Minutus

that you can cure rabies with homeopathy? Or even protect against it?
If so what is that belief based on?

I dont know where you all find so much time to contribute here. I am
having trouble reading it all. Am I correct in understanding that
some homeopaths have taken our understanding of susceptibilty to such
an extreme as to deny the part pathogens play in infection? I hope I
have misunderstood this.

At 02:09 PM 5/31/2006 -0000, you wrote:

Have you read about all the cases cured in the volumes available to us from
history - Hering, Hahnemann, Grimmer, Clark?
Why do you have a problem with that?

Believe what you like.
It is your choice
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

hahneman, himself, proposed the susceptibility first theory of
disease. and pasteur, whom we have all been indoctrinated to
believe was the originator of disease theory, changed his mind
at the end of his life about the pathogenic cause of disease.
i dont think anyone is saying that pathogens dont exist or play
a part in disease, but the susceptibility of the person has to be
there. look at love canal where so many people developed
cancer from the toxic waste level which was pretty high. but
not everyone developed cancer. the susceptibility had to
exist first. the same is true for colds and flue, etc, etc. people
in the same household do not get affected equally.

tanya
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

I continue to wonder why none of this was brought up in prior
discussions on the subject--none of this is new material! Yet I have
not heard it mentioned until now (and do not seem to have any of it in
my ReferenceWorks...)
Shannon

Hi Tanya,
The view you are stating is the view that probably all of us here
share--except Sheri and Joy. Sheri has just written:

" the discussion was about bacteria and viruses 'causing' illness
it is my opinion that bacteria and viruses are NOT the cause for
illnesses
as described.
it is my opinion that bacteriea and viruses are doing a necessary job"
Shannon

Hang on a minute Shannon - Tanya is writing about susceptibility and
that is what Sheri and I have been saying all along. The discussion
won't go anywhere if corruption creeps in. Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings

Hi Joy,
Okay, here is why I said what I did--see my "interleaves" below:
Susceptibility *first* is pretty much what all of us have been
saying--that's why we are homeopaths instead of pharmacists!

Also, "susceptibility first" is a far different thing from
"susceptibility only." For that matter, you can't have
"susceptibility" unless you also have "susceptibility *to*
[something]." So you are proposing that we have susceptibility to
toxins, and susceptibility to emotional causes, and susceptibility to
malnutrition, but we do not have susceptibility to predation /
parasitism by other creatures? Or only if those creatures reach a
certain size, not by the teeny ones we call "microbes"?
Yes indeed. He came to feel--as we do--that building the health of the
patient is more important than finding and killing the beasties in
them. I have never disagreed with that. But I do not think Pasteur
decided that microorganisms can cause disease; I do not think he
decided that sterilization techniques were a waste of time.
Sher *has* said she believes that they don't play a part in disease.
She says she believes they are performing a needed function and (by
inference rather than statement) any attempts to identify or eradicate
them are misguided--always. Tho she did waffle and say that protective
measures "might" be helpful, "if necessary"--which sounds to me like
wanting to have it and eat it both... More charitably, I suppose, she
is wanting to be on the safe side, since there *is* still much we don't
know?
And again, Tanya's statement is only, exactly, what I would absolutely
agree with--it is quite standard "holistic" outlook on the matter.

Of the people who developed cancer, some would no doubt have developed
it anyway--their susceptibility to *other* factors was sufficiently
high. Others, tho, would NOT have developed it in absence of the
pollution--same situation as with germs. I can't believe we're arguing
about whether or not germs can make people sick! Remember we are
talking about "people"--that great, seething, uneven, imperfect mass of
folks out there, not some idealized yogi or psora-free thought-form!
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]