Reported June 11 from a medical colleague — 

Just wanted to let you know I am quite sure I had the v thing.  

My symptoms started sometime early afternoon with head pain over the back and top of my head, then neck, back and other muscle pain, clogged sinuses, sore throat and overwhelming feeling of tiredness.  I laid down on the couch before 8:00 P.M. because I just needed a nap.  (This was Saturday of Memorial weekend – May 23, 2020)  The pains were the type you know you are coming down with an illness – not from overdoing. I had gone on a run for 20 some minutes that morning and a lot of walking, and then raking of tree leaves, but this wasn’t from that. I know the difference.

I was busy doing things after I awoke from the nap, but the pains were worsening so I decided to take a dose at midnight (Nux vomica 30c) and go to bed – not wanting to get into any deep respiratory issues.  I can honestly say I have had worse symptoms before with upper respiratory stuff, but wasn’t going to wait to find out if that were going to happen.

When I woke up the next morning, the headache was gone, the neck and back pain were pretty much gone, barely a sore throat.  About 10:00 a.m. I felt like the headache may still have a slight lingering effect and the throat so I repeated one dose in water succussing the solution and taking a dropperfull.  I can truly say in less than 4 hrs after the second dose and probably more like one hour,  I was 100 % over it.  No lingering effects.  So over it in about 11 hrs post the first dose of the remedy.🤗  So quite impressive.  

Thank you for your detailed notes and your reportorizations months back. Nux so fits the symptoms of the disease.

Note added: She is still well now, June 29.


I think most of us accept and admire the development of the scientific method in our culture. It is a very useful tool, a way to become more clear on what the important factors in events are. It is not perfect, not the only method of finding truth, as it is limited to what can be sensed. We know our senses are limited and much is happening beyond the range of sensibility. Yes, we have developed tools that extend beyond our usual range but even they have limits. 

Basically, science is done by careful observation, and when done properly, simplifies the question. By this, I mean that if we wanted to study the effect of taking some substance or food into the body, our observation will be more accurate if all the people being tested are on the same food regimen and not taking any other substances. We call this minimizing variables. It is obvious if we are studying the health effect of an herb and some of those in our test group are also recreating with LSD, then very possible we won’t have reliable results, will we?

Our model, for scientific study, is then to set up clear parameters and minimize the factors (variables) that might also have an influence. It is equally important that there be a control group — a group of those tested not receiving the thing we are testing for. If we did not have a control group, how would we know that the changes we see in our test group might have happened anyway? Get the idea?

Then, as well, we want to test a sufficient number to minimize natural variability. People, animals, and plants all vary as to their susceptibility to things and also in how they give us signs that they are affected. Not necessarily the same in all. 

To summarize, the scientific method will set up a “controlled” study, one made more simple, with a proper comparative group, and a sufficient number of those tested to minimize variability.

The difficulty we face, and so obvious now with this current epidemic, is mixing scientific studies with speculation. It really helps to see the difference. 

Here is an example from an article appearing in the current issue of New Scientist. This is an extract:


Rise of Measles Linked With Emergence of Large Cities 2500 Years Ago

The measles virus crossed over to people from cattle around 500 BC, supporting the idea that it could only get established as a human disease once large enough cities had developed. “It’s not proof, but it’s compatible with the notion that large cities might have provided the opportunity for it to emerge,” says Sébastien Calvignac-Spencer at the Robert Koch Institute in Berlin, Germany.

The measles virus evolved from the virus that causes rinderpest, a disease that used to be common in cattle and led to famines in Africa in the 20th century, until vaccination eradicated it by 2011.

It was already known that the measles virus evolved from the rinderpest one because they are so genetically similar, but it was unclear when it made the jump. Previous estimates were that it happened around AD 900. But that conclusion was based on analysis of fairly recent measles viruses

Read more:


Commentary: When you first read this, it seems like a scientific report. There are statements made like they are the determined truth. As an example “The measles virus crossed over to people from cattle around 500 BC.” Another similar statement further down is “It was already known that the measles virus evolved from the rinderpest one because they are so genetically similar, but it was unclear when it made the jump.” 

Let’s look at this speculation, presented as science, using the criteria listed above.

The idea is that measles virus was FIRST in cattle. It then somehow modified and began to infect people. How could this be scientifically determined? The first, and most essential factor, is that we are bringing in time. The assumption is that the virus somehow came into being in cattle and was not it people at that time. As there was an association between cattle and people the virus developed the ability to infect people. 

If we are to scientifically determine that, here is what we would have to show:

First, do a survey for the presence of the virus in both cattle and human beings. For the premise of ORIGIN (from cattle) we have to show that the virus is indeed found in cattle and never in people. And we have to test a sufficient number to have some confidence — hundreds?

If we find the virus in both people and cattle, at the same time, we cannot say where it started. It is certainly possible it started with cattle but it is just as possible it started with people and then crossed into cattle. I think you can see the difficulty here. There is no way we can, at least at present, go back in time and do such tests. And we know the people living then did not even have any idea of what a virus was so they could not have done such testing themselves. 

A further piece of evidence that the speculation may not be not correct is the nature of the two diseases. We know what measles is like, especially as a skin eruption. The rinderpest disease in cattle is not like that. The symptoms in cattle are fever, loss of appetite, nasal, and eye discharges. Then, as it develops erosions appear in the mouth and inside the nose and genitals. There is often diarrhea, and they die, usually, within a week or so. This is not how measles looks. Well, of course, the virus could change, theoretically, but it would be nice to have also scientific evidence that such a change in disease pattern happens. 

We could go on and on with examples, but I want to touch on this with you as it is a very important topic in today’s world. We are inundated with speculation, presented to us as if it were scientific — implying there were studies, research, carefully done, that substantiate what is being said. Problem is when you look into any background material it very often does not support what is being said or is another layer of speculation itself. 

I used this example of blaming cattle for the presence of measles because it is such a clear example. The hypothesis, as stated, obviously cannot ever be scientifically proven — unless someday we develop a time machine and have the desire and interest to go back in time and do these tests. I think, if it were me, there would be more interesting things to do with the machine, don’t you?

I hope this gives the idea. As you hear these various statements just ask yourself if such a thing as being claimed is even possible to be determined scientifically. It does help to sift through it. 



I wish to share with you my considerations about the recent advisement from health and government officials of the intention to have mass, perhaps mandatory, vaccinations. This will not be a scientific piece in the usual sense as the view I want to take is stepping further back and looking at the overall dynamic, how it functions. What I mean is that it is easier for us to understand the situation if we don’t get caught up in too much detail. I think of it like explaining to someone how to drive a car. You can say to them that turning the car involves rotating the wheels with a series of gears and cables (all described) vs. just showing them how turning the steering wheel does it.

You will notice the misspelling of the word in the title and I did that purposefully as a number of posts about this topic, using the indicated word, have been taken down from Facebook. I have the naïve idea that spelling it this way may prevent that. As a further precaution, rather than using the word in what follows I will use the letters “VX” instead. When I went through my graduate work at Washington State University, in the department of microbiology, the focus of my study and research was on immunology and virology. It was fascinating, and I took away some understanding I will share with you.


If you are presented with the idea of this procedure for the first time you likely will be impressed with the cleverness of it. A wonderful capability of the immune system is to literally learn how to recognize a germ (virus, bacteria, fungus, whatever) and to remember it. This was a step beyond the basic idea of having resistance to disease. Not only is there resistance but, as well, a record could be made of it in case of future encounters with the same germ. This is amazing, isn’t it?

To put it in more human terms, the immune system is able to identify and then remember the encounter. It is a form of memory. This mechanism is explained in terms of certain cells of the immune system processing some piece of the virus or other germ, presented to them, and to make a specific protein molecule that goes out in the blood and attaches to the offending buggers. These we call antibodies. They don’t really inactivate (kill) the virus or bacteria directly but rather act as a flag to the cells that have this purpose that are circulating all through the blood and the body at all times. It brings attention to the germ and it is quickly eliminated. It is like a sign that says “kick me out.”

There are other cells that have a similar function and these are ones that do not produce antibodies but rather go out directly to track down and eliminate the germs. We call these “killer cells.” Let us put these aside for now and concentrate on the ones that make antibodies as that is the goal of using a VX.

Understanding this mechanism, you can understand the idea of a VX is to establish this recognition and memory without having to go through the actual disease. You can see why this is appealing. Unfortunately, it is not that simple. We must first recognize that VX is attempting to mimic a natural process – which means we have to go through the same steps to be the same natural process. So, let us then first consider what the natural disease dynamic is, and this will be our standard to evaluate the VX imitation.


Let us talk viruses to make it simple. If a person comes in contact with another person spewing viruses into the air or leaving secretions on what they touch, then the exposed person will first have the virus come into their body in some way. Often this is through the respiratory process but also can be through the gastro-intestinal tract. In either case, the virus will make contact with the membranes lining those passages. As they are so small they easily penetrate into the tissues. In the healthy person, there are millions or billions of cells waiting just for that to happen and they gobble up the invaders and that is the end of the story. (I posted on this already, calling those cells the guardians.)

The first thing to bring out about this is why the virus sometimes gets through this natural barrier.

There are two primary reasons.
1) There is a large number of viruses coming in, millions, and it is too many for the defender cells to handle.
2) There are not very many defender cells as they have been used up trying to fight air pollution or other stressful, toxic, environmental influences.

The first possibility, exposure to large numbers, is not likely by just coming near someone with the virus infection but is more likely if you were in close association for some time — like caring for them. The second possibility, the weakened state from dealing with other things like contamination from chemicals, pollution, is the most common factor in today’s world. Wouldn’t you think that attention would be given to this? But it is not. Medicine pretty much ignores it and instead focuses on the virus, blaming it for the problem.

Well, let’s assume the viruses get through, at least a significant number. They are in the fluid around the cells, the tissue fluid, and they follow the flow of that fluid as it moves through the tissues and further into the body. You might ask “Why doesn’t the virus just grow in those cells nearby?” The answer is that the virus has an intention, a plan. This is difficult to appreciate but the virus is an intelligent being and it has a plan in mind, so to speak.

You will notice with many diseases that the infection ends up in some part of the body. Like a cold virus will affect the nose, perhaps throat, larynx, maybe the bronchial tubes. In contrast, chicken pox grows in the skin. When you look closely at these diseases you will find that almost always there is a specific area in which they want to grow. So their intention is to reach that part of the body. Yes, they have intention.

From the fluid around the cells where they got in, they then drain to lymph nodes, which are small glands you can feel in your throat, in the arm pits, etc. There are hundreds of lymph nodes all throughout the body, and they contain large numbers of other cells that will try, again, to destroy the virus. So the viruses have to navigate that. If they succeed in going further, they then drain down through the lymph symptom until they finally reach veins in the upper chest where the fluid once again enters the circulation.

So now the viruses are the blood, but not without further challenges. As they circulate they pass through the spleen and liver, both loaded with more cells that will eat them up if they can. But we continue.

If the virus gets through all of this and travels through the blood, it finally gets to the destination where it wants to grow. There it enters the cells and begins to reproduce itself. Meanwhile, the viruses that did not make through all these stages of defense have been eaten by various protective cells. Some of these cells also have the job of taking some of these digested pieces of the virus to specific places in the body where the cells that make antibodies live. These messenger cells actually present the pieces to the antibody making cells for that purpose. They basically say “Here you go. This is the one to work on.” This is amazing, isn’t it?

Can you grasp how intelligent this is that there are cells that know to take a piece of the virus quite some distance away and present the pieces to the cells that know how to make antibodies? I want to emphasize here that this process of taking information to the antibody cells starts as soon as the virus gets into the body and is a continuing process. It takes about a week or so for this to come to completion and for the antibodies to enter the blood.


Now we compare this to the VX. In a word, this extraordinary natural process, just described, is bypassed. There is no original entry, alerting the guardian cells, or starting them in the communication of this invasion to the rest of the immune system. There is no travel of the virus through lymph nodes, spleen, liver, encountering cells in the blood that send off chemicals, alerting the immune system to what is happening, getting it ready.

In contrast, the VX is given by injection and within 10-15 minutes the virus, and other ingredients in the VX, is in the blood circulating. The immune system did not know this was coming. Not only did it not know this, but it has never encountered an infection like this before.

All other infections go through the process described. This is what it has been doing for thousands and thousands of years. It has no experience with this new event and it is completely shocking. To put it in more human terms, it is like you have set up your home to have maximum security, with locked doors and windows, perhaps a wall about the yard, guard dogs, security alarm, etc. So if there is a break-in is you first hear an alarm, hear the dogs barking, see the activity, and be able to prepare for that.

Compare this to the VX process. You have this well-secured house and are sitting in your living room enjoying the evening — only to turn to see a robber sitting in the chair with a gun. How the hell did he get in here? Why didn’t I hear something? This is what it is like for the immune system. There is no warning and suddenly the threatening invader is right there. It has never happened in nature before (until our modern times) and basically our systems are not prepared to deal with it.

The thing to take away from this is that the event is extremely shocking to the immune system. It reacts the best it can, but this is where mistakes happen. In the frantic response, it can identify something in the vaccine (other than the virus) as part of the threat. This can be a protein from the cell culture the virus is grown in, a protein that is normal in your body — like your kidney cells, or collagen (connective tissue) — that is seen as an expression of the invader. Antibodies are made against it.

This is how the auto-immune diseases get started.


We have, so far, set up a model of how the VX process is different and why that can be a problem. There are other negative outcomes possible but we will save that for another discussion.

At this point, I want to communicate a basic context for bringing up other considerations. To reiterate this, the idea here is that we have, as a natural and very sophisticated process, a way to deal with infections and toxic substances that get into the body.

In contrast, the VX practice ignores this natural process and has the arrogance to forcefully challenge the immune system in a way it is not prepared to handle. In a way, it is a lack of respect. It is also not surprising that it is done, as not respecting the natural process is, unfortunately, something that happens frequently.

Until next time…

The vaccine gate



I am scheduled to present an online presentation at a joint homeopathic conference this June. It is a conference, of course on homeopathic medicine and there will be a focus on how epidemics have been, and can now be, treated successfully with the homeopathic method. Those of you that have been following my posts on this topic, addressing the current epidemic, will understand what I am referring to. A recent post, Nux, To The Rescue, is a good demonstration of that in which a young woman is sick for 11 days and within minutes of the first dose of a homeopathic remedy is showing improvement. This is why homeopathy is remarkable and is worth giving attention to.

In this scheduled conference there are several speakers whose topic is the current epidemic and their experience in treating it. Useful information, what? So imagine the surprise that I get an email this morning from the organizers of the conference warning me (and the other speakers) to be careful what they say. Here is an extract from their message which shows what I am talking about —

“…the US Federal Trade Commission and other US Government Agencies have been restricting what can be communicated regarding the treatment or prevention of COVID-19 that do not comply with strict National Institute of Health policies. Consequently, we will need to be very careful about how we communicate during our presentations. We won’t be able to use terms like ‘treatment’ or ‘prevention’, ‘COVID-19’ or ‘coronavirus’.”

Do you understand the significance of this? It is telling us that a professional conference of medical doctors discussing an entirely legal system of medicine cannot say that they either “treat” or “prevent” the disease. Can you imagine the outrage if this was directed to an allopathic conference? That conventional doctors dealing with this virus disease cannot say they have treated it?

How could this come about? We can assume that the message coming from our government is communicating their disapproval of the homeopathic method. They don’t want us to say we are treating it as we will be lying. This is not new. At this point, we are seeing the playing out of allopathic medicine being a monopoly and opposed to all other competing systems. For homeopathy, this started quite some time ago.

Homeopathy was introduced to the US in the very early 1800s by Dr. Burch Gram who had trained in Germany. He treated fellow doctors and converted many of them. As well, the dramatic effectiveness of homeopathy treating epidemics brought many other doctors into the fold. Homeopathy grew steadily and by the middle 1800s, every state had a homeopathic medical school, and 25% of doctors now used this method. The situation changed in 1847. The doctors that had not embraced homeopathy, seeing its continuing development, started an organization to combat homeopathy as well as other forms of medicine such as herbalism, chiropractic, osteopathy, and such like.

From this point, there was continued aggressive movement towards homeopathy culminating in the medical schools having their funding taken away and having to close. The organization was so hostile to homeopathy that if any members even talked to a homeopathic practitioner they would be expelled from the organization. One fellow this happened to, who was expelled from the organization, had committed this serious offense of talking to a homeopathic practitioner — his wife.

What was this organization? It called itself the American Medical Association (AMA).

The result of this process was that allopathic medicine became a monopoly, a state which is actually not accepted in other areas such as industry. However, it has been maintained in medicine. “Wait,” you say “I can get other treatment if I want.” Yes, you can get herbal treatment, homeopathic treatment, etc. — if you are willing to pay out of pocket. They are not covered by insurance and therefore stay on the fringes of the medical system.

A related development has been the incredible growth and power of the drug industry. We are talking billions of dollars. In these days, it is often this industry behind the efforts to eliminate homeopathy. You can see why. It is not unusual that a person, or animal, can be cured with homeopathic treatment of a condition that otherwise would be incurable and require the continued use of medicines for decades. I know of people cured of such, usually incurable, conditions that the total medicinal cost for this cure was less than $10. There would, of course, be the charge of the practitioner but the medicine itself very cheap and also not needing to be continued.

Can you see why this would be a threat to the monopoly?

I can understand that some reading this may think I am exaggerating. Perhaps at some point, more information on the historical success of homeopathy in epidemics can be presented. At this point, I will mention one piece of evidence.

In the 1800s there were very severe, high mortality, epidemics in the US, diseases such as cholera, typhoid, or yellow fever. When the US populace saw the extraordinary results of homeopathic treatment, there was enough fervor to organize the erection of a monument to Dr. Samuel Hahnemann, the founder of homeopathy. On June 21, 1900, a monument to Hahnemann was erected in Washington, DC, with the attendance of the president of the United States. It is about a 1/2 mile from the White House. It is on a traffic circle, Scott Circle, and is quite impressive to visit. A picture of it is attached here.

hahn monument

It is very large. If I were to be standing in front of it my head would reach the bottom of the chair Hahnemann is sitting on. When we reflect on this and realize very few doctors have monuments like this, you can get some sense of the impact homeopathy had on our culture at that time. Therefore, in closing, when you hear the criticisms of homeopathy and the denial of its effectiveness, realize where it is coming from. And remember that it has been this way since 1847.


Here is a report from one of my medical colleagues:

I just went on quite the roller coaster ride with my daughter being sick in Wisconsin, all alone, and I couldn’t go to her because we’re pretty sure she’s got CoViD. I think she had her first symptoms on Sunday May 17 but I didn’t find out that she was sick until the 20th. Headache, light-headed, confusion, exhaustion, and then I think it was the 21st she lost her sense of smell. Not 100% but greatly reduced, with no congestion. Then she felt a little better on the 22nd and 23d.
May 22 was a Saturday and I got to the PO just in time to express-ship her remedies before they closed at noon.
Then she felt worse on the 25th, yesterday and today (27th). All this time, a week, she sounded horrible on the phone. She sometimes, no, often, couldn’t think straight enough to hold up her end of the conversation.
My remedies didn’t arrive as promised and she finally got them today (27th), two days late. I had her open the package and take a dose of NUX VOMICA 30c while we were on the phone. (She received the remedy on the 27th.)
We continued to chat and in a couple/few minutes, she came back. She sounded alert, she was herself again. (Wow! This stuff never gets old.) Later she texted me that she was trying to find the place to get tested, she was out in her car! I called her this evening (27th) and she really sounds good and says she feels a lot better. Almost 100%. I am so relieved, finally exhaling.
I don’t want to describe the despair I experienced over the last week, but it sure is sweet when it ends. I am relaxing in a way that makes me realize how very tense I’ve been over this.

This is a very good example of the action of a remedy for an epidemic, what we call the genus epidemicus in homeopathy. Specifically, when the remedy is so very suitable for the treatment of the epidemic, it will act 1) very quickly, 2) with one or two doses.
This is in contrast to finding the need to repeat a remedy over and over which indicates a remedy that is not a close enough match to the problem.
Is it not amazing to see a person that has been seriously ill, physically and mentally, for 11 days respond to the remedy “in a few minutes”? This is what makes homeopathy so remarkable and shows us the uniqueness of this method.


I had a client come to see me for osteopathic manipulation – she is a State Health Educator.  She had laryngitis, sore throat, but stated that she felt great.  She has been on a constitutional homeopathic remedy for a chronic illness.  So I decided to do nothing for her but the treatment manually that she needed for alignment.

   On the 4th day after I saw her, I woke up aching and hurting all over with a horrible headache and sinus congestion . I tried to dismiss it but by the evening I had developed a fever of 102, HR 122, Pulse oxygen saturation of 90 (normal is 99-100%).  I thought that I was a “goner” and reluctantly took Nux vomica 30 c 

   After 6 hours I was greatly improved. I took a 2nd dose and by the next day I was mostly comfortable and functional in the house (could not do hard chores outdoors like mucking out the barns . . . . so my husband did it.).

   I am just fine this week now.  Back out doing normal work in the gardens and with the animals.

   Report another 2 days later: “I still feel great.”

Note: not my client (Richard) but that of a medical colleague.



In the prior piece, it was suggested that the antibodies were not the major player in this. So what is? Not likely surprising to you, using the analogy of the house broken into, the most important are the barriers that are keeping the little buggers out in the first place. After all, if they can be prevented from getting into the body, there can be no infection. 

How do they get in? Most of the bacteria, viruses, etc., come through the eyes, mouth, nose, other openings like urethra, vagina. They can also be swallowed and enter through the lining of the intestinal tract. 

What about the skin? The skin is pretty tough and getting past the skin is only possible if it is cut or punctured in some way. Granted there are a few organisms, like some fungi, that just start growing on the skin, but these are few. You can assume that viruses and bacteria come in the other way.


It actually turns out that the skin is a small area comparatively. For the human being, the skin area is about two square meters while the mucous membranes of the other entries — the openings mentioned above and the mucous membranes of the breathing and digestive systems — are about 400 square meters, about the size of two tennis courts. So this is where most of the attention is given by the immune system. 

The cells that sit in these tissues, that I am calling the Guardians (because I like that word), are also called macrophages. This name comes from “macro” meaning “large” and “phage” meaning “to eat.” They are indeed large cells and eat about anything. They will clean up any mess they run into. They can detect invading organisms by sensing some molecules on the surface of the germ that are not normally found in the body. They make their way to the bacteria (or whatever) and basically eat it. This eating process is taking in the virus, bacteria, fungus, and digesting it inside the cell with chemicals already stored in the cell. 

This is a pretty good method, isn’t it? All these guys are sitting there 24 hours a day, watching, watching, for anything suspicious. This primary defense method has been around a long time — millions if not billions of years if we factor in early forms of life. 


In humans & other animals these Guardians originate in the bone marrow, the same place that red blood cells are made. They grow from the same cells that make red blood cells, as well as other immune cell types we will get into later. To give you some idea of how active the bone marrow is in this, it has been determined that more than two million red blood cells are manufactured each second to replace what is lost, this being the normal process of a healthy person. I don’t know about you but the numbers are so great I can hardly get my head around it.

These Guardian cells are produced in the bone marrow, move out into the blood on their way to their “stations.” While circulating in the blood, they are called “monocytes” and there are two billion of them in your blood all the time. After about three days they will have moved through the blood system to their stations in the tissues mentioned above. There they sit and wait, with great patience. Are we not lucky?


These Guardian cells are the first and primary defense. There are other levels of this primary defense (what is called the Innate system which we will get into) but the Guardians are the front line, the most important in terms of keeping anything out. 

This defense system works sufficiently almost all the time if the person or animal is healthy. Realize, if you can, perhaps visualizing, that any virus that comes in through the mouth or nose and lands on a mucous membrane, if it is eaten by the Guardian cells that is the end of the story. There will be no infection. 

Realize too that this happens without the presence of any antibodies. Not only are there no antibodies needed but there will not necessarily be any produced from this encounter. There is no need for that. It is possible there could be antibodies coming about in those encountering large numbers of the virus, or having repetitive exposures. However, a one-time event will not usually be seen as that significant.

Does it impress you to say that 99% of all animals do just fine with just this mechanism we are discussing here? I mean this is the entirety of what they have, no additional antibody or immune cell function like we do. Surely you can see how efficient it is.


Let us translate what we are discussing here into the issue facing those studying the present epidemic. Those working on this would like to be able to estimate how contagious the virus is, how many are infected, what the death rate is, etc. Can you see that the people who encounter the virus, and have it for lunch, may not show any evidence of that? They will not be sick, they will not be passing on the virus to others, they will not be making antibodies. Basically you cannot identify them. 

To know that a person has been exposed, the evidence necessary is either the signs of infection or the presence of antibodies. Granted it is possible to produce antibodies without showing symptoms (more on that later), but it is also important to know, as said above, that exposure does not always result in this.

Do you see the difficulty? It is very tough to have an accurate estimation of exposure. For example, if the actuality is that 80% of the population is exposed (including those as described above that do not show any evidence of it) and if we were to know that percentage, and then calculate that the death rate is 1%, we would have a reasonably accurate assessment of the how often the virus causes death. 

But a different value will come up if we limit the exposure to those developing antibodies — these being the ones in which the virus got through the door and did some spreading around. If we measure that 20% of the population has antibodies and assume that this is the total of those exposed, the apparent death rate is now said to be 4%. This is not accurate, is it?

Another way to put this is that if the majority of the population is very healthy and basically throws off the virus without developing immunity, then that is a reflection of low susceptibility, a reflection of how healthy the population is. On the other hand, if the population is not very healthy and a significant percentage show antibody production because they could not withstand it, why would we then turn and blame the virus, saying “it is very contagious, very dangerous”?

Tricky business. Well, that is how life is — very clever and not usually as simple as we think.


Can you see, from what we are discussing as the primary defense mechanism, how important it is that we are healthy? Our bodies are constantly making these cells, millions each day, and also reproducing the tissues of the mucous membranes. If anything interferes with this, we become susceptible.

What would interfere? Poor nutrition — eating food that contains toxic chemicals — is a big one. As an example, did you know that a recent report found that 98% of Americans have Roundup in their bodies?

There is also lifestyle, how much fresh air and sunlight we experience, how much exposure to radiation (many concerned about 5G coming in), taking drugs that interfere with the immune system like steroids, anti-inflammatories. This a big topic in itself, let us just say here that it would be very effective and intelligent to emphasize maximum health as the best defense. Rather than having everyone wearing masks, maybe it would make more sense to reduce air pollution? 


There is more to the immune system. There is all the drama that happens if the virus gets past the Guardians. That is what happens in those that actually get sick. The immune system has many more defenses that we can explore as we go along. 

[ Reference: For much of this information I am drawing on a very good book by Lauren Sompayrac, entitled “How the Immune System Works.” You might want to study it if you have that interest.]

The Immune System, part 1


There is a lot of focus on the issue of immunity to virus disease because of the current crisis. The immune system is a marvelous mechanism, but often what you hear is not accurate in terms of how it functions. In this writing I would like to help you have a better understanding of this. You will then be in a position of making intelligent decisions yourself.

You likely have noticed that when immunity is discussed it almost always is focused on the production of antibodies. We will get, later, more thoroughly into what antibodies are and what they do, but at this point here is an explanation of the place of antibodies in the whole schema.


The first thing to understand is that antibodies are a minor player in this story. This is not saying they are not important, rather they are less important than other aspects of what we call the immune system when we talk about resistance to disease.

This function of producing antibodies is called the adaptive immune system, meaning it can adapt to new situations. This is what gives it the wonderful ability to learn and respond. This function if not present in all creatures, having developed about 200 million years ago in vertebrate animals, those with a spinal cord — basically fish, animals and humans. What is significant in this is to realize that most of living creatures on the planet don’t have this function or use this, and actually don’t need it. That they are still on the planet and doing OK tells us that.

Animals developed this to their advantage and it is wonderful gift and it was added on to the immune system that had already developed over the evolution of life on earth. We will, as we go on, get into the primary immune function, but first let me give you an analogy that may help you understand how the antibody part of this fits in.


Let us say you have nice home and you have made considerable effort to make it secure. You built a wall, perhaps a water moat around it, have secure doors and windows. You have made it very hard for anyone to break in. However, there are some clever thieves out there and they figure out a way to get past all these barriers, silence the alarm bell, quiet your dogs, and get inside and begin to ransack your place. 

At some point you hear what is going on and seeing the commotion and realizing that all your defenses have been breached you reach for your phone and call 911. “I am being robbed! The house is full of robbers. I need help.” They respond by sending out the police, and if they respond quickly enough they will catch the robbers and take them away. 

This is how antibodies come into the situation. They are the police that are called on when all other defenses have failed. This is important and can be what saves one from excessively long illness or even dying. However, they are not the primary defense. They are the last resort.


I am emphasizing this because it is too narrow a view to consider only the antibody function when talking of immunity. To have a balanced view we must consider the whole immune function because it is the whole immune function that must be in top order for us to have optimal and maximal resistance to all diseases. 

In the next part we can begin to look at the primary defenses.

Homeopathy Treating Epidemics


This is in response to many asking for advice in using homeopathy in the currect virus epidemic. In homeopathy the practice of identifying the effective remedy in treating and preventing the disease resulted in a remedy called the Genus Epidemicus. In what follows it some history and explanation of how this has been done.


In the discovery and development of homeopathy Dr. Hahnemann first had the understanding of using a similar remedy, a medicine similar in its effect to the disease condition. This is very important to understand. 

Hahnemann found that if he gave such a substance that resulted in more or less the same pattern of disturbance as the patient was presenting, that it brought about rapid recovery of health. It was an unexpected discovery. 

How could it do this? It was not obvious at first but Dr. Hahnemann came to the understanding that this medicine, when given in adequate dosage, became the primary influence in the person. Attention was shifted from the disease to the remedy and the disease was canceled out. Then when the remedy effect ended (in a few hours) the patient was left free of the disease and proceeded to rapidly recover health.


The next development in homeopathic work was the finding that a sick individual was showing a condition unique to them. There may be some patterns, like having a cold, but each person was affected in their own way and not identical to others. The idea of diagnosis was, therefore, discarded, as diagnosis is done so as to group patients together under one label, all of which are to get the same treatment. Dr. Hahnemann found this was not reliable. It was necessary to look carefully at each patient and find which of the available medicinal substances was indicated for that particular person. This is how homeopathy developed at first.


A next discovery was that epidemics were an exception to this rule. There was something different about the epidemic diseases of the time, like cholera, typhoid and influenza. After careful investigation of a large number of patients affected by these diseases the understanding emerged that these diseases were an exception to what was said above. Whereas most conditions were, indeed, unique to that individual, the epidemic diseases resulted in the same pattern of disturbance in all affected. This is more like diagnosis, but qualified. 

The value in making this discovery was coming up with the method of finding out which remedy was most suitable by grouping many patients together — like 20 or more. IN OTHER WORDS, THEY WERE GROUPED AND ANALYZED AS IF THEY WERE ONE PERSON.

This gave a more complete picture of what remedy would be most similar. 

Once this remedy was recognized it could be used for all the persons affected by the epidemic and it would not be necessary to do extensive workup of each person. It saved time. 

As well, the same remedy could be used in the healthy people that were around the sick one (the family) as a preventive of the disease before it made its appearance.

The remedy that was recognized (and sometimes two remedies) by going through this process is called the genus epidemicus.


If what has been explained so far is understandable, then we can go into the use of the genus epidemicus remedy. 

As said above, the identified remedy could now be used routinely to treat all of those becoming affected. However, this next point is very important to understand. The remedy in its similarity matches the very first disturbance that occurs on exposure to the infectious disease. We know how a cold will start, or a flu condition. There will be early hints of it coming on — a sensation, fever, something like that. It is this very first early stage that the genus epidemicus is similar to. 

If the disease is not treated at that early stage, or treated ineffectively, then as it develops it becomes a pattern that no longer matches the genus epidemicus. This is critical to understand. What Dr. Hahnemann found was that epidemics were different from other diseases in that THE VERY FIRST STAGE OF THE ILLNESS WAS THE SAME IN ALL AFFECTED. However, he goes on to explain that if the disease has developed further, there will be other remedies needed, not the genus epidemicus. He gives examples for cholera and scarlet fever, and such like. 

This is what is happening today with coronavirus. If the person is not treated at the beginning with the genus epidemicus, then using that same remedy later will not be effective. A different one is needed. The different remedy needed is no longer the same in all affected persons (or animals) as they have reverted to the condition of individuality as described above — same as most disease conditions. 

This can lead to confusion in what is reported because a homeopathic practitioner may say there is this list of 6 remedies they have found useful (or more). What they are reporting is the treatment of cases that are in a later stage.


If we can summarize all of this, we can say that epidemics are different as to homeopathic treatment in that the very first stage will be the same in all affected. However, any development of the condition past the beginning will call for careful individual prescribing. 

I will add that is not just that the disease has developed but the same thing happens if at the very beginning a remedy different than the genus epidemicus is used. If that remedy has some effect, it will alter the pattern but the disease continues. This continued disease will also require a remedy other than the genus epidemicus.


When we are discussing identifying the genus epidemicus, it is with the idea it can be used successfully in all very early cases. We will see a clinical pattern that confirms this in that the genus epidemicus will most often act with one dose, that being sufficient. When it is reported a remedy is being used, over and over, for days, it is not this situation, it is not using the genus epidemicus.

The genus epidemicus can also be used to prevent the disease in those not affected. How is this done? There is no standard method, but historically a common practice was to give the remedy in 30c potency once a week.

I hope this makes sense to you. Those of you that use homeopathy likely already know this, but many are not clear about it so the intention here is to give you the ability to interpret the reports coming out.


Part 1

Some of you are wondering about the seeming contradiction between what is being posted here, like the last one about how effective homeopathy in epidemics, and how, nonetheless, it seems to be a minor player in the medical world. It is not “minor” in all countries but certainly not the primary system anywhere in spite of its unusual effectiveness.

The answer has to do with our cultural world view. The way we have been moving the last few centuries is increasingly towards materialism. What this means is that how we understand reality is that there is a physical universe we are derived from. The physical universe is the foundation, primary, and we have evolved from it over time. 

This is the basis for our science and, as well, for the practice of medicine. This way of seeing things is demonstrated in medicine by the emphasis on laboratory data, various physical tests, X-rays, cat scans, etc. As a result, the patient has increasingly come to be seen in fragments. Instead of considering the whole being, which includes their mental, emotional and physical states as one thing, we look away from them towards our physical devices.

Medicine, a century or so ago, was different in that the focus was on the patient as a being. The doctor would spend much time in the physical exam — palpating, touching, listening, questioning and this was the basis for deciding what was wrong. 

Quite different today. You may feel ill, yet the tests done do not show a change so you are told you are not ill though you may feel like crap.

Homeopathy is different. It started when the patient was the focus, as described above, but the way medicines were used was to give drugs, herbs, substances like silver or mercury with the intention of blocking or counteracting the symptoms the person was showing. A simple example would be the person with a fever being given something that would make the fever decrease. 

This is the same method as today, isn’t it? Treatment often is done to decrease or eliminate a symptom from expressing itself. Another way of putting it is that the symptoms are considered to be the disease. When Dr. Hahnemann discovered the effect of using substances that would bring about symptoms in the person much like they were having already, he referred to it as using “similar medicines.” Makes sense, doesn’t it? Instead of giving something to make the symptom diminish through the effect of that substance, he gave what would actually bring about those symptoms in a healthy person. 

I know, doesn’t make sense. But it was a discovery and he did not anticipate it. He was only studying how substances act on a person and saw this happen without expecting it. He probably was shocked by it. In any case, he spent the next six years researching this with patients and volunteers. After he felt confident that it really did work, he released it to the other doctors who began using it. 

As expressed in the earlier post, one of the dramatic things that happened was the extraordinary effectiveness of homeopathy in epidemics and this really confirmed that Hahnemann on to something. 


When Dr. Hahnemann coined the word for a “similar medicine” in 1824 he used the word “homeopathy.” I won’t try to spell the German form of it but the first part of the word “homoios,” from Greek, means “like, similar, of the same kind.” The latter part of the word “patheia” means “disease, also feeling, emotion.” So the Greek word he incorporated meant “having like feelings or affections, sympathetic.”

To make the distinction clear to the fellow doctors he called the other form of medicine of that time “allopathy.” Like the word above it comes from Greek “allos” which means “other.” Again the latter part has the meaning as described above. The meaning he had in mind is that this other treatment did not use similar medicines but rather ones that were quite different in their effects. Instead of stimulating the same symptoms the patient had, the did the opposite, they countered the symptoms. The medicines, therefore, were “other” than the symptoms.

Now, after going through this, can you understand why many people will reject the homeopathy idea as nonsense? How could it be a treatment to give something that actually increases the symptoms? Of course, the homeopathic perspective is that this stimulus actually brings about an improved patient response, one that leads to the recovery of health. 

Let us contrast the two medical methods like this;

  1. The conventional, allopathic, method uses medicines that counteract the symptoms — reduce fever, stop allergic reactions, slow down diarrhea, etc.
  2. The homeopathic method, by studying the details of the patient’s condition, uses a medicine that brings about the same (actually similar) set of symptoms. This stimulates the inherent healing mechanisms of the body. 

This comparison points to a significant difference in the two views in medicine. The usual, conventional, one doesn’t have a lot of confidence that the body can heal itself. Substances are given to regulate or control it. The homeopathic method assumes that the only way health can be restored is if the patient’s system does it for itself. The medicines are a stimulus for that to happen.