BFR

[Roger B]

And, so, since we are in the midst of homeopathic philosophy, how does Bach Flower Remedies work and where does it fit in the pantheon of homeopathy?

I have used BFR, so I know that they work.

Roger

[John Harvey]

Roger -- as, I'm certain, you already know well -- homoeopathy relies upon both knowledge of the totality of symptoms of the person being prescribed for and knowledge of the symptomatology of the competing candidate medicines under consideration; and Bach flower remedies cannot be prescribed on such a basis, since no such knowledge of their symptomatology exists.

The short answer to your question, then, is that Bach flower remedies are irrelevant to homoeopathy, which relies upon knowledge of the entirety of the symptomatology of the person being prescribed for. But you already knew this.

So why did you ask?

Kind regards,

John

[Roger B]

Why did I ask? Because y'all are more than just homeopaths. You are also curious and compassionate human beings, and I figured if anyone had applied any thought to the matter, y'all would and would come up with some good answers. But it looks like I have to do all of the heavy lifting around here, so today I will reserve part of my mind to the matter..

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Sun, 21 Jul 2013 17:08:44 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR
Roger -- as, I'm certain, you already know well -- homoeopathy relies upon both knowledge of the totality of symptoms of the person being prescribed for and knowledge of the symptomatology of the competing candidate medicines under consideration; and Bach flower remedies cannot be prescribed on such a basis, since no such knowledge of their symptomatology exists.

The short answer to your question, then, is that Bach flower remedies are irrelevant to homoeopathy, which relies upon knowledge of the entirety of the symptomatology of the person being prescribed for. But you already knew this.

So why did you ask?

Kind regards,

John
--

.
"What is ironic here is that what is being held out as a justification for high regulation and compliance in the area of Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc, is public safety and risk. Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products… The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is—of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles."
—D.W. Bain, Report to IM Health Trust: Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc., Lamb, Bain & Laubscher, New Zealand, viewed Feb 20 2013, (emphasis added).

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

BFR have nothing to do with homeopathy!
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger B
Sent: 21 July 2013 02:52
To: Homeopathy minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] BFR
And, so, since we are in the midst of homeopathic philosophy, how does Bach Flower Remedies work and where does it fit in the pantheon of homeopathy?

I have used BFR, so I know that they work.

Roger

[Roger B]

I feel that I risk getting banned if I contradict you. But remember that I said that I have no fear.

BFR is very similar to homeopathy. 1st, they are both very edgy health practices that even most alternative health people will turn their nose up at for similar reasons. Among those reasons is that materialistic scientists can't find any physical substance in them I propose that the preparation of both homeopathy and BFR alter prana at the same "level". Of course, whatever alteration to the prana is going be more different than the alteration between different homeopathic remedies.

And I do not think that the question should be whether BFR has anything to do with homeopathy. I think that the question should be, are homeopaths in the best position to understand BFR and to use BFR in their practices to help suffering people. Or are homeopaths going to hide in their admittedly massive box and not go out and learn other things, closely related things I am suggesting.

Reading posts here, I have already seen advice about nutrition that I disagree with, and I can assure you that I know far more about nutrition than I do about homeopathy, BFR, and TCM. So, I think that homeopaths, who I gladly admit have the supreme healing, can still learn and still learn from non-homopaths like me.

Respectfully submitted,

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: finrod@finrod.co.uk
Date: Mon, 22 Jul 2013 12:25:16 +0100
Subject: RE: [Minutus] BFR
BFR have nothing to do with homeopathy!
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger B
Sent: 21 July 2013 02:52
To: Homeopathy minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] BFR
And, so, since we are in the midst of homeopathic philosophy, how does Bach Flower Remedies work and where does it fit in the pantheon of homeopathy?

I have used BFR, so I know that they work.

Roger

[Hennie Duits]

Would you say that singing bowls, meditation, Baunscheidt, acupuncture
etc. are also very similar to (classical) homeopathy?

Hennie

Op 22-7-2013 19:28, Roger B schreef:

[Roger B]

singing bowls >> don't know anything about them, but I like to listen to them; does that count?

meditation >> classical homeopathy goes much deeper immediately, but meditation can eventually go very deep; and a quieted mind can do wonders for body, mind, and spirit.

Baunscheidt >> I will have to go investigate that one; I know zip about it, never heard of it before.

acupuncture >> Not as deep as homeopathy, and much more expensive, but nevertheless useful.

Roger

[John Harvey]

Roger, the question that began this was: "where does it [Bach flower remedies] fit in the pantheon of homeopathy?"; and it seems that you're already aware that it is not and can never be "in" homoeopathy. The ducking and weaving to introduce other sideshows is all very amusing, but it turns rather simple matters into extended, complex debates to no purpose other than possibly to annoy.

Let's first establish that both you and those responding to you in fact knows that homoeopathy rests squarely upon a rounded knowledge of both patient and medicinal symptoms and that that basis is not useable in these other practices. In that light, all of us recognise that homoeopathy is utterly distinct from dietary and nutritional practice [without reflection either upon its intrinsic value or upon its value in removing obstacles to cure], meditation; acupuncture; and Bach flower remedies.

Remaining clear about the difference between these practices and homoeopathy and discarding a nonsense question about where they fit in the pantheon of homoeopathy, we can then proceed to entirely useful questions about the possible value of these practices in a context of homoeopathic treatment. But whilever we seem to be pursuing a phantom question of how any of them fit in the pantheon of homoeopathy, we'll find ourselves talking at cross-purposes as has so often occurred on this list in particular due to exactly this confusion of assumptions.

In this regard, when you recognise that your question has been accurately answered, rather than simply throw confusing side-issues in as though they were relevant, it would be helpful if you acknowledged that the question has been answered and put your new question as a distinct question. Otherwise, whereas in fact it's clear that you understand all this, your poor communication risks making you look like a fool unable to discern homoeopathy from anything else at all. We've had enough discussions already in which participants painted themselves in exactly that way through similar confusion as to what the topic was.

Kind regards,

John

[Roger B]

John,

I am not trying to annoy. I am trying to provoke people like you to include in your thinking other things. So when I used the word "pantheon", I used a deliberately nebulous word.

"Let's first establish that both you and those responding to you in fact knows that homoeopathy rests squarely upon a rounded knowledge of both patient and medicinal symptoms and that that basis is not usable in these other practices."

Well, that is just not true. Both Ayurveda and BFR are very careful to match their remedy to the patient. They are both constitutional medicine, as is traditional Chinese Medicine (but that is way too complicated for me to discuss while I am trying to pry open y'all's mind.)

If what I have to say is nonsense, then phuck you asshole.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:08:42 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR
Roger, the question that began this was: "where does it [Bach flower remedies] fit in the pantheon of homeopathy?"; and it seems that you're already aware that it is not and can never be "in" homoeopathy. The ducking and weaving to introduce other sideshows is all very amusing, but it turns rather simple matters into extended, complex debates to no purpose other than possibly to annoy.

Let's first establish that both you and those responding to you in fact knows that homoeopathy rests squarely upon a rounded knowledge of both patient and medicinal symptoms and that that basis is not useable in these other practices. In that light, all of us recognise that homoeopathy is utterly distinct from dietary and nutritional practice [without reflection either upon its intrinsic value or upon its value in removing obstacles to cure], meditation; acupuncture; and Bach flower remedies.

Remaining clear about the difference between these practices and homoeopathy and discarding a nonsense question about where they fit in the pantheon of homoeopathy, we can then proceed to entirely useful questions about the possible value of these practices in a context of homoeopathic treatment. But whilever we seem to be pursuing a phantom question of how any of them fit in the pantheon of homoeopathy, we'll find ourselves talking at cross-purposes as has so often occurred on this list in particular due to exactly this confusion of assumptions.

In this regard, when you recognise that your question has been accurately answered, rather than simply throw confusing side-issues in as though they were relevant, it would be helpful if you acknowledged that the question has been answered and put your new question as a distinct question. Otherwise, whereas in fact it's clear that you understand all this, your poor communication risks making you look like a fool unable to discern homoeopathy from anything else at all. We've had enough discussions already in which participants painted themselves in exactly that way through similar confusion as to what the topic was.

Kind regards,

John
--

.
"What is ironic here is that what is being held out as a justification for high regulation and compliance in the area of Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc, is public safety and risk. Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products… The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is—of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles."
—D.W. Bain, Report to IM Health Trust: Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc., Lamb, Bain & Laubscher, New Zealand, viewed Feb 20 2013, (emphasis added).

[John Harvey]

Hi, Roger --

Well, this has clarified something, then: that your understanding of the basis for prescribing Bach flower remedies and for prescribing (if the word is appropriate) ayurvedic treatment differs from mine. My understanding is that no comprehensive knowledge of the pathogenesis of the medicines in either system is required or indeed available. If that's not so, it would certainly be of interest to all of us to known where to find such comprehensive knowledge of these medicines' respective pathogeneses, as that would make them available for homoeopathic use.

Without such information, by the very definition of homoeopathy, no homoeopathic use of them is possible. Are you suggesting otherwise? Is it your view that the definition of homoeopathy is subject to such loosening?

Kind regards,

John
________________________________