Minutus

Sorry, Tanya, but I don't think that susceptibility 'comes first'. The susceptibility goes hand in hand with the germs. You can't have susceptibiliy without germs - they define it! Otherwise it wouldn't be challenged and revealed.
What came first - chicken or egg?
Liz

So no-one is born with any inherited susceptibility? Extraordinary thinking. You also seem to be confining your thinking to endemic or pandemic states/diseases and even those conditions would require the susceptibility, otherwise no-one would be free from these acute states and we would all die. It is our susceptibility that says whether we live through an acute or not and part of that will depend on the leftover manifestations which represent the chronic, partly awakened or already present when the acute strikes. You do not seem to be taking into consideration 'exciting causes' either.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Liz
there are germs all around us all the time. they don't lack opportunity for access to our bodies.
many of them live in our bodies full time but they don't make us sick. it is when our susceptibility
changes that we get sick.
i don't know why you keep pushing this. i disagree with you and so do many others on this list.
it is the homeopathic understanding of illness. but you keep insisting on your position. it is clear
that you feel the need to not only hold on to your perception but to keep pushing it. there doesn't
seem to be anything else to say.
tanya

OTOH if no susceptibility, then no problem...
I agree--chicken and egg, and/or semantics. Is there a reason why it might be useful to hash that particular question out?

That's not what I said, Joy. Don't extrapolate and put words into my mouth, please.
Liz

Look, Tanya - you keep going off at a tangent - I don't understand it.
I wanted an answer to my question: where does Hep A come from (in the UK) if there is no such thing as germs, only toxins that injure you (as Sheri believes) - that's all I wanted to know. Your opinion on what happened to me.
However, although I told you I believed in susceptibility, you started to move the goal posts and start an argument about susceptibility - and what comes first! Strewth!
For the last time:
I believe in susceptibility
I also believe in germs
Go figure what comes first - the first men ALL had psora - why? Did they all have the same susceptibility? And where did the subsequent susceptibilities come from, because not everyone has ahs the same. were they geneticall developed after illnesses -

Look, Tanya - why do you keep going off at a tangent - I don't understand it.
I wanted an answer to my question: where does Hep A come from (in the UK) if there is no such thing as germs, only toxins that injure you (as Sheri believes) - that's all I wanted to know. Your opinion on what happened to me. And I'm still waiting!!
However, although I told you I believed in susceptibility, you started to move the goal posts and start an argument about susceptibility - and what comes first! Strewth! as if it matters one jot! We're susceptible - there are germs. Fact. And if there weren't any germs, your susceptibility wouldn't be challenged - you wouldn't get sick in that way - and maybe your susceptibility would disappear (and see my comment to Joy about miasms too)
For the last time:
I believe in susceptibility
I also believe in germs
But go figure what comes first, susceptibility or germs: to answer this question properly, not just as a smart answer like you give, you need to go back to the origins of mankind and think hard about what susceptibility means. The first men ALL had psora - why? Did they all have the same susceptibility? How? And where did the subsequent susceptibilities come from, because not everyone has has the same, do they? So did the existence of germs induce a particular susceptibility? Or have different susceptibilities grown out of psora - the mother of all diseases - as germs left their mark on mankind? How did men ever get TB, for example, or gonorrhoea, how did they ever get ill if they didn't have that particular susceptibility? I don't know, and I don't think anyone can say with certainty.
I think, as I said before, that it is impossible to say that susceptibility came first - or germs - I think they co-existed right from the start. And evolution has mutated our susceptibilities - as with germs. It's too confusing to state one or the other.
Like I said: what came first, chicken or egg? If you see a chicken today, of course you'll say 'egg first' But what about the first chicken? where did that come from? An egg? Or evolution? And does it matter? Of course not. We are susceptible and there are germs - together. I don't see that my homeopathic understanding of disease is in any way faulty.
Liz

At 01:39 PM 3/4/2010, you wrote:
I don't know that I ever said bacteria does not injure you but I was talking about the cause...........................

I was talking about polio and it being blamed on a virus..................

All bacteria release toxins........when doing their job - why kill them?

And viruses are some other magical-thinking invention...............................

You have the choice to look deeper or not

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/hepatitis
hep·a·ti·tis

-nounPathology.
inflammation of the liver, caused by a virus or a toxin and characterized by jaundice, liver enlargement, and fever.
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
Next classes start February 24 & 25

I know you don't understand it. But I give up. This conversation has gone on
too long with no results.
tanya

Wow, this gives me an Alice-In-Wonderland feeling...
If you weren't saying that, then I have no idea what you *were* trying to say, when you talked repeatedly and at length about bacteria and viruses just being there to do a job, and maybe messengers, etc. If you *weren't* saying they don't ("in a susceptible person") cause injury, then what the heck *were* you trying to say?