From: fish@ecst.csuchico.edu (Kevin Haddock)
Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative
Subject: Re: homeopathy
Date: 22 Dec 1992 22:08:30 GMT
Organization: California State University, Chico
NNTP-Posting-Host: cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu

In article <1992Dec22.202855.2659@news.mentorg.com> madhavn@madhavn.mentorg.com (Madhav Nerurkar) writes:
> ...[DELETED]....
>It seems that at an abstract level the symptom this drug induces is the same
>as in case of AIDS: suppression of immune response. Couldn't this drug then
>be used, in infinitesimal doses, as a medicine for AIDS ? Has homeopathy 
>been attempted for AIDS at all or is the immune response itself is the 
>mechanism homeopathy relies on ?
>
>I would appreciate comments and pointers.


The clinical ecologists had a little more direct understanding of the
mechanism of the minimal doses previously described and why they work.
They also had a better understanding of what substances to look for
and why.  The reasoning is something like this:

Everyone is different and responds differently to different allergens.  There
are, however, some general trends.  Most persons will respond similarly to
a petro-chemical allergy.  Because of this, homeo-pathic doctors had a good
chance of finding your allergen by using a substance that invoked a similar
response in others.  This is, at best, shooting at the broad side of the
barn.  Clinical ecologists isolate you from ALL commonly known allergens
then re-introduce them to you one at a time and see your own PERSONAL
response.  That way they isolate EXACTLY what causes YOUR allergy.

The success with minimal doses comes from the mechanism of zones of
allergic response.  Let's say you have a grape allergy from drinking
wine.  If we keep you from all grape based products for a week or so
(assuming you don't get the same symptoms from anything else, which
in reality is rare) then very slowly, and in measured doses, start
re-introducing you to grape, we would see zones of response.  If we
gave you the first dose (say a teaspoon of wine in a gallon of water)
with a few drops under the tongue, you may have no response.  Then
a few minutes later we give you another, you may have a VIOLENT
reaction.  Then if we gave you another immediately, your reaction
may dissapear entirely.  These zones can be mapped and are fairly
predictable.  These minimal doses can be used to cancel withdrawl
symptoms in addicts, drunks, and persons whose health is endangered
during thier 'drying out' period.

I think a big reason why the AMA seems to be against such practices
is that clinical ecology has such promise.  In the book I refered
to they went into an asylum in Boston, I believe, and ran the
patients through the program.  Some 90% of them were there due
to cerebral allergies that were directly traceable and scientifically
provable.  They have shown great promise in being able to prove that
cancer and heart disease have allergy connections.  Most things that
are currently handled by surgery and whose symptoms are covered up
by drugs can be handled by clinical ecology.  The AMA, cost-plus insurance
companies, surgeons, lawers, drug manufacturers, oil companies, and
refined food industries don't want to find the cause of our health
problems inexpensively, especially when a product they produce might
be the cause.
>
>
>Thanks, Madhav Nerurkar
>
>Disclaimer: These are my opinions.

-Kevin
fish@cscihp.ecst.csuchico.edu


P.S.  Most of the work described in the book happened back in the early
1960's!
--------
Hackers do it with fewer instructions!