Minutus

Yeah that's all we need, infighting and discouragement of positive progress.

Shame on you Vivki.
The FDA has a history of asking for comments and ignoring them.
Place them anyway.
But ALSO lobby congress who are by LAW required to listed to and represent their constituents.
If yo are too lazy to do both you can cut and paste the comments from one to the other.

......Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Great email Dale, esp this part:
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Yes,Dale I absolutely agree. We cannot legislate against abortion but it is ok to demand vaccination for everyone. We must get a permit and jump through hoops to be certified organic, but it is ok to pour deadly poisons on the living earth, killing everything in its way and no one appears to care.
Something is backwards. We still have the constitution,I hope. Maybe it will take a Supreme Court decision to guarantee our rights.
Maria

Viki , follow the money.
From big pharma to Monsanto. Follow the campaign contributions. Politicians will do what their constituents want. If they do not hear from their constituents they will vote for the agendas of their campaign contributors. Simple as that.

Maria, of course. We know who the criminal members of Congress and their corporate masters are. However, let's not get sidelined with that. We have been presented with some things that need to be done first... for the hearing on April 21st! Dr. Shelton is like an Homeopathic Angel/beam of light. He has a plan. He's asking for your cases (from you and your patients). All I'm saying is that we might be smart to take action as it presents itself! That's why I'm going to do whatever I can to work for this piece of it first.

Thanks Maria!

Vicki

I wouldn't put my trust in this Supreme Court, Maria -- the same that gave us Citizens United! Better to fight from the beginning, before things get too far advanced down the wrong path.
Peace,
Dale

This is the result of too many people thinking that the government should be their nanny and take care of them from cradle to grave. So our government is doing that. Unfortunately, our government can't cater to very opinion, so it generally picks the majority opinion, and thus we have this tyranny of the majority, rather than freedom.

This is absolutely, positively crystal clear reasoning. If the majority of the people were against abortion and vaccinations, then people in favor of legal abortions and vaccinations would be having their rights and their perspectives quashed. The problem is the nanny-state mentality, not the opinion of those who disagree with us.

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 3 Apr 2015 06:54:35 -0400
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Legislation as a danger to homeopathy: Attn Dana Ullman and David Little
Yes,Dale I absolutely agree. We cannot legislate against abortion but it is ok to demand vaccination for everyone. We must get a permit and jump through hoops to be certified organic, but it is ok to pour deadly poisons on the living earth, killing everything in its way and no one appears to care.
Something is backwards. We still have the constitution,I hope. Maybe it will take a Supreme Court decision to guarantee our rights.
Maria

With huge regret, I am only able to read little bits of things at the moment, will just do my best with this, but -- this is an area where homeopathy and "mainstream medicine" *could* be joining hands a great deal more. On the one hand I would in NO way want to downplay the toxic effects of the bloated financial incentives currently running on the side of pharmaceutical medicine.

But on the other hand, I believe we do ourselves (and everyone) a huge disservice when we downplay the fact that *most* people who are in healing professions -- "even" those using drug medicine -- are actually trying to do good; they *want* to help their patients.

It is in my opinion unfortunate that homeopathy was in part built upon a foundation of (Hahneman's) alienation and defensiveness, and consequent alienation. The more that we "buy into" the idea that "they are out to get us" (okay, some of "them" are indeed), the more we are really playing into "their" hands -- divide and conquer.

We will help ourselves if we are *also* identifying, publicizing, nurturing, those ways in which homeopathy lends power to *every* approach to healing. "Regular" docs can help homeopaths by aiding in diagnosis, emergency and supportive care -- and let's face it, sometimes the drug approach is what some people *want*. Sometimes it's what's available.

And we can help "regular" docs by healing their patients in ways and of things that they will freely admit they are unable. (And would declare impossible, but no need to beat anyone about the ears with that from the start.) I believe that, the more our message is about how homeopathy is an important part of a *balanced* approach to health care, we are on stronger ground.

Okay, just thoughts…
________________________________

Random persistent thought, that the rush to legislate is an "interesting" contrast to the repeated insistence that it's placebo, and doesn't work because it can't, and there's "nothing there."

Dear Shannon,

The only problem I see with your reasoning here is that we need to see three sets of players (at least) not two.
The drug companies are the major players that need to be separated from Western medicine.

Doctors, vets, homeopaths etc are all healers with a lot in common. All desire to cure the sick, and to prevent illness, and to be paid for their SKILL in doing so. It is an ethical objective.
Drug companies have a different objective, to make money from chemicals, regardless how much harm they do, and to be paid for the CHEMICALS. It is an unethical objective.

The real problem arises because so many of the healing profession BELIEVE they need the chemicals to do their work. It doesn't make them bad, but it also doesn't make the chemicals good. When you know no other option, and the chemical peddlars now teach the courses in health profession schools, and skew the laws to protect themsleves, you use the chemicals.

What WE need to do while protecting homeopathy, is to separate the well intentioned and skilled healers from the unethical chemical peddlars.

THAT is where the real problem lies.
If all you know is chemicals to use in your healing profession , then you will find homeopahty scary as competition. The chemical peddlars RELY on the fear to promote the kind of activity we are seeing agaunst homeopahty. THAT is what we need to fight, longterm.

SO I like your email to say the healers are not the enemy.
But I think we need to see th at the chemical peddlars are indeed the enemy.
You could add that the principles by which chemicals are touted to be good stuff, are also part of the problem. But to me, the ethics and goals behind ther activities are what count first and foremost, and they have to do with ethical versus unethical goals.

The current unethical attempt to oust homeopathy should be understood in that light, IMO.
Perhapos we should point out the difference in ethics and the commonality in ethics, between the players here, as part of the effort to maintain homeopathy as a legitimate option to homeopaths and other healers.

Namaste,
Irene
________________________________
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."