Thanks BWV. Let me ask, what is it that makes you think that eggs might be so bad for me. I'm just the type of person who won't change something unless there is really good reason to do so, and, from everything I know about eggs is really good things.

Tom,

I'll let BWV answer, but, for one thing, there are a lot of crummy things in eggs these days:
antibiotics and estrogen, for example, unless you're buying from the health food store.

There's a theory that if there's a food that a person absolutely cannot do without, that he actually feels unwell when he can't get this food, and feels better when he finally eats it, it's probably an addiction, meaning it's having a bad effect on the person's health. I think BWV felt that 24 eggs a week was indicative of an excessive/addictive amount; however, I don't think he took your size into account.

There are those who believe that any animal product will work negatively on one's health.

However, I tend to be more concerned with people's over-consumption of white sugar and white flour: leaches the calcium out of the body
and destroys the B vitamins; causes a lot of health problems. I would worry that you'd stop eating eggs and substitute pancakes made with white flour, or similarly waffles, and even with cereal, milk's not really good for you either.
"Milk" is breast milk for baby cows. Why would we be nursing from some other species--and at our age!

At any rate, please everybody, read RDS' thread so that you can acquaint yourselves with a patient who is doing so many things at once that it is totally impossible to know if we've given the right remedy! (Meaning, Tom, stay on your eggs!)

Snoopy

Dear Tom

What Snoops said is right and BWV. Eating too much of anything is likely to cause a food "allergy". If you don't get your eggs from a health food store I'll post some of the stuff found in eggs these days.

I agrree with snoops about not totally cutting out the eggs totally BUT I would start rotating them with other foods - another healthy source of protien for breakfast.

__________________
Man, do not pride yourself on your superiority to animals. For they are without sin and you in your greatness defile the earth by your appearance on it and leave traces of you foulness after you. Dostoyevsky

yeah, I only eat eggs from free range hens. And the thing is, I've cut out wheat from my diet, so it's really difficult to find much of anything to eat these days. Also, because of the fact that I'm a pretty big guy and that I weight train I require alot more protein that the average person. Meat has its probs: red meat is full saturated fat, hormones, and god-knows what, chicken contains lots of antibiotics, fish, of course, are always at risk for mercury poisoning, and pork, well, is just disgusting. I know that I need to cut down on the amount of eggs I eat, but, like you say Snoopy, what's the alternative? Donuts? Candy? Your chocolate hat? I'm sure that you can all tell that I eat right and am very health conscious. I've been on just about every type of diet known to man (and, yes, I've even given up eggs before) trying to beat my anxiety. Nothing has worked on that front, so hopefully, homeopathy will.

Hi Tom, thanks for your question. I was preparing to answer Snoopy's point about keeping treatment simple, so that's the piece that I'm posting right now, but I'll be back to post another response to you shortly.

Hi Snoopy

I looked over the RDS thread about headaches and I understand your point, I think. The complications to which you refer to are very common in my practice as well, but they don’t necessarily deter me from complicating my treatment by introducing more than one intervention at a time; they might, but not necessarily.

For one thing, when you are familiar with the various interventions, you are often able to know, almost intuitively, which factor is acting. Patients who respond well to Paxil (is that an oxymoron?) have a characteristic demeanor, posture, affect. Patients who respond well to elimination of dairy, especially if their improvement is very rapid and very dramatic, show characteristic behavioral changes, and even physical/physiological changes, such as relaxed posture, reduction in the ruddiness of their complexion, production of sinus symptoms, etc. And so on.

Often enough, though, you are right, its not possible to know for sure what’s going on, and that certainly obscures the clinical decision-making tree. But my objection to the single course of treatment idea remains, in many cases at least, and can be summarized thusly: if you ‘cure’ without removing obvious pathogens, including dairy, mercury, pesticides, etc., and your patient feels good, then you have provided a false sense of security, and placed the future at risk. If anything, removal of toxins should come first, and ‘treatment’ later. But who wants to wait? If parenting skills training can help, and diet changes can help, why not do them both and put up with the confusion? With homeopathy, the impact may be somewhat different, but I would not want to see a homeopath who told me to hold off removing my mercury fillings so he could get a clear symptom picture. Rather, I would want him to view the changes wrought with the extraction of the amalgam, as comprising a new symptom picture requiring the case to be re-taken.

The single-intervention model is most defensible, I think, in uncomplicated cases in which the elements of treatment seem fairly clear. In complicated, chronic, intractable, or severe cases, the layering of pathology and the complexity and variety of etiological factors often, to my thinking, actually demand a complex response; admittedly, though, even these cases may at times respond well to a single intervention. And in between the uncomplicated and the complicated case, all manner of variations. In all of them, clinical judgment must step in to decide the question, on the merits of the individual case, and the skill and confidence of the practitioner. I think we haven’t the time, and certainly not the opportunity, to implement the other features of the scientific method—we may be able to control variables by the single remedy, but we cannot replicate the “experiment,” since “it” needs to get on with his life.

I have been aware of homeopathy for some time, but have been investigating it intensively for only about a year. So I speak from a solid position of considerable ignorance. And yet, clinical judgment tends to be clinical judgment, and the issues in one branch of practice at least similar to the issues in another branch. My question then, back to you, I guess, is, “How do we differentiate innovation from the violation of basic principles?” I incline to the conservative side in practice: that is, honestly, I am loathe to ignore the principles you are advocating. And yet I know that innovations can be useful. Seriously, I hold on tightly to such principles, and resist the impulse to try something new, yet constantly try new things because the old are inadequate or incomplete. It’s a tense struggle, and a complicated one. I have pretty strong convictions, but many, many questions as well. On the road to knowledge, I think, a journey of a thousand miles turns out to be longer than expected.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Dear BWV,

Speaking strictly naturopathically, I have no problem with the idea of working on many fronts at the same time:
changing the diet, coming off the drugs, adding some herbal supplements and some vitamin C, vit. E and B-complex, trying some yoga or tai chi....
It all seems like a good idea.

With homeopathy though, you know the right remedy is going to have a profound effect regardless of the drugs and the diet and the food he's eating.
All you want to know is, Did I get the right remedy?

What many homeopaths tell their patients is, "Stop your coffee!" while still others say,
"No way! We need to see clearly what's going on
after the remedy is given. If he goes into coffee withdrawl, what's that gonna tell us about how our remedy is working?

What my teacher, Robin Murphy always says is, if you give the remedy and he starts to feel better, now you've got his respect. Now if you say to him, "Your remedy will work even better without the coffee," he may actually listen to you. First show him what homeopathy can do, before coming down on him like a ton of bricks with our "list of demands": No coffee, no aroma therapy, no mint toothpaste..... And then Miranda Castro, another famous homeopath, told once in an article, how she found out her patients were actually lying to her about stopping coffee!

So, we prefer to give the remedy first and win the patient's cooperation.

Snoopy

Hello BWV,

I'd like to pick up on the points you expressed in the above post.

You wrote:
"The complications to which you refer to are very common in my practice as well, but they don’t necessarily deter me from complicating my treatment by introducing more than one intervention at a time; they might, but not necessarily."

These complications are common enough in my homoeopathic practice too as I'm sure they must be in anyone's chosen modality. The broadscale use of allopathic medicine in conjunction with popular alternative therapies is on the increase. People who seek out homoeopathic treatment very often have no thought beyond "trying something different" for their chronic condition which is already being medicated. It does require me, as the practitioner, to carefully explain from the outset the process of homoeopathic healing and what it entails. When the person understands the nature of homoeopathic cure - that is, not merely suppressing annoying symptoms, the length of time it may take to achieve this outcome, the need for accurate detail in their description of symptoms, and their committment to ongoing treatment, they are then in a much better position to make important decisions about their healthcare options.

BMV - "For one thing, when you are familiar with the various interventions, you are often able to know, almost intuitively, which factor is acting. Patients who respond well to Paxil (is that an oxymoron?) have a characteristic demeanor, posture, affect. Patients who respond well to elimination of dairy, especially if their improvement is very rapid and very dramatic, show characteristic behavioral changes, and even physical/physiological changes, such as relaxed posture, reduction in the ruddiness of their complexion, production of sinus symptoms, etc. And so on."

Yes these are important distinctions. And thankyou for their description. In the case mentioned by Snoopy on the other thread the lady in question experienced a cessation of headache pain for 10 days after 2 doses of a homoeopathic remedy. The MOST IMPORTANT criteria for us in this remedy reaction is to discern whether the remedy has acted palliatively or curatively. Obviously, when someone who suffers chronic pain has temporary relief from it, they are going to say they are happy with this outcome. However, as homoeopaths, we need to know so much more. There has been insufficient information given as to how true this "amelioration" was. All we know is she felt "foggy" most of the time, due to??? X number of factors, withdrawal of other medications as well as coffee!
What we do know is that she experienced an intense disturbance from a 30C potency given twice. Aggravation Number One from Lachesis.
When this remedy was repeated in a 6C potency twice daily for 4 days, the headaches returned after the first 2 days and were severe enough to warrant a pain killing injection. Aggravation Number 2 from Lachesis.
Normally as homoeopaths we are careful to avoid unnecessarily aggravating the patient with our dosing because then the aggravating symptoms themselves become tantamount in case management. For some reason a further stronger, higher potency of the same remedy was advised, "to be sure"? This is a scenario we would wish to avoid and it is only complicated by the addition of other multidisciplinary therapies in use at the same time.

BMV - "Often enough, though, you are right, its not possible to know for sure what’s going on, and that certainly obscures the clinical decision-making tree."

Homoeopathy is an energetic system of medicine, so is acupuncture, although they have a different pathway to cure. Allopathic medicine is largely suppressive except when it follows the law of similars. This patient's Vital Force has received stimulation from how many different sources? Homoeopathy is a vitalist medicine, if we can't use the Vital Force as a guide, how are we to act effectively?

BMV - "But my objection to the single course of treatment idea remains, in many cases at least, and can be summarized thusly: if you ‘cure’ without removing obvious pathogens, including dairy, mercury, pesticides, etc., and your patient feels good, then you have provided a false sense of security, and placed the future at risk."

How well do you understand miasmatic weaknesses? It is possible through homoeopathic treatment to strengthen inherent weaknesses in the patient's constitution. We are never (at least in my generation) going to live in a pesticide-free, chemical-free environment. I have patients who have been on all kinds of this-free, that-free diet regimes, imo it increases sensitivity levels overall.

BMV - "If anything, removal of toxins should come first, and ‘treatment’ later. But who wants to wait?"

We don't have to wait for the perfect situation to begin homoeopathic treatment. I do homoeopathy with people who are chemically sensitive to plastics, pesticides, intolerances to dairy, wheat, or who are on cortisone medication.

BMV - "If parenting skills training can help, and diet changes can help, why not do them both and put up with the confusion? ..."

Yes definitely, I would encourage this, as well as psychotherapy, meditation, gentle exercise, hobbies, whatever the patient has always wanted to do for years but has been putting off. Shop for organic foods. But I have an objection when a patient actually becomes phobic about eating something, or goes about thinking they have coeliac's disease because they've been given that diagnosis by an iridologist on duty at a health food store on any Saturday morning.

BMV - "With homeopathy, the impact may be somewhat different, but I would not want to see a homeopath who told me to hold off removing my mercury fillings so he could get a clear symptom picture. Rather, I would want him to view the changes wrought with the extraction of the amalgam, as comprising a new symptom picture requiring the case to be re-taken."

If a person is determined that to have their mercury fillings replaced, it is hardly my role to talk them out of it or delay them. Are we even sure if this is a safe procedure? The advice is often contradictory. How many people are truly sensitive to mercury fillings? In any event I can homoeopathically support them throughout the dental process, before and after.

BMV - "The single-intervention model is most defensible, I think, in uncomplicated cases in which the elements of treatment seem fairly clear. In complicated, chronic, intractable, or severe cases, the layering of pathology and the complexity and variety of etiological factors often, to my thinking, actually demand a complex response; admittedly, though, even these cases may at times respond well to a single intervention."

Homoeopathy is able to achieve cure in both simple and complex mixed miasmatics states. Sometimes a remedy is capable of removing several layers of pathology, moreoften a complex mixed miasmatic case requires many different remedies to achieve cure. It's good that you've also seen this too.

BMV - "And in between the uncomplicated and the complicated case, all manner of variations. In all of them, clinical judgment must step in to decide the question, on the merits of the individual case, and the skill and confidence of the practitioner. I think we haven’t the time, and certainly not the opportunity, to implement the other features of the scientific method—we may be able to control variables by the single remedy, but we cannot replicate the “experiment,” since “it” needs to get on with his life."

Personally I couldn't give a rat's ass whether homoeopathy can ever be scientifically proven. All we need to know is that the person was cured because we applied our remedies according to the law of similars, the minimum dose, the single remedy, and according to the direction of cure.

BMV - "I have been aware of homeopathy for some time, but have been investigating it intensively for only about a year. So I speak from a solid position of considerable ignorance. And yet, clinical judgment tends to be clinical judgment, and the issues in one branch of practice at least similar to the issues in another branch. My question then, back to you, I guess, is, “How do we differentiate innovation from the violation of basic principles?”"

The most innovating thing I have personally witnessed in homoeopathy in the last several years is a return to the fundamental principles as laid down by Hahnemann. The education is better, the information is clearer, the availability of practitioners is increasing, but our profession is no more immune than any other to iconoclasts within its ranks.

BMV - "I incline to the conservative side in practice: that is, honestly, I am loathe to ignore the principles you are advocating. And yet I know that innovations can be useful. Seriously, I hold on tightly to such principles, and resist the impulse to try something new, yet constantly try new things because the old are inadequate or incomplete."

There is nothing intrinsically wrong with trying something new. The problems arise when there is a stubborn refusal to let go of a 'comfortable' way of prescribing in spite of clinical and empirical evidence that it does not work, or that it contributes to further ill-health. Many homoeopaths find that their prescribing style goes through many changes over the years. In our own ways we are all truthseekers, and we are very passionate about what we do. There is nothing to be gained by dismissing the fundamental truths of homoeopathy as inadequate or incomplete if you have not taken the trouble to investigate them and apply them thoroughly.

BMV - "It’s a tense struggle, and a complicated one. I have pretty strong convictions, but many, many questions as well. On the road to knowledge, I think, a journey of a thousand miles turns out to be longer than expected."

Yeah, then it seems to have passed in the blink of an eye! Happy searching.

Hi Tom.

Sorry its taken so long for me to get back to you, but time is scarce, and sometimes so is brain power. But in any case, I am encouraged by your statement that you don’t do anything without a good reason, because as it happens that parallels one of my cardinal principles of clinical practice: explain what you mean so it is clear, even if that means going into detail about abstract theoretical principles. The more you explain, at least if you can be clear about it, the better chance your patient has of understanding and using your input. But be forewarned: one consequence of this posture is that I can be rather longwinded, and also enjoy following every tangential thought that comes my way. I will try to stay on task however, but forgive me if this gets too long.

By way of introduction: 1) I am speaking of dairy products as a whole, not just eggs; 2) in addictions, and also in ‘allergies,’ as I understand it, those things one craves the most are likely to be the things that do the most damage; 3) consuming mother’s milk (eggs are mother’s milk to baby chickens) into adulthood is unnatural, not found in any species but our own, much less consuming mother’s milk from another species (this is completely true of milk; there are a few exceptions in the form of nest robbers when it comes to eggs); 4) like all animal products, dairy is associated with high fat content and cholesterol and so forth, which are linked to a host of physical illnesses—the fact that they are not clearly linked to emotional disorders is due mainly to a lack of research; 5) the multi-million dollar lactaid industry didn’t get that big with only a few hypersensitive people in the marketplace; 6) anything that can’t be eaten raw can’t be eaten in a state of nature (i.e., before fire), which I think should be the ultimate test for whether a food item should be included in our diets. See the Fit for Life books by the Diamonds for more information. I’m happy to spend more of your space talking about these issues if there’s an interest.

Anyway, one thing I don’t do, when talking about diet, is argue from the point of view of nutritional value. For one thing, I’m a behavioral scientist, not a physician nor a nutritionist, and I’m not licensed for that. But more important, I really don’t know a carbohydrate from a protein from a calorie. My argument, in brief, is based on clinical observation couched within what I hope is a reasonable theory. My comments today draw primarily on clinical observation, with only a couple little side trips into theory. Briefly, I came upon this treatment intervention accidentally, several years ago, in speaking with a mother about a fire setting incident with her 3 year old son. It came out in the interview that an hour or two before he set the fire, the child had had a chocolate sundae. I put this fact together with my knowledge of his history, which included sensitivity to dairy products as an infant. Because his behavior was so destructive, and because nothing else had helped, I felt that an ‘experiment’ with an unusual and untried intervention—eliminating dairy—was worth a try. As it happens, it worked, and over the years I gradually applied this intervention to an increasing variety of cases, often with success.

Which brings us to you: let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that eggs are definitely bad for you and should be eliminated from your diet entirely. Even so, there are other factors to consider. For example, if you are, as I have suggested, “addicted” (I use the term somewhat loosely) to eggs, then that indicates there may be withdrawal symptoms, or something like withdrawal, and this in turn suggests that perhaps a gradual weaning off the eggs may be desirable. In actual practice, some people do fine eliminating dairy products in one fell swoop, while others have to cut back bit by bit. It is best to do it all at once if at all possible (and please note, I am in fact talking about milk and eggs and everything made from them, not just eggs). Even after establishing a dairy-free diet, there may be times, even years later, when cravings become so strong that one ‘relapses.’ It is good if these impulses can be resisted, but it is not a tragedy if you cave in to desire, unless you persist in satisfying these cravings to such a degree that old symptoms return. Truthfully, those people that show the most dramatic improvement on this diet are very unlikely to relapse; and if they do, they are likely to get back on the wagon very quickly: the improvement in well-being from resisting dairy foods is that much greater than the gratification that comes from fulfilling your cravings!

Further, one should not be surprised if eating these ‘harmful’ substances actually makes you feel better. This apparent contradiction is resolved if we remember that eggs, or other dairy products, are in fact foods and do in fact have ‘nutritional value’. They may have even more nutritional value in some respects than ‘natural’ foods, such as fruit. More protein, for example. But this can be a mixed blessing, contributing, for example, to both extra strength and high blood pressure. Of course, there are so many ‘facts’ we are always assured of complications and counterarguments: for example, remember that some of the largest and most powerful of primates are fruitarians. They too require protein, and get its building blocks from fruit, more efficiently, in fact, than we get ours when we get it from meat: the whole protein of meats needs to be broken down by our systems before its constituent parts are reconstituted in a form that can be utilized by our bodies.

The essential kernel of my argument, though, is very simple: many people in my practice have shown striking and lasting symptomatic improvement after eliminating dairy from their diets. That’s it.

Building on this, I move to a practical matter, namely, that trying a dairy free diet is easy, inexpensive, and quick: at most, you need to stick with it for a month or so to know whether it will have any immediate benefit. People who respond very quickly and very dramatically tend to be those who experience serious problems with temper, whether children or adults. Problems with depression and anxiety tend to react more gradually. I would certainly stay with the diet for a full month before making a decision. At the end of the month, if you don’t notice a difference, carefully ‘re-take’ your case, to borrow a term from our homeopathic colleagues. Frequently, in talking to a patient, they will state that there really hasn’t been any change, but during the course of the hour, they will mention in passing 2 or 3 things that have happened recently, minor things, barely noticed, that reflect a new attitude or a somewhat different response to recurring situations. These subtle indicators usually reflect that the diet is having an effect and should be given a lengthier trial.

But the range of responses to this diet is wide: from dramatic change literally within a day, to moderate or mild improvement over the course of a week to a month, to no change whatsoever. If there is no change, people usually give up the diet, though some adopt it in modified form because it seems ‘healthier.’ If there is a mild to moderate improvement, then the choices people make are varied: some stick with it, at least to a degree, but don’t give it a whole-hearted endorsement, others just drop it, feeling that its not worth it to sacrifice what is for them a very satisfying part of their diet.

That’s essentially it. The main point is simple: some people are helped by the diet. Why not try it? (Standard disclaimer, which has merits aside from being standard: check with your doctor before making any such change. Ordinarily there is no problem, but I have had situations in which existing health concerns impacted my recommendation due to the interaction of specific nutritional factors in a concurrent ‘illness;’ thus, though this usually turns out to be a perfunctory recommendation, it still should not be taken lightly.)

Hope this helps. Please feel free to press for details.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Hello, ChrisG and Snoopy.

Thanks for your responses to my post, though I was unclear at times if you were responding to what I said or what you thought I meant.

I think I should start by responding to the (apparent) implication that I was “…dismissing the fundamental truths of homoeopathy as inadequate or incomplete…” and furthermore that I was doing so without having “…taken the trouble to investigate them and apply them thoroughly.” First, I don’t think that anything in the tone or language of my post could be interpreted as either disrespectful or dismissive of homeopathic principles. Quite the contrary, my experience with homeopathy to date leads me to believe that it may well be the single most important weapon in our armamentarium against ‘disease.’

My discussion was couched within the framework of the range of disorders we all commonly encounter, from the simple, to the “…complicated, chronic, intractable, or severe cases, [in which] the layering of pathology and the complexity and variety of etiological factors often, to my thinking, actually demand a complex response.” In fortunate situations, homeopathy may successfully endorse the ‘complex response’ in serial fashion, one remedy, then another, then another, or even with a single remedy. But in other cases, things may not go so well, and in those situations concurrent or modified interventions may be advisable.

In short, in describing classical homeopathy—as I would my own discipline, or any other—as inadequate and incomplete, I was pitting a powerful treatment methodology against a formidable range of real world disorders. I doubt that in challenging this description you are attempting to present homeopathy as both adequate and complete in the treatment of all conditions under all circumstances, or that you are stating your satisfaction with all of the outcomes of all of your treatments. If so, why would you bother at all with any of the other naturopathic interventions to which you refer? The question is not whether you or I treat people who are chemically sensitive, but the level of significance we attach to that sensitivity: does it demand to be on a more equal footing with our primary modality in this or that particular case, and if so how do we address it responsibly, effectively, and with minimal damage to cardinal procedures?

By way of comparison, Freud’s psychology is unsurpassed for its scope and subtlety. Yet Freud never addressed issues of marital discord, parenting styles, conflict resolution or mediation, industrial psychology, or victim or perpetrator profiling. His therapeutic methodologies were designed primarily to address neuroses, so modifications in his technique when treating modern Borderline conditions is not an affront to his stature—though not all of us, even at that, endorse those modifications.

To dismiss out of hand the potential value of modifications to the Founder’s work is irresponsible, insofar as such a dismissal has as its goal the suppression (sic) of new methods that have the potential to benefit patients who prove unresponsive to current technology, and whose conditions may reflect profoundly different circumstances than those for which homeopathy was originally designed. I think a due regard for the prudence, professionalism, and intelligence of colleagues should temper the criticism of innovators—you point to abuses of innovation, but, I have to say, you sound like you have a principled opposition to change.

I find it humbling, but useful, to sometimes observe the practices of colleagues whose methods I dislike: many of them have successful practices and have earned the praise of many patients whose lives they have touched in positive ways. I suspect that even those homeopaths who mix remedies and potencies can point to patients who have benefited from their work; I am somewhat suspicious of their work, but I am not comfortable stating that their popularity is based on mass stupidity. It may not properly be called homeopathy, but we needn’t lump them in with the allopaths either.

To pick up another thread from your post: strengthening the constitution is not the same as eliminating pathogens, such as mercury. But I can’t find in my words any suggestion that one should pursue the removal of mercury fillings by coming “… down on … [the patient] like a ton of bricks with our ‘list of demands.’” Perhaps you can clarify this, but I really don’t remember advocating either insensitivity or tactlessness, nor the abandonment of patience and respect. Furthermore, failing to address such issues is comparable to doing psychotherapy with a child, then sending him back to an abusive household. The therapeutic gains of your hour, if any, would not hold. Something more is needed, and it is lame to avoid doing more on account of the fact that in our lifetime, we will not likely see the elimination of abuse.

Similarly, my reference to scientific method had nothing to do with the asses of rats, but rather with the single remedy principle of homeopathic practice, which is a practical embodiment of the abstract principle of scientific method: to control variables so we may gain a clear idea whether our hypothesis (or remedy) is working. This is not a bad thing, and does not imply that we cavil to the research fashions of the day. But if we take years to treat a patient, which you might easily do in homeopathy as I do in psychotherapy, we should nevertheless resist elevating our conservative procedures above urgent needs that may demand our attention, at least temporarily interrupting the usual course of treatment—when necessary in the eyes of the conscientious professional. And who among us can say authoritatively that some as yet untried method won’t prove valuable in treating this or that class of patient?

You state, “With homeopathy…you know the right remedy is going to have a profound effect regardless of the drugs and the diet and the food he's eating.” And yet the patient on a red meat diet will still be at greater risk for heart disease, even though he is more comfortable in his daily routine. This is why I wrote that “…if you ‘cure’ without removing obvious pathogens, including dairy, mercury, pesticides, etc., and your patient feels good, you have provided a false sense of security, and placed the future at risk." It is not a question whether we will ever live in a pollution free world, or a world without abuse, but whether we can reduce the presence of such forces in our immediate vicinity. The individual clinical judgment that I advocate asks but a few things, namely that the practitioner be aware of these risks, and handle them judiciously, meaning: that alternative interventions be considered when cases prove more or less unresponsive to standard practice; and that the patient be educated at appropriate moments regarding the variety of threats to his well-being, and advised of useful resources.

Thanks for providing quite a stimulating forum. May the (vital) force be with you.

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Dear BWV,

Just to be brief, Tom has been in a Hyos. state at least since the age of 4. His state, therefore, has nothing to do with his diet.

This doesn't mean I don't agree with you that our diets are totally unsuited to us. You're right in saying that if it needs to be heated or processed, then it's not our real food. But even so, homeopathy will work. There are accounts of people refusing to change their horrendous diets who nonetheless get well with homeopathy. If they get well, it's their own bodies making the repairs--not the remedy, which as you know, has nothing in it but the spirit of a poison. So, if they're well, they're well for real, not symptom cover-up, as in allopathic medicine.

If Tom has health issues even after homeopathy has helped with his chief complaint, we can talk to him about his diet. But what if he takes the remedy and all his complaints go away? Why should we lay a trip on him about his diet when he may not have an issue with it? It just seems presumptuous at this point.

Snoopy