Minutus

I for one am sick of Irene expounding on this list about subjects.

Tell us about your health, Irene?

Buyer beware of anything she has to say
Sheri
Sheri Nakken, former RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases and Child Health
Next classes start February

This topic -- whether or not "germs" cause disease -- is a REALLY good one for placing off-limits on this list. (Okay, personally I would prefer *any* topic to be not "off-limits", but simply requested to stay in appropriate bounds.) It is (in my opinion) *far* more divisive and potentially damaging than are the discussions over diet, herbs, non-Hahmemanian approaches, or other complementary or supportive therapies.
Okay, those things can be (though in some cases very debatable) said to be sufficiently "not-homeopathy", or at least "not Hahnemanian homeopathy", to be reasonably limited (though NOT EXCLUDED, per the list owner's stated preference), but at least they do have practical value in (at least some people's) clinical practice, and they don't (for the most part) brand us as nuts in the eyes of the "general public."
YES it's true (and very much part of homeopathic theoretical framework) that the role of "pathogens" in ill-health is way over-stated in today's mainstream. And it's also very true that the field of… all that stuff; immunology, "the study of small things", roles of pathogen vs. toxin, etc. -- there's a lot of *very* interesting and in some cases mind-bending work, current and past. But this is NOT the place to be debating it.
And if we want to beat the "Hahnemann said" drum again -- Hahnemann DID "believe in germs" (or, as described in Organon, "excessively small animalcules", do I remember the phrase right?), and he DID believe that they cause disease.

So there is some contradiction here: If "we" believe that everything H said was correct, was gold, was the end of the story and all that should be discussed on this list -- then these arguments about whether bacteria, viruses, etc., actually "cause disease" (as opposed to being simple members of the housekeeping staff), well -- if we are calling this list Hahnemannian, then that discussion most emphatically does not belong here.
And if we're willing to quibble a bit, then we need to ease up on the "how is that homeopathy?" comments.
And also, if we are keeping any consciousness about the "what will people think" issues, then again, this doesn't belong here.
At least -- not in the ways it is being argued.
Discussions of the role of "the terrain" -- building health vs. combatting disease, all well and good. But to argue that there is no such thing as a living pathogen, no. That might be another topic better taken up on one of the other (not dead, but only sleeping) lists, which were *designed* to allow, even encourage, broader range of discussions.

Are these personal thoughts relevant to Homeopathy and/or this site?

I could not disagree more.
The way viruses cause damage is actually essential to developing an approach that works in homeopathy.
It is part of the anatomy and physiology and pathology that tells us what is going wrong inside the body - and knowing what is wrong leads to correct rubrics and a simillimum.
Leave it out and you practice homeopathy with your eyes closed. Sure you will help simple cases, but that's not why we are here is it?

My own research into the disease Feline Infectious Peritonitis (FIP) - which kills TEN MILLION CATS per year in USA, has proved this. NO homeopath has ever had a success with that virus-caused disease, except the two homeopaths so far who understand what the virus is actually doing to the body. NO other homeopath ever had a success.
Statistically that is a very significant finding if only due to the number of homeopaths TRYING to help with that disease and the number of preventable deaths in the tens of millons per year.

Deciding that faiure to understand viruses and what they do, is okay, is burying one's head in the sand and denying homeopathy to ten million cats per year - and that is just one example with one viral illness.

It is no more clever than pretending blood cells do not exist and have relevance such as in anemia. The bright red of blood is just a lucky effect allwoing us to see an internal symptom externally by paleness. But MOST viral internal damage is NOT visible externally. You MUST study what the viruis DOES.
There is no question to anyone with any education in the area of virology about the relevance and existence of viruses. The few people here like Sheri who prefer to pretend otherwise may as well say the sun rises in the west o r airplanes can not fly. It would be equally ludicrous.
You will note that those who pretend viruses do not exist have zero biological education, no evidence as is there is none, just false claims, and they make statements that have no relationship to any facts on the subject.

If the action of viruses was not relevant in homeopathy, then it could be called OT but it is critically relevant.
Spanish flu of 1918 was another example. Ebola is another example. FIP has never been beaten without understanding of its virus. Ebola is in need of viral behavior understanding to find a remedy. It does NOT kill by bleeding, it kills by DIC. You cannot see how the virus makes DIC without studying the virus and how it enters the cells in Ebola. We KNOW how it enters the cells and makes the blood vessels leak causing DIC. THAT FACT leads to a correct remedy. Visible bleeding foes not.

Viral diseases are getting worse becasue we keep throwing things at them to make them worse (antibiotics etc) . FIp and other modern viruses are not easy to overcome. One HAS to understand what they do and how they work to overcome them. We can no longer assume that all internal damage has externally visible signs. A MINORITY of internal damage has external signs. They help (yellowness from internal bilirubin, paleness from lack of red cells), but we are ignoring the vast majority of internally available information without5 external signs, if we pretend with blinders on, that viruses do not exist and that the damage they cause does not exist or is not RELEVANT to know about for remedy selection. Same with bacterial infections. We need to knoiw what the bacteria do. There is NO external sign for leaks in blood vessel walls caused by virus- where the holes are too small to leak red cells, but do leak plasma. There is no external sign for the production of an alkali in the lungs by bacteria and which burns holes in them, as in Bordetella brionchiseptica, which kills without any external symptoms.
Understanding what a virus DOES and how it behaves, and what damage it causes is essential in finding the right homeopathic remedy to restore health, and ro suggest disallowing that use becuase one of two rabbel rousers with zero virology study want to pretend they need not learn it, is not fair to the overwhelming majority of homeopaths who DO care to know how to beat otherwise deadly viral and bacterial diseases.

Sheri is inacapable of finding a remedy for a FIP case as she pretends viruses do not exist.
But banning discussion of viruses because Sheri has her eyes closed, is hardly free speech within the area that DOES determine whether homeopathy can succeed (proven by the FACT that no FIP case was EVER recovered otherwise).
When you show me ONE homeopath who can beat a virus like FIP without knowing what the virus is doing - ot recover ONE kitten without knowing what the Bordetella bronchiseptica bacteria is doing THEN you can suggest banning that immense area of relevance to a homeopath's work....the area of what bacteria and viruses and parasites DO inside the body, that is invisible externally. It is a HUGE and relevant subject area to any homeopath worth their salt.

WHat a virus does in the body is MORE relevant for homeopathy than many topics here.
To suggest viruses do not exist is as clever as suggesting airplanes can not fly.
We need to be smarter about the viruses, bacteria and parasites and also other internal mechanisms like cancer.
The argument about whether airplanes can fly would be OT here.
What viruses do is NOT anywhere near to OT here. It is critically important to a homeopath dealing with viral-caused diseases such as FIP, Ebola, Flu, feline leukaemia, parvo, and dozens more killer illnesses.
Calling viruses off topic is the same as banning homeopathy for these illnesses. Maybe you do not care about these diseases, but some real homeopaths are passionately keen to beat them.
My decades of work in FIP is ONE example which PROVES it matters.

I am really surprised at you Shannon for making such an undermining suggestion against homeopoathy progress!
Homepaths are tasked by Hahnemann with seeing ecternal signs of internal damage.
But that covers a minority of visible signs of internal damage especially in modern new viruses such as FIP and Ebola and others and this is 2015, and we DO know what the internal damage is more directly, and most of it has no external signs. We MUST understand the internal ones to succeed in these cases.

DO not ban discussion of this very core aspect of advanced homeopathy for complex and killer diseases.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Sorry Irene, but not relevant in my case taking or treatment.

So called virus caused measles, mumps, rubella - all treated easily and successfully with homeopathy.
AIDS never proven to be caused by a so-called virus called HIV
So called polio never proven to be caused by a virus - look to DDT and pesticides http://www.wellwithin1.com/PolioWest.htm

Don't know the reality with cats.............but if you were treating humans, viruses are really not something that affects whether or not homeopathy works. The truth has not been told about viruses as too much money to be made off drugs and vaccines.

Sheri
Sheri Nakken, former RN, MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
http://homeopathycures.wordpress.com/ & http://vaccinationdangers.wordpress.com/
ONLINE/Email classes in Homeopathy; Vaccine Dangers; Childhood Diseases and Child Health
Next classes start February

Your ignorance is showing.
Look it up.
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.Furryboots.info
(Info on Feline health, genetics, nutrition & homeopathy)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

when have you posted homeopathy info on this list?
Homeopathic treatment?
Laws and principles?

When?
Sheri

I think the problem is with the assumption that the viruses CAUSE the disease: they are present, in huge and varied number, in all species and cells thereof, and most seemingly do not cause disease. Even feared viruses like the AIDS virus are present in healthy subjects in around 3000 times the numbers thought to cause pathology; this is documented. There is also data showing that cells produce viruses when under stress from external poisons. These packets of cellular DNA may be the cell's protective response to

the introduced toxins, and the actual disease is the struggle to deal with them.

Anyway, the microbiologist who suggests these ideas thoroughly annotates his work, so there are cites for all these findings. After observing over and over how misunderstood the healing process is by doctors and scientists, he became a homeopath with, presumably, some degree of success.

Interesting that you mention the flight of airplanes; most people hold to a misconception that the air under the wings somehow holds the plane up. This makes a big assumption not unlike that of assuming the role of viruses as a cause of disease. It is easy to see how such thoughts can arise from casual observation, when a closer look demonstrates an alternate and more accurate explanation: Air speeding OVER the top of a wing creates a low-pressure area into which the plane rises, while the air under the wing stays slower and creates an area of differential pressure. It looks the same to the uncritical eye, but there are dire consequences to an engineer or scientist's misunderstanding in both cases.

ginny
--

Ginny Wilken

gwilken@fastmail.fm

Irene, those are really good points, and I stand corrected.

I guess the main thing I had been wanting to say, is that I think the *contention* about the point is inappropriate here. What I feel would be most useful is if, whatever each person's belief and understanding about "the actions of tiny things", the matters are presented (at least mostly) in the context of what *is* meaningful and useful, within the context of homeopathy.

This would include not only points that might be useful in practice (whether finding the remedy, or case management, advice to patients, etc.), but also matters that can help with developing our personal lifestyles in ways that support healing -- by homeopathy and/or whatever else. In my opinion, all of that would be very appropriate here.

From that standpoint, any understandings that lead to "finding the remedy" are important; even if someone "doesn't believe in germs" as pathogens, still they might find it useful to use the concepts and observations that to "finding the remedy" and etc. -- e.g. your process of working out the useful remedies for FIP, to the extent that I still remember your past descriptions, I found it very instructive.

And at the same time, it's true that *at least sometimes*, a disease that *appears* to have been caused by a pathogen, was found actually to have been caused by a toxin. Sometimes this has unquestionably been found to be the case -- and sometimes the distinction matters. (Other times it may not; often we can treat a disease state *without* needing to know the cause. And thank God for that!)

So I guess what I'm asking, is just can we stick a little more to what's useful in practice -- whether "in homeopathy practice" or "in the practice of life", and less with the "dueling world views". I think that would be very much in the spirit of Hahnemann.

And, since Hahnemann very definitely (a) did "believe in" germs, and also (b) clearly placed primacy on "the terrain" -- the health of the individual, surely that makes room for happy coexistence of both "sides" within these discussions…?

Your comment to Irene is about the lowest blow I've ever seen on anything on
the internet or in real life.