Minutus

The virus matters in terms of knowing what damage it does. It's the
damage from it that gets omitted when one wears blinkers to avoid
seeing the virus. If a bacterium or fungus was doing the damage, that
would not change the approach - but knowing what is being damaged and
in what way, IS relevant. And for that reason it matters to
understand not just that a virus is involved but WHAT it does, WHERE
it does it, and WHAT ELSE is out of order as a result. ALL of this is
invisible in AIDS - it's internal.
The things you actually can see in AIds are side effects - not main
effects - so they only mater minimally compared to the main illness
which is internal and invisible and needs virus understanding to make
good use of in remedy selection.

It's not like a cut finger where you KNOW the finger is cut - the
cause and effect are all visible. In AIDS, the cause and effect are
mostly INvisible - and virus understanding is the way to know what is
happening there.

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."

Would you say, then, that in general and on average, classical homepaths
who have no knowledge of, or reject, the knowledge about virusses will
have less beneficial results?

Hennie

Irene de Villiers schreef:

Yes I believe so.
Not just viruses, but the pathology of any illness they see and work
with, is useful.
It's also not that hard to look up on line:-)

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."

Hi Irene,
I do take your point, and in fact that's part of why I said that
diagnosis (including its information about pathology) can in some cases
be useful or important. Personally, for the huge majority of the sort
of prescribing that *I* do, it's not relevant. I do recognize those
situations where it is or may be, and I proceed accordingly.

In the case of AIDS (another condition that I've never treated, but
know people who do), it hasn't been my understanding that it matters
whether the dis-ease is being caused by a virus or something else. Do
you disagree?

Shannon

Hi Irene,
Really my main thought on this has been that I don't see it as a useful
or meaningful debate for a list such as this. Re your examples below
(see below)--
Is that something that happens in AIDS, or is that a tangential
example? In either case, what remedies or remedy groups does that lead
to?
I assume that usually that correspondence would be arrived at by
considering the broader symptom picture? At any rate I do hear of
success in treating AIDS homeopathically, but I've never heard of that
type of information ("... damage to TH-2 cytokines...) being part of
the prescribing picture. From your experiences with your FIP kitties,
clearly that kind of information (and in general understanding of the
pathology of the disease under treatment) *can* be crucial--maybe
especially if the broader symptom picture is lacking, for whatever
reason? I'm not trying to say it (understanding particular aspects of
pathology) isn't useful; I'm just saying that it isn't usually
necessary for good homeopathic prescribing. If you disagree with that,
I'll read your comments and bow out. I'm only speaking from my
own understanding.
Okay--how *do* you select a remedy based on "virus damage to CD4+ and
CD8+ cells? So in those cases where prescribing was successful but
that information was lacking, what was the bridge?
And also with other sorts of similarities...
?? Oboy, what rubrics??
Yikes, and where does one get that information??
Do I remember right that Apis is suggested because the... was it the
belly that becomes bright red and swollen?
If by "cause" you mean "contact dermatitis, or liver disease?", of
course.
But to go beyond that, I think we usually make do without, and when
things go well, we are taken by *other* information into the
(hopefully) proper group of remedies.

I understand what you're saying about its usefulness. Maybe that's
information that ought to be taught in homeopathy school--or maybe
that's not feasible. Irene, honestly I have barely a clue about most
of what you're addressing with the cytokines and etc. etc. I'm not
saying that's *good*, but much of the time we manage to get the job
done anyway...
Um... Why did you snip my next sentence, where I said that... Or at
least left the door open for it, because one has to stop *somewhere*!
Part of my next sentence said something to the effect that--that
information (whether the disease is infectious, endogenous, toxic,
lifestyle-related, or etc.) should be brought out in the normal course
of homeopathic casetaking. One can't take the symptoms out of the
context of the overall case (well, one *can*, but it leaves much room
for error!)

There are different ways to find and express similar information. I
have never yet wavered between this remedy and that, on a basis that I
don't know whether it's bacterial or viral! Perhaps some of the bases
I *do* waver on could be *translated* into "bacterial or viral", but I
have never, ever made a remedy choice on the basis of those two words.

Mm, I feel like I've leaving this hanging, but that's probably the best
I'll be able to do! Basically, I get very uncomfortable with the
"debates" over whether AIDS is or isn't viral or contagious etc., for a
whole lot of reasons.
- most of us don't know enough about the issues (even if we do take
time to do the posted reading) to make a rational choice;
- it's very much "not-homeoathy"
- it's divisive, both among our group and potentially between us and
the public
- it sets us up for ridicule, albeit in large part by people who
*also* are not familiar enough with the issues to make a rational
choice
- it does not help any of us to understand anything useful about
treating AIDS or other diseases
- even *if* AIDS is in fact not contagious (and I have NOT been even
remotely convinced of that idea so far!), I could see nothing but
danger from having homeopathy take up that "banner". And if that
theory is mistaken and it *is* contagious, then the chance is there of
doing horrible, horrible harm by misinforming people. I just really
feel it is a dangerous and destructive sort of topic to carry on these
lists.

And fortunately we shouldn't have to, because it is NOT HOMEOPATHY!

However, Irene--I am very interested in what you know about the
specific immune responses, and how that translates into rubrics and
remedy choice! I think this is another book you need to write, hm?
)
Shannon

I wouldn't know what to look up.
- What would I look up for chronic fatigue syndrome (ME)?
- Or for general malaise, can't get out of bed, but not much else to
go on (other than the overall chronic case)?
- Or a M/E state sort of sad and weepy from overwork and "stress"; no
appetite in the morning, but really none all day either--feels hungry
but nothing appeals.

Or even sharp pain in throat, sudden onset, < swallowing (didn't see
it), feels dizzy and wants to stay warm in bed?
Shannon

It matters what the microbe is doing - so from that perspective I
find one needs to know what microbe does which, and so its
involvement is indeed relevant. Most of my cases are immune
compromise illnesses, including feline AIDS and it matters a lot to
recognize what the virus is doing in AIDS - what makes it replicate
faster - what slows it down (to give homeopathy a chance to get in
there) etc. Ignoring it is like trying to heal a broken leg with
homeopathy and refusing the patient the use of crutches as well as
failing to remove the patient from the cause of the breaking.
The leg will not heal that way:-) Nor the AIDS.
So yes - to me it really matters that a virus causes it, and that I
have some "ammunition" to slow down the virus (removing the exciting
cause) - to know what damage it does - to know under what conditions
it does it (there are several phases in AIDS illness and I use a
different approach in each stage as the virus is behaving differently
in each and consequently each stage has different physical
vulnerabilities. It's a complex illness and one needs to "know the
enemy". Knowing these, and the order of the actions and damage done
by the virus - is very useful both in remedy selection and in
removing exciting cause (by enhancing the right immune system
cytokines in response to what the virus is doing) , and in strategic
planning to give homeopathy the best chance.
I do not see how I could be succesful without knowing all this.

Knowing the pathology and organism details is relevant in acute
illnesses too.
Example:
Cats under 6 months have 100% fatality form Bordetella bronchiseptica
and older cats 50%, (without homeopathy, using conventional medicine).
Before I knew enough about the virus, my homeopathy success rate was
near zero for newborns born to an actively ill mother, and not much
better for kittens under a month old. As age increased, it was
easier. Adults could be helped. An outbreak in my own home resulted
in me burying two complete litters of newborns - 9 kittens, all dead
in 2 to 9 days. Very traumatic.
But then I read the research on the Bordetella bronchiseptica
organism. The gene code had been mapped, and a gene was found in the
bacterium that coded for an alkali to destroy lung tissue as if you'd
put oven cleaner lye in there. [No wonder it is silent pneumonia, it
hurts too much. Cats can die seemingly overnight, with no symptoms
besides lassitude - sheep too.] The mechanism is to destroy the
alpha lipoic acid in the lungs. So on finding this out, I could
repertorize better using the burning in lungs as a key symptom (and I
had the illness myself - it is zoonotic - one does not have the
nerves to feel lungs burning till it is very advanced, one just feels
weak, tired,...) and also supplementing the diet with large amounts
of alpha lipoic acid to overcome the destruction of it internally.
It's to me a clear example of just why the pathology and the details
of the organism are ALWAYS relevant.

The problem is that until one starts to study the pathology and how
it can help a homeopath, it is easy to remain in ignorance about how
important it is. Seeing is believing - but one has to first look, in
order to be able to see:-) Denial never helps, and can be dangerous
to health:-)
The "theory" that homeopathy can be succesful with visible
symptoms alone is a myth. One can get lucky a certain number of times
yes, but as a system of health care, I find that approach sorely
lacking in foresight and ethically difficult to condone. For me
anyway:-)
I would never personally go to a homeopath who found the pathology
irrelevant or said things such as "AIDS is not caused by a virus".
The pathology is much too relevant to being a good homeopath, in my
eyes.

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."