Med Proving - was - In defense of secrecy -was HIV AIDS treat

[Theresa Partington]

Dear Shannon,
'Or something', I would say. You have hit on all the various nubs of the issue.
Theresa
Shannon wrote
Subject: Re: [Minutus]Med Proving - was - In defense of "secrecy" -was HIV
AIDS treatments.. .etc
Lost me in the first sentence (what does it *mean* for a remedy to have a
numerical value"? Number of *what*--flies? left turns? electron orbitals?
:-O ), and then again in the third (how on Earth do you convert symptoms
into a "mathematical form"?? Even in e.g. mathematical description of
something intangible like gravity, the numbers refer to *something*, however
abstract...). I'm not saying I dismiss the ideas, only that these are
instances where the "explanation" explains NOTHING! To my poor mind,
anyway. Argh, oh well...
Do you know whether there's a direct(ish) relationship between those
numerical values" and the bullseye patterns--I mean, could you take one, and
necessarily then be able to deduce the other, or does each one begin from
the substance itself? (Or something?)
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

LOL!
Well, I'm glad to hear I'm not nuts for feeling so nutty in the discussion.

[tg.partington]

I do see your point, Didi, and would probably be using this remedy myself with great interest if I was in your shoes. However, in any other area of life professional people expect and are expected to have some idea of the provenance of the materials they are using and how they might be working.
This is why you go to a professional, be it an optician, doctor, dentist, lawyer, builder, architect......This is why we learn pharmacy at college, and go to seminars. A seminar with a list of miracle cures and no explanation would be considered rather inadequate, and rightly so.
And if we went to one of these other professionals and they made a mistake because they hadn't understood what they were doing then we would be indignant, and rightly so.
We are not merely consumers on this list but we are the people who are supposed to be understanding what we are doing as thoroughly as we can in order to best treat others. I accept that not every doctor or builder could write out the molecular structure of each medicine or brick but we owe it to our patients to understand and know as much as possible, as they owe it to their customers/patients to do the same.
Therefore, to be misinformed about how a remedy has been made is quite serious, and not to be told what is in it makes its use problematic. I am sure some builders will do something a certain way because a mate said it would work without understanding why it should and it might be perfectly successful - but it is not an optimal situation and you would expect a certain amount of discussion about it on the builders forums - if they have such a thing!
I sometimes think that taking an issue like this out of the context of homeopathy and asking ourselves, 'how would we feel if...?' helps to clarify situations, for me, at least.

Theresa

[Shannon Nelson]

But does a painter need to know how spackle was made? Or what's in the paint? Yes sometimes you need to know these things; other times you don't need to.
?
Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

A rather ridiculous analogy - you'd want to know what was in your supplements wouldn't you?

Joy
But does a painter need to know how spackle was made? Or what's in the paint? Yes sometimes you need to know these things; other times you don't need to.
?
Shannon

[Lynn Cremona]

If the painter is using a homeopathic remedy and the remedy is the
spackle....Yes !

Lynn
---------------------------------------
Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:
--
Imagine Peace

[Shannon Nelson]

Thanks for the compliment.
My point was that I agree with Didi. Personally, if I were in her position, I too could live with Peter's "secrecy," because she has seen the results--and understands what she's seeing--and knows the alternatives. Peter and his training are not unknown quantities, tho this process of his is.

Using or trusting are a personal choice, obviously, and of course you're free to disagree!

Cheers,
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Well, I'm not going to pursue the argument very far, since I have no personal experience with any of it; I'm only talking theory, and responding to what Didi has been saying. Personally, tho, I have given and taken remedies based only on "name" and "what I read / was told." I've given and taken remedies whose basis seemed thin to me ("Why does he think I need ________?"), and in fact I remember vividly my early years with homeopathy when ALL of it seemed remarkably goofy (I call my homeopath "my favorite witchdoctor").

Anyway, personal choices.

Best wishes,
Shannon

[tg.partington]

Hi Shannon,
As a patient I have had similar experiences - taking things on trust and not fully understanding why I had been given what. And in many areas of life I trust other people to know what they are doing because you can't be an expert in everything. However, in homeopathy we are the ones who are the ones who are supposed to be the experts and people probably assume that we know what remedy we are giving them ansomething about it.
Theresa
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

I don't want to argue it any further, have said all I set out to!
Best wishes,
Shannon