Minutus

I resend this to correct and add:

So far, I notice that most comments in response to mine about BFR is to describe how they work as far as the prescriber is concerned. I meant, how does the prana or vital force get impacted by BFR vs. homeopathy. That is the mystery. I thought that observations about BFR might help understand how the energy get affects or impacted by both homeopathy and BFR. I realize that no matter what we discover it will not be anything that will pester skepto-lunes with bothering to examine their assumptions, but it might help us.

Roger

Well, I gave you the benefit of the doubt, Irene, in naming Bach or some of his followers. But evidently you've learnt nothing at all from your various collisions on this list.

If you truly want to understand the meaning of polypharmacy, please don't take my word for it; consult a dictionary.

If you truly would like to understand how polypharmacy is impossible within homoeopathy, then take no note of anybody's abhorrence; strive to understand homoeopathy's reliance on mimicking the patient's state of deviation from health.

You might, for a start, consider the foolishness of regarding substances relatively unknown to you as having limited "depth" and of equating that with limited pathogenesis, and then consider the wilful ignorance in exhuming the dead proposition that the pathogenesis of substance A plus the pathogenesis of substance B creates a pathogenesis A+B.

You might. But I can be confident, can't I, that you won't. You have more fun crying victim of anybody who calls your bluff.

Cheers --

John

Dear Roger
Some are enjoying your theorising posts.
But what I will not tolerate is bad language! So please do not repeat.
Soroush

(Moderator)
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger B
Sent: 23 July 2013 04:49
To: Homeopathy minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] BFR
John,

I am not trying to annoy. I am trying to provoke people like you to include in your thinking other things. So when I used the word "pantheon", I used a deliberately nebulous word.

"Let's first establish that both you and those responding to you in fact knows that homoeopathy rests squarely upon a rounded knowledge of both patient and medicinal symptoms and that that basis is not usable in these other practices."

Well, that is just not true. Both Ayurveda and BFR are very careful to match their remedy to the patient. They are both constitutional medicine, as is traditional Chinese Medicine (but that is way too complicated for me to discuss while I am trying to pry open y'all's mind.)

If what I have to say is nonsense, then phuck you asshole.

Roger

________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:08:42 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR
Roger, the question that began this was: "where does it [Bach flower remedies] fit in the pantheon of homeopathy?"; and it seems that you're already aware that it is not and can never be "in" homoeopathy. The ducking and weaving to introduce other sideshows is all very amusing, but it turns rather simple matters into extended, complex debates to no purpose other than possibly to annoy.
Let's first establish that both you and those responding to you in fact knows that homoeopathy rests squarely upon a rounded knowledge of both patient and medicinal symptoms and that that basis is not useable in these other practices. In that light, all of us recognise that homoeopathy is utterly distinct from dietary and nutritional practice [without reflection either upon its intrinsic value or upon its value in removing obstacles to cure], meditation; acupuncture; and Bach flower remedies.
Remaining clear about the difference between these practices and homoeopathy and discarding a nonsense question about where they fit in the pantheon of homoeopathy, we can then proceed to entirely useful questions about the possible value of these practices in a context of homoeopathic treatment. But whilever we seem to be pursuing a phantom question of how any of them fit in the pantheon of homoeopathy, we'll find ourselves talking at cross-purposes as has so often occurred on this list in particular due to exactly this confusion of assumptions.
In this regard, when you recognise that your question has been accurately answered, rather than simply throw confusing side-issues in as though they were relevant, it would be helpful if you acknowledged that the question has been answered and put your new question as a distinct question. Otherwise, whereas in fact it's clear that you understand all this, your poor communication risks making you look like a fool unable to discern homoeopathy from anything else at all. We've had enough discussions already in which participants painted themselves in exactly that way through similar confusion as to what the topic was.
Kind regards,
John
singing bowls >> don't know anything about them, but I like to listen to them; does that count?

meditation >> classical homeopathy goes much deeper immediately, but meditation can eventually go very deep; and a quieted mind can do wonders for body, mind, and spirit.

Baunscheidt >> I will have to go investigate that one; I know zip about it, never heard of it before.

acupuncture >> Not as deep as homeopathy, and much more expensive, but nevertheless useful.

Roger
--

.
"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).

Roger, Just FYI, insulting people is really not the way to get or keep good conversation going. Re-check, please?

Yes, Sir.

Do you think that I enjoy being a hot-head. I typed that out and sent it faster than I could control myself, obviously.

Now, I just delete posts without reading from the people who have hurt my feelings. I said that I had no fear. I fear getting my feelings hurt. I guess I lied, accidentally.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: finrod@finrod.co.uk
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 17:13:42 +0100
Subject: RE: [Minutus] BFR
Dear Roger
Some are enjoying your theorising posts.
But what I will not tolerate is bad language! So please do not repeat.
Soroush

(Moderator)
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Roger B
Sent: 23 July 2013 04:49
To: Homeopathy minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] BFR
John,

I am not trying to annoy. I am trying to provoke people like you to include in your thinking other things. So when I used the word "pantheon", I used a deliberately nebulous word.

"Let's first establish that both you and those responding to you in fact knows that homoeopathy rests squarely upon a rounded knowledge of both patient and medicinal symptoms and that that basis is not usable in these other practices."

Well, that is just not true. Both Ayurveda and BFR are very careful to match their remedy to the patient. They are both constitutional medicine, as is traditional Chinese Medicine (but that is way too complicated for me to discuss while I am trying to pry open y'all's mind.)

If what I have to say is nonsense, then phuck you asshole.

Roger

________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: John.P.Harvey@gmail.com
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 13:08:42 +1000
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR
Roger, the question that began this was: "where does it [Bach flower remedies] fit in the pantheon of homeopathy?"; and it seems that you're already aware that it is not and can never be "in" homoeopathy. The ducking and weaving to introduce other sideshows is all very amusing, but it turns rather simple matters into extended, complex debates to no purpose other than possibly to annoy.
Let's first establish that both you and those responding to you in fact knows that homoeopathy rests squarely upon a rounded knowledge of both patient and medicinal symptoms and that that basis is not useable in these other practices. In that light, all of us recognise that homoeopathy is utterly distinct from dietary and nutritional practice [without reflection either upon its intrinsic value or upon its value in removing obstacles to cure], meditation; acupuncture; and Bach flower remedies.
Remaining clear about the difference between these practices and homoeopathy and discarding a nonsense question about where they fit in the pantheon of homoeopathy, we can then proceed to entirely useful questions about the possible value of these practices in a context of homoeopathic treatment. But whilever we seem to be pursuing a phantom question of how any of them fit in the pantheon of homoeopathy, we'll find ourselves talking at cross-purposes as has so often occurred on this list in particular due to exactly this confusion of assumptions.
In this regard, when you recognise that your question has been accurately answered, rather than simply throw confusing side-issues in as though they were relevant, it would be helpful if you acknowledged that the question has been answered and put your new question as a distinct question. Otherwise, whereas in fact it's clear that you understand all this, your poor communication risks making you look like a fool unable to discern homoeopathy from anything else at all. We've had enough discussions already in which participants painted themselves in exactly that way through similar confusion as to what the topic was.
Kind regards,
John
singing bowls >> don't know anything about them, but I like to listen to them; does that count?

meditation >> classical homeopathy goes much deeper immediately, but meditation can eventually go very deep; and a quieted mind can do wonders for body, mind, and spirit.

Baunscheidt >> I will have to go investigate that one; I know zip about it, never heard of it before.

acupuncture >> Not as deep as homeopathy, and much more expensive, but nevertheless useful.

Roger
--

.
"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).

Dear Shannon Nelson,

I post on about 4 or 5 edgy forums (LENR, homeopathy, raw milk, etc.) which seem to attract the most annoying skeptopaths. It gets old.

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: shannonnelson@tds.net
Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2013 11:22:29 -0500
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR

Roger, Just FYI, insulting people is really not the way to get or keep good conversation going. Re-check, please?

It is quite possible that individual Bach flowers are homeopathic in effect purely on the basis of how their use was determined.

Didn't Bach sit under various trees and recorded the mental-emotional changes that came over him - and then used the remedies for those states?

If so, it was probably a simple proving. Obviously more work has to be done to confirm this.
Kind Regards,

Fran Sheffield

Yes, all true.
It was done.
...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."

Just for the record on BFRs:

They ARE synergistic and proven to be so.
Tough luck if someone chooses not to believe what has been shown.

The flowers from which BFRs are made *could* be made instead into homeopathic remedies and proved. They then would likely have a lot more rubrics and more effectiveness in use than they have as a BFR, as is any homeopathic remedy which is mild in material form but powerful in potentized form.
Silicea terra (aka Silica) is a typical example - swallowing a bit of beach sand is not nearly as medicinally powerful as say Silicea 30C

But BFRs are NOT made or used as 30C remedies or anything of the sort. They have small medicinal powers at their usage levels, compared to potentized homeopathic remedies of the kind that are very mild at material levels.
Like it or not, BFR's ARE synergistic when used in a group *matched* to the individual.

As for the nonsense about polypharmacy and homeopathy:
Mixtures of homeopathic remedies are NOT homeopathic remedies, have NO provings, and NO predictability, and have NO matching to any individual.

There's NO comparison between such unpredictable mixtures and a predictable synergistic matched custom BFR.

I advocate only remedies that ARE predictable in advance as to what they can accomplish, for a SPECIFIC individual, whatever system they belong to.

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."

Well, well, Irene, you've overcome the unpredictability of mixtures and know how to use them "synergistically". Congratulations on once again showing your genius and vision to be greater than the "limited" vision and understanding of Hahnemann. Doubtless you have much to teach us who imagine that the effects of a single substance cannot be reproduced, and the symptoms of a natural illness cannot reliably be mimicked, by a combination of medicinal substances. And of course it follows from your certain knowledge of how two or more medicines will behave in combination that you can now defend the polypharmacy that you at once admit practising (see your own words, below!) and deny is polypharmacy. When your only tool is a sledgehammer, everything begins to look as though it could use brute force, doesn't it. It's merely unfortunate that you see fit to apply your sledgehammer to others.

John