Minutus

? Matching pathogenesis to symptoms, I have never heard of that as any sort of basis for BFR prescribing. I recall she said there *are* recordings of pathogenesis, and … well, I don't remember exactly what she said about it, but my impression was that she was *speculating* that there might indeed be a similar process at work.

But nothing I have read about Bach's work suggested to me that he used that as a *basis*.

In fact, the reverse. I read that he specifically wanted NOT to use disease-causing substances in healing; he wanted to prescribed based on positive effects (benefits).

Does that make any difference to your argument?
Are you saying that because the word "pathogenesis" is mentioned, she is claiming that BFRs are homeopathic?

I did not think she was saying that. Did you think she was saying that, or are you making the leap on your own?

John -
Leave my name OUT of your nasty emails.

Your mischaracterization of my views is as usual, rude, dishonest and malicious.
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Excuse me???
Did you forget i am present in this forum?

If you wish to know how I use remedies then have the courtesy to ask me directly please, and do not suggest discussing it (especially also not with word twisters) as if I am not here. I consider the expert on what *I* do is not anyone else! If you want to hang me for what I do (which is fine by me as long as it IS what I do), at least use "best evidence" and not hearsay.

Thanks!
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Baloney.

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Then stop doing it

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Sorry Irene, all I was trying to do is to disentangle the confounded topics.
But my disentanglement efforts with John have never been successful in the past, so I don't know why I tried this time. No offense intended.

Thanks.
And yes, history on this list shows that John will twist and misrepresent anything I say no matter how reasonable other people try to be with him.

I'm not shy to explain what I do or why, and do not care how others characterize it, so long as what I actually do is not misrepresented - and that's where John will not comply.
Many have learned from I what I do, as it always involves matching with the individual, between remedy known symptoms and individual symptoms and it works predictably. I've spent some decades on it.
I find it healing and that suits Aph 1, and is good enough for me:-)
Bach remedes have been well developed to document their healing capabilities, even though bach started out with only some emotional aspects.
Knowing which ones can heal what, is helpful in selection, especially with animals (as they show emotions but are not good at being questioned about them).
It IS positive to heal things
But it is incorrect to suggest Bach remedies are uni-directional. They tend to bring the individual towards balance for each characteristic - so they will reduce an excess and increase a deficit, in a characteristic. This has benefits such as that one cat can drink from the treated water of another and will not be adversely affected - unlike in homeopathic remedies when repeated doses of a non-matched remedy can cause problems.
[A caveat: In practice a cat will NOT tend to drink water containing a remedy that is unsuited to it.]

Namaste,
Irene
REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Irene, did you send the following e-mails? If not, I'll understand that how you can deny having said the things below. If you did, then you've just fulfilled the prediction I made. I don't know whether to thank you or not.

Shannon et al., you may like to watch the contortions.

======

(1)
8:36 a.m. GMT, 23 July:
"> BFR have nothing to do with homeopathy!
I'm not so sure.
Dr Edward Bach, who devised the Bach flower remedies, was inspired by Hahnemann's homeopathy.
The documented things each flower essence helps, are very similar to a proving, and make the bach remedies *predictable* as to what they each will help. It includes mind, general and specific symptoms, much as with homeopathy. … The big difference is that they are found to be synergistic in combination. In fact my finding is that they NEED to be in combination to work well. … So while not identical to homeopathy - and not potentized - they are extremely dilute, so no side effects (and aggravations being rare but possible with a few of them) - and they are individualized so that the synergistic choice acts as one individually matched, balancing remedy"
======
(2)
8:49 a.m. GMT, 23 July:
"> My understanding is that no comprehensive knowledge of the pathogenesis of the medicines in either system is required or indeed available.
For BFR's you'd be wrong. (Can't speak for ayurveda, I have not studied it)

The knowledge of pathogenesis of the BFRs is both essential and available, and as with homeopathy, is a growing body of knowledge. Without it you can toss your BFR remedies down the sink."
======
(3)
12:59 p.m. GMT, 23 July 2013:
Why not?
The law of Similars is very likely invoked as in homeopathy. The SET of symptoms associated with the remedy ("the remedy" being the synergistic "set" or mix needed to make a whole remedy) is matched (similar) to those of the individual needing the remedy. … No. It is not polypharmacy."

======
Looking forward to a straightforward "Yes", Irene. Cheers --
John

I trust you are not claiming that "knowledge of pathogenesis" = "homeopathy"? We have knowledge of pathogenesis for all sorts of things: drugs, foods (to which some people abreact), poisons, bad manners… *And* that knowledge of pathogenesis is regularly used *by homeopaths*, in various contexts.

In homeopathy, that knowledge is used in very *specific* ways -- and constitutes the definition of homeopathy. It is the *usage* of the knowledge that sets homeopathy apart, not the mere *having* or existence of the knowledge. Can we agree on that?

In BFR usage, the knowledge of pathogenesis is *not* necessary, and in fact is not used whatsoever by most people who are using BFR. I would say *that* is why BFR is "not homeopathy," rather than the lack of potentization.
EXACTLY! It is Not Homeopathy. Phew, finally we are all agreed on something…
Ah no.
*Can* be, and Irene observes that this makes the process more effective. Making use of that "homeopathic correspondence" when available, but that is a departure from the usual process of using BFR -- or so far as I understand...

I hate to break in here because I want to know. What is the "knowledge of pathogenesis" and how does it relate to BFR and homeopathy?

Is it knowing that the substance will cause an illness in a healthy person, and so a person with that illness (or symptoms) will be healed by it?

Roger
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: shannonnelson@tds.net
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2013 06:29:17 -0500
Subject: Re: [Minutus] BFR
I trust you are not claiming that "knowledge of pathogenesis" = "homeopathy"? We have knowledge of pathogenesis for all sorts of things: drugs, foods (to which some people abreact), poisons, bad manners… *And* that knowledge of pathogenesis is regularly used *by homeopaths*, in various contexts.

In homeopathy, that knowledge is used in very *specific* ways -- and constitutes the definition of homeopathy. It is the *usage* of the knowledge that sets homeopathy apart, not the mere *having* or existence of the knowledge. Can we agree on that?

In BFR usage, the knowledge of pathogenesis is *not* necessary, and in fact is not used whatsoever by most people who are using BFR. I would say *that* is why BFR is "not homeopathy," rather than the lack of potentization.
EXACTLY! It is Not Homeopathy. Phew, finally we are all agreed on something…
Ah no.
*Can* be, and Irene observes that this makes the process more effective. Making use of that "homeopathic correspondence" when available, but that is a departure from the usual process of using BFR -- or so far as I understand...