No announcement yet.

Is this a Fad that doesnt work..Help the newcomer?

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Is this a Fad that doesnt work..Help the newcomer?

    Hi Ryan,
    I think the best way to convince anybody about the effectiveness of homeopathy is to find a good homeopath who will help you out with your child's heath problems as they happen. Then each instance of healing can be effectively explained in person.

    Other than that there is a lot of reference reading material on this site (see the main home page) and many of the discussions here may provide you with futhur information, website URL's, etc that you need. Do a search with the key words you are looking for.

    I wish you all the best in your quest for "natural" health!
    ALl the best!

  • #2

    Here's one link, which, I beleive, does not mention anything like homeopathy not once. But quite interesting all the same.

    Good luck!



    • #3
      Here is a site:

      This is a source of links on vacinations.
      Shirley Reischman


      • #4

        My wife and I are new parents and still pretty young. I am 23, she is 25, and our son is now 1 years old. I have fought to ensure our sons health by pleading that my son not be vaccinated to my wife and her mother and the doctors. They all think Im nuts, but my family has has practiced natural medicine for the past 6 years or so. So far I have convinced my wife to at least hold off until our son is old enough to let us know if he has something wrong. Her mother is a RN and is needless to say not very happy about our decision. I am trying to collect imformation about Natural medicine that maybe affective to prove to those such as her mother and our pediatrician that we are not crazy. My mother turned me on to homeopathy, but I need another source in order to no show bias. I need other Dr's opinions and others experiences with natural medicine and vaccinations. I have heard the horror stories and the good stories about vaccinations.


        P.S.- My son is now 1 and has not been vaccinated and has not once had a cold or been sick. Most he has had is a fever and diaria (or however you spell that) and I attribute that to all of his teething.


        • #5
          Elena Zagrebelnaya

          From the site you posted
          If a child develops measles, chicken pox, whooping cough, mumps, rubella or any of the other common childhood infections, it is not because of germs, but because of the accumulated toxic waste within its body, a condition known as Toxaemia. It therefore stands to reason that the prevention of childhood infection is only possible by preventing the development of toxaemia, or in other words, by preserving or restoring the PHYSIOLOGICAL HEALTH of the body.
          So if I inject someone who has not been vacinayed and has not been exposed to the measles virus they would not get measles? Could you please explain then why these illnesses are infectious?



          • #6

            Why don't you ask the author of the site about this? I thought he was accessible over internet.



            • #7
              Elena Zagrebelnaya

              The link to email the site does not appear to work. Since you posted the link I assumed you suported it. If this is the case perhaps you would like to answer the questions I have raised


              • #8
                Well Starburn,
                you are right to question the above statement.
                it is not down to toxicaemia for the individual to become sick in a specific way.
                but it is not the germs neccessarily either.
                What it is we don't know, and for the tackling of disease-states with homeopathy , we don't need to know.
                What can be observed is, that sometimes these diseases come in epidemic forms, sometimes in single cases, sometimes children being vaccinated against a certain type of disease get it anyway, and sometimes unvaccinated children don't get it.
                What can be said is, that in general individuals who are weakened, or living in adverese conditions, or under a lot of stress seem to get sick easier, than robust individuals in an stressfree environment.
                Hans Weitbrecht
                HOMEOPATH / IRELAND


                • #9
                  Wow--that quote from that site is DEFINITELY not a reflection of my understanding of childhood diseases!!

                  Its another example of the big difference in medical paradigms evidenced between homeopathic and allopathic medical systems. I just don't buy the "toxicaemia" argument. It doesn't fit with the reality of those illnesses, and their function in humanity.

                  Anyway, Dr. Leela's suggestions about locating and using a good homeopath for long term care of all illnesses...chronic and your children is still the best way to go, if you want to choose alternatives to vaccination. Healthy, vital, capable children who can meet challenges on all levels and thrive as human beings eliminate the need for you to justify anything to anyone. If you decide against vaccinations, do your homework, find someone you can work with who is effective and trustworthy as a homeopath, and don't worry about what others think about your decision.

                  There are plenty of well researched books you can read which will help you decide your course of medical care, alternative to the vaccine programs you wish to avoid. Harris Coulter's A Shot in the Dark has some interesting information on the detrimental effects of specific vaccines; Vera Schreiber is another researcher who uses the vaccine manufacturer's own research to show the dangers of these substances--she's written a number of books on the subject and she also does a lot of public speaking on the topic.

                  I know Coulter's studied homeopathic medicine forever, and has studied allopathic medicine and medical history throughout his long life, as well: just because he's been able to earn a doctorate in homeopathy doesn't mean his research and work should be dismissed! Schreiber's scientific background has also led her to homeopathy, but, again, this is no reason to determine her work as "biased". When you consider that the "pro vaccine" literature is all produced by conventional medicine and vaccine manufacturers, how can it be considered "unbiased"?
                  Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung


                  • #10
                    Hi Ryan

                    Congratulations on your little one. Give me a few days and I will post or email you links or information that may be helpful for you. In the meantime I know Dr. Mercola is against vaccination and his site is you can type vaccine in his seacrh box and will find lots of info I am sure.


                    • #12
                      Here's a link to a letter written to Dr. Neal Halsey, one of the "sources" of testimony listed in the above links.

                      Of course, the above links are "the party line" and nothing new to anyone here. Go have a look, but understand that no one in their right mind would state that vaccines are the way to go, no doubt about it, and that there is no harmful aspect to them at all! Not even guys willing to spout the "party line".


                      It's just one example. Since you came here asking for something OTHER than the stuff posted above.

                      [ 26. November 2003, 22:48: Message edited by: ChaChaHeels ]
                      Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung


                      • #13
                        Most of the evidence is anecdotal and therefor of very little value. It is unfortunate that the symptoms of autism become apparent at about the same age that vaccinations are given
                        The mercury found in the hair means very little unless it was kept in such a way as we can rule out all sources of contamination. If the mercury in vaccines did cause autism then we would expect there to be a single sharp rise in the number of cases followed by a levelling off. We don’t see that. When we look at the data we see a continuos rise in the number of cases. During the time the number of cases has risen homeopathy has become more and more popular……. Of course I am not for a moment suggesting that there is a link between homeopathy it is just a useful was of showing the difference between a correlation and a connection.
                        All in all the letter is largely based on one case how about a real piece research involving a significant number of cases?


                        • #14
                          Well ChaChaHeels lets see.

                          Your argument about cigarettes causing cancer might almost have worked. About two decades ago. Scientists know smoking causes cancer. Even the scientists working for the cigarette companies say smoking causes cancer. Science has produce masses of evidence that smoking causes cancer. What more do you want?

                          Banning all substances until we can prove they are safe?
                          What say we start by banning substances we know to be dangerous? I hope you’re teetotal. Sodium chloride is off the menu as well (according to my safely sheet harmful if ingested in large quantities). And as for mentholated sprits… Then we have to ban dihydrogen monoxide this substance causes a huge number of deaths each year particular in coastal areas or near rivers.
                          If we then go on to ban everything we can’t prove to be safe how about homeopathic remedies? You yourself have claimed that there is a risk of a proving.
                          If we tried to test everything regardless we would never get anywhere (I will admit it is quite disconcerting to read a safety sheet that say no know dangers handle with care). There are over 3 million organic chemicals alone all we can do is test those that the general public may be exposed to for harm that we expect that they may cause.
                          Going back to vaccines no one is claiming that they are 100% safe. All that is claimed is that the good they do outweighs the harm and all the evidence we have supports that. Of course there should be more tests done. There should always be more tests done but nobody has produced on piece of credible evidence that vaccines do more harm than good.
                          You want more testing? What tests are you suggesting?

                          Still you are yet to provide one piece of credible evidence that vaccines are a bad thing. Anecdotes are of no use in a problem of this type, real evidence is needed.


                          • #15
                            The problem with science is that it has been coopted to be a large scale mouthpiece for industry of all kinds. Large corporations which produce pharmaceuticals, chemicals for use in agriculture and manufacturing, drugs for popular as well as medical use invest fortunes in "science" to enable them to practice their profitmaking schemes unimpeded--even if people die from what they produce.

                            You cannot prove scientifically, for example, that cigarettes cause cancer, emphysemia, lung collapse, and other lung and related tissue damage.

                            Though we know from decades of observation that this causal link is evident.

                            You cannot prove scientifically, for example, that DDT wipes out bird populations, insect populations which are beneficial to soil and plant populations, or in any way "alters" biodiversity after widespread use. You cannot prove scientifically that it acts as a neurotoxin in mammals who have been exposed to it.

                            Though we know from decades of observation that this causal link is evident, in all these situations.

                            You cannot prove, for example, that vaccines cause autism, learning disabilities, clonal seizures, shingles, any disease we would call (and have called, over the course of the last 200 years) vaccinosis.

                            Though we know from decades of observation that these causal links are evident, far too coincidental to dismiss, and are actually conceded to despite the "lack" of "scientific" proof which puts this reality in political black and white.

                            The truth is, just because science says it isn't so, doesn't mean science isn't wrong. It doesn't mean we should dismiss what we see with our own eyes, the connections we make in terms of cause and effect that we can see, repeatedly witness, and document with our own eyes, our own scholarship, our own sense perception and memory.

                            What we ought to do is demand that the use of all harmful and dangerous substances will be banned until science can prove the 100% safety of those substances. Unless it can do this, those products...such as cigarettes, genetically engineered seed, medical products which bypass all testing and are promoted to "test subjects" who undergo experimentation for the sake of profit (who are told they have no alternative), dioxin in our water, mercury in our fish, flouride in our water, etc. etc. etc. up to an including vaccines which have caused repeated, known, documented damage to huge numbers of children throughout the world....until the absolute safety of these products can be demonstrated beyond our doubt, they should be banned from the marketplace, banned from our lives.

                            That is the way science could actually make itself trustworthy, and demonstrative of any goal other than to profit madly from the great income corporations make from their employ. As it stands now, people know science is questionable--because it can be bought, and it has been bought.
                            To pretend that the political and economic structures placed on science don't have any pull on "scientific study" is to be naive. No one is really that naive...unless they have an agenda to promote which profits from promoting that naivete.

                            Now, if science could prove that vaccines are 100% safe, then, what would vaccine manufacturers lose? Why would they be afraid of this requirement, if what they were producing were actually non-toxic and beneficial to human health? Why is there such a massive effort to ensure that this kind of requirement, which does exist in countries like Sweden, Norway, Denmark, (to name a few) never becomes reality in places like North America, where pharmaceutical companies dictate what gets put on the market?

                            If you can't answer this really basic, really important question--and you can't answer why it is that vaccine manufacturers won't submit to the kind of testing which would prove that their drugs are absolutely safe before they would be allowed on the market, don't bother responding at all.

                            [ 28. November 2003, 00:20: Message edited by: ChaChaHeels ]
                            Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung