MB: After seeing the following video by GV on homeoprophylaxis,
I sent GV a question for clarification. Here is our exchange:
I received the correct DVD today and have gone through it.
Regarding homeoprophylaxis, I liked your argument that how can we claim to have a long term prophylactic effect of certain remedies when we claim that provings don’t continue indefinitely. Very valid argument and I am keen to know how Golden will respond to that.
Just one question. You said that when Hahnemann gave Belladonna as preventative for Scarlet fever, it worked not as a prophylactic but as a curative. I want to ask, if a person is given multiple doses of Belladonna during and epidemic of scarlet fever and is proving the remedy, what will happen if he encounters the infective germs, will he be affected or will Belladonna still work as a preventative?
Reply by Vithoulkas:
I like your questions: These are my thoughts on the matter: All persons who fall ill in an epidemic have a predisposition to it. If they do not have it they will not fall ill. Correct?
If they fall ill they do so in a different manner each, some reacting mildly, some more severely and some even die during the epidemic. Correct?
If we take all the cases homeopathically we see different remedies indicated. Correct?
So the predisposition to disease is different and independent of the type of remedy picture that they will develop when struck by the epidemic. So the remedy picture has nothing to do with the predisposition of the organism, it is a totally different thing. Therefore there is no way to prevent something to which it is not related. To recapitulate: First there is predisposition, then reaction of the organism, then the remedy pictures develop. During this final state and only when the organism has produced the remedy picture (the specific symptomatology) the remedy will act and cure or prevent, call it as you like. I do not see how a remedy given in advance in every organism can counteract the predisposition!!! I think that we must base our assumptions on facts and not on rhetoric or imagination. I really feel sorry that I cannot agree with Isaac as I perceive is an honest person with integrity and good intentions.
You can use this in the debate.