PC remedies-Julian

[AH]

on 3/31/05 12:43 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:
Joy wrote:

on 3/31/05 12:43 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:
((( Julian, as ill as you are, you defend your interpretation of organon as
immutable or unassailable while (now) profanely and in anti-intellectual
fashion discounting discussion. You then "cop out" that we just have to
accept our failures, while closing the door on law of similar methods based
on Hahnemann (e.g. PC rx, a technological attempt to approximate the
miasmatic complex of specific diseases based on para 101-103).

You yourself are at the moment a kind of poster child for the failure of
homeopathy. Yes, there are certain diseases which the profession, on
aggregate, has a difficulty satisfactorily "curing" with individual
prescribing. That may not always be the case, but it is now.

Beware! Rude comments follow:
==================================
If you have not tried Sarsaparilla for your individual simillimum, then I
suggest its consideration, as it covers the case as you have presented
(though only suggestively, as not enough specific symptomology on which to
make a frank prescription).

============
cancer prostate. dx 1998
urinary blockage
scleroderma
lymphatic involvement
constipation
============

Sorry, I know you said you did not want more ideas--this one was arrived at
before your prohibition of use of the discussion list MINDPOWER to aid your
practitioner in idea generation.

=============
Sarsaparilla feels excluded and is trying to come in and be included (see
Sankaran Plants p 395).
=============

A guess about your case--part of you has felt not as loved or respected as
you want to be by the homeopathic community for your extensive and unique
historical and editorial work. I have watched you seek adoration on this
list--this suggests a feeling of not being adored by the community.
Adoration on this list is palliative of your state, not curative. The
feeling of somehow feeling excluded was undoubtedly exacerbated by the flap
over your editorial which led to the international journal debate over the
evolution of homeopathy around 2000-2001. That editorial was you in your
role of interpretive "cop", a position you have been in since well before
1998 when your CA dx given.

In response to your editorial, your own old friend Dick Moskowitz and a
large group of others publically asked you to resign the editorship of
Homeopathy Today. At some level, that must have felt like a big SNUB, as
you feel you are only "toeing the line" being a doctrinal "cop" of
homeopathy as you understand it. A fine way to be thanked for preserving
the history of homeopathy. Certainly not something which makes someone feel
MORE a part of the community rather than less.

Sarsaparilla, according to Sankaran, feels excluded like you may have felt
for a long time.

If you have already tried Sars with no result, then perhaps that rx is off
the mark.

Or it might suggest an obstacle to cure is present (either from other cancer
treatments, from the fixed ideas you have about being the homeopathic "cop";
or from some other as yet unknown quarter). The fixed idea of your
EMOTIONAL NEED to take on the "responsibility" of being the preserver of
history and one version of understanding of what homeopathy and
"homeopathic" mean could be an obstacle.

This responsibility is obviously a very personal ("battle" as you call it,
akin to a religious crusade) and I wonder if it might be related to what
needs to be cured in your case. Could it be that this is how you attempt to
compensate for the feeling of being "left out" of homeopathy to the degree
you would like to be part of it--exacerbated by the incident a few years ago
from your editorial? Is your quest to preserve doctrine as you know of it
so much part and parcel of your life's work that it is difficult to see that
there is an internal conflict between what you take as your mission and your
desire to be included and loved by the community? (This, if obstacle, could
be worked on with adjuncts (hypnotherapy, psychologist).

If your "cop" quest is *not* an obstacle; AND if you want to get well,
perhaps you could seek by whatever means possible some other obstacle to
cure which may be hidden in your case.

If I were in your shoes, I would strongly consider using first -- or in
adjunct-- the group totality remedy for Cancer (in the form of the Chappell
PC remedy for Cancer). If I were you, I would attempt to understand this
type of remedy instead of *a priori* finding it to be some kind of anathema.
Considering the situation and the stakes, a bit more open mindedness may
create an opening which can get you beyond this hurdle.
on 3/31/05 12:43 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

((( TOO MUCH intellectualism?
on 3/31/05 12:43 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:

Wanking with words.
((( For your part I say too LITTLE intellectualism, too LITTLE decency.
on 3/31/05 12:43 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:
((( Included in this definition (para 101-103, and as applied in Chronic
Diseases) is a group totality remedy as has been discussed ad infinitum.

The group totality rx in the form of genius epidemicus as applied in high
mortality Yellow fever in the 1870's, Smallpox, and other epidemics is part
of what put homeopathy "on the map" in the US. Is that incorrect?

Don't you find a further development of that concept at least INTERESTING?
Aren't you at least CURIOUS about the PC remedy for cancer, when you are
suffering from that disease, and individualized prescribing has so far not
been helping while you publically castigate others as "wankers"?
on 3/31/05 12:43 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:
JW
(still fighting the battle)
(( Yes, you MAKE this into a "battle", but one by bludgeon instead of wit.
You have put on your badge and guns to guard yourself and self-interpreted
doctrine from the "infidels". In order to really do intellectual battle in
the present context though, one must first know how Hahnemannian is the
topic. Is your (profane) dismissal oversimplified?

Best,
Andy

[Julian Winston]

At 8:55 PM -0800 3/30/05, AH wrote:

I an not sure, in my case, when homeopathy has gone "wrong". I am
working now on an interesting regimen using "potentized remedies" and
seem to be getting some good from it, but it certainly isn't what
Hahnemann suggested, and I'll not call it homeopathy.
There are many like me. Nevertheless, I remain staunch in my position
that if the case could be seen clearly (in enough depth) homeopathy
would find a remedy. I'm right in there with EA Farrington and Dunham.
It HAS been tried. Several times over the years in several potencies.
[snip]
Well, you are NOT in my shoes. You know NOTHING about me or my case.

Your comments ARE insensitive, and rude.
I will NOT stoop to your level, although the temptation to do so is great.

JW

[AH]

on 3/31/05 11:22 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:
#### Obstacle to cure would seem to be an issue somewhere IMO ...
#### My comment about "rude comments" was a bit tongue in cheek, playing
off of your earlier one a bit, and referred mainly to giving you an rx idea
after you had demurred.

What was it that I said that you felt was more rude than your comment
referring to my writing as "wanking" ? Did you think that statement added to
intelligent discussion ? Did you find that to be sensitive ?

You know, I am quite a good natured person, and anything that sounds not
good natured here was responding to your extremely rude statement. It is a
bit ludicrous for you to then turn around and say "I will not stoop to your
level"

Andy

[Sheri Nakken]

HOW ABSOLUTELY disgusting and rude and cruel you are, Andy
Maybe we can all think of a remedy for you

At 08:55 PM 3/30/2005 -0800, you wrote:
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
subject of 'Digest' to ashahrdar@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[Shannon Nelson]

Dear Andy,

This might be an example of a conversation that should better be
carried on privately, both because you're forcing Julian to talk
publicly about things that he has expressed an unwillingness to (his
case, remedy choices); and partly because private discussions seem (in
my observation) somehow less apt to offend, and more responsive. And
if it *does* offend, and either party gets inappropriately carried
away, why make it public, especially when one part keeps trying to back
out of it?

I always find your insights compelling (and BTW have found them
extremely useful too), but really it IS Julian's choice if he does not
want further input. I think it's important to respect that.

Best,
Shannon