Minutus

*on the subject of rabies deaths, there was a fellow in Scotland who
died of it a few years ago, following a bat bite. He was the only one
in the battery (?) not to have been vaccinated as he relied on
homeopathy. Oh dear.

Sadly this sort of thing is on the increase due to idealistic
homeopaths giving bad advice. Quite a few instances of people getting
very sick going into Malarial regions with homeopathic protection.

For heavens sake we all understand susceptibi;ty and we all agree that
the allopaths focus too much on germs. But to go to the other flat
earth society extreme will only harm us and our profession in the long
run.

The power and virulence of the 'bug' concerned must always be taken
into consideration. Its obvious isnt it? Would you be happier
protecting yourslef form a hurricane in a tin shack or a sturdily
built building? Some destructive forces (especially the man made
ones) will blow away even the most well built building.

It may be possible to reach a state of immunity from all disease for
one or two exeptional individuals in the world, indeed there are
people who dont need to eat to survive but we live and work in the
real imperfect world where idealism will only get us in trouble imo.
We have enough bad publicity as it is.
I heard a couple of disturbing cases, which although are not pathogen
related are also examples of how some homeopaths give us all a bad
name. One woman was told not to have a suspicious mole looked at
because you dont get cancer if you have had years of constitutional
treatment. That had a very bad outcome. The other awful example that
comes to mind I hold back on as it is a bit close to home on here

Why are you giving up practising Joy? Another one of our science's
worst aspects is teachers who teach and write with authority but
little experience. Experience is THE most important thing in
developing an understanding of what homeopathy truly can and cant do imho.

Hogwash, the so called rabies virus in the country isn't true rabies.
Did you know this man and his alleged interests in homeopathy. Enemies
of Homeopathy within are so much worse than those from without. Joy

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

Hi Joy,
Do you know what it is, rather than rabies?
And what "enemy" are you talking about--surely not the fellow who died?
Or is Robin an "enemy" for telling the story, or ??
This is getting more and more confusing...
Is this a story you're familiar with, and know something else about it,
or are you *assuming* it was something other than rabies? (In which
case how to explain that the only one who died was the only one not
vaccinated??)
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Christine,
What's not on the increase--people opting for homeopathic coverage
instead of drugs, or people getting sick even tho they had homeopathic
coverage, or ??

Also, I'm curious why you assume the bat / rabies incident in Scotland
was misrepresented?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
Joy I could tell you stories about people who have UNNECESSARILY
suffered and even died under 'good' homeopathic treatment and advice
that would make your hair stand on end. Or maybe not as you would no
doubt find excuses and justifications for what occured. Someone will
no doubt point out how much allopathy damages and kills people but
thats not the point and would not be disputed by anyone here. The
real 'enemies within' are those that will do us a grievous disservice
to our profession and our patients by teaching nonsense to gullible
unsuspecting acolytes.

You didnt answer about your giving up practising. Will this make you
a "fence sitter" or will your "dedication" go into the writing and
teaching of ideas?

On Jun 1, 2006, at 1:17 PM, robin9168 wrote:
And seriously eroding our credibility in he larger community, as well
as opening us to suspicion, ridicule, even legal action (at least here
in the US).

Advocating non-vaccination is one thing (and quite bad enough in some
people's eyes!); our emphasis on "the terrain" and its importance in
maintaining health has rung true to an increasing number of
people--even an increasing number of allopaths. But tossing overboard
the entire "germ theory" and generating conspiracy theories about
everything from colds to rabies? No, that would firmly consign us to
the nut-house.

And let's go back to "why it matters". Are we going to tell mamas that
they don't need to wash their babies' hands, or their own hands after
changing nappies? (I assume not.) Are we going to drink cloudy lake
water, eat spoiled meat? (I assume not, even tho it's cheap!) If
someone is critically ill and remedies are unavailable to not working,
are we going to tell them not to see a doctor, because after all their
illness is less harmful than the doctor's medicines would be? In the
US, that could land the prescriber in jail; I don't know about other
countries.

My growing feeling is that the "conspiracy theories" and the
helpfulness of all microbes are okay to offer information about, but
maybe (as this whole conversation suggests) not appropriate for our
homeopathy lists. What do others think?
Shannon

Hi Shannon

Robin made the comment that more people are travelling to Malarial countries harmed only with homeopathic protection and getting ill as a result of it. Obviously I read it he's referring to the fact that more and more people are now not getting vaccinated because they are believing what some homeopaths are saying that vaccines do not offer immunity. Personally I cannot see how that kind of thinking is on the increase, especially since many still flock to get their flu jabs each year.

Regarding the media coverage of the fellow who died in Scotland a few years ago due to a bat bite and giving the impression that he died because he was the only one not to be vaccinated because he relied on homeopathy. He could have equally died had he been vaccinated. What about the other fellows who were vaccinated - did any of them get bitten? May be he died because he didn't get proper care from the allopathic field of medicine. And IF one of the vaccinated people did get bitten and survived then they probably would have done had they not been vaccinated.

It's all down to what Sheri and Joy have been saying all along and that's susceptibility.

Christine

"The UK doesn't need puppy farming
it already has too many dogs needing good homes!"

Dogs in days before vets & petfood became the norm
http://anubys.bravejournal.com/entry/15500

Well I realise I was wasting my time a while ago and thanks for the
corruption of meaning in posts.

The emphasis has been on susceptibility and that no-one, (not even
Hahnemann), knows (or knew) the true receptors of disease, i.e. so
called infections. The word infect can just mean to be a carrier, to
communicate but without susceptibility there would be no carrying or
communication, no miasmatic soil to entertain the vital force.
Questions marks have merely been placed on the accepting of the word
infectious. You've manage to turn it into something else.

Never in a million years would I question Hahnemann's work or
contribution regarding acute miasms or even David Little's wonderful
and necessary explanations of Hahnemann's work that pertains to that
which might be infectious but a question mark was raised about the true
or some other meaning of that little word.

You didn't want it to get personal Shannon, but of course these
discussions usually do and you've supplied it this time and I find
these inferences quite insulting. No wonder some discussions
deteriorate to this. I went out of my way to find time in answering
your posts because I thought this thread was interesting but I should
learn differently. Joy

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

Joy,
I had to look back to see what you had found insulting, and I'm afraid
it wasn't hard to see... But actually I didn't mean to direct that to
you and Sheri in particular; I was (am) trying to make clear why I
am... worried, I suppose, or upset, at the line of discussion.
Below:
Sorry, I assure you I am not deliberately "corrupting", and not certain
what you're referring to. Possibly I am misstating because I don't
*understand* the boundaries of what you are proposing; possibly you and
Sheri do not hold exactly the same positions---which would not be
surprising at all, and I don't mean that in any negative way at all.
And if I've completely misstated the intents of *both* of you, I can
only say it's not deliberate. As I've said already, I find the
position bizarre, I don't understand how one can hold that position
together with awareness of the "history of health care", history of
plagues and epidemics and etc.

It's a really unfortunate thing that we can't just air the facts--*as
each of us sees them*--and then leave each other to whatever
conclusions we've drawn. I suppose it's largely because we *do* feel
ourselves a community, and we'd rather all be in agreement with each
other, especially on important issues. And when "the facts" seem so
crystal-clear to *me* (and I know this is true for both/all of us), I
find it incomprehensible that I can't just explain it all clearly
enough, so that *you* will find it crystal-clear too. I guess that's
part of "the human condition"...

Speaking just for myself now (tho likely it's true for you also), I am
*accustomed* to being able to make myself understood. And I am
*accustomed* to being able to understand the other person. This has
been on my mind lately because of a series of discussions elsewhere on
the subject of evolution. Same experience--we're using the same
*words*, but missing each other completely. Finally we gave up, agreed
to disagree. And that's where I'm headed with this now. I don't like
the arguing (hah, what's new?), and I don't want to make hard feelings
with community members. We're all grown-ups, we'll meet the world as
it comes to us, and make from it what we can. We'll make some
mistakes, and we'll move on.

I understand and agree.
I did that as an afterthought, a sort of nod to your and Sheri's
objections to the term. It wasn't meant to be offensive, sorry.

Again, I didn't mean to direct it at you and Sheri (etc.), but of
course I did, because of what I was saying. I guess that is part of
what's made this such a difficult one--each "side" feels that the
issues *are* important (tho not necessarily "homeopathy"?); each side
feels that the other side is at risk of doing actual damage. So it
*is* personal, but maybe we can still let it be without the acrimony.
Well, I guess we (any/all/as the list?) need to get better at making
peace with divergent opinions. It's going to be a continuing
challenge...
Regards,
Shannon