Open Letter: Adam, Sam & Rhys


Well, the Flying Monkeys have come and gone.  And, funnily enough, they have decided that they like being called Flying Monkeys.  I think that’s because it stirs up happy memoirs of the Wizard of Oz.  All well and good.  Might as well be called Flying Monkeys as trolls.  Long may you fly, guys, have fun.

Here’s what I learned as a result of their “visit.”  First, that they tend to arrive en masse and see if they can intimidate and, if they fail to do so, they move right on to the next target.  (I read one Tweet that said that arguing with me was like arguing with an evangelist and advised his readers to “move on.”)  Oh, well.

Second, I learned that, in spite of the fact that they make a remarkable amount of noise, they have very little to say.

I did have some brief discussions with a few of them–those who weren’t just posting complaints or pejoratives without even bothering to read my actual blog–before they left.  I want to post here my comments to two of them, as they reflect my reasons for feeling disappointed in my experience in meeting them.  It doesn’t have to do with whether or not they are dedicated.  They are remarkably dedicated.  It doesn’t have to do with whether or not they are bright.  From my brief experience of them, the majority seem very bright.  Rather, it has to do with their actual life experience or lack of same.  From what I read in their comments, they seem remarkably naive.

In an answer to a comment from Sam, perhaps the most intelligent and thoughtful of the bunch, I wrote:

In all honesty, one of the things I have against debate (and, let me say this as an ex-debater is school, and a rather good one, especially when I was allowed to close the deal) is that it really only reflects manipulation of book learning. Of research. If there is one thing that I have learned in studying healing and health for three decades is that there is a huge gulf between what we learn philosophically, learn from books, and what we learn from life. Clinical experience trumps anything. Ask any doctor. What interested me were your actual ideas, were the things that you learned in your life, not the things that you have been trained to think by medical studies or by internet sites. That is why the Flying Monkeys bore me. They have nothing to say that comes from their own unique intellect and their own experience of life. It’s all, “you’re just taking water!” and never anything that requires direct experience or real thought and conclusions. I know that you consider all this anecdotal, and yet, I tell you, Sam, there is great importance in learning from actual experience and not from some study that will be overturned by another study in six weeks or six years. The things you learn yourself shape your reality. The things you learn from books and cling to become your “reality.” That’s the difference and that is largely why I don’t want this site to turn into a place of debate. Not because I hate free speech, but because, like that dreaded teacher who gave essay tests, I want to know what people really think–I don’t want them just to spit back what they have learned as if it were fact.

This links directly with something that I wrote to another commenter, one named Adam, who has written me several posts, all of which do two things.  First, they tell me what I am doing wrong.  Second, they ask for evidence of everything I say.  To him I wrote:

Here’s my wishful thinking, Adam. That you would do some research yourself. That you, as a thinking, reasoning person, would stop asking other people to do the work that you need to do. You want to know if homeopathy works as I say it does, do some real research, beyond just looking at a couple of web sites that have pre-digested the material for you. There are hundreds of books out there on both sides of the issue. Read them. I have. Go to interview a few homeopaths of different sorts with different levels of training. i have. Discuss the matter not with the Skeptics but with different allopaths. I have. You may be shocked to find that many of them are actually quite open to homeopathy and understand that the principles by which they, allopaths, treat conditions like chronic allergies are pure homeopathy. Talk to patients on all sides of the issue, listen to what they have to say.

You keep asking me to do the work that you need to do. If you are REALLY interested in medicine, in what works and why and for who and when it works and why it fails to work, then it is not enough for you to simply stand tapping your foot and asking me for evidence. You and SkepticCanary are guilty of the same thing and that is that you ask questions but you aren’t really interested in the answers. You won’t be until you become true skeptics. True Skeptics are people who doubt and are looking for reasons why they should or should not move from a place of doubt and believe or disbelieve. True skeptics don’t ask others to do their thinking or experiencing for them, they do it for themselves. Why is it that you have near infinite time and energy to come and ask me and ask many, many others the same tired questions, but you don’t have the time to do the research for yourselves? Adam, why don’t you take it upon yourself to spend the next year, or five years, or thirty years, as I have done, looking into the matter. Then why don’t you come back and tell us all that you found out. THEN I would be truly fascinated in hearing what you have learned.

To date, you have shared nothing of yourself with me, told me nothing of why you believe as you do. Instead, you repeat what has been repeated in exactly the same way again and again. How refreshing it would be if you were to actually show your humanity, reveal the Truth about health and healing as you believe it do be and allow yourself to enter into a discussion instead appearing, stamping your foot and then running away again. But I guess that that’s REALLY just wishful thinking.

Guys, my point is this:  if this really matters to you, if you are really concerned about medicine and about keeping medicine as safe and effective as possible–and by this I mean all medicine, not just allopathic or homeopathic–then you have not yet begun to do any of your homework.  Along with the Lancet study, which I am quite sure you can quote and recite to yourself a bedtime like a prayer, you need to read other studies.  Studies that have differing conclusions.  As I suggested to one of you who wanted me to explain to him how homeopathic remedies are made in factories by homeopathic firms, you need to contact Boiron and other pharma firms and ask questions, dig for answers.  Then you need to have actual experience of all sides of the issue, by researching as I suggest above.

No teacher would let you use Wikipedia as a source material for a test.  In the same way, the internet, entertaining as it is, is not a good platform for education.  Too much bad information.  To much slanted information.  So I don’t expect you to listen to anything that I write here.  Hell, from my experience of you, you don’t even bother to read anything I’ve written here.  You just comment and condemn, but don’t actually read or think.  So don’t, by all means, take my word for any of this.  Do the work yourselves.  Make yourselves truly responsible for finding out the facts.  Discover for yourselves the difference between homeopathy and allopathy and what is good and bad about each.  Neither is perfect, both have something to offer.  In the same way, try to figure out the difference between healing and curing. And about the fundamental meaning of the word “medicine.”  You will have to go way, way back to do that.  You will have to study the history of medicine.

If I can recommend a book on the subject–you all tend to get hostile when I recommend books, but this one is really good–I suggest you get your hands on Doctors, A History of Medicine by a brilliant man named Sherwin Nuland.  He is a professor  of clinical surgery at Yale University here in Connecticut.  So he’s no slouch in the education department.  And while he is an allopath, he is an amazingly insightful and intelligent writer.  I think that this book would be not only of great interest to you, but of great value as well.  Nuland has written several good books, including The Wisdom of the Body.  I strongly suggest that you read them all.

I close by suggesting that, while you have much to say, in all truth, at the present moment, you, my Flying Monkeys, have little to offer.  You need life experience in order for your arguments to carry weight.  At present you only amuse and annoy, depending upon the level of the melodrama.  To truly make a difference, you will have to each INDIVIDUALLY climb a mountain in life, explore all sides of the issue, not just the one that you hope is right.  Once you have done this, once you actually and individually have something to say on any of these inter-related subjects, then I hope you will fly back for a visit.  I’ll be here, blogging and waiting…

Homeopathic Babies/Allopathic Bath Water


So here’s the thing:  I have had so many comments in the past couple of days that ridicule homeopathy, denounce homeopathy and denounce me and say that, in advocating the my readers look into homeopathy, that I am a moral coward and that I have no conscience.

Sadly, in much that they say, the Flying Monkeys (as I call them when they assemble en mass) reveal a amazing lack of knowledge of just what homeopathy is.

Are they aware that the concept of homeopathy dates back, as does the concept of allopathy, to Hippocrates, the Father of Medicine?  Do they know that Hippocrates said that there are two streams of medicine (not eight, not ten–two) that flow side by side in opposite directions?  Do they know that Hippocrates said that the difference between the two streams was that one worked WITH a patient’s symptoms, thinking them a natural response on the body’s part to a threat to the system, while the other worked AGAINST a patient’s symptoms, thinking them invaders that, once eliminated would leave a healthy patient behind?

This is the basic difference between homeopathy and allopathy.  This fundamental disagreement has been in place for over two thousand years now.  Hippocrates was smart to identify these two basic forms of medicine for us.  All other medical modalities are offshoots of this.  All medical modalities are either homeopathic or allopathic.  Some systems, like Traditional Chinese Medicine and Ayurveda, incorporate aspects of both homeopathic and allopathic medicines under the umbrella of their complete methodology.  Indeed, the Eastern word is far ahead of us when it comes to learning to take the best from both approaches.  Only in the Western world are the homeopaths and the allopaths at each other’s throats.

"S. Hahnemann"

Samuel Hahnemann, The father of Homeopathy, author of the Organon

The other important difference between homeopathy and allopathy has to do with something called polypharmacy.  Simply put, it means taking more than one medicine at a time.  Samuel Hahnemann, the father of homeopathy, writes about it at length in his Organon of the Healing Art.  In fact, the entire first portion of his book is about medicine in general, allopathic and homeopathic, and how medicine, in general, can most safely be practiced.

He had two issues with allopathic medicine.  First, that many things that the allopaths were using as medicine were toxic.  The medicines were actually killing the patients.  So Hahnemann started his process of diluting his medicines until they became benign.  This is still very controversial today.  But the fact remains that allopathic medicines are as toxic today as ever.  Just as the families of those who were unfortunate enough to have their loved ones with diabetes be treated with drugs that caused them to have heart attacks.  People still die today from allopathic drugs.  The FDA attempts to keep us all safe from that reality, but, in truth, our foods are not safe for consumption and our medicines are no safer.  The FDA is doing a terrible job.

So the argument still rages over the concept of dilution.  I will leave it at that for today, because this is something that we will NEVER agree on.  We can fight about it later.

It is the other aspect that I want to discuss.  The idea of one medicine at a time.  Allopathic medicine looks at an individual drug and studies what it does.  When the research is done, the primary action of the drug–the reason for its use–is identified, as are the “side effects,” all the other things that the drug also does.  Now, just because the rather benign term “side effects” is used does not mean that these effects are any less potent or potentially important than the primary action of the drug.  And yet, the allopath, in giving it, more or less tells the patient what to expect in terms of side effects and then it is a game of wait and see to find out if, in this particular patient, the impact of the side effects is bearable or not.  If the side effects are too toxic for the patient to bear or not.

In homeopathic medicine, drugs are looked at in another way.  They are studied and tested once again, and their complete actions are noted and categorized, just as in allopathic medicine, but, instead of having one action take out of the pack and identified as the primary action and the other relegated to side effects, the homeopathic medicine is then considered in terms of all the things that it does, its entire sphere of activity.  The complete actions of the drug are matched to the complete symptom picture that the patient presents.  Only one medicine is given at a time.

When you give more than one medicine, it is impossible to trace the changes that each is individually causing.  It is further impossible to know what the interplay between any two or more drugs will be in an individual patient’s system.  These are danger points in allopathic treatments.  Indeed, allopathic drugs so commonly  create their own unique disease states that the allopaths have a name for the category of illness that are actually caused by medical treatments–iatrogenic illness.  If allopathic medicine were safe and if Hahnemann did not have a point when it comes to polypharmacy, would there need to be a category of illness that is artificially created by medicine itself?

My point is this:  should you find the homeopathic remedies just to “out there’ to swallow, don’t.  But think for a moment of two about the rest of homeopathy.  About the philosophy.  About how a homeopath sees a patient as a completely unique being and tailors treatment specifically to that patient.  In standardizing treatments that allow for the use of many medicines at once and that continue to use toxic substances as healing tools, allopathic medicine continues to be dangerous medicine.  Were the allopaths to make use of the homeopathic philosophy, even to a small degree, the results could be an allopathy that is far safer and just as effective.

Remember, allopathic medicine makes use of homeopathic principles all the time.  Almost all allergy treatments, in which a minute amount of the allergen is injected into the body, allowing the patient to become more and more resistant to it, is pure homeopathy.  It doesn’t use homeopathic remedies, but the concept is completely homeopathic.  The same can be said of the original vaccines.  The idea again is the micro-dose in action.  Were vaccines tailored to the individual and not standardized as they are, they would be completely homeopathic.

It is just too simplistic to say that homeopathy is voodoo and bad and allopathic medicine is scientific and good.  Allopathic medicine has within it both good science and bad, good practitioners and bad.  The same can be said of homeopathic medicine.

The job, I should think, of intelligent people everywhere, would be to learn as much as possible about BOTH and learn to incorporate what works in both methods of treatment, so that both can be used as safely and effectively as possible.

Finally, for those of you who just can’t get past the idea that many homeopathic remedies are diluted to the point that no molecules of the original substance remain, I have great news.  Molecule fans rejoice!  There are many homeopathic remedies that are in low enough potency that PLENTY of molecules remain.  They are diluted and yet still based in their material substance as well.  There is a whole system of these remedies called the cell salts.  Before you dismiss everything about homeopathy because one aspect of it upsets you, read a book, do some thinking.  Evaluate.  You may be surprised by what you discover.

Re: Flying Monkeys


Well, this has been a wacky day in Psora Psora Psora land.  Thanks to all who made it so special and so much fun.

Return often, if you will.  It gave what would otherwise have been a dreary, wet day some welcomed activity.

Did we resolve anything?  No.  Is it likely that we will resolve anything?  No.  I truly believe in homeopathic medicine.  I truly believe that there is no such thing as false hope, only hope and that hope is too valuable a commodity to ever dismiss.  Ever.  And I truly believe that healing is always possible.  Healing on every level of being:  body, mind and spirit.

I am, I admit, somewhat surprised that there are those who feel that these are controversial beliefs.  Or worse, that find them to be deluded beliefs or even dangerous beliefs to write about on a little blog floating out there somewhere on the internet.

But it appears that it is highly controversial to suggest such things and that, in suggesting them, I am being, among other things, a coward, a hypocrite and deluded.  As I said, among many other things.

This all having been said, I posted something as an answer to a comment in the last thread that I think, upon reflection, is just too good to hide away.  The Bible says we should never hide our light under a basket.  Journalists say we should never bury the lead.  So I want to move this answer to a comment up here–to make it a post all on its own.

I took a lot of hits today, and got called a lot of names.  I found that surprising.  Shows what an internet novice I still am.

Some of the heat I took was over calling my friends from Great Britain Flying Monkeys.  And for showing pictures of the monkeys in the posts.

In answer to one of the posts about my choice of the Flying Monkey moniker, I wrote:

I do think that allusion to the Flying Monkeys is apt. And also funny. They did come launched at me the first time as a like-minded army, all saying the exact same things. That time there was a lot of discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of bleach. This told me that the monkeys were not ever aware of my blog or what I had been writing. They did not bother to read the blog, they just commented/ranted on it.

It undermines their argument when they all fly in that way. How much better to get one post that is real and thoughtful (and I DID get a few, I admit it), then to get dozens that are just the same thing over and over again. When argument comes in this fashion it can never seem to be the result of contemplation, of real thought. Instead, it seems like (as I’ve said before) the Tea Party rhetoric that we have had a good deal of lately here in the USA. People who offer nothing but criticism, who betray no sense of reason, no search for a point of commonality have very little to offer. With Rhys and with many others, I have reached, I think, a point of agreeing to disagree. For those who choose allopathic medicine, I hope that it brings them the relief and full cure that they are hoping for. I would rather be wrong about my dislike for allopathy than to have anyone suffer as a result of using it. In the same way, I would like to think that those who disagree with me can still wish me well and hope that my choice works well for me.

This is as it should be. This is how we should be.

And, along the way, we should never lose our sense of humor.

I stand by this.  I hope that you will, on reading it, stand next to me.  At least on this.  At least as far as what has been said here in this post at the end of a very long day.

Letters, I Get Letters, Lots & Lots of Letters…All of a Sudden!


Something strange is in the air.

I wrote a post some weeks ago after a brief exchange with a young man in Whales named Rhys.  For those of  you who read Psora Psora Psora regularly, Rhys is numbered among the group of Skeptics in Great Britain who stand opposed to homeopathy, in that they consider it nothing more than placebo and feel that it offers “false hope” to any and all who try it.

All well and good–so far.

As I believe in choice when it comes to medicine and believe that, like politics and religion, one’s choice of medical treatment is not only a basic right, but also a right that should be upheld and respected above all things, I had a brief, and, I thought, respectful exchange of ideas with Rhys and ended up writing him an open letter via this blog.  (And let me note very clearly, when I say respectful, I mean that it was respectful on both sides of the conversation.  I found and find Rhys to be a highly intelligent and very thoughtful young man.  The fact that we disagree when it comes to our chosen medical modality in no way interferes with our ability to be polite and civil with one another.)

I wrote the letter because Rhys and I have something in common, aside from our passionate beliefs when it comes to health, healing and medicine.  (Although, to be clear, when it comes down to it, I believe that my true passion is for healing, while Rhys’ is for medicine, but I do not wish to put words in his mouth.  And I am sure he will clarify my statement if it is incorrect.)

Okay, I wrote the letter because Rhys suffers from Crohn’s Disease, something that I know about first hand, as I used to suffer from similar ailments.  So I feel a special attachment to Rhys and want to see him fully and completely healthy–whether it be as a result of an allopathic or homeopathy treatment.

Weeks passed and Rhys and I went on with our lives.  I wrote my little posts and he Tweeted his tweets.  Then, suddenly, just today, something strange happened.

I started to get comments, not about recent posts, but about my letter to Rhys.  Indeed, seven comments on the letter to Rhys came in between 10:45 and 12:15 this morning (my time–they are five hours ahead in Great Britain).  I found this very odd.  Why would all these people suddenly have something to say on the subject what I thought was a letter of encouragement to Rhys?  Then I went to my Twitter account and saw the answer–that little Twitterbug Rhys had just read the letter (I am hurt that he has stopped reading my Blog, but apparently he has better things to do) had posted ten Tweets to me just over two hours ago.  Just before the comments began.

In the time it has taken me to write this, three more comments have come in.  It is a very busy day indeed, especially since I posted the post to Rhys as long ago as I did.

In that the Flying Monkeys flew in together, I thought that I would print their comments together and then answer them altogether, since the messages all say the same things.  Flying Monkeys, it would appear, think alike.

I present them in chronological order.  First up is Zeno at 10:46 a.m.:  “…people deserve the right to choose the medicine that is right for them.”

Absolutely agree. Do you agree that such choice should be informed choice?

Next is Adam at 11:04:  You are overlooking one important point here: homeopathy doesn’t work.

There have been a great many randomised double-blind trials of homeopathy, and they have shown it to be no better than placebo.

It’s true that homeopathy only kills if people believe it will cure them of a life-threatening disease which could be cured by proper medical treatment. Probably most people are not daft enough to attempt homeopathic treatment for, say, a ruptured appendix. However, by encouraging people to believe in homeopathy, you increase the risks that someone might.

But although homeopathy is unlikely to kill, it is far more likely to be a waste of money and to offer false hope. You talk about economically depressed times. Quite right. All the more reason not to encourage people to waste what little money they have on quack remedies.

Next is Scott at 11:43:  “in these economically depressed times” it is especially wise to not waste money.

Homeopathy is the most outlandish fiction, a complete waste of time and resource. This is not the time we should be considering homeopathy, but stamping it out once and for all.

Next up is Pozorvlak at 11:46:  That’s incredibly patronising.

Poz is followed at 11:49 by the very angry Chunkylimey:  Considering your outright cowardice in addressing Rhys and then deleting his response here’s another one for you to delete knowing that you have been outed as a spineless hypocrite.

Your simpering snide nonsense where you claim sympathy and then patronize and insult shows you for just the kind of person you are.

You’ve outed yourself. The world is aware of you. You might not like the attention it brings. You’d have been wiser to shut up and keep your slimey insults to yourself.

Feel free to look me up too. Unlike you I’m not a coward.

(Note to Chunkylimey:  tone it down, Pumpkin.  No need for such language here.  And none will be tolerated in the future.  And as to deleting any posts from Rhys, to my knowledge I have never done so.  I quite enjoy reading what Rhys has to say and would have no trouble posting any comment from him.  If one got deleted, it was in error.  And one last note–how is it that I am a coward?  I have been teaching homeopathy for over twenty years now and have published endless articles and seven books on the subject.  Take a look at my Amazon Author’s Page.  That is hardly hiding.  Take a look at my web site.  Not hiding there, either.  And you have seen my blog.  Talk about hiding in plain view.  Final note:  let me remind you that it is the basic rule of this little Psoric blogspace that everyone has the right to choose when it comes to politics, religion and medicine.  I respect everyone who has thought these great issues out for themselves and come to conclusions that are right for them. If you cannot share this general and blanket aura of respect, then there is little point in sending comments.  They will be deleted.  This is my blog, Chunky, and it plays by my rules, whether you like it or not.)

Next comment was from MkeHyperCube at 12:15.  He wrote:  What you have there is a very good description of the Placebo effect, i.e. incurring the body’s natural ability heal itself. This is a powerful effect, and saying something “is a placebo” is not the same as saying it is not effective, since placebo is known to be remarkably effective.

However, and this is where I think Rhys’s point is an important one: there are some things which are amenable to the placebo effect – things which the body can cure for itself if you can only “light that spark” as you so eloquently put it. And there are some things that can not.

There are many people, and I am sure from your writings that you are probably not one of them, who mindlessly promote homoeopathy (and other placebo-inducing medications), as the cure for everything, including things which, sadly but demonstrably, can only be cured by allopathic i.e. conventional medicines. Hoping that you can choose to believe otherwise, does not change this basic fact. This means that there are in fact cases where people who could be getting some genuine healing or relief for something, are being persuaded to throw away the medicines they are prescribed and use homoeopathy instead. This is dangerous, as I’m sure you can see. That is why there are flying monkeys and why I think they will continue to fly.

And then there is this very long comment from Fibularis at 12:16:  Dear Vinton

Hmm. While recognising your perfect right to expressing your opinion in this little corner of the internet, and at the risk of being labelled a flying monkey, can I make a point?

I’m delighted to hear that your colitis has disappeared. I hope this is a permanent state of affairs, and I’m sure Rhys Morgan would second me in this regard.

I am not so sure that you can definitely attribute the homeopathic remedy as the causal mechanism of the cure. As human beings we are very much geared to finding patterns in the world, and very useful this has no doubt been throughout our evolutionary history. Unfortunately this ability often leads to recognition of ‘false positives’, i.e. finding a pattern where in fact there is none. We should and need to be a bit cleverer about application of remedies, and we certainly should not rely on anecdote (and, apologies if this sounds a bit rude – it’s not intended as such – your report regarding your colitis, no doubt very real to you, qualifies as anecdote). Randomised, controlled, double-blinded studies are a pain in the butt. They are expensive, labour-intensive and time-consuming, but (let me capitalise, BUT) they are very good at removing the noise, the all-too-human quirkiness and anecdotal non-evidence that clouds the issue of whether or not a particular treatment is having a real effect on a condition.

And the overwhelming body of evidence, and all meta-analysis, shows that homeopathic remedies perform no better than placebo. So, irrespective of failures to explain the mechanisms of how homeopathy might work, there is no evidence base for its use.

Now please don’t take offence at this. Your colitis has disappeared and this happened when you were taking a homeopathic remedy. But n = 1 here, and even if you know of other people for whom this seemed to work too, the numbers involved are unlikely to be more than dozens. The RCTs involve hundreds of individuals. By your own admission you were seeking this remedy when you were desperate enough to swallow your pride and seek alternative help. It may be that the condition had reached a crisis and a natural improvement accompanied the homeopathy – this often happens with mainstream medicines as well as homeopathic remedies.

I hope you have a long and healthy life too.

(Note to Fib:  I published your full comment this time.  It was well written, but here’s another of my rules–this is my blog and I am the only one here who gets to go on and on.  Keep them short in the future.)

Now for the most recent comments.  At 12:46, Greg wrote:  Psoric – none of your comments alter the fact that there is no clinical evidence whatsoever – despite your original post – that homeopathy works. It is water. If water cures your ills then more power to you. You are being patronising (life experience blah blah) and spouting the usual arguments that woo-apologists come out with day after day after day and it does not change anything except help me realise that there is just one more person out there who needs help before thy rely on water to sure something which doe not actually get better by itself (that’s called “Regression to the Mean” – it’s one natural symptom that woo apologusts are forever using to show that homeopathy works).

I pity you. I truly, truly do.

Neelan – that’s what happens when you drink water and have a condition where the symptoms ebb and flow.

(Note to Greg:  Not the old “I pity you” ploy–you can and must do better in the future.  As to ebb and flow, a quarter of a century ebb is damned good in my experience.  Especially if it comes from just drinking water as you suggest.)
Finally at 1:01, someone seems to be coming to my defense.  Dr Nancy Malick writes:  Real is scientific homeopathy. It cures even when Conventional Allopathic Medicine (CAM) fails. Evidence-based modern homeopathy is a nano-medicine bringing big results for everyone
Okay, guys, here’s the deal.  I am fully aware that you Skeptics, or Flying Monkeys or whatever is the preferred designation really, really don’t think homeopathy works.  You really, really, really want it to go away.  Like I want Sarah Palin to go away.  But the reality is that I have every right to believe as I do.  I have every right to my life’s experiences and to the lessons that I have drawn from those experiences.  I can draw the conclusions that I like in terms of politics and religion and medicine and I may put those conclusions forth as I like, in accordance with the laws of free speech and the rules of conduct that WordPress imposes.
You are free to take issue with me or not.  You are free to read the blog or not.  And you are free to comment or not as you see fit.
But I am also free.  I am free to have an exchange of ideas with you or not as I see fit.  If you send comments that march in lockstep, that come minutes apart and seem to carry on a single conversation and, most important, that can be traced back to a series of Tweets from Rhys or anyone else, you will not be recognized here.
This is not a debate forum.  Nor is it a place in which you will be setting the agenda.  This is the place in which I set forth my opinions, about homeopathy and about anything else that comes into my head.  If you can deal with that reality, then you are most welcome, as are your ideas.
But if you (like the crazed bleach woman who commented to me on something that was being discussed on Rhys’s blog and that I knew nothing whatsoever about and had never supported or even commented on) come with an agenda just to shout down anyone who the gang mentality has selected for attack, then move on.  If you are going to comment to me, then you had better have read what I have to say and not be continuing some ongoing Twitterfest that you try to drag me into.  I am not interested in your ongoing snit with all things homeopathic.
I have been a part of the homeopathic community for thirty years now, guys.  You may only be hearing of me now, but that does not mean that you just dreamed me up.  I existed before you knew I existed.  And I am aware that there are those who think homeopathy is great and those who don’t.  Long ago I stopped debating the issue.  I believe that it is up to individuals to make up their own minds.
So you won’t get an argument from me.  It is, in my opinion, a serious waste of my time.  Were we able, one on one, to sit down and talk, we might have a great time debating.  But that is not the purpose of my blog.  To wrestle with you is to take time away from what I want to do with it.  And make no mistake.  I will do with it exactly what I like.
Thanks for taking the time to visit today.  Especially you, Fib.  You had a message that, while I disagreed with nearly every word you said, was well written, well thought out and kind-spirited.  You get a gold star.  Chunky gets nothing.

Third Time Lucky?

Leave a comment

In my last post I asked you how many times you have to read about how dangerous, how toxic allopathic drugs can be before you make the decision to switch to a safer, more effective form of medicine.

Today’s news, just breaking in the New York Times as I write this, is the most alarming yet.  Make sure to read the article on the business page of the Times.

That sometimes our pharmaceutical companies, while acting in good faith, accidentally produce a medication that proves, over time, to be more harmful than it is helpful is bad enough.  Not one patient, in my opinion, should ever be harmed, much less killed by the toxicity of a medication.
But when we find that a pharmaceutical company as large and wealth as GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay a $750 million dollar fine because it KNOWINGLY sold contaminated baby ointment and anti-depressants that the company KNEW were ineffective, isn’t it time to say ENOUGH?  How many capital letters do I have to resort to using before you will sit up, pay attention and DO SOMETHING?

The best possible something is to turn your attention away from allopathic medicine altogether before its too late.  Before you find that you have been taking a drug that turns out to be ineffective for some chronic or life-threatening disease, or worse, turns out to be more toxic to your system than the disease itself is or was.  (Hopefully is–hopefully it won’t be your surviving family members who make the discovery.)

Day after day in newspapers across the planet we are being told the same thing–that allopathic drugs are dangerous.  Some are dangerous in spite of the best intentions of the pharmaceutical companies.  Others are dangerous because of the complete distain that the same drug companies seem to feel for the consumers of their products.

It is usually considered bad business to kill off one’s clientele.  Perhaps the makers of allopathic drugs feel that they have a sufficiently large pool of customers that should a few thousand here and there fall prey either to their disease (thanks to the lack of effectiveness of their drugs) or as a result of the direct toxicity of the medicines themselves, well, others will take their place and doctors will continue to prescribe their pills and insurance companies will continue partially fund the process.

The change has to come from the grassroots level.  It has to begin with you and me.  We have to learn to say NO.  We have to seek and find another better form of medicine.  One that offers safe and effective treatments.  Why would we settle for anything less.

Read a book.  Learn about something new, different and better.  And, in the meantime, just say NO.

How Many Articles Do You Have to Read about Toxic Allopathic Treatments Before You Just Say NO?


You know how sometimes when you learn a new word you find that it is suddenly in nearly every sentence you read?  Or how the same song can be everywhere all at once?

Is it me, or are there suddenly a whole lot of articles in the New York Times that suggest that maybe all the things that you have heard people in the field of alternative medicine say for the last, oh, twenty years or so might just make sense?  Especially the part about how so many allopathic treatments are just plain dangerous.

Let’s take the most recent example, this article about hormone replacement therapy and cancer. We’ve all sort of known that hormone replacement therapy in post0menopausal women is linked to breast cancer.  By sort of linked I mean that it is linked in the vague way that lung cancer is linked to cigarette smoking.  Now we are learning that the cancer that is linked to hormone replacement therapy is far more likely to be deadly than breast cancer that is not linked to that specific allopathic treatment.

Am I the only one who finds this outrageous?  Who finds that the trade off between the admitted physical and emotional discomfort associated with the post-menopausal state and DEATH to be totally and completely unacceptable.  Sort of like the trade off we dealt with in the article in the Times a few days ago that suggested that medications for the treatment of diabetes also caused DEATH.

This is not medicine, folks, this is manslaughter.

How many more patients have to die from their treatments in order for sufficient number of Americans to come to their senses and say that they DEMAND a better way, a better form of medicine, a safer form of medicine, a form of medicine that is medicinal and not just toxic?

In his Organon of the Healing Art, Samuel Hahnemann, the Father of Homeopathic Medicine, states that all patients have the right to a cure that is rapid, gentle and permanent.  So far, from what I have been reading in the Times, all that allopathic treatments seem to offer is a permanent solution–a deadly one.

Think about what Hahnemann is saying.  A cure that, at once, is rapid, gentle and permanent.  That does not just manage illness, but actually cures it.  That does more than cover symptoms and deaden pain, but actually cures it.  That works swiftly.  That works gently.  That works permanently.  Now we all know that it’s pretty easy to treat patients in a manner that can give you any two out of the three.  There are plenty of methods of treatment that are rapid and gentle–they make you feel better right away–but they are not permanent.  When the dose wears off in four hours or eight hours, the pain comes back.  You have to take another dose to get back to that rapid, gentle soothing action and, over time, you have to take more and stronger doses to maintain your state of numbness.

There are also plenty of treatments that are rapid and permanent, but not gentle.  Many treatments just approach a problem by cutting it out.  That’s fast and that’s certainly permanent, but it is very seldom gentle.

Or you can work in a way that is gentle and permanent, but it might take years to get cure, leaving rapid pretty much out in the cold.

In thirty years of studying how healing takes place, I have found only one method that works best.  It is not a cure-all or a panacea–nothing is. But it is a system of treatment that actually works with the body in the way it naturally heals itself.  And it helps strengthen the immune system in its action.  That medical modality is homeopathy.

Those women who are helped through the transition into their postmenopausal life through the use of homeopathic remedies not only find that they have a smooth transition, but they also find that they actually survive it.  Further, unlike hormone replacement, they do not have to stay dependent upon treatment for an open-ended period of time.  The goal of all homeopathic treatments is to reestablish balance and then end treatment.

Surely the possibility that I am actually writing something that is true is worth exploration.  Find out for yourself. Read, study, give the remedies a chance. If the alternative to what you may right now think of as nothing less that voodoo (or, worse, hucksterism) is that you surrender your body to an allopathic treatment that greatly increases your chances of early mortality, who is the sucker here?  The person who is open minded enough to give the alternative a try, or the person who goes ahead and opts for the allopathic treatment, having been forewarned of the risks?

Think about it.  Your life or the life of someone you love could be at stake.

Is Sally Field Trying to Snap Your Bones Like Twigs?


Hey, I’m not one to say, “I told you so,” but I have been telling you this for thirty years now.

Now the New York Times is telling you so as well.

Allopathic drugs are not safe.  Every allopathic treatment comes at a price.  Sometimes the price is fairly simple–the suppression of symptoms that will, over time, reemerge, because they have not been healed, only shoved more deeply into the system, until they seem to disappear.  But only temporarily, only for a time.  Allopathic medicine, from cold medicine on, is all about getting to pretend you are not sick when you are, all without actually doing anything to actually bring about a cure.  Read, learn, and then choose your best path to health.

Other times, when the illnesses are more serious, when they are chronic or even life-threatening, like those discussed in the Times’ article, the price of allopathic treatment is much too high.  Allopathic drugs for osteoporosis that cause bones to snap.  Allopathic drugs for diabetes that cause heart failure.  This is medicine?  This is healing?

“Skeptics” (and, oh, how I hate that term–how can you call yourself a skeptic when you made up your mind on the subject years ago?) are quick to say that homeopathic remedies have no therapeutic benefit whatsoever–that they “cure” by placebo effect.

Let’s think about this for a second.  Even if that were the case–and it is not, homeopathic remedies are not only safe to use but very effective when used appropriately–wouldn’t it be better and safer in the long run to be treated by a placebo than by a toxin?  For all those whose bones snapped because they listened to Sally Field, wouldn’t you have been better off by doing NOTHING than by taking a drug whose “side effect” is to cause the very ailment that the pill is supposed to prevent?  And for those who sadly died of a heart attack, quickly and suddenly, that was caused by the drug that they took to treat their diabetes, well, what can you say except the thing that the allopaths always say when the patient dies:  “We did all we could.”  Indeed, once again, the allopaths have done all that they possibly could have–they killed the patient once more with the treatment that was supposed to have cured him.

Just this once, as it is Saturday and it’s been a long week, I will not rail at length against the FDA, an agency that continually sells us down the river to the pharmaceutical companies that release these drugs and that profit from the deaths of the consumers these drugs and an agency that, on the other hand, is ever suspicious of natural and safe forms of medical treatment from which there are not gigantic profits to be made.  (See my past post for details. This one was good, too.)  Suffice it to say that the FDA is on the job, as ever.

Had enough of medicine that kills instead of cures?  Had enough of the politics of healing?  When it comes to healing–to getting totally well, it’s time for a change.

Older Entries