Minutus

Ohhh! I do not have time and still intend to respond to previous emails but
just want to add a bit quickly here.

But you are not using these things as supplements or supports down at the
biochemical level, Irene. You are using them as potentised substances to
have an effect on the bioenergy - quite a difference!

Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Information - Education - Treatment)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
The Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org

oh really?

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

now you are getting silly - food doesn't have to be potentised to offer nutrition, we potentise substances to deal with disease, that is to cure via sx similarity

where did you get the quirky medical idea that unproved potentised sarcodes offer nutritional and environmental support

you are plagiarising homeopathy by using potentised substances in this way, encouraging others to do this by your inclusion of this practice on this list by associating it with homeopathy = it is homeopathy (to some on this list) and thus warping the fundamentals of homeopathic philosophy

yep, bring on the moderators

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

hooray, please try and find more time to reply Fran

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

Yet evidently it *has* the effect of nourishing the corresponding
gland...
I wonder whether the "extract" or "concentrate" form of the gland would
act similarly? My assumption (based on my own long-past experience as
a patient given those) is that it would act the same, but not as
promptly. And, I would guess that over the *long* haul, the actual
nutritional--the concentrate or extract--would have a more lasting
effect than the sarcode. (Based on my own slight experiences with
both.)

I too am skeptical (sorry, Irene! ) of using "nutritional" to
apply to use of anything in potency (tho that is said about cell salts
too, isn't it...), yet I do take her point that it's a background,
gland-specific prescription, which is *supportive* of the simillimum,
not being asked to do that job.

Why quibble about "is it Hahnemannian"? Surely each practitioner will
use whatever helps they have found appropriate. Let's call it
"removing the maintaining cause" of specific, drug-induced organ
failure.
Shannon

Mhm. ( High level of discourse!)
Gives us the picture of the effect of the substance (gland) on a
healthy individual, which we may apply in treating the sick one...

then have them proved (in a Hahnemannian method), then we all know what to expect, instead of guessing

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

Proving them in higher potencies would give the finer picture, allowing
them to be used perhaps as simillimum rather than just "organ support".
But I think that would be the main function of proving, to determine
the picture of higher potencies, for possible use in a more global way
(constitutional). In absence of proving of potencies tho--one doesn't
need to "guess", one just needs to know the physiology. Irene didn't
"guess" that thymus was in need of support--she got to that by knowing
the role of the thymus, and the specific toxic effects of prednisone on
cats.

But... Since you are arguing this on basis of theory ("is it
Hahnemannian") rather than observation (is it needed in the situation;
does it save the patients), I guess I will leave off here, as I think
the useful points on each side have already been made... And as usual,
it is for each practitioner to decide how they can best serve...

well at least we know the practice isn't homeopathy then

even organ supports should be proved (if they are being given in potency) and why just high potencies for sarcodes, that doesn't really make any sense at all

guess work shouldn't be encouraged (within homeopathic terms) so what people do outside of that is their concern but it isn't homeopathy

I wonder what people would do regarding the non homeopathic use of sarcodes if potentisation hadn't been given to us by Hahnemann - chopped up and put into foods I suppose

it still concerns me and others, this 'borrowing' of homeopathic methods for non homeopathic methods - muddy waters run deep

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

*You* know it, at any rate.

Many of our remedies that have been in long use have only information
from poisonings and "crude substance" effects.
As I said--because we already *have* the proving of crude substance, in
form of the physiological effect, and effects of organ damage.
repeat--not guesswork if one knows the physiology and toxicology.

they are very commonly used by certain naturapaths, chiropractors and
others--organ "concentrates" and "extracts", usually from either pig or
cow. You take it as pills, and can be very helpful--in normalizing
function of the organ. (From long-past personal experience.)