Possibly Naive Question

[Irene de Villiers]

Oh but then you are not using the right dosing approach.
To heal a burnt finger, you start with the cold water running. You
only GRADUALLY increase the water temperature - completely
painlessly - if there is pain you are getting an aggravation from too
high temperature dose.
So next time, do it starting with cold water, to remove the
maintaining cause - the actual burn-heat,
And then start the "remedy" part with slightly less cold water, and
then gradually increase temperature. There is never pain.
It takes maybe 5 to 15 mins depending on the severity of burn.

This illustrated so many homeopaThy principles!
* Removing maintaining cause.
* Using minimum dose to avoid aggravations
* Law of Similars
* Long-term cure.
* Quick cure.
* Gentle method.

With ice:
* You are removing maintaining cause and then you are suppressing
the symptoms while you wait for your body to heal itself, not helped
by any remedy.
* You WILL get more tissue damage as there is no healing help.
* It will take a lot longer to heal.
You can not have used the right approach with the homeopathy one, or
you would not have experienced pain.
Homeopathy is by definition gentle, fast cure.
But it is still not instant - you need to use a dosing approach that
does NOT aggravate (pain is aggravation)
Allopathy did not heal here, the ice only removes maintaining cause
and suppresses nerve messages during normal healing.
(Sometimes that is a good thing to do)
The healing was not assisted in any way - nor suppressed - by the
ice
Acupuncture can be either allopathic/suppressive/palliative OR
curative. It depends how it is used.
But it is not right to characterize acupuncture as allopathic.
Again it depends how it is used. When it inadvertently uses the Law
of Similars - it works.
For example if hyperactive kids are given caffeine (as in Coke or
coffee etc), it helps them (by the Law of Similars)
If an allopathic medicine (like ice for a burned finger) suppresses
a maintaining cause (like burning heat energy) while the body heals
itself, that is beneficial but the cure is not caused by the drug (ice).
No but it often needs to undo the damage of other more damaging methods.
It's important to know when to use what - especially if a homeopathic
option is not currently available.

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."

[Irene de Villiers]

Oh that's interesting - being an old folk remedy I mean.
I had never heard of it
I thought TCM was the use of herbs - which can be allopathic but also
can be nutritional, drainage, detox, etc which is not allopathic.
Allopathic involves "contraries" and nutrition, drainage, detox etc
is not contrary

I can not defend acupunture more that what I already stated as my
opinion as I am not trained in acupuncture.
However i have seen the results and i am caredfjul in client cases
gto ask that any acupuncture used be directed towards cure of the
chronic issues (not allopathy) and not as palliation (allopathic).
The acupuncturists seemed to think I was making sense!
Or maybe they were just being polite:-)

Looking at Touch For Health - another system that uses the meridians
and acupuncture points (though it stimulates by massage not needles)
which I have studied to some extent, I would again say that it is not
allopathic when correctly used towards the chronic illness.
In fact the last time I ever wheezed due to asthma, was the day
before a Touch for Health treatment of many hours, and next morning I
woke to my surprise with no asthma. The practitioner did not know I
had asthma by the way. It was permanently cured.
How can that be allopathic?
That is allopathic yes.
But how do you relate that to acupuncture.
I do not think I said it was the "only" - though it is one I know
about for now.
There are always new things to discover.
Touch for Health also can cure that I know of, so can Reiki, Bach
essences, and a number of other energy systems.
However *so far* I see homeopathy curing amazingly deep issues, which
tends to impress me:-)

Namaste,
Ifrene
--
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."

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Irene,
Ypou are right - I did not use it the way you described. It is an old
folk method here (the heat I mean) but ot the increasing of
temperature.

I'll try your way the next time.
Possibly - you know more about it, so I will not contradict. But I did
not mean that.

Yes it is. The principle in TCM , i.e. not only acupuncture, is
allopathic in the sense that allopathic was used at Hahnemann's time:
"contraria contraribus curantur". You cool the heat, warm the cold,
fill up emptiness, take away from fullness to get to a state of
individual!! balance.

It definitely can be palliative - whether it can also be suppressive,
I doubt. (I doubt this also for homeoopathic remedies, as those people
know who have been with me on the lists for a long time:-)
There again: I doubt it. I agree that the homeopathic principle is a
law of nature - I do not agree that it necessarily is the only law of
nature that may apply to cure.
I agree with that.

Regards

Luise

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[jill1313]

Thank you all for your continuing interesting discussion related to my original question. I do think it is of serious concern because of what this Heilkunstler is saying. If I did not have your input I would be perturbed. This morning I got *this* email in answer to my attempted clarifications:

"Classical homeopathy works with some and not in others. Classicists get the right remedy 10-15% of the time. (Admitted by Sankaran at a conference in Toronto.) Heilkunst is pretty much 90-95% or so, but people have no concept of that so it is hard to explain."

Since she just graduated, I assume she learned all this during her training program there. And she clearly believes it 100%. To suggest that regular classical homeopaths get it wrong 90% of the time, while Heilkunstlers for some reason get it right 90% of the time, is of serious concern. This is being taught to her, and she also made every statement as one of fact not opinion. So did her teacher. There is no sense that people have flexible and different approaches. And there is some kind of, not exactly arrogance being reflected in what she's been taught and is parroting but I'd almost say a grandiosity that is troubling to me and I suspect comes from the source, about whom I myself know nothing--Rudy Verspoor. IE I don't blame this new homeopath as she believes what she's been taught. This is sad because there may be something valuable in Heilkunst but I don't want to venture anywhere near such dogmatism and grandiosity.

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:

[Carol Orr]

A friend burned herself on a curling iron on the palm of her hand. Within 30
minutes of doing this she was at my house and i put some calendula tincture in
very hot water and put her hand in there. Pain gone in two minutes. Scar gone
in a couple of days. Three years later she gets a burn on her arm from curling
iron. She puts calendula tincture on there..no hot water. Takes a year for the
scar to go away.

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Irene,
No. TCM is the abbreviation for "Traditional Chinese Medicine", which
includes herbs, acupuncture, massage, diet and a lot of others.

I have never used herbs, since I do not know enough about them and
they have more potential for doing damage than AP. The way my teacher
explained it: AP by itself supports the tendency for homeostasis, so
there is barely any danger of doing damage. And even may do good where
not indicated - something like healthy people doing provings, I guess.

So using herbs you should REALLY know what you are doing - which
latter is rare in the West. After all, in China TCM is a full course
of study equivalent to our university training for MD's - so unless
someone has studied the full course in China we are all somewhat
lacking - more or less.

So I stuck to acupuncture and tried to make my deficits less:-)

which can be allopathic but also

Not homeopathic either, though:-)

Well, it is just as in homeopathy. Its *principle* is similariy, diet,
nutrition etc. are not really in its scope (although e. g. Shannon
thinks that the action must be somehow based on similarity in order to
have an effect (?).

In TCM the *principle* is contraria,, with reservations as above. One
difference: TCM would never insist on this principle. They see it as a
"model of thought" that has evolved and found good to work with. TCM
is pragmatic, not at all dogmatic (there are schools that are dogmatic
- but they are a Western annex, so to speak:-)
Well, to me it does make sense to a degree. Of course, in a chronic
case or general treatment, a longish course of sessions on the basis
of a thorough (TCM) case taking and re-evaluation at every session is
preferable and often necessary for success. But there is no
contra-indication to work for palliation - either of acutes or to
improve the chronic state as much as possible for the patient, where a
full treatment is not possible or where the therapist does not really
know enough to work that way.

TCM is actually much harder for us than homeopathy - we have to change
our thinking to such a degree, especially those of us who have a good
basic knowledge of Western physiology, pathology. When I did advance
training at an acupuncture college in the USA I often envied the US
students, who knew practically nothing about Western medicine. I had
so much to "unlearn", which they did not.

Well, it may bolster my contention that allopathy can cure?:-)

Because that is what you do in acupuncture!

If there should be interest, I can say more about it on beyondhom. For
this list I have already, with the above, skrted the outer limits, I
suppose.
Right - and so can regular med. Again a topic for the other list,
perhaps.

Same here - or I would not be here:-)

Regards

Luise

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

There seems to be a lot of both "bad blood" and general
misunderstanding between the Heilkunst crowd and the classical crowd.
Personally I've only a scanty understanding of the issues--and prefer
not to get involved in the conflict!--but here's my take:
As a starting point, we'd need to know just what's meant by "the right
remedy." The fact that she is quoting Sankaran is revealing, as his
standard for "the right remedy" is extremely high!! His idea of "the
right remedy" is the one that will completely unlock the case, and
begin the person on a deep and profound healing journey, healing the
mind, body. I wonder if Heilkunst shares that same goal for the first
remedy given?

And BTW, I would bet that the other 85% of Sankaran's first efforts are
not useless remedies; they're simply remedies that don't work *as
deeply* as what his high standard calls for, and so he changes the
remedy as a closer fit becomes apparent to him.

Personally, when I (or I assume most homeopaths) give a remedy, I know
it is not likely to be their one-and-only remedy, the answer to all
their problems; my prescribing is not that precise, and my knowledge of
materia medica is not extensive enough. But I do *fully* expect (and
usually achieve) that the remedy will be *useful*, and that the
progress of the case over time will be an upswing.

I know that Heilkunst has given people good results (but not everyone).
I know also that classical approach has given people good results (but
not everyone).

My conclusion is that the only people really *qualified* to make
comparison between the two methods, are those (few) people who have
actually *practiced* both methods. (Having "studied" Method A as part
of the curriculum at a school for Method B most emphatically does not
count! )
Yep, doesn't count for an opinion!
Apples and oranges...
I would love to hear, tho, what her definition of "getting it right"
is--what does that mean to her?
Yep, and we meet the same rigid attitudes on the "classical" side of
the fence. My opinion--ignore all the "opinions", and study cases and
case outcomes. *That* is where the useful information would be.
I with you on that!
(Whether he's more "dogmatic and grandiose" than Hahnemann was...
Unfortunately it does seem to run rampant in our field. And
personally, I think that is is, was, and continues to be destructive.
Oh well...)
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Carol, that's a *great* little "case study"! Thanks--hot water it is!
)

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Jill,

Why don't you ask your friend whether she would not like to post on
the "beyondhomeopathy" list.

I think there are several people reading and posting there who might
like to know more about Heilkunst,

I know I should. Long years ago there was some discussion on the
Lyghtforce list. But then all the Heilkunst people left.

I think a discussion, in a mutually respectful way - which is
required on beyondhomeopathy -, of the claims and counterclaims of
Heilkunst and classical homeopaths would be very beneficial - both
parties would learn.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[tg.partington]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote: