Impfungen
Anhang 5
https://www.aerzteblatt.de/archiv/225071/Post-Vac-Syndrom-Seltene-Folgen-nach-Impfung
http://christiane-petras.de/arzneimittel/impf-und-erbnosoden/mmr/
[Farokh Master]
'Post-vaccination syndrome' has for several years now been an
increasingly common diagnosis in my daily practice
The PVS can be divided into an acute and a chronic syndrome. The
following are the main symptoms of the acute syndrome:
absent-mindedness,
bronchitis,
convulsions,
Cribdeath
diarrhoea,
encephalitis and/or meningitis,
excessive somnolence,
fainting/shock,
fever,
frequent and inconsolable crying,
limbs swollen around the point of
inoculation,
penetrating and heart-rending
shrieking (cri encéphalique)
pneumonia,
whooping-type cough,
The chronic symptoms seen are as follows:
Asthma,
Behavioral problems such as fidgeting,
aggressiveness, irritation,
moodiness, emotional imbalance,
confusion, loss of will-power, mental torpidity.
Bronchitis,
Colds, amber or green phlegm,
Constipation,
Coughing,
Diabetes,
Diarrhoea,
Disturbed development,
Disturbed sleep with periods of waking and
crying,
Eczema, allergies,
Epilepsy,
Excessive thirst,
Expectoration,
Growth disturbances,
Headaches,
Inflamed eyes,
Inflamed joints,
Inflammation of the middle ear,
Lack of concentration,
Lack of coordination,
Lack of vigor,
Light-headedness,
Loss of eye contact,
Loss of memory,
Muscle cramps,
Rigidity of the back,
Squinting,
Tiredness
[Peter Klein, MD; Hansueli Albonico, MD, Roland Koller, MD, and Daniel
Pewsner, MD]
This pamphlet was written by an ad hoc physicians' group. It is the
result of a thorough study of the scientific literature, discussions with
experts and experience in
everyday medical practice. A complete list of the scientific literature
is available from the publisher: Working Group for Differentiated MMR
Vaccination, Post Office Box, 3000 Bern 9, Switzerland
Editor's note: The article which follows was written by a group of Swiss
physicians as a pamphlet for parents contemplating the pros and cons of the MMR
immunization
in particular. Realizing that both the directed audience and prevailing
conditions here in the U.S. are somewhat different, the article raises issues
which are not often addressed on this continent.
In association with the World Health Organization, a mass immunization
program against the childhood diseases measles, mumps and rubella has been underway
in Switzerland since 1987. All infants and school children are to complete
their immunizations within the next years. The official policy is that every
child should be
immunized unless there are strong reasons against it. There is no legal
obligation to participate.
We might assume that all important questions regarding the short- and
long-term effects of the three vaccines have been answered. However, this is
not the case.
The information presently available provides no convincing justification
for the routine immunization of children against "MMR."
Measles, mumps and rubella are three quite different childhood diseases.
Each of them has its own significance for people, its own course and different
possibilities for complications. The same is true for each of the three
vaccines. The so-called "MMR Vaccination" is in reality a combination
of three quite different vaccines.
Thus, the immunization question that faces parents today is, in reality,
threefold:
• Should my child be vaccinated against rubella?
If so, when?
• Should my child be vaccinated against mumps?
If so, when?
• Should my child be vaccinated against
measles? If so, when?
The purpose of this pamphlet is to give parents a better understanding
of the immunization process, the risks of the three childhood diseases and the
respective vaccines, and the unresolved problems in the MMR immunization
program. We wish to encourage parents to become responsible partners in the
decision.
We assume the reader has knowledge of the official information about the
immunization program.
The MMR immunization program is officially promoted with the following
arguments:
• The viruses that cause measles, mumps and
rubella, and with them the diseases themselves, can be eradicated by the year
2000.
• It suffices to inoculate all babies and
school children once. The protection lasts a lifetime.
• The three childhood diseases, measles, mumps
and rubella, are of no value to good health. However, each of the three
illnesses can lead to complications that
the inoculation can prevent. The childhood
diseases are an unreasonable burden to daily life.
• The vaccines are harmless, and serious
complications are extremely rare. There is no need to fear long-term negative
consequences for public health. The MMR vaccination is voluntary. However,
parents who do not have their children inoculated are portrayed as
irresponsible and antisocial.
Note: Since the beginning of the immunization
program, the German Department of Heath has already had to revise its views on
the following points:
• The eradication of the cause of the illness
cannot be achieved with the MMR program. At most, it is only possible to
inhibit the occurrence of the known forms
of the three childhood illnesses.
• The length of the protection from the
contagion is not lifelong, but unknown.
• There are no reliable complication rates for
measles, mumps and rubella in Switzerland. In particular, the rate of measles
encephalitis (brain fever) is lower than
that previously given.
The Difference Between Natural Infection and Vaccination
It is true that vaccination can produce an immune reaction in an
organism without the presence of a true illness and that this will offer
protection from infection by the natural pathogen (cause of the disease). But
the effect of the vaccine differs in important points from that of the natural
infection.
Taking measles as an example, coughing people transmit the virus in
droplets to the mucous membranes in the air passages of healthy people. The
typical measles symptoms such as high fevers and skin rash are an expression of
an intense struggle between the organism and the viruses. The overcoming of the
natural illness through the child's own powers of resistance helps his or her
immune system to mature and increases resistance against other childhood and
adult diseases.
In contrast, the vaccination is a planned infection - living viruses are
injected under the skin. These viruses are derived from the natural measles
virus and are modified and weakened (attenuated) in the laboratory through a
sequence of dozens of animal and human cell cultures and additional substances.
The injection bypasses the normal resistance barriers such as the mucous
membranes and lymph nodes. The injected virus cannot stimulate the immune
system to the same extent as the natural virus does.
It is a fact that the antibody concentration in the blood after
vaccination is less than after a natural disease. Also, 5 - 10% of those
inoculated do not react at all, or react insufficiently. Experiments with
vaccines given through the nasal mucous membranes have been unsuccessful so
far.
The goal of the MMR program is to replace all natural measles, mumps and
rubella viruses with those developed in the laboratory. Scientists point out
that the risks of manipulating living viruses are difficult to estimate. In
addition, continuous tests of the quality of the vaccine using countless animal
and human experiments are necessary.
How Dangerous are Measles, Mumps and Rubella?
The classic childhood diseases have been around for centuries. For
generations, people have accepted them as being something normal. Parents,
teachers and observant doctors have always noticed that through childhood
illnesses, children can take important developmental steps, and that after
overcoming an illness they are often healthier than before. Psychological
disorders, such as bedwetting or stuttering, often stop suddenly after a
childhood illness. Psychologists point to the significance of these
"illness breaks" for the harmonious development of the soul- not only
for the child, but also for the entire family. On the other hand, though, the
childhood illnesses bring with them the possibility of complications.
Measles is a common childhood illness with a high fever. It causes major
changes, comparable to "molting," to take place in nearly all organs
of the body. The organism thus has the opportunity to get rid of wastes and
renew itself. This perhaps explains the observed fact that genetically-related
diseases such as eczema, asthma, and respiratory illnesses in particular, but
also certain kidney diseases (nephritic syndrome), sometimes improve or heal
after a case of measles.
However, complications can arise through this far-reaching illness. If
the patient does not fully overcome the disease, it can extend to the ears, to
the lungs, or to the brain, thus causing a middle ear infection, pneumonia, or
the feared encephalitis (brain fever) which can cause lasting damage or death.
Mumps
Mumps is a harmless childhood illness with fever and a painful swelling
of the parotid glands. Neuritis could occur, but rarely results in a loss of
hearing. Other complications, such as meningitis, can pose a threat when the illness
occurs after puberty. Sterility after a mumps infection of the testes cannot be
proven scientifically.
The WHO's recommendation for Europe does not include inoculation against
mumps.
Rubella is a harmless childhood disease with fever, swelling of the
lymph nodes and a rash. It is dangerous only when a woman becomes ill with it
during pregnancy.
Then the embryo can be severely damaged (rubella, embryopathy).
The best protection against rubella illness during pregnancy is having
had rubella as a child.
Until recently, only girls who did not have any antibodies at puberty
were inoculated. Rubella antibodies can be detected through a blood test.
The incidence of complications from childhood illnesses depend;
primarily upon the age and health status of the child, and upon the nature of
the treatment. It can be observed that medication that suppresses the symptoms,
for example, a medication that strongly reduces fever, inhibits the body's
resistance. With measles, it also appears important that the rash completely
break out. In earlier times, the danger of an "inward turn" of the
measles rash (i.e., failure to fully break out) was well known. Modern
observations confirm that children who have the measles without a real rash
more often become ill with chronic pains and cancer in later life. Finally, the
patient needs sufficient rest and protection from over stimulation.
Today, the way to treat childhood illness has been largely forgotten. An
intensive combating of the symptoms has replaced the supporting of the child's
natural powers of resistance.
What about Measles Encephalitis?
When considering medical procedures, such as inoculations, the main
thing is always to carefully weigh the possible advantage against possible damage.
However, in Switzerland there is no mandatory reporting of complications of
childhood illnesses, and mandatory reporting of inoculation complications has
only recently been introduced. Thus, we can only work with estimates. We can
use the example of measles encephalitis to show that the uncertainty of these
estimates is great.
Encephalitis can occur after measles or after a measles vaccination. In
the scientific literature, the estimates of the rate of measles encephalitis
after the illness vary between 1 in 1000 to 1 in 11,600 cases. The occurrence
of encephalitis after inoculation is estimated to be from 1 in 17,500 to 1 in
1,000,000 cases. For Switzerland, the example was given of approximately 70
cases of measles encephalitis (from the illness) per year. With approximately
50% of the children inoculated against measles, there have been only rare cases
of encephalitis in the past years.
Such different results exist because encephalitis is not a clearly
defined complication. Thus some researchers count the passing confusion that
commonly occurs in normal cases of measles as encephalitis.
Medical Concerns about the MMR Eradication Program
Inoculation Complications
All of the symptoms of measles, mumps and rubella can occur, usually in a
very attenuated form, after inoculation with the combined MMR vaccine. It is
also possible for
the complications associated with the illnesses themselves to occur
after inoculation. Finally, on occasion complications that do not result from
the natural illnesses occur
as a result of the vaccination. In individual cases it is difficult to
prove the relationship of the illness to the inoculation. For that reason,
there are widely varying statements concerning the rates of short-term
inoculation complications. The rate of complications presented depends upon
whether the pharmaceutical firm producing the vaccine is making the statement,
or an organization representing parents of children injured as a result of
vaccination. This is a reflection of the fact that these rates are related to
personal and economic interests.
Consequences for the Immune System
Perhaps more important than the short-term inoculation reactions and
complications are the long-term consequences for the human immune system. As
presented above, the vaccines affect the development of the child's immune
system differently than the natural illness. When the MMR immunization program
began, there was no scientific clarification of the connection between
naturally overcome childhood illnesses and resistance to chronic degenerative
illnesses, illnesses related to immune system deficiency and cancer. For
example, nothing out of the enormous research concerning AIDS answers the
question of the connection between immunization and immune system weakness.
Shifts in Ecological Balance
The MMR immunization program can be seen as a widespread public health
experiment on the total Swiss population whose long-term result is largely
unknown.
For several centuries an ecological balance existed between the viruses
of the childhood illnesses and human beings. The measles virus, as well as the
mumps and rubella viruses, spread throughout our area; children usually became
infected in the early years and acquired life-long immunity. Constant contact
with the viruses continually renewed this resistance. Babies received an
effective immunity from their mothers during the critical first months.
If, for instance, measles was introduced into an area where it normally
did not occur, and, therefore, the population had no immunity against it, the
illness caused enormous damage. In the last century, such measles epidemics
ravaged a large part of the population of the Faroe islands (off the coast of
Denmark). Another example in modern times
is in Gambia (Africa). Several years ago after an intensive immunization
program, the World Health Organization declared that measles was eradicated in
that area.
The illness reappeared a few years later, but with much larger number of
serious complications and deaths than before.
It is possible to shift the ecological balance much more rapidly by mass
immunization than by individual inoculation. We know today that the effects of
such forced interventions are difficult to estimate.
In spite of that, in recent years in countries with a close-to-l00%
inoculation rate (as a result of mandatory inoculation), for example, in the
USA or East Germany, it has been possible to verify the following disquieting
effects:
• Effective immunization does not take place in a portion of the
vaccinated population.
• This portion, depending upon the vaccine and the quality of the
inoculation, represents about 5-10%.
Widespread vaccination has led to an increased occurrence of measles,
mumps and rubella during puberty and adulthood because children now can only
rarely infect one another. Contracting the illness in puberty or adulthood
often results in a more difficult recovery and more complications. People who
have not or cannot be vaccinated through the routine immunization program, are
becoming increasingly endangered as individuals. We must, therefore, determine
if such people need to be vaccinated during puberty.
The immune resistance to measles of babies born to vaccinated mothers is
less than that of babies born to mothers with a naturally obtained immunity.
The vaccines do not give lifelong protection. The inferior immune
reaction to the vaccine, along with decreased opportunities for natural renewal
of the immunity, leads to
a recurrence of the illnesses in spite of vaccination. In the USA, for
example, measles and its complications have become rare today due to mandatory
(see footnote above) vaccinations. Nevertheless, every year there are small
measles epidemics, increasingly often among adults, at least half of whom have
been properly vaccinated. During such outbreaks in the USA and in East Germany,
massive programs for contagious disease control are put into effect that always
include re-inoculation.
In the case of rubella, because of the early age of vaccination, the
possibility exists that during the critical time of pregnancy, there will be
insufficient immunity to prevent infection. There have even been cases of
rubella embryopathy in spite of correctly administered inoculations.
Such side effects of the immunization program can be eliminated only
when the three viruses are, in fact, totally eradicated worldwide. Present
experience shows that this decisive goal of the program is quite unrealistic in
practice.
Is the MMR Vaccination Voluntary?
In Switzerland there is no legal necessity for MMR vaccination. However,
in many respects parents, children, teachers and doctors face strong pressure
to comply with the immunization program:
The official information is one-sided and evokes both an unnecessary
fear of childhood illnesses and an uncritical trust in the usefulness and
safety of the vaccine.
Vaccination is elevated to the level of a moral necessity. "Who
Loves Them Well, Will Vaccinate Them Well," is the title of the French
language pamphlet for parents.
With the rise of routine immunizations, anyone who is not or cannot be
vaccinated is increasingly in danger of possible illness in adulthood.
Parents and doctors who refuse the routine MMR vaccination must fear
being held responsible for the anticipated negative effects of the immunization
program.
Although we can speak of a legally voluntary program, in reality the
immunization program is becoming increasingly mandatory. This is a principal
part of the eradication strategy inherent in the program.
You Be the One to Decide!
In summary, we must ask ourselves why we should change the current
relatively favorable balance of the childhood illnesses measles, mumps and
rubella in Switzerland through a mass immunization program. Serious
complications are at present rare. At the level of immunization reached today
by the "voluntary" program (50% of all Swiss children), the natural
viruses are still present and enable a continued renewal of immune resistance
after either the illness itself or the vaccination. Thus, the vaccinations can
remain effective. At the same time there are increased reports from countries
with a high immunization rate concerning unforeseen problems, such as
epidemics, the necessity for re-inoculation and so forth. The goal of the
program, namely the eradication of the three illnesses, has shown itself to be
unreachable. Thus we must question whether the usefulness of mass MMR
immunization outweighs the long-term dangers to public health. (In third world
countries, the possible usefulness of measles vaccination must be judged in a
fundamentally different manner.)
Then, why not maintain the present practice of individual vaccinations?
Why not, as has been done until now, individually address the question
of vaccination for each of the three very different childhood diseases? (Each
of the vaccines is available individually and in two-part combinations.) The
general guideline might be that if there is no compelling reason to immunize an
individual, then that person will not, as a rule, be vaccinated. A legitimate
reason for immunization might certainly be the views of the parents on
childhood diseases. A refusal of immunization for personal reasons deserves the
same respect.
The situation of unvaccinated children who have not had the childhood
illnesses before puberty deserves particular mention. We should seriously
reconsider the respective inoculations, particularly the rubella inoculation
for girls. Due to the uncertain level of immunity, it is recommended that girls
vaccinated against rubella as small children have a blood test (antibody count)
toward the end of junior high school (around age 14).
There are no compelling arguments for measles, mumps and rubella
vaccinations that would make the parents' participation in the decision
unnecessary. Further, it is not possible to scientifically decide the question
of immunization against these three diseases once and for all. In individual
cases, however, there are certainly objective or factual considerations to aid
in the decision. A personal conversation with the doctor is most important.
Fear, propaganda and mass immunization do not provide the basis for a
reasonable use of the vaccines. Only complete and balanced information for
parents and doctors can do so. This pamphlet is intended to be a step in that
direction.
[Hansueli Albonico, MD, Roland Koller, MD, and Daniel Pewsner, MD Michelle Goldstein]
Die Entscheidung darüber, ob Sie sich bzw. Ihr Kind impfen lassen, liegt ganz allein bei Ihnen, aber es ist eine Entscheidung, die Sie sich nicht leicht machen sollten, und
die nicht unter Zwang und Druck durch andere erfolgen sollte. Wenn die Impfung erst einmal durchgeführt wurde, können die etwaigen Nebenwirkungen nur schwer,
wenn überhaupt, rückgängig gemacht werden. Zu diesen gehören tödliche Folgen,
plötzlicher Säuglingstod, Autoimmunkrankheiten, chronisch-entzündliche Darmkrankheiten, Allergien, Asthma, ADHS, Autismus, Guillian-Barré-Syndrom und andere neurologische Schädigungen.
Ihr Arzt wird höchstwahrscheinlich das Auftreten dieser Krankheitszustände NICHT mit der Impfung in Verbindung bringen, ungeachtet dessen, ob sie unmittelbar nach Impfungen, nach einigen Tagen oder Monate
später auftreten. Sie allein werden die Verantwortung für die Behandlung dieser lebenslangen Krankheiten zu tragen haben. Die Entscheidung für eine Impfung sollte UNBEDINGT erst nach gründlicher Information
erfolgen, damit Sie klar erkennen, ob das im Fall Ihrer Familie der richtige Weg ist.
ZEHN GRÜNDE GEGEN IMPFUNGEN:
1. Weder die Unbedenklichkeit noch die Wirksamkeit von Impfstoffen (Vakzinen) sind je erwiesen worden.
Vakzinstudien, die von pharmazeutischen Firmen finanziert werden, vergleichen „Nebenwirkungen” der Vakzine untereinander. Richtige wissenschaftliche, doppelblinde Placebostudien zum Nachweis der Unbedenklichkeit
von Vakzinen sind nie durchgeführt worden. Die Wirksamkeit kann nicht bestimmt werden, ohne dass die Versuchspersonen sich nach der Impfung wissentlich dem entsprechenden Krankheitsbild aussetzen würden.
Es wird nur die Bildung von Antikörpern gemessen.
Siehe hierzu “How Pharmaceutical Companies Hide the Dangers of Vaccines
from Parents“.
2. Vakzine erfüllen nicht die ihnen zugeschriebene Funktion. Sie erzeugen zwar vielleicht einen vorübergehenden Anstieg von Antikörpern gegen eine bestimmte Krankheit, aber das ist nicht mit einer Immunität gegen diese
Krankheit gleichzusetzen. Mit all ihren Toxinen und ihrer unnatürlichen Methode, eine Krankheit direkt in den Blutstrom einzubringen, schwächen Vakzine vielmehr die Zellimmunität, die für das Immunsystem der
entscheidendere Faktor ist. Der Neurologe Russell Blaylock hat sich zu diesem Thema in Wort und Schrift ausführlich geäußert.
Wenn irgendwo eine Krankheitsepidemie ausbricht, wird ihr Auftreten oft den ungeimpften Kindern zugeschrieben. Wann immer man jedoch diese Ausbrüche näher untersucht, geht aus den Daten hervor, dass die Mehrheit
der Erkrankten gegen die Krankheit geimpft war.
Krankheitsdiagramme zeigen, dass die betreffenden Krankheiten vor der Einführung von Impfungen größtenteils ausgerottet waren.
Was in den meisten Fällen die Krankheit nachweislich zurückgehen lässt, sind sauberes Wasser und verbesserte sanitäre Zustände.
3. Der allererste Impfstoff war ein katastrophaler Fehlschlag.
Die Unbedenklichkeit und Wirksamkeit von Vakzinen ist ein künstlich erzeugter Mythos, fest verankert in der Psyche der Amerikaner und untermauert durch das Gesundheitssystem. Die Geschichte der Pockenimpfstoffe
zeigt auf, dass der erste Impfstoff zu einem Anstieg der Krankheit führte und zusätzliche schwere Gesundheitsschäden verursachte, darunter Syphilis und Todesfälle. Wiederholt trafen sich Ärztegruppen, um das Impfproblem
zu diskutieren; sie kamen zu dem Schluss, solange Impfstoffe profitabel blieben, sei es unmöglich, sie aus dem Verkehr zu ziehen, trotz aller Nachweise ihrer Schädlichkeit.
Daran hat sich seither nichts geändert. Der Polio-Impfstoff war ebenfalls mit ernsten gesundheitlichen Folgen verbunden, einschließlich Krebs und AIDS. Statistiken wurden manipuliert in dem Versuch, die Wirksamkeit dieses Impfstoffs zu beweisen. Mit jedem neuen Impfstoff sind neue Gesundheitsschäden und künstlich erzeugte Krankheiten aufgetreten. Siehe hierzu Small Pox Vaccine: Origins of Vaccine Madness.
4. Impfstoffe sind für Pharmafirmen und für die Gesundheitsbranche äußerst profitabel. Es sind starke finanzielle Anreize, die zur Fortführung der Vakzinanwendung führen, nicht die Wirksamkeit. Sie können den Informationsbroschüren von Pharmafirmen über Impfstoffe nicht trauen, da es sich um profitorientierte Unternehmen handelt. Ihr Ziel ist NICHT der Gesundheitsschutz, sondern der Verkauf von Impfstoffen.
5. Alle Impfstoffe enthalten eine Anzahl von toxischen Giftstoffen und Chemikalien, die mit schweren neurologischen Schäden verbunden sind, unter anderem Aluminium, Thimerosal (Methylquecksilber), Antibiotika, Mononatriumglutamat (MNG) und Formaldehyd (und andere).
Weitere Beispiele für gefährliche Bestandteile von Impfstoffen sind Frostschutzmittel, Blei, Kadmium, Glyzerin, Azeton und Hefeproteine.
6. Jede Studie, die ungeimpfte und geimpfte Kinder vergleicht, kommt zu dem Schluss, dass ungeimpfte Kinder bei Weitem gesünder sind.
Ungeimpfte Kinder leiden im Vergleich zu geimpften im Allgemeinen nicht an Erkrankungen der oberen Atemwege, Ohrinfektionen, Autismus, ADHS, Asthma, Allergien, Autoimmunkrankheiten und anderen derartigen Erkrankungen (siehe Sally Fallon Morell: The Nourishing Tradition’s Book of Baby and Child Care, 2013.)
7. Impfstoffe verursachen eine Vielzahl von „chronischen, unheilbaren und lebensbedrohlichen Krankheiten“, darunter Autismus, Asthma, ADHS, Autoimmunkrankheiten, Guillain-Barré-Syndrom, Lebensmittelallergien und Hirnschäden.
8. Die einzige Methode, um echte lebenslange Immunität gegen eine Krankheit zu erzeugen, besteht darin, dass man sich auf natürliche Weise der Krankheit aussetzt, wodurch der Körper richtige Antikörper und eine richtige Immunität auf mehreren Ebenen entwickelt.
9. Impfstoffe können bei Säuglingen, Kindern und Erwachsenen zum Tode führen. Es gibt starke Anzeichen für einen Zusammenhang von Impfstoffen und plötzlichem Säuglingstod (SIDS).
Mehr als hundert vorher gesunde junge Frauen sind infolge von Impfungen gegen HPV (humanes Papillomavirus) gestorben.
Vom Grippeimpfstoff ist bekannt, dass er die meisten Kosten zum Ausgleich für schwere Gesundheitsschäden bis hin zu Todesfällen verursacht hat.
Die Langzeitwirkungen von Impfstoffen sind nicht bekannt. Impfen ist ein Experiment mit der Gesundheit, bei dem niemand die Langzeitauswirkungen kennt.
In den USA erhalten Kinder weit mehr Impfstoffe in jüngerem Alter als in anderen Ländern. Die Todesraten im Säuglingsalter bei amerikanischen Kindern gehören zu den höchsten der Welt, besonders im Vergleich zu Ländern, in denen Kinder weniger geimpft werden und wo man das Impfalter wohlweislich heraufgesetzt hat.
10. Wenn Sie oder einer Ihrer Angehörigen unter einem Impfschaden leiden, übernehmen die Pharmafirmen und Ärzte keine medizinische/ärztliche Haftung.
1986 wurde in den USA das Nationale Gesetz zu Impfschäden bei Kindern (National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act) eingeführt, durch das eine direkte Schadenersatzklage gegen Pharmafirmen oder Angehörige von Gesundheits-
berufen aufgrund von Impfschäden unmöglich gemacht wurde.
SCHLUSSFOLGERUNG
Sie sind auf sich selbst gestellt, wenn Sie versuchen, im Fall von Impfschäden Ihre Gesundheit wiederherzustellen. Sie tragen die Kosten und das Leid allein.
Das System ist so konstruiert, dass der Einzelne für Impfschäden keine Ansprüche geltend machen kann. Die Öffentlichkeit kommt für diesen Entschädigungsfonds in Form von Impfsteuern auf.
[Farokh Master Peter Klein, MD; Hansueli Albonico, MD, Roland Koller, MD, and Daniel Pewsner, MD Michelle Goldstein Christian Wessling]
Missouri Physician Investigates Immunizations
As a family physician I am often asked, "Doctor, should I have my
child vaccinated?" This question became more frequent after Missouri's
1992 immunization law removed the parents' freedom of choice to exempt their
child from vaccination. Children could only be exempted for "medical
contraindications" or "religious belief." Following this,
the Department of Health promptly followed by unilaterally adding a rule
which limited religious exemption to members of specific organized religions.
In this created situation where vaccinations were no longer voluntary in
Missouri (20 states voluntary). Parents choosing not to vaccinate found
themselves outside the law.
Fortunately, a group of concerned citizens made its voice known at the
Legislature. As a result, the Department of Health retracted its restrictive
rule. Since April 1994 Missouri parents can now claim exemption by simply
stating that vaccination violates their religious beliefs. Throughout of all
this I was troubled by many questions which made me research the issue further.
What I learned during this process made me ponder the future of health care,
the decisions my wife and myself will make as parents
of three young children and, most of all, my role as a physician and
healer.
Firmly believing in the ancient maxim of medical ethics: "First do
no harm," I discovered that in 1986 Congress was alarmed enough about
serious reactions to common childhood vaccines to enact the National Childhood
Vaccination Injury Act, establishing the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program.
This federal program has thus far paid over $400 million to vaccine-injured
children and their families. The federal government receives about 1,000
reports of vaccine-associated injuries or deaths every month!
Other countries do not share the same enthusiasm for vaccines as our U.
S. health authorities. The governments of Sweden, Great Britain, and Taiwan
have withdrawn DPT (diphtheria-pertussis-tetanus) from general usage because of
concerns about its safety; Japan restricts its use to children over 2 years of
age. Another well-recognized concern
is that measles immunization has
altered the epidemiological pattern; since the artificial immunity acquired
through vaccination is inferior to the lifelong 100% immunity conferred by
having gone through the illness. More cases are now seen in older children and
young adults as well as infants who are no longer protected by their mothers'
antibodies. In both these groups, complication rates are much higher than they
were when measles was a naturally occurring illness. Nationwide, about half the
cases of whooping cough and measles have occurred in vaccinated individuals. I
also found the efficacy of commonly used childhood vaccines is far less than the
public realizes.
Of the 120 cases of pertussis (whooping cough), which occurred in
Missouri in 1992, 48% of the victims were fully vaccinated. It concerns me that
public debate does not
give the whole picture. We are told the drop in death rates from polio,
lockjaw, measles and other dreaded epidemics is due to immunization programs
when, in fact, most
of this drop had already occurred prior to their implementation, mainly
as a result of improved sanitation and other factors. A rosy, optimistic
picture is painted of humanity, soon, forever-freed from these "old
scourges." But even the WHO has conceded its "war on measles" is
not about to be won. Even the term "vaccine-preventable illnesses"
is a misnomer because it ignores the high percentage of illnesses
occurring in vaccinated persons. This is not to imply vaccines should not be
given. Vaccines occupy an important place in our nation's health care system.
But should vaccines be forced on people against their will?
The concept of publicly enforced vaccination campaigns stems from a time
when smallpox epidemics were threatening and at times wiping out large populations.
Things have changed since then. In 1994, what are the real threats to
the health of our children - measles or poor dietary habits, whooping cough or
lack of exercise and childhood obesity, chicken pox or domestic violence?
Government child advocacy, which focuses on the 2% of Missouri children not
immunized by first grade, aims to
restrict the parent's rights to determine their children's medical
treatment and does little to improve the more serious threats to the children
health.
"Should children be vaccinated?" My answer is, "Let the
physician advise, but let the parents make the ultimate decision. Let us have
true informed consent, after considering the risks and the benefits as we do
for other medical procedures." We now have a schizophrenic situation where
federal law requires parents to sign that they understand these risks and
benefits before any vaccination may be given, yet state law makes it
"unlawful" for any child not to he vaccinated. More vaccines are on
the horizon, some already
in use, though not yet required by law.
Two new vaccines were recently licensed - one for hepatitis A, the other
for varicella (chickenpox) which latter, as we all know, is very rarely a
serious health threat.
Quite likely we will soon see pressure to include them in routine
vaccination schedules. There is a motion at the Federal level to soon require
states to track each child's immunizations from birth in a government computer.
using the child's social security number. This represents an Orwellian vision
of "Big Brother" invading children's
private medical records.
Democracy assumes that individuals are competent to make their own decisions,
including those regarding health care. It is totalitarian to assume that citizens
are incompetent and the government must make their decisions for them. Behind
the zeal to "get every child vaccinated," there is a worrisome trend
away from basic democratic values.
The physician Benjamin Rush, signer of the Declaration of Independence,
once warned: "Unless we put Medical Freedom into the Constitution, the
time will come when medicine will organize itself into an undercover
dictatorship." Time has come to think about this once again.
[Elaine Lewis]
Treating Vaccine Damage with Homeopathy
David
rejects the vaccine-in-potency as a way to cure vaccine damage. Elaine
disagrees.
My friend (?) and colleague,
David Kempson, wrote an absolutely scathing review of “Tidbits 83: The Vaccine
In Potency Is Here” (click below if you haven’t read it) on hpathy’s Facebook
page.
https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/tidbits-83-the-vaccine-in-potency-is-here/
David didn’t think it was
good news at all (that the vaccine in potency was here), and he didn’t think it
would help anyone with vaccine damage (except for a random few who might happen
to serendipitously match the—as yet unknown—“remedy picture” of the Pfizer
vaccine).
You see, here’s the
problem: David thinks that every case has to be a “complete case”, by
which he means a “constitutional case”; and if you prescribe without taking
such a case—well, you’re just lazy! Yet he begins his remarks with, “Of course we
can use the poisoning picture to prescribe on.” We can? Well, wait
a minute…. If that’s true, shouldn’t we end on that note of
agreement????
Never the less, there are
2 different points of view here on what a properly-taken case is. What do
you think is the right way to treat vaccine damage?
I give you now, the one
and only … So
what? It doesn’t need a proving for our purposes. What something
can cause, it can cure in small doses. Isn’t that homeopathy’s motto? Well, the
COVID vaccine is causing quite a lot of bizarre and even deadly symptoms;
therefore, the vaccine “in small doses” ought to be able to cure whatever those
things are! Here are some of what the Pfizer vaccine is causing
(statistics from the European Union):
Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine…from
BioNTech/ Pfizer – 12,362 deaths and 1,054,741 injuries to 25/09/2021
[September 25, 2021]
28,662 Blood and lymphatic system
disorders incl. 172 deaths
29,569 Cardiac disorders incl. 1,834
deaths
277
Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 23 deaths
14,027 Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 9
deaths
822
Endocrine disorders incl. 5 deaths
16,330 Eye disorders incl. 30 deaths
92,590 Gastrointestinal disorders incl.
514 deaths
274,633 General disorders and administration site
conditions incl. 3,517 deaths
1,186 Hepatobiliary disorders
incl. 59 deaths
10,876 Immune system disorders incl. 65
deaths
36,113 Infections and infestations incl.
1,214 deaths
13,804 Injury, poisoning and procedural
complications incl. 191 deaths
26,554 Investigations incl. 387 deaths
7,555 Metabolism and nutrition
disorders incl. 225 deaths
138,223 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue
disorders incl. 155 deaths
837
Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 78
deaths
185,082 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,341 deaths
1,347 Pregnancy, puerperium
and perinatal conditions incl. 39 deaths
172 Product
issues incl. 1 death
19,436 Psychiatric disorders incl. 159
deaths
3,605 Renal and urinary
disorders incl. 205 deaths
24,848 Reproductive system and breast
disorders incl. 4 deaths
46,177 Respiratory, thoracic and
mediastinal disorders incl. 1,443 deaths
50,420 Skin and subcutaneous tissue
disorders incl. 111 deaths
2,007 Social circumstances
incl. 15 deaths
1,034 Surgical and medical
procedures incl. 34 deaths
28,555 Vascular disorders incl. 532
deaths*
***
David Kempson
[The vaccine in potency] will NOT
antidote anything bad the jab does. No remedy does this. It will
only work for a few people who display the picture of the jab, as every other
remedy in our arsenal works. We can use the poisoning picture to
prescribe [on] of course, although as we know from our provings this only
provides a very crude picture.
Yes, David, a crude
picture, but so what? Can we antidote poisons by using the poison in
potency? Can we? You might as well say “yes”, because you just
admitted it. What could be more important, given what our topic is:
Antidoting a poison. That’s what we’re trying to do here with Pfizer 1M,
is it not?
This is still an unknown remedy with
no proving.
You can use it but it will be
difficult to apply until either clinical information on patients who’ve been
cured has been provided (from more than a few cases), or someone does a proper
proving.
You know what? All
of this is very nice, David; sure, I’d love to see a proving and cured cases,
many cured cases; I’d love to be able to say, “In this sample of 1000 patients
with vaccine damage, 80% of them were cured after taking the vaccine in potency,”
I’d love to be able to point to such a study. But they don’t exist.
So what are we supposed to tell people who are suffering—-because they’re
writing to me now: “I have swellings”, “I have dizziness….”—“Oh, I’m
sorry, you could have had the vaccine in potency, but, David Kempson says
there’s no proving, so… sorry, no can do! Can I take your constitutional case, though?”
Well, as Robin Murphy
once said, “Just because you took a longer case didn’t mean you took a better
case!”
Pay attention to this
David, because this is what’s missing from your analysis:
ETIOLOGY OVER-RULES
SYMPTOMATOLOGY.
That means, etiology
over-rules the totality of symptoms; which means if you have a clear etiology,
all the superfluous information you might be gathering in a 2 hour case-taking
would be a waste of time. And do you know what the proof of that
is? Arnica! The proof is Arnica! Does anybody take a
constitutional case before giving Arnica? Think about it! If
someone falls down and hurts himself, are you going to take a 2 hour
case? Or are you going to give Arnica? It’s a short case! A
“short cut” in your words, David. Short, but proper!
Ailments from blunt
trauma = Arnica.
Cathy’s case of vaccine
damage (see Tidbits 83) is not a constitutional case! It’s a clear case
of etiology: Ailments from the Pfizer vaccine. All her complaints came
after that; we have to cover the etiology!
Please continue, David;
I’m sure you have more to say.
As usual there are so many errors in
this article by Elaine…
As usual????? What does that mean? Good heavens! I had no idea that all
my articles were so riddled with errors! I’d ask which errors you were
referring to, if I cared!
…both in understanding and in application of the remedies (which are two
things often bound together).
1.
A remedy is only Homoeopathic if it matches the symptoms of the patient.
A potentized medicine is NOT Homoeopathic because it is potentized, but because
we have carefully matched the specific symptoms of the patient to the symptoms
we know the remedy can produce.
I know that, David; and if you hadn’t decided to take
such an arrogant and obnoxious tone with me, I might have said, “Good
point!” But since you’ve decided to be a horse’s ass, I’m going to take
the trouble to point out to our readers that in the article David is referring
to, I was merely trying to give a definition of the term “in potency” for those who may not be
familiar with homeopathy. Is that alright, David? You do know that
there is such a thing as “over-explaining”? But, judging by the length of
your “commentary”, maybe not.
As there is no proving of this remedy as yet, it is only a crude
poisoning picture being used.
I know! This is a case of crude poisoning!
See the list of symptoms above to refresh your memory of how truly poisonous
this vaccine is! And how are we supposed to antidote it? That is
the question. How do we antidote this very dangerous substance before it
does harm? We antidote it with the poison in potency! That’s how we
do it. Now, if you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Robin
Murphy. Here’s what he said in my interview with him 11 years ago:
I have lectured for years about the different ways of
prescribing homeopathic remedies; but, people today still believe there’s only
one way. Emergency prescribing is different from Acute prescribing;
treating miasms is different, you can’t just have one approach, you have to
have multiple approaches, there’s, like, 15 different ways: tautopathic,
isopathic…the first remedy ever given in homeopathy by Hahnemann was not
homeopathic. Peruvian bark was an antidote to Peruvian bark poisoning, it
was tautopathic. So Tautopathy is a big branch in homeopathy that I don’t
see being taught anywhere: Arsenic poisoning? You give them
Arsenicum, and it’s worked for two hundred years. If I know someone’s
been poisoned by a drug, I give the drug in potency!**
Well, there you have it! That’s what I’ve been
advocating. By the way, for the benefit of our audience, “tautopathy”
means giving the drug that aggravated back to the patient “in potency”.
Giving Pfizer 1M to someone with vaccine damage is an example of
tautopathy. I guess many of you didn’t know that Dr. B has written an
article on tautopathy. It’s called, “An Introduction to Tautopathy…” and
it starts out like this:
Tautopathy (Tauto-same) is the method of curing or
removing the bad effects of conventional drugs by means of identical potentised
drugs. For. e.g., If you are suffering from the bad effects or side-effects of
the antibiotic Penicillin, you can use potentised Penicillin to remove its side
effects. This idea has been confirmed not only clinically by large number of
homeopaths but has also been studied scientifically. There have been studies in
which potentised lead and potentised arsenic have been used to promote
excretion of the same substances in cases of poisoning. The results have shown
that such use of potentised substances can help remove the symptoms caused by
the toxicity, by enhancing the elimination of the toxin from the tissues.
Tautopathy is not based on ‘similars’. It is not
homeopathy but it is pretty close to it. It is more in the realm of Isopathy.
Tautopathic drugs have two advantages –
1. They can be proved like
homeopathic medicines and can be assimilated in homeopathic materia medica.
This provides a chance to use these medicines on the principles
2. of homeopathy too.
3.
They can be given to antidote or remove the bad
effects of conventional drugs.
https://hpathy.com/tautopathy-medicine/tautopathy-an-introduction/
***
David? Are you still there?
This [the crude drug-poisoning picture] might help,
Yes, it will! Why do you keep agreeing with me
and yet continue to argue at the same time?
but it is like swatting a fly with a tennis racket.
David, I don’t think you can swat a fly with a tennis
racket, I really don’t.
2.
Do not tell people to just take ‘whatever falls out of the bottle’. Have
you never bothered to read the Organon of Medicine?
OMG! Oh snap! You really swung
for the bleachers there, didn’t you! Well, you seem to know so much about
my articles, David, and how full of mistakes they are, I guess you meant the
ones that were about The Organon too! Or maybe you wrote those articles,
maybe it wasn’t me at all! Let’s see…did you write this one?
“Organo-Phobia (Fear of Reading the Organon)”
https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/tidbits-24-organo-phobia-fear-of-reading-the-organon/
What about this, did you write this one?
“Using More Than One Remedy In a Case: What Would
Hahnemann Say?”
https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/using-more-than-one-remedy-in-a-case-what-would-hahnemann-say/
Or, did you maybe write this one?
“Case-Management In a Hop, Skip and a Jump”
https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/case-management-in-a-hop-skip-and-a-jump/
I don’t see how it could have been me since I have
apparently never bothered to read The
Organon! And by the way, what I actually said was, “Tap the
[remedy] bottle gently, whatever falls out is a dose.” At another point in
the article, I said that a dose was “a few pellets.” On the Boiron tubes,
a dose is defined as “5 pellets”. So, I actually think there was nothing
here worth making an issue of, David, unless you were just looking for
something to hit me over the head with.
Pay attention to Size of Dose unless you want to harm your patients.
You mean we can’t harm our patients?
3.
Isopathic treatment does have its place in Homoeopathy,
Yes, exactly! So why do you keep arguing with
me?
but it should always be the last resort.
The LAST resort, you say? Really? So
you’re saying: if you know a drug made you sick, the LAST thing you should be
thinking of is making a remedy out of the drug! Is that right?
Well, I guess therein lies the difference between you and me; because,
making a remedy out of the drug would be the FIRST thing I would be thinking
of!!!! And by the way, here’s how to do that:
And I’ll tell you a little story, David. I had a
rash about 5 years ago, it was very itchy and taking over my life! I took
a complete case that you would have been proud of! In fact, I posted this
case in the ezine, it was called “The Insane Rash”; here it is:
https://hpathy.com/clinical-cases/revisiting-the-insane-rash/
There were peculiar symptoms that you would have
loved! Scratching made eruptions pop out! The itch was
wandering. It could be in several places at once. Scratching
aggravated. I repertorized all of them. Mezereum came out on top,
but it didn’t work. I tried remedy after remedy. At best, sometimes
a remedy would work for a while and show promise, but then it would fail.
I was demoralized. It went on like this for a month, keeping me up at
night. I couldn’t sleep. I wondered if I would ever be normal
again.
Then, an utterly random stroke of good luck came my
way: The television was on, and I happened to hear a commercial for
Tyson’s Chicken say, “We don’t feed our chickens antibiotics!” I suddenly
remembered Claire’s antibiotic rash while at the same time remembering the
Chinese chicken I ate at my cousin’s house a month earlier, and it all came
together for me in one great epiphany! “OMG!” I said.
“Antibiotics! I’ve got an antibiotic rash!!!!!!”
Of course, I then knew exactly what the remedy
was! You know what I took? I actually had it here:
Penicillin 30C.
It worked! It worked right away! It was a
miracle, a Godsend!!!!! Nothing else worked. You know why?
None of the other remedies matched the cause! The etiology!!!! Even though, yes, some of
them matched the symptoms; but, the symptoms are over-ruled by the etiology,
remember? Again, from my interview with Robin Murphy:
Me: What are the common mistakes
homeopaths are making, Robin?
Robin: Ignoring the etiology or treating
it like just another symptom. The etiology is what has to be cured!
Concentrating on etiology would simplify a person’s practice. … Putting
symptoms above etiology is a big mistake! When I take a case, I’m only
looking for the etiology. If there is no etiology, then I do general
homeopathy: mental/emotionals, generals, physical particulars…but, in 80%
of the cases, there’s some cause…ignoring etiology is the biggest mistake.***
***
Use of a remedy made from the substance might work to remove the
obstacle of a severe poisoning,
Well, that’s what a vaccination is, David, it’s a
severe poisoning. Have another look at that symptom list above, it’s
pretty bad. But you’re referring to a poisoning
as simply some sort of “obstacle” in the case, aren’t
you? NO, that is the case!!!! That’s the case, OK? It’s not
in the way of the case!
but it should never be the first step of treatment.
This is where you’re wrong!
It might be done in a case of an emergency…
Well, David, most poisonings are emergencies!
…where there is risk to the person’s life of course.
Did you see all the deaths in that list above?
These obstacles…
What “obstacles”? Poisonings? You’re
calling them “obstacles”? No, sorry. A poisoning is an acute case
and you do not mix up acute and chronic symptoms, just ask James Tyler Kent,
the author of Kent’s Repertory.
… often only become obvious through the process of attempting to use
remedies applied against the overall picture.
No one knows what you just said.
It is lazy prescribing…
Lazy. OK. I’ll just add that to the
already long list of what’s presumably wrong with me.
… if done as a way of avoiding taking the case.
Taking a long case and acquiring superfluous information
is not always appropriate or what is needed.
Homoeopathy requires hard work, and again as Hahnemann warns in the
Organon…
That’s the book you want me to read, right?
DON’T LOOK FOR SHORTCUTS. Shortcuts inevitably make things worse
or at the very least make Homoeopathy look simplistic and ineffective.
David, when you know the cause of your complaint, the
case is pretty much over. For example, Maria, who often presents here,
had a friend visit her house once and spend the night, whose face broke out and
became numb after applying a new make-up she had just bought. This case
is in the ezine too:
https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-papers/tidbits-38-making-remedy-emergency-easy-hard-get-people-try/
Maria knew exactly what to do. Did she take a 2
hour constitutional case? No, she made a 6C remedy out of the make-up and
the rash and numbness went away instantly. Now, I’m sure you think Maria
was LAZY because she didn’t take a “proper” case! No, Maria was smart and
did exactly the right thing and her guest was probably really impressed with
homeopathy after that scary incident.
Every case is not a constitutional case. In
fact, Kent was quite clear on that. See what he had to say about it
below:
“The Examination of the Patient” from Kent‘s
Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy
When an individual is suffering from a dangerous
crisis, a serious accident or emotional trauma, or a virulent acute miasm [an
infection like the flu], the treatment of choice is the acute remedy or acute
inter-current. …
The key in such situations is not to mix the acute and
chronic symptoms together in one grand totality as this confuses the case.
(emphasis mine)
***
So you see, here Kent is saying: if you’ve got a big issue in front of you, a “dangerous crisis”, to use his words, give the remedy that matches that, and JUST that! Don’t mix up the acute and chronic symptoms!
4.
The remedy ‘wearing off’ doesn’t prove that the vaccine caused her
problem
Did I say that? I never said that, David!
You have an obligation not to misquote people when you’re insulting them!
I said that if her heart problem had been from some cause other than the Pfizer
vaccine, Pfizer 1M would not have helped her!
(although I don’t disagree that it [the vaccine] did of course [cause
her problem], we are all seeing these cases). Elaine you should be a bit
more careful about how you explain things to medical professionals.
I’ll see what I can do.
‘Wearing off’ might be palliation only, it might mean the potency is too
low, it might mean there is tissue damage, it might mean you’ve completely
missed the important symptoms, it might mean you really have no idea what
remedy can cure (since there is no proving!)
I see we’re back to that again.
5.
She has a peculiar symptom that is completely ignored. ‘It’s hard
to know if the remedy will work on that’ – yes! Because you are not
applying a remedy based on Homoeopathic principles.
By “peculiar symptom”, I assume you’re referring to
her “delusion of smell”; that she “smells” cigarette smoke that isn’t there,
isn’t that right? Well, it turns out David, that was caused by the
vaccine! How do I know? Because if you had read the case a little
more carefully, you would have seen this:
Cathy: Plus, I went a whole day, and only now,
(9:38) do I have the faint whiff of cigarette smoke. That is also
positive.
Elaine: OK, so, at first we weren’t sure
if the remedy would act on this but, apparently it will. This is very
encouraging!
***
That’s right, who knows if the patient will be cured, or have those
peculiars disappear,
They disappeared, David.
because there is no attention being paid to it.
Not true.
Well, just hope it goes away on its own then. Always a good
strategy….
Yes, David, hope is my strategy.
6.
Constant need to use a remedy, on a daily basis, with the symptoms
frequently returning, is not necessarily a good sign.
David, she’s taking the remedy as needed, OK?
I’ve found that drug diseases are very hard to get rid of.
This may be a sign of palliation and therefore at some point
suppression. If there is heart damage here, and you are suppressing that
one symptom (because where is the rest of the case to check that?) you might
very well harm this patient.
The rest of the case? Her blood pressure came down, and that phantom cigarette smoke smell went away. That’s it. Rapid heart rate, elevated blood pressure and phantom cigarette smell. That’s it.
7.
Where is the rest of the case?
That’s the whole case.
Where are the generals? The mentals? Any other symptom at
all? Using one symptom to prescribe on is very dangerous.
She’s got Ailments From the Pfizer vaccine. It doesn’t
matter what her symptoms are, do you understand that? It’s a case of
etiological prescribing. When a person trips and falls and you give
Arnica, does it matter what his symptoms are? You’re going to give
Arnica, right? It’s ailments from blunt trauma, an etiological
prescription, you don’t take a 2 hour case.
That is the way you suppress and cause damage to patients. You
cannot check direction of cure in a case where you have taken no case!
You seem to know very little about prescribing on the
etiology.
Without checking direction of cure this patient could end up going into a sudden decline because no care was taken. It is very concerning to see.
8.
Periodic relapsing does happen in cases, but the reason must be
carefully determined, not just accepted as ‘oh well chronic cases just
relapse’.
I don’t remember saying, “Oh well, chronic cases just
relapse…La-dee-da!”
Relapsing must be examined, the direction and quality of the changes
looked at closely, before deciding to continue applying a remedy. Without
doing this the remedy should never routinely be repeated. This really is
terrible advice and does not follow our principles at all.
Yes, David you are right. You are sooooo
right!!!! All things must be looked at and looked at carefully.
9. If this is chronic,
It is chronic, she got her shot 4 months ago.
But the symptoms broke out right away and they’ve remained the same for 4
months.
and all your theories about why your remedy isn’t holding are true,
I don’t have theories about why the remedy isn’t
holding. The only thing I wanted to impress upon Cathy was that it’s
normal for remedies to wear off, especially if the complaint has been around
for a long time and she shouldn’t become discouraged by that; one only needs to
repeat the remedy. The question is, when you repeat it, does it work
again? If yes, then no need to borrow trouble and assume that some bad
thing is happening when clearly, something good is happening.
then you should be taking a chronic (constitutional) case…
Aha! I knew it! You finally
said it. Take a constitutional case. Well, David, Kent says
no! Kent says that case, the constitutional case, comes later, after the crisis is
over! Maybe YOU’VE never bothered to read Kent’s Lectures!
… not just being lazy and throwing an unproven isopathic medicine at the
patient.
Yeah, that’s what I like to do David, throw remedies
at people!
Chronic cases are a result of the inherent weaknesses within the
patient…
Cathy has been poisoned. It’s a very clear
case. We know what the cause is.
… they rely on the peculiar internal state and must be addressed by
proper case taking and REAL Homoeopathic prescriptions. You cannot claim
the remedy is not holding just because chronic cases often relapse.
10. ‘I’m predicting a complete recovery’. Well prove it.
OK. This just in from “Cathy”, 10/10/21:
(C…. @gmail.com)
To:you Details
What does RSB stand for?? I think I need to watch
something to explain all of this. Here I am, I have been taking homeopathic remedies
since I was a teenager, and all
this vibrational energy healing is completely new to
me. I have bought many books on homeopathy (including all of Dana’s) and I am
clueless. I must not read very well.
As for the remedy, it is working better. Now I have
moments (like right now) where I feel almost normal. First time in a long time.
Best regards,
***
Take a proper case. Show us the direction of cure. Do follow
up over a longer period to prove this case has ‘completely recovered’.
Like all of your cases presented on this site, they are all treated like
acutes, with no long term follow up, and an enormous number of erroneous
statements made about the Homoeopathic method and about our philosophy.
Wow! Well, first of all David, the vast majority
of my cases on this site ARE acutes, that’s why they get treated like
acutes! As for the “enormous number of erroneous statements” I’ve made
about homeopathic method and philosophy? You’ve failed to mention even
one of them! Are you just trying to make yourself sound superior at my
expense? If not, then name something!
I really do doubt such cures come from the way these cases are dealt
with, but as no follow up is done – who knows really.
OK, David, regarding the matter at hand, namely Pfizer
1M for ailments from the Pfizer vaccine, Dana Ullman CCH, author of at least 5
books on homeopathy and owner of Homeopathic Educational Services: www.Homeopathic.com, is actually my source
for this.
I said to him, “Dana, what should someone take after
the covid vaccine, Thuja? Ledum?” He said no, there was only one
choice as far as he was concerned: the vaccine in potency, 1M.
It made sense to me.
So, I suggest that you take it up with Dana. Let
me know what he says.
_____________
Footnotes
**https://hpathy.com/homeopathy-interviews/robin-murphy-2/
Vorwort/Suchen. Zeichen/Abkürzungen. Impressum.