Page 2 of 2

Re: FEVER

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 6:08 pm
by Sheri Nakken
I disagree totally
yes we have to individualize and look at all the symptoms and treat accordingly, fever being just one of the symptoms. But to treat a fever just because it is 104 and Irene thinks that causes brain damage and death, is ludicrous. (and then later she added prolonged fever to her stipulations). We don't sponge the body, we don't give fever-reducing remedies - those would be anti- treatmetn which would be allopathy.

We have so many problems with allopaths and many so-called homeopaths aren't much different. Think they can analyze blood, think they can fight the body to lower the fever, make it up as they go. That is not homeopathy

Sheri

At 08:40 PM 2/19/2013, you wrote:

Re: FEVER

Posted: Wed Feb 20, 2013 11:16 pm
by Dale Moss
Great story! I love how you did an end run around Mycoplasma.
Peace,
Dale

Re: FEVER

Posted: Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:58 am
by Irene de Villiers
Still misquoting me I see.
I guess you have a new hobby:-)

Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Re: FEVER

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 6:23 am
by Sheri Nakken
you know, Irene - I agree with many things you say and say it at the time, but you have been over the top with this. I have shared your posts verbatim, copying them. Enough.
Sheri

At 07:58 PM 2/20/2013, you wrote:

Re: FEVER

Posted: Fri Feb 22, 2013 7:04 am
by Irene de Villiers
I'm sorry but that's simply not true Sheri.
There is nowhere that I said what you claim below.
I'm a VERY careful person with how I word things as a SMALl change on wording can totally change the implications of a sentence, and that's what you are doing with my words. Yo have NOT quoted them exactly.

What you say below implies all 104 fever leads to death - I said no such thing, and I gave a specific very detailed explanation and example of the kind of example where fever DOES need to be managed....so as to CORRECTLY PRESENT MY VIEW ON THIS.

However you never refer to that full explanation from me, nor quote exact words much less in context, of anything I say on the subject. One has to wonder why? It seems a deliberate attempt to misrepresent my views.

So - You CHOOSE to misrepresent and I find it nasty, as it is just wrong and reputation-damaging to misrepresent someone else's views.

Perhaps the best is for you to ACTUALLY quote from my emails, (as opposed to paraphrasing in a way you feel is equivalent but which most clearly is not equivalent) and to use whichever one best explains my views rather than a short form sent way before my fully explained version that YOU choose to ignore.
I have already explained in detail to the group what I see as a fever needing management and why.

Please either refer to that with direct quotes or drop the name calling that damages my reputation by misrepresenting my views.

I do not care whether we agree on the fever handling - I just care to be correctly represented when you use my name, and not to have some incorrect and misinterpreted version presented as mine.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Re: FEVER

Posted: Sat Feb 23, 2013 5:53 pm
by Lu Ann Weis
Irene, you are so knowledable but very controversial and condenscending at times. I find it ironic that you sign your emails with Namaste.

Re: FEVER

Posted: Sun Feb 24, 2013 9:42 am
by Irene de Villiers
You quote an email in which I restated my misrepresented ideas.
That does not constitute being condescending.
So I'm not sure what you mean.
If you were misrepresented it would have been reasonable to restate YOUR views - Why (in your eyes) am I exempt from such a reasonable effort to be correctly understood ?
Perhaps you have never been misrepresented in your views and do not see the relevance.

As to my use of Namaste, I do know and mean what it says. I'm sorry you choose to believe otherwise.
I find your comments personal, and not warranted.

As to being controversial - it's a judgement anyone is free to make.
I do what I feel is right.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."