Minutus

Hi Kerry,
I'm sending this privately, since I'm afraid it might come across as a criticism or attack, which is NOT what I am intending, and don't want to give that appearance on the list. (Altho, if you feel it gives you a chance to explain your thinking better on the list and you would *like* to forward, that would be alright. Sorry, I'm in a sleepy rush right now, shouldn't be on the computer at all (( , but interested... Okay, with those caveats in place...
Hi Shannon
I am happy for your mail to me to be on list and I am replying via the list. I know all about the writing while sleepy and in a rush!

The term "immune damaged" covers a whole lot of ground, as I know you know... I wonder why you are so annoyed at Irene's use of the term FIP, seeming to feel that using such a term means that she is "treating a label", while you yourself seem to insist that any "immune damaged" animal should be easy and straightforward to treat?
NO I am definitely NOT inferring that any immune damaged animal is easy to treat, exactly the opposite in fact and yet many vet homs are treating them very successfully using Hahnemann’s teachings. They are able to do this due to having an excellent knowledge of MM and a thorough understanding of how to put his teachings into practice. They understand the checks and balances that his method gives; as a ‘Classical Homeopath’ yourself you will understand what those checks and balances are. They do not look at a disease label and say ‘Oh, no, Hahnemann’s methods won’t work, I’ll have to use polypharmacy!’ They look at each case individually and treat that patient, going off that patient’s individual manifestation of disease and its causations.
Isn't that a pretty marked lack of individualization on your part? I'm curious where your assumption comes from, that Irene is somehow deluded in believing that his particular manifestation of "immune suppression" responds --as a general group--better to certain types of treatment (e.g. the approach she has developed) than to others (i.e. the more "standard" approach)? I'm curious what's behind the apparent (correct me if I'm wrong) antagonism--can you explain?
I am against a system of medicine being condemned as being incapable of treating a disease label because an individual hasn’t been able to use that system to treat the said disease.

Reading homeopathy's literature, I would say that *all* of our authors do make reference to disease names, as well as other shorthand ways of describing cases and aspects thereof, in ways that can convey large amounts of (albeit general and incomplete) information in fewer words. We/they refer to tuberculosis (with cautions specific to the disease), to allergy, to any disease name--not because we are "treating the label", but because it *does* impart information, and that information will be understood and used differently by different practitioners...
Yes they do make reference to disease names but they don’t condemn a ‘disease’ as being untreatable by Hahnemann’s method just on its disease label.
Do you feel that she should not use any method that isn't strictly classical, even at the expense of the cats' lives?
I am querying the fact that it is assumed that Hahnemann’s method is not capable of treating complicated diseases. We are once again back to ‘don’t condemn the system because one person hasn’t been able to use it to its full advantage’.
With regards to being annoyed Shannon, I don’t get annoyed as that is a waste of energy but I do find many of the discussions on these sorts of lists extremely amusing and often as good as a dose of the simillimum for raising the spirits. J
Kerry

No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.484 / Virus Database: 269.12.6/971 - Release Date: 24/08/2007 14:59

kerry,
i think you are being too harsh on irene.
irene clearly states that she reporatizes the cases
and individualizes the treatments. however, she
also recognizes the rapidity of this disease condition
and does what she can to save the poor cat's life.
actually her approach reminds me of ramakrishnan's
approach to treating cancer. if i understand his method,
he uses particular remedies that are organ focused and
also gives a constitutional. would you have the same
argument with him?
tanya

Hi Tanya
Having read Ramakrishnan’s book I did not come away with the understanding that he advocates giving a constitutional remedy as well as an organ remedy at the same time.
Kerry

the book that i have was clear on that. he definitely
alternated rx. that is my recollection. i cant put my
hand on the book right now but i will see if i can fish
it out later.
tanya

Irene gives a constitutional and a remedy based on disease on the same day and even both remedies in the same meal; this is not the same as Ramakrishnan’s approach.
Kerry

Hi Kerry,

After a looong day in the car, I'm still sleepy but--I'm
interspersing below:
"Them"... Yes some, but apparently not this particular manifestation,
which Irene is describing as end-stage FIP. Are you saying that others
are treating it successfully, but just haven't realized that's what
they're treating? Why the change in her success rates between while
she worked with the homeopathic vet clinic, treating via the "regular"
classical approach, versus her later one? That is what I'm curious
about.

Do you assume that she *didn't* see improvements in results, or are you
saying that those improvements are less important than was the method
used to achieve them? Or are you in the "okay maybe it works, but is
it homeopathy" group?
Yes indeed, and I thought Irene has followed those very nicely, within
the quite different context of the very critical situation...
Evidently we disagree on that point, tho.
Right, it's not the "disease label" that gives us prognosis.
Are you equally offended when a homeopath says, "Ah, with that history
of tuberculosis, we had better not give ylou silica"? If not, why?

And--how exactly are you defining "polypharmacy"--which part, exactly,
are you bothered by?
And why do you feel that Irene doesn't do this, even tho she states
that she does?

But mostly, I am curious why you seem to feel she's doing something
bad, even tho now saving cats that previously she would not have been
able to--or do you feel she's wrong in her self-assessment?

Again, the *label* was not the issue, but instead the conditions of the
cats when she sees them, and the observed usual course of the situation
from there, with and without the best intervention she was able to
find/achieve.

Kent too talked about certain types of cases being "incurable"--are you
familiar with that? (And yeah, others found him to be mistaken; I
agree with you that "I don't know how to cure you" is hugely different
from "You are incurable"!!!!)
"Label" is not the point, but rather the situation itself, which needs
separate evaluation. The "label" is only shorthand, and no good
homeopath (including Irene!) will use that *alone* as basis for
prognosis. Yet it is not irrelevant!
She never said that.
If we stick to the observations, about the cats' conditions when they
arrive, and the observed usual course from there, and the observed
usual result of "the usual" homeopathic treatment (death), *that* is
what's relevant; not anything about labels (except that it is shorthand
to describe aspects of the situation), and not about "complicated
diseases". Apparently the issue with FIP is not "complicated", but
rather "extremely virulent and fast-moving, and cats frequently further
damaged by inappropriate 'therapy' [steroid]..."
Or anyone else, so far as we've heard so far?
Okay, good approach!

Shannon

kerry wrote:

...sometimes on the same day - depends if the individual dosing regime
happens to coincide.
Not so.
As I said at the time it was a rare exception (n special cirumstances
when it was that or nothing.)
It's NOT part of any protocol at all.

Namaste,
Irene
--
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."