after all that has been said, bringing this question up truly did make
me 'lol'. Maybe if it had been the real thing his homeopathic
treatment would have worked. In one post a contributor says she doesnt
need lab tests, in another her response to the rabies death thing is
that it wasnt true rabies. Im confused.
Rabies is real where I live, bats, skunks, raccoons etc. If my child
got bitten by an animal proved to be rabid I am not too proud to say I
would use allopathic treatment in conjunction with homeopathy. Why
wouldnt you? Can anyone give me a good reason?
I live in a forest fire danger area. If there is one this summer I
wont be out there with my garden hose. I will get the hell out ans
rely on the water bombers.
PS I tried to pre-empt the 'doctors treatment kills too' argument. We
dont need to waste our time on here discussing what is a given. The
difference is that they are allowed to kill people. We only need to
make a few bad mistakes to get out profession in trouble. Thats what
is wrong with idealism to answer on the of the poster's question.
Was it 'real rabies'?
Re: Was it 'real rabies'?
to continue the analogy...in the meantime I will use my garden hose to
help create a beautiful, healthy, pest resistant, organic garden.
help create a beautiful, healthy, pest resistant, organic garden.
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Was it 'real rabies'?
Robin-
I share your opinion in this. Ultimately what matters is has whatever
can be done in any system of medicine been done to help the patient.
I could not get the rationale behind accepting biochemic,
psychological, spiritual and nutritional aspects of diseases - even
influence of past lives and after lives - but not the microbiological
aspects...
In some other diseases this does not matter- we have time for finding
the medicine and even if we fail, patient might still be alive. Rabies
is one disease where once symptoms set in, it is certainly fatal.
I am not saying that we cannot treat homeopathically without
subscribing to the allopathic world view. We can. Ayurveda,
acupuncture and other medical systems have their own approach to
health and disease and their medical systems work when prescribed
based on their world view. In a way these systems have a consistent
framework - given the fact they have had more time to mature. In all
these in ancient times people spent many years imbibing the knowledge
to practise.
In contrast we have a fractured approach. There is no standard
teaching approach etc. Hahnemann wanted to establish precision in
prescribing and we have people prescribing Naja 200 for someone who
looks like a snake. And philosophyically I do not see why we cannot
accept infectious causation as long as we also believe in vital force
and that this is just another one way the vital force can be assaulted.
And a homeopathic way will be to utilize the same scientific methods
that allopaths use and establish a common working ground without
giving up the real basis of homeopathy - like cures like, single
remedy at a time etc. This is the flexible, homeopathic approach that
would over a period of time truly make us be considered equals. In
India homeopathic medical colleges pretty much the same thing that
allopathic medical schools do with extra subjects in homeopathic
subjects.
Moreover we should try to go beyond the etiology that allopathy gives
us but need not deny it. What do we gain by doing so? In fact once we
accept the etiology and epidemiological concepts and if lab tests are
utilized for making sure our medicines are working you have one more
reliable way to expand our materia medica. We can find out how
medicines influence biochemistry and microbiology. This could be a
valuable addition and add another dimension to the complete gestalt we
want to get...
Right now this is one area our materia medica is lacking - having
more verified biochemical and pathological information. We are not
adding much to this. This would allow us to interact with the existing
and established medical sciences in a better way and we can
concentrate on what we should be doing instead of nit-picking on these
issues...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "robin9168" wrote:
I share your opinion in this. Ultimately what matters is has whatever
can be done in any system of medicine been done to help the patient.
I could not get the rationale behind accepting biochemic,
psychological, spiritual and nutritional aspects of diseases - even
influence of past lives and after lives - but not the microbiological
aspects...
In some other diseases this does not matter- we have time for finding
the medicine and even if we fail, patient might still be alive. Rabies
is one disease where once symptoms set in, it is certainly fatal.
I am not saying that we cannot treat homeopathically without
subscribing to the allopathic world view. We can. Ayurveda,
acupuncture and other medical systems have their own approach to
health and disease and their medical systems work when prescribed
based on their world view. In a way these systems have a consistent
framework - given the fact they have had more time to mature. In all
these in ancient times people spent many years imbibing the knowledge
to practise.
In contrast we have a fractured approach. There is no standard
teaching approach etc. Hahnemann wanted to establish precision in
prescribing and we have people prescribing Naja 200 for someone who
looks like a snake. And philosophyically I do not see why we cannot
accept infectious causation as long as we also believe in vital force
and that this is just another one way the vital force can be assaulted.
And a homeopathic way will be to utilize the same scientific methods
that allopaths use and establish a common working ground without
giving up the real basis of homeopathy - like cures like, single
remedy at a time etc. This is the flexible, homeopathic approach that
would over a period of time truly make us be considered equals. In
India homeopathic medical colleges pretty much the same thing that
allopathic medical schools do with extra subjects in homeopathic
subjects.
Moreover we should try to go beyond the etiology that allopathy gives
us but need not deny it. What do we gain by doing so? In fact once we
accept the etiology and epidemiological concepts and if lab tests are
utilized for making sure our medicines are working you have one more
reliable way to expand our materia medica. We can find out how
medicines influence biochemistry and microbiology. This could be a
valuable addition and add another dimension to the complete gestalt we
want to get...
Right now this is one area our materia medica is lacking - having
more verified biochemical and pathological information. We are not
adding much to this. This would allow us to interact with the existing
and established medical sciences in a better way and we can
concentrate on what we should be doing instead of nit-picking on these
issues...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "robin9168" wrote:
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Was it 'real rabies'?
Hi Hahnemannian,
We do now have some tantalizing possibilities for cure! Agave leaf,
and Robyn's offering from Bannerji... Maybe you will be able to try
them and let us know what you find!
But to be fair--we have 150 years of history, and Ayurveda and Chinese
medicine have how many...
Shannon
We do now have some tantalizing possibilities for cure! Agave leaf,
and Robyn's offering from Bannerji... Maybe you will be able to try
them and let us know what you find!
But to be fair--we have 150 years of history, and Ayurveda and Chinese
medicine have how many...
Shannon
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Was it 'real rabies'?
Agave has always been there- Boeriecke has a lot of remedies- I
think Xanth. spin is mentioned almost a specific- Stram, Ars, Bell,
Canth, Verat have been mentioned in a lot of therapeutics....
all of these are when the condition has gone to the symptomatic
stage- I rarely see them nowadays since I am in NJ.
The note below is not just for rabies, I was talking in general
about the whole infection discussion that led to this "dogged"
discussion...
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
finding
Rabies
fatal.
leaf,
try
prescribed
consistent
In all
knowledge
Chinese
think Xanth. spin is mentioned almost a specific- Stram, Ars, Bell,
Canth, Verat have been mentioned in a lot of therapeutics....
all of these are when the condition has gone to the symptomatic
stage- I rarely see them nowadays since I am in NJ.
The note below is not just for rabies, I was talking in general
about the whole infection discussion that led to this "dogged"
discussion...
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
finding
Rabies
fatal.
leaf,
try
prescribed
consistent
In all
knowledge
Chinese
Re: Was it 'real rabies'?
There was nothing dogged about it except for 'mongrel' type views -
there is either allopathy, or allopathy mixed with homeopathy or
homeopathy or ??? - make your mind up - be brave or sit on the fence
and maybe read and re-read Chronic diseases again and again. Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings
there is either allopathy, or allopathy mixed with homeopathy or
homeopathy or ??? - make your mind up - be brave or sit on the fence
and maybe read and re-read Chronic diseases again and again. Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Was it 'real rabies'?
On Jun 2, 2006, at 4:39 PM, Joy Lucas wrote:
I think there are few of us here (not me) who would go the "Give Me
Homeopathy Or Give Me Death" route...
I think there are few of us here (not me) who would go the "Give Me
Homeopathy Or Give Me Death" route...
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Was it 'real rabies'?
Joy-
I wrote "dogged" only as a play on dogs and rabies-
No need for more advice about fences - thanks
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
fence
Bell,
I wrote "dogged" only as a play on dogs and rabies-
No need for more advice about fences - thanks
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
fence
Bell,
Re: Was it 'real rabies'?
"Jim", call it what you like, advice, promotion, teaching, whatever, I
clearly feel that 'more' is needed as it seems a number of people,
including practicing homeopaths do not believe (either through lack of
confidence or knowledge or prejudice) that homeopathy cannot take on
board, nay cure, really serious conditions. It wasn't so long ago that
cancer was included in that realm and thanks to the work of a few many
homeopaths are approaching this diseased state with more open eyes. Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings
clearly feel that 'more' is needed as it seems a number of people,
including practicing homeopaths do not believe (either through lack of
confidence or knowledge or prejudice) that homeopathy cannot take on
board, nay cure, really serious conditions. It wasn't so long ago that
cancer was included in that realm and thanks to the work of a few many
homeopaths are approaching this diseased state with more open eyes. Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: Was it 'real rabies'?
I never said that homeopathy cannot cure really serious conditions.
That was not the intention of any one who posted in support of the
infectious theory.
I have been advocating utilizing viral/infectious causations so that
we can use Homeopathy to treat and cure such conditions- to ensure
that homeopathy can get its due recognition - this whole discussion
started out that way. Not because I felt that homeopathy cannot cure
such cases...
I have treated and cured some really serious conditions myself. I have
treated cancers as well.
At the same time I have also interfaced with allopaths. There were
chronic renal failure cases where I was giving homeopathic medicine
but having the patient also consult his nephrologist to make sure that
all biochemic values are moving towards normalcy. Even for allopathic
doctors with emphasis on biochemistry, pathology and microbiology
there is a need to consult the specialists to make sure that the case
is getting better. Some people seem to improve symptomatically whereas
the condition keeps on worsening and hence the danger just depending
on symptoms to diagnose and manage a case...any thing verifiable
should be objectively verified...
If from homeopathy if we pose that we know everything that is there
to know and call the rest who practice differently as mongrels I do
not think it is good. And for what? Accepting allopathic infectious
causation of diseases?
Allopaths call homeopaths 'quacks'... and "classical" homeopaths would
call the "lesser" homeopaths "mongrels"- so on and so forth -Either we
set down practice guidelines for the profession - one way or other- or
accept that there are different principles of prescribing and the
method that we hold close to our heart is only one of many and shut up
about the rest....
Top-dog, under-dog mentality persists everywhere and is a sign of
humanity and pecking order -I guess...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
That was not the intention of any one who posted in support of the
infectious theory.
I have been advocating utilizing viral/infectious causations so that
we can use Homeopathy to treat and cure such conditions- to ensure
that homeopathy can get its due recognition - this whole discussion
started out that way. Not because I felt that homeopathy cannot cure
such cases...
I have treated and cured some really serious conditions myself. I have
treated cancers as well.
At the same time I have also interfaced with allopaths. There were
chronic renal failure cases where I was giving homeopathic medicine
but having the patient also consult his nephrologist to make sure that
all biochemic values are moving towards normalcy. Even for allopathic
doctors with emphasis on biochemistry, pathology and microbiology
there is a need to consult the specialists to make sure that the case
is getting better. Some people seem to improve symptomatically whereas
the condition keeps on worsening and hence the danger just depending
on symptoms to diagnose and manage a case...any thing verifiable
should be objectively verified...
If from homeopathy if we pose that we know everything that is there
to know and call the rest who practice differently as mongrels I do
not think it is good. And for what? Accepting allopathic infectious
causation of diseases?
Allopaths call homeopaths 'quacks'... and "classical" homeopaths would
call the "lesser" homeopaths "mongrels"- so on and so forth -Either we
set down practice guidelines for the profession - one way or other- or
accept that there are different principles of prescribing and the
method that we hold close to our heart is only one of many and shut up
about the rest....
Top-dog, under-dog mentality persists everywhere and is a sign of
humanity and pecking order -I guess...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote: