Minutus

John,

I am not reading your posts any more. I don't really wish to blow up at people like I did. I am not reading this your post either.

Good Bye.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 14:20:32 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR
Hi, Roger --

Well, this has clarified something, then: that your understanding of the basis for prescribing Bach flower remedies and for prescribing (if the word is appropriate) ayurvedic treatment differs from mine. My understanding is that no comprehensive knowledge of the pathogenesis of the medicines in either system is required or indeed available. If that's not so, it would certainly be of interest to all of us to known where to find such comprehensive knowledge of these medicines' respective pathogeneses, as that would make them available for homoeopathic use.

Without such information, by the very definition of homoeopathy, no homoeopathic use of them is possible. Are you suggesting otherwise? Is it your view that the definition of homoeopathy is subject to such loosening?

Kind regards,

John
________________________________
--

.
"What is ironic here is that what is being held out as a justification for high regulation and compliance in the area of Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc, is public safety and risk. Despite a diligent search of Coronial records and the literature, no instances have been found to demonstrate that in fact with these products in NZ there is any serious public health issue or risk to the public. The problem is clearly with prescription and other drugs and no demonstrable risk at all with these natural products… The Coronial and literature searches in so far as natural products etc are concerned and linkages to public safety and risk can be described legally as De minimis non curat lex. That is—of minimal risk importance. The law (regulations etc) does not and should not concern itself with trifles."
—D.W. Bain, Report to IM Health Trust: Complementary Medicines, Natural Products, Traditional Products, Supplements, Vitamins etc., Lamb, Bain & Laubscher, New Zealand, viewed Feb 20 2013, (emphasis added).

I'm not so sure.
Dr Edward Bach, who devised the Bach flower remedies, was inspired by Hahnemann's homeopathy.
The documented things each flower essence helps, are very similar to a proving, and make the bach remedies *predictable* as to what they each will help. It includes mind, general and specific symptoms, much as with homeopathy.
I've spent some happy years using them to great effect on animals (and their owners wanted to use them too when seeing how well they work.)

The big difference is that they are found to be synergistic in combination. In fact my finding is that they NEED to be in combination to work well. NOT just ANY combination!
Specifically there needs to be a constitutional one to hang the rest together (there are 12 options, of which one will fit an individual best), plus (in MY opinion, from my own extensive work on Bach remedies - I worked with them full time for some years from a vet clinic) a specific positive remedy suited to the individual (as if to tell the system what to do in future and not just the essences for what not to do), and two or three specifics for the issues at hand (with emphasis on their causes more than their existence. Thus a minimum of three, and a max of 5 will give best synergy. EVERY choice included needs to be specifically matched to the individual.
Figuring the right synergy is akin to repertorizing in many ways and is the right way to individualize the Bach remedies for a case.

So while not identical to homeopathy - and not potentized - they are extremely dilute, so no side effects (and aggravations being rare but possible with a few of them) - and they are individualized so that the synergistic choice acts as one individually matched, balancing remedy.

There are certainly parallels with homeopathy.
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."

For BFR's you'd be wrong. (Can't speak for ayurveda, I have not studied it)
The knowledge of pathogenesis of the BFRs is both essential and available, and as with homeopathy, is a growing body of knowledge. Without it you can toss your BFR remedies down the sink.
Here's a good place to start:
"Practical uses and APplications of the Bach Flower Emotional Remedies"
by Jessica Bear ND. Only 184 pages, but jam-packed with specifics for both people and animals.

You can glean more as you read more books documenting BFR work, but none that comes up to the same standard and none that explains better HOW to use the BFR remedies (the BFR repertorizing equivalent).

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."

Righto; I stand corrected. Thanks, Irene.

From what you said in the earlier post concerning the system's use of, and better outcomes when prescribed in, combinations, it's evident that despite both the homoeopathic inspiration (of which I was aware) behind the system and its putative emotional provings, and despite also these broader pathogeneses than I had been aware of, the way in which the system uses its medicines is not homoeopathic at all. From that perspective, the question how they "fit in" the pantheon of homoeopathy remains a question containing a false premise.

In fact, it sounds rather like an attempt (Bach's? some of his followers'?) to slip polypharmacy into homoeopathic practice without acknowledging the contradiction between the two.

Anyway, interesting; and thank you for the reference.

Cheers --

John

Why not?
The law of Similars is very likely invoked as in homeopathy. The SET of symptoms associated with the remedy ("the remedy" being the synergistic "set" or mix needed to make a whole remedy) is matched (similar) to those of the individual needing the remedy.

I understand your abhorrence at the very thought of a "mixture", but set aside that prejudice and look at the actual situation:

Flower essences are not totality remedies - they each handle a range of issues but not enough for the entire individual - unlike homeopathic remedies potentized to bring out a totality of coverage, proved and thus only ONE is needed in homeopathy.
But in BFR terms, you need 3 to 5 *components*, each handling only PART of the totality needed to MATCH the inidividual - but matching the totality when the components are well chosen and assembled into a SINGLE remedy. A BFR remedy correctly made is ONE remedy. It acts synergistically, not as the sum of its parts.

It is not some random mix, but each flower covers part of what's needed, and if well chosen, the combination matches the totality of what's needed.
Unlike a homeopathic remedy, a flower remedy does NOT cover a totality for an individual - it NEEDS more than one to cover the totality. (Mixing remedies that each cover a totality makes no sense hence mixtures of homeopathic remedies make no sense. But the flower remedies do make sense added together.)
Another aspect of flower remedies that works for adding them together to make a whole, (but can not be used in homeopathy) is that they BALANCE rather than moving the system in a specific direction.
So, for example, BFR Vine as a component, addresses an attitude of dominance, reducing it where it is in excess and increasing it where it is lacking. This is not like homeopathy where a mixture of remedies is likely to make no sense due to opposing symptoms - or where an aggravation is likely due to going too far in one direction - it's a feature especially of potentized remedies - which BFR are not.

A single BFR has not got the depth of action of a potentized remedy and can not be a totality remedy.
It takes a few of them to do that.
What false premise?
No. It is not polypharmacy. Polypharmacy involves multiple remedies EACH with a totality of symptomology per remedy ingredient and no matching whatsoever to the individual, and which can push things too far in a specific direction or induce proving symptoms.

BFR involves partial-not-totality coverage remedies added together to form ONE totality-remedy which in its totality DOES match the individual. The BFR totality that matched well IS synergistic. The effect of the correct totality-combined BFR remedy matching an individual, works better than those remedies used one after the other in order of greatest need. So the BFR that is correctly made, is a SINGLE remedy despite having multiple parts to make up its single whole picture MATCHED to an individual.

There are only 28 BFR flower remedies - 28 component parts.
The ability to combine different sets of components into an effective whole, increases the efficacy of the system and its ability to match multiple individual sets of symptoms of individuals. There is no need for 5000 plus remedies (as in homeopathy) to match the variety of people/animals' needs- as the components for a BFR remedy (in appropriate matched combinations and permutations), are sufficient to make a totality match for thousands of combinations and permutations of symptoms.
Bach wanted a simple system usable by almost anyone. He found homeopathy too complex for everyday use by average folk. He was right in that homeopathy IS complex to use well. BFR however, also needs an in depth understanding of its components and how to use them - but it IS a lot easier and quicker to master than homeopathy. It just has less power and takes longer to help - average 2 weeks, sometimes 2 months. It's a good first system to try and it will fix a lot of things - but the ones it can not help, will need the power and depth of homeopathy's potentized matched remedy.

Typical things I've seen helped by BFR's (from my work at a vet clinic):
(Main issue listed - there are always associated ones)
* Cat chewing its tail raw till it had to be amputated.
* Barking incessantly while owner away at work.
* Dogs/cats/llamas fighting every time they met.
* Dog stalking and biting the bum of new wife.
* Dog freaking out in car every time.
* Allergic skin condition.
* Tendency to dehydration.
* Tendency to abort.
* Refusal to leave grave of owner who died.
* Pulling out feathers.
* Losing fur in patches.
* Post-partum depression.
* Bullying/aggression etc.
* Arthritis.

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."

If one has a good case and correct interpretation, then the well chosen homeopathic remedy will do *everything* a flower remedy will, but also much, much more. More deeply and more lastingly.

For that reason most homeopaths (or so I understand) don't use them; have not seen any need to learn to use them.

But as a self-help tool, they apparently are extremely "user-friendly", well suited to do-it-yourself needs. Why not just leave it at that?

(Your list of reasons why they are similar to homeopathy, is rather like saying that scorpions are similar to brussels sprouts because most people don't like either… )
________________________________

This brings to my mind one of the *contrasts* with homeopathy -- and unfortunately I can't remember what book I read it in; one of the on-line descriptions, I think.

One of the things that Edward Bach was disturbed about in homeopathy, was its reliance on (sorry, resorting to my own phrasing here) negative input, in order to bring about positive result. I.e., the use of "a substance which in overdose will cause…", and toxins and etc.

His aesthetic sense wished for a way to bring about positive changes with *positive* inputs, and he found the flower essences more aesthetically pleasing -- and also evidently effective.

So at its base, its method is essentially *opposite* of homeopathy, though of course there are also the partial similarities in the tools and in their results.

Shannon

Irene,

Thanks for another gem.

How would you describe the differences in effect that you gain from BFR vs from your homeopathic treatments? What are the factors that lead you to use them in some cases?

Shannon

So far, I notice that most comments in response to mine about BFR is to describe how they work as for as the prescriber is concerned. I meant, how does the prana or vital force get impacted by BFR vs. homeopathy. That is the mystery.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: shannonnelson@tds.net
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 08:11:09 -0500
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR

If one has a good case and correct interpretation, then the well chosen homeopathic remedy will do *everything* a flower remedy will, but also much, much more. More deeply and more lastingly.
For that reason most homeopaths (or so I understand) don't use them; have not seen any need to learn to use them.

But as a self-help tool, they apparently are extremely "user-friendly", well suited to do-it-yourself needs. Why not just leave it at that?

(Your list of reasons why they are similar to homeopathy, is rather like saying that scorpions are similar to brussels sprouts because most people don't like either… )
________________________________

Now, that is a question that may be answerable.

Cheers --

John
________________________________
________________________________