Minutus

I read this statement recently on the topic of treatment of flu, cough, fever..."homoepathy remedies kill the healthy flora.."

is this a valid statement?

--
Priscilla

Sounds to me like B.S. propagated by someone who knows nothing about homeopathy. And what studies were cited purporting to support this assertion?
Peace,
Dale

NO

At 12:02 AM 2/28/2010, you wrote:
------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases
Next classes start February 24 & 25

I am dealing with a similar dynamic in groups that I work with on other topics.
When people who are losing a fight, and usually for lack of real information, they
tend to go on personal and bogus attacks. They literally create lies and fearmongering.
You know the concept: tell a lie often enough and people begin to believe it; scare people
sufficiently, no matter how stupid the argument, and you can get them to do anything/believe
anything!
And when that fails, attack them personally, impune their intelligence, their character, their
credentials. But whatever you do, do not ever talk about substance!!!
tanya

Doesnt make sense on the face of it.
Remedy doesnt do anything directly to the flora anyway.
It stimulates the VF to react and return to a healthy state
where presumably the healthy flora would be present.

I suppose if you strongly proved a wrong remedy...

But I doubt if anyone has tested this premise either way tho.

Roger

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Priscilla Tan wrote:

Yes, this is exactly what the relevant readers need to understand. A homoeopathic medicine -- i.e. a medicine homoeopathic to the patient's condition -- does nothing directly, except to gently replace with its own, similar ones the patient's present symptoms. And, if prescribed with enough care, that replacement won't even be perceived as an aggravation. Once that's done, which appears to take a matter of seconds, the patient responds afresh to the new (though virtually unchanged) health condition using his or her own natural mechanisms.

If the substance homoeopathic to the patient is ingested in a sufficiently crude or high dose, then it may actually aggravate the patient's present state at the outset; but this won't mean loss of symbiotic flora unless that is a part of the case already anyway.

If the substance is not sufficiently homoeopathic to the patient, then, as Roger points out, given that it's not in too low a potency, in too high a dose, or repeated in unchanged potency, its primary effects won't be felt at all except by the extremely sensitive.

A substance sufficiently unhomoeopathic to (i.e. different from; allopathic to) the patient, and sufficiently material or sufficiently repeated to induce dissimilar symptoms, is capable of inducing whatever health derangements are ascribable to that substance; and, obviously, some substances do kill symbiotic flora. Such inadvertence can hardly reflect on homoeopathy, though, as it describes not homoeopathic but allopathic practice, as when an antibiotic is prescribed for a patient with an inflammation and promptly induces candidiasis by killing the symbiotic flora that keep candida in balance where it too is symbiotic with the patient.

Cheers --

John