Are you sure? I'm not so sure.
I see it for potentized substances eg homeopathic remedies.
Not *necessarily* for non-potentized.
If an epigene in a deranged state, and is methylated or acetylated to a healthy state, where is the power to derange in the acetylation/methylation?
If a dehydrated person drinks water, that will restore a normal state - and it's a reach to call water a health deranging substance.
Vit E when needed, will restore health - it does not derange.
If a cat uses a BFR, (non-potentzed as BFRs are supposed to be) it is not a substance known to derange health. BFRs specifically are known to balance - not go one direction. (unless potentized, and then it is a potential homeopathic remedy after proving - not a BFR)
Same with beach sand - innocuous. (unless potentized.)
Not all substances need to be known for the derangements they cause.
Many can be used directly for benefit.
You feel there are two versions of Sulphur?
"Flowers of sulphur" (it looks like flowers down the microscope) is still plain yellow sulphur powder, not some other substance. It's pure sulphur..... aka Brimstone:-)
This is perhaps John's rule number 459 and a half to throw the baby out with the bathwater?
Of course there are experiential rubrics in homeopathy that are well proved by large numbers of clinical experience records. There is a huge body of work which we would be foolish to throw out because the discovery is through a doorway other than a formal proving. That John does not want to use such information (apparently) is his choice and does not make the clinical knowledge or associated rubrics less valid. Such rubrics have proved themselves over time, and new ones are developed as time and experience progresses.
My paper on some new ones I worked to develop, and which ARE saving lives, is in Nov 2009 Hpathy.
(They are saving lives in an area where no allopath or homeopath has saved a cat to date without them.)
By John's rule, this valuable information, proven to work in practice, should be ignored?
Considered invalid?
Let the cats die?
How does that meet Aph 1?
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."
BFR --> homeopathy
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: BFR --> homeopathy
And what is Pulsatilla?
....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."
....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."
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: BFR --> homeopathy
Hi, Irene --
I was, naturally, taking into account that something such as Silicea has that power of derangement only in certain potencies. But otherwise, yes; it's the basis, you'll remember, of homoeopathy, that a substance cures what it can cause. So its ability to cause derangement lies at the basis of its ability to invoke a cure.
The examples you give below of methylation, vitamin E, water, etc., all fall within the class, as will be obvious when you think about it, of nutrition (allowing that we call water a nutrient). Certainly deficiency in a nutrient (including water) deranges, and certainly supplying that deficiency may reverse the derangement; but I'm sure you're beyond confusing the supply of a nutritional deficiency with the supply of a medicinal action.
The flower-remedy generalisation you make here unfortunately rests heavily on vagueness. It may indeed be possible for a flower to act, in a small dose, to supply a nutritional deficiency. More likely, perhaps, is that it is not -- in which case, it must be its medicinal power that restores it to a "normal" state. As you know, this can occur either through enantiopathic opposition, which will be temporary at best; through allopathic action, which may be temporary or permanent but will not cure; or through homoeopathic primary action, which will stimulate a secondary curative response. In any of these cases, only the power to cause symptoms, to derange health dynamically, enables the substance to act medicinally.
This does not mean, as you seem to interpret it, that a medicine acting homoeopathically visibly deranges the health of that particular cat. It does mean that, at least in potency, it is capable of deranging health.
You might refer to the early part of the Organon for a reminder, if that isn't already utterly clear to you. For instance:
§ 11 footnote 7 tells us that the force of medicines on health cannot be seen directly and acts without the intermediary of material quantity, and must be understood conceptually, on the basis of observation, to be similar to the hidden invisible energy that carries the moon around the earth."
§ 21 tells us that nothing can be observed that makes medicines medicines except their power of causing distinct alterations in the state of health of the human body and of exciting various definite morbid symptoms, and they can bring their curative power into play only by means of this power of producing peculiar symptoms.
Hmm? Oh, I see: I've written confusingly. No, I didn't mean to suggest that there are two versions of sulphur. The two mineral medicines I was referring to had nothing to do with sulphur. My apologies. Those I had in mind were two mercury medicines.
Uh-huh. Let me remind you of a few choice sections of the Organon (B.Jain 6th edition):
"To cure mildly, rapidly, certainly, and permanently, choose, in every case of disease, a medicine which can itself produce an affection similar (ηομοιον πάθος) to that sought to be cured!" (Introduction, p. 78)
See also § 20, which tells us that medicines' power to alter health cannot be discovered by a mere effort of reason but only by experiencing the phenomena it displays when acting on the state ofhealth.
And see again § 21, paraphrased above. Is it possible to misinterpret a message Hahnemann delivers so plainly?
§ 105 revisits this, stating that a true physician acquires a knowledge of the instruments intended for the cure of the natural diseases, by investigating the pathogenetic power of the medicines.
§ 143 restates it again, telling us that only if we have tested a considerable number of medicines on the healthy individual "and carefully and faithfully registered all the disease elements and symptoms they are capable of developing as artificial disease-producers" do we have "a true materia medica—a collection of real, pure, reliable modes of action of simple medicinal substances".
§ 147 again states that the homoeopathic remedy for the natural disease is that medicine, of those that have been investigated as to their power of altering man's health, that contains the greatest similarity to the totality of the symptoms.
This, not historical "success", is the basis of homoeopathy, Irene: knowledge of pathogenesis. Without it, you prescribe medicine with no known relation to the illness, a practice that Hahnemann called allopathy.
No, if you've "cured" a cat with a substance, then that's history. But it adds not a skerrick of knowledge to the homoeopathic materia medica of that substance, the knowledge that Hahnemann defined as the emerging from provings and from provings alone. The rest may be useful in predicting how the homoeopathic medicine will act, and in evaluating that action. But it has no part whatever to play in prescription in homoeopathy; that much is clear from any one of the aphorisms I've referred to here.
To the extent that clinical trial or favouritism with a medicine results in a history of "success", the result may be worth emulating, especially in saving lives urgently. But to conclude from that that it must then be homoeopathic in method or in result is backwards thinking. Homoeopathic prescription does not, as allopathy does, proceed backwards from "cure" to indications to speculative pathogenesis. It proceeds forwards: from known pathogenesis to indications to cure.
Once you get that methodology into your head, the distinction between homoeopathy and allopathy becomes clear.
Kind regards,
John
I was, naturally, taking into account that something such as Silicea has that power of derangement only in certain potencies. But otherwise, yes; it's the basis, you'll remember, of homoeopathy, that a substance cures what it can cause. So its ability to cause derangement lies at the basis of its ability to invoke a cure.
The examples you give below of methylation, vitamin E, water, etc., all fall within the class, as will be obvious when you think about it, of nutrition (allowing that we call water a nutrient). Certainly deficiency in a nutrient (including water) deranges, and certainly supplying that deficiency may reverse the derangement; but I'm sure you're beyond confusing the supply of a nutritional deficiency with the supply of a medicinal action.
The flower-remedy generalisation you make here unfortunately rests heavily on vagueness. It may indeed be possible for a flower to act, in a small dose, to supply a nutritional deficiency. More likely, perhaps, is that it is not -- in which case, it must be its medicinal power that restores it to a "normal" state. As you know, this can occur either through enantiopathic opposition, which will be temporary at best; through allopathic action, which may be temporary or permanent but will not cure; or through homoeopathic primary action, which will stimulate a secondary curative response. In any of these cases, only the power to cause symptoms, to derange health dynamically, enables the substance to act medicinally.
This does not mean, as you seem to interpret it, that a medicine acting homoeopathically visibly deranges the health of that particular cat. It does mean that, at least in potency, it is capable of deranging health.
You might refer to the early part of the Organon for a reminder, if that isn't already utterly clear to you. For instance:
§ 11 footnote 7 tells us that the force of medicines on health cannot be seen directly and acts without the intermediary of material quantity, and must be understood conceptually, on the basis of observation, to be similar to the hidden invisible energy that carries the moon around the earth."
§ 21 tells us that nothing can be observed that makes medicines medicines except their power of causing distinct alterations in the state of health of the human body and of exciting various definite morbid symptoms, and they can bring their curative power into play only by means of this power of producing peculiar symptoms.
Hmm? Oh, I see: I've written confusingly. No, I didn't mean to suggest that there are two versions of sulphur. The two mineral medicines I was referring to had nothing to do with sulphur. My apologies. Those I had in mind were two mercury medicines.
Uh-huh. Let me remind you of a few choice sections of the Organon (B.Jain 6th edition):
"To cure mildly, rapidly, certainly, and permanently, choose, in every case of disease, a medicine which can itself produce an affection similar (ηομοιον πάθος) to that sought to be cured!" (Introduction, p. 78)
See also § 20, which tells us that medicines' power to alter health cannot be discovered by a mere effort of reason but only by experiencing the phenomena it displays when acting on the state ofhealth.
And see again § 21, paraphrased above. Is it possible to misinterpret a message Hahnemann delivers so plainly?
§ 105 revisits this, stating that a true physician acquires a knowledge of the instruments intended for the cure of the natural diseases, by investigating the pathogenetic power of the medicines.
§ 143 restates it again, telling us that only if we have tested a considerable number of medicines on the healthy individual "and carefully and faithfully registered all the disease elements and symptoms they are capable of developing as artificial disease-producers" do we have "a true materia medica—a collection of real, pure, reliable modes of action of simple medicinal substances".
§ 147 again states that the homoeopathic remedy for the natural disease is that medicine, of those that have been investigated as to their power of altering man's health, that contains the greatest similarity to the totality of the symptoms.
This, not historical "success", is the basis of homoeopathy, Irene: knowledge of pathogenesis. Without it, you prescribe medicine with no known relation to the illness, a practice that Hahnemann called allopathy.
No, if you've "cured" a cat with a substance, then that's history. But it adds not a skerrick of knowledge to the homoeopathic materia medica of that substance, the knowledge that Hahnemann defined as the emerging from provings and from provings alone. The rest may be useful in predicting how the homoeopathic medicine will act, and in evaluating that action. But it has no part whatever to play in prescription in homoeopathy; that much is clear from any one of the aphorisms I've referred to here.
To the extent that clinical trial or favouritism with a medicine results in a history of "success", the result may be worth emulating, especially in saving lives urgently. But to conclude from that that it must then be homoeopathic in method or in result is backwards thinking. Homoeopathic prescription does not, as allopathy does, proceed backwards from "cure" to indications to speculative pathogenesis. It proceeds forwards: from known pathogenesis to indications to cure.
Once you get that methodology into your head, the distinction between homoeopathy and allopathy becomes clear.
Kind regards,
John
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: BFR --> homeopathy
Hi again, Irene --
You might see Chris Gillen's reply, Irene, already referred to you. In a nutshell, though, a particular plant in a particular time and place appears to have a reliable pathogenesis, and for that reason is regarded as a medicine. Even with some degree of variation in soil and season, the plant appears to have a reasonably consistent pathogenesis. Hahnemann regarded plants and certain extracts of them as single, simple substances despite their physical nature as mixtures, and made plain that this was because of such consistency. Whether this is due to some dynamic union of the parts of the living plant that persists into the potencies or due to some more pedestrian chemical or biochemical integration of all the parts of the plant, I cannot say; but plants seem to enjoy such reliability. Hahnemann also made plain that arbitrary mixtures do not. Again, please see Chris Gillen's reply, nicely explaining the relevant aphorism.
Cheers --
John
You might see Chris Gillen's reply, Irene, already referred to you. In a nutshell, though, a particular plant in a particular time and place appears to have a reliable pathogenesis, and for that reason is regarded as a medicine. Even with some degree of variation in soil and season, the plant appears to have a reasonably consistent pathogenesis. Hahnemann regarded plants and certain extracts of them as single, simple substances despite their physical nature as mixtures, and made plain that this was because of such consistency. Whether this is due to some dynamic union of the parts of the living plant that persists into the potencies or due to some more pedestrian chemical or biochemical integration of all the parts of the plant, I cannot say; but plants seem to enjoy such reliability. Hahnemann also made plain that arbitrary mixtures do not. Again, please see Chris Gillen's reply, nicely explaining the relevant aphorism.
Cheers --
John
-
Irene de Villiers
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: BFR --> homeopathy
"Naturally"?
Then you should have said so, as you miss my point by brushing this off - the point that a LOT of substances - including all BFRs - have no significant ability to *induce* pathological symptoms - unless potentized.
The subject (see item 1 above) was "medicines" = not "homeopathy".
WHich is why I used them as examples that do NOT follow the derangement rule to which you allowed no exceptions in the email I was answering.
You go in circles to pretend it is new idea from you.
YOu also add insulting wording:
It is you who is belatedly thinking about it......
Make where? Where's the quote?
Nothing I explained was vague. I am known for clarity of explanations:-)
Your understanding of it may be vague, and indeed seems to be from your musings below.
Have you studies BFRs or are you just talking a lot of hot air with no study?
You expect people to know the Organon when talking of homeopathy - why do you not study BFRs before making pronouncements about them? It's clear you prefer NOT to learn from those who DO know the system such as myself.
Your musings here make no sense:
I do not "seem" to do anything.
Either you understand what I wrote
- or you do not understand it
- or you reject it without knowing anything about it.
Read what I actually wrote, again.
You are rude to hide your ignorance or - just not man enough to be civil - or?
If you want a response from me again, first locate your manners and learn to use them.
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."
Then you should have said so, as you miss my point by brushing this off - the point that a LOT of substances - including all BFRs - have no significant ability to *induce* pathological symptoms - unless potentized.
The subject (see item 1 above) was "medicines" = not "homeopathy".
WHich is why I used them as examples that do NOT follow the derangement rule to which you allowed no exceptions in the email I was answering.
You go in circles to pretend it is new idea from you.
YOu also add insulting wording:
It is you who is belatedly thinking about it......
Make where? Where's the quote?
Nothing I explained was vague. I am known for clarity of explanations:-)
Your understanding of it may be vague, and indeed seems to be from your musings below.
Have you studies BFRs or are you just talking a lot of hot air with no study?
You expect people to know the Organon when talking of homeopathy - why do you not study BFRs before making pronouncements about them? It's clear you prefer NOT to learn from those who DO know the system such as myself.
Your musings here make no sense:
I do not "seem" to do anything.
Either you understand what I wrote
- or you do not understand it
- or you reject it without knowing anything about it.
Read what I actually wrote, again.
You are rude to hide your ignorance or - just not man enough to be civil - or?
If you want a response from me again, first locate your manners and learn to use them.
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."
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: BFR --> homeopathy
Hello, Irene --
Perhaps at last we approach the nub of the matter.
I beg to differ. The only point to emerge from your discussion there was your claim that:
"Not all substances need to be known for the derangements they cause.
Many can be used directly for benefit".
The relatively trivial note that something such as sand requires potentisation in order to fulfill its potential to cause or cure is something I acknowledged here in case you imagined your meandering mention of it to be relevant. So far it appears to have had no relevance at all, though, to the question under discussion at this point in your ramble: the question of whether an agent capable of deranging health (the counter-example you attempted being nutritional deficiency!) is necessary in restoring it.
This question is one worth pursuing, because it goes to the heart of two deep misconceptions.
The first misconception is that everything capable of restoring health is medicine. And the point you're now attempting to distract us from is this: that nutritional deficit is not an example of an agent at all. Nutritional supply, of course, is. But the difference between medicine and nutrient is exactly the difference that you fail to recognise here.
Let's look at an example that may be more straightforward to discuss in this context: sunlight. And let's consider, first, sunlight as an agency of derangement.
Overexposure to sunlight, or overexposure to the longer-wave UV radiation, UV A, readily induces certain skin cancers. I won't enter into a discussion here of the success or otherwise of some "potentised" form of UV A to cure people with such conditions, but obviously the homoeopathic method of treating somebody with such a cancer might consider some such remedy as a candidate, since it can cause it. That, then, is an example of the possibility of using some form of UV A, or sunlight, to cure the same kind of derangement that can cause. And unless the derangement it can cause is known and forms the basis of that prescription, the treatment does not fall under the homoeopathic method.
Now consider sunlight as an agency of which it's possible to have a deficit.
A lack of appropriately balanced sunlight -- specifically, of UV B -- is capable, as we know, of leading to a deficiency in vitamin/hormone D3, which in turn may lead to, amongst other undesirable effects, colds, diabetes, and cancer. Supplying the deficit by exposing oneself to the requisite rays of the sun undoes, more or less, the nutritional damage resulting from lack of exposure. That is, the deficit in exposure is remedied through exposure.
Can you begin to see the difference? In the one case, it is exposure to an agency (UV A) that causes a problem; in homoeopathy, that makes that same agency (UV A) a potential homoeopathic remedy for the pattern of derangement it is known to result in.
The other pattern of derangement, however, results not from exposure but simply from deficit, and is remedied by meeting the deficit. True, the agency "curing" the problem is incapable of causing it -- but that is exactly because it's something entirely different from medicine, something falling within the class of nutritional agencies.
It's for this simple reason that it is nonsense to regard everything that heals as medicine: doing so renders meaningless the concept of nutrition and deficiency.
It is the same distinction between nutritional agent and medicinal agent that inherently deprecates the other misconception you pursue here: that what a substance can "cure" it can also cause. And we can dispatch this misconception more swiftly simply by considering again the sunlight example.
Vitamin D3, for instance, "cures" a deficiency in vitamin D3; but it does not cause a deficiency in vitamin D3. So, of course, UV B "cures" a deficiency of vitamin D3; but does not cause it. The action of any nutrient in meeting a deficit or in merely meeting a requirement for normal healthy function does not rely upon and does not imply the capability of that nutrient to cause the deficit. Nutrients act not through the power to derange health but through their function in meeting nutritional requirements for normal function.
For this reason in addition to others already provided to you several times over, it is impossible to rely upon "cured" symptoms as any guide to the power of an agency to cause a similar state of derangement or even to cause particular symptoms.
Actually, as shown above, you have used two mutually contradictory arguments, both specious, to support two contentions, both false: that everything that cures is medicine, and that what something can cure, it can cause.
More generally, Irene, the entire edifice of argument you're pleased to call reasoning rests on empty assertions and self-contradictions, and your attacks on others rest on repeated denial of words first appearing over your name. In response to your most recent affirmations that the e-mails I've quoted represent misquotations of you, I have invited you to tell me which of the three latest e-mails I've quoted from "Irene de Villiers" did not in fact come from you. I look forward to seeing your response to that invitation. Perhaps we will at last discover whether there is another "Irene de Villiers" who, in posing as your good self, humiliates you so readily with her travesties of rational argument.
Kind regards,
John
Perhaps at last we approach the nub of the matter.
I beg to differ. The only point to emerge from your discussion there was your claim that:
"Not all substances need to be known for the derangements they cause.
Many can be used directly for benefit".
The relatively trivial note that something such as sand requires potentisation in order to fulfill its potential to cause or cure is something I acknowledged here in case you imagined your meandering mention of it to be relevant. So far it appears to have had no relevance at all, though, to the question under discussion at this point in your ramble: the question of whether an agent capable of deranging health (the counter-example you attempted being nutritional deficiency!) is necessary in restoring it.
This question is one worth pursuing, because it goes to the heart of two deep misconceptions.
The first misconception is that everything capable of restoring health is medicine. And the point you're now attempting to distract us from is this: that nutritional deficit is not an example of an agent at all. Nutritional supply, of course, is. But the difference between medicine and nutrient is exactly the difference that you fail to recognise here.
Let's look at an example that may be more straightforward to discuss in this context: sunlight. And let's consider, first, sunlight as an agency of derangement.
Overexposure to sunlight, or overexposure to the longer-wave UV radiation, UV A, readily induces certain skin cancers. I won't enter into a discussion here of the success or otherwise of some "potentised" form of UV A to cure people with such conditions, but obviously the homoeopathic method of treating somebody with such a cancer might consider some such remedy as a candidate, since it can cause it. That, then, is an example of the possibility of using some form of UV A, or sunlight, to cure the same kind of derangement that can cause. And unless the derangement it can cause is known and forms the basis of that prescription, the treatment does not fall under the homoeopathic method.
Now consider sunlight as an agency of which it's possible to have a deficit.
A lack of appropriately balanced sunlight -- specifically, of UV B -- is capable, as we know, of leading to a deficiency in vitamin/hormone D3, which in turn may lead to, amongst other undesirable effects, colds, diabetes, and cancer. Supplying the deficit by exposing oneself to the requisite rays of the sun undoes, more or less, the nutritional damage resulting from lack of exposure. That is, the deficit in exposure is remedied through exposure.
Can you begin to see the difference? In the one case, it is exposure to an agency (UV A) that causes a problem; in homoeopathy, that makes that same agency (UV A) a potential homoeopathic remedy for the pattern of derangement it is known to result in.
The other pattern of derangement, however, results not from exposure but simply from deficit, and is remedied by meeting the deficit. True, the agency "curing" the problem is incapable of causing it -- but that is exactly because it's something entirely different from medicine, something falling within the class of nutritional agencies.
It's for this simple reason that it is nonsense to regard everything that heals as medicine: doing so renders meaningless the concept of nutrition and deficiency.
It is the same distinction between nutritional agent and medicinal agent that inherently deprecates the other misconception you pursue here: that what a substance can "cure" it can also cause. And we can dispatch this misconception more swiftly simply by considering again the sunlight example.
Vitamin D3, for instance, "cures" a deficiency in vitamin D3; but it does not cause a deficiency in vitamin D3. So, of course, UV B "cures" a deficiency of vitamin D3; but does not cause it. The action of any nutrient in meeting a deficit or in merely meeting a requirement for normal healthy function does not rely upon and does not imply the capability of that nutrient to cause the deficit. Nutrients act not through the power to derange health but through their function in meeting nutritional requirements for normal function.
For this reason in addition to others already provided to you several times over, it is impossible to rely upon "cured" symptoms as any guide to the power of an agency to cause a similar state of derangement or even to cause particular symptoms.
Actually, as shown above, you have used two mutually contradictory arguments, both specious, to support two contentions, both false: that everything that cures is medicine, and that what something can cure, it can cause.
More generally, Irene, the entire edifice of argument you're pleased to call reasoning rests on empty assertions and self-contradictions, and your attacks on others rest on repeated denial of words first appearing over your name. In response to your most recent affirmations that the e-mails I've quoted represent misquotations of you, I have invited you to tell me which of the three latest e-mails I've quoted from "Irene de Villiers" did not in fact come from you. I look forward to seeing your response to that invitation. Perhaps we will at last discover whether there is another "Irene de Villiers" who, in posing as your good self, humiliates you so readily with her travesties of rational argument.
Kind regards,
John