Minutus

Yeah, but I've been similarly assaulted by "lefties" etc., and even
"spiritual junkies" and homeopaths, so I think no group has cornered
the market on "control freak-ism!"

the big difference is that allopaths have real power.
they can create a legal nightmare in order to force tx.
they have the power of the law/gun behind them to force
you to do what you don't want. look what they did in
w. virginia a while back with parents who were not in total
compliance with vaccinations. they subpoena'd, with kids,
law enforcement with assault rifles pointed at them, and the
kids were stuck with every damned vaccine there was regardless
of their history. and then the kicker was the governor of the
state saying he did not vaccinate his kids and wouldn't!
a bunch of lefties trying to impose their issue on you is a
world away of difference.
tanya

Tanya wrote:
I guess that depends on the "issue" and the situation.
However, I was under the impression that most of these "'protect' you against your will" laws were the brainchild of left-wingers. If you give the state the power to be your "nanny," you'd better be prepared to take your "castor oil."
Cee

i think you are mistaken. generally, what the left has
promoted is usually coopted by the right, including, most
recently, the use of the internet for organizing.
i think we have very different perspective, understandings and
experiences so i think we should not get into this on this list.
tanya

That's a bit simplistic. In Queensland, Australia we've had an elected "left-wing" State Government in power for the last 11 years. For 10 of those years people successfully campaigned to keep fluoridation out of the water supply, and the Government was sympathetic and compliant. Last year a new left-wing Premier was elected, and one of her pet projects was to introduce fluoridation. So we got it.
It's an inherent part of the political process. You vote for someone on the balance of their overall public policies, then because they win an election, they claim to have a mandate to introduce demonstrably unpopular policies. We call this democracy. So, we just have to keep plugging away at local representatives to make our views known.
In the Weekend Australian yesterday, there was an article describing the court procedings involving Merck pharmaceuticals and a man who claims his heart attack was caused by Vioxx. The "Merckting" [marketing] million $ tactics involved in promoting this drug all over the world have been highly aggressive, and included making up bogus scientific Journals claiming its effectiveness. $ $ and more $. It's good that these kind of tactics are being reported in national newspapers, including the way Merck people intimidated complainants and journalists in the court room. Not anything new, but still leaves you breathless.
Chris

well politicians are not just individuals. they are bought and
sold like candy it seems. but i am one that believes there
are organized forces that operate behind closed doors who pull
the puppet strings of so-called leaders. i find this information
missing in almost all discussions, public and private. without
looking at this dynamic it is not possible to begin to understand
the convoluted decisions such as the fluoridation of australia's
water in the face of such public opposition. obama, here in the
usa, became like that even before the election. single-payer
health care is a very popular concept here, but obama et al have
refused to make it part of the discussion. it's like the myth
of Sisyphus!
tanya

Will write more later with time but why are you confusing the case of now with the case that went before the bite?

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Well, it's a consideration I always make when looking for an apparently
acute remedy--*does* the current picture fit as part of the prior one?
*And* I was taught---and I know that not everyone was taught
similarly---that if there's been a serviceable "constitutional" (as in
"long-acting chronic remedy") previously, it is often worth trying that
first, before looking for a more specific remedy for the current state.
I realize some argue against that practice, but it is what I learned
from my first, "very Vithoulkian" prescriber, *and* I have had it work
extremely well on a number of occasions--it depends on just *how* well
suited the chronic remedy is, and other factors.

But also, one tends to develop ailments (a) based upon
susceptibility--we are more susceptible to some things and less so to
others; and (b) show symptoms in ways consistent with our own set of
weaknesses and strengths.

E.g. my Bufo kitty! The *only* reason I gave him Bufo for his worms
(which, due to traveling on my part, had made him very, very sick
before I realized what was happening!) is that I helplessly skimmed
remedies for "worms", realized I had just about nothing to go on in the
way of "worm" symptoms, saw Bufo in one of the (large) rubrics, went
Ah, and that's what I've been thinking must be "his" remedy based on
chronic picture, etc., etc., etc. Worked great. Would not have known
to give it, except for his chronic picture.

In my son's case now, it's a similar situation--there is almost nothing
to go on except numb spots on the toes, and presumed history of tick
bite. But there is a substantial "prior case", and one of the remedies
that had already been under consideration, appears in a small rubric
(maybe more than one) relating to the symptoms and presumed cause.

I realize you don't like the strategy, but it is one that has worked
for me numerous times. I forgot to ask yesterday whether there's any
change this time...

However, I look forward to hearing your other thoughts!

Shannon

It is either an acute case or a chronic case and as your concerns began after the bite I was reading this as an acute that started there. If you are now saying it is a chronic case then cannot comment without knowing the case. Are you saying he is and has always been susceptible to insect bites and has bad reactions from them? That could be part of the case as a chronic understanding - a susceptibility that needs to be cured. But you've lost me on what needs to be cured here - where the case begins or ends.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Very often a trauma simply pushes a person farther along the path they
were already moving down.

Also, trauma and illness affect us in the tissues, and in the manners,
in which we are susceptible.

Anyway, no, he's had not particular susceptibility to insect bites in
the past--no more so than normal, so far as I've seen. Then how would
you suggest I proceed? What is your customary approach, when you have
an acute or trauma case with only few and general and/or unreliable
symptoms?