Homeopathic pharmacist reponsibilities

[Irene de Villiers]

On the contrary, this is an incorrect assumption you have made.

I have the greatest respect for the principles of homeopathy per
Hahnemann, and use them all the time, and teach them as well.
The fact that I wish to do as he did and continue to expand on the
use of the principles where appropriate, does not change that.
On the contrary again. My policy is not to use ego. I find that if I
leave that at home, then it is not out there to be walked on, or to
get in the way of finding what is best for the client's animal
On the contrary again.
The principles of homeopathy which I value, dictate that the remedy
match the symptoms of the individual. That is homeopathic, not
"antagonistic" (Allopathic?) as you put it.
They still do.
They work to make what remedies are needed.
It is not their sphere to do more or less.
If they choose to help a prover, that is separate from pharmacy work.
more power to themQ
But it is not part of being a homeopathic pharmacist.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Joy Lucas]

You frequently step outside Hahnemannian methods, and although I read few of your posts your main aim seems to be to implant non Hahnemannian methods such as encouraging using non proven remedies. You say you aim to match sx similarity but you certainly cannot do that with unproven rx.

Wouldn't it have been fantastic for an anti Hahnemannian to have said, 'yes it would be great for the pharmacies to extend their responsibilities to work as a cohesive whole and be careful about what they sell to the general public, and to make sure I will always have my little experiment substances proven (to keep in line with Hahnemann's methods)' but you had to call it policing instead, strange concept imo.

We also hear from anti Hanemannians a great deal about how his homeopathy fails but their own version of it miraculously wins the day as well as 'I am sure Hahnemann would have gone on to do what I am doing' (or allusions to that) - if that isn't an ego trip I don't know what is. As Hahnemann left it, it is near perfect, you just have to find the simillimum not re-invent his methods and alter them. It is never homeopathy that is the problem, just the practitioners - homeopathy is only as good as the practitioner and when we succeed we are the best but when we fail we are next to useless. Expanding on his methods is completely unnecessary and it = antagonistic to his work. If you are expanding then it isn't Hahnemannian it is de Villiers and we don't know what that is.
Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

[Liz Brynin]

Joy writes:"You frequently step outside Hahnemannian methods, and although I read few of your posts your main aim seems to be to implant non Hahnemannian methods such as encouraging using non proven remedies. You say you aim to match sx similarity but you certainly cannot do that with unproven rx."
Joy - with respect, I don't think you can accuse Irene of being anti-Hahnemannian simply because she tries non-proven remedies. You have to start somewhere - even Hahnemann did! And a lot of our knowledge about some of the big polychrests comes from crude poisonings - so it is a fair assumption that some of the crude medicinal effects will remain in the potentised substance, but without the dangers of the crude substance. So you could attempt to match symptom similarity in that way if there is no proving. Why not try it?

I know that, faced with a difficult situation, Irene will try whatever she thinks will help - yet at the same time, she is a ferocious proponent of Hahnemannian principles.

The aim in healing is to help - not blindly stick to the known and trusted. Desperate situations call for desperate measures - and that way we learn new things. When symptoms are relieved by a new remedy, that is more knowledge to add to our database. Refusing to try a non-proven remedy when there is no alternative is just plain silly.

Liz

[Irene de Villiers]

Since you read almost none of my posts by your own admission, I shall
forgive you for getting the wrong end of the stick completely.
In future - Perhaps you need to read them before making incorrect
and sweeping misstatements about my practice of homeopathy? How'd you
like it if *your* views were being misrepresented?;
A complete misrepresentation. I have never encouraged any such thing
and do not appreciate being misrepresented.
I suggest you retract it.
Since you are responding to MY email and I am not anti-hahnemannian,
you can retract that too.
Joy I am happy to hear your views on homeopathy but not your
misrepresentations of my views.
My views are clearly stated in my emails and do not deserve
misrepresentqtion.
Hopefully the list owner will ask you to retract all this email (and
quote ME or whomever in future) when you make statements intended to
damage someone's well earned and good reputation.
Simple fact is not ego: Hahnemann had SIX editions of the Organon.
Who are we to say there would not have been a 7th if he lived longer.
ANY science that wants to be viable has to grow and improve. That
includes homeopathy.
Not everyone has to work on additions to the system, but as with any
other science, a few at least will. do so.
It is exceptionally good, especially for the work of a single person
in one lifetime, but good things can be added to, and become even
better. It's not ego-related to add something new, it's simply
advancement of the science. But even if someone was proud of an
addition that would not make it less useful as an enhancement to the
system:-)
What do you have against someone being proud of good results? Nobody
in their right mind is ashamed of good results - and we DO want
development by folks in their right mind I would think:-)
If you personally prefer not to have any new development, then by all
means try hard to stick to what was known in 1934 or whenever your
cutoff occurred. But it then will not address things that occurred
subsequently to create new miasms for example.
I have constantly stated that I DO use the principles, and that those
I have not reinvented or altered.
The principles stand.
How to use them can be ADDED to.
New principles can also be added.
Your view not mine.
I see a lot of problems, including new toxins and methods of
allopathy, that cause new diseases to deal with.
This seems to contradict your statements about me.
I have succeeded. So does that make my use of homeopathy good then
after all?
Maybe in YOUR work.
In mine it is necessary.
No. Expanding is something added. It detracts nothing from the
original (which is still in use) and can not be antagonistic as the
original is in full use, along with the added aspects.
I agree. I use both the Hahnemann aspects developed by Hahnemann and
my own findings using those principles - and the techniques are then
added (not replacing) those principles for which we are indebted to
Hahnemann.
I do not apologize fro adding new approaches to get "incurable cases"
back to health.
It is hardly logical to suggest that nobody deserves to get success
because they do not sit on their hands about supposedly "incurable
diseases" when a pure Hahnemannian approach will not cure them.

I do not retract any or my successes, nor do I apologize for using
what I learned from Hahnemann's work and without which I could not
have made the added progress.. If you want to call my *added*
techniques "de Villiers" that's fine with me (if you know anything
about them, since they are as yet unpublished apart from one article
in hpathy).
Just please be sure you know enough about my work to critique the
work I actually do, and not some invention of your own that I do not
do, as seems to have been the case in THIS email. Nobody needs to be
criticized from something they do NOT do. I am happy with ALL
criticism of anything I DO do.
On email lists it would help if you please quote what you are
criticizing instead of (incorrectly) paraphrasing it.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Newton and Pascal introduced modern physics, and left it almost perfect.
Then came Einstein and his school, introducing relativity, and left physics almost perfect.
The little gaps called "almost" intrigued Bohr, Fermi, Heisenberg, Hahn, who introduced quantum theory and left physics almost perfect....
Then came Stephen Hawkins.............and more will come.
It is called standing on the shoulders of geniuses, not reinventing the wheel...............
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for articles and information.

[Shannon Nelson]

And physicists don't fight over who has the right to the name!

[Irene de Villiers]

< Refusing to try a non-proven remedy when there is no alternative is
just plain silly.

In principle perhaps, but I have never used an unproven remedy on an
ill animal and do not foresee ever doing so at this point.
My supposedly doing so, was entirely Joy's invention.

....Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Sheri Nakken]

but still working with laws and principles
What new principles have been discovered for homeopathy?
Sheri

At 04:14 PM 5/28/2009, you wrote:
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start May 20 & 21

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

In both, the problem is not with the basic laws and principles but with what is perceived of them and how they are applied.
You do not need quantum physics to build a house or a car or a plane, but their rules still apply, whether you see them or not.
I see that right now with the Fibonacci Series Potencies; it is not new, the Fibonacci series has been around since the 14th century but the Golden Rate has been used since antiquity...........now that I have applied this to the homeopathic potencies, I see a world of difference in the quality of results, often with "well indicated remedies that did not act". Anyway, more details will soon be published with the 1 year update.
Nevertheless, a few remarks I received privately were that there was no need for yet another method of administration, that I should not try to improve on H's master work, who do I think I am, and so on.........all that from people who have not even bothered to read the seminal paper....just the fact that something even appears different implies automatic condemnation.
Not that I care or give a rat's gluteus maximus about those comments and opinions; at least the world of physics, and chemistry and of homeopathy partially can see that when there are some discrepancies between facts and theory, the facts are always right and the theory must be amended, something that conventional medicine does not see, trying to bend the facts to fit the theory.......as do some homeopaths.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for articles and information.

[Shannon Nelson]

That depends who you ask!
Some say that as soon as you add anything "new" to it, it's not
homeopathy any more.
Others say that adding certain things makes the homeopathy even more
homeopathic. Very much the same sort of situation, IMO.