Homeopathy

[Guest guest]

Bruce,

I think what you are saying is that you believe that 50% of healing

is mindset/attitude. You are really making an argument for the value

of homeopathy as just part of the mise-en-scene of placebo adjuvants.

I disagree that it is unquantifiable. Quantifying may be difficult

to do with the individual but it is easy enough to handle

statistically. It is usually also easy enough to know when a person

really wants to die in spite of what they tell you. Such patients

present an unending parade of excuses: I forgot to take my meds, or

the meds make me dizzy, or the meds taste bad, or they are so

expensive, or the bottle broke, or I couldn't get transportation, or

I found something on the internet that said the meds are dangerous.

I see exactly the opposite attitude too: " I can't rub two nickels

together, but I really want you to help me. I'll do your filing and

typing, I will ferry patients in my car for you, I will help you in

any way that you like. " Such patients tend to do well.

The history of homeopathy makes a charming story, but in light of

modern science it ranks among the most absurd of beliefs. It has

been said that extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs. I

don't think this is necessarily true, but I do think a greater

scrutiny is called for when money starts changing hands.

[Guest guest]

At 08:10 AM 8/15/2006, you wrote:

>In a message dated 8/15/06 1:33:19 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

>vgammill@... writes:

>

> " We could call Biorin and ask if they would

> like to participate in a double-blind study of their product in such

> a way that tens of thousands of people would witness it over the

> internet in real time. "

>

>You are just trying to prove your point which is that homeopathy is

>bogus. It is not bogus. It is real. It works. But you need the

>right remedy or it doesn't work. It is not like an antibiotic,

>generalized. Homeopathy is specific to the person and the ailement.

You seem to be saying that if the remedy didn't work then the right

remedy was not used. So, I guess that you would keep switching

remedies until nature takes its course one way or the other.

[Guest guest]

Not arguing with you, for the most part. Right now homeopathy is a

" touch-feely " experience. Lots of antidotal stories, very little hard

science.

I am not saying that you can't quantify homeopathy, I think it could be done

with a rather complex model.

I simply am saying that based on your original question, it takes some real

thought into the process of designing an experiment so that the very

difficult quantities are not overlooked. I also believe that it takes a

rather large statistical sample to be valid beyond three.

I was not trying to put everything into the equation, simply an overview of

the issue as I see it, with 4 points to start thinking about.

I strongly believe that if you do not want to live, you will not, regardless

of what is pumped into you. I agree with your last paragraph completely and

almost all of the one before. I am really in a quandry as to how to define

the mind. I don't say that it cannot be done, I simply say that the model

required is much more complex than most people will consider and their

results will not be indicitive of the true situation because they have not

properly defined the parameters.

Any time you throw money at something which is as precious as perserving

life, you should have a relative understanding of what you are doing and the

probability of success you face. When I designed what I did for myself, I

ended up with 39 supplements that all had a minimum of 30 studies done and

80% of those independent scientific studies as reported in PUBMED and other

medical/research sources had to be positive in nature. Combining that with

the fact that each substance was targeted toward one of 6 key cancer

charactistics, I came up with a 92% confidence level that what I was doing

for me would work. Still not 100%, but a far cry above the 2% of allopathic

medicine. I strongly and firmly believe I am here because my choices were

based upon a reasonable, logical, scientifically based decision. (That is

assuming the studies were not bogus to begin with).

Were I to quantify homeoapathy, I would start with the 4 areas of concern I

originally listed and then develop a DOE around all of the possible

variables I could come up with. I would then requantify them based upon

further research to eliminate those not really relevant. I would then want

to identifty exactly what I was chasing. There are 117(?) defined cancers

as of this date. So, do we design for all 117 or do we group them by

category and once that decision is made to we further quantify according to

staging, sex, race, age, etc... and go from there. Each of those factors

plus lifestyle factors will all be players if you want it done correctly.

I really would look for more than a " touchy feely " action/reaction. If I

were to quantify whether or not it works, I would like to know within

reasonable limits (75%+) accuracy, that what I found I could duplicate.

Regards,

Bruce Guilmette, PhD

Survive Cancer Foundation, Inc.

http://survivecancerfoundation.org <http://survivecancerfoundation.org/>

Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day

has enough trouble of its own. Matt 6:34 (NIV)

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of VGammill

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 1:47 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] homeopathy

Bruce,

I think what you are saying is that you believe that 50% of healing

is mindset/attitude. You are really making an argument for the value

of homeopathy as just part of the mise-en-scene of placebo adjuvants.

I disagree that it is unquantifiable. Quantifying may be difficult

to do with the individual but it is easy enough to handle

statistically. It is usually also easy enough to know when a person

really wants to die in spite of what they tell you. Such patients

present an unending parade of excuses: I forgot to take my meds, or

the meds make me dizzy, or the meds taste bad, or they are so

expensive, or the bottle broke, or I couldn't get transportation, or

I found something on the internet that said the meds are dangerous.

I see exactly the opposite attitude too: " I can't rub two nickels

together, but I really want you to help me. I'll do your filing and

typing, I will ferry patients in my car for you, I will help you in

any way that you like. " Such patients tend to do well.

The history of homeopathy makes a charming story, but in light of

modern science it ranks among the most absurd of beliefs. It has

been said that extraordinary claims call for extraordinary proofs. I

don't think this is necessarily true, but I do think a greater

scrutiny is called for when money starts changing hands.

[Guest guest]

Bruce,

It would be easy to set up a homeopathic medicine study. Get all the

cancer patients you can find. Double blind. Half get the

homeopathic solution and half get the sham. Separately from the QOL

assessment you could do a Karnofsky scale. In six months unblind and

add up the post-test Karnofskys. If the test population is large it

will average out all the variables.

Such a test costs almost nothing, but it would be very telling.

[Guest guest]

I could buy into that, but the researcher in me likes more quantification.

If you have a sufficiently large population, you would nullify the errant

variables, but now we do need to be in the thousands.

Regards,

Bruce Guilmette, PhD

Survive Cancer Foundation, Inc.

http://survivecancerfoundation.org <http://survivecancerfoundation.org/>

Do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself. Each day

has enough trouble of its own. Matt 6:34 (NIV)

_____

From: [mailto: ] On

Behalf Of VGammill

Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:34 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] homeopathy

Bruce,

It would be easy to set up a homeopathic medicine study. Get all the

cancer patients you can find. Double blind. Half get the

homeopathic solution and half get the sham. Separately from the QOL

assessment you could do a Karnofsky scale. In six months unblind and

add up the post-test Karnofskys. If the test population is large it

will average out all the variables.

Such a test costs almost nothing, but it would be very telling.

[Guest guest]

Regarding 's post a ways back:

" There has never been a single single year (or

second for that matter), that any country's medical authorities

announced that a homeopathic remedy was the best treatment for any

specific disease. "

Medical authorities tend to be subjugated by governmental regulations.

Do we need governmental sanctions to approve all healing modalities

that work? That thought gives me the shudders. It seems to me that

it is unfortunately those people, who put total faith in government

sanctioned, " scientifically proven " modalities of healing, that are

dying untimely deaths at record rates these days. Or have you missed

the news lately? (sarcastic comment...) My government controlled

" Sickcare " system doesn't want me healthy. They just want to profit

from my misfortune.

My beef is also with the 21st Century scientific mindset that

everything has to be proven to be valid. I'm not knocking science, of

course, but like everything else, it evolves with the times and

today's science may be tomorrow's foolishness. The more one learns

about quantum physics, the more it becomes apparent as to how much we

really don't know. This whole discussion reminds me of the argument

of trying to prove the existence of God. Most people do believe in God

and would stake their life on that belief, but I don't think we'll

come up with any scientific proof there.....

Bonnie

[Guest guest]

Bonnie,

There is absolutely nothing sacred about the scientific method. It

is just a more formal, painstaking type of common sense. When

rigorously applied we can sort all kinds of difficult issues that

would otherwise remain sources of puzzlement and argument. " Proven "

and " unproven " are terms that special interest groups use to convince

the unweary that science supports the flow of money to their

pockets. Cancer patients can add years to their lives simply by

giving wide berth to anyone who spouts such terms as proven and unproven.

With few exceptions there should be separation of healthcare and

state much like the separation of church and state.

01:26 PM 8/15/2006, you wrote:

>Regarding 's post a ways back:

>

> " There has never been a single single year (or

>second for that matter), that any country's medical authorities

>announced that a homeopathic remedy was the best treatment for any

>specific disease. "

>

>Medical authorities tend to be subjugated by governmental regulations.

> Do we need governmental sanctions to approve all healing modalities

>that work? That thought gives me the shudders. It seems to me that

>it is unfortunately those people, who put total faith in government

>sanctioned, " scientifically proven " modalities of healing, that are

>dying untimely deaths at record rates these days. Or have you missed

>the news lately? (sarcastic comment...) My government controlled

> " Sickcare " system doesn't want me healthy. They just want to profit

>from my misfortune.

>

>My beef is also with the 21st Century scientific mindset that

>everything has to be proven to be valid. I'm not knocking science, of

>course, but like everything else, it evolves with the times and

>today's science may be tomorrow's foolishness. The more one learns

>about quantum physics, the more it becomes apparent as to how much we

>really don't know. This whole discussion reminds me of the argument

>of trying to prove the existence of God. Most people do believe in God

>and would stake their life on that belief, but I don't think we'll

>come up with any scientific proof there.....

>

>Bonnie

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 04:07 PM 8/15/2006, you wrote:

>I have felt skeptical of homeopathy and many other alternative

>therapies, but homeopathy seems to work regardless of my skepticism

>whereas many others don't hold up as well in my experience.

>

>Karima

Critical thinking skills covary with measurements of

intelligence. Suggestibility has nothing to do with

intelligence. Some of the best hypnotic subjects are the skeptics or

those who think that they can't be hypnotized. There is every reason

to believe that this also holds true for placebos.

[Guest guest]

" Some of the best hypnotic subjects are the skeptics or

those who think that they can't be hypnotized. There is every reason

to believe that this also holds true for placebos. "

I agree with you there, people who do not have a healthy respect for the

inner world of imagination may be the most vulnerable to being surprised by

its effects. However, some of the more rational folks I know are not very

good at critical thinking skills either, if by those you mean the

traditional study of arguments and fallacies.

My main point was that we have no good mainstream methods for exploring the

use of imagination for healing. It is more of an art than a science. Even

though countless studies have been made, the practical applications are

lacking in our society. We don't know how to put this stuff to work, the

whole argument on homeopathy is an illustration of this. There is just a

never ending argument about what is or is not effective. That only

mechanical effects are legitimate.

I remember reading about a study where fake knee surgeries were performed

that were as effective or more effective than the real thing at relieving

pain and mobility. That is a very mechanical example. What does that say

about knee surgery? It should be scientifically unassailable at this point I

would think. Not too sure why the study would have been done to begin with

and newspapers do a terrible job reporting on science.

Karima

[Guest guest]

I can't keep quiet any more!

All I knew about homeopathy when I borrowed a book from the library was that

the British Royal Family had used it for generations.

I knew a bit more after I'd read the book.

I first tried it out with a naturopath who just had some standard

multi-ingredient homeopathic remedies. Success.

I wanted a " proper " homeopath, so looked in the yellow pages. Rang one up.

He told me about a machine he had bought in the US that he was trialling on

friends.

Some time later my old mother was ill. I took her to this guy, who was now

using his gadget. Success.

I went myself. Turned my life around. For less than the price of one

medical test I had information on all sorts of infections and horrible

things in my body as well as the remedies.

For some twenty years, if I wanted a cure I went to him. If I wanted a

certificate I went to a doctor. I didn't have time or energy to waste.

I took my kids. Two weeks on belladonna meant my dyslexic son no longer had

to wear the blue glasses I'd had to jump through so many hoops to get.

I now live three hours away, and drive there when I need to.

People don't do that unless a thing works.

I wouldn't drive across the road for some of the " remedies " doctors have

given me. Takes longer to get over the bad effects of a few days on some of

them than to wait for nature to take its course.

This is the current website for " my " homeopath. There should be a link to

others like him around the world.

http://www.taracentre.com.au/ Click on evaluation methods. Then click on

Electro-Dermal screening.

It's also worth clicking on " Links " .

As far as I am aware, homeopaths don't take part in " trials " because they

don't agree with giving sick people placebos or " nothing " rather than

treatment their experience demonstrates is effective.

Rowena

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/26/2006 11:13:37 A.M. Mountain Standard Time,

vgammill@... writes:

Scientists are human beings. Like anyone else, they can fool themselves "

Randi

But no one can fool the great Randi.....I'm fond of Randi, but not as

much as he is.

[Guest guest]

Juergen,

Although it certainly wasn't your intention, I do think that you gave

excellent arguments against the validity of homeopathy. You suggest

success rates that don't even match what nature provides and then you

go on to reference the work of Benveniste.

From the BBC:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2002/homeopathy.shtml

Homeopathy: The Test - programme summary

Homeopathy was pioneered over 200 years ago. Practitioners and

patients are convinced it has the power to heal. Today, some of the

most famous and influential people in the world, including pop stars,

politicians, footballers and even Prince , all use homeopathic

remedies. Yet according to traditional science, they are wasting their money.

" Unusual claims require unusually good proof "

Randi

The Challenge

Sceptic Randi is so convinced that homeopathy will not work,

that he has offered $1m to anyone who can provide convincing evidence

of its effects. For the first time in the programme's history,

Horizon conducts its own scientific experiment, to try and win his

money. If they succeed, they will not only be $1m richer - they will

also force scientists to rethink some of their fundamental beliefs.

Homeopathy and conventional science

The basic principle of homeopathy is that like cures like: that an

ailment can be cured by small quantities of substances which produce

the same symptoms. For example, it is believed that onions, which

produce streaming, itchy eyes, can be used to relieve the symptoms of

hay fever.

However, many of the ingredients of homeopathic cures are poisonous

if taken in large enough quantities. So homeopaths dilute the

substances they are using in water or alcohol. This is where

scientists become sceptical - because homeopathic solutions are

diluted so many times they are unlikely to contain any of the

original ingredients at all.

Yet many of the people who take homeopathic medicines are convinced

that they work. Has science missed something, or could there be a

more conventional explanation?

The Placebo Effect

The placebo effect is a well-documented medical phenomenon. Often, a

patient taking pills will feel better, regardless of what the pills

contain, simply because they believe the pills will work. Doctors

studying the placebo effect have noticed that large pills work better

than small pills, and that coloured pills work better than white ones.

Could the beneficial effects of homeopathy be entirely due to the

placebo effect? If so, then homeopathy ought not to work on babies or

animals, who have no knowledge that they are taking a medicine. Yet

many people are convinced that it does.

Can science prove that homeopathy works?

In 1988, Jacques Benveniste was studying how allergies affected the

body. He focussed on a type of blood cell known as a basophil, which

activates when it comes into contact with a substance you're allergic to.

As part of his research, Benveniste experimented with very dilute

solutions. To his surprise, his research showed that even when the

allergic substance was diluted down to homeopathic quantities, it

could still trigger a reaction in the basophils. Was this the

scientific proof that homeopathic medicines could have a measurable

effect on the body?

The memory of water

In an attempt to explain his results, Benveniste suggested a

startling new theory. He proposed that water had the power to

'remember' substances that had been dissolved in it. This startling

new idea would force scientists to rethink many fundamental ideas

about how liquids behave.

Unsurprisingly, the scientific community greeted this idea with

scepticism. The then editor of Nature, Sir Maddox, agreed to

publish Benveniste's paper - but on one condition. Benveniste must

open his laboratory to a team of independent referees, who would

evaluate his techniques.

" Scientists are human beings. Like anyone else, they can fool themselves "

Randi

Enter Randi

When Maddox named his team, he took everyone by surprise. Included on

the team was a man who was not a professional scientist: magician and

paranormal investigator Randi.

Randi and the team watched Benveniste's team repeat the experiment.

They went to extraordinary lengths to ensure that none of the

scientists involved knew which samples were the homeopathic

solutions, and which ones were the controls - even taping the sample

codes to the ceiling for the duration of the experiment. This time,

Benveniste's results were inconclusive, and the scientific community

remained unconvinced by Benveniste's memory of water theory.

Homeopathy undergoes more tests

Since the Benveniste case, more scientists have claimed to see

measurable effects of homeopathic medicines. In one of the most

convincing tests to date, Dr. Reilly conducted clinical trials

on patients suffering from hay fever. Using hundreds of patients,

Reilly was able to show a noticeable improvement in patients taking a

homeopathic remedy over those in the control group. Tests on

different allergies produced similar results. Yet the scientific

community called these results into question because they could not

explain how the homeopathic medicines could have worked.

Then Professor Madeleine Ennis attended a conference in which a

French researcher claimed to be able to show that water had a memory.

Ennis was unimpressed - so the researcher challenged her to try the

experiment for herself. When she did so, she was astonished to find

that her results agreed.

Horizon takes up the challenge

Although many researchers now offered proof that the effects of

homeopathy can be measured, none have yet applied for Randi's

million dollar prize. For the first time in the programme's history,

Horizon decided to conduct their own scientific experiment.

The programme gathered a team of scientists from among the most

respected institutes in the country. The Vice-President of the Royal

Society, Professor Enderby oversaw the experiment, and

Randi flew in from the United States to watch.

As with Benveniste's original experiment, Randi insisted that strict

precautions be taken to ensure that none of the experimenters knew

whether they were dealing with homeopathic solutions, or with pure

water Two independent scientists performed tests to see whether their

samples produced a biological effect. Only when the experiment was

over was it revealed which samples were real.

To Randi's relief, the experiment was a total failure. The scientists

were no better at deciding which samples were homeopathic than pure

chance would have been.

Homeopathy: The Test - questions and answers

How did homeopathy start?

Homeopathy was founded by Hahnemann (1755-1843). He trained as

a physician, but thought that many of the techniques he learned were

brutal and ineffective.

Disillusioned with medicine, he started work as a translator. It was

then that he came across a book which mentioned that a bark extract,

quinine, could be used to treat malaria. He found himself wondering

why this worked.

Hahnemann started experimenting on himself. He noticed that when he

took a dose of quinine he experienced feverish symptoms similar to

those of malaria. This led him to formulate his universal rule for

homeopathy: that like cures like.

Jacques Benveniste claimed he could explain homeopathy in the

eighties. What happened to him?

Jacques Benveniste published a controversial paper on homeopathy in

Nature in 1988. He implied that water had properties that meant that

it 'remembered' what chemicals it had been in contact with. This

results of this paper have since been called into question.

Following this incident, Benveniste lost his funding from the French

government. However, he has continued his research with a small team

and still stands by his original results.

His new research takes the concept of the memory of water a step

further. He now claims to be able to record a signal stored in the

water and turn it into a computer file, which can be emailed around

the world. This emailed file can be played back into a sample of pure

water, which then takes on the properties of the original substance.

These claims have met with even greater scepticism than his original

results and have earned him an unprecedented second IgNobel prize.

How can the 'placebo effect' explain homeopathy in animals and babies?

Many people claim that homeopathy works simply because people believe

it will. This is known as the placebo effect.

A major part of the placebo effect is the hope and peace-of-mind that

you get from doing something you think will be beneficial. This

requires the knowledge that the treatment is supposed to help you.

Therefore the placebo effect should only work in humans old enough to

know what a medicine is.

However, homeopathy is also believed to work on animals and babies.

Could the placebo effect also explain this?

The apparent effect of a placebo could also be due to other

interventions that occur at the same time - changes in diet for

instance, or just increased care and attention. There could also be a

degree of wishful thinking on behalf of the human observer -

believing an animal or baby that received the treatment has improved

more than it has because of unconscious bias. There might also be an

indirect placebo effect - the treatment makes a carer feel more

relaxed and this is picked up by an animal or baby.

Because of these possibilities, research (even on animals and babies)

can only be convincing if it is 'double blind' and placebo

controlled. This means that the researcher mustn't know which

subjects have received the test treatment and which have received the placebo.

How has homeopathy performed in clinical trials?

There have been over 200 trials published that have examined the

effectiveness of homeopathic medicines. The majority of these have

found some positive effect of homeopathy. However, in such a

comparison you have to take into account publication bias: a positive

study is more likely to get published than a negative study. Opinions

differ as to whether analysing all these studies together is useful

and whether the overall evidence comes out significantly in favour of

homeopathy.

The critics point to the lack of strong repetitions of studies. For

instance Reilly's work on allergy is often regarded as the best

clinical evidence for homeopathy. However, in a recent attempt to

investigate the same condition the results came out negative. Dr

Reilly believes this is down to differences in the experimental

method. Until a result can be reliably replicated in favour of

homeopathy in independent laboratories the scientific community will

remain sceptical.

What else would qualify for the Randi Million Dollar challenge?

The Randi challenge doesn't only apply to homeopathy, any paranormal

effect would qualify. It started in 1964 when, during a heated radio

debate, a parapsychologist challenged Randi to put his money where

his mouth is. Randi replied by offering $10,000 of his own money and

the Paranormal Challenge was born.

Since then, the prize fund has grown through donations and pledges by

fellow sceptics to reach a total of more than $1m. To apply for the

prize you just need to fill in a form on Randi's website.

So far, there have been applications from practitioners of

therapeutic touch, dowsers and psychic readers. One recent

application was from a 10-year-old Russian girl who claimed to be

able to see using mental perception. When her mother blindfolded her

she went on to successfully read out cards held up in front of her

face. But when Randi applied the blindfolding, carefully making sure

that there was no gap between the blindfold and her unusually concave

nose, her mental perception deserted her. Needless to say, she failed the test.

Juegen and list:

The vast majority of people who were reared in an environment

that included mystical thinking taught by authorities, became adults

who retained similar beliefs no matter how illogical from a rational,

adult perspective. This is most obvious to everyone when critically

examining OTHER PEOPLE'S religions. Clearly there is something

terribly askew in native epistomology. The cold light of reason that

we like to apply to other people's religions needs to be turned on

each and all of our own beliefs. This is a painful process that

takes years if honestly performed.

I will not add even $10 to Randi's offer of a $1,000,000

reward for a proof of homeopathy as I see no value in becoming

financially or egoically invested in the outcome of an objective

assessment of a belief system.

[Guest guest]

-- iandixon wrote:

My father is diabetic, is now frail and weak. He has lung

> disease..., a small prostate cancer...and...a stone/blockage of his pancreas.

I contacted a homeopath...A hair sample was duly sent... we are advised he has a

high level of arsenic in his hair. So my reaction is to send his hair sample

report to his usual doctor.

Try Chelation at Extremehealthusa.com

[Guest guest]

In , Karima Pijanka <karirom@...>

wrote:

" Both and Bruce, and others over the many posts, have tried to educate

people into understanding that 'most' so-called illnesses are self limiting. Did

the pain-killer cure the headache or simply dull the body and the symptom faded

away? "

I think that the comment here is telling, that the pain-killer was

also placebo effect. We are supposed to believe that the pain-killer

works regardless of placebo effect, therefore it's effective and

homeopathy isn't.

This is why many people (including governments) try to protect the

so called 'suggestible' folks from alternative medicine. However,

many people who believe in and use conventional medicine get more and more sick.

So the double blind medicine determined to be effective (that kills almost as

many people as heart attacks!) is considered effective and medicine at least

partially uses the power of the imagination and/or other subtle effects is

bogus.

Perhaps our testing and evaluation methods are biased and un-

sophisticated because we don't yet know how to use the power of the

imagination and mind to heal and so all we do is to put down methods

that at least partially use this effect as bogus and therefore

unworthy of use except by those weak minded enough to

be 'suggestible'.

There is something about current ways of modeling the world that

cause this split into chemical action = effective, hard to determine

chemical action = ineffective. As I understand current research,

mental imagery has a measurable effect on ones body, this was

considered impossible and ridiculous not too long ago.

I have felt skeptical of homeopathy and many other alternative

therapies, but homeopathy seems to work regardless of my skepticism

whereas many others don't hold up as well in my experience.

Karima

Look everyone,when you're sick in any way start with more fresh

air,water, eat better,no sugar or white flour. Get the video by Dr.

Lorraine Day // You can't improve on God 800-574-2437.Ron & Cheri

[Guest guest]

--- Rowena <newses@...> wrote:

I can't keep quiet any more!

All I knew about homeopathy when I borrowed a book

from the library was that the British Royal Family had used it for

generations. I knew a bit more after I'd read the book.

Rowena

Dear Rowena,is the Machine a mineral checker? Does

it work like a zapper or syncrometer? Thanks Ron

[Guest guest]

Hi, I'm not the person that you're writing to here, but I've had good

experiences with homeopathy. We see Melnychuk of the Palo Alto

Center for Homeopathy. He does phone consults with us, but that is

after an initial in-person visit (we were lucky to see him when he was

visiting our state). He specializes in kids on the spectrum and is

very knowledgeable. Even if he couldn't help you himself, I bet he

could help you find someone good. His office number is (650) 213-8380

-Sierra

>

> Hello,

> I believe you were the person who has good things to say about

> homeopathy. Do you work with a homeopath? If so could you share his or

> her name and phone number with me? Also would they be willing to do a

> phone consult?

>

> Thanks

> Vinutha Shekar

> ____________________________________________________________

> Click here to find the satellite television package that meets your

needs.

>

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mzvzRaIOLEaOI2OSrIrpDIKKLVlnN\

aNlQdmSaRBdvZeWxtT/

>

[Guest guest]

Hi, Try Melnychuk in Palo Alto, CA. His phone number is

650-213-8380. He may be able to point you in the right direction if

you do not live in the area.

Anjie

>

> Hello,

> I believe you were the person who has good things to say about

> homeopathy. Do you work with a homeopath? If so could you share his or

> her name and phone number with me? Also would they be willing to do a

> phone consult?

>

> Thanks

> Vinutha Shekar

> ____________________________________________________________

> Click here to find the satellite television package that meets your

needs.

>

http://thirdpartyoffers.juno.com/TGL2141/fc/Ioyw6i3mzvzRaIOLEaOI2OSrIrpDIKKLVlnN\

aNlQdmSaRBdvZeWxtT/

>

[Guest guest]

Hi

 

I highly recommend the clinic from Canada.  There are DAN doctors in the US who

refer some of their patients to them.  They also do phone consultations and do

not require you to visit them, not even for the initial appts.  They have

clients all over the world that they treat and there are practitioners all over

the world as well.  They do the complete treatment as Dr. Hahnemann recommended

including genetic issues and this complete system of medicine is called

Heilkunst.

 

My child is about 95% recovered and this was the only treatment we did.  Very

cost effective compared to other methods.

 

They (Patty and Rudi) have written a book about autism and explain how

homeopathy/heilkunst addresses the issues and are working on another one.  Check

out the website if you like.

 

www.homeopathy.com   or   www.heilkunst.com

 

The office phone number is (613) 692-6950.

 

 

All the best,

Rose

 

From: vinutha c shekhar <chendu@...>

Subject: Homeopathy

Received: Thursday, August 21, 2008, 5:59 PM

Hello,

I believe you were the person who has good things to say about

homeopathy. Do you work with a homeopath? If so could you share his or

her name and phone number with me? Also would they be willing to do a

phone consult?

Thanks

Vinutha Shekar

____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

Click here to find the satellite television package that meets your needs.

http://thirdpartyof fers.juno. com/TGL2141/ fc/Ioyw6i3mzvzRa IOLEaOI2OSrIrpDI

KKLVlnNaNlQdmSaR BdvZeWxtT/

__________________________________________________________________

Canada Toolbar: Search from anywhere on the web, and bookmark your

favourite sites. Download it now at

http://ca.toolbar..

[Guest guest]

We also have a homeopath. In fact, we just saw her yesterday and she did a

work up on david for his autism. I can't remember the miasm she said he had

but gave us a remedy to try for him.

Her name is Joan Lowe and her number is #(205) 871-1288 she's in AL and

does do phone consults. I've been using her for 3 years and this is the

first time we've met but not the first time she's helped.

She charges $185 for a first time consult. Yes, most homeopaths do phone

consults. Allow about an hour to 2 hours for the first app't.

Nita (crew chief) and the crew: 15, Jon 13, 11, 9,

7, Christian (7/16/03 to 8/22/04), 2 and Isaac, 2/3/08

http://momof6.dotphoto.com <http://momof6.dotphoto.com/> for not

necessarily current pictures

http://nitasspot.blogspot.com

Learn from the mistakes of others. Trust me... you can't live long enough

to make them all yourself.

[Guest guest]

Hi Sharon,

I've heard a whole lot of mixed reports that vary from one end to the other.

Some people have seen dramatic improvements, some people have seen small

improvements, some people have seen no improvements, and I've even heard

of a few cases where the parents claim the child got severely worse and

regressed.

That's probably not much help, but I have heard good, bad and ugly.

SHARON SMITH wrote:

>

> im filling out the paperwork to start homeopathy treatment for my 2 yr

> old son with asd. he is rather mild and we are really anxious about

> staring anything that may bring negative results that last. we are

> starting with homeopathy because we feel it is a gentle approach. i

> went to the homeopathy board and asked for stories of recovery or bad

> side effects from using homeopathy and no response at all. now im

> nervous! has anyone tried homeopathy and would you please share your

> story of success or failure. we really just want the good, bad, and

> ugly, so we know what we are getting ourselves into. thanks, sharon

>

>

[Guest guest]

does it work for seizures?

On Jan 10, 2009, at 8:24 AM, Sylvia Sumida wrote:

> We have been doing homeopathy for 9 months and it has made all the

> difference for my son. We are doing classic homeopathy, probably a

> little more conservative in approach then sequential. For us this

> has been huge. My son is 39 months old, we began when he was 31

> months. We have done biomed/diet since he was about 18 months old

> and saw minimal change. We saw differences in my son 2 weeks into

> homeopathy and he has been on a wonderful trajectory since. Sure

> we still have many issues still to work on but we are thrilled with

> everything that has happened since starting this modality of

> treatment. My son's language has increased dramatically, his

> social skills though still very delayed presented themselves (non-

> existent prior) and his cognition really improved (also very

> delayed) as a result of homeopathy. We had one similar aggravation

> in the beginning where my son had a monumental meltdown that lasted

> 1 hour (it was not anything like his

> usual tantrums...very different) but that is it. For us it has

> been 99.9% poisitve with large gains...I'll take those odds any day.

> All my best,

>

>

>

> Sylvia Sumidahttp://matthewsumida.blogspot.com/

>

>

>

> From: SHARON SMITH <ssmith0306@...>

> Subject: [ ] homeopathy

> ,

> BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism ,

> chelatingkids2

> Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 5:47 AM

>

> im filling out the paperwork to start homeopathy treatment for my 2

> yr old son with asd. he is rather mild and we are really anxious

> about staring anything that may bring negative results that last.

> we are starting with homeopathy because we feel it is a gentle

> approach. i went to the homeopathy board and asked for stories of

> recovery or bad side effects from using homeopathy and no response

> at all. now im nervous! has anyone tried homeopathy and would you

> please share your story of success or failure. we really just want

> the good, bad, and ugly, so we know what we are getting ourselves

> into. thanks, sharon

>

>

[Guest guest]

We have been doing homeopathy for 9 months and it has made all the difference

for my son.  We are doing classic homeopathy, probably a little more

conservative in approach then sequential.  For us this has been huge.  My son is

39 months old, we began when he was 31 months.  We have done biomed/diet since

he was about 18 months old and saw minimal change.  We saw differences in my son

2 weeks into homeopathy and he has been on a wonderful trajectory since.  Sure

we still have many issues still to work on but we are thrilled with everything

that has happened since starting this modality of treatment.  My son's language

has increased dramatically, his social skills though still very delayed

presented themselves (non-existent prior) and his cognition really improved

(also very delayed) as a result of homeopathy.  We had one similar aggravation

in the beginning where my son had a monumental meltdown that lasted 1 hour (it

was not anything like his

usual tantrums...very different) but that is it.  For us it has been 99.9%

poisitve with large gains...I'll take those odds any day. 

All my best,

 

Sylvia Sumidahttp://matthewsumida.blogspot.com/

From: SHARON SMITH <ssmith0306@...>

Subject: [ ] homeopathy

,

BorreliaMultipleInfectionsAndAutism ,

chelatingkids2

Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 5:47 AM

im filling out the paperwork to start homeopathy treatment for my 2 yr old son

with asd. he is rather mild and we are really anxious about staring anything

that may bring negative results that last. we are starting with homeopathy

because we feel it is a gentle approach. i went to the homeopathy board and

asked for stories of recovery or bad side effects from using homeopathy and no

response at all. now im nervous! has anyone tried homeopathy and would you

please share your story of success or failure. we really just want the good,

bad, and ugly, so we know what we are getting ourselves into. thanks, sharon

[Guest guest]

I personally avoid homeopathy because the pellets contain dairy and the liquid

contains grain alcohol and I don't want even the essence of toxins.

S S

homeopathy

Posted by: " SHARON SMITH " ssmith0306@... ssmith0306

Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:47 am (PST)

im filling out the paperwork to start homeopathy treatment for my 2 yr old son

with asd. he is rather mild and we are really anxious about staring anything

that may bring negative results that last. we are starting with homeopathy

because we feel it is a gentle approach. i went to the homeopathy board and

asked for stories of recovery or bad side effects from using homeopathy and no

response at all. now im nervous! has anyone tried homeopathy and would you

please share your story of success or failure. we really just want the good,

bad, and ugly, so we know what we are getting ourselves into. thanks, sharon

------------------------------------------------------------

Workers Compensation

Free Workers Compensation Legal Information. Click Here.

http://tagline.excite.com/fc/BK72PcZbqCEG0eNxUbVavUKrYZDOFpu1WUM0jYdioD5cm37wwRQ\

Q3e/

[Guest guest]

Not sure where the homeopath you reference obtains their remedies but the liquid

is water (bottled) and the remedies are holistic and GFCF.  Our homeopath was a

DAN as well and very cognizant about what he gives children.  Like everything,

you have to do your own research.

Sylvia Sumidahttp://matthewsumida.blogspot.com/

From: Shepard Salzer <_Shepard@...>

Subject: [ ] Re: homeopathy

autism treatment

Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 7:21 AM

I personally avoid homeopathy because the pellets contain dairy and the liquid

contains grain alcohol and I don't want even the essence of toxins.

S S

homeopathy

Posted by: " SHARON SMITH " ssmith0306 (DOT) com ssmith0306

Sat Jan 10, 2009 5:47 am (PST)

im filling out the paperwork to start homeopathy treatment for my 2 yr old son

with asd. he is rather mild and we are really anxious about staring anything

that may bring negative results that last. we are starting with homeopathy

because we feel it is a gentle approach. i went to the homeopathy board and

asked for stories of recovery or bad side effects from using homeopathy and no

response at all. now im nervous! has anyone tried homeopathy and would you

please share your story of success or failure. we really just want the good,

bad, and ugly, so we know what we are getting ourselves into. thanks, sharon

------------ --------- --------- --------- --------- --------- -

Workers Compensation

Free Workers Compensation Legal Information. Click Here.

http://tagline. excite.com/ fc/BK72PcZbqCEG0 eNxUbVavUKrYZDOF pu1WUM0jYdioD5cm

37wwRQQ3e/

[Guest guest]

My son did have seizures initially but those stopped prior to homeopathy

starting.  I can send you the e-mail of our homeopath and he would definintely

answer you.  Send me an e-mail off line if you are interested.

Sylvia Sumidahttp://matthewsumida.blogspot.com/

>

> From: SHARON SMITH <ssmith0306 (DOT) com>

> Subject: [ ] homeopathy

> ,

> BorreliaMultipleInf ectionsAndAutism @groups. com,

> chelatingkids2

> Date: Saturday, January 10, 2009, 5:47 AM

>

> im filling out the paperwork to start homeopathy treatment for my 2

> yr old son with asd. he is rather mild and we are really anxious

> about staring anything that may bring negative results that last.

> we are starting with homeopathy because we feel it is a gentle

> approach. i went to the homeopathy board and asked for stories of

> recovery or bad side effects from using homeopathy and no response

> at all. now im nervous! has anyone tried homeopathy and would you

> please share your story of success or failure. we really just want

> the good, bad, and ugly, so we know what we are getting ourselves

> into. thanks, sharon

>

>