemma George Bernard Shaw points out that during the first great epidemic of influenza which developed towards the end of the 19th century, a London evening paper sent a journalist posing as a patient to all the great consultants of the day. The newspaper then published details of the advice and prescriptions offered by the consultants. Despite the fact that the journalist had complained of exactly the same symptoms to the many different physicians, the advice and the prescriptions that were offered were all different. Nothing has changed.  Even in these days of apparently high technology medicine there are many - almost endless - variations in the treatments preferred by differing doctors. Doctors offer different prescriptions for exactly the same symptoms; they keep patients in hospital for vastly different lengths of time, with apparently identical problems.

In America, each year, 61 in every 100,000 people have a coronary bypass operation. In Britain only 6 in every 100,000 have the same operation. In Japan 1 in 100,000 patients will have a coronary bypass operation. In America and Denmark 7 out of 10 women will have a hysterectomy at some stage in their lives, but in Britain only 2 women in 10 will have the same operation. Why? Are women in America having too many hysterectomies or are women in Britain having too few? In America one in five babies are born by Caesarean delivery. In England and Wales the figure is 9%. In Japan it is 8%.

Even within individual hospitals one sees enormous variations between the beliefs of different consultants. Some ear, nose and throat consultants still believe that tonsils and adenoids should be removed at the earliest possible opportunity while others believe that the operations is useless or harmful and should hardly ever be done. Some surgeons remove gall bladders through tiny incisions, others prefer massive incisions. Some doctors still recommend that ulcer patients follow a milky diet while others claim that such dietary advice should have been abandoned as a piece of pre-history. Despite all these variations in the type of treatment offered, most doctors in practice seem to be convinced that their treatment methods are beyond question.

But, you may say, even if treatments are not selected with scientific precision, surely diagnoses are made in a scientific fashion? Again, the evidence does not support that contention. After one recent survey two pathologists reported that after carrying out 400 post-mortem examinations they had found that in more than half the patients the wrong diagnosis had been made. This presumably also means that in more than half the patients the wrong treatment had been given. And since so many modern treatments are undeniably powerful it also presumably means that a large proportion of those patients died because of their treatment. The two pathologists reported that potentially treatable disease was missed in one in seven patients. They found that 65 out of 134 cases of pneumonia had gone unrecognised while out of 51 patients who had suffered heart attacks doctors had failed to diagnose the problem in 18 cases. Ignorance has become commonplace in medical practice.

Doctors go to great lengths to disguise the fact that they are practising a black art rather than a science. The medical profession has created a 'pseudoscience' of mammoth proportions and today's doctors rely on a vast variety of instruments and tests and pieces of equipment with which to explain and dignify their interventions. This, of course, is nothing new. The alchemists of the middle ages and the witch doctors of Africa realised that words and spells reeked of gods and sorcery and so they created a secret and impenetrable structure of herbs, songs, dance, rattling of special bones, chants and ceremonial incantations. Today's clinicians have much more sophisticated mumbo jumbo to offer. They have laser surgery and psychotherapy, CAT scanners and serum manganese assessments to substantiate their claims to be scientists. But however good the impenetrable pseudoscience may sound or seem to be, and however well based on scientific principles the equipments and the techniques is still little more than mumbo jumbo. Doctors may use scientific instruments but that doesn't make them scientists any more than a witch doctor would become a scientist if he wore a stethoscope and danced around a microscope!

Now, if doctors were aware that medicine was not a science and that they were pulling what is undoubtedly the largest and most successful confidence trick ever tried the damage would be fairly minimal. But the problem is compounded by the fact that the vast majority of doctors believe the lie that they are taught; they believe that they are scientists, practising an applied science.

One result of this false faith is that doctors use the technology that is available to them with little or no thought for their patients: they have been taught to ally medieval authority and a godlike sense of superiority with 20th century gadgetry. The result is therapeutic chaos. Patients are wildly and dangerously over-investigated and treatment programmes, which vary from one doctor to another, are planned and defined by guesswork rather than a scientific analysis of possibilities and consequences. In order to protect themselves from the anxieties which would otherwise accompany their ignorance and their lack of knowledge, doctors seek assurance and comfort by immersing themselves in technology. Doctors are taught that investigation is an end in itself rather than merely a signpost towards a therapeutic end. The needs of the patient are forgotten as doctors glory in their knowledge. Too many doctors obtain satisfaction not by making patients better or relieving their discomfort but by playing a series of intellectual games in which the collecting and analysis of test results is regarded as far more important than the support and comfort of a patient. Too often patients are over-investigated, over diagnosed , over treated and under cared for. 'Curing' not 'caring' has become the sole criterion and success is too often measured in the laboratory rather than the sickroom. What has happened? Why has medicine failed to become an authentic science? The answer is a simple one. In the last century the practice of medicine has become no more than an adjunct to the pharmaceutical industry and the other aspects of the huge, powerful and immensely profitable health care industry. Medicine is no longer an independent profession. Doctors have become nothing more than a link connecting the pharmaceutical industry to the consumer.

Leo Rebello's note:

Doctors and Drug industry have jointly killed thousand times more persons in peace than all the war-time casualties put together in the last 500 years. There is a graphic book titled Doctors, Drugs and Devils, which traces the grotesque history of modern medicine. There is another equally damning evidence titled America the Poisoned, which records the evil effects of deadly chemicals destroying our environment, our wildlife and ourselves. And then there is that all-time famous treatise by Dr. Ivan Illich called The Medical Nemesis (or Limits to Medicine), which the drug companies bulk-purchased and burnt. The intelligent readers of Amrit Manthan may read these scholarly books to advantage and unite to protect their own health which is in great danger.

*
Dr. Vernon Coleman, M.D., D. Sc., has written 75 books which are sold in more than 50 countries and translated into 22 languages. I met him at a conference at the Royal London Hospital in June 1992, at which both of us were main speakers.


By Dr. Vernon Coleman - Lynmouth, Devon EX35 6EE, England -  Source: Amrit-Manthan - International Journal devoted to Holistic Healing Arts by Leo Rebello.

 

http://www.stamfordadvocate.com/news/local/state/hc-25130224.apds.m0308.bc-ct--fighdec25,0,7922867.story?coll=hc-headlines-local-wire

Some turn to homeopathic remedies to combat flu
       
    Associated Press
       
    December 25, 2003

HARTFORD, Conn. --

This season's hard-charging flu epidemic has been one for the books. Several Connecticut hospitals have tightened restrictions on visitors, going as far as to provide masks and waterless hand wash in waiting areas to cut down on the spread of the disease. And patients are flooding emergency rooms.

"We're on a pace to have our busiest December on record," said Shawn Mawhiney, spokesman for the William W.Backus Hospital in Norwich. From Dec. 1-17, the eastern Connecticut hospital has seen 2,362 patients go through its emergency room, a 22 percent increase over the same period last year, Mawhiney said.

With vaccines in short supply, medical experts said thereare some  homeopathic measures people can take to help ward off this particularly harsh bug, which has already claimed one life in Connecticut and more than 40 nationwide. "The vaccine's not perfect," said Dr. Amalia Punzo, director of integrated medicine at Hartford Hospital. "People think `I'm vaccinated, I can go to  the mall.' There's no guarantee that you're going to be protected.

"I'm not a panic person, I'm not an alarmist, but this one scares me. This is one of the things where you have to pay attention toprevention." Punzo, a medical doctor and board-certified homeopathic doctor, explained that homeopathy is based on the law of similars - like treats like. "You administer to someone a substance which in nature which would cause the exact symptom of what you're trying to cure," she said. For example, a derivative found in red onion is used to treat the watery  eyes and runny nose of allergies and colds.

One homeopathic remedy in demand these days is influenzium, which is prepared the same way the vaccine is and from the same viral strains. A sugarcoated pellet, influenzium can be taken in small weekly doses by healthy people during the flu season as a preventive, then in more concentrated, frequent amounts if flu symptoms arise, Punzo said. It isavailable by prescription. An over-the-counter remedy to counter and treat flu symptoms is oscillococcinum, which is derived from duck livers and is available in health food stores, Punzo said. It's taken in high, frequent dosages if flu symptoms develop.

"It reduces the symptoms and you don't have (the flu) as long," Punzo said. The small homeopathic pharmaceutical companies have felt the effect of this flu season. Joe Lillard, owner of Bethesda, Md.-based Washington Homeopathic Products, said the 300 to 400 orders he's taken forinfluenzium are three times what they were last year. "Just about everybody that calls wants a dose," Lillard said. Hartford Hospital's Punzo, whose job it is to put together treatments that  blend the best of conventional and alternative medicines, said naturopathic remedies can also help fight the flu.

The castor oil despised but swallowed regularly many generations ago promotes healthier mucus, the body's first line of defense, Punzo said. The taste has improved slightly because cherry- and lemon-flavored castor oil is now available. Antioxidants such as vitamins C and E are also helpful in building up immunity.

Punzo admits there is still some prejudice from the conventional medical community to homeopathy, a discipline around for nearly 200years. Homeopathic medicine took root in American society in the mid-1800s when it was brought over by European doctors, most notably German physician Samuel Hahnemann. By 1900 there were more than20 homeopathic medical colleges. The first American medical society was a homeopathic organization, Punzo said. "Homeopathy has been around a long time. There's a lot of solid science. A lot of research, "Punzo said. "All the remedies are FDA approved. It's not made by witchdoctors."

 

http://www.oneworld.net/external/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.teriin.org%2Fterragre
en%2Fissue51%2Fnews.htm%23n2

Homeopathy may combat arsenic poisoning
By Natasha McDowell

Indian scientists have found that a homeopathic remedy based on arsenic
oxide can reduce liver damage in mice poisoned by arsenic. They hope the
research will lead to an inexpensive treatment to alleviate the suffering of
millions of people worldwide poisoned by arsenic-contaminated groundwater.

AR Khuda-Bukhsh and his team from the University of Kaylani, West Bengal found that the homeopathic remedy Arsenicum album could remove arsenic from mice as well as reduce ill effects. The research was published this week in BioMed Central’s journal Complementary and Alternative Medicine .

Arsenic contamination of groundwater, largely a result of drilling boreholes over the past 20 years, is a major health problem in Bangladesh and India as well as in 15 other countries, including Chile and China. The symptoms include skin disease and liver damage.

The scientists are keen to see whether the drug has the same effect on human volunteers living in arsenic-contaminated areas. Such a trial would be exciting, says George Lewith from the University of Southampton, the UK and a member of the UK government's advisory board to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency for the registration of homeopathic products.

He adds that similar work with arsenic has been done in animals in the past. ‘Animal models are one of the very few reproducible observations in homeopathy, but they are generally ignored by sceptics due to a lack of clinical trials. You can’t intentionally poison people with arsenic,’ he says. ‘A trial using volunteers from such areas would be extremely interesting.’

Although chemical treatment can remove arsenic contamination yet efforts to provide safe drinking water have not been widely implemented. Khuda-Bukhsh and his colleagues were therefore searching for a cheap and easy-to-use treatment that is effective even in low doses.

The scientists monitored the activity of two enzymes in mice poisoned with arsenic after feeding them drops of the homeopathic remedy.These enzymes are more active in mice with arsenic poisoning, and can therefore be used to indicate levels of toxicity. The researchers found that the homeopathic remedy reduced the activity of the enzymes within 72 hours and was effective for up to 30 days. Water had no effect on either enzyme, and alcohol increased the activity of one of the enzymes.

‘It is quite amazing that such microdoses [of the homeopathic drug] were capable of bringing about such spectacular enzymatic alterations in mice treated with a toxic dose of arsenic,’ the researchers write. ‘This is more fascinating because the dilution at which the drug appeared to be effective was so high that the chances of even a single original molecule being in them was theoretically almost impossible.’

Source: SciDev.Net

 

In this month's "Homeopathy Today" there is an article titled, "Research Suggests Homeopathy is Clinically Effective."  It goes on to list the following studies:

**(By Lancet, 1986 and 1984, and the British Medical Journal 2000):
Homeopathy was found to be effective in the treatment of hay fever and allergic asthma

**(British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology 1989 and British Medical Journal 1989) Homeopathy found effective for the treatment of influenza and fibrositis

**(Pediatrics 1994 and the Journal of Alternative & Complementary Medicine 2000) In a randomized double-blind study clinical trial showed homeopathy effective in the treatment of acute childhood diarrhea

**(ARchives of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery 1998) Homeopathy "produced a reduction in symptoms that was equivalent to conventional medicine in the treatment of patients with vertigo." 

**(Journal of Head Trauma Rehabilitation 1999) Homeopathy produced significant improvement in the treatment of mild traumatic brain injury

 


Amy & Max's Story in Psychology Today
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/bookstor.htm#homeopathy
Amy's book can be bought at my website - Impossible Cure

http://babyurl.com/QQzc8o

PSYCHOLOGY TODAY

The Strange Case of Homeopathy
By Michael Castleman -- Publication Date: Mar/Apr 2004

Summary: PT examines whether treating illnesses with homeopathy is simply unconventional nonsense or a medicinal cure thatis here to stay. In 1994, NASA computer scientist Amy Lansky of Portola Valley, California, began wondering about her two-year-old son. Max knew the alphabet and could beat adults at memory games, but he barely spoke and, despite normal hearing, didn’t seem to understand language. At preschool he was a loner. His main form of communication was poking people with his finger. Eventually, school officials urged Lansky to have him evaluated. The diagnosis: autism, a neurological and behavioral disorder for which there  is no known remedy.

But Lansky refused to believe Max was untreatable. Her search for an answer led her to homeopathy, an 18th-century healing art now enjoying renewed popularity because of Americans’ growing interest in alternative medicine. Homeopathy involves treating illnesses with such extreme dilutions of herbs, animal substances and chemical compounds that frequently not one molecule of the diluted substance is left in the solution. Homeopathy defies the known laws of science, not to mention common sense. But rigorous studies show it  just may work.

In a German trial, a homeopathic treatment for vertigo outperformed the pharmaceutical remedy; at Harvard, subjects with mild brain injury showed significantly greater improvement with a homeopathic treatment than with a placebo. And homeopathic remedies have been found to augment conventional treatments, as well. In the case of infectious diarrhea, a University of Washington study found that children given the standard rehydration fluid containing water, sugar and salt, plus a homeopathic remedy, recovered after two and a half days—a day and and a half earlier than those who received just the rehydration fluid.

“I believe new science will explain how homeopathy works,” says Ellen Feingold, a Wilmington, Delaware, pediatrician who left conventional medicine to practice homeopathy. “But research is not my concern. I want to heal patients. As an M.D., I mostly suppressed symptoms. Now I truly heal people.” “Critics of homeopathy say that because its mechanism of action can’t be explained, it can’t possibly work,” says Michael Carlston, a Santa Rosa, California, physician who has combined mainstream medicine and homeopathy for 30 years. “But that’s hypocritical. Aspirin was used for 90
years before its efficacy was explained—and no doctors shunned it.”

Strange Medicine
Shortly after her son’s diagnosis, Lansky found a magazine article on alternative treatments for childhood behavioral problems.

Lansky’s acupuncturist referred her to homeopath John Melnychuk. He did not perform a physical exam, nor did he order diagnostic tests. He just asked questions, including many that M.D.s would consider irrelevant. He explored Max’s milk craving, his fitful sleep, the bluish tint in the whites of his
eyes and his restlessness, intensity, sweetness, stubbornness and perfectionism. Then, using reference books, he looked for substances that produce the same effects in healthy people. This is the fundamental principle of homeopathy, the Law of Similars. It’s the idea that illness can be cured by substances—plant, animal or mineral—that evoke the same symptoms in those who are well. Melnychuk decided to give Max Carcinosin, a treatment made from—of all things—an infinitesimal amount of human cancer tissue.

“There are two types of homeopathic remedies,” Melnychuk explains. “Some treat symptoms; For example, arnica works well for muscle strains. Then there are ‘constitutional’ remedies, ones that have to be matched to the patient’s personality. Max seemed to fit the Carcinosin profile, which includes symptoms of perfectionism, restlessness, sleep difficulties and milk cravings.” However, Melnychuk cautions, not every autistic child should receive Carcinosin. “You have to tailor the remedy to the patient’s unique traits.”

Lansky mixed a little Carcinosin in water and gave Max a teaspoon each morning. Within two days, she noticed subtle changes: “Max’s speech improved, and he seemed more socially aware.” In the next two months the trend toward improvement continued.  Maybe It’s Doing Nothing  Homeopathy developed during the late 18th century, a time when physicians knew little about disease. They treated most illnesses by bleeding patients and administering powerful laxatives. Such treatments were called “heroic measures,” but the heroism was entirely on the part of patients, many of whom suffered more from these interventions than from their illnesses.

One 18th-century German doctor, Samuel Hahnemann, became so disgusted with heroic medicine that he closed his practice. But Hahnemann did not exactly reject conventional medicine. He was impressed with cinchona, the South American tree bark that was the first effective treatment for malaria. In 1790, Hahnemann ingested cinchona and became cold, achy, anxious and thirsty—all symptoms of malaria. That experience led him to postulate his Law of Similars.

Hahnemann tested hundreds of substances on himself—plants, animal parts and chemical compounds, including salt, zinc, gold and marigold flowers—cataloging their effects. Eventually, he reopened his practice but prescribed only homeopathic medicines.

Homeopathy was controversial from the outset because of Hahnemann’s other postulate, the Law of Potentization, which holds that homeopathic medicines grow stronger as they became more dilute. Critics howl at the law. Homeopathy is “absurd,” argues William Sampson, a clinical professor of medicine at Stanford University. “It is bankrupt in theory and practice.”

“There is no basis for believing that homeopathy has any effect,” says Robert Baratz, president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, in Peabody, Massachusetts. “Homeopathy is a magnet for untrustworthy practitioners who pose a threat to public safety. It’s quackery.”

Maybe homeopathy involves treatment with nothing. If true, it’s still an improvement over 18th-century heroic medicine—even if patients get little more than water.  By the late 19th century, conventional medicine had moved away from heroic measures. As they disappeared, the medical opposition led by homeopaths lost steam. The discovery of antibiotics and other modern drugs further strengthened conventional medicine at homeopathy’s expense. While homeopathy remained popular in Europe, there were fewer than 100 homeopaths in the U.S. by the early 1970s. Critics dismissed homeopathic treatment as placebo.

Strange Power
Placebos have no direct impact on the body. But when given to treat almost any illness—from colds to serious conditions—about one-third of recipients report benefits. “Placebos work as well as they do because of the mind’s ability to affect the body,” says Brown University psychiatrist Walter Brown. Many studies have shown that when a doctor offers any treatment, people expect it will help, and that expectation itself can aid healing. Also, through a mind-body mechanism not entirely understood, placebos trigger the release of endorphins, the body’s mood-elevating, pain-relieving compounds. “Improvement in patients receiving homeopathy is simply a placebo effect,” Sampson says.

But studies consistently yield conflicting reports. British researchers are divided as to the power of arnica, often prescribed by homeopaths for musculoskeletal pain. Patients who received arnica after wrist surgery for carpal tunnel syndrome reported significantly less pain than did those in a placebo group; yet patients with other joint conditions had no such luck (among 58 rheumatoid arthritis sufferers, the placebo group reported significantly greater pain relief).

In 1991, Dutch epidemiologists analyzed 105 studies of homeopathic treatment from 1966 to 1990, most from French and German medical journals. Eighty-one studies found patients had benefited from homeopathy, prompting the Dutch researchers to conclude that “the evidence is to a large extent positive. [It] would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as treatment for certain conditions.” A 1997 German analysis of 89 studies agreed that homeopathy is often significantly more beneficial than the use of placebos.

Preferring Alternatives
Ambiguous as the evidence is, in recent years homeopathy has enjoyed renewed popularity in the U.S., coinciding with Americans’ ambivalence about mainstream medicine.

One-half to two-thirds of Americans have used alternative therapies, and Americans visit alternative practitioners more often than they visit conventional practitioners—some 600 million consultations a year. They now spend $30 billion a year on alternative therapies, according to a recent report in Newsweek, and have as much confidence in alternative practitioners as they do in M.D.s, according to a study in the journal Annals of Internal Medicine.

Americans have not lost confidence in physicians—they’ve just expanded their view of what’s medically helpful, believing that the combination of mainstream and alternative medicine will provide the best results. “The renewed interest in homeopathy,” explains Dana Ullman, author of eight books on the subject, “is part of the groundswell of interest Americans have shown for all the alternative therapies. People are not satisfied with conventional medicine.”

Homeopathy is not the only alternative therapy conventional medicine can’t fully explain. The energy pathways deemed fundamental to acupuncture don’t correspond to any known structures in the body, but a 1998 National Institutes of Health report concluded, “The data in support of acupuncture are as strong as those for many accepted Western medical therapies.”

Nonetheless, homeopathy is nowhere near as accepted as acupuncture. The latest Harvard report on Americans’ use of alternative therapies shows that homeopathy accounts for less than 0.5 percent of alternative-practitioner visits. Recently, University of Maryland researchers surveyed coverage for alternative therapies by six major managed-care plans—five covered chiropractic, four covered acupuncture, none covered homeopathy. “Homeopathy,” Ullman says, “is the Rodney Dangerfield of alternative therapies: It gets no respect.”

Impossible Cure
Amy Lansky didn’t care that homeopathy is one of America’s least accepted alternative therapies. After nine months of homeopathic treatment, Max was a different child: talkative, active, sociable and popular. Under Melnychuk’s guidance, Lansky gradually decreased his dose of Carcinosin, eventually discontinuing it. Max continued to improve. By age five, he was virtually indistinguishable from any other kid. “He now sees Melnychuk maybe twice a year,” says Lansky. “As far as I’m concerned, he’s cured.” Max’s experience led Lansky to quit her job and study homeopathy full-time.
Last fall, she hung out a shingle. “As a scientist,” she explains, “Irecognize that homeopathy is implausible. But I’ve seen it cure my son.”

San Francisco-based writer Michael Castleman is the author of 12 consumer health books, including Nature’s Cures (Rodale Press, 1995).

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-1260127,00.html

Letters: Homoeopathy comes under scrutiny
From the Clinical Director of the Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital

Sir, The French Académie de Médecine’s attack on homoeopathy (report and leading article, September 8) is the latest in a long series. Homoeopathy’s durability and growing popularity is a “no smoke without fire” argument for it, not a scientific one. But there is substantial scientific evidence for homoeopathy. The most comprehensive analysis of clinical research in homoeopathy to date, published in The Lancet in 1997, looked at 186 clinical trials, and concluded that its results were “not compatible with the hypothesis that the clinical effects of homoeopathy are completely due to placebo”. In recent laboratory experiments university researchers from Belfast, Louvain, Florence, Paris and Utrecht showed that homoeopathically dil uted histamine reduces allergic responses in-vitro.

You call for scientific scrutiny while denying the existence of a substantial body of such work, whose results generally do not accord with your prejudices; and you propose meeting rising demand with reduced provision. This won’t get us anywhere: similar things have been said many times in the past, yet homoeopathy is more popular than ever.

Homoeopathy is difficult to comprehend in terms of current science. But I for one am glad that reality is not co-terminous with the beliefs of professors of medicine, or indeed of Times leader writers.

Yours faithfully,
PETER FISHER,
(Physician to the Queen),
Clinical Director,
Royal London Homoeopathic Hospital,
University College London NHS Foundation Trust,
Greenwell Street, W1W 5BP.
September 10.


From Mr Jeremy Glyn

Sir, You say of homoeopathy: “These remedies must withstand the scrutiny of science first.” Some years ago I awaited with interest the ruling by the House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology on “complementary” therapies. As the inaugural vice chair of the Kinesiology Federation, I had hoped to see that therapy given a credible rating.

Alas, kinesiology was grouped among the unproven therapies, with a note from a dentist on that august committee explaining that they had been obliged to reach that decision for lack of scientific evidence. However, he added that he used it all the time in his practice, because “Iknow it works”.

Yours faithfully,
JEREMY GLYN,
Westbrook Cottage,
Longparish, Andover,
Hampshire SP11 6PG.
j.glyn@pathfinders.uk.com
September 8.


From Mr Richard Stenning

Sir, I feel sorry for people who have to wait for science to tell them that something is real before they can believe it. They must miss out on love or affection or any emotion at all, there being no good scientific explanation of these phenomena.

The “rational” approach to homoeopathy boils down to “we can’t explain it, therefore it doesn’t exist”. This is similar arrogance to the “scientific” experts who stoically dismissed the value of fruit in reducing scurvy for years. Science eventually caught up and explained what everyone “knew” anyway.

Science is an invaluable tool but a severely limited one. To place scientific proof beyond the questioning of human experience is to demean the latter.

Yours faithfully,
RICHARD STENNING,
Calam House,
Poplar Mount,
Axminster, Devon EX13 5EB.
postmaster@richardstenning.demon.co.uk
September 11.

Doctors in Mexico City Cured 2009 Swine Flu with Homeopathy
Friday, August 14, 2009 by: Paul Fassa, citizen journalist
See all articles by this author
Email this author

Key concepts: Homeopathy, Homeopathic and Doctors
View on NaturalPedia: Homeopathy, Homeopathic and Doctors

http://www.naturalnews.com/026839_homeopathy_homeopathic_doctors.html

(NaturalNews) Homeopathy had an amazingly high cure rate in the 1918 Spanish Flu pandemic in the USA. Just recently, during the 2009 Mexican Flu outbreak, a small group of Mexico City homeopathic doctors have revealed that homeopathy is up to the task again. This is good news considering that many over the counter and prescribed pharmaceutical flu remedies not only hazard negative side effects, but they may also not really cure current flu strains.

Pharmaceutical Flu Remedies Efficacy Questioned

Recombinomics, a viral/vaccination research and tracking group`s website, this July 8, 2009 commentary, reports: "... resistant Novel H1N1 in Saskatchewan Raises Concerns". "This new influenza . . . has been combined with two genes from the H1N1 seasonal flu," said Dr. Frank Plummer, scientific director-general of the national microbiology laboratory in Winnipeg. Dr. Plummer noted that this mutation may make it almost impossible for current pharmaceutical flu remedies to cope with this new strain of Swine Flu. You can view that commentary here: http://www.recombinomics.com/News/0...

The New York Times reported in a January 8th, 2009 article titled "Major Flu Strain Found Resistant to Leading Drug, Puzzling Scientists". The article goes on to explain how throat swabs for common flu infected patients showed a higher rate of resistance to pharmaceutical flu remedies this year than last year. Read it yourself here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/09/h...

Despite all this, the government wants you to believe that only the flu remedies of Big Pharma are appropriate for curing Swine Flu. They want you to believe this so much, the FDA recently posted warnings, with enforcement penalties, to curb anyone from saying there is any other natural product that can cure H1N1 (Swine Flu).
Details on the FDA ruling here: http://www.naturalnews.com/026473_t...

Homeopathy Flu Therapy Is Not Affected by Viral Mutations

Homeopathy does not depend on one drug or feature particular drugs for curing any type of flu. Homeopathy is a non allopathic healing method that was once the mainstream medicine of the 19th century. Because different remedies and combinations and strengths are prescribed according to exact symptomatic readings, homeopaths can successfully adapt treatments to handle viral mutations. Homeopathy was enjoyed by many until certain moneyed interests almost pushed it out of existence. Now there is somewhat of a resurgence of its use.

In an article posted on the website Homeopathy for Everyone, four Mexican Homeopathic doctors posted their first hand observations on the 2009 Mexican flu, and revealed the exact protocol they used to cure those afflicted under their care. The doctors who reported these findings from Mexico City, in May of 2009 are: Est. Luis Jamil Bonilla Galicia, Dr. Oscar Alberto Legaria Garcia, Dr. Emmanuel Alvarez Lorenzo, and Dr. Fernando Dareo Francois Flores.

These doctors included historically documented observations regarding the 1918 flu pandemic. For historical references they used "... the thesis written by Dr. Manuel Mazari to obtain his qualification at the Escuela Libre de Homeopata de Mexico: "Short Study of the Last Influenza Epidemic in Mexico City (1918)",as well as reports published by the Ministry of Health, news published in the media in general, and some clinical cases mentioned by homeopathic physicians"

Not surprisingly, the symptoms of the 1918 flu and the so called `swine flu` of 2009 are very similar. It`s interesting to note both pandemics started in the spring, in the month of April, and not in the official flu season which is autumn. Two additional symptoms, one of which is an emotional aspect that is part of homeopathy diagnosis, are noted by this study: "fear of death" and a "high fever" at the onset of the infection.

Mainstream, medical, literature, sources conclude:"...that this virus {A(H1N1) influenza virus} was the causative agent of the influenza epidemics in (1918 -1919), (1933-1935), (1946-1947), (1977-1978)."
The basic purpose of the Mexican Homeopaths` study was to identify common symptoms of the 2009 swine flu in order to outline a specific homeopathic based prevention and treatment model that could be used by homeopathic doctors around the world.

NOTE: The following is copied directly from their report, and some of it is beyond lay understanding. The formulaic remedy details of their report should be put into a homeopath`s hands.

"Recommendations for the Prevention and Control of the Influenza A (H1N1)"

General hygienic actions of each person during an epidemic.

1.- Hand washing after coughing and sneezing.
2.- Cover the mouth with a disposable handkerchief when coughing or sneezing.
3.- If there is no handkerchief available the inner side of the elbow can be used.
4.- Avoid crowded places.
5.- Avoid greeting ill persons by hand or kissing.
6.- Avoid spitting on the ground and other surfaces.
7.- Throw handkerchiefs away in closed plastic bags.
8.- Don`t share glasses, plates, cutlery, food or drinks.
9.- Follow the recommendations as given by the physician and don`t self-medicate.
10.- Ventilate your working place and house, and permit sun to enter.
11.- Drink much and eat foods rich in vitamin C.
12.- Avoid sudden change of temperature.
13.- Avoid touching your eyes, nose and mouth with unwashed hands.

PROPHYLAXIS (meaning preventive)

1. Homeopathic remedies
a. BAPTISIA TINCTOREA
b. INFLUENZINUM
c. ARSENICUM ALBUM

From the Mexico City Doctors Report

"In homeopathy there are no specific medicines for a particular nosological picture (for which the most common symptoms are taken into account). But in epidemics, due to the common causative agent, susceptibility of the population in this particular moment, and the repetition of symptoms, a group of the most useful remedies can be deduced. The remedies determined in this way are called the Genius Epidemicus. They consist of a group of medicines with symptoms most similar to those presented by most patients suffering this flu."

"For homeopathic treatment is it necessary to take into account the degree of reaction of the patient and the symptoms with which the disease manifests itself. We considered this and the symptoms observed during the last epidemic (1918) to find the similar remedy."

Homepathic Remedies Listed by the Mexican Doctors and Directly Copied Here Which They Successfully Employed Against the 2009 Mexican Flu

Aconitum napellus, Actea racemosa, Allium cepa, Ammonium phosphoricum, Antimonium tartaricum, Arnica montana, Arsenicum album, Baptisia tinctoria, Belladonna atropa, Bryonia alba, Camphora, Carbo vegetabilis, Carbolic acid, Causticum, Chamomilla, China officinalis, Drosera rotundifolia, Eupatorium perfoliatum, Euphrasia, Ferrum phosphoricum, Gelsemium sempervirens, Glonoinum, Hepatica triloba, Hyosciamus niger, Influenzinum (corresponding to the epidemic), Ipecauanha, Lachesis trigonocephalus, Lycopodium clavatum, Mercurius vivus, Natrum sulphuricum, Nux vomica, Opium, Phosphorus, Phytolacca decandra, Pulsatilla, Pyrogenium, Rhus toxicodendron, Sticta pulmonaria, Sepia officinalis, Sulphur.

Most Used Remedies in Hemorrhagic Influenza

Arnica montana, Arsenicum album, Baptisia tinctoria, Belladonna atropa, Bryonia alba, Camphora, Carbo vegetabilis, Chamomilla, China officinalis, Ferrum phosphoricum, Influenzinum (corresponding to the epidemic), Ipecacuanha, Lachesis trigonocephalus, Mercurius vivus, Phosphorus, Sepia officinalis, Sulphur.

Nosodes

Influenzinum (corresponding to the epidemic), Pyrogenium, Anthracinum.

That Ends the Doctors` Report. Here`s More General Information on Homeopathy

Classic homeopathy is a healing methodology that is based on the wisdom of treating a specific individual and their specific symptoms (including body, mind, emotions, and environment), as opposed to the allopathic model which bases treatment on agreed upon disease symptoms and averages.

It is also important to note that homeopathy is primarily an energetic and vibrational medicine. Simplistically speaking, homeopathic remedies are created by diluting a physical substance into a distilled water and alcohol and creating a vibrational or energetic substance by shaking it rapidly with machinery. This is how a nosode is created. Therefore, even a toxic physical substance prepared in a nosode will not retain any toxicity that will be transferred into the body.

And the nosode is taken orally, thereby not bypassing the initial stage of the immune system. Inoculations do bypass this important first phase of the immune system by ignoring the mucous membranes in the mouth and throat and going directly into the bloodstream. Homeopathic remedies are applied by a counterintuitive method. A homeopathic doctor is skilled in matching the individual`s current symptom picture with exact remedies that produce those exact same symptoms. This is actual immunization. Keep in mind when an individual`s symptoms change, new homeopathic remedies are prescribed to replace the previous homeopathic recommendations. This process continues until there are no more symptoms.

However, when there is an epidemic or pandemic disease, a homeopathic doctor can use the `common` symptoms widely reported by the public as an individual body and prescribe homeopathic remedies accordingly.

Homeopathy and the 1918 Flu

WW I was the first time that USA military personnel were ordered to receive vaccinations. There was and is a strong suspicion that mandated vaccinations used on troops actually created the initial infections for this pandemic. It`s recorded that many died after being vaccinated, while most who did not receive vaccinations survived.

Those factors did not affect or alter what homeopaths managed to put together during this pandemic. Understanding symptoms which have been closely scrutinized and categorized are the determining factors for administering classic homeopathic remedies, including the follow up remedies for complete recovery as symptoms change.

Undisclosed to the public at large, despite the strange and unusually virulent flu strain resulting in the "White Plague", the cure rate of homeopathy during the 1918 so called Spanish Flu has been reported as 98%.

Sources:

An Important Article Recommending Over the Counter Homeopathic Remedies
http://www.examiner.com/x-11705-NY-...

The Mexico City homeopathic doctors` 2009 Mexican complete report http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/gal...

Homeopathy for Everyone http://www.hpathy.com/

Observations of Mexican Flu 2009
http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/gal...

Homeopathy and the Flu
http://www.cure-guide.com/Flu/Homeo...

Website for general flu information and homeopathy
http://flusolution.net/

Important for Swine Flu Epidemic: Homeopathy Successfully Treated Flu Epidemic of 1918 http://www.naturalnews.com/026148.html
 

My son lost his diagnosis at age 10 only after classical homeopathy. (We had done most every form of biomed and therapeutic intervention previously, many of which were very helpful, but he was still autistic.) At age 8 he could not catch a ball. At age 8 in challenger little league a volunteer had to point him in the direction of the base and run with him after he would tap it with hand-over-hand guidance off the T. He could not be put in the outfield because he would stim on running sand through his fingers or run off into the woods. When I would take him to special olympics swimming, he was not selected to continue participation because he lacked any motivation and they could not get him to swim across the pool. He was quite content to sit there and tread water and couldn't be bothered with competition. He was in an autism program in school where I was told that life skills/behavior were more important than academics for children who remained unable to be integrated after 2nd grade....

Flash forward--less than two years later, he is now in a regular public school fifth grade. He is on the public school's traveling, competitive basketball team, having beat out many typical kids in the tryouts (much to his mother's surprise), he will be on the regular little league (competitive) this spring, he follows sports, is a huge Yankee fan and has developed good friendships including a best friend, he is the top swimmer in his school's swimming program and has become quite the competitive boy (but also a great team player and a good sport).

With the correct classical remedy he improved so rapidly that I was in shock every day for almost a year with the changes. Of course, there was a lot of catch up to do because of his lack of experience (as even where there were attempts to give him experience he had paid very no attention, was very difficult to engage). The first time he was in a regular gym class last school year, he came home and told me that the kids in this new school were "really mean" in gym class. "Every time I got the ball they all ran at me to try to grab it away!" There was a big learning curve every day to explain to him the ins and outs that other kids learn over years and years that he had missed. I am amazed at how much he has picked up so rapidly. He no longer meets the criteria for autism, and I am getting used to his becoming a typical kid. The remaining "issues" he has had are really a question of catching up on the experiential learning he missed when his brain and body were not available to teach.

I believe if you find the correct remedy you can catch up on all of the missed developmental reflexes because healing at a deep level with the correct constitutional remedy makes the brain and body available and motivated to catch up on all these things.
 

 
http://www.cancerde cisions.com/ content/view/ 414/2/lang, english/


INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF ONCOLOGY 36: 395-403, 2010
395
Cytotoxic effects of ultra-diluted remedies on breast cancer cells
MOSHE FRENKEL1, BAL MUKUND MISHRA2, SUBRATA SEN2, PEIYING YANG1, ALISON PAWLUS1,
LUIS VENCE3, AIMEE LEBLANC2, LORENZO COHEN1, PRATIP BANERJI4 andPRASANTA BANERJI4
1
Integrative Medicine Program, 2Department of Molecular Pathology, 3Department of Melanoma
Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center, Houston, TX, USA;
4
P. Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, Kolkata, India
Received May 28, 2009; Accepted July 23, 2009
DOI: 10.3892/ijo_ 00000512

Abstract. The use of ultra-diluted natural products in the management of disease and treatment of cancer has generated a lot of interest and controversy. We conducted an in vitro study to determine if products prescribed by a clinic in India have any effect on breast cancer cell lines. We studied four ultra-diluted remedies (Carcinosin, Phytolacca, Coniumand Thuja) against two human breast adenocarcinoma cell lines (MCF-7 and MDA-MB-231) and a cell line derived from immortalized normal human mammary epithelial cells (HMLE). The remedies exerted preferential cytotoxic effects against the two breast cancer cell lines, causing cell cycle delay/arrest and apoptosis. These effects were accompanied by altered expression of the cell cycle regulatory proteins, including downregulation of phosphorylated Rb and upregulation of the CDK inhibitor p27, which were likely responsible for the cell cycle delay/arrest as well as induction of the apoptotic cascade that manifested in the activation of caspase 7 and cleavage of PARP in the treated cells. The findings demonstrate biological activity of these natural products when presented at ultra-diluted doses. Further in-depth studies with additional cell lines and animal models are warranted to explore the clinical applicability of these agents. opting to be treated with CAM therapeutic regimens (1-3). The safety and efficacy of many CAM approaches have not been well studied, especially in cancer care. Therefore, the US National Cancer Institute (NCI) developed the Best Case Series program inviting CAM practitioners worldwide to present their clinical experience and ‘best cases’ in the use of alternative medicine in the treatment of cancer, with the objective to develop further research toward rigorous scientific alidation.