Minutus

say hello from me also, am still thinking of visiting, have fun

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.streetcollege.co.uk
________________________________

It's good those who understand that Hahnemann never talked about the concept of constitutional medicine. I hope those who believe in this concept think about it now.....
Varun
________________________________

What is miasm then, he talked about?

Dr.

--- On Wed, 9/29/10, Varun Gupta wrote:
________________________________

I, for one, am not looking for new developments in homeopathy
All the ones he developed work just fine for me
Sheri

At 11:15 PM 9/27/2010, you wrote:
--
Well Within
Sheri Nakken, R.N. MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com
http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com
email homeopathycuresyou@gmail.com
Homestudy Courses for Nurses, Online Homeopathy & Vaccine Dangers Courses; Vaccine Dangers Information; Homeopathic Consultations

Well, strange Sheri that you are not looking for new developments in Homeopathy. Forget others but no room for even Jan Scholten in your scheme of things.....

Any way your choice...

Please check out official website of my book, http://varunstheory.com , launched by my publisher a few hours ago. It also has a sample chapter of my book in it. I hope all will like it.........
Varun

http://eyevarun.blogspot.com
http://eyevarun.spaces.live.com
http://facebook.com/eyevarun
http://twitter.com/eyevarun
http://eyevarun.wordpress.com

Dear Varun
I am reading your book – especially your own case.
But do you have to plug the book at every opportunity??

Did you have an editor?

Rgds

Soroush
________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Varun Gupta
Sent: 01 October 2010 21:28
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Concern over homeopathic MMR vaccinations
Well, strange Sheri that you are not looking for new developments in Homeopathy. Forget others but no room for even Jan Scholten in your scheme of things.....
Any way your choice...
Please check out official website of my book, http://varunstheory.com , launched by my publisher a few hours ago. It also has a sample chapter of my book in it. I hope all will like it.........
Varun
http://eyevarun.blogspot.com

http://eyevarun.spaces.live.com

http://facebook.com/eyevarun

http://twitter.com/eyevarun

http://eyevarun.wordpress.com
I, for one, am not looking for new developments in homeopathy
All the ones he developed work just fine for me
Sheri
At 11:15 PM 9/27/2010, you wrote:
If Hahnemann would have answered each and every question on Homeopathy then no one would have been looking for new developments in Homeopathy.....
Varun
We've been thru all that.

Best wishes
Actually I do not know what you have studied and it is difficult for anyone to tell from your posts what you have or have not studied. If you have studied Hahnemann's work then it appears you have discounted it with these suggestions of homeopathic vaccinations. Homeopathy treats the acute and the chronic and prophylactic prescriptions have their valued place in epidemics however small or rampant. Anything else is not Hahnemannian homeopathy. Simples! Check out the evidence (as you suggest) and ask yourself why you discount Hahnemann so regularly.

Joy

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com , Shannon Nelson wrote:
--
Well Within
Sheri Nakken, R.N. MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com
http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com
email homeopathycuresyou@gmail.com
Homestudy Courses for Nurses, Online Homeopathy & Vaccine Dangers Courses; Vaccine Dangers Information; Homeopathic Consultations

Let's not lose the forest in distinguishing its trees. The original article that Soroush posted is the major item of concern. It contained a number of claims of fact that were not only unsubstantiated but are demonstrably wrong, but asserts its authority on the basis of off-the-cuff quotes from medical practitioners financially connected to the vaccine industry and with no apparent background in natural immunity or homoeopathy, as well as patent non sequiturs and potentially misleading irrelevancies.
Even the headline is deceptive.
(1) "Concern over homeopathic MMR vaccinations".
Actually, nowhere in the article is a homoeopathic MMR vaccination even mentioned. The headline is nothing more noble than an attention grubber.
(2) "Many homeopaths believe that remedies can help lessen the side effects of conventional vaccination."
Yes? So what? Is this belief dangerous? Is it even demonstrably untrue? Is it the basis for anything that follows in the article? Does it follow from anything in the article? No. It functions merely to mislead the open-minded reader into believing that the rest of the article may have some relevance to the truth of the claim -- which it does not.
(3) An "investigation has found" that homoeopaths "are offering 'alternative vaccinations', and "doctors say" that such alternatives "could leave" patients vulnerable to "potentially fatal" diseases.
First, the BBC's "investigations" of homoeopathy amount to no more than any other media outlet's: verbatim quoting of unsubstantiated claims by vested interests in medicine.
If alternative vaccinations are indeed "on offer", then anybody wishing to present reliable evidence of the offer need only quote the offer itself. No second-hand investigation is necessary, is it.
Second, whilst the tentativeness of the language is scientifically worthy, is it newsworthy to report the wild surmises of practitioners without qualifications such as having investigated the effects of the medicines they are so ready to criticise? No.
(4) "Three practitioners admitted giving patients a homeopathic medicine designed to replace the MMR vaccine."
First, there is no such vaccine as "the MMR vaccine". MMR, standing for measles, mumps, and rubella, represents three distinct diseases, for which major pharmacutical business interests developed three vaccines. The expedient of mixing the three and dispensing the mixture in one ampoule is commonly called polypharmacy, as it attempts three distinct medicinal jobs with three distinct medicinal agents. One of the results of this poor approach to medical experimentation has been the undue delay in identifying and eventually separating from another vaccine mixture -- for diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis -- the component that contributed most to that mixture's neurological damage, the pertussis component. It was the discoverer of homoeopathy, Samuel Hahnemann, who did most to make eighteenth- and nineteenth-century medical investigators aware of the stupidity of polypharmacy. Yet polypharmacy is practised routinely even in the development of medicines ordained for the most specific of purposes. Having been largely recognised by allopathic medicine as an obstacle to scientific progress in understanding medicinal effects, polypharmacy is today heavily criticised by leading allopathic investigators as a backward step that the pharmaceutical has once again used in place of proper investigation.
Second, anybody who understands homoeopathy in even the most basic way knows that it cannot be practised with mixtures of medicines. Just as medicinal mixtures are undesirable in allopathy, they are impossible to use in homoeopathy, and for the same reason: the effects of the individual medicines in a mixture cannot be distinguished, cannot be predicted under their mutual influence, and is unknowable due to their synergies and antergies. Homoeopathy depends utterly on certain knowledge of the effects of its medicines in order to be able to match the symptoms of a medicine to the symptoms of a patient's illness. It cannot use mixtures. So there can never be any homoeopathic medicine that protects a single patient from three distinct diseases such as measles, mumps, and rubella, and anybody claiming to dispense such a medicine is claiming to practice something outside the bounds of homoeopathy.
Need I continue? The fact that the article then goes on to quote a particular vested interest, a Dr Nathanson in asserting matters of which she has no knowledge, does not particularly add merit to this piece of uninterested but not disinterested plagiarism.
Varun, each succeeding reference you make to the book you're so desperate to sell makes clearer than the last your own disrespect for homoeopathy's fundamental principle. In this last one, you express surprise that there should be no room for "even Jan Scholten" in a scientific process whose starting point is the investigation of the positive, deranging effects of a medicine on human health. Are the notions of "even Jan Scholten" to which you defer the notions we've all heard about, that one can, INSTEAD of investigating, SURMISE the effects of a substance through interpolations in the periodic table and chemical analogies? If so, you have yourself gravely misunderstood what homoeopathy is. Despite the very high castles you seem to have constructed, homoeopathy very simply consists of prescription of the surest medicinal mimic of the patient's symptoms. That surety comes about through pathogenetic trials of the effects of the medicine on the healthy, not through speculation.
Kind regards,
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"What we're suggesting is that something that doesn't really interact with anything is changing something that can't be changed."
-- Jere Jenkins, on the apparent influence of solar neutrinos on rates of radioactive decay, 23 Aug 2010

I would also add that case taking styles will also change as they always have.
tanya

I don't see a need for any new developments with homeopathy as laws and principles have not changed nor will they - like laws of nature
But provings of course always can be added
And Jan Scholten's work is valuable to give possibilities to remedy pictures but those are not provings either

Sheri
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 September 2010