Minutus

And having options is a *very* good thing, always.
On the one hand I'm fascinated to hear about the machines (tho I don't
understand them!), and on the other, also feel that the "support the
pharmacies" point is an EXTREMELY important one! It doesn't seem to me
that the machines are any significant threat to the pharmacies: The
remedies are so cheap and the machines are so expensive; the remedies
are legal and (somewhat) comprehensible, whereas the machines are
"borderline" and incomprehensible.

But personally I am repeatedly amazed by and grateful for some of our
terrific pharmacies! Great service, helpful people, and such a small
expense for such marvelous healing tools! Besides the "regular"
remedies, they make new ones, for provings and for sale--In our network
of pharmacies we really do have a treasure.

Shannon

And the big problem is, they are not just "watching" (the lists etc.),
but also doing their best to serve as judge and jury--all without
actually "watching" homeopathy (for instance) in action, or
experiencing it. So, they are pretty much quacking about quacks, while
managing to duck any *actual* "watching."

in the usa, the fda is going after ALL holistic protocols. they have plans
worked out to shut everything and everyone down except big pharma
customers.
they may use 'evidence based' arguements against homeopathy but
they will be using a risk assessment concept in codex that has nothing
to do with evidence based science. so i need to disagree that the
2 are distinct and separate.
tanya

Luise, I think you are mistaken. Some months back there was discussion
here about just what the self-defined scope of Codex is looking like,
and according to the piece of regulation and someone supplied a link
to, the definition is so broad that it could be construed as covering
just about *anything*, and most definitely homeopathic remedies. Do
you remember that discussion, and did you read the link?
Shannon

Friends,

It is a pleasure to see this healthy dialogue.

First, if you call something that you give to someone else a "homeopathic medicine," you are giving them a "drug" (that IS the law in the US). As a professional, I too feel duty bound to give a medicine to a patient with the best care and certainty that I am giving him or her a well-made medicine.

I personally doubt (strongly) that laws will disallow homeopathic medicines. I am not aware of any evidence of this changing.

I do not know of any serious or half-way serious evidence that there are dangers to using a radionic device.
One of the great things about radionics is that it makes classical homeopathy seem conservative. That said, I believe that there is some serious science behind good radionics macines. The founder of them was ALBERT ABRAMS, MD. You can read some amazing info about him in my new book, THE HOMEOPATHIC REVOLUTION. His strongest advocates were:
-- Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
-- Upton Sinclair (the author)
-- Dr. James Barr (former president of the British Medical Association)

Healing is amazing and complex...but we also need to honor laws and ethics...
--Dana Ullman

On Jul 12, 2008, at 3:04 PM, Luise Kunkle wrote:
? If a hammer works to drive in a nail, then a shoe should not work?
Why's that?

We just *don't know* (or at least I don't) just what it is that carries
the effect.
But the fact that "information" can be carried in one sort of way,
doesn't in any way mean that it can't be carried in other ways also...
Shannon

there are some things i wouldn't mind being wrong about and this is one of them
however, everything that i read from the fda and people who are spending
infinite amounts of time on the codex and health freedom access indicate that
with the advent of codex, anything homeopathic is up for grabs to be subsumed
under codex.
and dana's point is quite germaine. our remedies are considered drugs and
as such come under the auspices of the fda. i just don't think any of us should
sit back on our laurels and ignore this firebreathing dragon coming down against
holistic healing and nutrition.
tanya

Well done, Shannon! I was thinking on the lines of watches/alarm clocks giving us wake up calls by quacking at us but this is much better!
Theresa
Shannon wrote:
And the big problem is, they are not just "watching" (the lists etc.),
but also doing their best to serve as judge and jury--all without
actually "watching" homeopathy (for instance) in action, or
experiencing it. So, they are pretty much quacking about quacks, while
managing to duck any *actual* "watching."

Dear Luise
The major problem is that as it is others have a 'problem' understanding our conventional remedies because of the high dilutions.
However, on our side we have the proving resources etc.
When we as a profession go along the route of accepting 'beamed'; 'paper' etc (not to forget 'dream provings' )we just weaken our scientific base.
From something that can be closely regulated and repeated to something that cannot.
I accept that there are forces in this Universe about which we know nothing - but that does not mean that they do not exist (for example Radio waves existed before Marconi).
But we need to understand how a technology works properly lest it can cause serious damage. (First task - Do no harm!)
If these machines can create a remedy, they should be able to detect a remedy and distinguish one from another. Does any one know whether this happens?
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Luise Kunkle
Sent: 12 July 2008 21:04
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Remedy making machines
Hi Shannon,
I wish that would apply to me!

To me they are just as incomprehensible as the machine-made ones.

And having to admit that the machine-mades also work - as do beamed
remedies, paper-remedies - makes the conventional ones even more
incomprehensible. If they actually worked by the
information/vibrations/frequencies imparted to the carrier-medium the
others could NOT work. So the model most of appears to be faulty.

Regards

Luise

whereas the machines are

--
One thought to all who, free from doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.4.9/1548 - Release Date: 7/12/2008 7:40 AM

Hi Shannon,
The principle of a hammer and a shoe in respect to driving in a nail
are similar. Where they are not similar, the shoe does not work (have
you ever tried to drive in a nail with a flat, squashy sole?:-)
Exactly!
Well, obviously "something" can bring about the effect all those
various ways. I am not (no longer) disputing that. It appears to be a
fact.

I am just questioning that our model of **how** it does can be
correct.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free from doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========