Minutus

Unfortunately my views are being misrepresented by those who want to keep up the *duelling* but I would gladly read a post where you are showing obvious Hahnemannian practice.

You flaunt posts about and support the use of unproven substances. Will not retract even if told to do so. I have a right to my views as well.

Who knows what H would have gone on to do, we hear assumptions about that all the time but what he left was perfect enough why do you feel it isn't?

Get your provings to us and that will be Hahnemannian. Although there is then the question of disease specific rx - i.e. giving the same rx to the same diseased state.

We have always had allopathy and poisons to deal with - lets see the provings so you can match sx, you know that idea about sx similarity, its kinda useful in homeopathy

Joy

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

Again you are kidding aren't you - the world of science is massively fought over, secretive societies almost to keep research away from copy cats etc

It beggars belief some of this and ego still got nothing to do with it - wanting the little slices, why is what I keep asking, explain the failures and the need to re-invent. Just because we are not good enough at homeopathy we have to change it rather than change ourselves (is what the anti hahnemanns are saying)

Joy

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

That is totally untrue. It is your delusion, not a fact.
I have no use for unproven substances for ill individuals of any
species.
You only have a right to opinions about reality!
You do not have a right to espouse damaging delusions about others'
work.

If you wish to criticize me, it needs to be criticism of something I
actually do.
ONLY those views are a right.
I don't care if you think well or badly about anything i do. THAT is
a right you do have.
I just care that you not espouse delusions of what I do when it is
NOT what I do - that is NOT a right you have.

If you are not big enough to retract the misrepresentations then that
says something about you not me.
See the link above.
Ironically - It points to China. Nothing could be more Hahnemannian
as a remedy - it's the one which led him to homeopathy:-)
I am sorry you do not consider China (Cinchona officinalis) to be a
proven remedy.

Is that something you do?
I advise against it.
It's not something I'd ever do.
Another of your wild delusions about my workl.

By the way - China was merely the remedy that matched my FIRST
successful FIP case.
Subsequent cases were of course individually repertorized, as are ALL
my cases, even the minor ones.

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."

As I didn't expect anyone to post the relevant posts through I went looking for myself as I am keen to see the Hahnemannian provings of a number of potentised substances, as I am sure the homeopathic community is, especially those who work with animals.

In January you wrote quite extensively about the FIP nosode, the use of URI 30c, Bord-b, combos of FIP, FeLV and FIV and a 4 in 1 'flu prophylaxis. The discussion varied for cats and other animals, humans and you were suggesting the use of these rx without any written material concerning sx so that sx similarity can be used or without directing people to the proving data of these potentised substances. You claimed how beneficial they were and you know how people will latch on to a 'quick fix' homeopathy without case taking or matching sx - so this is all anti Hahnemannian - encouraging people to use these substances regardless of sx or individuality

So when you have the time, again, I am sure the community would like to read these Hahnemanian provings - the date reference you mentioned for your use of these substances was 1996 so that was a long time ago, long enough for several provings.

Joy

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

There was a better optioojn posted tinstead.
You seem to have missed it so I'll post it again:
http://www.hpathy.com/veterinary/Villie ... nfectious-
peritonitis.asp

It is the link to my FIP article in Hpathy magazine.
http://www.hpathy.com/veterinary/Villie ... nfectious-
peritonitis.asp
All of these remedies are prophylaxis remedies.
The CURRENT discussion is about cats who are sick with have terminal
FIP.
not prophylaxis.
Provings are not relevant in animal prophylaxis remedies as they are
not used in illness, so they are never involved in repertorizing.
As prophhylaxis.
BUT - *You* claimed I used them to help cats overcome FIP illness.
Treating a very sick individual and preventing illness, are
Completely different issues.

If you quote what I actually say in future, we can avoid the
misrepresentations you made.
No I do not "know" that.
On the contrary I make sure my clients get a full case taking and
work-up on each case.
Preventing illness in a healthy cat is NOT anti-hahnemannian.
Properly selecting a matched remedy for a sick cat is also not anti-
hahnemannian.
is something I have NEVER done.
......Irene, who tires of saying the same things to deaf ears.

--
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."

Doesn't matter what the application is, if you are calling it Hahnemannian homeopathy then it has to stand up to that qualification.

If you cannot conduct provings with animals then how can you treat them adequately as you have huge aspects of the case missing - following your logic.

Joy

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

Hi Irene,

cetero censeo...

There are many completely unproven or very fragmentally proven
remedies in our MM. And the symptoms in the "proven" remedies are not
all from provings. If we are purist on this expression, even
poisonings are not provings - and then the number of symptsoms that
are not from provings multiply.

I do not know whether you have ever used any of them or ever will -
but many homeopaths have done so and do. Most homeopaths do not even
know whether a remedy was proven or not, since in most MMs this is not
mentioned. Even in Herings Guiding Symptoms one does not really
know. To find out one has to try and look up the sx in Allens
Encycopedia.

For sure, sx like China's loss of bodily fluids did not come from
provings, Arnika did not cuase a single bruise etc. pp.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Ad nauseum...

I was involved with a small proving of Arnica many years ago, one girl fainted and the next day reported small centimetre bruises up her legs.

Where do you get the idea that 'most homeopaths' do not even know if a remedy is proved or not. Huge assumption.

Joy

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

All I said is that they don't fight over the *name*. Some of us do.

One more try--Joy, you've never answered this! You act outraged at the
question but never actually answer.

Is it better to (sticking for simplicity with this one example) save
the FIP kitties thru non-Hahnemannian procedures (including "unproved
substances" etc.), or is it better to stay "pure" and know that they'll
die?

What do you think?
It's not meaningless question.

If you feel it's more important to "stay pure" than to save the cats'
lives, then you should say so (and I will be fascinated to hear your
reasons).

If you feel it's more important e.g. for Irene to save the lives of the
ones that she is *able* to, even tho it involves "unapproved" /
non-Hahnemannian procedures such as unproven substances (and they are
"unproven" *only* in that homeopathic technical sense; they have in
fact proven their value and effectiveness in clinical use), then you
should acknowledge that.

Shannon