I think it is, as Hahnemann said, that without FIRST getting the environment and nutrition right, and removing mintaining causes (which includes poor nutrition) there can be no effective health building using homeopathy.
Remedies are not stand alone instruments of health. They are instructions without the ingredients. A recipe with no ingredients, makes no food.
Add that to the fact that our world is extremely polluted - including internet-information pollution (such as the extremely biased Clary-sage chart recently presented) - so that the environment is very hard to get right, in order that homeopathy CAN work.
We do need to know how to get that right as homeopaths. Internet pollution is a HUGE factor, and that is what has led us to seek truth in very basic essential nutrition information here.
We have an enormous resource in internet ability to "google" something. But there has been zero education to enable people to JUDGE the value of what they google. Just becasue something is presented as fact on the internet does not mean it has any validity at all. It may be total nonsense. Back in the old days, one did not get to publish rubbish. It was too expensive and one needed a peer review to show the value of information BEFORE it was published. THat is no longer the case. ANYone can post any nonsense on the internet and the gullible public, NOT trained in disseminating fact from fiction, does not know how to judge what is good or bad. They assume good by default without checking.
This misinformation published blindly, ignorantly or with greedy motives is what I see as internet information-pollution, but people are still too naiive to remember that anyone can post any lies anywhere and purport it to be truth, and do it for free, and that they, the reader, NEED to sift the wheat from the chaff.
The clary-sage table posted was a case in point. It was anonymous - which is the first clue to "nonsense on the net". Knowledgeable people stand behind their work, but greed mongerers and vested interests do not stand behind their hype to make greed money.
I spotted it as a fraud immediately, as would anyone who has studied anything at all about fatty acids. Fatty acids are all about DHA, EPA, AA, ALA etc. Yet THOSE are conspicuously absent form the Clary-sage table, becasue if they were poresent, it would immediately tell you to run away from Clary sage as a competitor to fish oil (which WAS implied as fish oil was specifically being compared in the table). Fatty acids are why we choose one fat over another. The problem is that NOT everyone has had such fatty acid study, and they are then not in a position to judge this internet information-pollution to be just that, based on content.
The Clary-sage table is just one example, a current relevant one. Internet information-polluition is a huge stumbling block to progress. My undiplomatic (as one reader put it) views of whoever wrote the table, were not intended to reflect on the person who posted it to the group, who clearly is in the position of most people not knowing how to judge fatty acid information on the internet.
I have only contempt for people who invent deliberately misleading information-pollution. I do not believe any poster here would have invented that Clary-sage chart. Whoever did so, KNEW about fatty acids, and KNEW they were mirepresenting the facts of fat comparisons in the chart. It is THAT which I abhor - and call internet information pollution - and it is THAT kind of intentional misinformation which prevents well meant homeopaths from making progress, and which causes very relevant and important nutrition discussions here, to find the truth to use with patients.
Fatty acids are essential to health. We literally die without the right ones in a decent ratio.
And that applies to ALL species of living thing. It is hardly unimportant to get THAT right in order to do homeopathy as Hahnemann decreed - with the right environment and nutrition.
Mary-Ann, if you are reading this, and anyone else reading it, whatever "research" might have been done on Clary-sage is not relevant when the consequence is such a misrepresentation of relevant facts as the chart depicts. When the conclusions are 100% biased adn incorrect, and clearly deliberately so, then the research has already lost credibility and must also be assumed to be internet information-pollution. GOOD research, always has well presented conclusions with a signature of the proud researcher standing behind them.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Internet pollution - judging value of information on the net ...was homeopathy list or no?
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: Internet pollution - judging value of information on the net ...was homeopathy list or no?
I agree with Irene.
Roger Bird
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:11:20 -0800
Subject: Internet pollution - judging value of information on the net ...was Re: [Minutus] homeopathy list or no?
I think it is, as Hahnemann said, that without FIRST getting the environment and nutrition right, and removing mintaining causes (which includes poor nutrition) there can be no effective health building using homeopathy.
Remedies are not stand alone instruments of health. They are instructions without the ingredients. A recipe with no ingredients, makes no food.
Add that to the fact that our world is extremely polluted - including internet-information pollution (such as the extremely biased Clary-sage chart recently presented) - so that the environment is very hard to get right, in order that homeopathy CAN work.
We do need to know how to get that right as homeopaths. Internet pollution is a HUGE factor, and that is what has led us to seek truth in very basic essential nutrition information here.
We have an enormous resource in internet ability to "google" something. But there has been zero education to enable people to JUDGE the value of what they google. Just becasue something is presented as fact on the internet does not mean it has any validity at all. It may be total nonsense. Back in the old days, one did not get to publish rubbish. It was too expensive and one needed a peer review to show the value of information BEFORE it was published. THat is no longer the case. ANYone can post any nonsense on the internet and the gullible public, NOT trained in disseminating fact from fiction, does not know how to judge what is good or bad. They assume good by default without checking.
This misinformation published blindly, ignorantly or with greedy motives is what I see as internet information-pollution, but people are still too naiive to remember that anyone can post any lies anywhere and purport it to be truth, and do it for free, and that they, the reader, NEED to sift the wheat from the chaff.
The clary-sage table posted was a case in point. It was anonymous - which is the first clue to "nonsense on the net". Knowledgeable people stand behind their work, but greed mongerers and vested interests do not stand behind their hype to make greed money.
I spotted it as a fraud immediately, as would anyone who has studied anything at all about fatty acids. Fatty acids are all about DHA, EPA, AA, ALA etc. Yet THOSE are conspicuously absent form the Clary-sage table, becasue if they were poresent, it would immediately tell you to run away from Clary sage as a competitor to fish oil (which WAS implied as fish oil was specifically being compared in the table). Fatty acids are why we choose one fat over another. The problem is that NOT everyone has had such fatty acid study, and they are then not in a position to judge this internet information-pollution to be just that, based on content.
The Clary-sage table is just one example, a current relevant one. Internet information-polluition is a huge stumbling block to progress. My undiplomatic (as one reader put it) views of whoever wrote the table, were not intended to reflect on the person who posted it to the group, who clearly is in the position of most people not knowing how to judge fatty acid information on the internet.
I have only contempt for people who invent deliberately misleading information-pollution. I do not believe any poster here would have invented that Clary-sage chart. Whoever did so, KNEW about fatty acids, and KNEW they were mirepresenting the facts of fat comparisons in the chart. It is THAT which I abhor - and call internet information pollution - and it is THAT kind of intentional misinformation which prevents well meant homeopaths from making progress, and which causes very relevant and important nutrition discussions here, to find the truth to use with patients.
Fatty acids are essential to health. We literally die without the right ones in a decent ratio.
And that applies to ALL species of living thing. It is hardly unimportant to get THAT right in order to do homeopathy as Hahnemann decreed - with the right environment and nutrition.
Mary-Ann, if you are reading this, and anyone else reading it, whatever "research" might have been done on Clary-sage is not relevant when the consequence is such a misrepresentation of relevant facts as the chart depicts. When the conclusions are 100% biased adn incorrect, and clearly deliberately so, then the research has already lost credibility and must also be assumed to be internet information-pollution. GOOD research, always has well presented conclusions with a signature of the proud researcher standing behind them.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
Roger Bird
________________________________
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 13 Feb 2015 13:11:20 -0800
Subject: Internet pollution - judging value of information on the net ...was Re: [Minutus] homeopathy list or no?
I think it is, as Hahnemann said, that without FIRST getting the environment and nutrition right, and removing mintaining causes (which includes poor nutrition) there can be no effective health building using homeopathy.
Remedies are not stand alone instruments of health. They are instructions without the ingredients. A recipe with no ingredients, makes no food.
Add that to the fact that our world is extremely polluted - including internet-information pollution (such as the extremely biased Clary-sage chart recently presented) - so that the environment is very hard to get right, in order that homeopathy CAN work.
We do need to know how to get that right as homeopaths. Internet pollution is a HUGE factor, and that is what has led us to seek truth in very basic essential nutrition information here.
We have an enormous resource in internet ability to "google" something. But there has been zero education to enable people to JUDGE the value of what they google. Just becasue something is presented as fact on the internet does not mean it has any validity at all. It may be total nonsense. Back in the old days, one did not get to publish rubbish. It was too expensive and one needed a peer review to show the value of information BEFORE it was published. THat is no longer the case. ANYone can post any nonsense on the internet and the gullible public, NOT trained in disseminating fact from fiction, does not know how to judge what is good or bad. They assume good by default without checking.
This misinformation published blindly, ignorantly or with greedy motives is what I see as internet information-pollution, but people are still too naiive to remember that anyone can post any lies anywhere and purport it to be truth, and do it for free, and that they, the reader, NEED to sift the wheat from the chaff.
The clary-sage table posted was a case in point. It was anonymous - which is the first clue to "nonsense on the net". Knowledgeable people stand behind their work, but greed mongerers and vested interests do not stand behind their hype to make greed money.
I spotted it as a fraud immediately, as would anyone who has studied anything at all about fatty acids. Fatty acids are all about DHA, EPA, AA, ALA etc. Yet THOSE are conspicuously absent form the Clary-sage table, becasue if they were poresent, it would immediately tell you to run away from Clary sage as a competitor to fish oil (which WAS implied as fish oil was specifically being compared in the table). Fatty acids are why we choose one fat over another. The problem is that NOT everyone has had such fatty acid study, and they are then not in a position to judge this internet information-pollution to be just that, based on content.
The Clary-sage table is just one example, a current relevant one. Internet information-polluition is a huge stumbling block to progress. My undiplomatic (as one reader put it) views of whoever wrote the table, were not intended to reflect on the person who posted it to the group, who clearly is in the position of most people not knowing how to judge fatty acid information on the internet.
I have only contempt for people who invent deliberately misleading information-pollution. I do not believe any poster here would have invented that Clary-sage chart. Whoever did so, KNEW about fatty acids, and KNEW they were mirepresenting the facts of fat comparisons in the chart. It is THAT which I abhor - and call internet information pollution - and it is THAT kind of intentional misinformation which prevents well meant homeopaths from making progress, and which causes very relevant and important nutrition discussions here, to find the truth to use with patients.
Fatty acids are essential to health. We literally die without the right ones in a decent ratio.
And that applies to ALL species of living thing. It is hardly unimportant to get THAT right in order to do homeopathy as Hahnemann decreed - with the right environment and nutrition.
Mary-Ann, if you are reading this, and anyone else reading it, whatever "research" might have been done on Clary-sage is not relevant when the consequence is such a misrepresentation of relevant facts as the chart depicts. When the conclusions are 100% biased adn incorrect, and clearly deliberately so, then the research has already lost credibility and must also be assumed to be internet information-pollution. GOOD research, always has well presented conclusions with a signature of the proud researcher standing behind them.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."