Minutus

I just felt like adding my 2 cents to the discussion on addiction, after
watching the thread for awhile. To me, addiction is just like anyother
allopathic drugging. It is an individual's attempt to suppress "pain" of
some sort. As with any allopathic suppression, the pain returns when the
drug wears off and over time a greater amount of drug is needed to get the
same results. It seems to me that the VF is reacting just as a homeopath
would expect. In its attempt to defend itself, it reduces its susceptibility
to the substance, yet the "disease" which originally produced the pain is
still there and now more drug is needed to eliminate it. Providing free
needles, etc. would be assisting the suppression and would only be a short
term solution as with any suppressive therapy. The long term aggravation
would be very dangerous to the survival of the society. Thinking
holistically requires taking the society of which an individual is part as
one would look at the whole person and not just their eczema. The only long
term "cure" for drug addiction on a societal level is to treat the root
cause. Now, we need to find a way to do that without suppressive government
programs like socialism, which is more allopathy/antipathy. We must remove
obstacles to cure and find a method of "social homeopathy". Of course, there
would be an aggravation, but in the long run, it would be the way to go.

This, is all of course, just my personal opinion. Yet, it is consistent, I
believe, with the homeopathic philosophy.

Russell Swift, DVM
Classical Homeopath
phone 561-391-5615
email drswift@therightremedy.com
www.therightremedy.com

"Allopaths have protocols, Homeopaths have principles."

Shannon,

You are absolutely correct in describing some of the addictive behavior. My point, tho, is that it is
not because there is something unique to the 'addict's' thinking disorder that makes him separate
from the rest of the human race. First off, the driven, self-centeredness of the heroin addict is not
all that different from non-heroin addict's drive for meeting their needs in an egoistic way. This has
become a by-word for me to describe the American personality. And, again, what of the people who
have such intense control issues that they will do anything to have things done their way. I often find
that behavior to be unethical (i never use the concept of morality), in no less a way than the drug
abuser's. Instant gratification! The drug addict is driven by a bio-chemical need and this is one of
the differences. If you remove the drug dependency, you still have a person with his/her problems
that led them to seek refuge in drugs, but one who is more able to control impulses. But nonetheless,
a person with problems. It's like alcohol. We now are very sophisticated about alcoholism and see it
as a 'disease.' But the person who ceases to drink still exhibits the same personality disorders unless
they seek to make core changes in themselves. And what is the difference between them and the
person who is a 'dry' drunk--i call them cheap alcoholics.

Again, the issue is not whether some people do horrible things, but how we view them. Do we isolate
them from the human race and create a judgemental view of them, or do we see them as part of humanity
with a particular type of problem, no different than all the other pathologies that we see and deal with.
Perhaps it is because some of these dis-eases are more polite and non-threatening that they are seen
as different.

tanya

very interesting comments, russell. however, i need to take issue with your comments about
'suppressive socialism.' is this a prejudice emerging? why not focus on suppressive pseudo-
democracies that support abusive and usurious capitalistic platforms?

tanya

Tanya,

Prejudice, no - homeopathic philosophy. If one has a chronically low
thyroid, simply giving thyroid hormone is suppression. If one has
chronically low money, simply giving money is likewise suppression. It
temporary eliminates the symptom, but in the long run leads to greater
deficiencies.

be well
Russell Swift, DVM
Classical Homeopath
phone 561-391-5615
email drswift@therightremedy.com
www.therightremedy.com

"Allopaths have protocols, Homeopaths have principles."

Russell,

we will have to get into the politics of this privately. however, i will
say the
prejudice in your comment concerns a misunderstanding of socialism.
altho i see where you are coming from, i do find your comment to be
prejudicial.
it is just not an appropriate example being based on a wrongful definition
and what
appears to be an underlying value judgement.

further, along this line, i find that many homeopaths use examples that
express
basic prejudices. as a matter of fact, that is the very nature of this
particular
discussion thread.

tanya

Tanya,

This is going to be the last remarks I make to the list about this and I
would be happy to continue a discussion off list. I don't consider judgement
as a prejudice. Prejudice is to form an opinion before hand without
information, as in expecting a particular remedy to produce certain symptoms
before a proving has been done or expecting an individual of a particular
ethnic group to behave in a specific way without knowledge of the
individual. Judgements are based on information. We cannot lose sight of
"rights" and "wrongs". Homeopathy is at a loss if we do. We must recognize
what is pathological in an individual in order to treat. Political
correctness was once described by a homeopathy teacher of mine as "cancer of
the mind" in that its intent to dedifferentiate individuals creating a
homogenous group much like cancer cells. I see it more as an auto immune
disease, the inability to distinguish self from non-self. This is
fundamental to survival of the organism and I believe to the survival of the
human race.

I do not know what you meant by this statement:

"it is just not an appropriate example being based on a wrongful definition
and what appears to be an underlying value judgement."

ps I don't like any suppressive regime regardless of its stated philosophy
and pure democracy is dangerous, which is why Jefferson, et al, did not make
the U.S. a democracy.

be well
Russell Swift, DVM
Classical Homeopath
phone 561-391-5615
email drswift@therightremedy.com
www.therightremedy.com

"Allopaths have protocols, Homeopaths have principles."

Tanya wrote:
problems
impulses. But nonetheless,
about alcoholism and see it
same personality disorders unless
between them and the

This just illustrates what I've been saying - that substance abuse is not
the cause of the state. The state was prior to the substance abuse, and it
remains even if the person can be weaned off the substance. Since this is
demonstrably the case, then the addiction has to be part of the picture of
the state - ie. a *symptom*.

So what is creating the addiction? What is holding the person to the
substance? Many people can partake in addictive substances, even frequently
and excessively, and not become addicted, so I think that this idea of
bio-chemical dependency as a property of the substance is a bit of a red
herring. Dependency is related to susceptibility. And if the susceptibility
is there, then dependency exists simultaneously on all levels - mental,
emotional and physical - the one does not "produce" the other.

Try following this hypothesis through. What I'm saying is that the substance
to which the person is addicted is a close similar for their state, or
possibly even the simillimum. (I'm sure that many of us have observed how
our patients frequently appear to be attracted in some way to their
simillimum.)

So what happens when they take a crude dose?

The Arndt-Schultz Law (formulated way back in 1888) states that for every
substance small doses stimulate, moderate doses inhibit and large doses
kill. Allopathy operates exclusively in the area of moderate (ie.
inhibitory) doses which are applied on the principle of contraria
contrariis. Homeopathy operates exclusively in the area of small (ie.
stimulatory) doses and applies them on the principle of similia simillibus.
But we're aware that homeopathic remedies exhibit polarities or opposing
states, so this difference in principle and dose *does not preclude* the use
of the same substance for the same symptom complex (China for malaria,
Digitalis for heart conditions, etc). All we're seeing here - as Russell
pointed out - is the allopathic principle at work.

The moderate dose of the substance inhibits and opposes the person's state
so its primary action is to produce the polar opposite state to the one
being experienced by the person who's taking it. But as the level of the
substance declines in the body, it reaches the threshold of the small dose
and flips into the stimulatory mode. This is the so-called "withdrawal"
phase. In homeopathic terminology it's an aggravation. If it's a dissimilar
aggravation, in all likelihood it will be unpleasant, but *because it does
not match, and therefore intensify, the underlying state* the desire to
address it with a repeat dose of the substance is not particularly strong.
If, however, it's a similar aggravation, the resulting state can become
unbearable and the person will be driven to address it in the only way they
know how - by another material dose of the substance. And so the addictive
cycle begins.

So what we're seeing here is *an error of dose* and *an error of principle*,
but NOT necessarily an error of substance!

I really do think that moving away from this idea of substance-as-cause and
addiction-as-escape or addiction-as-disease towards addiction-as-symptom and
substance-as-substitute-simillimum yields a much richer potential for
successful treatment.

Regards
Wendy

Dear Russell,

First, I hope your last comment was an error. Jefferson et al DID make
this a democracy, altho it is quite questionable today that this is what
exists in the US.

Second, after criticizing my comments and perspective, where are you
coming from then asking what I meant. I guess you didnt understand
anything I said.

Third, being somewhat of an authority on the issue of prejudice, I am
quite aware of the difference between prejudice and bias.

Fourth, what are you talking about with 'rights' and 'wrongs'? Whose
rights and wrongs!

Fifth, the most extraordinary pathology in the US is the philosophical
belief in individualism. To define for you, this is not about
individuality.
It is the belief that the only thing important is the individual. I dont
know of any society that isnt based on the concept that people need to
ban together for mutual survival. Governments are created to manage
political business of the group. Implicit in this is the reality that the
individual profits by being part of the group which in turn demands that
the individual has some responsibility toward the group. How the government
is defined and how it operates is up for grabs. It is usually formed out of
the economic institutions' needs. As a matter of fact all societal
institutions
are formed and developed to meet the needs of the economic institution since
that
is the one that keeps the group alive.
In you comments you seem to think that socialism is repressive and that
people under socialism are deficient in some manner, not being responsible
and just taking hand-outs as i believe you put it. That is your prejudice
operating. Socialism has never been allowed to develop in our modern
western world because it runs counter to the greed of capitalism. And
capitalism
breeds individualism in the extreme which isolates people from each other
and
destroys communities. We can discuss this further privately.
Your comment about dedifferentiating people and creating a homogenous
whole feels a bit paranoid to me. I would wonder about any teacher of
homeopathy expounding on politics as an authority (something I encountered
many times, always with distaste). I have little patience for people who
sell themselves as teachers of one subject, using that role as a bully
pulpit
for their politics. I find that to be disingenuous and usually something to
be
questioned. As to the comment itself, it makes me wonder what that person
really knew and what they were afraid of. I find people have great
similarities which
is the very reason why we can understand other people at all. The
differences are
often not very great. In homeopathy we may focus on the differences, but it
is
similarities that allow us to practice.

And I too will not comment on this list either about these particular ideas,
but will be happy to
communicate privately.

tanya

And sixth, as regards your comments about

well said

Wendy Howard wrote: