What is effective for our health?
Are you afraid of your current medicine?
What would a healing therapy look like if effectiveness was evaluated by safety first?
Is there a healing therapy available for myself and my children where the medicines used have no need to be harmful in order to be strong enough to work?
Homeopathy: increasing your health and vitality while relieving symptoms as the desired side-effect;
safely, naturally, effectively, and economically.
Walk With Safety!
Who already uses homeopathy effectively, safely, and consistently?
People from all walks of life and throughout the world use and benefit from homeopathy
In England homeopathy is protected by an act of Parliament. The Queen Mother and the royal family have used predominantly homeopathic physicians for generations.
Here in the United States our current homeopathic pharmacopoeia is established by an act of congress since 1938.
India holds homeopathy as a mainstream healing therapy with over 100,000 homeopathic doctors and over 100, 4 to 5 year homeopathic colleges.
Switzerland recently did a study and recommended homeopathy be made a part of their national health care system.
In Scotland, Germany, France, Russia, Argentina, Brazil, Cuba, Mexico, Canada, Australia and the United States homeopathy is currently growing by leaps and bounds. Some of the remedies for colds and other conditions are used more frequently than the western medical alternatives in some of these countries.
Literally, millions of people around the world from different classes and walks of life and for generations now have used and continue to use homeopathy successfully. Safety is a preeminent part of their success.
Without great success from both effectiveness and safety,
homeopathy would never have been established to this degree
and become available for you and me.
Early in the history of homeopathy a clear public demonstration of effectiveness was dramatically established. In 1813 there was an outbreak of Typhoid after the famous Battle of Leipzig. 180 patients were treated with homeopathy and only 2 died less than 1%. Those treated with conventional means suffered a mortality rate of 30 – 50% (!!!).
Cholera epidemics demonstrated ongoing and even greater dramatic effectiveness from homeopathic treatment.
In 1831 mortality reported in Osler’s practice of medicine was 80% for cholera under conventional care. The Imperial Council of Russia reported mortality was 40%. In 10 homeopathic hospitals reported by Dr. Quinn mortality was 9%. Bavaria did even better with Dr. Roth the physician to the king of Bavaria reporting just 7% mortality under homeopathic care. Considering these extraordinary results from the homeopathic treatment of people with cholera, Austria repealed a law which had banned homeopathic practice because of it’s direct competition with the apothecary businesses.
In 1854 a Cholera epidemic broke out in London leaving 10,738 people dead before discovering the source was a contaminated water pump which was then shut down ending the epidemic. There was a report requested from the House of Commons regarding the various treatments used and their effectiveness. Homeopathy was left out of the original report with the excuse of skewing the results. When it was later revealed conventional results lead to 59.2% mortality rate and homeopathic results were again 9%.
In 1855, in Rio, 388 people died of Cholera. Mortality with conventional treatment was 40% – 60%. Mortality with homeopathic treatment was 2%.
In 1892, in Hamburg, Germany, 8,600 people died of Cholera. Conventional mortality was 42%. Homeopathic mortality rate was 15.5%.
Broome County, New York showed a report from 1862 – 1864 in which conventional mortality rate was 83.6% vs homeopathic mortality rate which was 16.4%.
Insurance reports for claims of death reported from 1870 until 1873 showed half the loss of life claims per the same population numbers in those who used homeopathy as opposed to conventional medicine.
In 1878, with over 20,000 deaths in the Mississippi Valley alone from yellow fever, and various outbreaks through the southern United States from the mid to late 1800’s, a commission was established to discover the average proportion of death losses. People treated with conventional medicine had a 15.5% mortality rate, as opposed to those who used homeopathy, who had a 6% mortality rate.
In 1918, Dr. T A McCann, from Dayton, Ohio reported that 24,000 cases of Spanish Flu H5N1 treated conventionally had a mortality rate of 28.2%. 26,000 cases were treated homeopathically and had a mortality rate of 1.05%. The homeopathic results were re-confirmed by Dr. Dean W.A. Pearson of Philadelphia.
Dr. Herbert Roberts compiled a report from 30 local doctors around Derby Connecticut. 6,602 cases of Spanish Flu had been treated with homeopathy resulting in 55 deaths which was less than 1% mortality. This doctor also worked on a troop carrier ship during World War 1 and had 81 cases of Spanish Flu on the way to Europe in which all recovered after receiving homeopathic treatment. Another ship with cases of Spanish Flu and were not treated homeopathically and lost 31 men.
That was the past, and with the advent of antibiotics and the monopoly of modern pharmaceuticals and their patent-ability, created a financial monopoly and homeopathics are no longer allowed to participate when we suffer epidemics.
Current Responses Clearly Show Extraordinary Effectiveness.
Homeopathic Vaccinations — what we call nosodes — are clearly showing to be more effective, safer, and more economical for preventing epidemic diseases than conventional vaccinations.
Leptospirosis and Cuba
Finlay Institute has done a remarkable and unprecedented research study with 2.4 million people vaccinated at a crucial time for Leptospirosis with a homeopathic nosode with full scientific verification.
“The epidemiology surveillance after the intervention showed a dramatic decrease of morbidity two weeks after and a reduction to zero mortality of hospitalized patients. The number of confirmed leptospirosis cases remained at low levels and below the expected levels according with the trends and rain regimens. The usual expectancy of infection even with allopathic vaccination would have been around a few thousand, with some deaths included.
The costs of the leptospirosis project were US$ 200,000, whereas the costs of ‘normal’ vaccination, only for the most at-risk populations, ie children, pregnant women, and the elderly, are about US$3,000,000.”
More information can be found at the Finlay Institute website.
Homeopathy has also been effective in preventing infection during epidemics such as Polio, both with nosodes (disease material remedies similar to vaccines) and remedies made from other sources such as Belladonna for Scarlet Fever, and Gelsemium for Flu. There is no doubt homeopathy is effective; it is just suppressed purely for the financial gain of competitors.
Safe, Economical, and Not Monopolized
Considering homeopathy’s overwhelming efficacy in treating epidemics, common sense would tell us we need to bring homeopathy back to the forefront.
Safety is far greater with homeopathic remedies than any current pharmaceutical therapy.
Homeopathy is exponentially more economical than any pharmaceutical or procedure.
Monopolized medicine dominates and restricts the use of and information about homeopathy through subversive propaganda; education is the key to bringing us and our loved ones the safety and effectiveness of homeopathy.
Prescription and over-the-counter medicines are advertised to us daily via our media consumption as being straightforward and effective cures for what ails us. Yet can a drug with a long list of potentially deadly side-effects and toxic ingredients truly be called effective? Many of my clients initially sought relief from their unpleasant symptoms using these drugs, and came to me when the drugs failed them, or caused other health problems.
In my first year working with people.
A young woman of twenty-five came into my office with the complaint of simple facial acne. While most therapies use a single medication to treat such a condition, homeopathy takes a more holistic approach. A homeopathic practitioner treats the whole person, not a diagnosed disease. With this in mind, I asked her for her entire health history. I soon found out how she had been on antibiotics since her early teens to treat the acne, and was still using them.
While telling her story she demonstrated all the fears, emotions, and situational conditions of a very young teenager. She was still living at home. She couldn’t go to the store without a family member going with her. She was afraid of the dark, had no career or consideration for one, and had the dress and mannerisms of a teenager although she was in her mid-20s.
She initially came into my office brought by her mother.
After an in-depth interview, I came to the conclusion that she was emotionally stunted due to the continuous use of antibiotics to suppress her facial acne. I also considered the acne itself a very minor issue compared to her inability to reach emotional maturity.
I carefully and delicately explained to her what I saw and how her continued use of antibiotics had likely interfered with her body chemically, possibly disrupting her hormonal and emotional growth processes.
We recommended a homeopathic remedy that would stimulate her glands, and was known homeopathically to heal physically and emotionally stunted growth. On her own, this young woman also decided to quit using the antibiotics and allow her physical condition of acne to temporarily worsen.
As a simple nutritional adjunct I recommended acidophilus to help replace the intestinal flora which antibiotics are known to destroy.
When this young woman returned for a follow-up in one month by herself, she informed me how she had taken an eight mile run to her sister’s house (by herself), moved out of their family home, and joined the police academy. I was amazed. This dramatic change for her appeared to be an acceleration of her emotional growth previously stunted by her prescribed medications.
Most people are aware that medications such as drugs and alcohol stunt emotional growth. Chemical, artificial medication, even if prescribed, may do the same.
After a few months, my client’s acne was much improved and soon disappeared, and without any specific medication or remedies being further given.
Safety as Effectiveness
Homeopathic remedies could never have stunted this woman’s emotional growth like the continuous use of chemical antibiotics had (Read in our Exploring Homeopathy and Using Homeopathic Remedies sections to learn why). I have seen toxic foods such as sugar create the same stunting of emotional maturity in other clients. This is one issue (among many others) concerning drug therapies, though common, is not recognized or validated in our media coverage or medical reviews here in the U.S.
Our homeopathic remedies and lifestyle changes can certainly be a dramatic catalyst for our ability to heal ourselves.
(Many chronic conditions may not be this easy to discern and heal, so if you seek out a professional homeopath, give him/her time and patience to help you go through your own processes of healing. This was a dramatic specific occurrence for one specific individual.)
For firsthand accounts of effectiveness please visit our Hope section, in which our past and current clients tell their own success stories.
The topic of studies and trials opens up more questions than answers.
Are there clinical trials and studies which show the effectiveness of homeopathy?
Are mainstream clinical trials and studies valuable scientifically?
Should we trust our health and life to a science based on artificial studies vs. natural responses?
Do scientific trials and studies create valid time tested therapies we can safely trust and use for centuries or do they develop quick faddish medical therapies which produce an immediate buck?
Are clinical trials and studies in medicine unbiased as they are proclaimed to be?
Was there ever a trial or study which show trials and studies are effective, or is it all just made up?
There are clinical trials and studies which show the effectiveness of homeopathy
Here is one meta-analysis done in 1991 which covered 107 controlled trials 81 of the trials showed homeopathy to be effective and 24 didn’t in a 25 year period. This meta-analysis was done by three professors of medicine in the Netherlands and none of them were homeopaths. The results were then published in the British Medical Journal.
13 of 19 trials showed successful treatment of respiratory infections,
6 of 7 trials showed positive results in treating other infections,
5 of 7 trials showed improvement in diseases of the digestive system,
5 of 5 showed successful treatment of hay fever,
5 of 7 showed faster recovery after abdominal surgery,
4 of 6 promoted healing in treating rheumatological disease,
18 of 20 showed benefit in addressing pain or trauma,
8 of 10 showed positive results in relieving mental or psychological problems, and
13 of 15 showed benefit from miscellaneous diagnoses.
Though these studies reveal homeopathic treatment’s high percentage of efficacy, this meta-analysis is just a study in itself. Some studies are good quality and some are not which the researchers knew. These specific researchers were smart enough to review the high quality studies by themselves.
These unbiased researchers found to their surprise the high quality studies showed even greater effectiveness for treatments with homeopathy. The researchers’ conclusion about homeopathy (after their initial surprise at the amount of positive results– especially in these higher quality studies) was that,
“The evidence presented in this review would probably be sufficient for establishing homeopathy as a regular treatment for certain indications.”
Confidence in Studies and Trials
Despite the promising study results I have listed previously, I’m not an individual who trusts our current mainstream health related scientific studies or trials, which tend to be funded by large corporations from the food and pharmaceutical industries. One study shows coffee is good; another finds the opposite. The parameters of such studies are designed to sell a product.
These parameters can completely change the conclusion of the study.
Any parameter can be chosen.
Establishing parameters trumps the blindness of a study.
Roughly a year ago, I read an article about a study done to discover whether sugar had any effect on ADHD (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder) in children. The article describing the results of the study said the parameters chosen by the researchers showed no effect from sugar causing hyperactivity in children. The title clearly stated there was no effect and was broadcast across the newspapers and the internet. There wasn’t even the usual clause indicating the necessity of further research. Possibly millions of people were given information stating strongly, clearly, and concisely that sugar does not create hyperactivity in our children.
However, near the end of the article it was stated that all the parents thought sugar did have an effect.
Why didn’t they use the parents’ parameters?
Why did they suppose the parents’ perspectives were flawed instead of the study and its parameters being flawed?
There are many studies out there claiming sugar does not create hyperactivity in children. These studies have gone to great extremes of blinding or even fooling parents to whether their children had sugar or not. These studies look smart and inventive from the outside with their conclusions carefully written.
One study with this conclusion used aspartame as a placebo. Aspartame is a synthetic chemical sweetener.
How can a person consider a synthetic chemical, aspartame, a placebo? Why didn’t they use Stevia, a natural sweetener?
How do we know the effect of processed sugar is not the same effect on these sensitive children as any synthetic chemical in their diet?
Why don’t we give them amphetamines and call it placebo?
I’ve witnessed my own grandson take off into an uncontrollable whirl of activity and emotion only to discover later there was a source of sugar, food dye, or preservative which was not recognized previously and the timing roughly 20 minutes after the treat. How is that the placebo influence if there was no prior suspicion?
The absurdity of ruling out the parents’ judgement for a sought after definite conclusion is more than startling…
It is unscientific!
Trusting our health and life choices to such studies can be devastating. There have been multiple studies denouncing the possibility of harm in a particular medical drug or medical treatment– then years later, after the patent runs out, we find our society has suffered thousands of deaths or other harmful effects. (HRT, Hormone Replacement Therapy is one such event– it was promoted for over 30 years before discovery of harm.)
How did those original, artificially-induced, multi-million dollar safety studies do with presenting us with scientific evidence for safety without long-term natural selection through observation and experience?
Scientific studies and trials are blatantly flawed when used to evaluate safety for health.
Without safety there is no efficacy.
Without natural selection through empirical observation in real life over a long period of time, there is no safety.
Without competition and a free market from our natural and un-patented therapies there is again no science.
Regarding sugar? I think- I’ll trust those parents!
How about you?
My conclusion about scientific studies and trials is this:
I don’t find homeopathic or medical studies about efficacy in treating specific conditions or their safety valuable.
I find my own experience working with people, myself, and my family as strong observable common sense evidence.
I hold as paramount the evidence that our mainstream medicines and therapies are the third leading cause of our deaths in the US.
I find the evidence of homeopathy, not financially backed by huge corporations, persecuted by the pharmaceutical industry and its media, while still being utilized and supported by millions of people across multiple cultures around the world a natural selection I want to pay attention to.
Conclusive evidence of efficacy!
Homeopathy is being used by all walks of life, in most countries of the world, at great opposition, and with no monetary backing. I find the evidence of a more natural selection by the people to be of value far more than any other study or trial artificially created by self interest.
Colchicine a medical drug which causes side-effects. Colchicum a homeopathic from the same originating substance causes no harm.
Why else would someone attack and try and prevent others from using something considered at worse a placebo?
Propaganda Is Used to Discredit Homeopathy
Homeopathy Discredited as Placebo
The number one criticism used by opposition to discredit homeopathy is a claim that homeopathic remedies are just a placebo.
What a terrific criticism; I wish pharmaceutical drugs were so safe that they could be mistaken for placebos.
Why do we think our medicine needs to harm us to be effective?
The only organized demonstration I’ve ever seen publicized against homeopathy was a demonstration called 1023. This demonstration was held at several locations in front of and against establishments selling homeopathic remedies. You can find this demonstration on the internet, of-course.
The number 1023 is representative of the extreme dilutions of some of the homeopathic remedies. Avogadro’s number clearly states how in chemistry after so many dilutions (which is one step beyond this number used in the protest at 1024) there is no longer a single molecule of the original substance. Most homeopathic remedies can be used beyond this extreme dilution very effectively and with obvious safety.
Theory Is Different than Practice
“Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.” This saying took me some time to fully grasp, but it has far-reaching implications. Theory is not the same as empirical evidence (facts).
This small public demonstration to discredit homeopathic remedies was based on quite literally nothing on several levels. The participants showed up with homeopathic remedies and while chanting 1023 they seemed to be emptying an entire bottle of remedy at one time into each participants mouth while being video-taped.
Most demonstrations, if not all, are organized by people who are damaged or feel threatened by something which could cause them harm.
Harm is not caused by a placebo.
There were very few criticisms mentioned at the demonstrations other than disbelief. Homeopaths only do it for the money. Homeopaths tell you to ditch your drugs for a placebo.
Just to be clear, no homeopath that I’m aware of, including myself, tells their clients or patients to take a remedy and ditch their medical drugs unless, the remedy has already been effective, and the use of the drug can only cause harm at that point.
Personally, I send them back to their doctor to wean them off their medications if no longer needed. Wouldn’t that be common sense?
Homeopathic practitioners only do it for money. Does this include the medical doctor who practices homeopathy as well? I’m sure the homeopathic medical doctor could make a lot more selling pharmaceuticals. There is certainly no profit for the cost of the $9 bottle of a homeopathic remedy. Supplements, herbs and every other medication in the world costs more than a homeopathic remedy.
Where is the harm?
If the worse outcome is the remedy works as a placebo then it has a roughly 35% chance of effectiveness recognized by the same science proclaiming Avogadro’s number as a scientific fact. 35% chance of working is greater than most chemo-therapies and many other medical therapies as well.
Ask yourself, how would anyone replace medical drugs without an experience of the new remedy being of help? If it didn’t help would it be used?
So, what was this demonstration about?
I could not tell you if the participants were medical practitioners, pharmaceutical representatives, people influenced by propaganda, or paid demonstrators. I can tell you that the participants did not research the phenomenal history of evidence supporting homeopathy. Furthermore, they did not give themselves a chance to experience firsthand the effects of a remedy recommended by an experienced practitioner for their actual health issues.
In other words, to conclude that homeopathy was nothing more than a placebo, all empirical evidence had to be completely eliminated and replaced with absurd beliefs. The first belief is that theory trumps empirical evidence.
The difference is:
Do you believe what should happen?
Or, do you believe what actually happens?
The belief in a theory without evidence destroys science.
To join 1023 as a movement a person would have to believe:
Our medicine needs to cause harm in order to be effective!
Now how absurd is that theory?
Propaganda as a Demonstration of Safety
I hope the 1023 exposition is broadcast for quite some time. Unbeknownst to the participants, they performed a brilliant demonstration of the safety of homeopathy.
1023 dramatically enlightens us about a wonderful question…
Why is it we think our medicine needs to be able to harm us to be effective?
There were no ambulances waiting to pick up people after taking the remedies. What would have happened if the same demonstration had been performed with pharmaceutical drugs instead? Particularly over-the-counter drugs, which anyone can pick up!
I thank all the participants for making it very clear worldwide just how safe homeopathy is.
Despite overwhelming long-term evidence of homeopathy’s safety with no toxic side-effects reported in over 200 years of use, the FDA continues to place limitations on its use and sale, and to persecute companies that manufacture remedies. The logical conclusion is that their actions are financially based and not in the best interest of the American people.
As Daniel Haley so eloquently wrote, in Politics in Healing, “we don’t need government protection from things that can’t hurt us”. See more here.
Homeopathy Discredited As Causing Harm
Does homeopathy cause liver damage?
If the initial claim by so-called “skeptics” that homeopathy is a placebo is correct, then how could it cause harm to any organ or tissue? The two claims against homeopathy completely conflict with each other!
Homeopathy causing harm is not usually pronounced in public media these days for the obvious absurdity which the demonstration discussed above entirely ruled out.
However, both homeopathy and many other natural substances like herbs and supplements have been proclaimed as potentially causing liver damage in the past. This response is a common go-to argument which is more associated with drug issues than natural supplements. I have had medical doctors and even an acupuncturist uneducated about homeopathy pronounce the possibility of liver damage in order to steer patients away from a homeopathic remedy and towards their own therapy. Again, this is financially motivated and has nothing to do with science.
There are controversies surrounding some herbs such as Black Cohosh possibly causing liver damage and Ma Huang causing heart problems. First of all, these are not homeopathic remedies. There are homeopathic remedies made from such herbs, but when they have been processed homeopathically they no longer contain the substances which could have potentially caused any harm.
Even in its pure herbal form, it would be difficult to believe that black cohosh causes significant liver issues unless it was abused. Many times herbs suffer misrepresentation for the same financial reasons homeopathy is defamed, because they are competition to pharmaceuticals and other practices.
However, I do avoid Ma Huang and other stimulants because of their drug-like attributes. For example, Ephedra as a drug can hurt a person’s heart, so we should use caution with certain herbs. Even though they are natural, they can be very powerful, and some have similar negative effects as the pharmaceutical drugs. If Ma Huang were made into a homepathic remedy diluted to 1024 then again we would have no issue, but the stimulant properties would also be lost. Homeopathically, Ma Huang would be used to reduce over-stimulation and possibly heal the heart from the destruction of Ephedra or Amphetamine use.
Homeopathy Discredited As Negligence
Is using a potential placebo negligence?
This topic is worthy of a little discussion…
Risk of Immediate Loss to Life or Limb
There is an argument that seeing a homeopath or any other natural practitioner could cause negligence, and be dangerous because the person could choose to avoid needed medical treatment and may suffer a loss of limb or even death.
Because of the monopoly established by the American Medical Association here in the United States, homeopathic practitioners have not been allowed to utilize emergency medical techniques. We don’t get trained in them, and if we do, we don’t get to use them without great liability.
Under emergency circumstances I request my clients see a medical practitioner who is allowed to use emergency medical techniques — immediately. I may recommend a remedy on the way to the emergency room, and sometimes that has taken care of the issue before they get there. I’ve even met them in the emergency room and given a remedy with success with both the doctors knowledge and blessing. If there is a possible threat to life or limb, I still ask them to be checked out thoroughly even after the episode is over.
Having a second opinion when there is a threat to life or limb is always wise. Don’t expect a homeopathic practitioner to know all emergency techniques available when they are not allowed to be trained in these techniques.
When there is an immediate threat to life or limb I personally would never trust my life on the evaluation of a single practitioner, doctor, or therapist. I would want to know all angles and evaluations and resources available to pull myself through.
But, fair is fair. Is it not negligence to avoid recommendation to a homeopath, naturopath, therapist, nutritionist, acupuncturist, massage-therapist, or herbalist before there is an immediate potential for loss of life or limb?
Shouldn’t we utilize the safest approaches first (even if we thought they only had a 35% possibility of effectiveness as a placebo effect) before an invasive life-threatening surgery, or the use of a pharmaceutical drug which risks our life and limb?
Shouldn’t all practitioners be open to possibilities they were not trained in and do what is best for their patient or client regardless of financial circumstances?
Obviously, because of competition and loss of financial gain, natural, preventative, alternative, and complementary therapies are not recommended first by doctors or pharmaceutical companies.
To have the best results from our health services we need to educate ourselves. We need to be responsible in choosing safety first in our health services for ourselves and our loved ones.
In regards to the absurdity of the criticism of homeopathy, I would consider these questions …
If homeopathy was just a placebo how could it be so expansive across the world and with all walks of life utilizing it?
If homeopathy didn’t work then why would anyone ever see a homeopath?
Would any industry or government need to attack a completely safe therapy considered at worse a placebo unless that entity was financially motivated?
Why do we ask medical doctors to recommend or discredit natural therapies when they are completely untrained and unfamiliar with them, and even nutrition is an elective in their training?
Why do we allow publicity of medical drugs from pharmaceutical companies to sway ourselves and our doctors in our media? Is an advertisement better than the knowledge of our doctors?
Why don’t we refer to safety first in our health choices?
If we did choose safety first in our health choices would we still suffer our medicine to be the third leading cause of our death in the U.S.?
*Not all homeopathic remedies are used at such extreme dilutions criticized as placebo. Homeopathic remedies are only used at these extreme dilutions when they have proven effective to the practitioner recommending them, pharmacist formulating them, or the user him/herself as being more effective. Simply put, there would be no need to use the remedy at these extreme dilutions if it didn’t work. (Empiricism is just the observation of what works and what doesn’t!) Homeopathic remedies are commonly available in much lower dilutions where there is substance, and still no toxic side-effects reported in over 200 years.
Why would I ever avoid the effectiveness of mainstream medicine?
Are people who choose alternatives first, extremists?
Isn’t it dangerous not to go to my doctor first?
Mainstream Medicine Is Symptoms Management
For some, this article may be the most important information on our website!
Don’t Throw Out the Baby with the Bath-water!
Symptoms management is what we do when we use a medical drug and/or surgeries continuously to help manage our symptoms and make us feel better.
Just to be clear, I have and will use medical drugs or a surgery in an emergency when my life or a limb is threatened. Please do not throw out the baby with the bath water. This is about being responsible for our health and not making one form of therapy bad or wrong to promote another.
We just need to know when to use what type of tool in order to be successful with our health.
I will personally use mainstream medicine, but once mainstream medicine has helped me out of the emergency, I am going to find a way for myself or my family member to avoid that situation in the future. I am going to lift and improve my vitality with the help of a good alternative health practitioner and using the information I provide in the “5 pillars of Authentic Healing,” which we provide when you subscribe to our monthly publication “Homeopathy & Natural Health”.
Acknowledging the Dangers of Mainstream Medicine
Mainstream medicine does not have sufficient safe tools to help with long term chronic conditions. Mainstream medical therapies have a great tendency to reduce our vitality and lessen our ability to fight off or resolve our acute conditions naturally.
In controversial words for the sake of clarity, mainstream pharmaceutical therapy is downright dangerous when it comes to long-term care, in addition to many instances of short-term care.
In order to be responsible we need to acknowledge two specific causes of ill health from mainstream medical therapies:
• First, Side-effects are not side-effects we think won’t happen to us. They are straightforward other-effects which will happen to us at some point. It is dangerous to rely on medications with other-effects to keep us feeling well. The odds quickly become more and more stacked against us with each medication and the longer each medication is used.
• Second, the most insidious danger is the slow degradation of our health due to our loss of vitality through pharmaceutical medications and shocks from surgery. The slow but consistent drag of our energy eventually promotes other symptoms, and it definitely reduces our quality of life. Think of the simple hangover from alcohol when we have too much; all medications have their own form of a hangover. Although the dosage may keep it unnoticeable for a time eventually the cost hits us hard.
These two causes from symptomatic treatment have greatly contributed to mainstream medicine becoming the third leading cause of our death here in the United States according to our own medical statistics.
If you understand the importance of this information in our discussion right here, then you have already received a very significant and powerful tool for the discovery of your authentic health and well-being:
It is irresponsible to rely solely on mainstream medicine, especially when faced with a chronic condition (a disease or condition which does not end).
What is commonly referred to as preventative medicine is not preventative. It is authentic healing! Preventative is vitality building and authentic healing. Without so-called preventative health we are symptom managing ourselves into ill-health.
There is always a cost to my vitality with every drug, or surgery used. They are not safe enough for my long-term use with these other-effects.
Drugs are not vitamins.
Surgeries are not food.
Best of health to you through your awareness!