Minutus

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Soroush

I think we are nearing a resolution.
1. It is the body that creates a disease since VF is part of the body.
2. It requires an enemy VF to affect our VF
3. Microbes are present in a diseased body as a concomittant.

If you ask me how antibiotics cure an 'acute contagious disease ', here is the explanation.

Antibiotics kill the microbes only. It removes the concomittant problem but, the 'disease proper' may or may not be cured. Our repertories are replete with 'NBWS - acute diseases'. This only goes to show that the disease is never touched by the antibiotic.

On the other hand, the homeopathic drug targets the disease and the result is , both the disease and the microbe are expelled. This goes to show that the microbe is a subset of the disease.

So the aphorism that nothing more than an invisible force affects the host is correct.

Venkat

Dear Venkat
A simple question:
Without the micro organism for Smallpox, would any one get smallpox?
Ditto question any other named disease, rabies, measles, chickenpox etc etc.
A yes or a No answer would suffice.
====
I read somewhere in Kent that in case of TB, it wasn't the bacillus that caused the TB, but in such conditions, the TB micro organism flourished!
Does any one agree with that?
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J.venkatasubramanian
Sent: 05 August 2009 14:12
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Soroush

I think we are nearing a resolution.
1. It is the body that creates a disease since VF is part of the body.
2. It requires an enemy VF to affect our VF
3. Microbes are present in a diseased body as a concomittant.

If you ask me how antibiotics cure an 'acute contagious disease ', here is the explanation.

Antibiotics kill the microbes only. It removes the concomittant problem but, the 'disease proper' may or may not be cured. Our repertories are replete with 'NBWS - acute diseases'. This only goes to show that the disease is never touched by the antibiotic.

On the other hand, the homeopathic drug targets the disease and the result is , both the disease and the microbe ar=e expelled. This goes to show that the microbe is a subset of the disease.

So the aphorism that nothing more than an invisible force affects the host is correct.

Venkat

The matter is no black and white.

What will be the answer when I ask whether the small pox virus will stay
after the disease is cured ? yes or no ?

Venkat
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote:
etc etc.
that
flourished!
Behalf Of
similar
exist,
micro
short
service
here is
problem but,
replete
is
result
that
host
Behalf
near,
small-pox
material
then
microbe
resist
a
cure
Behalf

Dear Venkat
If you mean Homeopathic cure, then I would say whether it stays or not is irrelevant, the body is no longer susceptible to it.
As we had agreed, for anyone to 'catch' the disease you need to be susceptible.
My question is, if some one is susceptible but there is no 'disease' micro organism, will still catch that 'disease'?
Does any one know of a case where someone has been treated homeopathically for chickenpox and then have gone on many years later to develop shingles / zona?
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J.venkatasubramanian
Sent: 05 August 2009 15:18
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
The matter is no black and white.

What will be the answer when I ask whether the small pox virus will stay
after the disease is cured ? yes or no ?

Venkat
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com , wrote:
etc etc.
that
flourished!
Behalf Of
similar
exist,
micro
short
service
here is
problem but,
replete
is
result
that
host
Behalf
near,
small-pox
material
then
microbe
resist
a
cure
Behalf

May i chip in here?
There are coughs with whoops around that are not whooping cough and it has been suggested that if one 'bug' is eliminated due to hygiene or even vaccination, a similar (or more serious related) related disease will emerge. In other words, if the miasm can't express one way it will express in another. I find this makes a lot of sense. The syphilitic miasm is not caused by the suppression of the spyrochete (or whatever it is) but the spyrochete used to express the miasm and gave it its name. By the same token, there may be a smallpox miasm that does not need the bug to exist. You might not get an allopathically defined smallpox but you would get a disease that was 'virtual' smallpox if you were susceptible.
Theresa
Soroush wrote
A simple question:
Without the micro organism for Smallpox, would any one get smallpox?
Ditto question any other named disease, rabies, measles, chickenpox etc etc.

A yes or a No answer would suffice.

Dear Soroush,

you asked:

Maybe yes, maybe no. Is there any research on this ? We have been discussing here about something based on logic. And by logic, existence exists. Disease and microbe existed together eternally. There is no research to connect a VF to a microbe.

I think you missed this. " When the microbes were killed , the disease not necessarily vanished".

I am still looking at disease- microbe connection. Susceptibility is purely connected with the disease. Not with the microbe.

This raises the question: Microbe and Disease: What is the cause and what is the subordinate cause or simply a concomittant ?

Venkat
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

Dear Venkat
I think the answer to my question is a YES.
If any one studies epidemiology one would quickly see - through experiments and experience - that a micro-organism associated with a particular disease is required. [I accept that in some cases an incorrect association may exist.] And that if one can restrict access to the micro-organism, then the disease is not transferred from one person to another.
That is to say if we kept someone in a bubble chamber and gave them germ-free supplies (as is the case of patients who are going through bone marrow transplant procedures) then they do not catch colds, flu, measles etc. This would not change even if you had another person with active measles into the same room. So in my understanding, the DYNAMIC disease transfer that Hn talks about does not occur. It requires a physical agent.
However, once we have contacted with a micro-organism and it affects our VF, then if treatment is not homeopathic, the after-effects (or the miasm) remains. This is so clearly explained by Dr Ardavan Shahrdar's work and his Materia Medica and repertorium Virosum.
So definitely by killing the micro-organism one may put a stop to its immediate destructive action (and save a life perhaps), but its sequele will remain.
I also agree with Teresa's comment that if there is susceptibility, then we would probably find that the susceptibility is not fixed towards a particular micro-organism, but it is an opening for almost anything to get in.
Kind regards
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J.venkatasubramanian
Sent: 06 August 2009 11:51
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: Aph 11 - Organon 6
Dear Soroush,

you asked:

Maybe yes, maybe no. Is there any research on this ? We have been discussing here about something based on logic. And by logic, existence exists. Disease and microbe existed together eternally. There is no research to connect a VF to a microbe.

I think you missed this. " When the microbes were killed , the disease not necessarily vanished".

I am still looking at disease- microbe connection. Susceptibility is purely connected with the disease. Not with the microbe.

This raises the question: Microbe and Disease: What is the cause and what is the subordinate cause or simply a concomittant ?

Venkat
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

Just because Joy stated that it should be read again, here is Aph 11 - please read it and we will
follow the discussion.

Simply put, Hn states that when the VF becomes deranged, it produces symptoms. Yes - we would all
agree.
He then discusses the fact that Homeopathic remedies have a dynamic nature and tries to explain this
by giving examples of gravity and magnetism - that is to say the effect is not material. Yes indeed
I think we would all agree with that.

So far as I can see, there is nothing in this that opposes what I have been saying - In fact the
very opposite.

Please note this from the foot note:
" And thus every special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of
man in a peculiar manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as
certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only
small-pox and not measles. "

From the " as certainly as the nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a
healthy child only small-pox and not measles. " I recognised that there were certain influences that
made sure that if you brought a child near to a child with measles they would get measles. The fact
that they got measles and not smallpox means that these influences are uniquely caused by different
agencies. It is only through painstaking research that the micro organism for each of these has
been identified. (Remember the smallpox laden blankets given to the native Americans.)

Remember also the fact that the cholera epidemic of 1854 was caused by a cholera contaminated water.
Once that source was stopped, the infections stopped. So the people who were unlucky to be given
smallpox laden blankets did NOT develop cholera or measles - they developed SMALLPOX.

Best Regards
Soroush
§ 11 Sixth Edition
When a person falls ill, it is only this spiritual, self acting (automatic) vital force, everywhere
present in his organism, that is primarily deranged by the dynamic 6 influence upon it of a morbific
agent inimical to life; it is only the vital force, deranged to such an abnormal state, that can
furnish the organism with its disagreeable sensations, and incline it to the irregular processes
which we call disease; for, as a power invisible in itself, and only cognizable by its effects on
the organism, its morbid derangement only makes itself known by the manifestation of disease in the
sensations and functions of those parts of the organism exposed to the senses of the observer and
physician, that is, by morbid symptoms, and in no other way can it make itself known. 7
6 Materia peccans!
7 What is dynamic influence, - dynamic power? Our earth, by virtue of a hidden invisible energy,
carries the moon around her in twenty-eight days and several hours, and the moon alternately, in
definite fixed hours (deducting certain differences which occur with the full and new moon) raises
our northern seas to flood tide and again correspondingly lowers them to ebb. Apparently this takes
place not through material agencies, not through mechanical contrivances, as are used for products
of human labor; and so we see numerous other events about us as results of the action of one
substance on another substance without being able to recognize a sensible connection between cause
and effect. Only the cultured, practised in comparison and deduction, can form for himself a kind of
supra-sensual idea sufficient to keep all that is material or mechanical in his thoughts from such
concepts. He calls such effects dynamic, virtual, that is, such as result from absolute, specific,
pure energy and action of he one substance upon the other substance.
For instance, the dynamic effect of the sick-making influences upon healthy man, as well as the
dynamic energy of the medicines upon the principle of life in the restoration of health is nothing
else than infection and so not in any way material, not in any way mechanical. Just as the energy of
a magnet attracting a piece of iron or steel is not material, not mechanical. One sees that the
piece of iron is attracted by one pole of the magnet, but how it is done is not seen. This invisible
energy of the magnet does not require mechanical (material) auxiliary means, hook or lever, to
attract the iron. The magnet draws to itself and this acts upon the piece of iron or upon a steel
needle by means of a purely immaterial invisible, conceptual, inherent energy, that is, dynamically,
and communicates to the steel needle the magnetic energy equally invisibly (dynamically). The steel
needle becomes itself magnetic, even at a distance when the magnet does not touch it, and magnetises
other steel needles with the same magnetic property (dynamically) with which it had been endowered
previously by the magnetic rod, just as a child with small-pox or measles communicates to a near,
untouched healthy child in an invisible manner (dynamically) the small-pox or measles, that is,
infects it at a distance without anything material from the infective child going or capable of
going to the one to be infected. A purely specific conceptual influence communicated to the near
child small-pox or measles in the same way as the magnet communicated to the near needle the
magnetic property.
In a similar way, the effect of medicines upon living man is to be judged. Substances, which are
used as medicines, are medicines only in so far as they possess each its own specific energy to
alter the well-being of man through dynamic, conceptual influence, by means of the living sensory
fibre, upon the conceptual controlling principle of life. The medicinal property of those material
substances which we call medicines proper, relates only to their energy to call out alterations in
the well-being of animal life. Only upon this conceptual principle of life, depends their medicinal
health-altering, conceptual (dynamic) influence. Just as the nearness of a magnetic pole can
communicate only magnetic energy to the steel (namely, by a kind of infection) but cannot
communicate other properties (for instance, more hardness or ductility, etc.). And thus every
special medicinal substance alters through a kind of infection, that well-being of man in a peculiar
manner exclusively its own and not in a manner peculiar to another medicine, as certainly as the
nearness of the child ill with small-pox will communicate to a healthy child only small-pox and not
measles. These medicines act upon our well-being wholly without communication of material parts of
the medicinal substances, thus dynamically, as if through infection. Far more healing energy is
expressed in a case in point by the smallest dose of the best dynamized medicines, in which there
can be, according to calculation, only so little of material substance that its minuteness cannot be
thought and conceived by the best arithmetical mind, than by large doses of the same medicine in
substance. That smallest dose can therefore contain almost entirely only the pure, freely-developed,
conceptual medicinal energy, and bring about only dynamically such great effects as can never be
reached by the crude medicinal substances itself taken in large doses.
It is not in the corporal atoms of these highly dynamized medicines, nor their physical or
mathematical surfaces (with which the higher energies of the dynamized medicines are being
interpreted but vainly as still sufficiently material) that the medicinal energy is found. More
likely, there lies invisible in the moistened globule or in its solution, an unveiled, liberated,
specific, medicinal force contained in the medicinal substance which acts dynamically by contact
with the living animal fibre upon the whole organism (without communicating to it anything material
however highly attenuated) and acts more strongly the more free and more immaterial the energy has
become through the dynamization.
Is it then so utterly impossible for our age celebrated for its wealth in clear thinkers to think of
dynamic energy as something non-corporeal, since we see daily phenomena which cannot be explained in
any other manner? If one looks upon something nauseous and becomes inclined to vomit, did a material
emetic come into his stomach which compels him to this anti-peristaltic movement? Was it not solely
the dynamic effect of the nauseating aspect upon his imagination? And if one raises his arm, does it
occur through a material visible instrument? a lever? Is it not solely the conceptual dynamic energy
of his will which raises it?