Germ theory [was: Have anyone found a genus of the Indian variety of Swine Flu ?

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Joy,

I guess you find it more entertaining to reply to your own version of what you want to pretend I have said, rather than just addressing what I've said....

Of course I know all about susceptibility; of course I give primary importance to the "terrain" rather than the "bugs". Of course I am not "promoting A/Bs instead of homeopathy". All of that is a given, and if you were reading and writing *honestly*, I would not even have to say it, since you already *know* that I know all of that.

Of course I know about "beneficial bacteria." And of course what the article said was not "some bacteria are beneficial"; it said that *no* bacteria (or other microorganisms) cause disease, that they are *all* beneficial. That is a very different statement, would you agree?

So tell me this: Are you in agreement with the article, that
(a) bacteria cannot live outside of their host, and so cannot be spread, and
(b) no bacteria are harmful?

Now tell me this:
Would you agree that if we accept these two statements as true, we have wiped away

a) all of miasms theory
b) all basis for using or understanding nosodes (if they can't cause disease, how could they cure it?)
c) all of Hahnemann's observations (not to mention public health measures) regarding disease being caused by "excessively small" organisms--what phrase did he use again, I'm sure you remember...

Don't you think this type of article is just a touch "anti-Hahnemannian", to borrow your on phrase? If not, please explain why you believe it is not.

If you agree with me that it is, then please explain why you feel that this particular anti-Hahnemannianism is more appropriate for this list than were the other topics you so gleefully shot down recently?

In the past I had asked Sheri whether she personally would be willing to test and demonstrate her own belief that "bacteria are always beneficial" by doing this or that personal experiment--eating rotted meat, or some such. She never did reply to that. So I ask the same of you. Take a nice, clean piece of meat, cover to keep off flies etc., let stand a week or so in a warm place--would you eat it? Why or why not?

Shannon

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

What is wrong with the flies? They add more flavour! Yum Yum!!

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Shannon & Bob Nelson
Sent: 12 August 2009 12:18
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] "Germ theory" [was: Re: Have anyone found a genus of the Indian variety of Swine Flu ?
Hi Joy,

I guess you find it more entertaining to reply to your own version of what you want to pretend I have said, rather than just addressing what I've said....

Of course I know all about susceptibility; of course I give primary importance to the "terrain" rather than the "bugs". Of course I am not "promoting A/Bs instead of homeopathy". All of that is a given, and if you were reading and writing *honestly*, I would not even have to say it, since you already *know* that I know all of that.

Of course I know about "beneficial bacteria." And of course what the article said was not "some bacteria are beneficial"; it said that *no* bacteria (or other microorganisms) cause disease, that they are *all* beneficial. That is a very different statement, would you agree?

So tell me this: Are you in agreement with the article, that
(a) bacteria cannot live outside of their host, and so cannot be spread, and
(b) no bacteria are harmful?

Now tell me this:
Would you agree that if we accept these two statements as true, we have wiped away

a) all of miasms theory
b) all basis for using or understanding nosodes (if they can't cause disease, how could they cure it?)
c) all of Hahnemann's observations (not to mention public health measures) regarding disease being caused by "excessively small" organisms--what phrase did he use again, I'm sure you remember...

Don't you think this type of article is just a touch "anti-Hahnemannian", to borrow your on phrase? If not, please explain why you believe it is not.

If you agree with me that it is, then please explain why you feel that this particular anti-Hahnemannianism is more appropriate for this list than were the other topics you so gleefully shot down recently?

In the past I had asked Sheri whether she personally would be willing to test and demonstrate her own belief that "bacteria are always beneficial" by doing this or that personal experiment--eating rotted meat, or some such. She never did reply to that. So I ask the same of you. Take a nice, clean piece of meat, cover to keep off flies etc., let stand a week or so in a warm place--would you eat it? Why or why not?

Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

You could eat rotten meat and we'll see what happens, and then I'll do it and see what happens and then a 100 people do and see what happens - for some it will be nothing, for others it will produce sx - susceptibility, the same with all chronic disease - (germs) they'll bite if susceptible but if not they won't and thus will be 'harmless'.

I take it then that you do know this

http://www.wholehealthnow.com/homeopath ... ms-01.html
But overall I have no idea what you know about or don't know about I can only go from what you write here sometimes, I take nothing as a given from you. Your question was about what happens when A/B are given, and that is what I answered, nothing else, if you care to read it properly! I didn't think we needed a course in chronic disease though.

I note also your 'bad mouthing' is still in evidence!

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

[Shannon Nelson]

)
I included that because I assume Joy's next remarks would be about "toxins." Keeping flies off leaves nothing thru but microorganisms! I'm with you, tho; if all the little guys are friendly, why not get the added protein and crunch of flies?
________________________________

[Shannon Nelson]

Ah, "they'll bite if susceptible." So you are acknowledging that they can "bite"--I'm relieved... At least you are applying critical thinking to *parts* of the article.

Re the link you sent, yes of course I know David's work--as you know perfectly well, contrary to your claims about not knowing what I know.

My question about what happens when ABs are given goes directly to the question of whether or not microorganisms can be harmful, which is the main point of the article you submitted. I find it interesting that you did not answer the question.

By my "bad mouthing" do you mean my questions?
If you are going to submit such articles as this--making claims which are not only potentially damaging to our clients, but also completely misrepresent the teachings of Hahnemann and homeopathy, and leave us open to well-deserved scorn and ridicule (as opposed to the undeserved varieties we already have to contend with), then to evidence any degree of carefulness or honestly, you must answer these questions, which I will post here again. If you are seriously intending to stand behind that article, I feel that you owe it to yourself (protect your integrity) and to us (not to lead the students, lurkers and trolls astray as to what are the principles of homeopathy) to give these answer.

I wrote:
Thanks for answering,
Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

I hope you are not mocking cultures that eat a variety of insects

There are rubrics that cover 'fear of dirt' and 'fear of contagious infection' and the like. So many, mainly western? cultures have this preoccupation and fear, even obsession with dirt, germs and what they may or may not do - it makes you wonder what micro-organism was responsible for instilling that eons ago - Syphilis?

Joy

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

[Shannon Nelson]

And the obsession with germs is of course an entirely separate matter.
I am not asking you whether some people (or cultures) are obsessed with them.
What I am asking is for you to answer specific questions regarding your (and Sheri's) posting of that article and similar ones, which claim that *no* microorganisms are *ever* harmful. That is the part that I feel needs to be specifically and directly addressed by anyone posting or promoting such articles.
________________________________

[Joy Lucas]

I did answer your question - it was about what is happening when A/B are administered.. The 'biting' refers to susceptibility, which comes first though - now you tell me that in your school maam words that you used.

The efforts behind that article is all about how propaganda is used to detract from the dangers of vaccines and the analogy used (the one you don't like re: germs) is about blaming something else. The whole point about that article is the dangers of vaccines and the role they played in something as devastating as the so called Spanish 'Flu. Some people (homeopaths) are still trying to treat the outcome of such a massive health endangerment, generations on. It is hugely important to our understanding of some health concerns in various communities. If you were European you might understand that more! You cannot and will not see this because you feel like fighting. You really are manipulative and unpleasant. And there is no need for me to answer in any other way until you see fit to be nicer. What happened to your other list activity, gone quiet or something?

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

[Shannon Nelson]

Joy wrote:

I did answer your question - it was about what is happening when A/B are administered..

Shannon: Sorry then, I must have missed a post. What is it you are saying happens, that leads to the person’s recovery? Are you saying that A/B satisfy susceptibility, or is it a different mechanism that you propose for their action?

Joy: The 'biting' refers to susceptibility, which comes first though - now you tell me that in your school maam words that you used.

Shannon: Yes, I got that too. I have no argument with that at all—the point under dispute, and the only point I have had under dispute in this thread, is the article’s position that: “Germs can’t live apart from the cells (host) and can’t do harm anyway, even if they wanted to. They have no teeth to bite anyone, no poison pouches like snakes, mosquitoes or bees, and do not multiply, except in decomposed substances, so they are helpless to harm. As stated before, their purpose is useful, not destructive.”
Do you agree with that statement? Note it does not say that susceptibility is the greater issue; it says that germs can’t do harm, and that in fact they are “helpless to harm.” The author states that sanitary measures are useless, for that reason.
Do you agree with that position? A simple “yes” or “no” would be a great start!

Joy: The efforts behind that article is all about how propaganda is used to detract from the dangers of vaccines
Shannon: That part I have no argument with.

Joy: and the analogy used (the one you don't like re: germs) is about blaming something else.

Shannon: Excuse me, Joy, but it was not an analogy, it was a statement. She said, “Germs … can’t do harm anyway [and] their purpose is useful, not destructive.” Of course that is the case sometimes, with certain microorganisms, but that is not what she is claiming. My objection is with making it a blanket claim!
And in fact Sheri has posted many articles in the past (I’m pretty sure you were on the list during those periods), by Sherry Tenpenny and others whose names I don’t remember, making the same claim—that microorganisms are never harmful, but only beneficial. I feel this is a really dangerous claim from the standpoint of protecting our patients, and also that it would really smear the reputation of homeopathy if people associate it with us. It also goes directly against Hahnemann’s teaching.

Joy: The whole point about that article is the dangers of vaccines and the role they played in something as devastating as the so called Spanish 'Flu. Some people (homeopaths) are still trying to treat the outcome of such a massive health endangerment, generations on. It is hugely important to our understanding of some health concerns in various communities.

Shannon: Please note again, that while there is much in the article that I’m not able to evaluate the truth of, the only part of it that I know to be untrue, and the only part I am disputing, is the claim that microorganisms are never harmful, and always beneficial. This was not given as an “analogy”, it was stated as a fact. If you missed that part, I invite you to re-read the article, and my relevant posts, more carefully.
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Sheri,

Then you aren't disputing that hygiene measures such as preparing and storing food properly, washing hands, covering coughs and sneezes, and drinking clean water are useful? That is the thing that's had me in a twitch. I don't mind if the blame is put on toxins produced by bacteria, rather than on the bacteria themselves; I think it is a more complicated story than that, but that's sufficient for current purposes, IMO.

Are you also in agreement that using measures specifically to kill off pathogens (bacteria, parasites, whatever) can be useful and even lifesaving--acknowledging that it would be preferable, when possible, to strengthen and support the body to do the work itself; but acknowledging that this is not always possible with available tools?

Shannon