Big Pharma hit piece on Homoeopathic nosodes

14 January 2013 Last updated at 14:43

Homeopathic ‘vaccine pills’ should be withdrawn, says regulator

By Sam Smith BBC Inside Out

A homeopathic pharmacy endorsed by Prince Charles and the Queen has been told to stop advertising sugar pills labelled as childhood vaccines.

The government’s medicines regulator stepped in after an investigation by BBC Inside Out South West.

It found a number of homeopathic products on sale at specialist retailer Ainsworths labelled as vaccines or bearing the name of a childhood illness.

The programme also found evidence the company’s owner Anthony Pinkus was prepared to recommend homeopathic pills to parents as an alternative to the whooping cough vaccination.

‘Nice theory’

London-based Ainsworths has two Royal Warrants for supplying homeopathic products. Prince Charles is known to be a supporter of homeopathy despite the lack of scientific evidence for its effectiveness beyond a placebo.

Among the products found on offer were vials of pills labelled Meningitis Vac Hib, Measles Vaccine, Rubella Vaccine, Pertussin and Pertussis Vaccine. Pertussis is the scientific name for whooping cough.

Royal warrants

Awarded to companies who supply the Royal Family with goods or services
Currently they can only be awarded by the Queen, Duke of Edinburgh and the Prince of Wales
Royal warrant holders can display the relevant royal arms with the words ‘by appointment’
There are strict rules on using and displaying these royal arms

The UK has recently been experiencing the worst outbreak of whooping cough since the 1980s. Last year, 13 babies died of the disease.

Homeopathy is a 200-year-old system of treatment that uses very highly diluted substances which are given orally in the belief that they will stimulate the body’s self-healing mechanism.

Critics say any active ingredient is diluted so many times the final product, dripped onto a sugar pill, is highly unlikely to contain a single molecule of it.

But homeopathy has ardent supporters who say it has helped them get better and insist it should be available on the NHS.

In 2007, current health secretary Jeremy Hunt signed a parliamentary early-day motion praising the “positive contribution” of homeopathic hospitals in the NHS.

However, Professor Edzard Ernst, an expert on complementary medicine, said: “Homeopaths say some sort of “energy” stimulates the body to heal itself. That is a very nice theory but it’s not supported by any clinical evidence and the clinical trials don’t support it either.

“One of these products is to protect or to treat meningitis. That is a condition that is potentially fatal. Ineffective treatment for fatal disease is life-threatening.”
‘No evidence’

Mr Pinkus told the programme he did not accept his labelling was misleading because it was clear the products were “in no sense medical pharmaceutical drugs”.

He also said he did not recommend his products for the prevention or treatment of childhood illnesses.

But when Inside Out wrote to him posing as the parent of an unvaccinated child and asking for advice about whooping cough prevention, he recommended several of his homeopathic pills including Pertussin.
Continue reading the main story
Advice for a parent

PDF download See the email exchange between Mr Pinkus and a BBC reporter posing as a parent[1,626Kb]

Most computers will open PDF documents automatically, but you may need Adobe Reader

Download the reader here

He said he could not make a claim for its success and said using it was a personal choice but when asked if the child should be vaccinated said he would use Pertussin “alone”.

Mr Pinkus added if the child was vaccinated as a “compromise”, the Pertussin pills would “offset the side effects”.

According to experts there is no evidence homeopathic pills can protect against or treat any infectious disease, or treat any side effects of vaccination.

Adam Finn, professor of paediatrics at the University of Bristol Medical School, said: “I’m very concerned because what I know about vaccines tells me these cannot possibly be effective at preventing infections.

“The use of the word vaccine is fundamentally misleading. Not only doctors but also parents understand something quite clear when they use the word vaccine. People are being misled in a way that is absolutely unacceptable.”
‘Not misled’

In 2011 Mr Pinkus, a pharmacist, was censured by the Advertising Standards Authority for promoting homeopathic pills for tropical diseases. The General Pharmaceutical Council also investigated but let him off saying he had taken “remedial action”.

It has also emerged a complaint about the sale of “vaccines” by Ainsworths was made to the government’s Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) more than a year ago by the Nightingale Collaboration, a group which campaigns for evidence-based medicine.

The MHRA has now told Ainsworths to stop advertising a number of products. It has also taken action against another homeopathic pharmacy, Helios, and sent a warning letter to a Jersey-based firm Homeoforce. Both were selling similar products.
Anthony Pinkus Mr Pinkus said he did not recommend his products for the prevention or treatment of childhood illnesses

When contacted by the BBC, Helios said it puts a disclaimer on its labels pointing out they are not a proven preventative or treatment.

Homeoforce said products marked “vaccines” were to protect against side effects of vaccines rather than prevent illness. But the experts the BBC spoke to said there was no good evidence they could do either.

An MHRA spokesman said: “It’s vital that people are not misled about the effectiveness of homeopathic products. We have taken action to ensure that Ainsworths and Helios are no longer advertising their homeopathic products as alternative treatments to proven, conventional vaccines such as those for measles, meningitis or whooping cough.”

However, last week Inside Out was still able to buy a product labelled “Pertussin Vac” from Ainsworths’ London shop.

Dr Sarah Wollaston, the MP for Totnes – where three out of 10 five-year-olds are not fully immunised – has written to the health secretary.

She said: “I do not think that any product for which there is no evidence whatsoever that it can confer any benefit should be labelled a vaccine. I don’t think there’s any excuse for that.”

  • theunhivedmind

    Help For Whooping Cough When Prevention Fails

    Larry Malerba
    Hpathy Ezine, February, 2013 | February 11, 2013

    Dr. Larry Malerba makes the case for inclusion of homeopathy in any rational treatment of whooping cough.

    The incidence of whooping cough (pertussis) is on the rise in the U.S. this year. Given the general ineffectiveness of conventional medical treatment once a person has contracted the illness, it is incumbent upon the medical profession to consider other options. One such option with a long-standing clinical track record for reducing the duration and severity of symptoms of whooping cough is homeopathy.

    A relatively small minority of unvaccinated children were blamed for some for the increasing incidence of whooping cough, but recent data shows that the large majority of cases are contracted by those who have already been vaccinated according to CDC guidelines (1). Correspondingly, the message from medical authorities has recently morphed into one that suggests that additional pertussis boosters beyond what are already required may be necessary, because it is believed that the vaccine loses its effectiveness over time (2).

    It is my opinion that this overemphasis upon a preventative vaccination strategy is largely due to the inability to treat whooping cough once it is contracted. Physicians understand that antibiotics are likely to have minimal if any effect upon the course of the illness once the cough has set in, and the same applies to cough suppressants. Since treatment is so demonstrably inadequate, it is believed that prevention is the only game in town. But requiring additional pertussis vaccine boosters also fails to take into account the documented dangers associated with the vaccine (3). Given the potential side effects and the vaccine’s failure to confer sustained immunity in spite of multiple booster shots, it strikes me as counterintuitive to double down on a strategy that is clearly falling short of the goal.

    Whooping cough is a particularly violent, prolonged, and debilitating affliction that is especially hard on infants and children. After an initial phase that looks a lot like the common cold or a mild flu, a characteristically relentless cough usually develops. The classic whooping sound results from the person’s gasping for breath at the end of a rapid succession of coughs. If there is any silver lining to the recent rise in cases, it is that it seems to be affecting adolescents more than any other group, and they seem to be capable of weathering the illness a little more successfully.

    There are usually subtle differences between the symptom patterns of persons suffering from whooping cough. Homeopathic treatment is predicated upon choosing the one medicine that most closely matches the symptom profile of the afflicted individual. A close match can bring significant relief and shorten the duration of the cough, which, if untreated, can persist for weeks and, sometimes, months.

    Although most homeopathic medicines are FDA regulated and readily available over the counter, self-treatment for whooping cough is not advisable. Given the seriousness of the condition, it is best to consult a homeopathic professional. Below are brief synopses of the symptom patterns of some commonly indicated homeopathic medicines for whooping cough. These medicines represent just a few of the options available to a homeopathic prescriber (4). While most cases of whooping cough are characterized by spasmodic, relentless, exhausting coughing attacks, the following descriptions are meant to illustrate how the illness can differ in subtle ways in different people.

    Drosera rotundifolia – This homeopathic medicine is indicated when the cough is worse immediately upon lying down to bed at night and/or when the cough flares up after midnight. There is tickling and dryness in the throat, which causes spasmodic coughing. Attempts to bring up phlegm end in retching and vomiting. The violence of the cough may produce nosebleeds. Frequent coughing attacks prevent the person from catching his/her breath.

    Belladonna – This medicine is usually indicated in the early stages of the illness or when fever is present, especially if the fever begins around 3PM. There is pressure in the head and the face is hot and red while the hands and feet are cool. The head feels like it will burst from coughing. A dry, tickling, spasmodic cough emanates from the larynx.

    Coccus cacti – The defining characteristic that indicates the need for this medicine is the production of large amounts of clear, thick, ropey mucus. Paroxysms of choking cough result in vomiting of long strings of mucus that hang from the mouth and nose. Drinking cold water may bring temporary relief from tickling in the larynx and the coughing spells. The spells may become more aggravated early in the morning and/or around 11-11:30 at night.

    Ipecacuanha – The person who needs Ipecac often experiences persistent nausea that may not be relieved by the vomiting that follows after the cough. Due to the nausea, the person is often lacking in thirst and will not want to drink fluids. The child will stiffen and become rigid with the cough.

    Bryonia alba – This is a very commonly indicated cough remedy in general. Its main indication is the presence of symptoms that become aggravated from motion. The person is compelled to breathe quietly and remain as motionless as possible so as not to aggravate the cough. In addition, the cough is painful due to the motion of the ribcage. Similarly, a headache may become more painful when the person rises to walk around.

    Antimonium tartaricum – The clue that leads to the prescription of this medicine is the sound of the loud, rattling, mucus-filled chest while coughing. In spite of this, the person struggles unsuccessfully to bring the mucus up from the chest, thus producing little expectoration. One gets the impression that the person will drown in his/her own fluids. The person is usually cross, irritable, and weak from efforts to raise the phlegm.

    Cuprum metallicum – This medicine is indicated when we see cramps, muscular spasms, clenched fists, and/or convulsions associated with the whooping cough. Violent paroxysms of severe cough lead to suffocation with the lips and face turning blue. As with Coccus cacti, cold drinks of water may bring temporary relief from the coughing attacks. Coughing spasms may wake the person around 3AM.

    Kali carbonicum – The worst phase of the cough comes between 2 and 4AM. The person must sit up and lean forward during the attack and prefers to sleep propped-up with pillows. Think of this medicine when the cough leads to left sided pneumonia.

    Although homeopathic medicine is a viable option for pertussis, mainstream medicine’s general unwillingness to consider any therapy that is not manufactured by PhRMA tends to blind it to potentially new and/or unexplored treatments. And in the case of homeopathy, there is a long-standing undeniable bias that assumes that it is just not possible that it can work, because it defies conventional medical beliefs about the nature of illness and how it can be treated.

    Over the course of my career, I have successfully treated cases of whooping cough and a variety of other intractable coughs that were not responding to repeated courses of antibiotics. There are thousands of homeopathic practitioners across the globe who can testify to similar results. Unfortunately, the firsthand clinical experiences of unconventional medical practitioners tend to be dismissed by a medical system that has come to rely heavily upon research studies that are often funded and influenced by PhRMA.

    If this is the case, then to dismiss a treatment for an illness that has no other effective therapy—primarily because of a lack of research studies published in conventional medical journals that “prove” its effectiveness—demonstrates an anti-scientific attitude that, in actuality, amounts to a form of inflexible and uninformed prejudice. A convenient catch-22 has been created by a medical system that refuses to consider the homeopathic option while simultaneously claiming that there are no studies to back up its use.

    Although there are no specific studies regarding homeopathy and pertussis, there are numerous studies that point to the fact that homeopathy involves significantly more than the placebo effect that it is claimed by naysayers to be (5). The real bottom line here is that this closed minded attitude, which refuses to entertain promising alternative medical options, does a tremendous disservice to suffering patients in need of care.

    In a greener, more enlightened medical world, the most effective protocol for whooping cough would include a proper exam and evaluation, initiation of antibiotic therapy if caught in the earliest stages of the infection, adequate rest and hydration, and complementary homeopathic treatment throughout the course of the illness. It is incumbent upon the medical profession to become educated about use of this valuable therapy, especially in cases of acute whooping cough precisely because there is no real viable alternative.

    References and Resources:

    1. Vaccinated kids account for 90 percent of child whooping cough cases in Vermont, Andrew Stein,, Oct 8, 2012

    2. Whooping cough: teens and pregnant women could get booster amid huge outbreak, The Telegraph, Oct 26, 2012

    3. Possible Side-effects from Vaccines (DTaP section),

    4. Roger Morrison, MD, Desktop Companion to Physical Pathology. Hahnemann Clinic Publishing, Nevada City, CA 1998. pp.126-131

    5. Good medicine: Homeopathy, Christopher M Johnson, ND,, Oct 6, 2012

  • theunhivedmind

    Johann Loibner

    Hpathy Ezine, May, 2008 | May 15, 2008

    Vaccination and Homeopathy

    Translated by Katja Schütt and Andrea Smith

    Would Hahnemann Have Made Vaccinations?

    It is an undeniable fact that there are, amongst the healing professions, particularly homeopathy, those who adopt a reserved, cautionary or even totally negative position on the subject of vaccinations. There are about thirty-three rubrics listed in the actual “Complete Repertory” with reference to this subject. No engaged homeopathic physician, therefore, can ignore this subject.

    Mind; ANXIETY; vaccination, after: thuj.Head; INFLAMMATION of: Brain; Eruptions, from suppressed; Eczema from vaccination, after suppressed: bac.Head pain; GENERAL; Vaccination, from: thuj.Eyes; INFLAMMATION; Vaccination, after: thuj.

    Eyes; INFLAMMATION; Conjunctivae; Vaccination, after: thuj.

    Eyes; INFLAMMATION; Cornea, Keratitis; Vaccination, after: vac., vario.

    Stomach; PAIN; General; Vaccination, after: Thuj.

    Stomach; NAUSEA; Vaccination, after : Sil.

    Rectum; DIARRHEA; vaccination, after: ant-t., apis, sil., thuj.

    Stool; Vaccination, after: apisin., thuj.

    Respiration; ASTHMATIC; Vaccination, after: thuj.

    Respiration; ASTHMATIC; Children; Vaccination, after: thuj.

    Cough; VACCINATION, after: thuj.

    Extremities; EMACIATION; Upper limbs; Vaccination, after: maland., thuj.

    Extremities; ERUPTIONS; Pustules; Leg; Vaccination, after: sulph.

    Extremities; ERUPTIONS; Varicella, like; Vaccination, after: syc-co.

    Extremities; PARALYSIS; Lower limbs; Vaccination, after: thuj.

    Extremities; SUPPURATION; Finger, Nails; Vaccination, after: Thuj.

    Extremities; FELON; ONCHYIA; PARONYHIA; Run-around; Vaccination, after: Thuj.

    Extremities; SWELLING; Shoulder; Vaccination, after: apis, thuj.

    Extremities; SWELLING; Upper arm; Vaccination: Sil.,sulph., Thuj.

    Sleep; RESTLESS; Vaccination, after: thuj.

    Sleep; SLEEPLESSNESS; Vaccination, after: mez., thuj.

    Skin; ERUPTIONS; General; Vaccination, after: crot-h., maland., mez., sars., skook., sulph., vario.

    Skin; ERUPTIONS; Eczema; Vaccination, after: ammc., kali-m., maland., mez.

    Generalities; VACCINATION; after: acon., ant-t., apis, ars., bac., bapt., bcg, bell., bufo, carc., crot-h., diph., echi., graph., gunp., hep., kali-chl., lac-v., lepro., Maland., med., merc., merc-cy., Mez., nat-bic., ped., phos., psor., rhus-t., sabin., sarr., sars., sep., SIL., skook., SULPH., syc-co., THUJ., Tub., Vac., vario.

    Generalities; VACCINATION; after; Diphtheria injections: diph., merc-cy.

    Generalities; VACCINATION; after; Yellow fever vaccination: ars.

    Generalities; VACCINATION; after; Meningitis injections: apis

    Generalities; VACCINATION; after; Smallpox vaccination: maland., thuj.

    Generalities; VACCINATION; after; Typhus: bapt.

    Generalities; VACCINATION; Prophylactic: sulph., thuj., vario.

    Generalities; CONVULSIONS, Vaccination, after: Sil., thuj.

    Figure 1, 33 Rubrics from the Complete Repertory
    Praise of Smallpox Vaccination?

    But there those who argue that Hahnemann had a positive attitude toward vaccinations. They refer to a quote written in the Organon from which they conclude that Hahnemann much appreciated vaccinations.
    “By the way it is notable, that since the general distribution of Jenner’s Cow Pox vaccination, human small-pox never again appeared as epidemically or virulently as 40-50 years before…”

    § 46 Organon

    Why did Hahnemann receive the idea of smallpox vaccination so positively?

    In the chapters that precede paragraph 46 in the Organon he explains in detail the phenomena that existing disease symptoms will disappear temporarily or permanently due to the addition of a new disease. He refers to experiences gained by Dezoteux, Leroy and Wendt; who had observed the cure of former diseases after the application of smallpox vaccinations. Hahnemann’ point was to confirm his discovered Law of Similars and these reports encouraged him and were very convenient for him in confirming in his new healing principle: that a disease is extinguished by a similar one.

    The phrase “never again as epidemically as 40-50 years before” is a hint “from heresay” of uncertain numbers. There was little reliable epidemiological data available in Hahnemann’s time, and more reliable data only came into being after Hahnemann. Reports that there was a remedy against this dreadful disease, were understandably greeted with great hope. Hahnemann had not experienced later, more severe smallpox epidemics such as those in Germany about 1870.

    Moreover, for a long time smallpox vaccinations were made by non-physicians, the so-called “inoculists,” and only gradually, in the second half of the 19th century, were vaccinations made by special physicians. Hahnemann himself definitely never made vaccinations.

    Accurate Knowledge of Medicines?

    Did make Hahnemann make other statements from which we can conclude whether he appreciated or rejected vaccinations? Hahnemann writes in the preface of the sixth edition of the Organon:
    “Hence Homeopathy avoids everything in the slightest degree enfeebling… hence it employs for the cure only those medicines whose power for altering and deranging dynamically the health it knows accurately.”

    Preface to the sixth edition of the Organon

    Can we say of a vaccine that we know it’s impact accurately? A vaccine is a living culture with added substances (stabilizers) which prevents this culture from having a life of it’s own. These toxic substances, like mercury, aluminum, organic solvents, etc. surely evoke associations with known remedy diseases to each experienced homeopathic physician.

    The culture of a vaccine prospers on a foreign individual; chicken egg protein, monkey kidneys, human embryos. In any case, it contains traces of foreign protein. Each experienced homeopath knows about the importance of individuality. Only modern experiences of rejection reactions after Hetero-transplantations have shown the stress foreign proteins cause when they challenge an individual. We only come to know which reactions this biological medium brings about in the vaccinated body after the vaccination has been done. Hahnemann wrote an annotation on this point: „homeopathy does give simple medicines, which it knows exactly. It does not give mixtures”.

    Who Has Eradicated the Plagues?
    “He is, likewise, a preserver of health if he knows the things that derange health and cause and sustain disease, and how to remove them from persons in health.”

    § 4 Organon

    True prevention requires knowledge about the general living conditions which cause diseases. Worldwide, and independent of all times prevails a uniform opinion about the fundamental causes of disease and plagues. This concerns the adequate supply of fresh foods and a balanced nutrition, human housing conditions, proper clothing to protect themselves against cold and heat, pure drinking water, ways to keep body and clothes clean, and an efficient waste disposal, functioning canalization, etc., not to mention social peace and working conditions, family bonds and social order. It surely makes sense to everybody that the probability of plagues occurring increases and the general health of the population suffers during times of famine, destruction of all civilizing institutions by means of wars and insufficient care of the sick.

    These universally accepted correlations between living circumstances and development of disease are evident for everybody skilled in the art of healing.

    But a constant, consciously applied propaganda beclouds the correct view of these facts in even practicing homeopathic physicians.

    Therefore it is not surprising that some homeopaths also attribute the decrease of plagues at first to the effects of vaccinations. But it has been known for a long time that plagues as well as the mortality rate of infectious diseases like measles, diphtheria etc. had already definitely declined before the introduction of vaccinations. This decrease began when, as a result of technological progress, social advancement, and general hygienic knowledge, it became possible to cover the basic needs of men.

    M. Diepold, Graz, 2001, Hunger und Vergiftung (Hunger and Poisoning)

    Primum Nihil Nocere

    It is undeniable that countless people have lost their life and health by means of vaccinations. What does it mean when a physician himself sees healthy people pass away, rendered chronically ill, or crippled due to vaccinations? Why did Hahnemann abandon his occupation after his first experiences in medical practice? Did he point with shrugging shoulders to the doctrine of his times and continue to apply detrimental methods although humans got ill because of the prevalent applications of that time? Is it at all thinkable that he would have referred to a general hypothesis and continued to vaccine unconcernedly if he had observed with his own eyes the first signs of disease caused by vaccinations?

    Hahnemann shows his tactfulness and responsibility toward sick persons in his instructions on remedy provings. In paragraph 137 of the Organon he writes about the effects of excessively large doses of medicines:
    “not to mention that it is dangerous – something that cannot be a matter of indifference to anybody who respects mankind and counts even the lowliest of men as his brother.”

    § 137 Organon

    Who can imagine that Hahnemann would had continue to make provings if this would have caused serious disease or had even caused a first death? Could he not appeal rightfully to the highly strained argument of risk/benefit considerations?

    Yet Hahnemann expresses himself much more clearly in the preface to the Organon when the representatives of a medical direction carelessly disregarded the damages caused by the treatment.
    “When one is rendered insensible to the admonitions of conscience, this becomes a very easy business indeed.”

    Preface to The Sixth Edition of the Organon

    The Beginning of Disease

    Finally we come to a point in the Organon which no homeopathic physician will ignore. It is about the exploration of the sick person and especially about the activating cause of disease.
    “Useful to the physician in assisting him to cure are:

    The particulars of the most probable exciting cause of the acute disease
    The most significant points in the whole history of the chronic disease”

    § 5 Organon

    Now, when the patient tells the doctor that the respective disease began after the vaccination and was not caused by any other event, can the homeopathic physician then not listen? Especially when the sick person reports this spontaneously and with great emotion.

    Furthermore we have to ask about vaccinations separately within the complementary exploration. In many cases patients do not have the heart to mention this topic because certain physicians do not want to hear about it; or often the patient does not know that diseases are caused by or brought on by vaccinations. Therefore the careful anamnesis of each – also non homeopathic – physician has to be completed by the subject of vaccinations. Was the vaccination definitely the activating event? Does a physician only have to wait for the expert opinion of an officially qualified authority in order to draw a medical conclusion? Does it serve the science to overlook facts out of respect for an accepted hypothesis?

    Hypotheses and Medicine

    Asis generally known, Jenner had declared that one single smallpox vaccination brings about lifelong protection against further smallpox diseases. But he had to revise this opinion because the vaccinated got ill as well as the non-vaccinated in several regions during subsequent smallpox epidemics. The doctrine of lifelong immunity dates from the observation that particular exanthemic childhood diseases only occur once in most cases. Hahnemann writes in paragraph 73 of the Organon of the classification of acute diseases… which either befall a person only once in a lifetime (such as smallpox, measles, whooping-cough, mumps, or the old, smooth, bright red scarlet fever of Sydenham, etc.) … Here he repeats a theorem then considered valid, which is incorrect, but which is still taught today from elementary school to university and which obviously dates from superficial observation. Each physician experiences in longer practice that these childhood diseases can appear several times. But advocates of vaccination apply even this theorem, that undergoing an infectious disease provides lifelong immunity, in more speculative ways to all possible diseases. „Booster shots” were created to maintain the idea of protection effect by smallpox vaccination.

    Also, further chapters of theories which should have justified the protection effect of vaccinations became more and more questionable. The capability of the human organism to build antitoxin, on which E. Behring established serotheraphy around 1900, was disproved twenty-five years later by the toxicologist L. Levin, well-known to all homeopaths. Also the belief of neutralizing antibodies is at the most a thinking model, which complies in no case with the actual state of knowledge of molecular biology. Thus I have to close this paragraph with the following quote given by Hahnemann:
    “According to the testimony of all ages, no occupation is more unanimously declared to be a conjectural art than medicine”

    Preface to the First Edition of the Organon (1810)


    Everybody who treats his patient for the most part according to the homeopathic curative method will have to deal with the problem of vaccination. Therefore, rejection of particular vaccinations or vaccinations in general, or at least a critical attitude toward them will develop depending on the physician’s experience and level of knowledge. The main reasons for this are the special claims of homeopathy. Everybody who works according to this method follows the definite requirements of this healing method. The essentials are:

    To recognize before each medical treatment what enfeebles health and to avoid everything that promotes disease
    The avoidance of damages by the therapy itself – “Primum Nihil Nocere”
    Accurate knowledge of the remedies to prescribe
    Careful study of case history
    Delving into the data of the patient
    Serious, permanent revision of previous experiences and actual medical knowledge and prevalent doctrines – “Aude Sapere!”

    Did Hahnemann ever make vaccinations? This question can only be answered by those who treat their patients according to his spirit. And now for the final quote, this time not from Hahnemann.
    James Tyler Kent and vaccinationI have investigated the pros and cons of vaccinations and after perennial observations and accurate weighting of circumstances I came to the conclusion, that the proofs that argue for vaccinations are very doubtful. In fact vaccinations have contributed enormously to damage individuals and the entire mankind. They caused many humans to get sick, have produced many ulcers and have masked, I don’t doubt this, many constitutional ailments.If I weigh all this then I can’t see any reason why I could recommend vaccinations. I have refused vaccinations for many years and if a patient absolutely wants to get vaccinated then he has to resort to another person. I do not assume responsibility. I have applied an array of medicines prophylactically as long as the disease was prevailing and therefore I have several arguments for it, that the indicated remedy prevents the disease.Published in: “The Homeopathic Recorder”, Vol. XVI, No.12, 1901


    Hahnemann, Samuel. Organon der Heilkunst, Ausgabe 6B 2. Auflage, 1978, Haug Verlag,

    Winkle, Stefan. Kulturgeschichte der Seuchen, 1997, Artemis&Winkler, Düsseldorf/Zürich

    Lewin, Louis. Gifte und Vergiftungen, 6. Auflage, 1992, Haug Verlag

    Heine, Hartmut. Lehrbuch der biologischen Medizin, 2. Auflage, Hippokrates Verlag

    Hahnemann, Samuel. Organon of the Medical Art, Wenda Brewster O’Reilly, Birdcage books, California, USA

    Hahnemann, Samuel. Organon of Medicine, Sixth Edition Hahnemann’s Own Written Revision, translated by Willaim Boericke; 2006; B.Jain Publishers (P) Ltd. New Dehli

    Hahnemann, Samuel. Organon of Medicine, translated by Jost Künzli, 2003, Clays Ltd, St Ives plc, Great Britain

  • theunhivedmind

    Australian Homeopath Taken to Court

    Meryl Dorey
    Hpathy Ezine, March, 2013 | March 15, 2013

    An Australian homeopath faces a day in court for publishing the truth.

    An Australian homeopath, Fran Sheffield, is being taken to court by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) for having the temerity to upload a page on her business website, Homeopathy Plus, referencing studies which indicate that the whooping cough vaccine could be less effective than we’ve been told. To make matters even worse, this page also states that people might want to investigate the homeopathic option for disease prevention!

    Make no mistake – this action by the ACCC could be seen by some as an attempt by a government department to suppress debate on the vaccination issue. It might also the first step in restricting the practice of homeopathy in Australia – especially when considering this action in combination with the current inquiry (or should that be inquisition?) into natural therapies in Australia.

    So much hinges on this case!

    If this case were to be lost in the Federal Court, the results could be disastrous for all of us

    There is the potential for a precedent to be set whereby the federal government could use a negative decision as a bludgeoning tool to prevent the AVN, health professionals or anyone else from openly discussing information critical of current vaccination policies (or any other natural healthcare option such as chiropractic, naturopathy, herbs, etc.). The internet and the media could then be censored further and people could be left with no option but to use mainstream medical doctors and drug-based therapies even if that would not normally be their first choice.

    So though it might appear on the surface that this court case is only concerned with one practitioner in one particular modality, in actuality, this is an important battlefront in the wider war we are currently fighting to protect our rights to free speech and informed choice.

    It is vital, therefore, that we join with Fran and Homeopathy Plus in opposing these efforts to tell us what we can and cannot discuss. If we don’t and the case is lost, an extremely dangerous precedent will be set.

    A bit of history

    Early last year, Ms Sheffield was first contacted by the ACCC because she had an article on her website which discussed the failure of the whooping cough vaccine to prevent an outbreak of whooping cough that has been raging through highly-vaccinated populations worldwide. She also provided information on homeopathic treatment and prevention. The ACCC said that she needed to remove the article or face potential prosecution. At that time, Fran told the ACCC she would remove the article to fact check it but if she found it to be correct, it would go back online. Her contact at the ACCC told her they would be watching and if the same or similar ‘claims’ were reinstated, legal proceedings could commence.

    The article was checked, found to be factual and returned to the website in a slightly revised version. Because of ongoing complaints about a range of articles by people seemingly intent on suppressing information about homeopathy, Fran decided to start a private members-only area on her website for any information that could be considered contentious. Those who were interested would still be able to access the information they wanted while those upset by homeopathy would no longer be troubled. This section is where the new article was placed.

    In contravention to the terms and conditions of the Homeopathy Plus website which they signed and agreed to, the ACCC entered the member’s area and copied and removed the revised articles and laid charges against Fran, her husband and Homeopathy Plus.

    A few things are important to note:

    The information in the article on the Homeopathy Plus website was correct. It was referenced and it is the same information that can be found on literally hundreds if not thousands of other websites across the internet, in newspapers, scholarly journals, magazines and on television sets.
    This information was not controversial. It is well-known within the scientific community that the whooping cough vaccine is not working well nor does it protect for long if any protection is conveyed at all. There is evidence which indicates that the current vaccine may make people more susceptible to other bacteria which cause clinically indistinguishable illnesses (b. parapertussis) and that the shot may have caused a more severe form of the disease which is more likely to kill infants and children.
    It is a fact, based on government figures, that we are seeing higher numbers of cases today with our close to 95% vaccination compliance than we did 50 years ago with very low levels of vaccination. These facts cannot be disputed – they are just not supposed to be told to the public, apparently.

    The ACCC is not saying that Ms Sheffield or Homeopathy Plus have hurt or defrauded anyone – nor has anyone lodged a complaint to say they have. They are saying that they disagree with what she has said on her website and based on that disagreement, she has to stop saying it. They appear to be claiming that those who make statements the government does not like are not allowed to speak. Think about the implications of this abuse of power for a little while…

    In their more recent correspondence with Ms Sheffield, the ACCC stated that according to their opinion, the page on her website which discusses whooping cough:

    “…contain representations which convey the impression that the current vaccine is ineffective in protecting against whooping cough and that homeopathic remedies are a safe and effective alternative approach for the prevention and/or treatment, of whooping cough.

    “The ACCC considers the above pages to contain potentially misleading and deceptive

    statements, which potentially create a false or misleading representation that: the whooping cough vaccine is of a particular standard or quality; and that homeopathic remedies for whooping cough are of a particular standard or quality and/or have a use or benefit.

    “Consequently, the ACCC intends to institute proceedings against Homeopathy Plus! Australia Pty Ltd for alleged contraventions of sections 18, 29(1 )(a), 29(1)(b) and 29(1)(g) of the Australian Consumer Law.

    “The ACCC will be seeking orders for declarations, injunctions (including an interlocutory injunction), pecuniary penalties and costs.”

    Rights? What Rights?

    Here, just as with the AVN, we see government departments making politically-charged decisions about what a person can and cannot say about the safety or effectiveness of a drug or vaccine. In other words, because the government supports full vaccination and opposes our right to use alternatives, none of us is allowed to discuss those alternatives without being subject to legal action. But are these really the actions of a properly constituted democracy? Should people living in a free land be afraid to speak their mind about issues they feel passionate about? Does the government really think it is appropriate to censor public debate on health issues? And lastly, should the ACCC which is meant to protect consumers against fraudulent businesses really be involved with protecting the government by revoking the rights of consumers to communicate freely on such a vital issue?

    Ms Sheffield is not backing down – but she can’t do this alone!

    Ms Sheffield attended court in Sydney on March 1st for a directions hearing. Her seriously ill husband, who is also a respondent in this case, was unable to go due to poor health.

    The email notifying of them of the charges arrived late in the afternoon on Wednesday, February 20th, leaving them only 8 days to find representation and prepare. All of the court papers which were served on her were stamped “Fast Tracked” – something which is normally only done in emergency cases such as when a person’s life or health is at risk. Ms Sheffield felt that she was being treated like one of Australia’s Most Wanted for simply stating verifiable information which can be freely found in many locations.

    Fran is totally unfunded and, had a barrister not come forward at the last minute to help, she intended to represent herself because she simply couldn’t afford to pay for legal help.

    Throughout this process, she has tried hard to work with the ACCC and to take all reasonable steps to ensure that she complied with the law without giving in to restrictive and anti-democratic demands from government operatives. Now however, she has now reached the point where she has been pushed as far as she can go and feels it is time to stand up for her rights and the rights of all Australians.

    Will you help?

    All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing. Edmund Burke

    The court date has been set for August 26th, 2013, but Fran must find and retain a solicitor to instruct the barrister by early this week. In addition, due to the importance of this case for anyone concerned with freedom and rights, Fran is actively seeking the assistance of a QC as part of her legal team. Conservative estimates are that she will need at least $50,000 to pay for legal and court costs – an incredible amount of money in one lump – but not so much if you split it up.

    There are at least 600 homeopaths in Australia. Fran isn’t fighting for her company, Homeopathy Plus – she is fighting for the rights of all homeopaths and natural therapies as well as for those who choose to use natural therapies as part of their healthcare options. If every homeopath reading this were to deposit $50 into the fighting fund that has been started – and everyone can afford $50 – that would add up to $30,000 right there! Not a big ask – but a very big result.

    There have to be at least that many people reading this who regularly use homeopathy (or other natural therapies which are likewise under threat). And remember, this matter goes well beyond what can and can’t be said by natural therapists but whether we have the right to question government information on vaccines. Can you spare $50 to help protect your right to free expression and choice?

    Can every chiropractor, naturopath, osteopath, Bowen therapist, Chinese herbalist (the list goes on and on) donate $50 to this very worthwhile and important cause? Can you do it this week? Can you let your patients, friends and families know and ask them to make a donation as well – no matter how small?

    You MUST act today!

    Make no mistake: by citing Ms Sheffield for making statements that the government disagrees with, the ACCC appears to be openly saying that Australians are not allowed to dissent from accepted opinion.

    Not only that, but if the court decrees that a government department can punish Ms Sheffield for information held in a private, member’s-only section of her website, no association, business or group will be safe. This could set a precedent that can and will affect everyone in Australia. Criticise the government (or the medical cartel or any powerful interest group) at your peril.

    This situation is outrageous and not what we expect from a democracy such as Australia. It is time to say “Stop!”

    Please send your support today and post this information onto your Facebook pages; Tweet about it; put it up on Pinterest or on other social media sites. Send this to any email lists you may be involved with. Help spread the word in any way you can. Whatever you do, please DO get involved as without your immediate action and assistance … the rights we value will be taken away.

    Send what you can – $10, $15, $50, $100 or more to the Fran Sheffield Fighting Fund to stop this dangerous precedent in its tracks.

    You can pay in any of the following ways:

    FAX your credit card details and the amount you want to give to 02 4044 0153 (international faxes: +612 4044 0153)

    Make a paypal payment to

    Direct deposit funds into the following designated account – be sure to email Ms Sheffield at to let her know about your payment so she can send you a receipt.

    Westpac Account: Fighting Fund

    BSB: 032 627
    Account: 198475

    The legal team representing this important issue is still being put together. If you are a solicitor, barrister or Queens Counsel and are as concerned as we are about this case and would like to help, please send an email to Fran at

    Reprinted from with permission from : Living Wisdom

    Update on this Case

    In a few short words: much necessary progress has been made. You will be pleased to know our legal team is largely in place and our defense material on the relative efficacy of vaccines and homeopathy is being collated. Your many offers of support, help and information have gone a long way in making this possible. Thank you.

    The case’s hearing date has been set for August 26 and it is expected to run for at least four days. We believe it is a significant case in regard to precedents it may set. Though we are restricted in what we can discuss until the case has been heard, we can tell you it will delve into questions of what can be said about government health policy, and potential alternatives to that policy.

    While our preparation for this case is intense, it is also exciting. For the first time we will have the opportunity to present our information in a forum where the evidence will be examined impartially and carefully.

    Though the case won’t be heard until August, our affidavit material is to be sent to the Court by May, so there is still much to do. During this time we will continue to keep you informed as much as possible within the constraints of sub judice. We ask for your continued support during this time to ensure the case finishes as strongly as it has started.

    In the meantime, a big “thank you” once again to all who have phoned, mailed or emailed with donations to the fighting fund and offers of help and good wishes. Your assistance has been invaluable and we truly appreciate your decision to take a stand with us on this very important matter.

Leave a Reply