Minutus

i agree that we need to create our own language. it needs
to become part of how we market ourselves. it is also the
way that the public begins to become educated to a different
way of thinking. language is everything. how else does the
medical industry create public support--mass marketing using
public relations marketing research. there is an entire field
of social psychology that is used by businesses to sell themselves
and their products to the public. look at television and newspapers
today. they are filled with ads that appear to be 'personal' selling
all kinds of drugs. they even tell people about a host of side
effects that may even kill you, but the happy people in the ad
are biking into the sunset, enjoying life, presumably free of
some malady that was crippling to them.
so, it is very appropriate to create our own language for
describing our perspectives and what we do. for example, i think
we need to talk about health care as opposed to medicine. i refer
to the medical industry as opposed to health care, noting that we
do not have a health care system at all. this is becoming more
and more part of my presentation 'spin.'
i read an article a while ago regarding a different subject. it
talked about developing one's own keynote language, ones own
marketing quippy type statements. now this may offend some who
pride themselves on their intellectual and academic acuity. but
i can only note, in summary, that kerry lost the public with his
analytic verbosity and bush charmed them with his fake down home
paternalism!
as to wooing the medical profession? i think that feels more like
being obsequious and begging. they respond to loss of patients, income
and power.
tanya
I think we should get our vocabulary and our facts corrected; we should stop call pharmaceutical research and products "medicine". It is nothing but a business trying to create a product, create a market and sell, sell, sell..........
Medicine is the Art AND Science of recognizing a pattern of ill-health, the mechanism through which it happened, if possible, and the ways to return the patient to full health, i.e. curing him, or, if not possible, to alleviate the suffering in the simplest, cheapest and least harmful way.
With this type of definition, maybe written in better words, we might find that many practitioners "enemies" of homeopathy indeed would agree and find common ground for a renewal of the healing art and the sane development and promotion of its different branches and methods.
Am I sitting on a little cloud kidding myself?????????
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Visit http://drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for some articles and comments.

I see a lot of this too. The stronger your case, the more resentful they become.
Nothing illustrates this more than a conversation on cancer on another list I am on. Someone's husband had cancer, and everyone chimed in with their own experiences to support her. The weird thing was, they all agreed that the very *last* thing they want to hear from well meaning friends and family is a story of how someone was cured from cancer. That baffled me, because if *I* had cancer, the first thing I would want to hear were cure stories. Then I realized that their commitment and faith to allopathic treatment was so strong that they are willing to die for it. And stories that suggested they might not have to die filled them with annoyance and resentment.
That is some serious, intractable faith that a few scientific studies are not going to shake.
Helen

Me thinks you are right on the money - many moons ago when I was in sales, we were instructed - sell to the buyers needs AND if there isn't a need create one. All part of terminology.
bob
I think we should get our vocabulary and our facts corrected; we should stop call pharmaceutical research and products "medicine". It is nothing but a business trying to create a product, create a market and sell, sell, sell..........
Medicine is the Art AND Science of recognizing a pattern of ill-health, the mechanism through which it happened, if possible, and the ways to return the patient to full health, i.e. curing him, or, if not possible, to alleviate the suffering in the simplest, cheapest and least harmful way.
With this type of definition, maybe written in better words, we might find that many practitioners "enemies" of homeopathy indeed would agree and find common ground for a renewal of the healing art and the sane development and promotion of its different branches and methods.
Am I sitting on a little cloud kidding myself?????????
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
Visit http://drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for some articles and comments.

Irene,
In a word, "wow"... No wonder your father was anti-homeopathy!!
What were the circumstances that led you to *try* it, given your
family's background?
Oh yes!!
Which (musing back over prior posts of various people) is one reason
among many why it's more fruitful to talk "with" people (skeptics or
whatever) rather than "at" them, and not keep pushing when the walls
come up. One reason among many that it's more product to "build
bridges"--even with those we disagree with.

I would say allopathy's basic criteria for what they call "successful"
treatment, has been simply that the target symptom goes away. Sure
they acknowledge that sometimes the "side-effects" are too extreme in
too many people; I am not saying that is their *only* criterion... (
I can't help being amused by some of the side-effect lists that
include "death". Whoo, what a side-effect!) Does that count as a
"principle"? (I'm asking because actually, IMO that is a useful
starting point in comparing allopathy and homeopathy. Because in
homeopathy we have a much larger, more specific and more systematic
*group* of criteria for what we would call success, including that the
target symptom goes *and* health (for which we *do* have a more
meaningful definition than do allopaths) is *overall* improved.

We draw--and make ample use of--distinctions between (the rather rare)
"auxiliary symptom" which can *sometimes* accompany an appropriate
remedy, versus an actual worsening of the health. That latter is an
example of what we call suppression, quite *unlike* the allopathic
usage of that term; allopaths consider symptom "suppression" to be a
*good* thing--it means the symptom went away, right?

So, I think this is an additional area that could be fruitful to bring
up with someone who actually *wants* to understand about homeopathy:
That we evaluate the actions of our remedies in a broader and more
purposeful context--increase of overall well-being, not merely symptom
suppression. And the fact that, after homeopathic treatment for "a
disease" the patient should be *better* than before they became
noticeably ill; whereas after allopathic treatment for the same
disease, the patient is likely to be less well than before (not to
mention likelihood of *ongoing* drug treatment afterwards!)
Shannon

> I would say allopathy's basic criteria for what they
call "successful"
in

That is why I wrote in my LONG reply- that the only way we can
convince them is to give something ( combo, single or whatever) in the
lower potencies ( so dilution issues do not come up) and to
pathological diagnosis and show improvement consistently. THat is the
language they understand. If suppression occurs as a side-effect -
well just a side effect - and is not usually worse than what we get by
doing allopathy.

Once they accept homeopathy works then go forward with other things-
like potencies, individualization etc.

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

One of those things directed by Spirit of course:
I had a Brown recluse (violin spider) bite on the back of the thigh that
I ignored thinking it my usual over-reaction to a mosquito bite. Till it
practically exploded into a huge ulcerated area that kept growing. It
would not respond to every imaginable type of allopathy or home remedy.
(I get adverse reactions to most of them anyway.) It got worse over many
months and it must have been nearly a year later with serious ulceration
from left knee to hip gangrenous by then that they said it was time to
amputate. They sent me to Joburg to get it done. My cousin Gwen lived
there, and offered to put me up for the week before and whatever time
after. Well she's the daughter of my dad's older brother (who became an
alcoholic for many years after their dad died - causing another "we will
not associate with him" thing from my dad so I'd hardly met my cousin).
Gwen had inherited all the family's homeopathy books (a small room
floor to ceiling with shelves of them, plenty of case notes in the
margins) and had carried on the tradition as a homeopath (as do her
three daughters). She persuaded me I had nothing to lose to let her use
homeopathy on me the week before the amputation......
The rest is history as they say, with Gwen my first tutor. I learned
a lot from her. Being in her house with the entire family talking about
remedies the way most people do about the weather - as if detailed
knowledge of them was normal - was quite amazing. Her husband used to be
paralysed from polio....I never guessed when I met him. Gwen works as a
physiotherapist and does not claim to be a homeopath as she has no
formal qualification in it. In physiotherapy too I suspect she knows
more than others might forget. She works a lot with stroke victims, to
restore function where the stroke caused paralysis.
My little leg thing was no biggie:-)

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

I have been saying recently that cancer patients love and trust their oncologists all the way to the morgue. In sadness, Jean

*Can* you--e.g. do you know how to--do successful homeopathy on basis
of "pathological diagnosis and show improvement consistently"? Here
and there one hears that this or that remedy is "specific" for some
condition, but isn't that rare (not to mention less-than-reliable)? Or
am I deluded???
Shannon

Specifics are not unreliable - the only problem with them is that
they may not always lead to what we call a homeopathic
cure...specifics or combinations work within a particular spectrum
of a disease grouping and may suppress at times...or may not address
deeper issues... most of the time I have not seen any problems -
one of the specific combinations I had posted here - for asthma over
a period of time - ipec 6c daily 1 or 2 doses, Nat.sulph 12x ( <
wet) or Silica ( < dust) 12x daily 3 doses...I have seen this
working in so many cases - this is from the practice of a friend of
mine... give this up for a few days the attacks might return...

There are so many combinations like these- and many of them
effective for a minimum period of time - the same way as allopathic
drugs- so for a proof of concept use, this might be sufficient...

For that we do not have to depend on philosophy or single medicine
or whatever...

Get the criteria to be followed and use some medicine that can give
instant relief and results...

I can name any number of books esp. from Indian authors with
pointers to different diseases and treatments...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
basis
Here
some
reliable)? Or
Sure
extreme
in the
is the
effect -
get by
things-

--- the fight against homoeopathy is being fought by pharmaceutical
industry,no single person is able to reply. its the duity of
homoeopharcies to fight this battle. peop with strong scietific back
ground and reputation should be engaged paid for to reply agressive
propaganda . this shpuld be done with same intensity and loudness. we
should reply them in thier own language . bye haqy
In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette" wrote:
selling
income
should stop call pharmaceutical research and products "medicine". It
is nothing but a business trying to create a product, create a market
and sell, sell, sell..........
health, the mechanism through which it happened, if possible, and the
ways to return the patient to full health, i.e. curing him, or, if
not possible, to alleviate the suffering in the simplest, cheapest
and least harmful way.
might find that many practitioners "enemies" of homeopathy indeed
would agree and find common ground for a renewal of the healing art
and the sane development and promotion of its different branches and
methods.
and comments.
example
works
trained
and I
failed to
the
a
knew
that mode.
a
the
the
own
physical
anyway -
studies
disease. ...All
ground"
the
ground, it
sceptic.
some
NOt
etc
does
real
than
you
after
There
GIGANTIC
of
upon
homeopathy
(like
which
which is
what
not
natural
and
undertaken
do (or
does -
none
Hippocrates
ground.
modern
is
independently
fledged
Homeopath.)