Minutus

I went to a lecture at the Jungian Conference at Notre Dame in south bend,
indiana many years ago, with my dad. Robert Bly, the poet, writer, men's
group's leader, was a speaker. My dad said under his breath as we were
listening..."what a pompous ass". Cause i agreed with mostly everything my dad
said..i agreed with this opinion as well. Years later i heard a cassette tape
by Robert Bly called the Naive Man. He talked about how a man won't really be
a man until he he betrays someone or is betrayed. Until that happens he lives
in the eden of boyhood. I thought that was an exceptional thought and i sent
the tape to my dad and my dad liked it also. And then Bly wrote a pretty good
book on the psyche of men called Iron man or something like that(one
thing..how boys need to work along side their dads..to pick up by osmosis what
it is to be a man). That was pretty good, too. I sent that to my dad. He liked
that as well. The first time i heard andrew weil speak i thought..what a
pompous so and so..so full of himself....trying so hard to be respected by the
mainstream and not wanting to offend the powers that be. There was absolutely
nothing special about information that he was passing around...hundreds of
books were being written by every tom, dick and mary about alternative health.
But because he kept within the framework of the establishment he had a degree
of respect from the medical community and the media. Because at the
time...twenty or more years ago...he left homepathy out of any of his
talks...i was completely uninterested in what he had to say. In the
meantime..apparently, he has had some use of homeopathy and got cured of
something, maybe by dana...and as mentioned in those quotes says to use
homeopathy after you've "poisoned" yourself with vaccinations(poison, my
word). He says there is no danger from mercury anymore...but we don't know
that for sure...and what about the squalene? And what about only being able to
walk backwards? Where is that healthy attitude of distrust of all
pharmaceutical companies and what they push. What about the the "fact" that
the most vaccines may make the flu last one less day than if you didn't take
it? What about the fact since July doctors/labs aren't even checking to see if
their patients have swine flu...just assuming cause it takes less time than to
send things to the lab. Whereas Mr. Bly seemed to have moved leaps and bounds
from that first lecture in 1975 or so...Mr. Weil seems to have only moved an
inch in the evolution of his intelligence and that leads me to believe that he
doesn't represent himself and his ideas but the ideas of someone else. I
certainly don't know the whole story...i just have to assume some things and
privately he may be a great man and a great friend...but his public image
leaves a lot to be desired. Anyway, thats my two cents.

beautifully written, Carol
Thanks
Sheri

At 05:05 PM 10/28/2009, you wrote:
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm & http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases Reality
Next classes start October 28 & 29

I am not sure I agree with your perception completely, but even if you are
correct it is important to understand the impact of a person who has morphed
into a cultural icon. In that role he has much impact on people and it is
necessary that we understand exactly who he is and what is he really doing.
Whether he is mouthing off his own genuine self, participating in betraying
others to acheive his adulthood (have to really question that one), or going
along to get along, his impact is the same. That impact is of someone who
has made himself a public authority, grown rich off that process, and promotes
some of the worse of mainstream medicine. His nutritional recommendations
are often questionable and his so-called healthy recipes often are anything but.
As a public figure, just like politicians, he comes under the magnifying glass of
the public and is open to close scrutiny. Because of his impact on so many
people, his weaknesses and mistakes are magnified. In my book, he deserves
the criticism he gets. And he is pompous because he is so full of himself and
sees himself above the rest. But the bottom line, is that he has promoted bad
health in support of the medical industry while pretending to be a friend to healthy
living and healing. I also find that he takes from others while not giving credit.
He reminds me of people that cherry pick ideas that sound good for self promotion.
It is called marketing and that he has been very good at.
I think he has taken too much of our time already. The importance of this discussion.
from my point of view, is that we have many people like him in our world and it is
important to put them in perspective. We need to know how we understand them
collectively in order to protect ourselves from the danger they present to us as they
manipulate our intentions and morph them into theirs as they betray us. Maybe,
Carol, that is your main point. I can agree with that idea.
tanya

Then criticize *factually*, not by making patently false implied accusations.
How can anyone take us seriously, if what we *say* is not accurate?
Tanya, what you say about Weil is also true of this list: It's a *public* one; this is not just a few people shooting the breeze over their grocery carts. We're speaking publicly, and to some people we're representing "homeopathy"--so we need to be more responsible in not only what we say, but also the way we say it.

Keep the criticisms *clean* and to-the-point: *What* is it someone doesn't like about him--is it that he's a friend of Dana's, or is it that he advocates immunizations, or that he has refused to look further into the matter and *still* advocates immunizations, or that everything he says is wrong, or ???

C'mon, criticize when needed, but stick to what's *factual and relevant*, not just slinging mud around.

(Carol--I don't know if I agree with your conclusion, that that was a lovely post. Fun to read. )

Shannon