AIDs --a sinister invention

[Sheila Venter]

i am not an homeopathic, i just quietly read and
learn from the side and generally don't write. but i
have really enjoyed all the controversial issues
brought to this group because it has truly enlightened
me. i look up the websites that are given and look at
the videos posted. i have learned so much. i would
think that it would be very important to a homeopathic
to know where the allopathic medical world is going
with things and how it is driven by politics and
money. "Know thine enemy", so to speak. i especially
like what sheri nakken contributes. i have looked at
her website as well as oh i forgot her name but it is
angel.com and i really like what you guys are putting
out there. if i had the timea and resources i would
take sheri's online homeopathic courses and may still
be able in the future....so, from a novice, i thank
everyone for everything that is offered. if it is
something i'm not interested in i just delete that
topic.
--- Sheri Nakken wrote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------
____________________________________________________________________________________
It's here! Your new message!
Get new email alerts with the free Yahoo! Toolbar.
http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

[Irene de Villiers]

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

Which homeopaths are "focused on germs being the cause of anything"?
Am I being misquoted?
Perhaps you were not referring to my emails but in no way do I think or
say this.
Germs are involved in disease - but as we know from the Organon-
the REAL disease is the susceptibility of teh individual to attack.

In allopathy that ALSO holds true - as no micro-organism can do anything
unless the organism (person, animal etc) is in a condition to allow it:
Specifically - in the case of chronic disease - it *requires* a skewed
immune system (imbalance of Th1 and th2 cytokines) as a prerequisite to
chronic disease (which can not happen without that) - and THEN a microbe
can take advantage of the lack of immune system efficacy to do harm.

So there really is not difference in teh way allopathy sees it and the
way homeoapths see it - we just have differnt terminology for the
predisposition (Called disease in homeopahty) and the possible
subsequent micro-organism taking advantage of it (seen as disease in
allopathy but seen as "results" of disease in homeopathy.

Either way - in both cases there is a susceptibility to disease and
there are possible consequences.

It is ONLY the drug companies (and they are NOT scientists, just
peddlers) who "think" germs/micro-organisms are the sole cause of
disease, and they do know better, as the research is clear on this - but
it just pays them to SAY these are the causes so as to make and sell
vaccines and drugs. The FDA is also in the (non-scientist) promoting
vaccines game.

Do not fall for the Drug company, FDA and WHO propaganda and use it to
sell out good science.
Good science is our *friend* - it CONFIRMS what Hahnemann knew - that
susceptibility to disease is the true problem, rather than the
subsequent consequential happenings (with or without micro-organisms)
that allopathy uses for disease definition and diagnosis.
It *all* does.
We live in the REAL world - and in the real world, there is good science
to OUR benefit as homeopaths - that we can use to help us find out what
is happening in a case we have - so that we can repertorize better.

What is important is that we look for good science and know it from
hype. It's a VERY important skill needed by a homeopath.
All facts uncovered are good science. It is the interpretation of those
facts that can be faulty, and if we stick to discovered FACT - and do
our own more logical and far-sighted interpretation, we will not go
wrong using science to our advantage.

Yes there are HIV viruses associated with AIDS in humans and FIV
viruses associated with AIDS in cats - but that does not change what we
know as homeopaths - which is that the susceptibility had to be there
for the viruses to do harm - and that the disease is the susceptibility
- it is not the results of that susceptibility whether that includes
virus activity or not.

I hope that if my perspective as 'one of the "sides"' had been
misunderstood, that it is now clearer.
I'm allergic to being misrepresented about my views.....
...Must be a susceptibility I have:-)
Or maybe I caught a virus?

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."

[Tanya Marquette]

i have to disagree. i dont see that different opinions and perspections
are necessarily divisive. one is always free to take what he/she wants,
and to leave the rest.

it is also important that homeopaths have some understanding of what
they are looking at. so many people come with all kinds of life
situations and mythology as well as their physical conditions. i had
a woman today say that she was feeding her dog well because she
gave 'organic' kibble filled with grains. well, grains are inflammatories
and we had a discussion about this as well as the negative effects
of dry food. without this discussion and an effort to change her feeding
behavior why would i expect a homeopathic remedy to work or work well.

as for Aids/Hiv-the mythology has been well tendered by big corporate
investment. i think most on this list agree to that political and economic
reality. so i have to wonder why sharing alternative perspectives about
the cause of this condition should make discomfort. as for science, some
scientists attempt to be true to a good intent, but are often bought and
paid for by the corporations. and they participate in research designed
to prove specific outcomes. others are lulled into thinking they are
working
on something 'pure.' look at the research of the manhattan project which
produced the bomb. many of those people worked on pieces of it in
isolation from others. some of them understood the direction of the
research but continued anyway. the aftermath brought a lot of regrets
from some of these pure scientists for their participatioan. it is no
different
today with the fda that is supposed to oversee monitoring and testing of
drugs, for example.

i think the discomfort is due, at least in part, to ideas which rattle our
mythology. this may be a good lesson for homeopaths who are always
in a postion to question the realities presented to them.

tanya

[Sheila Venter]

i have appreciated what has been discussed. i have
learned so much and i look up the websites, videos,
references, etc... anything medical/political with all
of its trends--allopathic, naturopathic, etc, affects
homeopathy. so some discussions are a little "off
topic"? i still see plenty of discussion occurring "on
topic". it hasn't seemed to hinder discussions, on the
contrary, it has enhanced my outlook on what we are up
against in the medical world.
--- Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
____________________________________________________________________________________
Need a quick answer? Get one in minutes from people who know.
Ask your question on www.Answers.yahoo.com

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Irene,
I don't think anyone was necessarily speaking directly to your
mails--but the position being argued, by Sheri and some others, is that
no microorganism ever causes any disease; that they are simply a
"clean-up crew". Best wishes,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Sheila,
Thanks for weighing in!
(And--in spite of my objection to *aspects* of the discussions, I share
your appreciation for the diverse viewpoints! It's true, there's a lot
more going on than meets the eye.)
Best wishes,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Tanya,
I share your appreciation of sharing these "differing" views!
What I am uncomfortable with is *not* because of airing and sharing
them, but because of arguing over them, and insisting that anyone who
disagrees, is closed-minded and buying into the great conspiracy.

I have looked at some (only a few) of the pieces and do not find them
convincing on all points. I find it *very* useful to be offered the
variety of different possibilities--for instance to be made aware of
various conditions that can present the same picture as some of these
"named diseases"--toxic causes of something looking like polio, for
instance.

But I do NOT find it useful to feel that I'm being badgered to take
those (important) observations and draw much broader, specific
conclusions from them (e.g. that no microbe has ever caused any
disease).

And unless they are actually relevant to how we will be treating or
advising patients, I do not feel they should take over the discussions
as much as they have been. And would any of us really feel safe in
advising patients that they don't need to follow practices of basic
hygiene, or "safe sex", or wound cleansing, or food storage? Sheri
hasn't answered any of my queries about that so far. I guess the one
about food storage would be the most interesting one to me, as so much
else could be generalized from that one. But so far the "discussion"
has been sort of one-sided, with beliefs being stated, and multiple
(dozens?) websites posted, but very few answers to actual questions.

Did anyone read anything in any of those posts that might address the
food storage question? And if one does conclude that food "spoils",
and that spoiled food *can* cause disease, I would be fascinated to
know what mechanism is suggested other than microbes, and how that
process could be separated from the more general idea that microbes can
cause disease!?!? So--I am hereby inviting each of those here, who has
stated her belief that "germs never cause disease", to give her own
answer to those questions--Does food "spoil"; can "spoiled" food cause
disease; and how do you reconcile this with the idea that "no microbe
ever causes any disease"?

Rats, and now I'm perpetuating the discussion...
So could I ask that *either* these questions are answered (as having
direct bearing on how this idea might affect "patient education") *or*
switch to presenting them as "ideas we can read up on if we choose",
not as "revealed truth to combat the Great Deception of Germ Phobia"?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Irene de Villiers]

Tanya Marquette wrote: i had

Not all. Wheat is inflammatory to dogs. A small amount of something like
rice bran is *necessary* to dogs as a pre-biotic to feed their gut
bacteria so that the bacteria can manufacture the butyrate, propionate
and acetate that we humans get via veg and fruit, but carnivores need
via gut bacteria. Of the 20 items researched to date - rice bran is the
most effective to feed canine gut bacteria.
(It's pricey compared with the junk fiber in most dog foods.)
There are no negative effects of dry food. Dogs drinkl water to hydrate
it. What matters is what the dry food is made of - not whether it is
dry. In fact dryu food is a lot better than any canned food as the
latter causes gingivitis - leads to swtomatitis etc. Dogs have no
mechanism to remove the goo formt heir teeth - and canned food for dogs
comes with gooey stuff that prevents nutrinet absorption in the gyt.
That's not in dry foods.

I recommend dry foods to my cat and dog owner clients (unless they make
the food, but most do not have time or inclination)) - but I am VERY
fussy what's in it - as far as that is possible with commercial food
that most clients need to use rather than making it.
Grains are the LEAST offensive aspect of commercial food as far as
inflammation goes:-)
The big no-nos are toxins to dogs like alfalfa, garlic, yucca, broccoli,
grapes, etc - and inflamamtory fats like canola, flax, etc.

The ingredients that DO belong in dog and cat food are well hidden in
scientific papers. It is "hidden" in a copyright set of books, hence not
on the usual PubMed database! Also the books have no index.....
But for those with the energy - the books of detailed research exist as
bound volumes of the International Feline and Canine nutrition symposia,
starting 1998. They are bound by Iams (a pet food company) whose food
looks terrible in the research they cleverly hide in the copyrighted
volumes with no index or search engine, off the internet:-)
I agree that a discussion on good food is part and parcel of *every* dog
or cat consult. I'm just concerned at how well the good information is
hidden. The so-called holistic diets are often the worst ones on the
market, due to toxins, as they have been designed to be healthy for
humans and with no regard for the dog or cat's inability to break down
many (most) plants properly into beneficial components.
I've spent 20 years doing research myself and I do not see that as a
MAJOR factor. Sure there are unscrupulous people in any orgqanisation
but scientific research is not a big money item for the scientist - and
the corruption is where the money is - in the drug/food corporations -
not with the scientists.
It's your assumption.
Usually the research organisation (university) wants to do specific
research and barters for money by offering to include research that
benefits a specific money-holder. They write up a "grant application"
that includes perhaps some expensive equipment they need, so that they
can use it for the research THEY want at the university (or for study or
training etc) - in return for ALSO doing research the company wants - to
get the financing.
The research facts so discovered are valid.
They are there to be read and interpreted.

The company for whom specific research was done - WILL interpret the
research results to their own tune - of course. But that does not mean
we need to do that or that the actual research findings are not facts.
We just need to put them in perspective - within the research parameters
of the specific study.
How long did you work in research to see this?
Isolated cases are indeed corrupt. But the MAIN body of scientific
research is valid and here I see it being advocated that ALL research is
bad. Not true any more than that all humans are bad:-)
Modern research is not done that way and for example the research paper
I described from 1991 that had more holes in its design than Swiss
cheese, could not happen today because scientists - those guys anad
their peers - are more on the lookout for such duplicitous situations,
and are faster to spot them and prevent them. They WORK at it. I've been
reading reseaerch since 1965 - and have seen it get worse and worse and
then now better and better as it is being better monitored by the
scientists.
Scientists are not all ostriches with their heads in the sand - they
also do not wish to be duped and are on the lookout for it:-) It's more
and more evident in how they word their conclusions these days - not so
adamant of results as they used to be - and with proper qualifications
to cater for study conditions.

We should not be so quick to throw out an area of fabulous factual
information (if we know how to read scientific papers properly) without
knowing properly the current status quo in that area. Don't tar everyone
with the same brush; it's not realistic.
It is different today when it comes to scientific fact at good institutions.

The *conclusions* that the FDA and/or drug/food companies spout and the
consequent actions - those are where the money is - where the corruption
is. Not the raw science.
Don't tar the science with the feathers deserved by the FDA, big pharma
and grain mill conglomerates.
If you ever want something to be done in the WORST possible way - give
it to any government to do:-)

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."

[Gaby Rottler]

Dear Irene, all,

an addition to your food comments:
not only garlic, but especially ONIONS are toxic, causing hemolytic
anemia (often also in traces in baby food, sometimes given by owners).
And concerning the grapes we need to include the dried form: RAISINS
While some dogs have no problems, others will suffer severe and acute
kidney failure.

Other natural toxins for dogs:
Macademia nuts (causing weakness, depression, vomiting, ataxia, tremors
and hyperthermia)

Not so natural but toxic a well:
- chocolate
- everything containing Xylitol

(BTW, Irene: in one of your posts you wrote about vets not knowing about
the current development in FIP. That may perhaps depend of the country.
Here in Germany much research had been done in that field, and many vets
are now much more knowledgeable about it than 3-5 years ago. I gave a
couple of lectures for vets about FIP, so I do know about FIP as well as
about the knowledge of some German vets.)

Best,

Gaby

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler, DVM
Germany
rottler@curantur.de
http://www.curantur.de
***Scriptum homoeopathicum***
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~