[H] Scurvy & Pellegra (some things thought to beinfectiousfoundto vitamin deficiencies)]

[muthu kumar]

I suggest reading "Koppikar's Clinical experiences of 70 years in
homeopathy" by S.P.Koppikar, who I think has a much better grasp of
homeopathy and its practice than most any one else.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
list
on in
up
substance,
Unless
sx
how
condition,
you
very
etc
been
about
of
Furniture
by
oops my
without
and

[Joy Lucas]

Well yes, Koppikar contributes to the booklet I mentioned. Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

[Brian Garnant]

Thank you Sheri
and
Thank you Joy.
It is difficult for some people changing from an allopathic point of view if one is brought up in it. The thinking process is there fdrom childhood, allopathic. And until one really gets Hahnemann on a deeper level , from, say, Chronic Diseases, than the allopathic upbringing, one is bound to keep thinking allopathically. Thank is the only sense that I can understand from all the posts that Sheri has so graciously and painstakingly has answered.
People feel like they are doing something by bringing their children for vacinations. Possibly Sherri could list alternatives to vacinations again for those who are somewhat open minded. Of course if the mind is made up in the other direction then there is no point in continuing to wheedle, as you infer, Joy.
Hahnemann himsself discusses causes, factors, etc. He himself states that bacteria do not cause disease. A reread of Chronic Diseases or a study from David Little's online library may refresh.
Thank you.
Brian

Joy Lucas wrote:
Oh for heaven's sake and for the sanity of most people on this list
going with this discussion, you have completely missed the point.

Regardless of whether or not there is a corruptive coercion going on in
the big wide world (and you'd have to have your eyes shut if you
thought there wasn't) the whole point being made is that getting up
front and personal with the bacteria, virus, germ, noxious substance,
i.e. naming them, is not an important part of our case analysis. Unless
you have extensive lab work done to assist you in naming a rogue
substance, which can be erroneous and circumspect at best and time
wasting at worst, it should not be part of your rubric selection, sx
ranking, or choice of rx. The most important decision in acutes is how
life threatening is this, what is the likely progress of the condition,
what organs are involved - THAT definitely has to be ranked, then you
take the sx and prescribe on them.

This is NOT to say that aetiology in disease is not important - it very
much is so and is intimately linked to the individual but it just
doesn't include naming a particular type of bacteria, virus, germ etc
that bears no real relation to the sx and the individual.

I would encourage people to read the little booklet edited by P
Sankaran "The Importance of Aetiology In Homepathy". Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings
edited for the sake of decency otherwise I might have been rude and
then I'd have the minerals on my back
Visit Minutus Website at http://www.minutus.org

ATTENTION PLEASE:

The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy 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.

****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!

If you do not wish to receive individual emails, you can simply change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Links
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Brian,
Hahnemann stated that certain diseases--including our famous psora,
sycosis, syphilis, and including acute and epidemic diseases--are
transmitted by "exccessively minute" something-or-others--can anyone
remember the full quote? David Little has recently spoken to that,
again. Hahmenann definitely "believed in germs."
Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

I don't think anyone is saying that 'germs' do not exist but simply
that no-one can prove their effect or reason for existing (apart from
being part of the food chain and survival link). Many theories abound
but they are only theories but if germs were universally responsible
for all the said diseases then we would all be prey to them but, of
course we have a different approach to that idea don't we (although I
am realising how some are transporting homeopathy basics into another
realm completely). SH might well have believed in germs but that isn't
what we praise him for is it. Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Sheri,
Do you seriously think Hahnemann was talking about subatomic particles
in that reference? Or are you rather presenting possible alternative
explanations that we might consider *rather* than his?
Shannon