Digest Number 1902

[Theresa Partington]

Well, yes, you did! I don't think drawing people's attention to the facts
that we treat people rather than disease names, and that living people have
both psyche and soma is 'selling the method short' at all! Even in the cases
you quote psyche and soma are both present, two sides of the same coin, and
just because one is more visible than the other doesn't mean that the other
side of the coin is blank or that there is no relationship between the two
.Not necessarily a one way relationship of causality either - a birth defect
may have many 'psychic' consequences.
As for *all* material existence being psychosomatic I wouldn't go down that
path myself although I know some who would...

Theresa
Shannon wrote: Wow, that's selling the method awfully far short, unless you
follow up by
explaining that all of material existence is "psychosomatic"!

Or at least explain that those "psychosomatic diseases" it can effectively
treat include cholera, birth defects, heavy metal poisoning, physical
trauma, "killer flu", etc., etc. Did I miss something?

??
Shannon
on 2/1/05 7:40 AM, Theresa Partington at Theresa

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Theresa,

I may have misunderstood just what you are telling people...
When the average person asks whether a given method can treat "only
psychosomatic diseases", the are asking whether it's true that homeopathy is
not good enough for "real" diseases. My point was that unless you are
making it clear that you would count (insert my prior list and whatever
else) among "psychosomatic diseases"--which I'm thinking the inquirer would
almost certainly *not*--then your answer does indeed sell the method far
short.

Or why do you think they are asking? Would you *want* to give the
impression that "real" diseases can't be treated by homeopathy?

Shannon
on 2/2/05 6:43 AM, Theresa Partington at theresa@frogsisland.freeserve.co.uk
wrote: