text:
DEONQED
From MicroWiki, the micronational encyclopædia
Democratic Empire of North Queen Elizabeth Drive
2010 — 2014 →
Spoliarium Magna
- Emperor
Adam I (At time of annexation into Adammia)
18 (at peak) (+44 vassal members)
The DEONQED is a state that existed between 2010 and 2014, and was later taken over by Adammia. The DEONQED was a very wealthy state and was relatively powerful for its time, although it never lived up to the glories of old NED. The Empire was built out of the old structure of the NED Republic following The Anarchy which followed the collapse of NED, but was considered to be far more autocratic, oppressive, and increasingly dictatorial. Despite this, the Empire proved a popular rallying point for civilized forces in the Den World sector. The DEONQED succeeded in diplomatic strength in place of NED's military strength, promoting internal conflict amongst its enemies as opposed to trying to wipe them out by themselves.
1 Etymology
2.1 The Formation of the Empire
2.2 The Rise of the Empire
2.3 The Reign of Emperor Ben
2.4 The Decline and Fall of DEONQED
DEONQED is an acronym for the Democratic Empire of Northern Queen Elizabeth Drive. It was made in late 2010 to best describe the new state that was being formed in the top of Queen Elizabeth Drive.
DEONQED had a history which was always overshadowed by that of NED. These tracts are taken out of the official history of the Den World. It should be noted it was only until 2011/12 that DEONQED first became aware of other micronations. Until then, the Den World in its entirety had thought itself to be unique, and to be alone in the world.
The Formation of the Empire
The Empire was founded in late 2010, being reformed by Emperor Will I out of the remains of the NED Republic. This was due to a mistrust of the separation of powers, and the growing opinion that a new leader with supreme power was necessary to defend the territory of the old NED Republic. The reforms of the old NED Republic into the Empire were total, with the position of General being merged with that of the President in the new office of the Emperor, and the old NED Army being reformed into the DEONQED Defence Force. All members of the Empire were granted their own office, and economic development and a passive foreign policy were pursued in order to help the Empire survive.
The Rise of the Empire
It was during late 2010 when DEONQED had to face its first challenge, that of the Corn War. The Raiders, ancient enemies of the NED Republic, had also collapsed and had become known as the Down Roaders, a much looser organisation led by Ashley Pottle, a more renowned criminal than Chris Howard. The Down Roaders were frequently raiding into Spoliarium Magna, which was the Empire's only territory and its stronghold in order to get hold of corn, which was used to pollute the street at the bottom of the road. Ben, the main adviser of Emperor Will I, suggested leaving corn at the entrance of the Den as tribute. However, the Down Roaders only took this corn and continued to gather more, continuing their raids. This led to a confrontation which broke the strength of the Down Roaders, causing the Blackburns and Jake Moore to leave their association.
It was also during the period from 2010 to 2012 that the largest micronational construction projects were carried through, including the Barricades, the Offices, the Secret Stores, and the first Underground Bunker. These construction projects were subject to frequent raids from the Down Roaders and a resurgent Avranches. However, in the summer of 2011, the DEONQED was successful in creating a civil war in Avranches, leading to much of their strength being granted territory in Spoliarium Magna. This group became known as the Visitors, who numbered three. The DEONQED did however suspect them of stealing from the Empire's own stores in order to develop their part of Spoliarium Magna.
However, it was in the years 2010 to 2012 that the population of the Empire dwindled from ten members to five, due to expulsions because of suspected fraternisation with enemies and the moving away of some. This weakening of the manpower of DEONQED meant that in 2012, the Empire could not defend itself as the Imperial Defence Force was abolished in place of all members being expected to take up arms in defence of the Empire, and because the whole Imperial Defence Force had left the Empire. This weakness led to increased raids by the Visitors, Avranches, and the Down Roaders and the destruction of most of the buildings in the Empire. Because of this weakness, on the 28th of September, Emperor Will I embarked on a project to increase the strength of the Empire, by launching the Kingdom of Wertonia.
The Reign of Emperor Ben
It was the 17th of October when Emperor Will I handed over the throne to Ben, who became the second Emperor of DEONQED. It was from December the 10th to December the 26th, the den was completely destroyed by the Farmer, the owner of the land. This destruction of the den was completely catastrophic, and made the area unexplorable for a couple of months. The first inroads to recapture the old den were made in February 2013, when the area was explored, and the NED log was located and recovered on the 23rd , although it had suffered a lot of grievous weathering. This artefact was to be kept safe by Emperor Ben I until its deterioration prompted a restoration drive in 2014. It was not long after this, from February to May, a new shelter was constructed on the site of the old Fox Office. It was built in order to house a new headquarters for DEONQED and its 5 members: Emperor Ben I, Veteran Will, Nathaniel, Jasmine and Eve. By now the old rank system had almost completely disintegrated as had the concept of putting "time" in to get new ranks.
Jasmine and Eve were, however, making a nuisance of themselves by cluttering up the new Shelter, and trying to drag in Ben's mother in order to influence how they were treated in the den. A stand was taken, and a new Law Code was written on the 18th of April, which reaffirmed many old laws and also brought in a host of new ones. After the remains of the old den were burnt down on the 28th. A new phase of expansion began, which was called "Operation Incrementa", which involved the sacking and integration of all known Dens in the Den World.
On the 15th of July, Veteran Will recruited a citizen of Wertonia, Sam, to help settle a new fort in the plantation to the east of Avranches, later to be called Fort NED. On the 16th, administration of Spoliarium Magna was handed over to Nathaniel, who was to administer it as a "knight" while Emperor Ben I and Will went off to the east to explore around Barnfield, in order to find more den nations there, although the mission returned unsuccessful. Lumber den was scouted, and the Westernlea den was also scouted, where it was found to be very infrequently used. In the same period, Kieran, Lewis, Akira and Jack joined Will in helping to re-establish DEONQED around Crediton, further recruits from the Kingdom of Wertonia, while Nathaniel recruited five more members to act as a new population for Spoliarium Magna.
On the 21st of July, a new Constitution for DEONQED was written, with the important clauses that all members of DEONQED must be members of the new DEONQED Army, headed by the Emperor. It totally reprioritized the acquisition of territory and a new military outlook. It also restructured DEONQED to become a new, feudal state based around the acquisition of territory. On the 31st of August, the Shelter was destroyed by Ashley and Callum at 11 o'clock at night. This ended DEONQED's physical presence in that region, but also allowed Emperor Ben I to reallocate the resources there to the Fort NED. Despite this setback, on the 3rd of September Emperor Ben I and Nathaniel got into contact with a major Barnfield den led by Oliver Stapley, and it was agreed it would be annexed into DEONQED, and administered by Nathaniel. However, this was the only contact ever made with it.
On the 19th of September, Westernlea was destroyed in the Sack of Westernlea by DEONQED. However, it was discovered that perhaps the Westernlea den had been inactive for months, if not years, but a great deal of wealth was taken from Westernlea to Fort NED. Fort NED was now officially the capital of DEONQED, and it was the most advanced building ever built by den hands, with a second storey and several offices in one building.
The Decline and Fall of DEONQED
However, despite the huge success of the summer and autumn, Emperor Ben considered his mission to rebuild the Empire was complete. He became increasingly inactive, and the communication with the new territories of DEONQED was lost. The new members drifted away, and the Empire began to crumble in its populated areas, meaning that the Empire now only consisted of Fort NED. A new campaign of exploration was begun in the east, which led to the discovery of Natland on the 30th of March, which was potentially inhabited. Further east, they found a very inactive drug den in the midst of Further Natland. This drug den was dismantled and used to give Fort NED further improvements in its defences and comfort. This injection of new wealth meant that on the 5th of April, Emperor Ben I suggested a raft of new proposals, including the creation of brand new equipment for the DEONQED Army, which was to be composed of huge tower shields and spears. However, only the spears were created but the Avranches den was sacked, which won DEONQED further resources, but led to a desire for revenge from the Visitors, who had now completely destroyed the old Avranches Faction.
On the 17th of April, Will wrote an essay detailing that DEONQED was truly overstretched and that it was claiming too much land, and that more members were needed to protect DEONQED's claimed territory, which included all of the dens that had been sacked by DEONQED. However, most of these dens were uninhabited and useless, as now the whole den world had less than an estimated 10 people operating in it in Mid Devon. Emperor Ben therefore made an alliance with the Visitors again, and he told them about location of the until then secret Fort NED. After Veteran Will announced his retirement on the 9th of May, for the 17th of October, Emperor Ben I refused to help out in the den, and despite Will offering help from the time between the announcement and October, Ben responded with inactivity. There was a triumph when Ashley Pottle was finally convicted on the 3rd of June, but still Ben refused to capitalize on this gain. Finally, on the 30th of June, when Fort NED was sacked by the Visitors, Ben declared that was "inevitable", and he announced his and Nathaniel's plans to retire. Finally, on July 17, Emperor Ben I was deposed and Emperor Adam I from Adammia was invited to become the new Emperor of DEONQED. From then, until July the 22nd, DEONQED was in personal union with Adammia. Finally, on the 22nd, Decree XXVII annexed DEONQED into Adammia, turning it into a territorial claim of the Adammic Empire. The DEONQED Army became the 2nd Infantry Division of Adammia, and Will became the General of this Division.
DEONQED had an economy based mainly around manual labour. Trade was almost nonexistent and was often subject to diplomatic relations, which were almost always terrible with surrounding states. DEONQED built a lot of buildings and produced its own lumber, coal, bricks, steel and weaponry. It conducted annual censuses to gauge the wealth of the Empire
Retrieved from "https://micronations.wiki/index.php?title=DEONQED&oldid=406673"
Den World
Defunct micronations


text:
Scribbling, scribbling, scribbling on the Internet.
Call Me Pejman
A Metaphor Is Like a Simile
Favorite Writings and Self-Promotion
PejmanYousefzadeh.com
To Link Is Divine
Worldly Wisdom
Disclaimer and Photo Credits
Posted on November 27, 2015 November 27, 2015 by Pejman Yousefzadeh
Obamacare Is Slowly Dying, and No One Should Be Surprised
For quite a while now, we have been assured that we as a nation are well past the early hiccups and rough patches that attended the implementation of Obamacare. From here on out, we have been promised relatively smooth sailing. Everything is fine, everyone is happy, there is nothing bad or unpleasant to see, and we can all move along. Or so we are regularly told by the president of the United States, his political allies, and fans of Obamacare in general.
Ahem:
Obama administration officials, urging people to sign up for health insurance under the Affordable Care Act, have trumpeted the low premiums available on the law's new marketplaces.
But for many consumers, the sticker shock is coming not on the front end, when they purchase the plans, but on the back end when they get sick: sky-high deductibles that are leaving some newly insured feeling nearly as vulnerable as they were before they had coverage.
"The deductible, $3,000 a year, makes it impossible to actually go to the doctor," said David R. Reines, 60, of Jefferson Township, N.J., a former hardware salesman with chronic knee pain. "We have insurance, but can't afford to use it."
In many states, more than half the plans offered for sale through HealthCare.gov, the federal online marketplace, have a deductible of $3,000 or more, a New York Times review has found. Those deductibles are causing concern among Democrats — and some Republican detractors of the health law, who once pushed high-deductible health plans in the belief that consumers would be more cost-conscious if they had more of a financial stake or skin in the game.
"We could not afford the deductible," said Kevin Fanning, 59, who lives in North Texas, near Wichita Falls. "Basically I was paying for insurance I could not afford to use."
He dropped his policy.
As the health care law enters its third annual open enrollment period, premiums and subsidies have been one of the administration's main selling points.
"Most Americans will find an option that costs less than $75 a month," President Obama said.
Sylvia Mathews Burwell, the secretary of health and human services, issued a report analyzing premiums in the 38 states that use HealthCare.gov. "Eight out of 10 returning consumers will be able to buy a plan with premiums less than $100 a month after tax credits," she said.
But in interviews, a number of consumers made it clear that premiums were only one side of the affordability equation.
"Our deductible is so high, we practically pay for all of our medical expenses out of pocket," said Wendy Kaplan, 50, of Evanston, Ill. "So our policy is really there for emergencies only, and basic wellness appointments."
It is nice and good that the New York Times is actually paying attention to this story. And good for them for doing so. But these developments were entirely predictable, and were predicted by those who actually possess a basic understanding of economics. Those predictions were scorned by the likes of the New York Times. Nowhere in the Times story is there any acknowledgment that the Times and other media outlets sympathetic to the Obama administration–not to mention the administration and its allies–improperly and unjustifiably hyped Obamacare as being the cure to all of the world's ills . . . or at least the cure to America's ills. Nowhere in the Times story is there any hint of an apology for having so spectacularly erred in gauging the efficacy of Obamacare.
And if any of you actually think that the New York Times editorial board will pen something acknowledging the shortcomings of Obamacare, then you probably also thought that if you liked your health care plan, you could keep your health care plan.
(Photo from the Times article.)
(Cross-posted.)
TagsBarack Obama, Big Media, Health Care, Health Care Policy, Health Care Reform, Media, Media Bias, New York Times, Obama Administration, Obamacare
One Reply to "Obamacare Is Slowly Dying, and No One Should Be Surprised"
Pingback: More Problems with Obamacare, Which Supposedly No Longer Suffers from Any Problems Whatsoever – Pejman Yousefzadeh
Previous PostPrevious Hillary Clinton's Campaign Insults the Very Nation She Wishes to Lead
Next PostNext More Problems with Obamacare, Which Supposedly No Longer Suffers from Any Problems Whatsoever
Summa Pejmanica
3 Quarks Daily
Abu Muqawama
Aidwatch
Democracy in America
Discover Magazine–Gene Expression
Eric Posner
Farnam Street
FP Passport
Jacob T. Levy
Jonathan Last Online
Josh Barro
Law and the Multiverse
Michael McConnell: Advancing a Free Society
NYU Development Research Institute
Pejman Yousefzadeh on Medium
Pejman Yousefzadeh: YOUR SOURCE FOR A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THINGS RELATED TO PEJMAN YOUSEFZADEH
PointOfLaw Forum
Princeton Election Consortium
Stephen Bainbridge
Strange Doctrines
The Diary of Samuel Pepys
The Epicurean Dealmaker
The Grumbling Hive
The London Review of Books Blog
The New York Review of Books Blog
The New Yorker (Newsdesk)
The Paris Review Blog
The Right Coast
Tim Sandefur
Tyler Cowen's Ethnic Dining Guide
Unlikely Voter
Victoria Coates
Links that are Wonderful in General
A Dictionary of the English Language, by Samuel Johnson
Monty Python on YouTube
Statistical Abstract of the United States
The CIA World Factbook
The Word Spy
Online Magazines and Newspapers
The Boston Review
The Financial Times
The Jewish Review of Books

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


If you're trying to find a trustworthy, expert and friendly roofing and roof repair company in Malvern 3144, then you have actually come to the right place. Our team will more than happy to visit your home and examine your alternatives – No obligation! If you're searching for a business to repoint a tiled roofing, then we can help. We can also aid with colorbond roof replacement, roof painting and roofing restoration.
Our Malvern roofing experts are trained to repair and restore a reliable roofing system that will safeguard your investment. We have actually worked thoroughly on roofing system repairs in residential and business areas. It is a wise option to leave the entire roofing system repair work requirements to a knowledgeable and professional hand like us. We take pride in all our roofing jobs as we take time to understand our clients' needs and specifications. We ensure that you will get a professional finish with focus on detail.
A leaking roofing or a moved tile may seem to be a minor issue to you, but if ignored it can lead to other more serious internal issues. The minor problem can wind up becoming a significant one and may need a pricey repair work. The moment you observe that your roof needs some maintenance and repair, you should call a certified roofing tiler or licensed plumbing technician to take care of the matter.
As roofing repair works professionals, we can deal with almost all types of concerns irrespective of how small or big it is. Our extremely qualified specialists can locate the leaks properly and repair them. They can suggest you the best possible choice to handle your problem and will submit you an in advance quote. In case you decide to proceed with us, we will start our work immediately without any delay.
Hiring an expert roof restoration expert can be a cost effective option to changing your whole roofing system. In most cases your roof can be restored to as good as new condition with the right materials and workmanship.
The roofing repair procedure normally includes a thorough clean to eliminate any developed moss and dirt, fixing of damaged sheets or tiles, then repainting of the whole roofing system to restore it to it's previous splendor. Roofing system remediation can extend the life of your current roofing system, prevent more pricey repair works and even add value to your home thanks to its improved street appeal. We can bring your old roofing back to life with our professional roofing repair service. Restoring your roofing will not just improve the street appeal of your home, it will increase it's worth and can improve energy efficiency.
Sometimes it's not always possible or rewarding bring back or fixing your roofing system due to its age or major defects. We specialise in roofing system repairs to damaged or dripping roofings due to wear and tear or roofs that have been badly installed.
Re-roofing services in Malvern will offer your old, tired roofing a fresh look and enduring wear. We will remove and dispose of your existing roof covering, battens and sarking. If your roofing system is asbestos we can arrange a fully-licensed and certified company to get rid of and dispose of this unsafe material. We work closely with these companies to offer you with a smooth roofing replacement from 'start' to 'finish'.
Your roofing is one of your most valuable assets. But as your house ages, your roofing starts to age and it will require upkeep. Nevertheless, the majority of people neglect their roofing systems up until it is so deteriorated that it requires to be replaced. We understand that correct repairs and maintenance can save money in the long run. That's why we offer thorough roofing system upkeep and service plans to fit your needs and budget plan.
Our viewpoint is easy: treat our customers as we want to be treated. In line with this, all of our team member act with stability and honesty – when we begin deal with your roofing system, we treat your house as though it were our own. We treat your house with the respect that it deserves, thus our commitment to delivering premium service at a reasonable and sensible price.
As the most relied on service for roof repair work, roofing replacement & roofing repair in Malvern, it must come as not a surprise to hear that all of our team members are proficient, expert, friendly and responsible. We speak directly with our staff, and strive to work with just the most reputable roofer.
Give us a call today or call us via the query form on our site. We are always available by phone so you will have the ability to get all your roofing repair work questions responded to on the spot. If it is after hours please complete our query form and we will attempt and get back to you as soon as possible. Keep in mind no matter what the type of job you have, no matter how huge or small, do not think twice to get in contact with us – we will provide you the most competitive quote we perhaps can. If your job is outside the bayside suburbs, that is no problem, we work all over town and more than happy to come and estimate you for any kind of roofing system restoration job.


Saif Al-Islam Qaddafi is well and free to move around Libya or abroad, the undersecretary in the Beida-based Thinni administration's justice ministry claimed today.
Talking to the media office of the Abubakr Al-Saddiq brigade which has guarded Saif since it captured him in 2011, Eisa Alsaghir confirmed that as far as his government was concerned, the former dictator's son can go wherever he wants, like any other Libyan.
"Saif is free under the terms of the general amnesty law issued by the House of Representatives (HoR) in July 2015," he said.
According to reports, though, while Saif is no longer under house arrest he remains under guard in Zintan "for his own protection".
Alsaghir's statement also appears to contradict one earlier this month by Zintan military council which denied claims by the International Criminal Court's chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda that Saif had been released.
A Zintan court reportedly freed him in April 2016. Since then, his whereabouts in the town and the nature of his stay there have remained something of a mystery.
Al-Saghir is also wrong in saying that Saif is free to travel abroad. The ICC warrant for his arrest remains in effect and would almost certainly be acted upon were he to go to any other country.
Al-Saghir is on a working visit to Zintan and Rujban, inspecting the workings of judicial authorities in the two places.
During his interview he also confirmed that funding issues for the Abubaker Sadiq brigade be addressed.
"The brigade under leadership of Colonel Ajmi Al-Atiri is doing a great job given that they have been neglected financially but we will solve this," he added.


If you have been in an accident and your insurance company has declared that your vehicle is a "total loss," you are entitled to certain rights under Washington State law. Is the insurance adjuster offering you a fair price for your totaled vehicle? In Washington State, you are entitled to the "actual cash value" of your vehicle, meaning that the insurance company must offer you the fair market value of your vehicle as it was immediately prior to the accident.
There are steps you can take to ensure that you are appropriately compensated for your lost vehicle. The insurance company is required to provide you with the valuation report that it used to determine the value of your wrecked vehicle if you request the report. These valuation reports usually compare the value of your car to comparable cars on the market, so it is important that you scrutinize that valuation report and ensure that they are comparing vehicles that are genuinely comparable to yours. It is also recommended that you check whether all applicable taxes and fees are included in the assessment you are given by your insurance company.
If you have taken measures to increase the value of your car, such as adding new tires, you should provide the insurance adjuster with written information or receipts, as the insurance company is required to take such adjustments into consideration when assessing the value of your totaled vehicle.
If you have already been given a check by your insurance company to compensate you for your totaled car, but you find that you are unable to purchase a comparable car with that amount, your claim may need to be reopened and renegotiated with your insurance company. Under Washington State law, the insurance company is required to reopen such claims if you are unable to find a comparable vehicle with the original amount of settlement. In that instance, the insurance company may offer you more money, or may locate a comparable car for you within a "reasonable distance" of where you live.
If your car has been declared a total loss by your insurance company but it is still drivable, you may keep the vehicle if you choose to do so. However, you should be aware that you will only be compensated by your insurance company for the "salvage value" of your car, and your vehicle's title will be marked "salvage," which will affect its resale value down the road.
We hope that your accident only damaged your vehicle and did not cause any bodily injury to you or your loved ones. But if anyone was hurt, feel free to contact Fuller & Fuller, Injury Attorneys for a free consultation. Please email us at [email protected] or call us toll-free at (800) 570-4878.


text:
Posted on January 28, 2017 by admin | 1 comment
The single most misleading aspect of homoeopathic prescribing is the attribution of personalities to the remedies.
Prepared remedies are solely prescribed on their abilities to produce symptoms, PERIOD.
I tire of the plethora of books, Materia medicas and so called homoeopathic experts who espouse the personality aspects of remedies. We do not treat personal preferences, traits or idiosyncratic natures of people, we treat pathological changes of states that are the results of disease.
Anything else is not the practice of homeopathic medicine.
HOMOEOPATHY EXPLAINED
By John Henry Clarke, M. D.
Hahnemann's Doctrine of the Chronic Miasms.
By "chronic disease" Hahnemann did not mean exactly the same thing as is now generally understood by the phrase – a disease that lasts a long time and is incurable. To make his meaning clear, I can not do better than quote Hahnemann's own definition of acute and chronic diseases, from paragraph 72 of his Organon :-
"The diseases to which is liable are either rapid morbid processes of the abnormally deranged vital force, which have a tendency to finish their course more or less quickly, but always in a moderate time – these are termed acute diseases ; or they are diseases of such a character that, with small, often imperceptible beginnings, dynamically derange the living organism, each in its own peculiar manner, and cause it to deviate from the healthy condition in such a way that the automatic life energy, called vital force, whose office it is preserve the health, only opposes to them at the commencement and during their progress, imperfect, unsuitable, useless resistance, but must helplessly suffer (them to spread and ) itself to be more and more abnormally deranged, until at length the organism is destroyed ; these are termed chronic diseases. They are caused by infection from a chronic miasm."
By "miasm" Hahnemann means an infectious principle, which, when taken into the organism, may set up a specific disease. According to Hahnemann, there were not only miasms of acute disease, like the infectious principle of scarlatina, for example, but also of chronic diseases. Among the latter he recognised three-syphilis, sycosis and psora. The first is the lues venerea, which is recognised by all schools alike. The second is allied to this, but is distinguished by the production of characteristic warty growths. The third is a discovery of Hahnemann's, about which there has been the greatest misconception.
Before giving an account of what Hahnemann meant by "psora," I will give a familiar instance of a chronic miasm – the disease set up by vaccination. Vaccinia or "Cow-pox," as the late Dr. Matthews Duncan pointed out, is extremely analogous to syphilis in many of its characters, and not the least in the appearance of secondary disorders after the primary illness is over. The course of the disease is well known. The virus having been introduced through an abrasion of the skin, in about a week inflammation occurs at the spot. Then there appears first a vesicle, then a pustule, then a scab, and finally a scar when the scab drops off. During the time that this series of events is occurring, constitutional symptoms manifest themselves, chiefly in the form of fever and undefined malaise. When the healing has taken place, three may be nothing more occur. The organism may have reacted perfectly and discharged the miasm. But this is not often the case. The diminished susceptibility to small-pox infection shows a change of a deep constitutional character. This constitutional change has been named "vaccinosis" by Burnett, and, as I can attest, is the parent of much chronic illness. Often skin eruptions occur, lasting for years, or various other kinds of ill-health, lasting, it may be, as long as life lasts, and not seldom shortening life. When such a series of disorders occurs, it is not (according to Hahnemann's doctrine, though he did not use this illustration) a succession of new diseases, but different evolutions of one and the same disease, the "miasm" of Vaccinia producing the chronic malady, vaccinosis.
In the early years of his homeopathic practice Hahnemann noticed that in certain cases the remedies he gave only produced temporary benefit. In these cases he found that the homśopathically of the remedies given was not complete. There was some factor in the case which had not been matched. It became apparent to him, then, that he had not only to take account of the malady from also of previous and apparently different maladies. And he found the remedies which corresponded, in their action, to the whole course of the pathological life of a patient were needed for a cure ; and through his provings he discovered what these deeply acting remedies were.
Many cases he met with in practice in which the ill-health dated from the suppression of a skin disease, probably years before. That skin disease, said Hahnemann, is really a part of the present disorder. To take a common example, asthma is often found to appear after the "cure" by external means of a skin disorder. The patient is not suffering from two diseases : there is, according to Hahnemann's pathology, one chronic miasm at work producing the two effects.
The large majority of chronic diseases Hahnemann traced to the chronic miasm he termed "psora," and he maintained on the skin of the miasm was an eruption of itching vesicles, of which the itch vesicle was a type. It has of which the itch vesicle was a type. It has been started that Hahnemann ascribed to the itch the production of nine-tenths of chronic diseases, and he has been accused of ignorance in not knowing that itch was caused by an insect. But Hahnemann not only knew of the itch-insect, he actually figured it in one of his works. But he maintained that, in spite of the presence of the insect, this was not the whole of the disease – just as the tubercle bacillus is not the whole of pulmonary consumption. If it were, no doctors would escape consumption, since they inhale the bacillus constantly from their patients. "The itch," Hahnemann maintained, "is chiefly an internal disease'. 'Psora is an internal disease – a sort of internal itch – an may exist with or without an eruption upon the skin.' 'Psora forms the basis of the itch.' To the reckless suppression of the chief external symptoms of psora Hahnemann ascribed the prevalence of chronic disorders.
To put it in other words, the psora doctrine of Hahnemann is practically the same as the doctrine of certain French authorities who ascribe a great variety of chronic diseases to what they call a 'herpetic diathesis', that is to say, a morbid state of the organism liable to manifest itself on the skin by an itching vesicular eruption.
The essential truth of Hahnemann's doctrine may be seen by taking a glance at the history of individuals and families. The skin eruptions of childhood, the late development of bones and teeth, the anaemia of puberty, and the consumption which finally carries off the patient, are not so many different diseases, but different manifestations of one and the same disease, whether we call it 'psora' with Hahnemann, or 'herpetic diathesis' with the French. Then, again, take a family : one member has enlarged and inflamed glands, one ulceration of the eyes, one a chronic cough, one hysteria, one eczema. They are all children of the same parents, with the same elements of heredity, and their diseases are essentially one and the same, only manifesting itself differently in different individuals. This disease Hahnemann called a 'chronic miasm'. The seat of its operations is the vital force, which can only be freed from it by dynamically acting homśopathic remedies.
In his study of the chronic miasms Hahnemann found many other very characteristic symptoms besides the occurrence of eruptions on the skin; and he found remedies having corresponding symptoms, which he gave to patients with signal success. Among those remedies which he found to produce symptoms likest to those occurring in psoric patients, Sulphur takes the foremost place.
Hahnemann's great works on Chronic Diseases gives the symptoms of these remedies at length. This work, of which the full title is "The Chronic Diseases : their Specific Nature and Homśopathic Treatment," is the crowning work of Hahnemann's career.
It will be seen from the above sketch that Hahnemann's theory of disease is profoundly philosophical and intensity practical. It is as far as possible removed from tentative and fragmentary theories of disease current in his own and in our day. Hahnemann's pathology goes hand in hand with treatment, and is thus checked at every step by the test of practice.
Posted in miasm
The prescribing picture
The strength of a chain is equal to that of its weakest link, and similarly the value of a person's life may be equal to that of his weakest vital organ here the particular organ is equal in importance to that of the entire organism.
Even where the tissue state of the entire organism is everywhere equally bad, it may be a life-saving act to relieve the particular organ that first gives way, so. that time may be gained to alter the entire crasis or the quality of the stroma.
Death itself is often at the start in a particular organ, i. e., local, and if the part be saved in, time life may be preserved.In the acute processes the value of a particular organ strikes one often very forcibly, there may be no need of any constitutional treatment ; the one suffering part may be the whole case. And in many chronic cases certain organs claim, and must have, special attention.
The words above are from one of the most famous British homoeopaths James Compton Burnett. They are the words of a truly gifted physician with a remarkable career and reputation for curing impossible cases. I undertook to study his writings, many I might add as he was a prodigious pensmith, and over several years I learned a lot from his cases and viewpoint.. A lot of people have concluded that Compton Burnett was an organ therapist. Yet in examining his works and cases, I find it hard to fault his logic especially since it came to my attention time and time again in his casework that he prescribed for the patients expression of disease but focusing on the reality that the site or location was a weak or damaged organ causing the problem.
Compton Burnett puts a compelling argument forward that Hahnemann himself said where possible to look for the causation, and keep that in mind as part of the case taking. He would therefore prescribe for the actual seat of the disease and from there continue to prescribe on the symptoms that were present.
It is beyond the scope of this brief comment to explain how the prescriptions were arrived at, and to this end I would recommend that practitioners read his own explanations for cases online. What I can say is that Compton Burnett ALWAYS looked for the totality of symptoms related to the disease state in hand and as such each patient got an individual prescription for themselves and not for the disease name..
A unique and careful prescriber.
How to treat with homoeopathy.
After 32 years of being involved in practice, and 7 years spent in intensive study of the masters, I have concluded that homoeopathy is less art than science. Most of what is taken for granted in terms, expressions, understanding and concepts in the therapy, come from Kent and Hering and NOT from Hahnemann.
Hahnemann was a scientist. A man given to accepting material evidence from experimentation and subsequent results. After reading the millions of words he has written over the years, and several times I might add, my observed conclusion is that his medical career was based on facts and not speculation and is to be trusted.
There is a simple premise to using the remedies for curative purposes. They are dilute substances that create observable symptoms in an organism. These symptoms are a direct result from whatever substance caused the reaction and have NOTHING to do with infectious disease states found in sick individuals other than the SIMILARITY of produced symptoms.
When matched symptom by symptom to the sick organism, the addition of the substance increases the reaction in the organism to amplify the specific symptoms upon which the natural immune response in the organism will focus on these heightened symptoms and attempt to remove them. In removing them, the natural disease, being slightly weaker will also be removed.
And for this reason and rationale, it is imperative that we find the right symptom or symptoms within the whole picture of the disease. Aph 6 points out how to find the picture of the disease but aph 153 tells us what we have to extract from this picture to prescribe on.
I have found that when faced with a patient suffering a known disorder, knowledge exists of the disease progress, organs involved, the patterns of the progress of the disease and the prognosis. Given these parameters, a patient suffering from the infection both acute and chronic, will only exhibit CERTAIN characteristics of the disease as the body tries to modify the illness for self protection. It is the total expression of these characteristics that will identify the individuality of the diseased individual and lead to selection of the right remedy or remedies. It is NOT the totality of ALL the symptoms that we look for.
For example, if a patient has a disorder that starts on the left and move across to the right, has perspiration only at night on the back of the head and has a fever after midnight that starts with a chill and then turns into heat, then we have individual characteristics of a personal disease state from the infection . If this repeats daily then this is the core of the state from which all other lesser important symptoms spring, like sleeplessness and mild headaches. It is always best to focus on the primary expression of the disease, the modifiers of the state and symptoms that are present that have no obvious affinity or reason to be present.
We at the IHM have found that in using the therapeutic pocket book, and focusing ONLY on the few important symptoms, that we use less than 5 rubric indicators and come to 3 or less remedies for consideration. A quick read of the remedies will determine which remedy to give or start with.
Do NOT use a mental symptom unless it is morbid and a CLEAR and obvious CHANGE in the state of the patient. Focus only on CHANGED conditions and symptoms that are part of the CHANGED pathology. You will do good work by following Hahnemann.
Posted in case-taking
February 2017 Gold standard training course. English and Spanish.
We are running two training courses in February.
SPANISH ONLY: Thursday Feb 9th to Monday Feb 13 inclusive.
ENGLISH ONLY: Thursday Feb 16th-Monday Feb 20th inclusive.
We will be conducting the training course at out North Seville Clinic in Sevilla Spain as normal. Flights are inexpensive this time of the year and we can recommend Hotels. Public transport makes getting around very easy.
These two courses are for practitioners who have at least 3 years experience. The course material is intensive and will comprehensively cover all relevant and necessary Hahnemannian instructions from the Organon and Chronic diseases in relation to understanding how to extract the information required for accurate case taking, analysis and prescribing. The I.H.M. is a research and training organisation that was established in 1986 to promote the practice of homoeopathy as a medical specialty as outlined by Hahnemann.
We will discuss Miasms, What is a symptom, how to extract prescribing symptoms, how to differentiate between personality and morbid symptoms, how to find the symptoms that are central to both the case and a remedy, which symptoms to ignore and which cannot be ignored. We will look at prescribing protocols, LM potencies, repetition of the medicine, when to stop and when to change. All of the above list will be linked to associated Hahnemannian texts. We will demonstrate the principles with over 25 case examples with full explanation. We will take you on a tour of a Homoeopathic pharmacy and explain in detail how remedies are made.
Each student can avail themselves of the following.
A full 125 medicine LM Boenninghausen remedy kit at an unbelievable price.
The SYNOPSIS computer program at an unbelievable price.
The book version of the SYNOPSIS repertory in English at an unbelievable price.
The ability to download many books in PDF from our vast library
If any practitioner, in the opinion of the I.H.M. teaching staff, meets the criteria for membership of the I.H.M. Register during the course, they will be awarded the membership Diploma at the end of the 5 days teaching.
Please contact us for your placement at: education@instituteforhomoeopathicmedicine.com
We do not exceed 5 persons for each course.
Posted in Teaching
Tagged Homeopathic training
Accountability.
Here in Spain, It would appear that members of the administration committee including the president of the medical associations, do not like homoeopathy. They have passed an edict banning medically qualified homoeopaths from using the facilities in every town and city belonging to their members. NO more meetings, no more seminars…. no more anything to do with homoeopathy.
This single act of arrogance affects not only the doctors, but also the general public. In this regard, they are acting a lot like our American cousins in government, who know something is illegal but do it anyway. The wait until someone challenges them, waste a lot of money and then rescind the order down the line.
However in this case, the leadership IS accountable and not under governmental protection and in my singular view, should be removed from their positions because they have acted purposefully and selfishly in accord with their own prejudices. I hope the legal challenge that is coming will ask for reproof including dismissal from office.
IHM and Hahnemann
Posted on January 5, 2017 by admin | Leave a comment
I recently read an article:
https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/51-facts-about-homeopathy/
and laughed my way through the rebuttals given by Mark Crislip on October 24, 2008. I was not laughing at him but with him. From a modern medical point of view, the questions raised have not been answered properly by homoeopaths.
Firstly, our profession is in the midst of a great confusion. We have the majority of practitioners who have not learned the application of homoeopathy properly or understand clearly that it is a medical application of therapeutics to stimulate the immune response by giving a substance that will produce an artifically induced increase in certain symptoms from an external substance, and thus produce a more focused response from the organism to deal with the problem.
It has nothing to do with personality or disposition and everything to do with physiological expressions of the disease as expressed through the symptoms. It is a misnomer to say we treat the patient not the disease. We treat the disease.
We have a profession who misunderstand what a miasm is and prescribe incorrectly based on their erroneous view.
Identical women hugging trees in forest (digital composite)
We have a profession with a large percentage of metaphysical thinkers who do not practice homoeopathy with understanding, utilising polypharmacy, the sensation method, false provings protocols, the elements and periodic table for remedy association etc etc.
We have a profession that teaches the religious view of Swedenborg through Kent as opposed to Hahnemanns many years of experimentations and conclusions.
We have a profession that is on the verge of extinction. Ostentiably from external pressures, yet I cant help feeling that the profession brought it upon itself.
Its not like its hard to understand the practice methodology… just reading the Organon and Chronic disease AS IS, without the Kentian spiritual overlay will do that for you. Letting go of any thoughts of it being a natural healing will do that for you….. grasping the reality that it is a MEDICAL practice of therapeutic application and not assigning personalities to medicines, and just seeing them as a symptom producing substance will aid in your understanding .
I give Pulsatilla to more men than women in colds and fever and urinary issue symptoms… that blows the blue eyed blonde girl tag right out the window….
We dont have a well regulated system of training in homoeopathy. So many variations on practice that the student is not catered to from the original sources. 90% of the 'names' in modern homoeopathy practice a variation or a deviation of the methodology that it is not funny anymore. How is a student to know what is real or not?
How would a student know which college to go to for training? Everyone claims to be Hahnemann based, everyone claims to teach the right way.
The IHM have been attacked for being "elitist" and "stuck in a fundamentalist mode", "not keeping up with advances in homoeopathy", for being "arrogant in our sureity of Hahnemanns methodology without really knowing the full picture of life and health and the things Hahnemann got wrong in his understanding in the 18th century…"
We at the IHM practice homoeopathy as a medical therapy based on the entire protocols as defined by Hahnemann. We do not make excuses for that.Without him there is no comprehension of the principles in action. Without him there is no approach to health care unless the steps he advocates are followed carefully. Without adherence to HIS protocols, there is no answer to the issues when a case gets complicated or goes wrong.
In the intensive 5 day teaching course, we relate EVERYTHING to sourced material with many examples, and always defer to Hahnemannian principles both in practice and health care. We show the PROTOCOLS for practice methodology and where to find the information pertaining to them from Hahnemann. We discuss openly and compare his observations with HIS cases and others as examples in matching the ESSENTIAL symptoms of disease presented in every patient… We dissect line by line his thoughts on miasms, what they are and how to use the knowledge of them to move a case forward…. we look at each step of the process in case management as outlined by him and show HOW and WHY he treats in the manner advocated. We will show his methodology of giving the LM potencies and the clinically observed benefits of using them in practice. We even offer a Boenninghausen LM 0/1 remedy kit to the course participants at an amazing price.
We will be starting the new year with two new training courses in Seville Spain. One in Spanish and one in English. Details will follow.
Wikipedia and its antipathy towards Homoeopthy
Posted on January 3, 2017 by admin | 1 comment
This is an article written by Dana Ullman and published. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/dysfunction-at-wikipedia-_b_5924226.html
I think Dana Ullman summarised the situation well here in 2014. Unfortunately the issue continues and even has got worse.
In April, 2014, I had the happenstance to run into Jimmy Wales, the co-founder of Wikipedia, on the streets of Vancouver. I was there to lecture to a group of medical professionals, while he was attending the TED talks. I expressed my appreciation to him for creating Wikipedia. I also then expressed concern to him about the "unencyclopedic" tone and information in Wikipedia's article on homeopathy. He then encouraged me to express my concerns in writing, and this is that response.
It may surprise and even shock most people to learn that, according to the Washington Post, the two most controversial subjects on Wikipedia in four leading languages (English, French, German, and Spanish) are the articles on "Jesus Christ" and "homeopathy."
Because I know that you want Wikipedia to be the best modern resource of reliable information, my intent in writing is to show you where Wikipedia is falling below your high standards, and in fact, Wikipedia's article on homeopathy is providing strongly biased, inaccurate information. This strong bias is a symptom of a deeper problem at Wikipedia in select articles on topics that challenge dominant medical and scientific worldviews. After reading the below body of scientific evidence on the subject of homeopathic medicine, I hope that we can engage in a dialogue that will help reduce the amount of misinformation that pervades certain subjects, such as homeopathy.
Evidence of the strong bias against homeopathy and against an objective encyclopedic tone is evident throughout the article. I will first focus on the second sentence of the first paragraph of the article and the 6 references which purport to substantiate these claims:
Homeopathy i/ˌhoʊmiˈɒpəθi/ (also spelled homoeopathy or homœopathy; from the Greek ὅμοιος hómoios "like-" and πάθος páthos "suffering") is a system of alternative medicine created in 1796 by Samuel Hahnemann, based on his doctrine of like cures like, according to which a substance that causes the symptoms of a disease in healthy people will cure similar symptoms in sick people.[1] Homeopathy is a pseudoscience[2][3][4] and its remedies have been found to be no more effective than placebos.[5] [6]
References from Wikipedia's article on "Homeopathy":
Hahnemann, Samuel (1833). The Homœopathic Medical Doctrine, or "Organon of the Healing Art". Dublin: W.F. Wakeman. pp. iii , 48-49 . "Observation, reflection, and experience have unfolded to me that the best and true method of cure is founded on the principle, similia similibus curentur. To cure in a mild, prompt, safe, and durable manner, it is necessary to choose in each case a medicine that will excite an affection similar (ὅμοιος πάθος) to that against which it is employed." Translator: Charles H. Devrient, Esq.
^ Tuomela R (1987). "Chapter 4: Science, Protoscience, and Pseudoscience". In Pitt JC, Marcello P. Rational Changes in Science: Essays on Scientific Reasoning. Boston Studies in the Philosophy of Science 98 (Springer). pp. 83-101. doi:10.1007/978-94-009-3779-6_4 . ISBN 978-94-010-8181-8.
^ Smith K (2012). "Homeopathy is Unscientific and Unethical". Bioethics 26 (9): 508-512. doi:10.1111/j.1467-8519.2011.01956.x .
^ Baran GR, Kiana MF, Samuel SP (2014). "Chapter 2: Science, Pseudoscience, and Not Science: How Do They Differ?" . Healthcare and Biomedical Technology in the 21st Century (Springer). pp. 19-57. doi:10.1007/978-1-4614-8541-4_2 . ISBN 978-1-4614-8540-7. "within the traditional medical community it is considered to be quackery"
^ Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al. (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet 366 (9487): 726-32. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2 . PMID 16125589 .
Evidence Check 2: Homeopathy – Science and Technology Committee , British House of Commons Science and Technology Committee, 22 February 2010, retrieved 2014-04-05
Is Homeopathy Really a "Pseudoscience"?
Wikipedia asserts that "Pseudoscience is a claim, belief or practice which is presented as scientific, but does not adhere to a valid scientific method, lacks supporting evidence or plausibility, cannot be reliably tested, or otherwise lacks scientific status."
The "editors" at Wikipedia have deemed homeopathy to be a "pseudoscience" even though randomized double-blind and placebo controlled studies that have been published in many of the best medical journals in the world have shown efficacy of homeopathic treatment for many common and serious health problems (below is a partial list of such studies):
Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: Frass, M, Dielacher, C, Linkesch, M, et al. Influence of potassium dichromate on tracheal secretions in critically ill patients, Chest, March, 2005;127:936-941. The journal, Chest, is the official publication of the American College of Chest Physicians.
Hayfever: Reilly D, Taylor M, McSharry C, et al., Is homoeopathy a placebo response? controlled trial of homoeopathic potency, with pollen in hayfever as model," Lancet, October 18, 1986, ii: 881-6.
Asthma: Reilly, D, Taylor, M, Beattie, N, et al., "Is Evidence for Homoeopathy Reproducible?" Lancet, December 10, 1994, 344:1601-6.
Fibromyalgia: Bell IR, Lewis II DA, Brooks AJ, et al. Improved clinical status in fibromyalgia patients treated with individualized homeopathic remedies versus placebo, Rheumatology. 2004:1111-5. This journal is the official journal of the British Society of Rheumatology.
Fibromyalgia: Fisher P, Greenwood A, Huskisson EC, et al., "Effect of Homoeopathic Treatment on Fibrositis (Primary Fibromyalgia)," BMJ, 299(August 5, 1989):365-6.
Childhood diarrhea: Jacobs, J, Jimenez, LM, Gloyd, SS, Treatment of Acute Childhood Diarrhea with Homeopathic Medicine: A Randomized Double-blind Controlled Study in Nicaragua, Pediatrics, May, 1994,93,5:719-25.
ADD/ADHD: Frei, H, Everts R, von Ammon K, Kaufmann F, Walther D, Hsu-Schmitz SF, Collenberg M, Fuhrer K, Hassink R, Steinlin M, Thurneysen A. Homeopathic treatment of children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder: a randomised, double blind, placebo controlled crossover trial. Eur J Pediatr., July 27,2005,164:758-767.
Jimmy, can you name ONE other system of "pseudoscience" that has a similar body of randomized, double-blind, and placebo-controlled clinical trials published in high-impact medical journals showing efficacy of treatment?
It is more than a tad ironic that this first paragraph in the Wikipedia article on homeopathy references only one article that was published in a peer-review medical journal. This one article by Shang, et al. has been thoroughly discredited in an article written by Lüdtke and Rutten that was published in a leading "high impact" journal that specializes in evaluating clinical research. The Shang meta-analysis is highlighted on Wikipedia without reference to any critique of it. The fact that there is no hint of any problems in the Shang review, let alone a reference to the Lüdtke and Rutten article that provided evidence of bias, is itself a cause for concern.
The Shang article is also the primary reference used by the widely ridiculed "Evidence Check" reports issued by the Science and Technology Committee of the British House of Commons, which also conveniently omits reference to the severe limitations of this one review of research. Further, the "Evidence Check" was signed off by just three of the 15 members of the original committee, never discussed or endorsed by the whole UK Parliament, and had its recommendations ignored by the UK Department of Health.
It should be made clear that the Shang meta-analysis was co-authored by M. Egger who is a well-known skeptic of homeopathy and who wrote to the Lancet that his hypothesis before conducting the review was that homeopathy was only a placebo effect. Readers were never informed of this bias.
The meta-analysis by Shang evaluated and compared 110 placebo-controlled trials testing homeopathic medicines with 110 testing conventional drugs, finding 21 homeopathy trials (19%) but only nine (8%) conventional-medicine trials were of "higher quality." Lüdtke and Rutten found that a positive outcome for homeopathy would have resulted if Shang had simply compared these high quality trials against each other. However, with some clever statistical footwork, Shang chose to limit the high quality trials to only 8 homeopathic and 6 conventional medical trials, a result that led to a "negative" outcome for homeopathy. Lüdtke and Rutten determined this review as biased for its "arbitrarily defined one subset of eight trials" and they deemed the entire review as "falsely negative."
By reducing the number of studies, Shang created convoluted logic that enabled his team to avoid evaluation of ANY of the above high quality studies that were all published in respected medical journals. Further, 7 of 8 homeopathic studies only tested one homeopathic medicine for everyone with the similar disease even though one of the primary tenets of homeopathy requires individualization of treatment. Many other extremely scathing critiques of the Shang research were published in the Lancet shortly after publication, including the exclusion of one high quality homeopathic study due to the questionable assertion that the researchers could not find a study in all of conventional medical research that treated patients with polyarthritis (arthritis that involves five or more joints).
Skeptics typically assert that the above high-quality studies published in high-impact medical journals are simply "cherry-picking" the positive studies, and then, they begin cherry-picking studies that had negative results. However, skeptics of homeopathy fail to differentiate good, sound scientific investigations that are respectful of the homeopathic method and those that are not. Just because a study was conducted with a randomized double-blind and placebo controlled method does NOT mean that the study gave the appropriate homeopathic medicine for each patient or even each group of patients. This ignorance is akin to someone saying that antibiotics are ineffective for "infections" without differentiating between bacterial infections, viral infections, and fungal infections. Ironically, skeptics of homeopathy consistently show a very sloppy attitude about scientific investigations.
What the Most Comprehensive Review of Homeopathic Research Found…
Skeptics commonly assert that various meta-analyses verify that homeopathy doesn't work and that homeopathic medicines are equivalent to the effects of a placebo. These skeptics typically chose to ignore various meta-analyses that were published in highly respected medical journals and that show positive benefits from homeopathic medicines. Skeptics also ignore the largest and most comprehensive review of research ever conducted…one that was funded by the government of Switzerland.
It is useful to know that the Shang/Egger meta-analysis was funded by the same Swiss government's Complementary Medicine Evaluation Program that also funded a much more detailed and comprehensive review of clinical research, preclinical research (fundamental physio-chemical research, botanical studies, animal studies, and in vitro studies with human cells), epidemiological evidence, and cost-effectiveness studies.
This more comprehensive Swiss government-funded report found a particularly strong body of evidence to support the homeopathic treatment of Upper Respiratory Tract Infections and Respiratory Allergies. The report cited 29 studies in "Upper Respiratory Tract Infections/AllergicReactions," with 24 studies having a positive result in favor of homeopathy. Six out of seven controlled studies that compared homeopathic treatment with conventional medical treatment showed homeopathy to be more effective than conventional medical interventions. When the researchers evaluated only the randomized placebo controlled trials, 12 out of 16 studies showed a positive result in favor of homeopathy.
Ironically, the Shang/Egger meta-analysis acknowledged that there have been at least eight clinical trials of patients with acute infections of the upper respiratory tract and that there is "robust evidence that the treatment under investigation works." And yet, Shang/Egger assert that this limited number of trials is inadequate for evaluating homeopathy, while at the same time they assert that eight other trials provided unquestionable evidence for damning homeopathy (it should be noted that Shang/Egger somehow determined that some of the studies on respiratory infection and allergy were not "high quality," even though numerous other meta-analyses have unanimously defined three trials by David Reilly as high quality (two were published in the British Medical Journal and one was published in the Lancet).
In actual fact, although some meta-analyses have had a "negative" result, there have also been a significant number of meta-analyses that have had positive results, including this partial list:
Linde L, Clausius N, Ramirez G, Jonas W, "Are the Clinical Effects of Homoeopathy Placebo Effects? A Meta-analysis of Placebo-Controlled Trials," Lancet, September 20, 1997, 350:834-843. Although a later review by some of these authors found a reduced significance, the authors never asserted that the significance was no longer present. Further, two of the lead authors of this article provided a very sharp critique of the Shang, et al. review of research (2005). Also, both Linde and Jonas wrote to the Lancet after the Shang/Egger article was published and asserted that the Lancet should be "embarrassed" by their publication of this article and the accompanied editorial (Lancet, 366 December 17, 2005:2081-2).
Kleijnen J, Knipschild P ter Riet G. Clinical trials of homoeopathy. BMJ 1991, 302, 316-23. Of the 22 best studies, 15 showed positive results from homeopathic treatment. The researchers concluded, "there is a legitimate case for further evaluation of homeopathy."
Jacobs J, Jonas WB, Jimenez-Perez M, Crothers D, Homeopathy for Childhood Diarrhea: Combined Results and Metaanalysis from Three Randomized, Controlled Clinical Trials, Pediatr Infect Dis J, 2003;22:229-34. This metaanalysis of 242 children showed a highly significant result in the duration of childhood diarrhea (P=0.008).
Kassab S, Cummings M, Berkovitz S, van Haselen R, Fisher P. Homeopathic medicines for adverse effects of cancer treatments. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2009, Issue 2.
Taylor, MA, Reilly, D, Llewellyn-Jones, RH, et al., Randomised controlled trial of homoeopathy versus placebo in perennial allergic rhinitis with overview of four trial Series, BMJ, August 19, 2000, 321:471-476. The BMJ published an editorial in the issue in which this study was published asserting, "It may be time to confront the conclusion that homeopathy and placebo differ…… This may be more plausible than the conclusion that their trials have produced serial false positive results" (This week in the BMJ. Homoeopathic dilutions may be better than placebo. BMJ 2000;321:0).
Jonas, WB, Linde, Klaus, and Ramirez, Gilbert, "Homeopathy and Rheumatic Disease," Rheumatic Disease Clinics of North America, February 2000,1:117-123.
Is Homeopathy Really "Implausible"?
The third paragraph in the Wikipedia article continues to show both strong bias against homeopathy and inaccurate information.
Homeopathy lacks biological plausibility[10] and the axioms of homeopathy have been refuted for some time.[11] The postulated mechanisms of action of homeopathic remedies are both scientifically implausible[12][13] and not physically possible.[14] Although some clinical trials produce positive results,[15][16] systematic reviews reveal that this is because of chance, flawed research methods, and reporting bias. Overall there is no evidence of efficacy.[12][17][18][19] Continued homeopathic practice, despite the evidence that it does not work, has been criticized as unethical because it increases the suffering of patients by discouraging the use of real medicine,[20] with the World Health Organisation warning against using homeopathy to try to treat severe diseases such as HIV and malaria.[21] The continued practice, despite a lack of evidence of efficacy, has led to homeopathy being characterized within the scientific and medical communities as nonsense,[22] quackery,[4][23][24] or a sham.[25]
Ironically, the article makes reference to articles written by known antagonists to homeopathy (such as E. Ernst and K. Atwood) that have not even been published in peer-review scientific or medical journals. Reference #10 by Ernst was published in "The Skeptical Inquirer," a magazine that is not listed in Index Medicus or any other respected scientific indexing service, and reference #11 by Atwood wasn't even published in a magazine but at a website. If and when any person tried to edit the article on homeopathy in any way in which homeopathy is presented in a positive light and makes reference to a "magazine" or a "website," that person would be laughed off of Wikipedia, and yet, the editors of the homeopathy article allow and even encourage the use of inappropriate skeptical references (according to Wikipedia's usual standards).
In the same way that Wikipedia's editors have inappropriately deemed homeopathy to be "pseudoscientific," they have also deemed that homeopathy lacks "plausibility." The definition of plausibility is: "having an appearance of truth or reason; seemingly worthy of approval or acceptance; credible; believable."
The journal, Langmuir, is the journal of the American Chemical Society, and in 2012, they published an important article that provided a plausible explanation for the actions of homeopathic medicines. First, they verified using three different types of spectroscopy that clearly showed that nanoparticles of six original medicinal agents persisted in solutions even after they were diluted 1:100 six times, thirty times, and even two-hundred times.
Avogadro's number predicts that none of the original medicinal agents would have ANY persisting molecules of the original medicinal substance would remain after 12 dilutions of 1:100. However, the scientists describe reasonable and even predictable factors that lead to the persistence of nanoparticles after their multiple dilutions. The scientists note that the use of double-distilled water in glass vials leads to varying amounts of silica fragments that fall into the water, as much as 6ppm. The vigorous shaking of the glass vial creates bubbles and "nanobubbles" that bring oxygen into the water and that increase substantially the water pressure (William Tiller, PhD, the former head of Stanford's Department of Material Science, estimated this pressure to be 10,000 atmospheres).
Ultimately, this increased water pressure forces whatever medicinal substance is in the double-distilled water into the silica, and every substance will interact with the silica in its own idiosyncratic way. Then, when 90% of the water is dumped out, the silica fragments predictably cling to the glass walls.
When skeptics of homeopathy reference Avogadro's number as "evidence" that homeopathic medicines beyond 24X or 12C have "no remaining molecules left," they are simply verifying their own ignorance of Avogadro's number because this widely recognized principle in chemistry does NOT account for the complexities of the silica fragments, the bubbles or nanobubbles, nor the increased water pressure. In fact, any serious scientist or educated individual who asserts that a homeopathic medicine is "beyond Avogadro's number" has no ground on which they stand. And yet, Avogadro's number is prominently a part of Wikipedia's article on homeopathy.
Despite the obfuscation throughout Wikipedia's article on homeopathy, in actual fact, the homeopathic pharmaceutical procedure called "potentization" is a clever, perhaps brilliant, method of creating nanoparticles of whatever substance is originally placed in the glass vial. Even more compelling is the significant and growing body of evidence that nanodoses of medicinal agents have several benefits over crude doses of the same substance, including enhanced bioavailability, adsorptive capacity, intracellular accessibility, increased ability to cross cell membranes and even the blood brain barrier, and of course, a substantial better safety profile.
The creation of nanodoses actually increases various characteristics of a substance's properties. Once a substance has an extremely small size but has larger surface area to volume ratio, the nanodose properties create increased chemical and biological reactivity, electromagnetic, optical, thermal, and quantum effects. Further, the idiosyncratic properties of nanomedicines reduce the required doses by orders of magnitude and predictably reduce toxicity.
In light of the above, it is stunning and shocking that Wikipedia's article on "Nanomedicine" has no mention of homeopathy, which rightly is deemed to be the original nanomedicine and nanopharmacology. At a time in the history of medicine and science in which the field of nanomedicine is becoming increasingly accepted and respected, Wikipedia seems stuck in the 20th century, or perhaps the 18th century. It is not surprising that there is an international and inter-disciplinary journal that focuses on the power of extremely small doses in various biological systems, not just medicine.
Given the above, it is no longer accurate to consider homeopathic doses to be "implausible." Wikipedia's article on homeopathy asserts otherwise, deeming homeopathy to be "biologically implausible" (cited by a non-peer review magazine, called "The Skeptical Inquirer," that is not listed in any scientific indexing service), "a sham" (cited at a website!), and running "counter to the laws of chemistry and physics" (what is interesting here is that the article cites an article in the journal, "Homeopathy," and yet, whenever a positive statement or clinical trial or basic sciences trial is published in this same journal, the Wikipedia editors claim that this journal is not worthy of a citation).
Further, just one of the theories of how homeopathic medicines work has been described as the "memory of water." The Wikipedia article refers to this concept as "erroneous" without any acknowledgement that it is inaccurate to assert such a black-and-white statement. It is more accurate to say that this theory is "controversial" because there is, in fact, evidence of a "memory in water," as both verified by the above research on nanoparticles remaining in homeopathically potentized water and as evidenced by research conducted by the French virologist Luc Montagnier who discovered the AIDS virus and who won the Nobel Prize for doing so. Dr. Montagnier has not only published research that provides evidence of this "memory of water," he was interviewed in the prestigious journal, Science, and on July 5, 2014, the French government's public television station showed an hour-long documentary entitled "We Found the Memory in Water" ("On a retrouvé la mémoire de l'eau")
What is shocking about Wikipedia's article of homeopathy is that there is NO reference to this Nobel Prize winner or to his interview in one of the most respected scientific journals in the world today or any reference to French government's documentary on this very subject. Obviously, the people who are editing the homeopathy article have a profound bias.
Numerous people have sought to improve Wikipedia's article on homeopathy, but they have been blocked or prohibited from editing the article. In my case, I was blocked from editing any article to do with homeopathy because I was deemed to have a "conflict of interest" due to the fact that I am a homeopath. Ironically, no medical doctor is prohibited from editing on any medical subject just because she or he is a medical doctor! Further, the bias against homeopathy and against any positive evidence for homeopathy is so strong that the vast majority of the articles from the high impact medical and scientific journals are not referenced or described in the Wikipedia article on homeopathy, while there are numerous low-level references to websites and to non-peer review magazines that populate Wikipedia's article.
I could easily show over a hundred other sentences in Wikipedia's article that are either errors of fact or that are evidence of bias or spin against homeopathy, but I think that I have adequately and accurately provided you with solid testimony proving serious problems with Wikipedia's article on homeopathy.
I await your reply to this letter which you have requested, and I look forward to collaborating with you to improving the article on homeopathy at Wikipedia as well as in establishing guidelines so that strong bias is minimized throughout your usually excellent website.
Pathological Skepticism
Brian Josephson, Ph.D., won a Nobel Prize in 1973 when he was only 23 years old and is presently professor emeritus at Cambridge University. Josephson contends that many scientists today suffer from "pathological disbelief" — that is, an unscientific attitude that is typified by the statement "even if it were true I wouldn't believe it" (Josephson, 1997).
Josephson asserts that skeptics of homeopathy suffer from a chronic ignorance of this subject, and he maintains that their criticisms of homeopathy are easily refuted, "The idea that water can have a memory can be readily refuted by any one of a number of easily understood, invalid arguments."
Dr. Luc Montagnier won a Nobel Prize in 2008 for discovering the AIDS virus, and in an interview in Science (Dec. 24, 2010), he similarly expressed real concern about the unscientific atmosphere that presently exists on certain unconventional subjects such as homeopathy, "I am told that some people have reproduced Benveniste's results (showing effects from homeopathic doses), but they are afraid to publish it because of the intellectual terror from people who don't understand it."
Montagnier concluded this interview when asked if he is concerned that he is drifting into pseudoscience. He responded adamantly: "No, because it's not pseudoscience. It's not quackery. These are real phenomena which deserve further study."
Ultimately, at Wikipedia there is a certain substantial body of editors who embody "pathological skepticism" and who do not allow good evidence from high-quality studies and meta-analyses published in high-impact journals to be included into the body of evidence for homeopathy just because they provide a positive spin to the subject. On the other hand, these same editors allow references to non-peer review sources, such as popular magazine and websites, when the information in these questionably valid sources is offensive to homeopathy. Today, Wikipedia's article on homeopathy is a classic example of a biased, off-balance, and non-encyclopedic review of the subject.
Practical Solutions…
Jimmy, I assume that you want your website to be the most reliable resource possible, but it can and will never become one unless you, as the founder of Wikipedia, provide some guidance and guidelines so that information for OR against a subject are fair and accurate. In 2009, at a TED talk, you claimed that Wikipedia's most important virtue is its objective reporting of information; you asserted, "the biggest and the most important thing (about Wikipedia) is our neutral point-of-view policy."
Larry Sanger, a co-founder of Wikipedia, quit the organization several years ago due to serious concerns about its integrity. He maintained:
"In some fields and some topics, there are groups who "squat" on articles and insist on making them reflect their own specific biases. There is no credible mechanism to approve versions of articles…The people with the most influence in the community are the ones who have the most time on their hands—not necessarily the most knowledgeable—and who manipulate Wikipedia's eminently gameable system."
Ultimately, there are indeed subjects at Wikipedia that will probably remain highly controversial no matter what is or isn't said, and it makes sense to inform readers about this issue. However, at present, the article on homeopathy strongly suggests that there is no or inconsequential evidence that homeopathic medicines have biological activity and/or clinical efficacy, and this letter clearly dispels that myth. Objective reviews of both basic science research and clinical studies suggest that there are simply too many high quality laboratory and clinical trials that show positive results.
One solution to dealing with Wikipedia's article is to have two separate sections in the article that present the "skeptics' point of view" and the "homeopaths' point of view." Although one could have hoped that the article would have evolved into this multi-view perspective, there are simply too many anti-homeopathy fundamentalists who have squatted on this article and have made it literally impossible to have any positive or even any slightly positive assertions about homeopathy.
Because this letter proves that Skeptics are incapable of presenting information on homeopathy with even a modicum of objectivity, perhaps the best solution is to enable both viewpoints to be able to express themselves. Some people claim that debate is the best way to understand complex subjects, and therefore, allowing and even encouraging a multi-perspective viewpoint in articles at Wikipedia may be an important and worthwhile change in your website's policies.
I can provide other specific suggestions for helping Wikipedia create a truly neutral point of view if and when you are open to constructive dialogue.
You have now been given strong evidence that Wikipedia is NOT maintaining a "neutral point-of-view" on the subject of homeopathy. My question is to you now is: What do you suggest should be done to rectify this problem?
This letter was also signed by:
Michael Frass, MD, Professor of Medicine, Medical University of Vienna (Austria)
Paolo Bellavite, MD, Professor, Università of Verona (Italy), Department of Pathology and Diagnostics
Paolo Roberti di Sarsina, MD, Observatory and Methods for Health, University of Milano-Bicocca, Italy; Charity for Person Centered Medicine-Moral Entity, Bologna, Italy; Expert for Non-Conventional Medicine (2006-2013), High Council for Health, Ministry of Health, Italy
Dr Clare Relton, Senior Research Fellow (Public Health), School of Health & Related Research, University of Sheffield (UK)
Stephan Baumgartner, PhD, Institute of Complementary Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland; Institute of Integrative Medicine, University of Witten-Herdecke, Germany
Lex Rutten MD, homeopathic physician, independent researcher.
Max Ehrenfreund, The Science of Wikipedia Flamewars, Washington Post. July 23, 2013.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/07/23/the-science-of-wikipedia-flamewars/
Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, et al. (2005). "Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy". Lancet 366 (9487): 726-32. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)67177-2 . PMID 16125589 . http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16125589
Ludtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18834714
Dana Ullman. The Disinformation Campaign Against Homeopathy. HuffingtonPost. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dana-ullman/disinformation-about-homeopathy_b_952967.html
Zoe Mullan, senior editor at The Lancet, acknowledged in the publication's press release for this article, "Professor Egger stated at the onset that he expected to find that homeopathy had no effect other than that of placebo. His 'conflict' was therefore transparent. We saw this as sufficient" EHM News Bureau, 2005). The editors chose not to inform readers of this bias.
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
Chikramane PS, Kalita D, Suresh AK, Kane SG, Bellare JR. Why Extreme Dilutions Reach Non-zero Asymptotes: A Nanoparticulate Hypothesis Based on Froth Flotation. Langmuir. 2012 Nov http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23083226
Demangeat, J.-L, Gries, P, Poitevin, B, Droesbeke J.-J, Zahaf, T, Maton, F, Pierart, C, Muller, RN, Low-Field NMR Water Proton Longitudinal Relaxation in Ultrahighly Diluted Aqueous Solutions of Silica-Lactose Prepared in Glass Material for Pharmaceutical Use, Applied Magnetic Resonance, 26, 2004:465-481.
Bell IR, Schwartz GE. Adaptive network nanomedicine: an integrated model for homeopathic medicine. Frontiers in Bioscience (Scholar Ed) 2013;5(2):685-708. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23277079
Bell IR, et al. Advances in integrative nanomedicine for improving infectious disease treatment in public health. Eur J Integr Med (2012), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.eujim.2012.11.002. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685499/
Bell IR, Koithan M. A model for homeopathic remedy effects: low dose nanoparticles, allostatic cross-adaptation, and time-dependent sensitization in a complex adaptive system. BMC Complementary and Alternative Medicine 2012;12(1):191. http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1472-6882-12-191.pdf
Roduner E. Size matters: why nanomaterials are different. Chem. Soc. Rev. 2006;35(7):583-92. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16791330
Bell IR, MD PhD, Ives JA, Jonas WB. Nonlinear Effects of Nanoparticles: Biological Variability From Hormetic Doses, Small Particle Sizes, and Dynamic Adaptive Interactions. Dose Response. May 2014; 12(2): 202-232.Published online Nov 7, 2013. doi: 10.2203/dose-response.13-025. Bell. PMCID: PMC4036395. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4036395/
Bell IR, Sarter B, Koithan M, et al. Integrative Nanomedicine: Treating Cancer with Nanoscale Natural Products. Global Advances in Health and Medicine, January 2014. 36-53. http://tinyurl.com/mqe5p88
Armstead AI, Li B. Nanomedicine as an emerging approach against intracellular pathogens. Int J Nanomed. 2011;8(3):188-96.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=(nanomedicine)%20AND%20ARMSTEAD
Ullman D. Let's have a serious discussion of nanopharmacology and homeopathy. FASEB J December 2006 20:2661; doi:10.1096/fj.06-1205ufmhttp://www.fasebj.org/content/20/14/2661.full
Dose-Response: An International Journal. http://www.dose-response.com/
Montagnier L, Aissa J, Ferris S, et al, Electromagnetic Signals Are Produced by Aqueous Nanostructures Derived from Bacterial DNA Sequences. Interdiscip Sci Comput Life Sci (2009) 1: 81-90.http://www.springerlink.com/content/0557v31188m3766x/fulltext.pdf
Enserink M, Newsmaker Interview: Luc Montagnier, French Nobelist Escapes "Intellectual Terror" to Pursue Radical Ideas in China. Science 24 December 2010: Vol. 330 no. 6012 p. 1732. DOI: 10.1126/science.330.6012.1732
http://www.france5.fr/et-vous/France-5-et-vous/Les-programmes/LE-MAG-N-28-2014/articles/p-20549-On-a-retrouve-la-memoire-de-l-eau.htm
Sanger, Larry. Why Citizendium? http://blog.citizendium.org/?p=286
Tagged dana ullman
And so it came to pass….
When I first came to give Seminars in Spain after returning from the USA in 2013, I recall telling homoeopaths that the non homoeopathic Sensation method would infiltrate the homoeopathic colleges and cause issues. I was laughed at.
I also begged the Spanish homoeopaths to not have the remedies classed as medicines. Now, onerous regulations have been placed on the production of medicines, and remedies can only be dispensed from a pharmacy.
I was informed today, that all medical colleges in Spain have removed association with medical practitioners who practice homoeopathy and will not allow us to use their facilities for meetings or conferences any more.
Further, degree courses for homoeopathy have been removed from the Universities.
To date, according to my sources, only one medical doctor has applied to study homoeopathy in the Barcelona College system in 2016.
So now we have a Spanish homoeopathic system dominated by the Sensation method, hampered by excessive regulations and no future to speak of.
Among all these problems, the Spanish homoeopaths themselves seek to take what little power they can and are demanding that homoeopathy should only be practiced by medically qualified people. Do not the facts show that in 10 years there will be only a handful of drs practicing homoeopathy?
We have to face the facts. Homeoeopathy is indeed under attack from the big pharmacies and the medical associations. It has reached a point where patients in the west do not know what to believe anymore and are being forced into the singular mainstream drug therapies by peer pressure and the low costs of the insurance system for them. As they are not offered alternative treatments within the system, the extra financial burden of treatment by a homoeopath can be too much for an already stretched pocket.
We as a therapy need to deal with the internal problems of homoeopathy that exist.
#1. Firstly, since Kent the majority of Western homoeopaths have ceased to study Homoeopathy as defined by Hahnemann, and have viewed everything through a metaphysical filter.
#2. Homoeopathy is a medical speciality and as such needs to utilised along very specific lines for the benefit of the patient.
#3. Without the understanding of the Organon and Chronic Diseases, it is impossible to practice well and consistently.
#4. Modern methods of practice have moved homoeopathy into the realms of fantasy, metaphysical thinking and quasi psychological analysis.
When I read the comments from skeptics about our therapy, it is difficult for me to defend the position due to the problems of practice within our community. Starting with polypharmacy, essence prescribing, kineseology, prescribing on personality, radionics, dream provings, homoeopathic pharmacies making remedies for named diseases, etc etc.
In a recent discussion I had with 24 student homoeopaths, not one could define clearly how the principle of practice was to be applied, and only 3 had leafed through the Organon at some stage. A colleague was talking to a student who had told him that she was giving up studying the therapy. She was being taught the sensation method at her school. She stated that homoeopathy was too difficult and she could not grasp it. When informed that perhaps the method she was being taught might be at fault, she stated emphatically, "NO! I see that it can only be taught by gifted people, observers of the inner mans spirit, I cant do that".
Sadly for her, she never got to see that the practice is a one of medicine and applying proven substances that fit the disease expression to aid the immune system to recover its equilibrium and restore the organism to health. She never got to see that personality, preferences and thought patterns are not to be treated. Homoeopathy ONLY treats morbid alterations in the health of a person be it mental or physical.
I object to having my career taken away from me by my ill trained colleagues who think they know know what homoeopathy is and practice without knowledge or adherence to the therapy's guidelines. I object that students are not taught correctly, I object that we do not have medically minded people among us and that the vast majority of practitioners mix dissonant protocols and other therapies within the practice.
Mostly I object that we in the West have no defence against the commentary against us, and its our fault. Our so called spokesmen for the therapy in the public eye have sold out to the false teachings within the therapy and dont know that they dont know.
The Institute for Homoeopathic medicine here in Spain, teach directly from the Organon and the writings and knowledge of Hahnemann and his colleagues. We can outline the history and development of the therapy in detail, and have a teaching platform that can impart all that needs to known of the principles of practice of homoeopathy within a 12 month period. The students we have had the pleasure of teaching are all of a high calibre of practitioner and have gone on to be good practitioners in their respective countries. It requires a lot of self study on the part of the student to develop the skill set to be a good homoeopath. That determination plus effort is what the therapy requires on the part of practitioners.
To be known as a good practitioner is the reward. With consistent results in the clinic. To be able to make a good prescription via information given via email, via SKYPE or in a physical presence of the patient based solely on careful analysis of the patients symptoms solely, is a good thing.
I was contacted by a patient regarding his son whom was having issues of skin, respiratory and other complaints. After several weeks with some allopathic treatment and creams, the child was no better.
I received the information via a text message. A quick analysis of the case was made, and a prescription made. Some improvement was noted, and then a new symptom picture was reported. Based on this information, a remedy was prescribed and in two days the problem was resolved. All I had were the photos and a description of the expression of the disease. Skin eruptions, facial swelling, scalp itching, cough, sleeplessness, loose stools etc.
I received this photo two days later. A complete cure and the resolution of other issues not mentioned.
This is what my colleagues do consistently and repeatedly in line with Hahnemanns directions. By adhering to the instructions laid down for the practice of the therapy, we remove all the supposition and guesswork from the equation. We have a framework to define our actions and thinking that was formulated over many years by Hahnemann. We know that when we fail we have a methodology to work with to get back on track.
So for the practitioners in Spain, for the medical homoeopaths, the allopaths have shown their antipathy towards the practice. They have excluded their colleagues from using any of the facilities. Perhaps its time for the homoeopaths to accept the true colours of allopathy and remove themselves from membership of an organisation that is out to destroy them.
The sad thing is that this is a re run of the 1900s when the medical associations did the same thing resulting in the demise of homoeopathy for many years.
We need to get our act together as a therapy instead of contributing to our deserved fate.
Tagged Spain homeopathy


SCAD is an uncommon and under-diagnosed disease and may be a potentially fatal disorder. The few data in medical literature have been based in case reports and small case-series. Besides there is no consensus of the best approach in acute phase treatment and long-term follow-up will be necessary to increase the knowledge and survival of these patients.
From 2000 to 2017 we analyzed 120 SCAD patients in 40 tertiary hospitals divided in two groups based in acute phase treatment: Clinical (conservative treatment) or Interventional (percutaneuous coronary intervention - PCI or coronary artery bypass graft - CABG). Demographic data, clinical and angiographic presentation were shown in the total patients and each group, as well as the occurrence of major adverse cardiac events (MACCE) in the long-term follow-up. Statistical analysis and Kaplan-Meier were calculated.
Of 120 SCAD patients, 78 were in clinical and 42 were in interventional groups. Clinical-demographic and angiographic results was summarized in Table and the event-free survival in the long-term follow-up was summarized in Kaplan-Meier curves (below).
SCAD is an important cause of acute coronary syndrome in young female patients without classic coronary risk factors. The majority presentation is myocardial infarction and the interventional treatment is more frequent in STEMI patients with cardiogenic shock and right coronary artery dissections. The occurrence of MACCE and recurrence of SCAD is not infrequent regardless of treatment in acute phase and the long-term follow-up shows that this entity cannot be neglected.