# Information On Homeopathy



## jeremiyah

I want to extend an awesome thanks to Gary for sending this --from me and a very special thank you from my wife, Elaine, who is still under attack from the "big business, bankster, pharma, medical industry." She has studied and used Homeopathy for decades now, and even makes 100 remedy kits which fit in a .45 Caliber reloading box.

This intro to the article below is from Dr. Garry F. Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H)
(President, Gordon Research Institute www.gordonresearch.com.) Garry is one of the most awesome doctors in the nation, and one who is leading the Paradigm Shift in "modern medicine" which I knew would come, and which I have predicted for over a decade.
The first time i heard Dr Gordon, was on Wobenzymes, and stating that they actually allow Chemo"therapy" to work.
It was so good, I assumed he must be speaking from another country like so many other "Brain-Drain" fled from the US MDs before they are imprisoned...and was delighted that he was in Az. Awesome man Hang in there Garry!!!

Listen to Dr. Gordon:
This official Swiss report on homeopathy can save our country billions of wasted health care dollars! They have decided to pay for homeopathy for their citizens; just imagine the savings our country would see. Help spread the word.

The attached review by Dana Ulman of this in-depth analysis by the Swiss Government proves that homeopathy is safe and efficacious and extremely cost-effective!

Somehow the nay-sayers have so brainwashed the public that I and others somehow choose to focus on modalities that patients believe in so that we do not waste our time recommending a modality the patient will not take. This report needs to be made more widely available, as current health care costs can bankrupt our nation. Here is documentation and when you see read the dramatic lowering of death rates compared to conventional medicine cited in this review, I think that alone will cause most patients to want to incorporate at least one homeopathic in their effort to deal with their health issue. Please note the dramatic success seen in communicable infections. These include diseases for which our government wishes to force dangerous and ineffective vaccines on everyone.

This report needs to become widely known, as responsible authorities can not safely ignore an official report of the Swiss government when health care costs are their number one issue.

Sincerely,

Dr. Garry F. Gordon, MD, DO, MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-..._campaign=March+2012+Swiss#2&utm_medium=email
Homeopathy Vindicated as Cost-Effective
by Swiss Government

In a story akin to "the mouse that roared," the Swiss government has determined that the very small doses commonly used in homeopathic medicine are both effective and cost-effective. Despite the impressive technological prowess of conventional medicine today, the Swiss government has determined that homeopathy is considerably more cost effective.

My previous article highlighted a remarkable report on homeopathic medicine conducted by and for the government of Switzerland. This previous article described the significant body of evidence from multiple sources that verify the efficacy of homeopathic medicines, while this new article focuses on another body of evidence reviewed for the Swiss government that investigated the cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatment.

In this day and age of economically-challenging times for both individuals and governments, this report from the Swiss government has confirmed the efficacy and cost-effectiveness of homeopathic treatment. The fact that homeopathy is also widely recognized as one of the safest methods of medicine is but one additional special benefit for this natural medicine.

Ultimately, the Swiss government's report was the most comprehensive review to date of any governmental body on the scientific evidence on homeopathic medicine. The Swiss' "Health Technology Assessment" was a thorough analysis of a wide variety of clinical studies and laboratory research.(1) The report also reviewed the body of evidence on cost-effectiveness research for homeopathic care, and it even conducted its own cost-effectiveness study among Swiss physicians and patients.

Drawing cost data of participating physicians from Swiss health insurers, this review included all expenditures covered from consultation costs (diagnostic and therapeutic procedures), costs for medication (directly dispensed or prescriptions), costs for external laboratory analyses, and costs for physiotherapy.

The Swiss report found that total practice costs for physicians who specialized in homeopathic medicine had an overall 15.4 percent reduction in overall health care costs associated with their practice, as compared with physicians who practiced conventional medicine as well as those physicians who practice other "complementary and alternative medicine" treatments (but not homeopathic medicine). (2) The significant reduction in health care costs from homeopathic treatment represents a potential savings in hundreds of millions of dollars or more in many countries.

The authors of the Swiss report noted patients seeking homeopathic and alternative health care treatment tended to have more chronic illness (greater than three months) and more serious illness, factors that would usually lead to higher health care costs, but it was also discovered that the homeopathic patients tended to be younger, which would usually lead to lower health care costs.

This significant 15 percent saving from homeopathic care confirmed from an independent Dutch study that analyzed claims from a major health insurer which also found a 15 percent reduction in health care costs associated with alternative medical care by physicians who were trained in homeopathic medicine, acupuncture, or anthrosophical medicine (Kooreman, Baars, 2011). The health economists who conducted this research concluded that the lower costs resulted from fewer hospital stays and fewer expensive prescription drugs. It is of further importance to note that the authors also found that patients who go to physicians who practice complementary and alternative medicine live longer lives too.

The Swiss government's report on homeopathy also referenced numerous studies that evaluated the cost-effectiveness of homeopathic vs. conventional medical care for people suffering from specific health problems, including female fertility, rheumatoid arthritis, otitis media, respiratory allergies, and dyspepsia. Of special significance was the truly substantial difference between the costs of homeopathic treatment of women experiencing fertility problems as compared with women seeking conventional medical care. A study of children with upper respiratory tract infections found that children who received homeopathic treatment had fewer recurrences and lower antibiotic consumption than children using conventional treatment. Further, an economic assessment of 569 patients with rheumatic disorders found that 29 percent could stop taking their conventional medications, 33 percent could reduce their dependence on drugs, and only 6 percent chose to increase their medication once homeopathic treatment began.

A report from the German government was also cited in this Swiss study because it compared hospitalization rates of female patients who sought care from conventional physicians as compared with those females who from homeopathic physicians. This study found that female patients were six times more hospitalizations from conventional physicians as from homeopathic physicians.

In addition to reduced health care costs from homeopathic treatment, the report also noted reductions in various indirect costs, including some studies showing reduced days off from sickness in those patients under homeopathic care.

The Swiss report further discovered that patients reported better quality of the patient-physician relationship and fewer adverse side effects with physicians who practiced CAM, thus, leading the report to conclude higher cost-effectiveness for this type of medical practices.

The "appropriateness" of homeopathy as a health care option was also evaluated in the Swiss report, which the authors have divided into two sections: demand/use and safety. Based on the high demand of the Swiss population for homeopathy and the high levels of safety that is widely known about homeopathy, the Swiss report asserts that there is substantial appropriateness for homeopathy for the Swiss public. Surveys estimate that 57 percent of the Swiss population uses complementary and alternative medicine, and about 40 percent of all medical practitioners in Switzerland prescribed alternative and complementary medicine treatments and 62.5 percent were "in favor of CAM" (Rist and Schwabl, 2009).

The Swiss government also funded a study of more than 3,000 people that compared "patient satisfaction" from those who sought care from a homeopathic physician vs. those who sought care from a conventional medical doctor (Marian, Joost, Saini, et al, 2008). Patients of homeopathic physicians were significantly more often "completely satisfied" (53 percent vs. 43 percent) with their treatment than patients of conventional doctors, without significant differences in the fulfillment of their treatment related expectations. This study also discovered that patients who sought treatment from a conventional doctor had almost four times as many serious side effects as those who sought homeopathic treatment.

Besides finding reducing costs to homeopathic treatment, the Swiss report referenced a significant number of randomized double-blind clinical studies showing efficacy of treatment from homeopathic care. Of greater significance, they found that 20 of 22 systematic reviews (meta-analyses) detected at least a trend in favor of homeopathy, with at least five reviews yielding results indicating clear evidence for homeopathic therapy. Although the Swiss report is not available online, interested readers with an interest in research published in peer-review medical journals will benefit from reading the numerous articles that I have published at this website in the past.

The Swiss report acknowledged that some clinical studies do not show positive results for homeopathy, though the authors of this governmental report note that most of these studies were conducted in a way that ignored some important principles of homeopathy, setting themselves up for a negative outcome and thereby creating a false-negative result. Skeptics of homeopathy commonly refer to a select group of seemingly high-quality studies that show that homeopathic medicines did not work, but these skeptics ignore the fact that many of these studies did not use the correct medicine for the condition. For instance, one study used a homeopathic dose of a medicine for weight-loss when it is well-known that there is no one remedy that will work for everyone who wishes to lose weight.

The bottom line is that large numbers of the Swiss population use homeopathic medicines and select other natural therapies. After a nationwide referendum in May 2009 that found a two-thirds majority (!) favoring the integration of CAM into the Swiss health system, the Swiss Minister of Health approved reimbursement by the government's health program for five leading natural therapies, including anthroposophic medicine, homeopathy, neural therapy, phytotherapy/herbal medicine, and traditional Chinese medicine, for a test period until 2018.

The Swiss report noted that one of the first health economic studies to compare homeopathic and conventional medical treatment was conducted in 1900 (Bradford, 1900). This book, simply entitled The Logic of Figures, compared the morbidity (disease) and mortality (death) rates in homeopathic vs. conventional medical hospitals, as well as these rates in mental institutions and penitentiaries in which either homeopathic OR conventional medical services were provided. Much to the surprise of conventional medicine, the death rates were typically two to eight times higher in those patients who received conventional medical care as compared with those who received homeopathic treatment (literally hundreds of hospitals' records were compared). Of special interest were the impressive results that patients received from homeopathic medicines in the treatment of the many feared infectious diseases, including cholera, typhoid, yellow fever, scarlet fever, pneumonia, and influenza.

In addition to the above research conducted for the Swiss government, other researchers in North America have found efficacy and cost-effectiveness of various "integrative health practices" (Guarneri, Horrigan, Pechura 2010). Data supporting the efficacy and cost effectiveness of an integrative approach to healthcare comes from three sources: medical research conducted at universities, studies carried out by corporations developing employee wellness programs, and pilot projects run by insurance companies.

The most famous words from Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine, were "First, do no harm." In the light of the fact that homeopathic and various integrative health practices being so much safer than conventional medical strategies, it may be time for governments and insurers to follow the lead of the government and people of Switzerland.

FOOTNOTES:

(1) Although this Swiss government report was just published in book form in 2011, the report was finalized in 2006. In light of this date, the authors evaluated systematic reviews and meta-analyses on homeopathic research up until June 2003.

(2) The researchers of this cost-effectiveness study provided statistical adjustment for seven cofactors that would lead one treatment to have an economic advantage over the others, such as when a population of patients is younger or older than another groups.

REFERENCES:

Bornhoft, Gudrun, and Matthiessen, Peter F. Homeopathy in Healthcare: Effectiveness, Appropriateness, Safety, Costs. Goslar, Germany: Springer, 2011. http://rd.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-642-20638-2/page/1

Bornhöft G, Wolf U, von Ammon K, Righetti M, Maxion-Bergemann S, Baumgartner S, Thurneysen AE, Matthiessen PF. Effectiveness, safety and cost-effectiveness of homeopathy in general practice - summarized health technology assessment. Forschende Komplementärmedizin (2006);13 Suppl 2:19-29. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16883077

Bradford T. The Logic of Figures or comparative results of homoeopathic and other treatments. Philadelphia: Boericke and Tafel, 1900. http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015020118058

Guarneri, Erminia (Mimi); Horrigan Bonnie J; Pechura Constance M. The Efficacy and Cost Effectiveness of Integrative Medicine: A Review of the Medical and Corporate Literature. Explore: The Journal of Science and Healing - September 2010 (Vol. 6, Issue 5, Pages 308-312, DOI: 10.1016/j http://www.explorejournal.com/article/S1550-8307(10)00144-8/abstract; full article: http://www.bravewell.org/content/IM_E_CE_Final.pdf

Kooreman P, Baars E: Patients whose GP knows complementary medicine have lower costs and live longer. Eur J Health Econ 2011; DOI: 10.1007/s10198-011-0330-2. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0415641211002062

Marian F, Joost K, Saini KD, von Ammon K, Thurneysen A, Busato A. Patient satisfaction and side effects in primary care: an observational study comparing homeopathy and conventional medicine. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2008 Sep 18;8:52. http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6882/8/52

Rist L, Schwabl H: Komplementärmedizin im politischen Prozess. Schweizer Bevölkerungstimmt über Verfassungsartikel «Zukunft mit Komplementärmedizin» ab. Forsch Komplementmed 2009, doi 10.1159/000203073. (Translation: Complementary medicine in the political process: The Swiss population votes on the Constitutional Articlehttp://www.ayurveda-association.eu/files/swiss_referendum_on_cam_-_forschkomplementmed_2009.pdf

2010-11-05-dana2.jpg

Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com . He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (the Foreword to this book was written by Dr. Peter Fisher, the Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.

Become a Facebook Fan of Dana Ullman and Respect for Homeopathy

Reply, Reply All or Forward | More


----------



## jeremiyah

http://gordonresearch.com/articles_cardiovascular/Wobenzym-Steinman interview.pdf

"Garry is smarter than your doctor
and, even if your doctor is brilliant,
he or she could learn a thing of two
from Dr. Gordon.
If you're a health-conscious consumer,
you've probably never heard
much talk about Gordon-although
within the field of complementary
medicine, practitioners are always
talking about Dr. Gordon and where
his research is heading.
Like a river, Dr. Gordon is always
flowing. And, as the ancient Greek
philosopher Heraclitus observed, you
cannot step into the same river twice.
Most reporters and writers-even
some famous ones-have tossed
down their notebooks, switched off
their recorders and thrown up their
hands in frustration, begging Dr.
Gordon to just slow down. To explain
things. To start with basics. But he
doesn't have time for lightweights.
He can't or won't slow down; we're
not sure which. Because, of course,
Dr. Gordon is a man on a mission,
which is to educate his fellow doctors
on the true cause of heart disease;
and the true cause of cancer;
the true cause of many other conditions;
the safest, most effective treatments
for these and many other
conditions; the list could go on and
on. So, you see, he can't simply slow
down. He doesn't have time."

Hello Jerry. Thought this article from "FACT" would excite you... See you this weekend!
Sent on the Sprint® Now Network from my BlackBerry®

-----Original Message-----
From: FACT <[email protected]>
Date: Tue, 2 Nov 2010 16:12:59
To: <[email protected]>
Subject: Energy Medicine: Futuristic Healing With Ancient Roots

Energy medicine is in our future and many are practicing this now. I am very impressed with a new laser and I love the use of microelectric stimulation and pulsed or static magnetic fields. Today we see a resurgence of interest in homeopathy where we know for
certain that often less is more. This makes homeopathy an affordable method of treating patients but the science behind it requires discussing the new physics.

This attached article is meant to keep us abreast of current developments in energy medicine.

Garry F. Gordon MD,DO,MD(H)
President, Gordon Research Institute
www.gordonresearch.com

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/energy-medicine-futuristi_b_632418.html

Dana Ullman
Expert in homeopathic medicine
Posted: July 7, 2010 08:50 AM

Energy Medicine: Futuristic Healing With Ancient Roots
"I have been trying to think of the earth as a kind of organism, but it is no go. I cannot think of it this way. It is too big, too complex, with too many working parts lacking visible connections. The other night, driving through a hilly, wooded part of southern New England, I wondered about this. If not like an organism, what is it like, what is it most like? Then, satisfactorily for that moment, it came to me: it is most like a single cell."
-- Lewis Thomas, M.D., former President of Sloan-Kettering Institute, and author of Lives of a Cell (from which this quote is taken).

The study of energy medicine is the study of the "many working parts lacking visible connections." The forces and fields that connect organ to organ, body to mind, and mind to nature are not always visible. This invisibility does not mean that they do not exist. It may only mean that we have not even looked for it or have not yet developed the technology to objectively see, feel, or measure these inter-connective forces.


----------



## jeremiyah

Here are some books for starters;

STARTER BOOK; EXCELLENT AND CHEAP;
Boericke & Tafel - Family Guide to Self-Medication - Boericke & Tafel
http://www.imedmart.com/Boericke-And-Tafel.html

ELAINE'S FAVORITE;
DR ASA HERSHOFF, ND, DC

http://www.amazon.com/Homeopathic-Remedies-Common-Disorders-Treatments/dp/089529950X

Back to Minimum Price Homeopathic Books home page

Photo reprinted from Teleosis School of Homeopathy

READABLE ONLINE;
Family Guide to Homeopathy: Symptoms and Natural Solutions
By Andrew Lockie
http://books.google.com/books?id=Rc...onepage&q=family self help homeopathy&f=false

THIS CHART IS AWESOME;

TRAUMATIC MAN By Dr. Asa HERSHOFF, ND, DC
http://www.nature-reveals.com/traumatic-man.html

Laminated chart (8.5" x 11").

http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=40585

http://www.healthabounds2.com/pages...homeopathic-quick-n-easy-reference-guides.php


----------



## jeremiyah

FIRST AID ROOM:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/19758470/Family-Homeopathy-A-Practical-Handbook

http://www.scribd.com/doc/2059772/Under-the-Volcano-Homeopathic-Remedies-from-Inside-the-Earth

http://www.scribd.com/doc/50062433/7/Homeopathics-for-Radiation-Injury

FREE STUFF;

http://www.homeopathyworldcommunity...pathic?id=3101571:Topic:15343&page=2#comments

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/t/text/text-idx?page=browse;c=homeop;cc=homeop;key=author

http://homeoint.org/english/index.htm

http://www.simillimum.com/education/little-library/homoeopathic-philosophy/chd/article.php

HOE - Home

"This site is dedicated to the study of Homœopathy and provides educational information, articles and services to homœopaths all over the globe."

Home
Education
Course Information
Members Login
About H.O.E
Contact Us

H.O.E Poll
What homoeopathic potencies do you use?
X (Decimal)
C (Centesimal)
LM (50 Millesimal)
C and LM
X, C and LM

View results
Version 2.04

Can Homoeopathy be Dangerous?
You are: / Home / Education / Little Library /
© David Little 1996-2007, all rights reserved.
Tools: Print Printable Version

Healer Do No Harm!

The question has been asked "Can Homoeopathy be dangerous?". Homoeopathy is an extremely safe healing art when the practitioners is well trained in this healing art. Homoeopathy is only dangerous when the cardinal principles which Samuel Hahnemann integrated into Homoeopathy are ignored. The cardinal principles are similars cure similars, the single remedy, the minimal dose, and the potentized remedy. These four principles form the checks and balances which make Homoeopathy a safe and effective healing art. When the cardinal principles and methodology of The Organon of the Healing Arts are carefully learned they provide the foundation of a safe, rapid and gentle cure.

On this solid basis a homoeopathician learns how to avoid and manage the potential side-effects encounter ed during the process of healing. For this reason it is important to learn proper case management procedures. One of the most important areas of study is the nature of various remedy reactions and their causes. If this basic material is understood Homoeopathy is extremely safe when compared with other systems. If, however, homoeopathic remedies are used without an understanding of the basic principles and methodology of Homoeopathy they have the potential to be dangerous. Homoeopathy provides its own safety net which can not be found in other systems which use homoeopathic potencies in unhomoeopathic ways.

It is most important point is to understand homoeopathic posology and methodology very well. This avoids most of the potential trouble and offers effective counter measures for those negative situations which may arise. In order to offer some light on this subject we offer the following material for study which reviews the safety factors integrated into Homoeopathy by Samuel Hahnemann.

1. Appendix 1a., The 4 Cardinal Principles of Homoeopathy.

2. Appendix 1b. A Concise Review of Remedy Reactions.

3. Appendix 1c. Questions and Answers.

The Four Cardinal Principles of Homoeopathy

Homoeopathy is based on four cardinal principles: likes cure likes, the single remedy, the minimal dose and the potentized remedy. These are the checks and balances which make Homoeopathy a safe and effective system. Thus Homoeopathy has a safety net integrated into the use of similars. The following article is a post from my archive that deals with this subject. This sets the foundation of homoeopathic philosophy.

1. The First Principle of Homoeopathy is Similars cure Similars.

Homoeopathy uses the similar remedy to cure similar diseases. All homoeopathic remedies are tested on healthy volunteers so that the symptoms they produce demonstrate the nature of the illnesses they will cure. After careful provings they are tested in clinical trials on those who are ill with similar disorders. After a detailed assessment of their potential causative rubrics and symptomatology these similar remedies are entered into the homoeopathic repertory and materia medica. Thus the homoeopathic reference works are a careful balance of provings and clinical confirmations. Homoeopathic remedies are chosen by similar constitutional factors, aetiology and the totality of the signs and symptoms. A remedy chosen in this way is called the "simillimum".

All diseases have an effect on the entire human organism which manifests as signs and symptoms on the mental and physical levels. The instinctive vital force attempts to externalize constitutional disharmony in the form of local affections and one sided complaints in the more external parts. This movement outward acts as a pressure valve which seeks to protect the inner most sensitive organs of the mind, nervous system, lungs, heart, liver, kidneys, etc. Therefore, the constitutional vital force may set up a local discharge, a regional affection or a persistent one-sided complaint to palliate an internal disorder. This phenomena has been observed since the time of Hippocrates (c. 450 B.C.), the father of the constitutional philosophy.

If a local manifestation of this constitutional derangement is treated one-sidedly by a single symptom or a common disease name it may suppress this palliatory expression of the vital force causing the disease to metastasize to the interior regions producing a more complex pathological state. This is a primary aspect of the suppression syndrome as recorded in the Introduction of The Organon of the Healing Arts (page 32 & 33) and The Chronic Diseases. Such phenomena can be caused by homoeopathic, naturopathic and allopathic remedies when used improperly. For example, I once gave a remedy which cleared up a digestive problem and rapidly caused maddening headaches and a crisis of the inner ear. One would have to be in tremendous denial not to admit such a mistake. Fortunately, those trained in the complete homoeopathic system have been taught to watch for such negative signs and know how to apply the appropriate counter measures.

For these reasons traditional homoeopaths collect all the data related to the spirit and mind, domestic and social relationships, the physical constitution, aetiology, miasms, iatrogenesis, suppressions and the signs and symptoms (Org. § 5, 6, 7, etc.). In this way a homoeopath avoids treating any one single symptom and the use of nosological disease names as a basis for a prescription. A homoeopath uses the symptoms of the complete mind-body complex as the basis for the administration of a homoeopathic potency. In this way the suppressive potential of homoeopathic remedies is neutralized.

Many eclectics mix several healing methods in such a manner that can only be called unique. Some are using potentized remedies in combinations under the illusion that they practice a new improved form of Homoeopathy or naturopathy. Others give new-age health products which have vitamins, minerals, herbs and homoeopathic remedies. These remedies are not administered by the law of similars and can truly be called unhomoeopathic. The combination remedies of old times were low potencies given by simple indications. Today's new age combinations have high potencies or all potencies mixed together. These individuals are under the illusion that homoeopathic remedies are completely safe no matter how one uses them. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Some individuals use potentized remedies in a questionable manner because they remove the safety features Hahnemann integrated to lower the chance of side-effects. One such system is the Sequential Therapy (ST) of Elgimer which uses combinations of high potency remedies chosen by causations, disease names, and isopathy. Some of his students claim that Hahnemann had two methods of giving remedies, the homogenic and homoeopathic. These so- called "homogenic remedies' are prescribed by disease names without any recourse to the signs and symptoms of the patient. Such methods increase the chance of suppression, prolonged aggravations and remedy produced diseases.

2. The Second Principle of Homoeopathy is the Single Remedy.

Homoeopaths do not look at each individual disease name or symptom in isolation. They look at the entire constitutional expression of the individual through the totality of the symptoms. As each individual represents a single mind/body organism any mistunement of the unitary vital force produces a syndrome of signs and symptoms. This singular constitutional state is most similar to the single remedy that is the simillimum of the entire derangement. The singularity of the similar remedy reflects the integrated nature of the defensive powers as well as the unitary nature of the vital force. The single remedy allows the vital force to concentrate its maximum healing power on the essential picture of the illness rather than dispersing vital energy in reaction to several medicinal influences simultaneously.

The reason homoeopaths do not use combination remedies is that it makes case management of complex problems almost impossible. Combination remedies often have remedial qualities which are contradictory in nature. The practitioner has no idea what the combined action of several remedies and potencies may have on the individual. There is no way to manage a case because you can not tell what may be causing aggravations, new symptoms or amelioration. Combinations have no provings which test their actions on the healthy so their indications in disease are completely unknown. Hahnemann also experimented with dual remedies in 1832 but found them ineffective and their actions difficult to assess. For these reasons he left them completely behind. These are a few of the reasons homoeopaths do not use combination remedies. They are inherently allopathic in nature.

A homoeopathic remedy works by being similar to the disease state but slightly stronger due to potentization. The primary action of the homoeopathic remedy is opposed by the secondary healing action of the vital force which leads to the cure. If a constitution is too warm a similar warm remedy in potency will stimulate the opposite reaction of coolness from the instinctive vital force bringing the individual toward a balanced state of health. This is Hahnemann's model of how homoeopathic remedies work (Organon, § 63, 64, 65, 66). Sensitive constitutions make the best provers (remedy testers) of homoeopathic remedies because they will react to almost any remedy. This has been demonstrated many times. The homoeopathic materia medica is based on provings on the healthy as well as clinical confirmations on the ill. In this way homoeopaths know the remedial actions of their potentized remedies.

It is those with sensitive constitutions, hidden pathology, and weakened vitality who are prone to be hypersensitive to homoeopathic remedies. They make up a significant percentage of our contemporary cases. If such a constitution is too warm, and they are given a cold remedial potency, the vital force will oppose this primary coolness by producing more secondary heat making the disease worse not better. Such phenomena have been documented. If we give a combination of remedies including a shy remedy, an aggressive remedy, a cold remedy, a hot remedy, a dry remedy and a moist remedy, the secondary action of the vital force may become fragmented running the danger of confusing secondary reactions, coincidental suppression and disruption of the natural symptom pattern. Such reactions are often mistaken for deeper layers, cleansing crises or new diseases by those who have not mastered the fundamentals of homoeopathic methodology. Such difficulties can be avoided by a proper education in homoeopathic philosophy.

3. The Third Principle of Homoeopathy is the Minimum Dose.

Hahnemann learned early in his career that medical practice was dangerous. The side-effects he experienced with orthodox medicine upset him so much he stopped using allopathic drugs and treatments. After this bitter experience he decided to practice the natural healing arts in the tradition of Hippocrates, the father of western medicine. The ancient Greeks were very careful with the use of medicines. They relied on diet, lifestyle, exercise and philosophy for cure as well as materia medica. Hahnemann's use of the Hippocratic methods was so successful that the first "Hahnemannian Treatment" was pure Greek naturopathy. As the young doctor applied his 'new' treatments he began a search for the proper ways to use remedial agents. This was the beginning of Homoeopathy.

Hahnemann was very careful with his doses of homoeopathic remedies. Many homoeopaths misunderstand the nature of the minimal dose. Most modern homoeopaths believe that there is no difference in the action of one homoeopathic pill and one thousand pills ad infinitum. They confuse the small amount of original substance in a high potency with the maxim of the minimal dose. In truth they are two different synergistic principles. The concept that the dose does not matter can be traced to James Kent and can be found in his classic Lectures on Homoeopathic Philosophy in the chapter called On Simple Substance. In this work Kent explains the Swedenborgian theory that energy is based on a fourth state of matter called the "simple substance". Hahnemann noticed right from the very start that a homoeopath must be very careful with both the potency and size of the dose. He found that the size of the dose was as important as the potency factor in the producing the phenomena of aggravation. For this reason the amount of the dose is as carefully regulated as the level of the potency in Hahnemannian Homoeopathy. Vide aphorism 275.

"The suitableness of a medicine for any given case of disease does not depend on its accurate homoeopathic selection alone, but likewise on the proper size, or rather smallness, of the dose. If we give too strong a dose of a medicine which may have been even quite homoeopathically chosen for the morbid state before us, it must, notwithstanding the inherent beneficial character of its nature, prove injurious by its mere magnitude, and by the unnecessary, too strong impression which, by virtue of its homoeopathic similarity of action, it makes upon the vital force which it attacks and, through the vital force, upon those parts of the organism which are the most sensitive, and are already most affected by the natural disease."

Modern physics states that all forms of energy are contained in small energy packets called quantums. The amplitude of a force is increased when the number of quantums of energy present are expanded at any given wave length. In the same way, Hahnemann taught that each pill of a homoeopathic remedy possessed a certain amount or "quantum" of medicinal energy. In a sense the potency of a remedy represents the wave form or frequency of the energy and the number of pills represents the amplitude or power of the signal. This is why the power of a homoeopathic dose increases each time the practitioner uses more pills when preparing the remedy for ingestion. Hahnemann gave a direct warning about the abuse of the small number #10 pills. Vide The Chronic Diseases.

"The physician can, indeed, make no worse mistake than first, to consider as too small the doses which I (forced by experience) have reduced after manifold trials and which are indicated with every anti psoric remedy...."

As the potencies of homoeopathic remedies became higher Hahnemann progressively reduced the size of the dose. This is why he stopped using drop doses of the alcohol base potencies and began using the small pills we are all so familiar with. Even here he found that the number of pills still needed to be strictly controlled. In the note to this page Hahnemann speaks of the mistakes he made in his earlier experiments when he used too many pills in his homoeopathic practice.

"I have myself experienced this accident, which is very obstructive to cure and cannot be avoided too carefully. Still ignorant of the strength of its medicinal power, I gave Sepia in too large a dose. This trouble was still more manifest when I gave Lycopdium and Silicea, potentized to the one-billionth degree, giving four to six pellets, though only as large as poppy seeds. Discite moniti!"

Most modern homoeopaths interpret the size of the dose as being synonymous with the level of the potency. They mistakenly believe that using the smallest dose relates to the tiny amount of the original substance present in a high potency remedy. This is not the full story as Hahnemann speaks of the difference between the size or amount of a dose and the potency factor in his writings. Hahnemann taught that the phenomenon of the aggravation was not only linked to the potency, but also to the number of pills used when giving the dose. The unwarranted use of a random number of pills of a high potency remedy is the exact opposite of what Hahnemann taught as the minimal dose.

The minimal dose means that the homoeopath should use the least amount of medicinal stimulation necessary to bring about a healing reaction. This is why the maxim of the minimum dose includes three variable factors, i. e. the size of the dose, the level of the potency, and the number of times the remedy is used. Hahnemann recommends that a homoeopathic remedy be given in a dose as "sufficiently minute i.e. as small as possible". This is because even the correct homoeopathic remedy given in proper potency but in an unnecessarily large amount will aggravate the case and delay the cure. In patients with severe pathological tissue changes, hypersensitivity, or suffering from lack of vitality, large doses may be dangerous.

4. The Fourth Principle of Homoeopathy is the Potentized Remedy.

Some remedy combinations are low potencies, some are high potencies, some are mixtures of both. Some have several potencies of several remedies. None of the potencies in such combinations can be individualized to the disease state nor symptoms. There is absolutely no standard of manufacture nor uniform code of administration. Potentized remedies are extremely powerful and should not be treated like some new age holistic "good for everyone" health product. Most combination practitioners do not understand the homoeopathic posology system nor how to apply it to an individual state of disease. This is because they do not understand the science and philosophy of Homoeopathy. *This increases the risk of side-effects.

* In this document I have exclusively used the words like "potential to, may cause and runs the danger of, etc.." This is because such negative phenomena depend on variable causes and circumstances and are not absolute in nature. Nevertheless, the percentage of cases in which they do occur should be of concern to healers in all fields.

Discite Moniti! (Heed this warning!)

"Discite Moniti!" cried Hahnemann in The Chronic Diseases (page 206) after he misused his new anti-psoric remedies in ignorance of their potential powers. Homoeopaths have always tried to learn from their mistakes and prevent others from repeating them. It is the principles of individualization, likes cure likes, the single remedy, the minimal dose and the potentized remedy which makes Homoeopathy a safe and effective system. Without these cardinal principles the use of similars is potentially dangerous. These are the checks and balances that Hahnemann integrated into his system as he perfected the method. It is these principles which provide the path to a gentle, rapid and permanent cure.

Why do classical homoeopaths respect these principles so much??? Because over the years in our ignorance we have given the wrong remedies and caused negative affects, suppressed symptoms with partial simillimums, given the wrong potency, used too large a dose, disrupted the vital force with untimely repetition, and aggravated cases to the point of danger on occasions. Such difficult moments are great teachers. They cause one to go back to basics and see where one has gone wrong. Our cautions are not given lightly nor with lack of personal experience. We have also witnessed suppressions, over medication, and symptom disruptions coming from other healing disciplines. Remember the first Hippocratic maxim is "Healer ,do no harm!"

The night can be long and sleepless for a homoeopath with a conscience. Hahnemann learned by trial and error and so must we. That is the lonely path a healer must tread. No one has a perfect track record. Homoeopaths have always been very honest about this. As one's remedies become more accurate, and one's cases more serious, the potential for difficulties only deepens. Some say they have never seen any problems, suppressions, aggravations nor side-actions caused by homoeopathic remedies. For them such a thing is impossible, and therefore, it does not exist at all. Do they mean that all those homoeopaths who have witnessed such things over the last 200 years must be crazy? Such is the state of their denial.

To those of us who have caused problems in our own cases, as well as discussed them in the cases of our honest colleagues, such absolute claims sound very, very hollow. We have case histories which demonstrate the negative affects of giving an incorrect homoeopathic remedy and the wrong potency and dosage. We have accepted our mistakes and try to learn from them as all responsible healers must do. If one carefully follows the cardinal principles of Homoeopathy such difficulties can be reduced to a minimum and mistakes easily rectified. Without the homoeopathic principles the power of potentized remedies is very difficult to control.

This wisdom is born of two centuries of clinical experience and is not religious dogma, fundamentalism nor prideful fanaticism. Many do not understand the chain of human experience behind these cardinal principles and cautions. Even to become a homoeopath takes 5 years of training to learn the basics and another 5 years of clinical experience to master those fundamentals. For the next 10 years one must keep studying case histories and materia medica daily. Then one finally is an experienced homoeopathician. There is no other way. Of course, many are looking for a short cut because they lack the dedication it takes to be a real homoeopathician. I have watched such healers over the last 25 years and their knowledge of Homoeopathy never grows. They do the same things today as they did all those years ago. If one takes a "short cut" in the beginning one's knowledge is "cut short" in the end. You get out exactly what you put in!

A Concise Review of Remedy Reactions

The Organon of the Healing Art is the text on which Homoeopathy is based. It teaches homoeopathic methodology and case management in a grand fashion. One of the subjects is a detailed study of the positive and negative signs which may be elicited by homoeopathic remedies. Much of the material on remedy reactions seems very complex, but when it is broken down into its basic components, it becomes easier to understand.

The first dose of a homoeopathic remedy is a test dose. No one can judge the constitutional sensitivity of each individual perfectly. For this reason the safest thing to do is give one single test dose and carefully watch for signs of action of the remedy. There are always three questions to consider right at the start of any treatment i.e., is the remedy the true simillimum, is it a wrong remedy, or is it a partial simillimum? Of course, the best sign is a striking improvement in all the symptoms and the state of vitality. What does it mean when there is an increase of the symptoms present or the production of new ones? What does the return of old symptoms mean? The answers to these questions revolve around the following four queries

1. What is similar aggravation?

A similar aggravation is an increase of the symptoms the individual already suffers. For example, a remedy is given for a chronic backache and the pains become worse after the dose. This is caused by too large a dose (too many pills or teaspoons), too high a potency (C or LM), or the repetition of the remedy when not needed. No further doses are needed as the primary action of the remedy is too strong for the vital force to begin its secondary reaction. If the aggravation is not severe it is best to wait and watch the symptoms closely as there soon will be a healing secondary action which will not only bring relief but start the road toward a greater state of health. If the aggravation is causing great pain and distress the remedy may have to be canceled.

2. What is a dis-similar aggravation?

A dis-similar aggravation is when a remedy produces "new and troublesome symptoms" not appertaining to the disease being treated. For example, one is treating the chronic backache and the person gets a stomach ache after taking the remedy and feels bad all over. If the headache is no better and these new symptoms persist it is a sign of the wrong remedy. The key here is "the new and troublesome" aspect. A new case should be built around the combination of the natural and new remedial symptoms and a corrective remedy given. If a dis-similar aggravation is severe it should be antidoted.

3. What are accessory symptoms?

Sometimes a remedy will bring out side-actions which are called accessory symptoms. These are symptoms of the remedy that are unhomoeopathic to the person who is taking the remedy. If they are mild and transient they will not interfere with the cure. If they increase it is a sign that the remedy is only a partial simillimum and has done all the work it can do. The case should be retaken.

This often leads to the question; what is the difference between accessory symptoms and the symptoms of a dis-similar aggravation? Both involve an increase of new signs rather than an increase of the symptoms present or the appearance of old ones from the past. The differential analysis used to assess these two states are as follows.

A. A dis-similar aggravation produces "new and troublesome symptoms" not directly related to the case while the mental state, general vitality and health of the person seems to be getting worse. The person's chief complaints are not improving while new symptoms of a troubling nature increase. It is time to retake the case and find an alternative that suits the situation.

B. Accessory symptoms are seen when the person is improving in health and vitality but new symptoms begin to appear. These symptoms are side-actions of the chosen remedy that are unhomoeopathic to the individual's complaint. When these symptoms are trifling and pass off rapidly they will not interfere with the cure. If the symptoms increase or become persistent this means the remedy is a partial simillimum that is beginning to obstruct the cure. This is a sign it is time to retake the case and give a more perfect remedy. It is only when such symptoms become severe that an antidote is needed.

Thus in a dis-similar aggravation new symptoms increase and the vitality is lowered. A partial simillimum produces new symptoms while the person's health is improving and vitality increasing. If the partial simillimum is close enough to the center of the derangement it will move the constitution closer to a greater state of health. If the partial simillimum is too distant from the central core of the vital disruption it will continue to produce its own signs until they dominate the symptomatology. Such a situation can be aborted if the homoeopath readily understands the nature of the presenting signs and acts accordingly. All of these essential aspects of case management are carefully explained in the aphorisms of The Organon.

4. What is a natural healing crisis?

Lastly, the homoeopath must know the difference between the 3 types of homoeopathic reactions and a natural healing crisis.

A. A homoeopathic aggravation is controlled by the primary action of a homoeopathic remedy while a natural healing crisis is controlled by the secondary action of the vital force. Therefore, natural healing cycles are under the curative power of the vital principle within the constitution. Such a natural crisis is not overly prolonged nor dangerous to the health of the individual.

B. A homoeopathic aggravation is the increase of those things present (similar aggravation) or the production of unrelated new symptoms (dis-similar aggravation). A true natural healing crisis produces the return of old symptoms and suppressed disease signs as well as surrogate eliminations. A natural healing crisis is always quickly followed by a greater sense of health and an increase in vitality. This is the basis of Hering's Laws. If the return of old symptoms is prolonged, or more painful than the original complaint, it is a sign of a similar homoeopathic aggravation. In this situation the primary action of the similar remedy forces a severe crisis as the old symptoms return. This is a sign that the size of the dose is too large, the potency too high, or the remedy was repeated when it was not needed.

Similibus Curentur

Sincerely, David Little

Questions and Answers

"Hi David,

I do so love the way you tease out a complex question into component parts. This is an area that can trip us all up! Can I ask some daft questions as I'm very fascinated by all of this?" You wrote: A similar aggravation indicates the right remedy in the wrong dose. I assume you mean a worsening of the symptom picture?"

Answer:

Yes! For example, if we had a Rhus-t. client who has a backache, and the backache becomes intensified, this is a similar aggravation. A similar aggravation is caused by the primary action of a homoeopathic remedy as it replaces the natural disease with its remedial action. If the size of the dose, the level of the potency, or the number of repetitions are excessive, the symptoms of the remedy which are truly homoeopathic to the individual will be heightened for a longer or shorter period of time. Normally, it is only a matter of time before the remedial effect lessens and the secondary counteraction of the vital force moves the constitution toward the state of health. If the remedy preparation was exceptionally excessive for the sensitivity of the individual, the primary action may dominate for long time periods, thus weakening the vitality of the organism, and lessening the curative secondary effects. If the primary action is so excessive it is dangerous the remedy must be canceled by a dynamic antidote.

Question:

"What do you do with cases that have a hair trigger eg: thuja 6c one dose leading to status asthmaticus and 8 weeks in hospital? (this was her first ever homoeopathic remedy and a very close match). I don't know if you caught the trauma debate in the autumn, but this issue came up a lot with cases that through trauma were tightened up real tight and tended to explode on contact - no matter what technique or potency was attempted. This was always worse when you got a simillimum as it tended to remove defensive structures/symptoms, thus releasing the state - often memory of the trauma or flash backs would come up."

Answer:

Her sensitivity must have been 1000 +++ on Hahnemann's sensitivity scale. If the dose is carefully adjusted in a medicinal solution, and given in small doses, most of these side-effects can be overcome. In such cases it is wise to prepare the remedy in a medicinal solution with the addition of a dilution glass. In the extremely sensitive patients a second, third, or more dilution glasses can be used. Even if it is a 6c, the dose should be prepared in the same way as an LM potency. Hahnemann was witnessed administering his centesimal potencies in this fashion. In the last two recorded cases he prepared the centesimals and the LMs in exactly the same fashion. If one gets strong reactions such as in the above case, it is best to antidote the remedy as fast as possible with a dynamic antidote. The same remedy can be reintroduced, if thought to still be indicated, at a later time in a much more refined dose.

Question:

"Could you clarify your following statement?"

"A dis-similar aggravation indicates the wrong remedy".

Answer:

A dis-similar aggravation occurs when the remedy produces new and troublesome symptoms not appertaining to the disease at hand. To use our same example of the Rhus-t and the backache: after administering the remedy the backache is no better and the person develops headaches and chill which they have never experienced before. This is a sign of a wrong remedy. If the disruption is not severe the case should be retaken and a more perfect simillimum given as soon as possible. The will regularize the vital force and move the case forward. If the reaction is severe, the remedy should be canceled by a dynamic antidote.

Question:

"David wrote: accessory symptoms means a partial simillimum. So a partial simillimum can produce accessory (proving symptoms) of that partial simillimum?"

Answer:

Hahnemann states in The Organon that is very difficult to get a remedy which fits the disease exactly like two triangles of the exact same size one over the other. There are always a few edges or corners that will stick out. These edges represent areas where the remedy is not perfectly homoeopathic to the case at hand. When a remedy is a partial simillimum it has the potential to bring out "side-effect" symptoms of the remedy which are unhomoeopathic to the individual. This is somewhat common, but when the remedy is close enough, the remedial symptoms are so slight and trifling they pass off easily without much bother. The farther away from the central disturbance the remedy is, the more potential there is for the production of strong accessory symptoms. A partial simillimum moves the case forward, but at the same time, it produces new symptoms which may mix with the natural symptoms impeding the cure. When this is the situation, the case must be retaken, and a new more perfect remedy given. This new remedy should regularize the vital force, remove the remedial symptoms, and ameliorate the natural symptoms.

I hope I haven't raised more question than I have answered. Maybe I have. After all, the question is sometimes more important than the answer.

Similia Minimus
- - - Finis - - -

http://www.simillimum.com/education/little-library/homoeopathic-philosophy/chd/article.php

http://www.homeoint.org/books3/kentlect/index.htm


----------



## jeremiyah

*

Homeopathy For Radiation Poisoning*

Introduction:

A homeopath by the name of Emil Grubbe, M.D. (1875-1960) was the first person to use radiation to treat a person with cancer (Dearborn, 2005).

In January 1896, Grubbe was a student at the Hahnemann Medical College (of Chicago, a famous homeopathic medical school). He gave radiation treatment to Mrs. Rose Lee, a woman with breast cancer.

Grubbe got the idea of using radiation as a treatment for Lee's breast cancer from Reuben Ludlam, M.D., a professor at the homeopathic medical school. Ludlam knew that Grubbe had previously experimented with X-ray as a diagnostic procedure so much that he developed blisters and tumors on his hand and neck as a result of overexposure to this new technology.

Because one of the basic premises of homeopathic medicine is that small doses of a treatment can help to heal those symptoms that large doses are known to cause, Ludlam suggested to Grubbe that radiation may be a treatment for conditions such as tumors because it also causes them.

This incident is but one more example from history in which an insight from a homeopathic perspective has provided an important breakthrough in medical treatment.

Even though Grubbe had to have one hand amputated early in life due to the high exposures received from his early experiences with radiation, he ultimately lived a long and full life of 85 years, in part due to the homeopathic treatment he received throughout his life. Grubbe also had a long and distinguished career as a professor of electro-therapeutics and radiography at Hahnemann Medical College, and he is thought to have become the first professor of Roentgenology in the world (Hodges, 1964).

True to his interests in conveying his discoveries to all doctors, Dr. Grubbe served as professor at four different Chicago medical schools, including homeopathic, eclectic, and allopathic medical schools.

Grubbe's contribution to medicine and science was further enhanced by the fact that he was the first to use lead as a protection against radiation exposure.

The point of this introduction is to confirm that homeopaths have a long history of using homeopathic medicines in the treatment of people who have been exposed to radiation ... including many people, such as Emil Grubbe who were exposed to significant amounts of radiation and lived long and fruitful lives.

Homeopathy and homeopaths are also deeply connected to the origins of X-rays and radiation treatment in other ways too. Paul Francois Curie, M.D. (1799-1853) was a respected French army surgeon who became a homeopath in 1832. He became a friend and student of Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., the very founder of homeopathy. Curie moved to London in 1835 at the request of William Leaf, a silk merchant, where he treated the elite of London with homeopathic medicines as well as opened free homeopathic clinics for the poor.

Dr. Paul Curie was the first homeopath to use and experiment with safer homeopathic doses of radium. In fact, John Henry Clarke, M.D., a British homeopath, wrote the book, "Radium as an Internal Remedy" in 1908 and dedicated it to Dr. Paul Curie.

As it turned out, Paul Curie's son, Eugène Curie, also became a physician, and Eugène's son was Pierre Curie (1859-1906), who with his wife Marie Curie (1867-1934), won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1903 for their seminal work in radiation phenomena.

In these opening remarks, I also want to urge us all to avoid spreading fear within ourselves and to others. Although it is good to be prepared for potential disasters, it is important to avoid exacerbating these emotions by overfeeding them.

With the media-promoted concerns about radiation drift from Japan and the real and exaggerated fears that many people are experiencing now, the first homeopathic medicine that people today may consider taking is Arsenicum album 30C. Arsenicum album is a leading homeopathic medicine for anxiety and fear, especially around health issues and about being poisoned. Taking a single dose whenever one notices these strong emotional states is reasonable, but consider repeated use if recommended to do so by a professional homeopath.

Conventional Thinking as a Reasonable First Step

The official line about the type and intensity of radiation exposure we face seems to change every day everywhere. People can and should consider this issue when evaluating and determining what they will do.

The American Center for Disease Control (CDC) ( recommends potassium iodide for helping prevent the absorption of radiation into the thyroid gland and provides good, practical information. Essentially, they recommend that people over 12 years of age take 130 mg of iodine in order to flood the thyroid, thereby disabling it from absorbing radioactive iodine. Such actions are certainly prudent if and when there is evidence of radioactive iodide, though to date, exposure to it has not been a public health concern. My discussion of what my family and I will be doing to protect and/or treat exposure to radioactivity is in addition to the CDC recommendations.

Please note, however, that potassium iodide seems to only protect against iodine-related radiation, not other types of radiation from cesium, strontium, nitrogen, and tritium. Further, the Japanese are working to reduce radiation emission by dousing the container with graphite and borax, both of which may change the nature of the emissions.

Scientific Evidence for the Homeopathic Treatment of Environmental Poisons

Before discussing the history of use of homeopathic medicines for exposure to radioactivity, it is first important to know that there is a significant body of research to show the benefits of homeopathic medicines in treating environmental exposures of toxic substances.

Back in 1994, a highly respected group of researchers reviewed 105 animal studies that evaluated the ability of homeopathic medicines to discharge heavy metals from the bodies of mice (Linde, Jonas, Melchart, et al, 1994). This review found that the best results were in the studies that were deemed to be scientifically rigorous. When evaluating only these higher quality studies, the researchers found a significant reduced death rate from exposure to toxic minerals (arsenic, mercury, cadmium, bismuth) when homeopathic doses of these substances were given to the animals (as compared with those given a placebo).

Since 1994, more than a dozen new studies have confirmed these results. A group of university researchers in India have conducted a body of laboratory trials testing the effects of heavy metals on mice which were given homeopathic doses of these toxic substances after exposure (Datta, Mallick, Khuda-Bukhsh, 2001; Mallick, Chakrabart, Khuda-Bukhsh, 2003; Banerjee P, Mallick, Chakrabarti, Guha, et al, 2003; Bhattacharya, 2003; Bhattacharyya SS, Pathak S, 2008; Human and Experimental Toxicology, 2010). * (*It is not appropriate to list all of the studies here, but people with an interest in this subject can review the references in these articles.)

At present, arsenic in groundwater has affected millions of people globally distributed over 20 countries. In parts of West Bengal (India) and Bangladesh alone, over 100 million people are at risk, and supply of arsenic-free water is grossly inadequate.

Attempts to remove groundwater arsenic by using orthodox medicines have mostly been unsuccessful. A potentized homeopathic remedy made from arsenic (Arsenicum album 30C) was administered in a double-blind, placebo-control study to a group of groundwater arsenic affected people, and the arsenic contents in urine and blood were periodically evaluated (Khuda-Bukhsh, AR, Pathak, S, Guha, 2005; Belon, Banerjee, Karmakar, et al, 2007). The activities of various toxicity marker enzymes and compounds in the blood, namely aspartate amino transferase, alanine amino transferase, acid phosphatase, alkaline phosphatase, lipid peroxidation and reduced glutathione, were also periodically monitored up to three months. The results are highly encouraging and suggest that the drug can alleviate arsenic poisoning in humans.

Based on this research, it is reasonable to ask if homeopathic doses of radioactive elements and other substances with apparently similar effects are useful.

Experimental Evidence from Homeopathic Treatment of Radiation Exposure

There is not a significant body of studies evaluating the use of homeopathic medicines in the treatment of radiation exposure, but there are a couple of experiments about which people may benefit knowing. Hopefully, knowledge about these previous studies will encourage researchers to replicate them.

Homeopathic research has evaluated the effects of homeopathic medicines to protect against radiation (Khuda-Bukhsh, and Banik, 1991a, 1991b). Albino mice were exposed to 100 to 200 rad of X-rays (sublethal doses) and then evaluated after 24, 48, and 72 hours. Ginseng 6X, 30X, and 200X and Ruta graveolens 30X and 200X were administered before and after exposure. When compared with mice given a placebo as treatment, mice given any of the above homeopathic medicines experienced significantly less chromosomal or cellular damage. Ginseng 30X and 200X, in particular, had significant and sometimes substantial benefits.

In addition to the evidence for the benefits from homeopathic doses of ginseng is other research testing crude doses of it which find that it repairs DNA after radiation exposure (Kim, Lee, Cho, et al., 1996).

In another study, albino guinea pigs were exposed to small doses of X-ray that caused reddening of the skin. Studies showed that homeopathic honeybee (Apis mellifica 7C or 9C) had a protective effect and a roughly 50 percent curative effect on X-ray-induced redness of the skin (Bildet, Guyot, Bonini, et al., 1990). Apis mellifica is a homeopathic medicine for redness, swelling, and itching, all of which are common symptoms that crude doses of bee venom cause ... and thus, homeopathic doses will be found to be effective in treating these symptoms.

Derived from the homeopathic literature and clinical experience over the past many decades, some other potential homeopathic remedies for radiation exposure are listed below, though it is highly recommended to seek out professional homeopathic care to determine the best dose and potency schedule:

Radium bromatum
X-ray
Uranium nitricum
Strontium carbonicum
Calendula ointment
Cadmium sulphuratum
Cadmium iodatum
Ceanothus americanus

Several of the above medicines are derived from radioactive substances, while others have become known after many decades of clinical experience.

Cadmium sulphuratum, for instance, is a well-known homeopathic medicine used to treat people with cancer who experience side effects from radiation treatment.

Cadmium iodatum might be considered for those people exposed to radiation who did not protect the thyroid with crude doses of potassium iodide. Ceanothus is a leading remedy for spleen problems, and because the effects of radiation are known to affect the spleen, this remedy may be an important one for radioprotection. Calendula (marigold) is a well-known herbal and homeopathic medicine. Highly respected research has found excellent results in using Calendula ointment on people who experienced radiotherapy-induced dermatitis (skin rashes) (Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz, 2009).

It should be noted that homeopaths tend to think of themselves as a part of a health care team. As such, they work with other health and medical professionals as well as public health officials to provide options for people and communities so that safe and effective health care can be available.

Important Reference: People who want reference to and description of hundreds of clinical studies published in peer-review medical and scientific journals, could consider getting an ebook that I wrote titled "Homeopathic Family Medicine: Evidence Based Nano-pharmacology" .

My thanks to J. Satti, P.hD, a radiation physicist, and Francis Treuherz, FSHom. for their comments and editorial input to this article.

Dana Ullman, MPH, is America's leading spokesperson for homeopathy and is the founder of www.homeopathic.com . He is the author of 10 books, including his bestseller, Everybody's Guide to Homeopathic Medicines. His most recent book is, The Homeopathic Revolution: Why Famous People and Cultural Heroes Choose Homeopathy (the Foreword to this book was written by Dr. Peter Fisher, the Physician to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II). Dana lives, practices, and writes from Berkeley, California.


----------

