Minutus

Hi Sheri,
Again, I completely accept that toxic reactions may be mistaken for
various so-called infectious diseases, and I think it's terrific to be
getting this material out. What I continue to have trouble with is the
leap from "some disease is thought to be infectious, but is actually
toxic in origin" (very useful observation!) to "there is no such thing
as infectious disease, but if there were, if wouldn't have anything to
do with microbes." That is IMO a dangerous leap...

If all disease is toxic in origin, how do you explain the plagues that
have occurred periodically thru mankind's history? (Or at least ever
since there were enough of us to *sustain* a plague?)

And, how do you explain the way in years past mothers would
"vaccinate" their kids at home--by finding a kid who *had* the
"childhood disease", and taking their kids over to play? (That's how
both my mine got "vaccinated" for chicken pox; we couldn't find any
measles or mumps to "catch".) If germs have nothing to do with
disease, why did/does this method work?
Shannon
(who apparently enjoys beating her against the wall)

Sheri wrote:
And yet, the stagnant pond is *not* the (direct or only) cause of the
itchy red bumps one gets in its proximity! And if we deny *that* role
of the mosquitos, we deny ourselves the opportunity to (a) clean and
protect the pond, and (b) protect our skin fro mosquitos.

So I'd say the analogy is a good one!
Shannon

We know enough to draw some conclusions.
But since you're not willing to work from the information available, to
see whether you *can* make it fit your position, there's not much to
discuss...

Very true.

Anti-microbials are not necessarily suppressive--unless you call
"failure to ascend to higher realms when called" a suppression.
Which is quite possible, but not the usual starting assumption for a
healer!

Speaking of "reductionist", in this case terminology--not everything
"harmful" is "suppressive". I would say anti-microbials are not so
much "suppressive", as simply potentially disordering--*if* dosage
exceeds susceptibility, which is not usually the case.

And this is, again, a good example. Anti-microbials *are* effective,
sometimes lifesaving, in ways where it seems very clear that the
microbes *were* (on "level" of cause) of the disease, and their removal
restores (at least a greater or lesser degree of) health. Richard
and/or Sheri, how does the above theory account for these instances?
My blood poisoning or pneumonia, for instance? And of course I realize
that anti-microbials are only curing an *infection*, and do not cure
(and may even exacerbate) the underlying susceptibility.
Shannon

Hi Sheri, (Below):
Sheri replied:

Okay, I guess that sums it up, and there's no more to say.
Your view is that intermediate causes are not relevant, not worth
paying attention to.
Those who *do* get bitten by mosquitos get no sympathy from you, and
you don't care about the relative benefits or risks of DEET versus neem
oil, avoidance of bananas and sugar, or etc.; you don't see any point
in hanging mosquito netting or clearing old tires of their water, since
after all, the only people that matter to the discussion are those whom
mosquitos don't bite...
I give up!
Cheers and best wishes,
Shannon

I agree with your argument totally.

Extreme "absolutist" positions are very untenable in health care.
Terrain is important and no one is denying it - even modern day
allopaths do not deny this. The problem with them is allopathy does
not have a way of utilizing the strengthening of the terrain for
treatment- nothing that would work like the specific constitutional
remedy in homeopathy.

In bacterial infectious diseases- since antibiotics take care of it-
they do not think beyond that. That is a mistake. Whereas all the
inadequacies of the system come to the fore in treating viral
diseases.

This is the area where we can establish the supremacy of homeopathy.
Instead of denying that there are infections and viruses - we should
study the field and update our skill sets so that whether it be the
acute/ subacute or chronic viral diseases, we can tackle them
effectively with homeopathy. This is an opportunity for us to prove
our system.

It is not by treating chronic arthritis and allergies that we can
prove the worth of the system. It is the felicity with which we can
treat acute infections that we can prove the effectiveness of the
system. It was in plagues, small pox, typhoid, pneumonias, cholera
and yellow fever and their like that homeopathy proved itself and
established itself in the days of old. Not just by treating
allergies and anxiety disorders....

Anyone who has treated infectious diseases, malaria and typhoid with
homeopathy know the speed and effectiveness of the medicine given
alone or ALONGSIDE the allopathic medicine. I have done this
countless times as other homeopaths in India and I can say from
experience that infections are where homeopathy shines the best.
There is an active conflict between the infection and vital force
and the effect of the correct prescription is so very easy to notice.

And there is no reason for us to deny infection also. We are not
microbiologists and epidemiologists. Instead of fighting this war,
would it not be better to utilize all the information that modern
research gives us to find the right medicine and to prove our worth?
We should not lose sight of the multifactorial nature of any disease
by just concentrating on the "terrain"- disease is an interaction of
the terrain and any 'morbific" agent as the proving is an
interaction of the terrain and the "drug"
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
of the
*that*
clean and
and
neem
point
since
whom

person, working with the symptoms to find a remedy.

We as homeopaths are treating the PERSON with the infection.

Diagnosis is important so that you know what is rare and peculiar
and what is common. Was there not a criticism ( was it Dr.Hunter?)
150 years ago, that homeopaths would treat a chinese ( with yellow
skin) for jaundice? If you know the diagnosis and what ails the
patient you can find what is rare and peculiar...

How do you know the prognosis if you do not understand the disease?
What do you know about the natural progression of the disease and if
the medicine is working or not? How do you know if it can be fatal
or not?

I acknowledge that a prescription can be made without knowing the
disease- but that is like saying you can cross the road with eyes
shut. Yes it can be done many times but not always. If you can see
if you open your eyes then it is better to cross the road with eyes
open.
cure.
Why do you think there are clinical repertories and therapeutic
works in homeopathy? Have you looked at Clarke's Prescriber,
Lilienthal's Therapeutics, Raue's Pathology, Boericke's Repertory?
What do you think of those?

I understand that you want to keep prescribing "classical" but using
pathology to assist you is not bad- it is only if you prescription
is based only on disease labels - that is bad...
-

I'm not inclined to be dismissive of homeopathy's usefulness with
allergies and other chronic issues--after all, that's the stuff that
*won't* "end speedily in either recovery or death"--it goes on and on,
and "mainstream" medicine's efforts have been poor!

But our ability to treat acute diseases could prove to be even more
important over time (various reasons). And of course the reference to
"treat acute infections" can be handily replaced by the phrase "treat
acute manifestations and what some would call infections"...
"Find the right remedy" is only a part of our job. Hahnemann also
charged us (and common sense would heartily support) with being able to
recognize the *causes* of disease, maintaining causes, etc. He *was*
big on hygiene, and *did* believe in germs (tho by that different,
name), and he *did* want to us to go well beyond "the remedy", both in
our understanding and in our directions to the patient.
Shannon

on,

I am not dismissing the treating of allergies and chronic issues. The
comment most often heard when we talk about homeopathic cures is that
most of it is placebo and physician influence. This accusation loses
force in the face of success against infections. Also if we cannot
handle infections with ease then we will never become a mainstream
medicine - we will always be part of the "alternative" camp. Treating
chronic conditions is important but even in that all of us have
experience in our patients running and getting admitted at the nearest
allopathic hospital for any acute condition-

In India I have seen some homeopathic doctors having a working
arrangement with nearby hospitals- where for an acute condition - for
oxygen and fluids for example- the patient gets admitted in the
hospital but the treatment given is homeopathy. This is not possible
if we go on antagonizing the established medicine-

Instead of throwing their theories out the door, we should probably
see how it could be helpful to us. It is our attitude problem that we
still are stuck in discussing infections -even if accept infections-
in terms of 200 year old theories and trying to fit all new
discoveries into the old bottles we carry - And this "flies and dead
bodies" theory of Sheri, I thought, had died with Kent...well this
theory seems to be hydra-headed coming back under different names and
shrouds

Shannon wrote:

worth
Sheri asked:
Shannon wrote:
Sheri asked:

I assume those things are not true in fact, but they would be the
logical extension of the analogy and your remarks about it. But never
mind, analogies are always imperfect...

Do you still believe in wound hygiene, or would you now feel okay about
non-sterile surgery? (I realize of course that wounds do not always
get infected, not even really deep ones with lots of dirt in them; I
realize that non-sterile surgery was practiced in the past and some of
those patients survived. Would you take those facts to mean that
sterile techniques don't matter for surgery, and cleansing doesn't
matter for wounds?

Best wishes,
Shannon

[...]

Except that diagnosis of "what ails the patient" *is* in part
determined by "the so-called cause being a bacteria (sic) or a
virus"--e.g. in pneumonia and meningitis the distinction is apparently
important for prognosis.

And for allopaths the distinction matters because anti-virals don't
work on bacteria, and anti-bacterials don't work on viruses. And
neither of them work on poisonings.
Shannon