Pesticides/Polio

[Shannon Nelson]

Wow, this gives me an Alice-In-Wonderland feeling...
If you weren't saying that, then I have no idea what you *were* trying to say, when you talked repeatedly and at length about bacteria and viruses just being there to do a job, and maybe messengers, etc. If you *weren't* saying they don't ("in a susceptible person") cause injury, then what the heck *were* you trying to say?

[Sheri Nakken]

At 05:38 PM 3/4/2010, you wrote:
Shannon, I have tried to explain this for years it seems now - I've
given you tons of links and I don't think you have read any of them
and you give me Wikipedia.
Bacteria are doing a job - and in the process of that job toxins are
released and also when the bacteria die. If you are not a healthy
host you will be affected by those toxins.............
Viruses are also thought by many to be messengers - so kill the
messenger is what is happening.

But there is so much more to bacteria and you will only start to
understand if you read some of the info I've shared over the years.

And that is another issue anyway

Right now I am asking you to show me medical documentation/research
documentation to show that they proved the a virus causes poliomyelitis
You keep diverting it to road kill and on and on.

But you haven't followed through and read anything, so I don't have
time to spend anymore on this with you. If you would read something,
we could have a good discussion and that something is not wikipedia

Sheri

[Shannon Nelson]

Yet your "trying" has often been without answering many of my very specific questions--e.g. when I asked, repeatedly and specifically, whether or not you in fact deny that any microbe ever caused illness, you either made no answer at all, or fudged and answered vaguely. When I asked, then are you willing to drink scummy pond water, contaminated by nothing industrial, but only by what grows there, you did not answer.

You just kept repeating the lines about bacteria "serving a purpose" and maybe they're "messengers", and etc. So what am I supposed to think? The only reasonable conclusion was that you believe, but were not willing to actually state, that no microbe is ever harmful. If you were trying to confine your arguement to certain specific diseases, I gave you plenty of opportunity--no, I practicaloly *begged* you--to say so!
Not quite true, but nearly.
Honestly I'd have been more likely to take time to read more links, if spending less time with this garbage. The few that I did begin to read, I did not find satisfying or credible--but I would in fact like to read more. Unfortunately I have to work instead.
Sigh, as you noted, this was mainstream stuff. You can easily find the same material in other places--as you know. So what the heck is your point now?
Whew, THANK YOU.
Messengers to whom, about what?
Certainly they carry the message that the immune function is low, and needs to be raised.
You know perfectly well that my approach, as yours, when faced with a sick person, is not to run straight tot he store for antibiotics or antivirals, but rather to *raise the immune function*, and etc. (My "etc." is probably different from yours, but similar goals.)

One difference is that I *will* resort to antibiotics if I feel situation truly threatening, and beyond my tools; have had to do so on myself twice, and on one of my kids once.
I sincerely hope to Sheri, and I am not being tongue-in-cheek now.
Whether I will wind up *agreeing* with all you've said--or left me believing that you were saying--I don't know.
I will try to poke around it.
Because of my mistrust that your main point here was really about *polio*, or whether it was back to the (what I believed you to be putting out) idea that "no microbe ever caused any illness". That is the idea that I find abhorrent and irresponsible. Polio per se, well, I have my doubts that any "toxin" theory will explain *all* of the observations...
Great!
I'll get back to you.
Out for the day...

[Joy Lucas]

Yes, because you seem to be failing to comprehend fully the homeopathic/Hahnemannian description of disease.

You were asking earlier why it is thought that germs do not cause disease - so you are well into thinking that it is the fault of the germ (so called), as if it had some intention to do the harm.

If a substance causes harm or sickness to someone then the so called 'contagion' is within the individual, the susceptibility, the disposition, otherwise we would all get ill from the same 'microbe' and it should not apply that the substance is then responsible - it is the individual disposition that is responsible. But you are continuing to supplant the idea about road kill, dirty water, germs and all things you consider to be nasty to be responsible. The western world certainly does have a big fear of dirt and germs and so called contagious substances, you only have to witness the winter fear with regard to 'catching' 'flu - it could even be arguable that the very depth of the fear factor is culpable in causing the susceptibility to emerge - fear being a very important and active catalyst.
Joy

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

[Liz Brynin]

Ok - let's agree to differ - amicably, please:)
we agree too much on other things...
Liz

[Fran Sheffield]

I haven't been following the full drift of this but has anyone commented that:
1. We are still dealing with what happens on the energetic level, not the physical?
2. Microbes have their own Vital Force?
3. It all gets back to similar / dissimilar and weaker / stronger diseases (or Vital Forces)?
4. That a long enough or strong enough exposure can overwhelm the Vital Force of either microbe or human?
--
Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com

[Tanya Marquette]

of course amicably.
tanya

[Joy]

Personally I think Shannon and Liz and maybe others have an allopathic stance on this issue, one that is in evidence, especially in the western world, where the idea that 'germs' are bad for everyone and this helps fuel an intense fear of them and this is one stance that has, in turn, helped the populations accept the damaging notion that vaccinations and antibiotics are the excellent answers to combating said 'germs'. This is a shame because it is not a good premise for homeopathy and it is a 'put aside' for Hahnemannian homeopathy. If it really worked like that we would all be ill most of the time and it is very erroneous promoting homeopathy with an allopathic stance and a great deal of confusion arises when both are mixed up.

In § 11, which I asked Liz to read but I am assuming she won't, Hahnemann clearly states what he thought about so called contagion - that it is conceptual, that it is invisible (dynamically) without anything material but with specific vital energy and can only be communicated (become infectious to another) due to internal susceptibility.

We had a very similar discussion during posts regarding § from the Organon back in August last year - there is no teaching some people so the discussion dies until the next time and it seems hardly worth going further with it for me. As for 'chickens and eggs' didn't Hahnemann refer to it as materia peccans?

Hopefully Soroush will carry on posting § from the Organon soon.

Joy

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Fran Sheffield wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

I will say yet again, I consider it a matter of "shared responsibility", having to do with both microbe and individual; susceptibility and pathogen. I've given my facts in support of that position, and don't feel like repeating myself again. We can pursue this privately if you wish!

Best wishes,
Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Joy,

You are severely misrepresenting what I've said!
- "... germs are bad for everyone..."???? I believe I've repeatedly said something close to the *opposite* of that.

- "intense fear" of germs? That too, I have repeatedly stated approximately the opposite.

- "vaccinations and antibiotics are excellent answers..." Please, you haven't been listening to me! Either that or you are deliberately misrepresenting.

See, this is why I no longer enjoy these "debates." It repeatedly winds up feeling like a trip down the rabbit hole.

'Nuff said, I believe the "teaching points" have all been made, from both "sides".

Shannon