Monthly Archives: September 2011

Natomas school officials go door to door to find unvaccinated students

Submitted by Natalie Sentz
Saturday, September 24th, 2011, 12:05am

NATOMAS, CA – Natomas school officials are going door to door with a traveling nurse to give whooping cough shots to unvaccinated students.

A new state law requires students entering seventh through 12th grades to get vaccinated against the disease by the start of the 2011-12 school year.

The legislature gave districts 30 days beyond the start of the school year to make sure all students were vaccinated or had a formal exemption filed by their parents or guardians.

As the deadline passes, thousands of students remain unvaccinated. Many school districts have been defying state law and allowing them on campus.

But not anymore in Natomas.

District Student Services Director Heyman Matlock has been driving door to door to find unvaccinated students. Despite warnings and several free clinics, dozens of students haven’t been inoculated.

“There could be some family dynamics where they’re having hardships in the house and this isn’t a top priority in them making it day to day,” Matlock said.

District superintendent Walt Hanline, who made the decision to allow unvaccinated students on campus, said the law forced school officials to make a difficult choice.

“The state law said I couldn’t have these children on campus, but the state law also said I have to educate children,” Hanline said.

By 4 p.m. Friday, officials had visited a dozen homes and vaccinated six students, whose parents were home to give permission.

The group will continue to go door to door until they can reach all the students.

Beginning Monday, students who haven’t been vaccinated will not be allowed on campus.

District officials said they’ll continue making home visits until every child is accounted for and able to go back in the classroom.

By Natalie Sentz,

Pharma-backed legislation to allow secret vaccinations of children without parental consent about to become law in California

Pharma-backed legislation to allow secret vaccinations of children without parental consent about to become law in California

Tuesday, September 20, 2011 by: Ethan A. Huff, staff writer

Growing and widespread public awareness about the dangers associated with vaccines has naturally resulted in the steady decline of this once-lucrative sector of conventional “medicine.” And in a desperate effort to preserve the financial viability of vaccines, Big Pharma has switched gears and is now attempting to legislate the secret vaccination of young children without parental consent — and we must band together now to stop this horrendous affront to health freedom from becoming law.

According to The Healthy Home Economist (HHE), California’s Assembly Bill 499 has already quietly passed both the California House and Senate, and today sits on the desk of Gov. Jerry Brown where it awaits his signature. The bill, which is only a single page in length, contains specific language that will allow children as young as 12 to opt for sexually-transmitted disease (STD) vaccines like HPV (Gardasil, Cervarix), Hepatitis B, and any future vaccines developed to treat STDs, without having to attain parental consent.

You can view a full copy of the bill, as it was passed, here:…

Apparently devoid of all conscience, soul, and any trace of respect for human life and dignity, the drug industry is now resorting to new lows to force its deadly vaccines on the unsuspecting public. If Big Pharma cannot convince people to take the deadly shots of their own free will, then the poisons must be secretly injected into the weakest and most vulnerable members of society, the children, without their parents knowing about it.

Drug giant Merck & Co. attempted a similar approach back in 2007 when it influenced political lackey Gov. Rick Perry to sign an egregious executive order mandating that all young girls in the Lone Star State receive the HPV vaccine Gardasil upon being enrolled in school. Since that effort ultimately failed, a new and more devious tactic was inevitably the next course of action.

HHE is urging everyone to immediately begin flooding Gov. Brown’s office with calls and faxes of opposition to the unconstitutional and illegal passage of Assembly Bill 499:

Governor Jerry Brown

c/o State Capitol, Suite 1173

Sacramento, CA 95814


Phone: (916) 445-2841

Fax: (916) 558-3160


Learn more:





I. Inner symptoms and functions first.

II. First the parts, then the whole body.

III. First the upper parts, then the lower.

IV. All modalities are placed to the related function.

Symptoms are arranged according to the organ or part of the body in which they appear, not where they originate; for instance motions or positions of the head are placed to the outer head, not to the neck, the muscles of which cause the position or motion.

According to the principles and rules laid down in the foregoing the symptoms, their groups and the names of diseases, have been arranged and divided in forty-eight chapters.

I Is the lowest, and designates an occasionally confirmed symptom. It is omitted in most case, and is sometimes used to mark a difference of value in the same line.

II Symptoms more frequently confirmed.

I Symptoms verified by cures.

II Symptoms repeatedly verified.

Indicates an approved characteristic, but is seldom used, by reason of our not wishing to appear authoritative.

θ The Greek letter “theta” stands between the cured symptom and the pathological condition, or the physiological general state, f.i., pregnancy or climacteric years. This by no means excludes the characteristic nature of the symptom in other forms of disease.

Such observations from the Old School or the New as are worthy of our consideration.

t. Toxicological.

r. Right. L. Left.

< Increase, or aggravation; worse.

> Decrease, or amelioration; better.

The Greek “ pi “ stands before symptoms observed only on the sick.


Calvin Brobst Knerr was born on December 27, 1847

father who was a lay homeopath and an uncle who knew Hering at the Allentown Academy.

attended the Allentown College Institute and graduated from Hahnemann Medical College in 1869 (along with Cowperthwaite and T.L. Bradford).

then entered the office of Dr. Constantine Hering as his assistant. The diary he kept while living in Hering’s house became The Life of Hering, published in 1940.

From 1873-4 Dr. Knerr studied in Berlin, Vienna, and London.

In 1874 he married Melitta Hering, one of Hering’s daughters, and resumed his duties as Hering’s assistant.

In 1878 and 1879 he published 2 editions of his book, Sunstroke and Its Homeopathic Treatment.

Upon Hering’s death in 1880 Knerr became responsible for the completion of the 10-volume Guiding Symptoms. Originally working with Dr. Charles Mohr and Dr. Charles Raue, and later working alone, Knerr completed Hering’s masterpiece in 1895.

Dr. Knerr spent 5 years writing his 2-volume Repertory to the Guiding Symptoms, which was published in 1896.

This repertory to Hering’s Materia Medica never saw widespread use.

Knerr compiled this repertory from Hering’s 10 volumes.

Knerr used the same structure throughout as found in the Guiding Symptoms, even to including the “relationships” at the end of the book and giving the remedies the four lines of grading.

For a considerable length of time Knerr’s repertory remained out of print.

After a prolonged correspondence Dr. Knerr agreed to grant Messrs. M. Bhattacharyya and Co. the exclusive right of publication.

He revised the whole work, portions of which he wrote anew for this edition.

His was a life of unceasing work, and even when confined to bed he actually prescribed for his patients.

He died on September 30, 1940.

To quote Pearson again, “Dr. Knerr lived a long and useful life and we should rejoice that he fulfilled a very important mission so ably.”

Julian Winston writes: Although it mixes pathogenic and clinical data, it contains several rubrics that cannot be found anywhere else.

His works will live after him; coming generations will profit by them, and like the present will honor his memory.


1)Repertory To Hering’s Guiding Symptoms Of Materia Medica – 2 Volumes. (1896)

2) Drug relationships. (1936)

3) Conversation, Talks, Life And Times Of Hering. (1940)

4)Sunstroke and Its Homeopathic Treatment. (1878 –79)

5) Repertory of Headache. (1894)


Different types of repertories with different philosophies emerged out.

Then era of regional repertories and repertories of various diseases arrived.

Later around 1850- 1900, era of alphabetical repertory appeared.

Repertories based on Hahnemann’s alphabetical scheme emerged out.

Knerr repertory is also that kind, based on Hahnemann alphabetical scheme, and based on Hering’s Guiding Symptoms Of our Materia Medica.

This is a concordance repertory with puritan group of repertory with authenticated rubrics in it.

It contains mental symptoms, physical symptoms, particulars, concomitants, clinical symptoms, toxicological symptoms, etc.

According to Webster’s dictionary the word ‘concordance’ means the following:

1) Agreement; harmony.

2) An alphabetical list of the important words of a book or author with references to the passages in which they occur.

Dr. Elizabeth Wright says, “As no person can carry the symptoms of all the remedies in his mind; a concordance or index is needed. We term this symptom index as repertory”.

Here the word concordance is used to describe the whole repertory; the connotation is an index of words, or passages of book used by an author. Thus the word concordance is analogous to the word repertory.

Dr. Boenninghausen first used this word in the homoeopathic literature in the earlier edition of Therapeutic Pocket Book;

This repertory was first time published by F. A. Davis and Co., 1232 pages. The book was first published in 1896.


in his preface:“It is the only alphabetic arrangement possible that will not scatter and separate what should be collective and contiguous. As in the guiding symptoms, so in the repertory, original readings, the word of the prover and the clinician are preserved to the letter, it being thought preferable to retain the most delicate shades of meaning, occasionally even different wordings of the same symptom, by taking refuse in an extra rubric or cross references, sooner than amalgamate, fuse or commingle in vague generalization at the sacrifice of individuality’’.

Seeing the arrangement of the chapter, section and rubrics one can perceive that the repertory is constructed on the basis of general to particular philosophy, though this repertory is considered to be one of the Concordance repertory.


These repertories are mostly used for the purpose of reference and not for systematic repertorization. They help us to refer to symptoms without much variation in the language of provers. They belong to what is known as the puritan group. Example: Knerr’s Repertory to Hering’s Guiding Symptoms.

These are those repertories, which have no distinct philosophy in their construction and do not follow any principle, for forming a repertorial totality during the process of repertorization.


Hering’s Guiding Symptoms of Materia Medica is the source of Knerr’s repertory.


Total number of drugs mentioned are 408.


Knerr in his repertory has divided the book into chapters, according to Hering’s plan of regions in his Guiding Symptoms.

The main chapters are 46, but he added the 47th chapter based on Hering’s stages of life and constitution, which he had appended at the end of all remedies, after giving their pathogenesis, including clinical conformations, under different headings. The last chapter, 48th chapter, is on Drug Relationships.

The basic difference of this index or repertory from that of Allen’s Symptom Register is that it contains symptoms and remedies which have had not only provings and toxicological pathogenesis, but had also clinical provings and confirmations.

It starts with:


Table of contents

List of remedy abbreviation with their names

48 chapters including like stages of life and constitution and drug relationship.



In this Dr. Calvin B. Knerr gives about the order of arrangement, which he followed, how the rubrics are placed. He also gives about the gradation of remedies and the signs used in this repertory. He also gives the limitation of the repertory regarding to the Guiding Symptoms.

He acknowledges Dr. Joseph C. Guernsey, for valuable assistance with the proofs; to Dr. W. H. Philips, Messrs. Douty, Ziegler and Field, his son Bayard and others of his family, for clerical assistance; and last to his brother in law, Walter E. Hering.

49 INDEX 1219 – 1232 14

* Ends in page 744 but it is wrongly numbered. So 1 page is deducted.

• Starts in page 744 but it’s continuation is in previous page. So 1 page is added.

■ Number of remedies with cross-reference.

Thus the order of arrangement of chapters is in Hahnemannian schema.


The order of arrangement or method of classification, followed in the compilation of this repertory is the one inaugurated by Dr. Hahnemann, developed, perfected and used by Dr. Hering, throughout his entire Materia Medica work viz.; the anatomical; organ wise or regional division.

1) There are 48 chapters, all arranged organ wise like Hahnemannian system till chapter – 34 and a rest chapter represents reaction of whole body. E.g. Mind, 2) Sensorium 3) Inner head 4) Outer head and so on. This organ wise classification follows an, ‘above downward’, ‘from inside outward’, ‘functional symptom first then organic conditions.’ First the parts then the whole body. Such kind of arrangement we see in Knerr’s repertory.

2)Each page is divided into double column as it is more convenient to eye and to economize the space.

3)Each chapter is alphabetically divided into sections and rubrics sufficient to allow full scope for analysis for the matter contained therein without destroying consistency as a whole. Thus symptoms are placed in the same language as stated by prover. E.g. in the chapter 3 the Inner head section word has nine sections. 1) Apoplexy 2) Brain 3) Forehead 4) Head 5) Headache 6) Occiput 7) Parietal 8) Temples 9) Vertex.

4) Each chapter is divided into sections, which are given alphabetically, e.g. Chapter 4 – outer head has 9 sections, as – Dandruff, eruptions, fontanelles, forehead, hair, head, scalp, skull and tumor. On close observation one may see that the symptom under each rubric and sub rubrics also follow an alphabetical order. The sub rubrics are given in the same words as expressed by the provers or the patients. So for the sake of alphabetical arrangement the expression of the provers and the patients are not mutilated. But the key words of the sub rubrics are given alphabetically.

5) The words such as right and left, worse and better to avoid possible errors are printed out in full.

All the Rubrics are arranged in unbroken from: – Apart from repertories of Hempel, Jahr, Hale, this is also one of the main repertories where the symptoms have been placed unbroken, as far as possible.

Forgetful of dates: I Con.,

Forgetful, of what she is going to do: in post – partum hemorrhage, I Cann-s., II Carb. ac.; what he has just intended to do, I Card m.; what she wants to do or has done, I Chel.

First of all, all the indications are given in an alphabetical order marked the main circumstantial association by bolder types. For example after ‘business’ comes ‘dates’, then ‘do’, and so on.

Even in these sub rubrics, further extensions or variations also follow this alphabetical arrangement. Examine the rubric Forgetful of what she is going to do: in post-partum hemorrhage, I Cann-s.; II Carb ac.; what he has just intended to do I Card m.; from one moment to next what she wishes to do, I Manc. I have underlined the letter or alphabet of the special word, which indicates the special circumstance.

The rubric word to each paragraph is printed in full to avoid possible error.

The rubric word to each paragraph is printed in bold and black type and is followed by a ‘:’ (colon) – followed by drugs arranged alphabetically. This bold letter word is to be mentally repeated with every sentence rounded with a semicolon.

For example rubric vertigo is shown as follows:

Vertigo: Acet. Ac., II Acon, Alet, Aloe, I Ant. C, etc.

Vertigo, in bed

Vertigo, as if in earthquake II Fluor. ac.

Vertigo, from vexation: Calc

Vertigo, in bed: I Carb veg., I Con., in old people suffering with eruptions, Con; as if feet were going up, I Phos ac.; rocks with him as in a ship at night, Bar. c; as if sinking deep down, II Bry.

1) Not all mental symptoms given in mind chapter are given in physical chapters or vice versa.

2) It is better to go through the rubrics both in the mind chapter and relevant physical chapter lest we miss the rubric.

3) Even though in physical chapters, the mental concomitants are given as, mental condition, (i.e., Fever, mental condition) many places, the mental concomitants are given in different diagnoses. For e.g. the concomitants of Toothache are given in various rubrics in chapter10 toothache, anguish, despair, excitement, etc. So it is better to become thorough with the various rubrics in individual chapters to locate mental concomitants.

Also note that apart from these mental concomitants, many are available under the regular physical lists also. For e.g. Larynx, croup wants to be carried.

5) Always make sure that the mental symptom is genuine, clear and marked.


The term diathesis is given as synonymous with constitution by all authorities including Dr. Knerr.


Almost every drug has the relationship as following:

Antidotes: – To the effects of massive and molecular doses; chemical antidotes in poisoning; to the lasting or chronic effects super induced by the drug.

Collateral: – Side relations belonging to the same or allied botanical family or chemical group.

Compatible: – Drugs following well.

Complementary: – Supplying the part of another drug.

Inimical: – Drugs disagreeing, incompatible, do not follow well.

Similar: – Drugs suggested for comparison by reason of their similarity, usually compatible, unless too similar.


The repertory is supplemented by a complete index of localities, pathological and clinical and thus makes it very easy to operate.


There are four marks of distinction, each having the same significance as set down in Guiding Symptoms. The division corresponds with four grades of Boenninghausen’s repertory.

II Double thick black vertical lines; indicates symptoms repeatedly verified.

I single thick vertical black lines; indicates symptoms verified by cures.

II two ordinary vertical lines (light lines); symptoms more frequently confirmed or if once confirmed strictly in the character with genius of the remedy.

I single ordinary vertical lines; indicates occasionally a confirmed symptom carries lowest value.

In this repertory the last graded remedies are without grading mark (I).


There are five symbols used.


The hand directs cross-reference to related symptoms. There are different types of cross references but actually cross reference with drugs and without drugs, cross reference given within the chapter and to other chapters are the major types.

Different types of cross-references

i. With drugs e.g. page 17, Agitation

ii. Without drugs e.g. page 17, Agony Anguish

iii. Cross-reference is given in main heading itself. E.g.

Page no: 616, erections penis.

Page no: 616, Masturbation Seminal emissions.

i. Cross-reference is given to different chapters also. E.g.

Page no: 637, Mammae Chapter 24, i.e. in Pregnancy, Parturition, Lactation chapter.

Page no: 1007, Sensation Chapter 43, i.e., Sensation in general chapter.

ii. Cross-references are given at the end of sub rubrics. E.g.

Page no: 17, Agitation Excitement, Restless.

i. Cross reference given even in sub sub rubrics also. E.g.

Page no: 37, Delusion, vision, on closing eyes eyes closed.

Page no: 37, Delusion, vision, of faces faces.

ii. Cross-reference is given in Index also. E.g.

Page no: 1219, Achroma, Vitiligo

– denotes Observation from old school. E.g.

Page no: 1031, Chapter 36, Nerves, Paralysis mental condition of the insane, Chloral

Page no: 840, Chapter 29, Heart, Pulse and Circulation, Pericardium, effusion: Sal. Ac.

t – toxicological extract. E.g.

Page no: 1005, Chapter 35, Rest, Position, Motion, Position, lying down, motionless: t Ant.t

Page no: 840, Chapter 29, Heart, Pulse and Circulation, Palpitation, with vertigo; t Aethus.

– Symptoms observed in sick only. E.g.

Page no: 1036, Chapter 36, Nerves, Trembling, of jaw: Aur. mur.

Page no: 1037, Chapter 36, Nerves, Twitching, Atrop. S

– Stands between cured symptom and pathological condition or physiological general. Not used in book, it is given in parenthesis.

E.g. Page no: 19, Chapter 1, Mind and Disposition, Answer with difficulty (anasarca): Hell.

Page no: 964, Chapter 33, Lower Limbs, Legs, muscles: harder than normal (Duchenne’s pseudo-hypertrophic paralysis), I Phos.

Sometimes synonyms are given within brackets. E.g.

Page no: 26, chagrin (mortification)

Treatment results are given within brackets. E.g.

Page no: 280, Upper Face, Face, cancer, obstinate lupus (improved), Graph

Page no: 280, Upper Face, Face, cancer, on right malar bone (relieved), Syph.

Drug relationships are given within brackets. E.g.

Page no: 280, Upper Face, Face, cancer, lupus, began on right earlobe, healing one side, corroding the other, advancing downward and leaving irregular cicatrix (after Bell.), II Sil

Page no: 313, Lower Face, Lower jaw, submaxillary glands, engorged, I Merc. cy. (complementary of Hep. And Phos.)

Page no: 341, Taste and Tongue, Tongue, burning, stinging (Apis 30 relieved), Vespa

Few guidelines are given by author for administering the remedy. E.g.

Page no: 1170, Eruption, variola, intense inflammation of throat, which prevents swallowing and threatens suffocation (1/10 gramme to 120 grammes water used as a gargle), I Merc. cor.

Page no: 380, Throat, Throat, inflammation, prevents swallowing and threatens suffocation, with small pox (gramme to 120 grammes water used as gargle), I Merc. cor.


If the totality of the case fits into the following order, Knerr’s repertory will be useful.

1.Temperament and stages of life and constitution.

2.Mind and disposition with described symptoms/concomitants.

3.Physical generals (appetite, aversion, perspiration, etc).

4.Complaints with special features. (Modalities, concomitants, directions, etc)

5. Tissue affinities, sensations, and modalities.

Single symptoms can also be referred with its detail, which would help one to prescribe in an acute case or so called short case.











1) Symptoms are arranged in the same language as they have been noted during drug proving, cures or other sources.

2) There is no need of evaluation of symptoms or to make a symptom complete as it is necessary for Kent’s and Boenninghausen’s repertory. Hence it is easy to practice and a chance of fault thus may be avoided.

3) A wide range of symptoms is included in this repertory, and clinical and pathological conditions are also dealt in more details. Hence it is more useful in clinical practice.

4) There are few extra chapters which are not found in other repertories separately e.g.





e) TIME.





It can be used as a reference book.

5) There is a plenty of material in the book and can be used for research purpose.

6) All the rubrics are well authenticated as they are directly taken from Hering Guiding Symptoms and hence can be verified at once.

7) The sections namely Temperature and Weather, Stages of Life and Constitution and Tissue Affinities gives us valuable information and plenty of material to work on.

8) Many pathological rubrics are seen showing the drug affinities.

9) One can make additions to Kent’s repertory wherever justified. For example: aversion to amusement – Ignatia; aversion to her children – Platina; aversion in women to opposite sex – Raphanus, not seen in Kent.

Knerr’s repertory is mainly based on concomitant symptoms.

10) It is repertory of cured symptoms.

11) This repertory is supplemented by complete index of locality and terms.

12) Knerr’s repertory can be used as clinical repertory where pathological and diagnostic names are given to the fullest.

13)Although it mixes pathogenic and clinical data, it contains several rubrics that cannot be found anywhere else.

14) The reliability of the symptoms and the remedies is doubly ensured by repeated verification, observations and confirmations.

15) In comparison to Kent’s repertory, rubric placing is more appropriate in Knerr’s repertory.

16) Errors in converting the patient’s symptoms into rubrics can be avoided by using this repertory.

17) Today this repertory is acts as a guide for further work on repertory36.

18) We have a Materia Medica to fall back on, when the repertory gives only confusing data.

In both Kent and Boenninghausen, symptoms are split in many ways to suit the structure of the repertory. Such separation may have its uses. As Boenninghausen’s work is based on generation such separation is unavoidable, and necessary. But this separation and generalization spoil the use of ‘uncontaminated’ exact words of the prover. Surprisingly many patients present their complaints using the same words as in the repertory.

19) There is a complaint that mostly Knerr leads to a partial similimum because we select the remedies from single symptoms and not as in Kent or Boenninghausen where all the important symptoms are written down and a common remedy, which covers most of the symptoms, is administered.

20) This is not a valid assertion because even using Knerr this keynote prescriber par excellence; we take the Materia Medica as the final court of appeal. And in which cases require polychrests many cases that Kent and Knerr point to the same remedy after repertorization.

21) Another major feature of Knerr repertory is giving what happens during a condition, what happens before it, what happens after it, everything in a single chapter. For example in the chapter female sexual organs we find the rubric menses. Under this various types of menses, color differences, quantity, duration etc are given. Following this are the rubrics before menses, during menses, after menses all in the same chapter.

22) In cases spondylosis, prolapse of disc, sciatica etc the section on spine will be very useful. Dr. Phatak has given Phos acid as the only medicine for cervical spondylitis. Apparently the clue had come from Knerr repertory.


Calvin .B. Knerr in his preface states the limitation of this repertory: “although the repertory is a faithful reproduction of the guiding symptoms, its contents classified and indexed, as a matter of course, in no way can take the place of the larger work. In a repertory we have separation by analysis for the purpose of classification and ready reference; in Materia Medica, combination by synthesis to enable us to study drug effects in their grand utility and relationship”.

1) The biggest stumbling block to its use is the overly complex and graphically layout. With the advent of having it on computer and being able to search for words and phrases, much of that difficulty has been overcome.

2) As there is no grading in marks, this repertory is not useful for actual mathematical repertorization.

3) It has a less number of medicines and needs up gradation.

4) Unfortunately in Knerr’s repertory, the arrangement though made very systematic and after lot of hard work, is not amenable to quick and useful repertorial analysis.

5) As the rubrics are given in prover language the different shades of the same expressions are not seen which are very difficult to differentiate each other.

6) This repertory too, like any concordance repertory is useful only for reference work and not for systemic repertorization.

7) Of course, this repertory also requires lot of additions, since it is based only on the symptoms given in ‘Hering’s Guiding Symptoms’.

8) The abbreviations used by different authors for remedies are often not coroporated aptly. E.g. Moaning, sleeplessness with: Crot c (Syn 182). This is an addition from Knerr’s repertory and Knerr’s abbreviation for Crotalus horridus is Crotal, also Hering’s Guiding Symptoms does not include Crotalus cascavella. Hence it should be corrected as Crotalus horridus.

Wrong entries of cal p: Cal p “after menses, sexual excitement, insatiable desire; Cal p”. (Knerr p. 667). Such a symptom is not found in the GS we find the following symptom in the modality otherwise “Nymphomania, all organs in erection, with insatiable desire, particularly before catamenia” (GS vol 3, p232).

“Before catamenia: Great sexual desire, followed by a copious flow” (GS vol3 p 232). In Knerr this symptom was found with the modality “after menses” (Knerr p.667). Possibly a wrong modality in Knerr repertory. The source GS however points out that the modality is ‘before menses’ and not ‘after menses’.

1) Vaccinum and Variolinum are given together in Hering Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica with separate symptom intensity. But Knerr has given separately in index of drugs.

2) Drugs found in Hering Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica but not given in index of Knerr repertory:

a) Aurum mur natronatrum – Aur mur nat

b) Iodoform – Iodof

c) Uva ursi – Uva ursi. But these drugs are found inside repertory proper.

1) Thuja is given as Thuja in Hering Guiding Symptoms of our Materia Medica but in repertory it is given as Thuya. Probably it’s an error.

1) Intensity is changed in certain symptoms.

HGS: page 20, Acalypha indica: I Cough with bloody expectoration

Knerr: page 773, Cough and expectoration, Expectoration, bloody: Acal.

HGS: page 520, Argentum nitricum, II Desire for strong cheese

Knerr: page 396, Appetite, Thirst, Desire, Aversion., Desire, cheese: Arg nit.

HGS: page 382, Antimoniam tartaricum, I Desire for acids or fruits.

Knerr: page 396, Appetite, Thirst, Desire, Aversion, Desire,acids:Ant t

HGS: Aconitum Napellus, II Vertigo after fright.

Knerr: page 88, Sensorium, Vertigo, from fright: I Acon

2) Certain drugs not represented in Knerr but found in HGS. E.g.

HGS: page 20, Acalypha indica: II Cough haemoptysis

3) There are certain differences in similar symptoms. E.g

HGS: Bovista, under Stool and Rectum, Diarhoea before and during menses. Under Female Sexual Organs, I Diarrhoea frequently before and during menses.

Knerr: page 542, Stool and Rectum, Diarhoea, menses, before, Bov; before and during, Bov; during, Bov

Page 657, Female Sexual Organs, Before menses, diarrhoea, I Bov, page 660, Female Sexual Organs, During menses, diarrhoea, I Bov

HGS: Graphites, under Female Sexual Organs, I During menses, catarrhal fever, under Fever no symptom related to menses is given.

Knerr: page 661, Female Sexual Organs, During menses, fever, Acon, Bell, Gels, Graph, Helon, Kali bi, Natr.m, Phos, Rhod, Sep, Sul. Similar rubric in page 1097, Fever, Fever, menses, during menses, Acon, Bell, I Coccus, Gels, I Graph, Helon, Natr.m, Phos, Rhod, Sep, Sul. are given. Here some drugs like Coccus, Kali bi are missing in During menses fever rubric. Also the intensity of Graph is changed.

HGS: Ferr phos, under Fever given as Fever with cough. Under Cough, I Cough; slight fever.

Knerr: page 1092, Fever, Fever, with cough, I and in page 752, Cough and Expectoration, Cough, in fever, Ferr. ph

. As per HGS the intensity of Knerr repertory should be given but here it is given in contradicting way.

HGS: Graphites, under Female Sexual Organs, I During menses, catarrhal fever, under Fever no symptom related to menses is given.

Knerr: page 661, Female Sexual Organs, During menses, fever, Acon, Bell, Gels, Graph, Helon, Kali bi, Natr.m, Phos, Rhod, Sep, Sul. Similar rubric in page 1097, Fever, Fever, menses, during menses, Acon, Bell, I Coccus, Gels, I Graph, Helon, Natr.m, Phos, Rhod, Sep, Sul. are given. Here some drugs like Coccus, Kali bi are missing in During menses fever rubric. Also the intensity of Graph is changed.

HGS: Ferr phos, under Fever given as Fever with cough. Under Cough, I Cough; slight fever.

Knerr: page 1092, Fever, Fever, with cough, I and in page 752, Cough and Expectoration, Cough, in fever, Ferr. ph. As per HGS the intensity of Knerr repertory should be given but here it is given in contradicting way.


ATTACKS, PERIODICITY and SENSATIONS IN GENERAL chapters have only one main rubric.

MIND AND DISPOSITION chapter has many rubrics (553 rubrics). Apart from this section next highest is TISSUE chapter (41 rubrics) followed by the EYE section (30 rubrics).

MIND AND DISPOSITION chapter has many pages (87 pages). Apart from this section next highest is INNER HEAD chapter (67 pages) followed by the EYE section (62 pages).

LOCALITY AND DIRECTION chapter is smallest chapter with one page.

MIND AND DISPOSITION chapter is well represented with many rubrics and many pages followed by the EYE section, which is the next well-represented chapter.


Total number of main rubrics are 924 rubrics.

Page no: 1127, Sensation rubric has 94-sub rubric and it is the biggest rubric.

Longest rubrics:

Page no: 1161, Skin, Eruption, psoriasis, inveterate, in a man at 45, addicted to immoderate use of brandy, eight years ago was cured of amaurosis by electricity, and six months later cutaneous disease commenced, sickly appearance, vascular but thin, complexion dark, had gonorrhoea, chancre and buboes, and was drunk at first consultation, eruption first appeared on elbows, then knees and calves, at the diseased points skin first became thickened,

then fissures appeared and finally white shiny hard adherent scales which were continually reproduced, occasionally rheumatic pains, I Mang

Certain general information is given as rubric:

Page no: 408, Eating and Drinking, Drinking, tea, Is injurious to the young but beneficial to the old, because it increases nitrogenous bodies by diminishing tissue waste.

Certain prophylactics are given as rubric:

Page no: Stool and Rectum, Cholera, A prophylactic, suggested by Hering, consisting of a pinch of powdered milk of sulphur (Lac sulphur), sprinkled into stockings and worn in contact with the soles of feet, has proved a successful preventive in several epidemics of Asiatic cholera. Aegidi recommends as a preventive one dose every evening for a week, of Chin. m. 0,001-0,006 and ozonized water.


As per review of literature, the number of drugs given in the repertory is 408. Even in the list of remedies of repertory it is given as 408 drugs. Whereas in my critical study I found that the number of drugs are 411 and the drugs not found in list but found in repertory proper and drug relationship chapter are:

Aurum mur natronatrum


Uva ursi


Every drug is arranged alphabetically. Total number of drugs given with cross-references are 416 drugs.

Cross-reference to same drugs are given for 7 drugs. They are:

Chenopodi glauci aphis Aphis chenopodii

Eugenia Jambos Jambos

Gummi gutti Gambogia

Nitrum Kali nitrum

Physostigma Calabar

Viola tricolor Jacea

Hydrophobinum Lyssin

Creosotum Kreosotum(but Kreosotum not given)

Kreosotum given as cross-reference but not given in this chapter.

Drugs found in drug abbreviation but not found in this chapter are 2 drugs. They are:

Ars sulf rubrum

Plantago major

Drugs not in drug abbreviation but found in this chapter are 3 drugs. They are:

Aurum mur natronatrum


Uva ursi

Vaccinum and Variolinum given in this chapter but has no observation under it.


As per Hering’s view on Hahnemannian concept ranking of symptoms is based on:

Symptoms should be alike and similar in intensity of drug.

Next it should be treated from within to without.

Last symptom appeared should be given prior importance though insignificant. Similarly the last drug given or the cause, which acted last, should be given first importance.

In particular symptoms order of importance should be given as, locality, sensation, modality and associated symptom.


As per symptoms available the totality can be framed as follows:

A. Mental generals

B. Constitution, stages of life, temperament

C. Causation

D. Side affinity, general modality, sensation in general

E. Appetite, desire, aversion, thirst, sleep, etc

F. Particulars – concomitant

– complete symptom.

SYSTEMIC REPERTORISATION: According to the textbooks, Knerr repertory cannot be used for systemic repertorization. But based on the totality of the case systemic repertorization be done. In cases with following symptoms can be dealt with this. Concomitants, diagnosis, common, pathology, keynote, fever totality, occupation, side affinity, time modalities, characteristic particulars, causation, physical generals, constitution, mental generals, complete symptom and also for drug relationship.


1) Mental condition given in all particular sections.

2) Pregnancy, Parturition, Infants chapter is well represented and found nowhere in other repertories. Even children as a sub rubric are represented well.

3) Concomitants in urine, stool, menses, and headache are well represented in this repertory.

4) In Stages of Life and Constitution chapter, especially size, occupation, constitution, diathesis, and temperament is well represented and not found like this in any other repertories.

5) In urine specific gravity is given.

6) Pulse rate is given with remedies.

7) Temperature is also given in Fahrenhiet with remedies.

8) Tissue chapter gives the regional and remedy affinities to it.

9) Touch, passive motion, injuries chapter is also well-represented chapter and found nowhere else.

10) Percussion sounds given in lung are very useful for objective prescription where there is lack of subjective symptoms.

11) It is source for many other repertories.

12) It is the only one where Materia Medica is in the form of repertory with gradation.

13) Though the drugs mentioned are very less, yet we get the chance of choosing different drugs of similimum, which are very authenticated other than polychrests also. This helps in easy selection of remedy in a narrow field.


1) Difficult to search the sub sub rubrics.

2) Not easily comprehensible for the beginners.

3) Finer rubrics and sub rubrics very difficult to distinguish each other especially in Sensorium chapter.

4) Same rubric is repeated or found with similar meaning, but seen with different drugs.

5) Nosodes are not represented well.

6) Lack of detailed introduction part by the author regarding how to use the repertory.


1) Repertory should be reevaluated regarding its symptoms and its intensity from the source book.

2) Sub sub sub rubrics should be easily available during search. Such change should be made making them italics as per alphabetical order.

3) Drugs in drug list should be alphabetically abbreviated and arranged.

4) Drugs like Kreosote, Plantago should be added in relationship.

5) Thuya should be rectified as Thuja.


“We have only given the precious stones their settings. They have come from many mines. They have received the polish of years of clinical verification at the hands of our practitioners. Some shine with more brilliancy than others, all reflect the light of wisdom by which we are guided in healing the sick” – Calvin B. Knerr.


CONSTANTINE. HERING, M.D. The Guiding Symptoms Of Our Materia Medica, Volume II, III, V, VI, VII, VIII, IX,

CONSTANTINE. HERING, M.D., Analytical Repertory Of The Symptoms Of The Mind,

CALVIN B. KNERR, Repertory Of Hering’s Guiding Symptoms Of Our Materia Medica, Export Edition.

SHASHI KANT TIWARI, Essentials Of Repertorization

HARINADHAM. K, The Principles And Practice Of Repertorisation,


CHITKARA. H.C, The Hahnemanian Monthly, Volume I, Number 1, August 1985.

GEORGE VITHOULKAS, Teachers Meeting With George Vithoulkas, Aug 1998 In Alonissos, Quarterly Homoeopathic Digest – Vol Xviii, 1 And 2, 2001. Pg 68.

MUTHUKUMAR. V, Journal Knerr’s Repertory In Practice, Homoeopathy In Practice. Quarterly Homoeopathic Journal, Vol.I, Jan, Feb, March 1993, No.1

PARINAZHUMRANWALA, Repertory A Critical Study, National Journal Of Homoeopathy, Nov-Dec’97.

VISWANATHAN. T.K Uses Of Lesser Known Or Used Repertories, National Journal Of Homoeopathy, Nov-Dec’97.

The Heritage Of Homoeopathic Literature – Repertories.

Quarterly Homoeopathic Digest – Vol XVIII, 3 And 4, 2001.


Read more:


The Disinformation Campaign Against Homeopathy


The Disinformation Campaign Against Homeopathy

Posted: 9/14/11 11:14 AM ET

Homeopathic medicine is at present one of the leading alternative therapies practiced by physicians in Europe (particularly France, Germany, UK and Italy) and Asia, especially on the Indian subcontinent (EU Commission, 1997; Prasad, 2007). Since homeopathy’s development as a medical specialty in the early 1800s, it has been a leading alternative to orthodox medicine internationally, and it has posed an ongoing threat to the scientific, philosophical and economics of conventional medical care.

The homeopathic approach to healing maintains a deep respect for symptoms of illness as important defenses of a person’s immune and defense system. While conventional medicine often tends to assume that symptoms are something “wrong” with the person that need to be treated, inhibited, suppressed or biochemically manipulated, homeopaths tend to assume that symptoms are important defenses of the organism that are most effectively resolved when treatments nurture, nourish or mimic the symptoms in order to initiate a healing process. Ultimately, these two different approaches to healing people have led to various conflicts.

It is common, for instance, for homeopaths to question the alleged “scientific” studies that conventional drugs are “effective” as treatments because of concern that many of these treatments tend to suppress symptoms or disrupt the complex inner ecology of the body and create much more serious illness. Just as opiate drugs of the 19th century gave the guise of healing, homeopaths contend that many modern-day drugs provide blessed short-term relief but create immune dysfunction, mental illness and other chronic disease processes in its wake. Further, the fact that most people today are prescribed multiple drugs concurrently, despite the fact that clinical research is rarely conducted showing the safety or efficacy of such practices, forces us all to question how scientific modern medicine truly is.

Homeopaths contend that increased rates of cancer, heart disease, chronic fatigue and various chronic diseases for increasingly younger people may result from conventional medicine’s suppression of symptoms and disease processes. It is therefore no surprise that conventional physicians and Big Pharma have a long and dark history of working together to attack homeopathy and homeopaths.

The antagonism against homeopathy began when the highly-respected Saxon physician Samuel Hahnemann, M.D., first developed the system in the early 1800s. Hahnemann was a translator of leading medical and pharmacology texts and the author of the leading textbook used by pharmacists of his day.

Despite Hahnemann’s high stature in medicine, pharmacology and chemistry, his strong critique of conventional medicine led to personal attacks against him by orthodox physicians as well as by the apothecaries (the drug makers of that time) who were philosophically and economically threatened by Hahnemann’s work. When homeopathy arrived in America in 1825, it grew rapidly due to its widely-recognized success in treating infectious disease epidemics that raged in the early and mid-1800s. Then, when the American Institute of Homeopathy became the first national medical organization in 1844, a rival organization developed that proposed to stop the growth of homeopathy (Rothstein, 1985, p. 232). That organization called itself the American Medical Association, and this organization worked relentlessly to diminish the popularity and influence of this natural medicine.

Paul Starr’s Pulitzer Prize-winning book, “The Social Transformation of American Medicine,” acknowledged the stature that homeopathy achieved in America in the mid-and later 19th century:

“Because homeopathy was simultaneously philosophical and experimental, it seemed to many people to be more rather than less scientific than orthodox medicine” (p. 97).

U.S. President William McKinley even dedicated a special monument to Dr. Hahnemann in Washington, D.C., in 1900, which still stands today as the only monument in America’s capital to the deeds of a physician.

However, because of the economic, philosophical and scientific threat that the paradigm and practice of homeopathy represents, the vitriol and antagonism still exists. It is therefore enlightening to expose the disinformation that is spread about homeopathy and then understand who is leading this disinformation campaign (the second part of this article will name names and discuss two individuals, one from the U.S. and one from the UK, who are presently leaders in the campaign against homeopathy).

The Myths Spread about Homeopathy

Like other propagandists, the homeopathy deniers seek to create disinformation by using three straightforward techniques. First, the homeopathy deniers make a simple false accusation, a lie, and repeat it constantly and consistently in an attempt to make it a new “truth.” Second, this repetition is then done within the context of some legitimizing element. In the case of the homeopathy deniers, that element is a corruption of normal science, an analysis of scientific evidence that creates reasons (excuses) to exclude high-quality studies that show positive results (even those studies that have been published in leading conventional medical journals), and a mis-use of the concept of skepticism. The homeopathy deniers ignore or downplay the substantial body of evidence from basic science and clinical research, from outcome studies, from cost-effectiveness studies and from epidemiological evidence, and only quote from those studies that verify their own point of view, rather than reviewing the entire body of evidence.

The third component of the technique is to sell the lie to a vulnerable population in an attempt to have repetition from that group. In the case of the homeopathy deniers, the vulnerable groups are often young students of science who are enamored with the language and elitism of their newly-learned craft, but who lack the deep understanding and experience to realize that they are being “used” by the deniers. The homeopathy deniers also play on the fears of those older and established scientists and physicians and who are led to believe that “if homeopathy is true, then everything about modern medicine and science is false.” This over-simplification of reality is commonly repeated.

However, just as quantum physics does not “disprove” all of physics — but, rather,extends our capability to understand and predict events on extremely small and extremely large systems — likewise, homeopathy does not disprove all of modern pharmacology but extends our understanding of the use of extremely small doses of medicinal agents to elicit healing responses.

History is replete with orthodox medicine and science being steadfastly resistant to different systems of medicine and paradigms of healing. Although, the average physician and scientist tends to be threatened by new ideas, a common attribute of leading physicians and scientists is a certain openness and humility due to the common and even expected evolution of knowledge.

It should be acknowledged upfront that homeopathic practitioners, patients and users of these natural medicines are often surprised and amazed at the results they experience in the treatment of themselves, children, infants, animals and even plants. In my observations over the past 40 years, most people are skeptical about homeopathy until they try it and see for themselves … and there are then good reasons that tens of millions of people all over the world use and rely upon these natural medicines for a wide range of acute and chronic ailments. That said, the challenge is not just trying homeopathy, but first learning something about it so you can use it correctly and effectively.

Sadly, however, the homeopathy deniers tend to spread disinformation about homeopathy, including the following myths:

Myth #1: “There is no research that shows that homeopathic medicines work.”

Such statements are a creative use of statistics, or what might be called “lies, damn lies and statistics.” Actually, most clinical research studies conducted with homeopathic medicines show a positive outcome. However, if “creative statisticians” evaluate only the smaller number of large studies, a positive result is less likely, not because homeopathy doesn’t work, but because these larger studies tend to dispense only one homeopathic medicine for everyone in the study, without any degree of individualized treatment that is typical of the homeopathic method (1). To claim that homeopathic medicines do not work using only these studies is as illogical as to say that antibiotics are ineffective just because they do not cure for every viral, fungal or bacterial infection.

Myth #2: “The research studies showing that homeopathic medicines work are ‘poorly conducted studies.'”

Wrong! Studies showing the efficacy of homeopathic medicines have been published in the Lancet, the British Medical Journal, Pediatrics, Pediatric Infectious Disease Journal, Cochrane Reports, Chest (the publication of the British Society of Rheumatology), Cancer (the journal of the American Cancer Society), Journal of Clinical Oncology (journal of the Society of Clinical Oncology), Human Toxicology, European Journal of Pediatrics, Archives in Facial Plastic Surgery, Archives of Otolaryngology — Head and Neck Surgery, Journal of Clinical Psychiatry and many more (2). All of these studies were randomized, double-blind and placebo controlled. Further, because of bias against homeopathy, these studies have been scrutinized rigorously, perhaps even more rigorously than is usual.

The weak response from the homeopathy deniers is that the above studies are “cherry-picked.” Well, it seems that there are a lot of “cherries” (clinical studies that verify the efficacy of homeopathic medicines). Also, numerous of the above leading medical journals have published meta-analyzes of clinical trials on specific diseases and have shown that homeopathic medicines have significantly more benefits than does a placebo. And further, the deniers erroneously equate the “negative” studies as evidence that the whole system of homeopathy does not work when, in fact, these studies are usually of a preliminary nature that explored the use of one or a small handful of remedies for a specific condition.

Ironically, the one review of research that the homeopathic deniers most commonly assert as strong evidence that there’s no difference between homeopathic medicines and placebo (Shang et al, 2005) has been shown to be bad or certainly inadequate science (Walach, et al, 2005; Fisher, 2006; Rutten, 2009, Rutten and Stolper, 2008; Lüdtke and Rutten, 2008).

Myth #3: “12C is like one drop in the entire Atlantic Ocean.”

Pure fantasy (and fuzzy math)! In fact, the 12C dose requires 12 test tubes, and 1 percent of the solution is drawn from each of the 12 test tubes. It is also very typical for the “deniers” of homeopathy to assert with a straight face that the making of a single homeopathic medicine requires more water than exists on the planet. It seems that the skeptics are so fundamentalist in their point of view that they consciously or unconsciously mis-assume that the dilutions used in homeopathy grow proportionately with each dilution; they assume that each dilution requires 10 or 100 times more water with each dilution — which they don’t, and even the most elementary articles and books on homeopathy affirm this fact. Sadly (and strangely), most of the skeptics of homeopathy seem to read each other’s misinformation on homeopathy and have a propensity to spin the reality of what homeopathy is in ways that misconstrue it.

Myth #4: “There is nothing in a homeopathic medicine. It is just water.”

Ignorance and direct disinformation. First, a large number of homeopathic medicines that are sold in health food stores and pharmacies are what are called “low potencies,” that is, small or very small doses of medicines, most of which are in a similar dose to which certain powerful hormones and immune cells circulate in our body. Second, using samples of six different medicines made from minerals, scientists at the Department of Engineering at the Indian Institute of Technology have consistently confirmed that the starting substance is still present in the form of nanoparticles of the starting minerals even when the medicine has undergone hundreds of serial dilutions — with vigorous shaking in between each dilution, as per the homeopathic method (Chikramane, Suresh, Bellare, 2010) (3). Further, leading chemistry and physics journals have published other research to confirm that there are differences between water and “homeopathic water” (Elia and Niccoli, 1999; Elia, Napoli, Niccoli, et al, 2008; Rey, 2003)

Myth #5: “If we do not presently understand how homeopathic medicines work, then, they cannot work. It’s witchcraft.”

Lame on face value. How many more times in history do scientists and others need before they realize that we do not understand a lot of nature’s mysteries, but our lack of understanding does not mean that the mysteries are not real. Calling homeopathy “witchcraft” clearly is someone’s fear of what they do not know or understand, and a common observation from history is that whenever one goes on a witchhunt, a witch is found (one way or another). The fact that there is a small but significant body of basic sciences research that has shown physical and biological effects from homeopathic medicines tends to be ignored (Endler, Thieves, Reich, et al 2010; Witt, Bluth, Albrecht, et al, 2007). To publish in peer-reviewed scientific journals is not a common practice from witches (or warlocks).

Dr. Karol Sikora is a respected oncologist and dean of the University of Buckingham medical school in England. Sikora has expressed serious concern about the “Stalinist repression” that certain skeptics of homeopathic and alternative medicines engage (Sikora, 2009). Sikora has harshly criticized “armchair physicians” and others who seem to have little or no experience in using these treatments with real patients.

One other critical piece of evidence to show and even prove the unscientific attitude of the homeopathy deniers is that they now wish to close off all discussion of the efficacy of homeopathic medicines (Baum and Ernst, 2009). These medical fundamentalists actually discourage keeping an open mind about homeopathy. One must question this unscientific attitude that select antagonists to homeopathy embody, and one must even wonder why they maintain such a position.

The second part of this article will provide further specific evidence of the unscientific attitude and actions from those individuals and organizations who are leading the campaign against homeopathy. A leading antagonist to homeopathy from the U.S. and another from the UK will be discussed in order to shed light on this important debate in health care. Stay tuned to find out who they are and why they maintain their point of view.

(1) Although individualization of treatment is one of the hallmarks of the homeopathic method, there are exceptions to this common rule. For instance, there have been four large randomized, double-blind and placebo-controlled studies that have shown that homeopathic Oscillococcinum is effective in treating people with influenza or influenza-like syndrome (Vickers and Smith, 2006).

(2) References to these and other studies can be found in the following article: The Case FOR Homeopathic Medicine: Historical and Scientific Evidence —

(3) Transmission Electron Microscopy (TEM), electron diffraction by Selected Area Electron Diffraction (SAED), and chemical analysis by Inductively Coupled Plasma-Atomic Emission Spectroscopy.

Baum M, Ernst E. Should we maintain an open mind about homeopathy? American Journal of Medicine. 122,11: November 2009. doi:10.1016/j.amjmed.2009/03.038.

Chikramane PS, Suresh AK, Bellare JR, and Govind S. Extreme homeopathic dilutions retain starting materials: A nanoparticulate perspective. Homeopathy. Volume 99, Issue 4, October 2010, 231-242.

Elia V, and Niccoli M. Thermodynamics of Extremely Diluted Aqueous Solutions, Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, 879, 1999:241-248.

Elia V, Napoli E, Niccoli M, Marchettini N, Tiezzi E(2008). New Physico-Chemical Properties of Extremely Dilute Solutions. A Conductivity Study at 25 °C in Relation to Ageing. Journal of Solution Chemistry, 37:85-96.

Endler PC, Thieves K, Reich C, Matthiessen P, Bonamin L, Scherr C, Baumgartner S. Repetitions of fundamental research models for homeopathically prepared dilutions beyond 10-23: a bibliometric study. Homeopathy, 2010; 99: 25-36.

EU Commission report evaluating implementation of Homeopathy Directives 92/73 EEC and 92/74/EEC, 1997.

Fisher P, 2006. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. 2006 March; 3(1): 145-147.
Published online 2006 January 26. doi: 10.1093/ecam/nek007

Lüdtke R, Rutten ALB. The conclusions on the effectiveness of homeopathy highly depend on the set of analysed trials. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. October 2008. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.06/015.

Prasad R. Homoeopathy booming in India. Lancet, 370:November 17, 2007,1679-80.

Rey L. Thermoluminescence of Ultra-High Dilutions of Lithium Chloride and Sodium Chloride. Physica A, 323(2003)67-74.

Rothstein WG. American Physicians in the 19th Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins, 1985.

Rutten L, 2009.

Rutten ALB, Stolper CF, The 2005 meta-analysis of homeopathy: The importance of post-publication data. Homeopathy. October 2008, doi:10.1016/j.homp.2008.09/008.

Shang A, Huwiler-Müntener K, Nartey L, Jüni P, Dörig S, Sterne JA, Pewsner D, Egger M. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Comparative study of placebo-controlled trials of homoeopathy and allopathy. The Lancet. 366,9487, 27 August 2005:726-732.

Sikora K. Complementary medicine does help patients. Times Online, February 3rd 2009. Online document at:

Starr P. The Social Transformation of American Medicine. New York: Basic, 1982.

Vickers A, Smith C. Homoeopathic Oscillococcinum for preventing and treating influenza and influenza-like syndromes. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2006, Issue 3. Art. No.: CD001957. DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD001957.pub3.

Walach H, Jonas W, Lewith G. Are the clinical effects of homoeopathy placebo effects? Lancet. 2005 Dec 17;366(9503):2081; author reply 2083-6.

Witt CM, Bluth M, Albrecht H, Weisshuhn TE, Baumgartner S, Willich SN. The in vitro evidence for an effect of high homeopathic potencies–a systematic review of the literature. Complement Ther Med. 2007 Jun;15(2):128-38. Epub 2007 Mar 28. From 75 publications, 67 experiments (1/3 of them replications) were evaluated. Nearly 3/4 of them found a high potency effect, and nearly 3/4 of all replications were positive.

Calif. schools turn away unvaccinated students
Calif. schools turn away unvaccinated students
Sep 16 08:37 PM US/Eastern
Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO(AP) – Some California schools are turning away middle and high school students who have not received a required whooping cough vaccine while others are defying a law passed last year after a historic spike in cases of the potentially fatal disease.

The law approved last September initially required all students entering grades seven through 12 to get vaccinated by the start of the 2011-2012 school year. Lawmakers passed a 30-day extension this summer as districts worried many students wouldn’t meet the deadline.

Under California law, students also can still attend if their parents file a form saying they oppose vaccines.

No statewide estimates of the number of students turned away is available because districts are not required to report their final vaccination tally until December, state education and public health officials said.

But anecdotal reports from individual districts indicate the percentage of students meeting the requirement varied widely, from about half of students to nearly all.

“We’ve done a tremendous amount of outreach with the schools trying to let them know,” said Linda Davis-Alldritt, the school nurse consultant for the education department.

On Thursday, San Francisco Unified School District began sending home students who arrived without proof of vaccination or a parental personal belief exemption.

District spokeswoman Heidi Anderson said the district estimates about 2,000 students, or 10 percent of the student body, are still unvaccinated. The district held a free vaccination clinic at its offices Thursday and was providing shots at individual schools Friday.

District officials were optimistic that most students would be able to return to class soon.

“We’re getting down to it,” Anderson said.

The Folsom Cordova Unified School District hit the extended deadline Friday for having all students immunized. Mary Ann Delleney, director of health programs for the district, said about 2,250 students who have yet to get vaccinated won’t be turned away.

“We will not withhold education for students, but we will make every effort that we possibly can to be in compliance with state law,” she said. The district had 70 whooping cough cases last year, she said.

In the Natomas Unified School District in Sacramento, about 1,100 students hadn’t received their immunization shots by Thursday night, said Janet Handley, the assistant supervisor of education services. The district’s 30-day extended deadline ended Friday.

Students who show up Monday without proof of their immunization will be sent to the school’s gymnasium for study hall, Handley said. The students who are sequestered into the gym will not count toward the district’s attendance-based funding for those students on those days, she said. Schools in California lose money for each absence.

“We’re trying to balance how to get the message out that they need to get the shot, and we also need them at school,” Handley said.

Natomas High School hosted a free clinic after school Friday, where a line of students curled around the gym where nurses were administering shots. Many said they hadn’t heard of the immunization requirement until this week, despite what health and education officials described as a barrage of information sent to parents, students and schools.

Jake Terry, a 12-year-old at NP3, a charter middle school in Sacramento, said he first heard about the shot requirement on the news.

“I’m scared about the needle’s size,” he said.

State education officials said allowing unvaccinated students on school premises at all broke state law, but that the education department had no power to sanction defiant districts.

Allowing unvaccinated students to come to school also puts the students themselves and others exempted from the vaccine for medical or personal reasons at greater risk, said John Talarico, chief of immunization for the California Department of Public Health.

“If one of them gets it and they’re all together, you now have a whole pool of susceptible people,” Talarico said.

San Diego Republican Assemblyman Nathan Fletcher, a co-author of the law, said students who haven’t been vaccinated shouldn’t be at school at all, regardless of the funding or instruction children might miss.

“This is not an academic or philosophical discussion. Children have died as a result of this. We took very seriously our obligation to protect children so I think school districts need to take seriously the obligations to comply with it,” he said.

The vaccination mandate covers about 3 million public and private school students who public health officials say have lost much of their immunity since receiving their original immunization against whooping cough before entering kindergarten.

California saw more than 9,000 whooping cough cases diagnosed in 2010, the highest number in the state since 1947. Ten infants too young to receive the vaccine died from the illness. About 2,400 cases have been diagnosed so far in 2011, but the state has seen no fatalities.

The highest percentage of California students entered kindergarten last year in more than 30 years under a California law that allows parents to exempt their children from vaccines for philosophical or religious reasons, according to state health records. About 3 percent of incoming kindergartners received either a personal belief or medical exemption from state vaccine requirements.

Health officials said there was no firm link between lower vaccination rates and the rise in whooping cough cases. The vaccine’s effectiveness also wears off over time and doesn’t work for all people, Talarico said.


Sheila V Kumar reported from Sacramento.

Whom can you trust?








Dr Maurice Hilleman: and I think that vaccines have to be considered the bargain basement technology for the 20th century.

Narrator: 50 years ago when Maurice Hilleman was a high school student in Miles City Montana, he hoped he might qualify as a management trainee for the local JC Penney’s store. Instead he went on to pioneer more breakthroughs in vaccine research and development than anyone in the history of American medicine. Among the discoveries he made at Merck, are vaccines for mumps, rubella and measles…

Dr Edward Shorter: Tell me how you found SV40 and the polio vaccine.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Well, that was at Merck. Yeah, I came to Merck. And uh, I was going to develop vaccines. And we had wild viruses in those days. You remember the wild monkey kidney viruses and so forth? And I finally after 6 months gave up and said that you cannot develop vaccines with these damn monkeys, we’re finished and if I can’t do something I’m going to quit, I’m not going to try it. So I went down to see Bill Mann at the zoo in Washington DC and I told Bill Mann, I said “look, I got a problem and I don’t know what the hell to do.” Bill Mann is a real bright guy. I said that these lousy monkeys are picking it up while being stored in the airports in transit, loading, off loading. He said, very simply, you go ahead and get your monkeys out of West Africa and get the African Green, bring them into Madrid unload them there, there is no other traffic there for animals, fly them into Philadelphia and pick them up. Or fly them into New York and pick them up, right off the airplane. So we brought African Greens in and I didn’t know we were importing the AIDS virus at the time.

Miscellaneous background voices:…(laughter)… it was you who introduced the AIDS virus into the country. Now we know! (laughter) This is the real story! (laughter) What Merck won’t do to develop a vaccine! (laughter)

Dr Maurice Hilleman: So what he did, he brought in, I mean we brought in those monkeys, I only had those and this was the solution because those monkeys didn’t have the wild viruses but we…

Dr Edward Shorter: Wait, why didn’t the greens have the wild viruses since they came from Africa?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …because they weren’t, they weren’t, they weren’t being infected in these group holding things with all the other 40 different viruses…

Dr Edward Shorter: but they had the ones that they brought from the jungle though…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …yeah, they had those, but those were relatively few what you do you have a gang housing you’re going to have an epidemic transmission of infection in a confined space. So anyway, the greens came in and now we have these and were taking our stocks to clean them up and god now I’m discovering new viruses. So, I said Judas Priest. Well I got an invitation from the Sister Kinney Foundation which was the opposing foundation when it was the live virus…

Dr Edward Shorter: Ah, right…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: Yeah, they had jumped on the Sabin’s band wagon and they had asked me to come down and give a talk at the Sister Kinney Foundation meeting and I saw it was an international meeting and god, what am I going to talk about? I know what I’m going to do, I’m going to talk about the detection of non detectable viruses as a topic.

Dr Albert Sabin …there were those who didn’t want a live virus vaccine… (unintelligible) …concentrated all its efforts on getting more and more people to use the killed virus vaccine, while they were supporting me for research on the live viruses.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: So now I got to have something (laughter), you know that going to attract attention. And gee, I thought that damn SV40, I mean that damn vaculating agent that we have, I’m just going to pick that particular one, that virus has got to be in vaccines, it’s got to be in the Sabin’s vaccines so I quick tested it (laughter) and sure enough it was in there.

Dr Edward Shorter: I’ll be damned

Dr Maurice Hilleman: … And so now…

Dr Edward Shorter: …so you just took stocks of Sabin’s vaccines off the shelf here at Merck…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …yeah, well it had been made, it was made at Merck…

Dr Edward Shorter: You were making it for Sabin at this point?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Yeah, it was made before I came…

Dr Edward Shorter: yeah, but at this point Sabin is still just doing massive field trials…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …uh huh

Dr Edward Shorter: okay,

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …in Russia and so forth. So I go down and I talked about the detection of non detectable viruses and told Albert, I said listen Albert you know you and I are good friends but I’m going to go down there and you’re going to get upset. I’m going to talk about the virus that it’s in your vaccine. You’re going to get rid of the virus, don’t worry about it, you’re going to get rid of it… but umm, so of course Albert was very upset…

Dr Edward Shorter: What did he say?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well he said basically, that this is just another obfuscation that’s going to upset vaccines. I said well you know, you’re absolutely right, but we have a new era here we have a new era of the detection and the important thing is to get rid of these viruses.

Dr Edward Shorter: Why would he call it an obfuscation if it was a virus that was contaminating the vaccine?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well there are 40 different viruses in these vaccines anyway that we were inactivating and uh,

Dr Edward Shorter: but you weren’t inactivating his though…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …no that’s right, but yellow fever vaccine had leukemia virus in it and you know this was in the days of very crude science. So anyway I went down and talked to him and said well, why are you concerned about it? Well I said “I’ll tell you what, I have a feeling in my bones that this virus is different, I don’t know why to tell you this but I …(unintelligible) …I just think this virus will have some long term effects.” And he said what? And I said “cancer”. (laughter) I said Albert, you probably think I’m nuts, but I just have that feeling. Well in the mean time we had taken this virus and put it into monkeys and into hamsters. So we had this meeting and that was sort of the topic of the day and the jokes that were going around was that “gee, we would win the Olympics because the Russians would all be loaded down with tumors.” (laughter) This was where the vaccine was being tested, this was where… so, uhh, and it really destroyed the meeting and it was sort of the topic. Well anyway…

Dr Edward Shorter: Was this the physicians… (unintelligible) …meeting in New York?

Dr Maurice Hilleman …well no, this was at Sister Kinney…

Dr Edward Shorter: Sister Kinney, right…

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …and Del Becco (sp) got up and he foresaw problems with these kinds of agents.

Dr Edward Shorter: Why didn’t this get out into the press?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …well, I guess it did I don’t remember. We had no press release on it. Obviously you don’t go out, this is a scientific affair within the scientific community…

Voice of news reporter: …an historic victory over a dread disease is dramatically unfolded at the U of Michigan. Here scientists usher in a new medical age with the monumental reports that prove that the Salk vaccine against crippling polio to be a sensational success. It’s a day of triumph for 40 year old Dr. Jonas E Salk developer of the vaccine. He arrives here with Basil O’Connor the head of the National Foundation for Infantile Paralysis that financed the tests. Hundreds of reporters and scientists gathered from all over the nation gathered for the momentous announcement….

Dr Albert Sabin: …it was too much of a show, it was too much Hollywood. There was too much exaggeration and the impression in 1957 that was, no in 1954 that was given was that the problem had been solved , polio had been conquered.

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …but, anyway we knew it was in our seed stock from making vaccines. That virus you see, is one in 10,000 particles is not an activated… (unintelligible) …it was good science at the time because that was what you did. You didn’t worry about these wild viruses.

Dr Edward Shorter: So you discovered, it wasn’t being inactivated in the Salk vaccine?

Dr Maurice Hilleman: …Right. So then the next thing you know is, 3, 4 weeks after that we found that there were tumors popping up on these hamsters.