Minutus

It means knowing what symptoms / disorder (patho) can be *caused* (genesis) by taking (too much of) a substance. That is the basis of homeopathy: We find a substance which, in overdose, can *cause* a symptom picture similar to that of our patient.

Irene is saying that same process can apparently be used with the flower remedies -- no surprise there, since same can be done with *any* substance, in fact with any stimulus. Then we give that substance, but in altered form (e.g.., tho not necessarily, diluted-and-succussed).

So my point to John, the observation that "same process can apparently be used with" them does not mean a claim that their use "is homeopathy" -- though we could indeed say that it makes use of "homeopathic correspondence."

Does that help?
Shannon
________________________________

Hi, Shannon; hi, Roger --

Roger, I'd agree (with the caveat that "too much of" and "overdose" may not be the best terms for an effect that occurs at doses as small as you like) with Shannon's description here of the significance of the knowledge of pathogenesis.

Shannon, the significance of it is clearly, in Irene's own words, that it can be used homoeopathically. I'm sorry that she does so, but she makes the case against herself as having claimed that Bach flower remedies are, broadly, prescribed homoeopathically -- before completely changing her tune.

I'd find this admirable if it were an honest expression of having realised that she had made a mistake, but instead Irene just sallies back and forth across the no-man's-land of blithe ignorance of just what she's aiming to do with her mixtures: build up a total pathogenesis homoeopathic to the patient's condition, or build up a total pathogenesis enantiopathic to it. It turns out, of course, that she wants to be able to claim both, but not to admit it. This is exactly as I expected and predicted, because it's the way Irene argues always in support of her brand of polypharmacy.

What I find disgusting about it is that Irene is not acting out of some stupid uneducated wilful ignorance but knows exactly what she is doing in arguing first one way, then the other, simply by redefining such terms as polypharmacy and homoeopathy and using undefined terms such as "matching". Pin her down on these terms, and you immediately find that her entire argument means nothing at all except that she wishes to freely prescribe multiple remedies and have us understand that it is homoeopathy.

Well, sorry to break it to you yet again (though I realise you don't recall the first dozen times anyway), but no polypharmacy of any stripe is any kind of homoeopathy. Homoeopathic practice has one simple requirement, and Irene violates it knowingly and systematically. That requirement is that the patient's state of illness be met through selection of that single medicine that can most closely reproduce the totality of the patient's symptoms. That is it, and that is all of it, and no argument can hold water that a second medicine has no influence in changing the pathogenetic influence of the first if it is there to "support" the patient, or to "boost" the vitality, or to call the angels down, or just for luck. It doesn't matter what the intent is in prescribing a second medicine with the first; it is a second medicine, and two medicines together do not, cannot, and will never create a single pathogenesis and therefore can't ever be a homoeopathic prescription.

If Irene did not seek always to undermine that understanding of homoeopathy's nature, then there'd be no argument from me. But she does seek to do that. Unfortunately she does so in a manner that slides under the radar of many, such as yourself, so that you don't see the fundamental conflicts between her salvos from one side and her salvos from the other: that she is fuelling both sides of this war on homoeopathy.

Kind regards,

John
________________________________

John -- again, ANYTHING "can be used homeopathically": Check out that section in Intro to Organon. Hahnemann describes homeopathic uses of cold, heat, magnetism, and I think some other things too.

If it is being "used homeopathically" -- that is, used in a way where the *basis* for the prescription *is* the pathogenesis, and used in a context of understanding "totality of symptoms", direction of cure, when to re-dose or re-prescribe -- if done in that context, then I would find it very hard to call it "not homeopathy."

So in saying that, since knowledge of pathogenesis is available, the BFRs "can be used homeopathically", I would say that she is merely stating the obvious.

Can you explain to me what the reasoning might be, for saying that homeopathic "symptom matching" between the patient and a substance *whose pathogenic picture is known*, in a context of full homeopathic training, is "not homeopathy"?

HOWEVER that does not change the fact that the Bach Flower Remedies *system* -- as developed by Bach, and as applied by probably 95% + of the people who use it, is *not* homeopathy, because it is *not* based on pathogenesis, but rather on mental states, and acceptably even on rather general mental states.

So here we have what I would see as a "peaceful coexistence of opposites":

On the one hand that the BFR *system*, as developed and as usually used, is NOT homeopathy (different basis of selection); but on the other hand,

The BFR *remedies*, or some of them, do have (or so I gather) sufficient information available, and of such a type, that they *can* be prescribed homeopathically.

(more to come later)

Hi, Shannon --

You're forgetting the context here, which is Irene's own words, claiming the homoeopathic prescription of multiple BFRs.
Revisit e-mail (1): "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".
Revisit e-mail (2): "The knowledge of pathogenesis of the BFRs is both essential and available".
Revisit e-mail (3): "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".
And now please show us how this is not a claim that BFRs are, all of them, systematically prescribed homoeopathically.
Now revisit the next sentence of e-mail (1): "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."
And now please show us how this is not a claim that BFRs are, all of them, systematically prescribed homoeopathically in combination.
Kind regards,
John

Okay, so it is a "homeopathically influenced" prescription, "not homeopathy."

But I think your concern is less about what Irene (or anyone) *does*, and more about what they call it, lest others be misled -- is that correct?

In that case you can be at peace, because she is not calling it homeopathy…

I'm sliding over into the "bored" category again… Really I don't see the point of this at the moment. Think I am going to have to drop out again. (Call if "confused" if it makes you feel better.)
"… much as" -- in other words, they are not the same, right?
There is some similarity -- but they are not the same. That should make you happy! But it doesn't…
My own answer would be that they are being prescribed via a process which has some interesting things in common with homeopathy.
However, it is still "not homeopathy." No one but you is claiming otherwise.
"homeopathically"… Again we come to that distinction between "having (some greater or lesser degree of) homeopathic correspondence" and "prescribed according to the system of Homeopathy".

Prescribing them in combination -- doesn't matter, since neither she nor anyone else (except you) is calling it homeopathy. Homeoathic correspondence? Yes. Homeopathy-as-per-Hahnemann? No. All clear? Good.

Shannon

You try hard, Shannon. I'll give you that.

Cheers --

John

John is full of baloney and misrepresentation as usual here.
*My* words are chosen with great care to make sure that anyone who comprehends plain English will know the difference between what I say and what John (or anyone) twists and paraphrases incorrectly.
My real problem is that he does not say (as he should) that this twisted version is how HE understands it (so that one can forgive the lack of comprehension) - he instead claims the twisted words are what I actually wrote.
That is sick.

.....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."

Here we go again...
Gee is it 150 degrees where you are?
You clearly have a fever.
I have never called a BFR a homeopathic remedy. You keep making false implications.
I hope that people will stop responding to your misquotes.
People - Please respond to MY emails if you wish to say something about MY work or MY views.
NOT TO JOHNS versions.
I'm right here to ask questions of and I find it incredibly rude to see this "conversation" continuing when I am here to answer any confusion supposedly in my emails.
(There is none - John is inventing it to get attention and to get people to believe falsehoods about my views that really are anathema to me.

Answer MY emails - NOT John's emails supposedly about me.
He knows it - he enjoys rabbel-rousing. STOP helping that malicious misrepresentation. I deserve better.)

And my views MATTER to me and you all are contributing to getting them thoroughly misrepresented.

YUCK
How about some professionalism instead?
MY VIEWS ARE JUST THAT - THEY ARE NOT JOHN'S TWISTED misrepresented rubbish.
He hopes if he says it often enough that people will believe his misrepresentations.
That kind of troll behavior usually works too, people are sheeple!
MY REPUTATION is being stirred up and spat out.

WHY must I put up with it?
How would YOU like your views to be constantly misrepresented so you look like you do the opposite of what you spent your life to develop?

I DID spend my life at what I do. I worked hard, I met Aphorism one.
I am proud of it.
I am DISGUSTED to see it blended up and spat out for all to digest as slush (It is JOHN's slush purported to be mine. I do not want MY name on his slush.).

I deserve to get my work respected for what it IS.
The animals I worked with and their owners appreciate it a lot - and so for members here to encourage John in his misrepresentation of it - especially while I am currently on trial for my life's work (and I *am* here to answer real questions) - is JUST SICK.

STOP feeding John's delusions.
You are hurting ME (and my legal case which IS homeopathy on trial ) by messing with my reputation here.
I deserve the credibility I earned for what I have worked on and written about - without it being misrepresented.

PLEASE.
If MY name is in an email not written by me - IGNORE 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."

With John it goes like this - if a man tells John he, the man, saw
something that looks like a duck, walks like a duck and sounds like a
duck, John will tell you the man told him he saw a duck. Well, that is
*not* what the man said.

Op 27-7-2013 8:16, John Harvey schreef:

I have stopped reading and thus replying to John long ago. I thought it was just because I was a coward with regard to even the slightest amount of animosity. I guess I am not alone.

Roger