Minutus

It's not more important.
But is is necessary to be pleasat and therer is no reason not to be....
without it you fail at upholding principles, as nobody gives credence or respect to someone who is rude.

It is not a one or the other issue.
They go together.... principles AND being polite.

.....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."

PEOPLE never should be criticized.
Their ACTIONS may eb criticized, and their BELIEFS may be questioned.
Sheri (and you?) do not understand the difference.
It is not medicine, it does not help anything, and it is wrong.
You cannot BEAT your own beliefs into another person.
You need to respect them as a Person while explaining well enough to have them understand and change what they believe.
People only have adverse beliefs if they do not understand the facts.
Beating them up will not change that.

.......Irene
________________________________

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
--
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."

It is a question of perception....interestingly Elham has not reacted at all and does not seem to be bothered at all, or he might be sulking, who knows.......

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz
________________________________



This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com
________________________________

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Dear Irene,
Are you incapable of seeing the inconsistency between the first and last sentences in
“PEOPLE never should be criticized. Their ACTIONS may eb criticized, and their BELIEFS may be questioned. Sheri (and you?) do not understand the difference”?
Similarly, can you imagine
“Attacking people is not ever justifiable. Attacking their VIEWS is always justifiable”
credibly coming from the same person who, just an hour and a quarter earlier, had written:
“If Sheri would rather leave than acquire some common decencey in her writing, some manners, that is her decision, and her own doing. I do wish Sheri would choose to learn from known facts such as in virology and bacteriology, or anything else she has not bothered to study but is happy to spread misinformatiomn about”?
Again, what, besides self-serving hypocrisy, makes it possible for somebody to so attack a thinker such as Sheri immediately after expressing continuing ignorance of the law of similars thus:
“It makes homeopathic sense that cowpox applications got rid of the similar disease of Smallpox. What evidence do you have to the contrary? Are you sugugesting the Law of Similars failed in this case but works in all others”?
Or are we once again to learn that we are dealing with two Irenes on the one e-mail address, two who refuse to acknowledge each other’s existence?
Let’s recall that you have mounted these mutually inconsistent opportunistic attacks on Sheri on the basis of an observation that Elham’s express position sounds like the position a Merck employee would express. To you, as to Soroush, that is an insult to Elham’s character. To Elham, who clearly believes that such Merck employees are upright citizens, it may represent a huge compliment. As others have said, the point made was in any case a mild one. Soroush’s priority of politeness over truth, discreet though he was about it, did nothing to contain the issue; your eternal priority on self-aggrandizement over learning anything could be amusing in the present case if it were less vicious.
You have implicitly expressed, in criticising Sheri, an unthinking belief that Merck employees must be dishonest or worse. That would be fair enough if you had reason for such a belief. Yet you clearly do not: you also uncritically believe that the involvement of some “similars” makes smallpox vaccine homoeopathic to smallpox; that your belief overrides a devastating history of evidence that smallpox vaccines very often led to major smallpox outbreaks; and that Elham's express position that the present generation should suffer the risks inherent in vaccines for the sake of hypothetical future rewards is credible and supportable.
The presumption that smallpox vaccine acts homoeopathically is irresponsible as well as insupportable; expressing such presumptions as certainties, in the face of evidence to the contrary, including a great deal of clinical experience published by the old masters, is reckless. I can only think that your better judgement has been marred by your opportunity to attack somebody whose understanding and knowledge undermine your presumed authority.
Yes, Irene, I’m attacking your motivations here as well as your lamentably persistent and awfully convenient wilful ignorance. You consistently misuse such poor understanding of homoeopathy as you possess, merely to raise your esteem, though it be at the expense of caution, truth, and investigation. Such reckless disregard for the greater good needs an occasional moment in the spotlight if it is not to thrive on the anxieties and misunderstandings it generates. Please take a moment to consider your motivations and the possibility that everything you believe is not only wrong but also ludicrously short-sighted and self-serving.
John
________________________________

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Dear Sheri,
You should not leave minutus. This is a forum where people express their opinions and I think you are a very useful member of this forum. You should continue with your posts. I would appreciate if you continue on this forum
Best regards
Elham
________________________________

This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
www.avast.com

Elam: I think she said she was going to the beach for two months!!!

Vicki

As far as Vaccination not having been the cause of eradication of Small pox and of hahnemann's views in this regard I would like to refer you to aphorism 56
...Those who first brought Isopathy to notice,

probably thought of the benefit which mankind received from

cowpox vaccination by which the vaccinated individual is

protected against future smallpox infection and as it were cured

in advance. But both, cowpox an smallpox are only similar, in no

way the same disease. In many respects they differ, namely in

the more rapid course and mildness of cowpox and especially in

this, that it is never contagious to man by mere nearness.

Universal vaccination put an end to all epidemics of that deadly

fearful smallpox to such an extent that the present generation

does no longer possess a clear conception of the former

frightful smallpox plague.
So to say vaccination had no role in eradicating diseases is going a bit too far even hahnemann recognized the role of vaccination in eradicating small pox. He even called it the benefit mankind received from vaccination...
As hahnemann points out you have not seen deadly fearful smallpox --- so today it is easy shouting against vacccination. I have seen again and again what polio can do to those unvaccinated as i have seen what MMr vaccines can do to those vacccinated. Since in India only Polio is compulsory i never stop anyone from having that.
best regards

Elham

Elham, try to imagine what kind of health monitoring, communications, and epidemiology Hahnemann was relying on in subscribing to what was at that time universally held to be true. He was relying, it is clear, on hearsay and doctors' faithful impressions, exactly as we do today in pronouncing polio vaccine, measles vaccine, and whooping-cough vaccine not only effective but safe.

It's time we moved from the eighteenth into the nineteenth century, and came to grips with numbers, with long-term results, with the trustworthiness or otherwise of medical reports and research reports. It's time we stopped placing all our faith in hearsay and started challenging authority.

Smallpox disappeared from countries that did not ever a mass vaccination programme against it just as quickly as, if not sooner than, from countries that did. Look into the history of smallpox vaccination in the Philippines, as a great example of ignoring evidence and following your beliefs come what may.

Polio "disappeared" from each district in India state by state as its definition was altered to exclude flaccid paralysis without confirmation of poliovirus. The flaccid paralysis itself, though, has risen spectacularly. It's a pyrrhic victory, I'd have said.

Cheers --

John

Dear All

All the hot discussions seem to have calmed down after a quote from hahnemann. But one thing needs to be made clear. Just because a person is a Homoeopath does not necessarily mean He should be anti-vaccine, not believe in micro-organisms as cause of disease etc. I had more or less said only what hahnemaann had said and everyone was calling me anti-hahnemannian. The whole discussion sounded quite funny so I kept quiet. One of the things that was said about my ignorance included that I have never studied organon or Burnette. after the quote from Organon i thought I should quote from Burnette on this topic. This is from his book on vaccinosis
"Fear not, critical reader, this is not an anti-vaccination treatise, for the writer is himself in the habit of vaccinating his patients, au Besoin, and he believes that vaccination does protect ...
So even Burnette (not to speak of hahnemann) is anti-hahnemann
The old Homoeopaths were never against vaccination. They recognized the harm of vaccination and treated that.
There is a lot of un-truth and half truth surrounding the pro-vaccination camp but frankly speaking it is no more than the untruth spread by the anti-vaccination camp. In this "the generation of the half-light" you need to investigate carefully, separating truth from falsehood and reaching to conclusions.

The conclusions may be anything, but they are yours and you are entitled to them. As is the next person entitled to his opinion.

Wrong or right we need to take decisions which we consciously think are best for our patients on the one hand and for humanity on the other.

Best regards
Elham

I do not agree!
All homeopaths should be anti-vaccine.
No....
In the first place, James Compton Burnett (1840-1901) died long before the development of the modern and extremely dangerous non-Law of Similars vaccines.
PROVIDED they met the Law of SIMILARS.
ONLY SMALLPOX DID THAT....The devil is in the details:-) You have misread them.
I know of nowhere Hahnemnan advocated vaccines.
He merely pointed out that the smallpox vaccine (first tested in 1796) had some succes BECAUSE it invoked the Law of Similars. He did NOT know about later vaccines, he died in teh early 1830s.
He ALSO explained how the dangerous disease material (of cowpox) needed to be diluted out and potentized remedy used against disease- NOT material dose that was dangerous, as in smallpox/cowpox.

You misquote him to suggest he was pro vacicne. He was not.
He did not know what one was, they had not reallt been develped yet - except the smallox one.
BUt they did not advocate it.
We do the same today - we recognize the harm and treat it - but we have no business advocatig it.
and that is putting it mildly
You have stated ZERo evidence of this wild theory of yours, whereas there is strong scientific proof of the danger of vaccines and the efficacy of homeopathic alternatives.
SO state why yo wouod use a dangerous vaccine istead of a safe remedy please before yo aim arrows at the anti-danegrous vaccine folk.

Vaccines KILL, vaccines MAIM, Vaccines ensure a death from chronic disease.
No true homeopath wants or promotes that!

This is KNOWN - it is even known by the drug companies that make vaccines. It is why they have ongoing research to TRY to make a vaccine that is safer and does nto detroy the thymus. They want to develop th at as then they cold compete and get ALL the profits, instead of just a few measly trillion dollars a year.
But they can not develop such a vaccine - for the simple reason that it would need the immune system to work differently than it does.

So the harm and damage and danger is well known by the vaccine manufacturers and everyone else.
It is neither secret nor overstated.
ANd it surely shoud be known to every homeopath!!!!
And with respect this aplies to you as well. And you have not done your homework here.

WE can not justify staying in the dark ages, when so much FACT is known about the vaccine dangers of vaccines (potentially - OTHER than smallpox due to Law of Simlars). Hahnemann knew little of vaccines but DID know about smallpox.
The smallpox is NOT a smallpox vaccine. It is a cowpox vaccine and is a perfect example, as Hahnemnan explained, of using a SIMILAR (not identical) disease of cowpox, against smallpox.

THat is NOT an excuse to consider vaccines a good thing!
Vaccines are NOT a good thing and smallpox does NOT count in this discussion as it is not used in the way vaccines are in general, and which can ONLY do harm.

Even smallpox vaccine - caused multiple deaths and there was never anything safe about it.
For that reason alone it is important NOT to use vaccies. There are FAR safer ways to prevent disease.
THAT is the more relevant point you have missed - along with the point that almost all vaccies are NOT similars as needed to be even theoretically usable for immunity - they are identicals and if you DID read your Hahneman you will KNOW that those cannot help, for the simple reason they fail to invoke the law of siilars.
So it is incorrect and unethical for any homeopath to promote vaccines. They are dangerous, they kill, they fail to invoke the law of similars (Upon which ALL homeopathy depends), and they are offered for diseass where the body is incapable of mounting a defence thus the vaccine is incapable if initiating one.
There are no vaccines currently, that invoke the Law of SImilars (as the smallpox one did).

There ARE multiple PROVEN ways to prevent illnesses safely instead. ANY homeopath is not ethical to promote ineffective vaccines that fail to be capable of success due to lack of Law of Similars, and which even the drug copanies know are dangerous - when homeopaths DO have proven safer an more effective alternatives.

Read Isaac Golden's books if you doubt what I say
ANd read what Hahneman says about the Law of SImilars.

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."