Homeopathy Papers

Tidbits 84: Kempson v. Lewis: Treating Vaccine Damage with Homeopathy

Elaine Lewis
Written by Elaine Lewis

David rejects the vaccine-in-potency as a way to cure vaccine damage. Elaine disagrees.

My friend (?) and colleague, David Kempson, wrote an absolutely scathing review of “Tidbits 83: The Vaccine In Potency Is Here” on hpathy’s Facebook page.  If you haven’t read Tidbits 83, click below:


David didn’t think it was good news at all (that the vaccine in potency was here), and he didn’t think it would help anyone with vaccine damage (except for a random few who might happen to serendipitously match the—as yet unknown—“remedy picture” of the Pfizer vaccine). 

You see, here’s the problem:  David thinks that every case has to be a “complete case”, by which he means a “constitutional case”; and if you prescribe without taking such a case—well, you’re just lazy!  Yet he begins his remarks with, “Of course we can use the poisoning picture to prescribe on.”  We can?  Well, wait a minute….  If that’s true, shouldn’t we end on that note of agreement???? 

Never the less, there are 2 different points of view here on what a properly-taken case is.  What do you think is the right way to treat vaccine damage?

I give you now, the one and only …

David Kempson

[The vaccine in potency] will NOT antidote anything bad the jab does.  No remedy does this.  It will only work for a few people who display the picture of the jab, as every other remedy in our arsenal works.  We can use the poisoning picture to prescribe [on] of course, although as we know from our provings this only provides a very crude picture.

Yes, David, a crude picture, but so what?  Can we antidote poisons by using the poison in potency?  Can we?  You might as well say “yes”, because you just admitted it.  What could be more important, given what our topic is:  Antidoting a poison.  That’s what we’re trying to do here with Pfizer 1M, is it not?

This is still an unknown remedy with no proving.

So what?  It doesn’t need a proving for our purposes.  What something can cause, it can cure in small doses.  Isn’t that homeopathy’s motto?  Well, the COVID vaccine is causing quite a lot of bizarre and even deadly symptoms; therefore, the vaccine “in small doses” ought to be able to cure whatever those things are!  Here are some of what the Pfizer vaccine is causing (statistics from the European Union*):

 Total reactions for the mRNA vaccine…from BioNTech/ Pfizer – 12,362 deaths and 1,054,741 injuries to 25/09/2021 [September 25, 2021]

 28,662   Blood and lymphatic system disorders incl. 172 deaths

29,569   Cardiac disorders incl. 1,834 deaths

277        Congenital, familial and genetic disorders incl. 23 deaths

14,027   Ear and labyrinth disorders incl. 9 deaths

822        Endocrine disorders incl. 5 deaths

16,330   Eye disorders incl. 30 deaths

92,590   Gastrointestinal disorders incl. 514 deaths

274,633 General disorders and administration site conditions incl. 3,517 deaths

1,186     Hepatobiliary disorders incl. 59 deaths

10,876   Immune system disorders incl. 65 deaths

36,113   Infections and infestations incl. 1,214 deaths

13,804   Injury, poisoning and procedural complications incl. 191 deaths

26,554   Investigations incl. 387 deaths

7,555     Metabolism and nutrition disorders incl. 225 deaths

138,223 Musculoskeletal and connective tissue disorders incl. 155 deaths

837        Neoplasms benign, malignant and unspecified (incl cysts and polyps) incl. 78 deaths

185,082 Nervous system disorders incl. 1,341 deaths

1,347     Pregnancy, puerperium and perinatal conditions incl. 39 deaths

172        Product issues incl. 1 death

19,436   Psychiatric disorders incl. 159 deaths

3,605     Renal and urinary disorders incl. 205 deaths

24,848   Reproductive system and breast disorders incl. 4 deaths

46,177   Respiratory, thoracic and mediastinal disorders incl. 1,443 deaths

50,420   Skin and subcutaneous tissue disorders incl. 111 deaths

2,007     Social circumstances incl. 15 deaths

1,034     Surgical and medical procedures incl. 34 deaths

28,555   Vascular disorders incl. 532 deaths* 


You can use it but it will be difficult to apply until either clinical information on patients who’ve been cured has been provided (from more than a few cases), or someone does a proper proving.

You know what?  All of this is very nice, David; sure, I’d love to see a proving and cured cases, many cured cases; I’d love to be able to say, “In this sample of 1000 patients with vaccine damage, 80% of them were cured after taking the vaccine in potency,” I’d love to be able to point to such a study.  But they don’t exist.  So what are we supposed to tell people who are suffering from vaccine damage?  “Oh, I’m sorry, you could have tried the vaccine in potency, but David Kempson says there’s no proving, so… sorry, no can do!  I guess you’re outta luck.  Can I take your constitutional case, though?”

Well, as Robin Murphy once said, “Just because you took a longer case didn’t mean you took a better case!” 

Pay attention to this David, because this is what’s missing from your analysis:


That means, etiology over-rules the totality of symptoms; which means if you have a clear etiology, all the superfluous information you might be gathering in a 2 hour case-taking would be a waste of time.  And do you know what the proof of that is?  Arnica!  The proof is Arnica!  Does anybody take a constitutional case before giving Arnica?  Think about it!  If someone falls down and hurts himself, are you going to take a 2 hour case?  Or are you going to give Arnica?  It’s a short case!  A “short cut” in your words, David.  Short, but proper! 

Ailments from blunt trauma = Arnica.  Does that mean it will be Arnica 100% of the time?  No, but it’s where any homeopath would start.

Cathy’s case of vaccine damage (see Tidbits 83) is not a constitutional case!  It’s a clear case of etiology: Ailments from the Pfizer vaccine.  All her complaints came after that; we have to cover the etiology!  

Please continue, David; I’m sure you’re not finished.

As usual there are so many errors in this article by Elaine…

As usual?????  What does that mean?  Good heavens!  I had no idea that all my articles were so riddled with errors!  I’d ask which errors you were referring to, if I cared!

…both in understanding and in application of the remedies (which are two things often bound together).

  1. A remedy is only Homoeopathic if it matches the symptoms of the patient. A potentized medicine is NOT Homoeopathic because it is potentized, but because we have carefully matched the specific symptoms of the patient to the symptoms we know the remedy can produce.

I know that, David; and if you hadn’t decided to take such an arrogant and obnoxious tone with me, I might have said, “Good point!”  But since you’ve decided to be a horse’s ass, I’m going to take the trouble to point out that in the article David is referring to, I was merely trying to define the term “in potency” since it was part of the title, and many of our readers may not be familiar with homeopathy.  Is that alright, David?  You do know that there is such a thing as “over-explaining”?  But, judging by the length of your “commentary”, maybe not.

As there is no proving of this remedy as yet, it is only a crude poisoning picture being used.

I know!  This is a case of crude poisoning!  See the list of symptoms above to refresh your memory of how truly poisonous this vaccine is!  And how are we supposed to antidote it?  That is the question!  How do we antidote this very dangerous substance before it does harm?  We antidote it with the poison in potency!  That’s how you do it.  Now, if you don’t believe me, maybe you’ll believe Robin Murphy.  Here’s what he said in my interview with him 11 years ago:

I have lectured for years about the different ways of prescribing homeopathic remedies; but, people today still believe there’s only one way.  Emergency prescribing is different from Acute prescribing; treating miasms is different, you can’t just have one approach, you have to have multiple approaches, there’s, like, 15 different ways:  tautopathic, isopathic…the first remedy ever given in homeopathy by Hahnemann was not homeopathic.  Peruvian bark was an antidote to Peruvian bark poisoning, it was tautopathic.  So Tautopathy is a big branch in homeopathy that I don’t see being taught anywhere:  Arsenic poisoning?  You give them Arsenicum, and it’s worked for two hundred years.  If I know someone’s been poisoned by a drug, I give the drug in potency!**


 Well, there you have it!  That’s what I’ve been advocating.  By the way, for the benefit of our audience, “tautopathy” means giving the drug that aggravated back to the patient “in potency”.  Giving Pfizer 1M to someone with vaccine damage is an example of tautopathy.  I guess many of you didn’t know that Dr. B has written an article on tautopathy.  It’s called, “An Introduction to Tautopathy…” and it starts out like this:

Tautopathy (Tauto-same) is the method of curing or removing the bad effects of conventional drugs by means of identical potentised drugs. For. e.g., If you are suffering from the bad effects or side-effects of the antibiotic Penicillin, you can use potentised Penicillin to remove its side effects. This idea has been confirmed not only clinically by large number of homeopaths but has also been studied scientifically. There have been studies in which potentised lead and potentised arsenic have been used to promote excretion of the same substances in cases of poisoning. The results have shown that such use of potentised substances can help remove the symptoms caused by the toxicity, by enhancing the elimination of the toxin from the tissues.

Tautopathy is not based on ‘similars’. It is not homeopathy but it is pretty close to it. It is more in the realm of Isopathy. Tautopathic drugs have two advantages –

  1. They can be proved like homeopathic medicines and can be assimilated in homeopathic materia medica. This provides a chance to use these medicines on the principles of homeopathy too.
  2. They can be given to antidote or remove the bad effects of conventional drugs.



I rest my case!  David?  Are you still there?  

This [the crude drug-poisoning picture] might help,

Yes, it will!  Why do you keep agreeing with me and yet continue to argue at the same time?

but it is like swatting a fly with a tennis racket.

David, I don’t think you can swat a fly with a tennis racket, I really don’t.

  1. Do not tell people to just take ‘whatever falls out of the bottle’. Have you never bothered to read the Organon of Medicine?

Oh snap!  You really swung for the bleachers there, didn’t you!  Well, you seem to know so much about my articles, David, and how full of mistakes they are, I guess you meant the ones that were about The Organon too!  Or maybe you wrote those articles, maybe it wasn’t me at all!  Let’s see…did you write this one?

“Organo-Phobia (Fear of Reading the Organon)”


What about this, did you write this one?

“Using More Than One Remedy In a Case: What Would Hahnemann Say?”


Or, did you maybe write this one?

“Case-Management In a Hop, Skip and a Jump”


I don’t see how it could have been me since I have apparently never bothered to read The Organon!  And by the way, what I actually said was, “Tap the [remedy] bottle gently, whatever falls out is a dose.”  At another point in the article, I said that a dose was “a few pellets.”  On the Boiron tubes, a dose is defined as “5 pellets”.  So, I actually think there was nothing here worth making an issue of, David, unless you were just looking for stuff to hit me over the head with.

Pay attention to Size of Dose unless you want to harm your patients.

You mean we can’t harm our patients?

  1. Isopathic treatment does have its place in Homoeopathy,

Yes, exactly!  So why do you keep arguing with me?  This is its place, right here, in antidoting damage from a pharmaceutical drug.

but it should always be the last resort.

The LAST resort, you say?  Oh.  Really?  So you’re saying: if you know a drug made you sick, the LAST thing you should be thinking of is making a remedy out of the drug!  Is that right?  Well, I guess therein lies the difference between you and me;  because, making a remedy out of the drug would be the FIRST thing I would be considering!!!!  And by the way, here’s how to do that:

How To Make Your Own Remedy


And I’ll tell you a little story, David.  I had a rash about 5 years ago, it was very itchy and taking over my life!  I took a complete case that you would have been proud of!  In fact, I posted this case in the ezine, it was called “The Insane Rash”; here it is:


There were peculiar symptoms that you would have loved!  Scratching made eruptions pop out!  The itch was wandering.  It could be in several places at once.  Scratching aggravated.  Hot applications did not ameliorate but neither did cold.  I repertorized all the symptoms.  Mezereum came out on top, but it didn’t work.  I tried remedy after remedy.  At best, sometimes a remedy would work for a while and show promise, but then it would fail.  Histaminum was one.  Apis was another one.  I was demoralized.  It went on like this for a month, keeping me up at night.  I couldn’t sleep.  I wondered if I would ever be normal again.

Then, an utterly random stroke of luck came my way:  The television was on, and I happened to hear a commercial for Tyson’s Chicken say, “We don’t feed our chickens antibiotics!”  I suddenly remembered my friend Claire’s antibiotic rash while at the same time remembering the Chinese chicken I ate at my cousin’s house a month earlier, and it all came together for me in one grand epiphany!  “OMG!” I said.  “Antibiotics!  I’ve got an antibiotic rash!!!!!!” 

Of course, I then knew exactly what the remedy was!  Do you know?  I actually had it here:

Penicillin 30C. 

It worked!  It worked right away!  It was a miracle, a Godsend!!!!!  Nothing else worked.  You know why?  None of the other remedies matched the etiology!!!!  Even though, yes, some of them matched the symptoms; but, the symptoms are over-ruled by the etiology, remember?  Again, from my interview with Robin Murphy:

 Me:  What are the common mistakes homeopaths are making, Robin?

 Robin:  Ignoring the etiology or treating it like just another symptom.  The etiology is what has to be cured!  Concentrating on etiology would simplify a person’s practice. …  Putting symptoms above etiology is a big mistake!  When I take a case, I’m only looking for the etiology.  If there is no etiology, then I do general homeopathy:  mental/emotionals, generals, physical particulars…but, in 80% of the cases, there’s some causeignoring etiology is the biggest mistake.***


Use of a remedy made from the substance might work to remove the obstacle of a severe poisoning,

Well, that’s what a vaccination is, David, it’s a severe poisoning.  Have another look at that symptom list above, it’s pretty bad.  But you’re referring to a poisoning as simply some sort of “obstacle” in the case, aren’t you?  NO, that is the case!!!!  That’s the case, OK?  It’s not in the way of the case! 

but it should never be the first step of treatment.

This is where you’re wrong!

It might be done in a case of an emergency…

Well, David, most poisonings are emergencies!

…where there is risk to the person’s life of course.

Did you see all the deaths in that list above?

These obstacles…

What “obstacles”?  Poisonings?  You’re calling them “obstacles”?  No, sorry.  A poisoning is an acute case and you do not mix up acute and chronic symptoms, just ask James Tyler Kent, the author of Kent’s Repertory.

… often only become obvious through the process of attempting to use remedies applied against the overall picture.

No one knows what you just said.

It is lazy prescribing…

Lazy.  OK.  I’ll just add that to the already long list of what’s presumably wrong with me.

… if done as a way of avoiding taking the case.

Taking a long case and acquiring superfluous information is not always appropriate or what is needed.

Homoeopathy requires hard work, and again as Hahnemann warns in the Organon…

That’s the book you want me to read, right?

DON’T LOOK FOR SHORTCUTS.  Shortcuts inevitably make things worse or at the very least make Homoeopathy look simplistic and ineffective.

David, when you know the cause of your complaint, the case is pretty much over.  For example, Maria, who often presents here, had a house-guest once who spent the night.  Her face broke out and became numb after applying a new make-up she had just bought.  This case is in the ezine too:


Maria knew exactly what to do.  Did she take a 2 hour constitutional case?  No, she made a 6C remedy out of the make-up and the rash and numbness went away instantly.  Now, I’m sure you think Maria was LAZY because she didn’t take a “proper” case!  No, Maria was smart and did exactly the right thing and her guest was probably really impressed with homeopathy after that scary incident.

Every case is not a constitutional case.  In fact, Kent was quite clear on that.  See what he had to say about it below:

 “The Examination of the Patient” from Kent‘s Lectures on Homeopathic Philosophy

When an individual is suffering from a dangerous crisis, a serious accident or emotional trauma, or a virulent acute miasm [an infection like the flu], the treatment of choice is the acute remedy or acute inter-current. …

The key in such situations is not to mix the acute and chronic symptoms together in one grand totality as this confuses the case.

(emphasis mine)


So you see, here Kent is saying: if you’ve got a big issue in front of you, a “dangerous crisis”, to use his words, give the remedy that matches that, and JUST that!  Don’t mix up the acute and chronic symptoms! 

  1. The remedy ‘wearing off’ doesn’t prove that the vaccine caused her problem

Did I say that?  I never said that, David!  You have an obligation not to misquote people when you’re insulting them!  I said that if her heart problem had been from some cause other than the Pfizer vaccine, Pfizer 1M would not have helped her!

(although I don’t disagree that it [the vaccine] did of course [cause her problem], we are all seeing these cases).  Elaine you should be a bit more careful about how you explain things to medical professionals.

I’ll see what I can do.

‘Wearing off’ might be palliation only, it might mean the potency is too low, it might mean there is tissue damage, it might mean you’ve completely missed the important symptoms, it might mean you really have no idea what remedy can cure (since there is no proving!)

I see we’re back to that again.

  1. She has a peculiar symptom that is completely ignored.  ‘It’s hard to know if the remedy will work on that’ – yes!  Because you are not applying a remedy based on Homoeopathic principles.

By “peculiar symptom”, I assume you’re referring to her “delusion of smell”; that she “smells” cigarette smoke that isn’t there, isn’t that right?  Well, it turns out David, that was caused by the vaccine!  How do I know?  Because if you had read the case a little more carefully, you would have seen this:

Cathy:  Plus, I went a whole day, and only now, (9:38) do I have the faint whiff of cigarette smoke.  That is also positive.

 Elaine:  OK, so, at first we weren’t sure if the remedy would act on this but, apparently it will.  This is very encouraging!


That’s right, who knows if the patient will be cured, or have those peculiars disappear,

They disappeared, David.

because there is no attention being paid to it.

Not true.

Well, just hope it goes away on its own then.  Always a good strategy….

Yes, David, hope is my strategy.

  1. Constant need to use a remedy, on a daily basis, with the symptoms frequently returning, is not necessarily a good sign.

David, she’s taking the remedy as needed, OK?  I’ve found that drug diseases–side effects– are very persistent.

This may be a sign of palliation and therefore at some point suppression.  If there is heart damage here, and you are suppressing that one symptom (because where is the rest of the case to check that?) you might very well harm this patient.

The rest of the case?  Her blood pressure came down, and that phantom cigarette smoke smell went away.  That’s it.  Rapid heart rate, elevated blood pressure and phantom cigarette smell.  That’s it.

  1. Where is the rest of the case?

That’s the whole case.   

Where are the generals?  The mentals?  Any other symptom at all?  Using one symptom to prescribe on is very dangerous.

She’s got Ailments From the Pfizer vaccine.  It doesn’t matter what her symptoms are, do you understand that?  It’s a case of etiological prescribing.  When a person trips and falls and you give Arnica, does it matter what his symptoms are?  You’re going to give Arnica, right?  It’s ailments from blunt trauma, an etiological prescription, you don’t take a 2 hour case. 

That is the way you suppress and cause damage to patients.  You cannot check direction of cure in a case where you have taken no case!

You seem to know very little about prescribing on the etiology.  David, are you taking a constitutional case for everyone who walks in with an acute?

Without checking direction of cure this patient could end up going into a sudden decline because no care was taken.  It is very concerning to see.

  1. Periodic relapsing does happen in cases, but the reason must be carefully determined, not just accepted as ‘oh well chronic cases just relapse’.

I don’t remember saying, “Oh well, chronic cases just relapse…La-dee-da!”

Relapsing must be examined, the direction and quality of the changes looked at closely, before deciding to continue applying a remedy.  Without doing this the remedy should never routinely be repeated.  This really is terrible advice and does not follow our principles at all.

Yes, David you are right.  You are sooooo right!!!!  All things must be looked at and looked at carefully.

  1. If this is chronic,

It is chronic, she got her shot 4 months ago.  But the symptoms broke out right away and they’ve remained the same for 4 months.

and all your theories about why your remedy isn’t holding are true,

I don’t have theories about why the remedy isn’t holding.  The only thing I wanted to impress upon Cathy was that it’s normal for remedies to wear off, especially if the complaint has been around for a long time and she shouldn’t become discouraged by that; she only needs to repeat the remedy.  The question is, when it’s repeated, does it work again?  If yes, then no need to borrow trouble and assume that some bad thing is happening when clearly, something good is happening.

then you should be taking a chronic (constitutional) case…

Aha!  I knew it!  You finally said it.  Take a constitutional case.  Well, David, Kent says no!  Kent says that case, the constitutional case, comes after the crisis is over!  Maybe YOU’VE never bothered to read Kent’s Lectures

… not just being lazy and throwing an unproven isopathic medicine at the patient.

Yeah, that’s what I like to do David, throw remedies at people! 

Chronic cases are a result of the inherent weaknesses within the patient…

Cathy has been poisoned.  It’s a very clear case.  We know what the cause is.

… they rely on the peculiar internal state and must be addressed by proper case taking and REAL Homoeopathic prescriptions.  You cannot claim the remedy is not holding just because chronic cases often relapse.

  1. ‘I’m predicting a complete recovery’.  Well prove it.

OK.  This just in from “Cathy”, 10/10/21:

(C…. @gmail.com)

To:you Details

What does RSB stand for?? I think I need to watch something to explain all of this. Here I am, I have been taking homeopathic remedies since I was a teenager, and all this vibrational energy healing is completely new to me. I have bought many books on homeopathy (including all of Dana’s) and I am clueless. I must not read very well.

As for the remedy, it is working better. Now I have moments (like right now) where I feel almost normal. First time in a long time.

 Best regards,


Take a proper case.  Show us the direction of cure.  Do follow up over a longer period to prove this case has ‘completely recovered’.  Like all of your cases presented on this site, they are all treated like acutes, with no long term follow up, and an enormous number of erroneous statements made about the Homoeopathic method and about our philosophy.

Wow!  Well, first of all David, the vast majority of my cases on this site ARE acutes, that’s why they get treated like acutes!  As for the “enormous number of erroneous statements” I’ve made about homeopathic method and philosophy?  You’ve failed to mention even one of them!  Are you just trying to make yourself look superior at my expense?  If not, then name something!

I really do doubt such cures come from the way these cases are dealt with, but as no follow up is done – who knows really.

OK, David, regarding the matter at hand, namely Pfizer 1M for ailments from the Pfizer vaccine, Dana Ullman CCH, author of at least 5 books on homeopathy and owner of Homeopathic Educational Services: www.Homeopathic.com, is actually my source for this. 

   Dana Ullman

I said to him, “Dana, what should someone take after the covid vaccine, Thuja?  Ledum?”  He said no, there was only one choice as far as he was concerned: the vaccine in potency, 1M. 

It made sense to me.

So, I suggest that you take it up with Dana.  Let me know what he says.



* https://vaccineimpact.com/2021/26041-deaths-2448362-injuries-following-covid-shots-in-european-unions-database-as-slovenia-suspends-jj-shot-after-death-of-20-year-old-student/



About the author

Elaine Lewis

Elaine Lewis

Elaine Lewis, D.Hom., C.Hom.
Elaine is a passionate homeopath, helping people offline as well as online. Contact her at [email protected]
Elaine is a graduate of Robin Murphy's Hahnemann Academy of North America and author of many articles on homeopathy including her monthly feature in the Hpathy ezine, "The Quiz". Visit her website at:
https://elainelewis.hpathy.com/ and TheSilhouettes.org


  • Hi there

    Thank you for a very interesting and full reponse. If I may sidestep the main thrust for a minute I was both surprised and shocked by the very clear break down of the statistics of the pfizer vaccine damage. It is so important to have such detail. As such I would love to know the exact source ( you just mention European Union) as convincing doubters can often rest on clear infomration of this sort. Many thanks Nick Vidal-Hall

  • Well said Elaine. This is the reason I gave up on homeopaths in my country. They didn’t have a clue how to antidote ailments from drugs and substances. I was a hostage of their practice for years until I found your articles.
    I would also like to add, that if a remedy like Pfizer 1M won’t work at all it may be the case that there may be more than one covid19 pfizer shots distibuted with differences between them. Maybe in one country they are sending different batches etc. Just a thought.

  • Maria, if that’s the case, that there are minor differences in vaccines depending on what country you’re in? With Homeopathy Plus selling only one remedy made from only one source, we’re kind of stuck with it. Let’s just hope that it’s being “similar” will be sufficient. Take the “insane rash” I alluded to in the article, Penicillin is unlikely to have been the antibiotic given to the chickens in their feed, and yet it worked resoundingly! And I did think, What if the chickens got a different antibiotic? That worried me, and yet Penicillin 30C worked! I hope we can take solace from this example.

  • Hi Elaine,

    This is an excellent job explaining what to do when a person has a bad reaction to a covid vaccine.

  • Very well put argument Elaine, it’s common sense to treat the aetiology when its its staring you in the face. My husband had a massive stroke due to Astra Zenica vaccine I gave it back in potency which helped, I would like to discuss, so will contact you.

  • Wow. Quite a long response to my criticisms. I’ve made lots of other posts on Hpathy.com that you must never have seen, because you never responded before. Nice to see at least you’ve made the attempt to refute my points.

    I wanted to address one of the later points first before I dive into your ‘rebuttals’ such as they are. It’s the interpretation of Robin Murphy’s method of using tautopathic medicines.

    Robin: Ignoring the etiology or treating it like just another symptom. The etiology is what has to be cured! Concentrating on etiology would simplify a person’s practice. … Putting symptoms above etiology is a big mistake! When I take a case, I’m only looking for the etiology. If there is no etiology, then I do general homeopathy: mental/emotionals, generals, physical particulars…but, in 80% of the cases, there’s some cause…ignoring etiology is the biggest mistake.***

    I don’t believe Robin thinks this at all. 80% of his cases he is just giving whatever drug they were on or had a bad reaction to? Nope, he doesn’t think that. I’m not a big fan of Robin’s take on Homoeopathy because he’s come from a Naturopathic/Herbalist point of view . He also has all that ‘4 elements’ stuff and astrology I’m not keen to see attached. However, even saying that, he does not support the point you are making.

    (Referring to his Case Analysis and Prescribing Techniques book)

    Robin actually says that you must be careful not to treat a ‘ghost etiology’, that is when there is no proof that taking the drug, even if they were on it for a long time, has created a new state or a state that is different to whatever their constitutional one is.

    He says that if another remedy is indicated, you give that remedy, and only if the drug has created some kind of obstacle or block to cure would you go to the remedy made from the drug. He talks about determining what the drug actually did, what side effects there were, what kind of dependence or withdrawal issues there is.

    Just as I have been saying.

    He says if the indicated remedy takes care of the problems underneath the drug they were using, then there is no problem there that requires a remedy made from the drug. We don’t need to do anything other than give the indicated remedy if they move on it (make positive changes).

    He says you have to reason to give the Tautopathic remedy. He says that chasing ‘ghost etiologies’ is a mistake, that just saying ‘oh you’ve had penicillin, we better clear that up’ is not how to use this approach.

    You’ve also oversimplified his approach. He says that for example someone with damage to their lungs from industrial chemicals might need Sulphuric acidum, not the exact chemical they were breathing in. He says with electrocution you may need to give Opium because of the fright, not Electricitas routinely.
    He says that if you have a child that is screaming from hurting their knee and he is more frightened than hurt, you don’t give Arnica you give Aconite.

    He says that if a person is never well since food poisoning, you give remedies known to help food poisoning like Podophyllum or Arsenicum, not something made from the food they reacted to.

    So etiology, or trigger/causation, is even by his ideas part of the totality, not instead of it, regardless of that quote you’ve put here. He looks at the state, that comes from the cause, and prescribes on it. Like Homoeopaths usually do. Based on the symptoms.

    • Elaine: David, I’m not up to replying to every picky little thing you said, just the following:

      David: I wanted to address one of the later points first before I dive into your ‘rebuttals’ such as they are.

      Elaine: Geez! You just can’t bring yourself to take a respectful tone, can you!

      David: It’s the interpretation of Robin Murphy’s method of using tautopathic medicines.
      “Ignoring the etiology or treating it like just another symptom. The etiology is what has to be cured! Concentrating on etiology would simplify a person’s practice. … Putting symptoms above etiology is a big mistake! When I take a case, I’m only looking for the etiology. If there is no etiology, then I do general homeopathy: mental/emotionals, generals, physical particulars…but, in 80% of the cases, there’s some cause…ignoring etiology is the biggest mistake.”
      I don’t believe Robin thinks this at all. 80% of his cases he is just giving whatever drug they were on or had a bad reaction to? Nope, he doesn’t think that.

      Elaine: That’s not what he said, David!!!! He said 80% of the time there’s an etiology! Not 80% of the time he gives an allopathic drug to the patient in potency! He said when he takes a case he tries to find the etiology and 80% of the time, there is one. OK?

      David: I’m not a big fan of Robin’s take on Homoeopathy because he’s come from a Naturopathic/Herbalist point of view .

      Elaine: Oh yeah, David; herbology, naturopathy, sounds terrible! What can we learn from that????

      David: He also has all that ‘4 elements’ stuff and astrology I’m not keen to see attached.

      Elaine: No one cares, David! If he has an interest in ancient astrology and ancient Egyptian medicine, etc., how does that change his practice of homeopathy? He was a homeopath first. His lectures and his course material dates from the ’80’s and ’90’s before he took an interest in ancient medicine, so, it’s really irrelevant.

      David: However, even saying that, he does not support the point you are making.

      Elaine: You mistook Robin’s point, David. Read it again. But I ended by saying that my source for
      “The Vaccine In Potency Is Here!” was Dana Ullman, not Robin Murphy. If you think Dana’s recommendation is wrong, take it up with him.

  • Maybe you should be clearer about how you give information, vain hope that might be to express. You are the one that said you can ignore the symptoms, the totality, and go straight the to cause and prescribe on that, and then gave Robin Murphy as your proof that someone famous said to do this. I tried to show you that he not only does not say this but warns you against doing what you claim is the very first step in every case – to chase the ‘ghost etiology’. You do seem to like turning an argument back on the other person without actually refuting it, and rewriting what you say. This is called ‘gaslighting’ and it is unfortunately very common on the interwebs. You are the one who does not understand what Robin is saying, but you are trying to make it your justification for poor practice of Homoeopathy. I suspect you don’t even understand my arguments, which is sad but not surprising.

  • “David didn’t think it was good news at all (that the vaccine in potency was here), and he didn’t think it would help anyone with vaccine damage”

    I didn’t say that. I said that Isopathically it can help people where there is a clear obstacle to cure because of the vaccine, and also if the poisoning picture is clear and strong enough (takes precedence) over the underlying constitutional or miasmatic picture. What I said was that it will NOT fix all damage from this vaccine, which is simply one of our most basic principles (that one remedy will not cure all patients of the same problem).

  • “You see, here’s the problem: David thinks that every case has to be a “complete case””

    Complete in so much as it is enough of a case to make a reliable and confident prescription. One symptom is never enough for that. I have NEVER said that every case has to be ‘constitutional’, only that you need to have more symptoms to make both a reliable prescription, and if you are wanting to use the principle of Direction of Cure to judge that a patient is not getting worse rather than better you HAVE TO TAKE A CASE.

    Are you really arguing against taking a proper case?

    In your last article YOU argued that the situation was ‘constitutional’ and that such cases are normally slow and require frequent dosing. Perhaps if you want to argue this point, you shouldn’t make the opposite claim (that the rules around constitutional treatment apply) But you haven’t bothered to take a case to know this is true.

  • “Of course we can use the poisoning picture to prescribe on”

    Yes you might use such a picture, but it is crude, unreliable, full of common symptoms, and often confused with (in this case) all the other drug treatments being taken (often to try and ameliorate the vaccine damage). Poisoning pictures are the last resort, and because of their crudity are inaccurate and hit or miss. The true picture is unknown without a proving or at least good repeated clinical cures which are detailed (by taking the whole case and noting the peculiar symptoms that disappear under the action of the remedy).

    “Yes, David, a crude picture, but so what? Can we antidote poisons by using the poison in potency? Can we? ”

    Rarely. Sometimes if we work with an emergency case it might work, it often does not work and the patient has to be treated Homoeopathically instead of Isopathically. Isopathy only works in certain cases. It is understandable in a situation where you have very little time before rushing to hospital or calling an ambulance to give it a try. However when you have a little time the SYMPTOMS OF THE PATIENT should be used. They will much more reliably lead to improvement, and the effect will not be just palliative.

    Using the common symptoms, which poisoning pictures bring out, typically only allows PALLIATION not cure. Giving Isopathic prescriptions in situations where a poisoning has taken place usually just palliates the case. Now you might be ok with that, palliation doesn’t harm the patient with good vitality usually. But the patients whose vitality has dropped (like after a vaccine) are quite weak and actually in a lot of danger. Palliating such patients, like any serious condition, often leads to the disease shifting to different organs, to deeper levels.
    Palliation in emergency cases, as Hahnemann says, is permissable to save the person’s life (so in a true life or death situation). In all other situations the symptoms of the patient must be used to choose a proper Homoeopathic medicine. Palliation does NOT lead to cure. If there is no internal cause of the disease (it is purely external so a true emergency situation like an accident) palliation allows the patient to naturally heal themselves because there is no impairment of the healing capacity.

    Vaccine damage is NOT one of these situations. Vaccines activate the miasmatic state, stimulate the chronic diseases. Palliation in these cases can harm the patient, just as in all other similar situations. The reactions may be intense and acute seeming, but in almost all cases it is the chronic state that aggravates.

  • “What could be more important, given what our topic is: Antidoting a poison. That’s what we’re trying to do here with Pfizer 1M, is it not?”

    Antidoting is done by choosing a medicine that matches the specific symptoms the patient develops in response to whatever needs antidoting. Antidoting is NOT done by just potentizing whatever triggered the response. In fact such a strategy can make the person much WORSE since you have given the same thing which is ALREADY HARMING THEM. Many of the great masters have warned over the years against using the potentized substance in cases of the acute or active disease, because SAMES do not usually cure. It must be a SIMILAR. There has to be the slightest of differences between the state created by the remedy, or you risk the poisoning state (or natural disease) remaining where it is, not replaced at all by the artificial one. To accept the artificial disease state over the natural one, there must be some difference, not an exactly similarity, or the natural disease can simply deflect away the artificial one.

    So I would say ‘what is more important’? Choosing a medicine Homoeopathically instead of following a protocol.

    And the use of this substance isn’t the main problem I had with your article. You did NO investigation of the patient’s case, you’ve just gone straight to what you think caused it.

    What if the patient’s miasm has been activated?

    What if the patient has chronic conditions that have now flared up?

    What if the patient has had other vaccines, other drugs (she is a nurse after all), has a history of bad reactions to the shots she gets?

    How can you follow the direction of cure to know the problem isn’t being suppressed out of the heart to a more important organ (like the brain)?

    You need to take a case. Arguing against taking a case is madness.

  • “So what? It doesn’t need a proving for our purposes. What something can cause, it can cure in small doses. Isn’t that homeopathy’s motto? ”

    Only if the pecuilar symptoms match those that can be created by the substance. Without a proving you will have almost none of those peculiars. You may be lucky and the patient has no peculiars, nothing individual. That is super rare. I’ve almost never seen it in all my years of practice. Applying a remedy against common symptoms typically causes palliation only. Palliating a case where there is potential organ damage may harm the patient further.

    It has been stated over and over in the literature, by generations of Homoeopaths, you do not cure a case with SAMES. Homoeopathy is not a medicine of SAMES. That is Isopathy and at best it is a tool to be used in cases where we are stuck (obstacles to cure). Isopathy has never superceded proper Homoeopathic prescribing, or we would have been put of a job by naturopaths decades ago who love to treat (and often ruin) cases with their potentized ‘triggers and causes’.

    What is the CAUSE of a disease. It is the disruption to the natural state of the vital force. How do we determine what that disruption looks like? By carefully taking the symptoms of THAT PATIENT and specifically the peculiar ones. How do we choose a medicine? By matching as closely as possible the symptoms created by the substance to those in the patient, avoiding the common ones, emphasizing the peculiar ones, placing those disruptions high in the hierarchy as more important (mentals, generals) and those lower (local symptoms, undifferentiated ones, explainable symptoms) as less important or even completely unimportant.

    Oh and this does not need to take hours if the case is urgent. Learning to take a complete case in an acute situations in short windows of time should be one of the primary skillsets of a Homoeopath. In fact it is often the hallmark of a poorly trained practitioner when they cannot, or they cannot tell the difference between chronic and acute symptoms, or cannot prioritize treatment on the basis of patient need.

    Treating the common, explainable, undifferentiated symptoms almost always leads to failure in Homoeopathy, and if the dosage rules are being broken as well (the remedy being repeated to compensate for the lack of similarity) then real harm can result. The last thing a practitioner should be doing to a patient.

    The examples you give of the side effects of the vaccine are all common, undifferentiated, many of them explainable because of specific organ damage that has occurred. Many of them are just disease labels. Surely you know that these are useless to us. Useless! How can any real Homoeopath be looking at that list thinking ‘oh that’s a nice clear picture to prescribe on’?

  • “I’d love to be able to say, “In this sample of 1000 patients with vaccine damage, 80% of them were cured after taking the vaccine in potency,” I’d love to be able to point to such a study. But they don’t exist.”

    That’s right, because it doesn’t work. Funny that. I’m sure you’d love to say it because then you could argue that doing away with proper case taking is somehow effective in curing patients, which seems to be the general gist of your arguments here.

    SAMES DO NOT CURE in almost every case. Homoeopathy has proven that time and time again, SIMILARS CURE NOT SAMES.

  • “So what are we supposed to tell people who are suffering—-because they’re writing to me now: “I have swellings”, “I have dizziness….”—“Oh, I’m sorry, you could have had the vaccine in potency, but, David Kempson says there’s no proving, so… sorry, no can do! Can I take your constitutional case, though?””

    So this is the usual argument for pseudohomoeopaths. They don’t know how or want to take a proper case, so they make the strawman argument that the only choice is take a full chronic case or use a protocol and take no case at all. The strawman here is substituting ‘proper’ for ‘constitutional’. I’d also suggest being truthful and realistic with patients not promising them unicorns and fairy dust.

  • And let me just point out again YOU are the one that made the claim that this was a constitutional case(by stating ‘this is what happens in constitutional cases’), and that the rules for such cases regarding response and change in the case were in effect. I simply pointed out that it was IMPOSSIBLE to use those rules since YOU DID NOT TAKE A CONSTITUTIONAL CASE (or any case at all at least that you shared). In fact to me it just looked like you were making excuses for why the remedy wasn’t holding and was requiring frequent repetition. That’s just my opinion since with such a poorly described case who can really judge what is happening. Certainly not you or I.
    And I will just make the point again that I made earlier. LEARN TO TAKE A PROPER ACUTE CASE IN AN APPROPRIATE TIME FRAME! If all you can do is either spend 2 hours with a patient or give a remedy without taking a case at all, then THE PROBLEM IS YOURS. FIX IT!
    Emergency prescriptions can be made in a few minutes, if you have skill in observation and repertory, with some understanding of the situation. Acute prescriptions can be made in 10-15 mins. There is no need to treat every single situation as no case or a long involved case. TAKING CASES SHOULD NOT INVOLVE IGNORING THE PRINCIPLES, no matter how much time you have.
    Protocol prescribing, which is pretty much what you are suggesting should be the first step you take in most situations, is not an appropriate or successful way to practice. It is random, unreliable, and can be even harmful. It at least seriously damages the reputation of Homoeopathy.

  • “Well, as Robin Murphy once said, “Just because you took a longer case didn’t mean you took a better case!” ”

    Right. This is your strawman argument again. Nobody is talking about ‘longer’. We are talking about ‘proper’. Take a proper case, not a longer case. Stop making excuses. ‘Oh I don’t have time!’ Your poor patients then if that is your attitude.

    This is such garbage. Really. Talk about throwing Homoeopathy out the window for sake of ease, the very thing Hahnemann (and other masters) warn us about. NOTHING OVERULES THE SYMPTOMS. Because Homoeopaths do not believe the symptoms can be discarded! Later on I look at what you think Robin Murphy says about this, from one of his own books on it, and he does not say this. You seem to have heard it, but he didn’t say it. Not in the way you think it’s been said.
    “That means, etiology over-rules the totality of symptoms”
    Absolute rubbish! The trigger for a disease state is PART OF THE TOTALITY, it does not ‘over-rule it’. The totality ALWAYS TRUMPS ANY PERCEIVED CAUSATION. You do NOT ignore the symptoms just because someone was out in the rain or ate too much ice cream. It is a foolish thing to say, and a dangerous thing to believe.

  • Perceived causation is often quite low in the hierarchy, although it depends entirely on the kind of symptoms you are dealing with, how many generals or peculiars there are, how peculiar the trigger or causation is for the disease state itself. Some things are commonly associated with certain symptoms, and so the trigger or causation would be very low on the list of symptoms used for choosing a remedy. Some things might be a very unsual reaction and so that trigger becomes much more useful. PECULIARITY is always the main focus of case taking, not the common symptoms or reactions to the situation.
    And let me just restate this because I cannot believe I am hearing any Homoeopath say this out loud, or in public – THE TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS IS ALWAYS THE MOST IMPORTANT FOCUS OF CASE TAKING. Nothing overrules the symptoms – nothing.

  • And let me just emphasize another point, because you continue to centre your case around your strawman argument again of hours long constitutional prescribing being the only other option of going straight for the supposed cause without taking a case.
    TOTALITIES CAN BE SMALL, CONCISE, and collated/analyzed even for emergencies or acutes in SHORT TIME FRAMES.

  • “if you have a clear etiology, all the superfluous information you might be gathering in a 2 hour case-taking would be a waste of time. ”
    Constantly mentioning your strawman is really getting annoying. It’s telling that you are not even aware enough to notice it.
    ‘Superfluous information’ is that which is acquired beyond what is required. How do you know what is required if you don’t take any, or don’t take enough. What point are you making here exactly – don’t bother taking a case if you already know the answer? How do you know the answer without taking a case? Homoeopathy hinges on a case being taken, on symptoms being drawn out, on the peculiars being examined, on a remedy being prescribed to match the picture. It only has to be enough to be confident of the remedy match. It does not need to be 2 hours of waffling. Learn to get to the heart of matters.

  • “And do you know what the proof of that is? Arnica! The proof is Arnica! Does anybody take a constitutional case before giving Arnica? Think about it! If someone falls down and hurts himself, are you going to take a 2 hour case? Or are you going to give Arnica? It’s a short case! A “short cut” in your words, David. Short, but proper! ”
    That is proof of one thing, that you don’t know what you are talking about. This is the kind of foolish statement that a lay practitioner makes who hasn’t been exposed anything more than a first aid book on Homoeopathy. It’s shameful to hear a practitioner who’s been around as long as you make this kind of statement.
    There is no ‘proof’ of your argument here. Any practitioner with even a little experience knows that Arnica will only cure Arnica cases, not every case of injury.
    What’s the proof of that (apart from nearly 200 years of clinical experience)? Just look up Ailments from blows, Ailments from injury, Ailments from concussion, Ailments from falls, Injuries to soft parts and so on. Is Arnica the only remedy there?
    No. It is a huge error to give one remedy all the time for such a commonly encountered problem. Our materia medica and repertory is the proof of that.

  • There are HUNDREDS of possible remedies which have a reputation for healing injuries. If the patient has Symphytum symptoms, you’d ignore that and give Arnica? If the person has Rhus-tox symptoms? Hypericum symptoms?
    This is one of the most basic mistakes students make. What happens if you give Arnica to everybody who injures themselves?
    In my experience, a good half the time it is nothing. No result. Because the symptoms did not match Arnica.
    Arnica however matches the initial common symptoms of injury, so in many other of those situations, it will palliate.
    In some cases, when the peculiars match, it can in fact cause a very good healing response. It’s way less than protocol prescribers like yourself claim, and I know that from all the confusion I hear from home prescribers who give the remedy without results.

  • As I’ve stated before, palliating the common symptoms can be problematic for the patient. It often does not instigate true healing, but just hides the obvious signs. This can make the healing less effective, and down the track you will see a chronic weakness set into the location. So this has not benefited the patient in the long run.
    If the injury was minor, and the vitality was good, then palliation simply allows the person to heal themselves over time, as long as the remedy isn’t being overused (so suppression can set in or proving symptoms). Palliation in a true emergency can be sufficent to get them through and allow them to start their own healing, not because of the remedy, but because you gave them a kind of pain relief. Many acute prescriptions end up like this because those situations are self limiting and the patients simply cure themselves.

  • Oh and that brings me to the other problem here. Using a remedy that is not a proper similar, will often cause PROVING SYMPTOMS and SIDE EFFECTS in the patient, which then create the need for further treatment they woudn’t have otherwise have needed.
    This is a point that protocol prescribers prefer to ignore. Protocol prescribers will usually deny side effects or negative consequences of their prescriptions, often because they don’t understand why it happens, or because it’s easier to blame the patient than to take responsibility for hasty and lazy prescribing (which protocol prescribing has in large amounts). Most protocol prescribers end up creating turmoil because of ONE-SIDED PRESCRIBING as detailed by Hahnemann in the Organon, which can leave a patient in a much worse state than they started with.

  • “The first remedy ever given in homeopathy by Hahnemann was not homeopathic. Peruvian bark was an antidote to Peruvian bark poisoning, it was tautopathic.”
    This is wrong. He looked at the symptoms of malaria, he looked at the drug given for malaria (or what they called ‘intermittent fever’) and felt that the description of it being ‘bitter’ could not explain its effectiveness. He took it himself (for reasons that aren’t quite clear) and realised that the symptoms produced by China RESEMBLED MALARIA. He wasn’t trying to reverse Peruvian bark poisoning. Where did you get that idea? Seems like you are trying to rewrite history to suit your argument.

  • “So Tautopathy is a big branch in homeopathy that I don’t see being taught anywhere: Arsenic poisoning? You give them Arsenicum, and it’s worked for two hundred years.”
    I feel like you must live on another planet. Maybe some kind of echo chamber where only your voice is heard. EVERY STUDENT IS TAUGHT ABOUT TAUTOPATHY. I can’t tell you that every single college spends much time on it, or whether it is emphasized or criticized or dismissed. But it is taught.
    It is taught as something that is not Homoeopathy, that is an adjunct to treatment in situations where the case might have stalled, be stuck or blocked, and there is signficiant proof that the substance caused an observable problem in the case.
    And again, no, Arsenicum is NOT routinely given for arsenic poisoning. In fact if you bother to use the repertory and rubrics (which would require taking a case of course which you seem dead set against having to do), you would find that ARSENICAL POISONING has 22 remedies in it and ARSENICUM IS NOT ONE OF THEM!
    More ‘proof’ that doesn’t fit well with your world view.
    Now any situation where the case displayed peculiar symptoms of Arsenicum AND NOT THE COMMON ONES OF THE POISONING, then sure you could use the remedy for this situation. But not routinely. It’s obvious that previous generations of Homoeopaths understood this because they DID NOT INCLUDE IT IN THE REPERTORY. The TOTALITY OF SYMPTOMS would trump the cause, and if someone has been poisoned short term by Arsenic it would be low down the hierarchy (or absent from it completely) because it is NOT PECULIAR TO SHOW SYMPTOMS OF ARSENIC POISONING IF YOU HAVE BEEN POISONED BY ARSENIC.
    In fact, in every rubric related to Arsenic, Arsenicum NEVER APPEARS ONCE.

  • “I don’t see how it could have been me since I have apparently never bothered to read The Organon! And by the way, what I actually said was, “Tap the [remedy] bottle gently, whatever falls out is a dose.” ”
    I quoted you directly from the article – ‘whatever falls out is the dose’. That is dangerous advice. I will state this again, learn proper dosing including size of dose. It’s lazy and risky to just leave it up to chance as to how much a patient takes.

  • “The LAST resort, you say? Really? So you’re saying: if you know a drug made you sick, the LAST thing you should be thinking of is making a remedy out of the drug! Is that right? ”
    Yes that’s right. It’s lazy to make it your first port of call. So yes I guess the difference between us is that I believe taking a case and prescribing on the symptoms is what makes a Homoeopath a Homoeopath, and you just want some easy way to do it without any of that fuss. Who has taught you this erroneous method? How did you end up believing proper case taking to find a similar is somehow a waste of time? Shocking and disappointing.

  • 1 month after Pfizer vaccine, these have been my symptoms : constipation with ineffective urge to pass stool alternating with pasty stools(from day 1).Urge to pass stool 1 hr after eating.(very unusual symptom i say, i had shot came home had lunch, 1 hr after felt great urge to pass stool but nothing comes, this symptom did not repeat ) Irritation in ears with buzzing sensation and possibly an infection. General weakness like energy sapped out and not improving with eating food. suffocation and feeling of lack of breath. slight shortness of breath (I am asthmatic , but this symptom never came back since 10 years).the biggest problem however was numbness of face and mouth with tingling on lips (right after shot but gone in 1 to 2 weeks). during these first weeks, I had desire to clinch teeth together. My wisdom teeth seem weak , i didnot have full strength on left side of mouth and was chewing on right side during these initial days.1 month after shot ,i feel my wisdom teeth are coming out(i cannot chew in certain angles, have to visit dentist).The force of the vaccine is worst felt on my teeth , for a brief moment I felt like they are about to fall out. Mind symptom :sometimes with ear issues , i felt an all gone or zoning out feeling when there is lot of sound around(TV, children, wife).I hated sound, did not want to be talked to . I was reading about Podo – and it captured exactly my stool symptoms and other details . so took it. the next day after dose, my ear is back , then I waited one more day and feel energetic like before(with fetid smelling farts escaping occasionally). Overall Podophyllum helped me recover. I am waiting to see its full effect though as it also covers chronic aspects.(its been 6 months). I dread to think, if a homeopath gave me some other remedy, and suppress my symptoms and I innocently believe , its the correct treatment. Homeopathy is very strict, only the correct remedy will cure, and so should a homeopath be very strict in selection of remedy, based on the symptom totality.

  • To me it looks like Elaine did take a case (it doesn’t matter anyone’s opinion on how that is done or how long it is taken). Also, it looks like she took a “good” case – because it helped the patient – end of story! That is the end goal of any good homeopath – the relief of suffering for your patient! I would hire Elaine as my homeopath anytime!

    • Professional opinions, peer review, do matter. Our profession is not a ‘hobby’ where anybody or anyone can just say anything they want and expect it to be given respect. And whether it helped the patient is not known, because there was no case given, no way to assess improvement. And the patient still had symptoms of the vaccine damage! Does nobody care about the life of that person? Just give Elaine a good pat on the back, even though she has proven nothing and that person is still suffering.

      • David, I notice you have no comment on Dr. Bhatia’s ezine article on tautopathy. He clearly states that ailments from allopathic drugs can be antidoted by giving the drug in potency, and he states that studies have been done to prove it. Maybe you should read the full article. You might learn something valuable. Dare to know, as Hahnemann said.

  • Well argued Elaine. It’s simple – this is an ACUTE case. In an acute case you treat what is there, in this case the aetiology. You don’t take a full case- even my beginner students at BIH know this. In a CHRONIC you need to take a full case to get the constitutional remedy. Aetiology = Vaccine so the vaccine in potency is what you give QED (as we used to write after a geometry theorum)

  • Hi Elaine, Do you have a link to the Ullman article on using 1M v remedy after injections? I’m only aware of using the Janssen clearing method of 30c-10m over the course of 8 weeks. Am curious to know how Dana is treating.

    Thank you!!

Leave a Comment