Minutus

I think Gisela is making some incisive points. The NCH hasn't appeared to me to be talking about this, and I'm not seeing any cogent analysis by anyone who ought to know. . . but then again, maybe this is a tempest in a teapot.
In the face of the obvious misnomer of "homeopathic", how is it that the materials used in "homeopathy" are not always used as such and are not always without molecular content? How is it that their physical assays and biochemical reactions are demonstratively nuclear actinic radiation, yet not clearly identified by convention as such, even though Hahnemann was the first to say that because of their sole magnetic basis no chemical assay would be found? Yet in the lynchings by chemistry vigilantes, no nuclear argument is recognized or made within homeopathic convention?
Listen, the FDA seems to be looked upon by American homeopaths as an enemy, when in fact, traditionally it has been our protector: Medical homeopath Senator Royal Copeland was the chief sponsor of the FDCA. One hundred and fourteen years ago he laid out the argument that the materials used in homeopathic medicine are ionized pharamaceuticals, yet almost 100% of the vast majority of professional practitioners are either ignorant of this fact or are trying to escape it when nuclear and plasma physics are unquestionably its central theme and only argument.
Why is that?
How many times have we heard in the Commonwwealth press and from medical establishment pundits in the US, that it's quackery, voodoo, that "there's nothing in it," or that "there's no clinical evidence for it," or that "there's no scientific support for it," when in fact there are almost nothing but clinical and pre-clinical proofs for it; the FDCA itself references the voluminous clinical literature as a guide, specifically naming John Henry Clarke, M.D.'s Dictionary of the Matreia Medica as the primary information source, wherein we find details for all sorts of serious diseases like cancer, diabetes, hemorrhagic fevers . . yet always there is some new indictment of homeopathy by a governmental body that presumably bodes "the end of homeopathy."
So how is it then that years later it's still growing at 20% a year?
And this new convening of the FDA is going to erase all of this? Come on! With all of the screaming of fraud on Youtube and every other nook an cranny of the world wide web by trolls led by the likes of James "the Amazing" Randi, how is that homeopathy hasn't been shut down by courts of law? Could it be that its protected from legal action by long held use and tradition, codified by the FDCA? .
No, I think the real problem here is that the majority of homeopathic practitioners are living in fantasy land, that, just as much if not more than their antagonists, they are totally opposed to the physical identification of "homeopathic remedies" as nuclear medicine, opposed to correcting the misnomer of "homeopathy." Homeopaths in reality are using ionized materials as subtle energy isotopes in the class of radiopharmaceuticals.
It can be easily done, but until homeopaths are willing to beat the homeopathy antagonist at his professed game of "science," the homeopath won't be able to win it as Copeland did.
So . . who is the new Copeland? Ron or Rand Paul?
I have found that the offices of U.S.Senators to be very effective in serving constituents. It would seem to me, if we, even though we're much like a herd of cats, were to try to do anything at all, the first thing we ought to do is get a handle on what this is all about, find out from the offices of our respective U.S.Senators more about the who what when and where of the hearing, and find out if this is even anything we should be concerned about, and if so, how to go about dealing with it.
Looking at it from a positive perspective, it could be that this is yet another opportunity to promote homeopathy. It could also be that everyone, both pro and con, really aren't going to have much to say or do about something that basically has a life of its own.
John Benneth
In a message dated 4/1/2015 12:50:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
________________________________
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

Hello John, great points - here is the way I like to approach it. Let Homeopathy be as it may - we all know it is the future in the form we are using it now or in another - but I feel our rights to free choice is being taken away here - are we all children that need to governed and told what to think and how to choose? Having a mass outcry for freedom of medical choice is now -it has never been more appropriate. Has any one watched the "cancer emperor of all diseases" on PBS the last three nights? Well if you did - then you must have been just like me appalled by how the medical industry has 'practiced' on human for years and years - how they have run thru trillions of dollars and donations, how they have killed (legally) millions of people for the sake of finding a cure. And the 'cure' had to be only thru chemicals. And we still do not have one - because they are not looking for the cause only to the chemical cure.It is sickening.
And all because people did not HAVE a choice. You have Cancer you do not have a choice that you can take other than chemicals.(poison) and they say this right out loud (cancer has to be poisoned.)

So here is my point I am sure others who have watched this ( and I would have thought that any one in this group would have) is as angry as I am - so now is the time to rally and cry out for freedom of choice and not let the government take this away from us and the public. That is the only way to approach this - I agree with some who are saying the media will not report on this but there is the internet and we have seen how effective that can be, I will post on all Homeopathy site to rally the people I hope you all join me. I feel this is very serious I have been using Homeopathy for me my many animals for over 10 years and have grown up with it and I could not think of having to take chemicals to keep my family and me healthy with out it.
I am not saying do not write to your congress and senators but knowing what I see about them they seem to be all on the side of "money" and we do not represent money we represent free will - and that by good is not what our government wants.They want restrictions and control so they can go and raise money for reelection ( and since only 37% of the public votes and guess who they are) well you see my point.
Please lets get a list going of who wants to fight for free medical choice.
Gisela
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 04:51:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Legislation as a danger to homeopathy: Attn Dana Ullman and Dav...
I think Gisela is making some incisive points. The NCH hasn't appeared to me to be talking about this, and I'm not seeing any cogent analysis by anyone who ought to know. . . but then again, maybe this is a tempest in a teapot.
In the face of the obvious misnomer of "homeopathic", how is it that the materials used in "homeopathy" are not always used as such and are not always without molecular content? How is it that their physical assays and biochemical reactions are demonstratively nuclear actinic radiation, yet not clearly identified by convention as such, even though Hahnemann was the first to say that because of their sole magnetic basis no chemical assay would be found? Yet in the lynchings by chemistry vigilantes, no nuclear argument is recognized or made within homeopathic convention?
Listen, the FDA seems to be looked upon by American homeopaths as an enemy, when in fact, traditionally it has been our protector: Medical homeopath Senator Royal Copeland was the chief sponsor of the FDCA. One hundred and fourteen years ago he laid out the argument that the materials used in homeopathic medicine are ionized pharamaceuticals, yet almost 100% of the vast majority of professional practitioners are either ignorant of this fact or are trying to escape it when nuclear and plasma physics are unquestionably its central theme and only argument.
Why is that?
How many times have we heard in the Commonwwealth press and from medical establishment pundits in the US, that it's quackery, voodoo, that "there's nothing in it," or that "there's no clinical evidence for it," or that "there's no scientific support for it," when in fact there are almost nothing but clinical and pre-clinical proofs for it; the FDCA itself references the voluminous clinical literature as a guide, specifically naming John Henry Clarke, M.D.'s Dictionary of the Matreia Medica as the primary information source, wherein we find details for all sorts of serious diseases like cancer, diabetes, hemorrhagic fevers . . yet always there is some new indictment of homeopathy by a governmental body that presumably bodes "the end of homeopathy."
So how is it then that years later it's still growing at 20% a year?
And this new convening of the FDA is going to erase all of this? Come on! With all of the screaming of fraud on Youtube and every other nook an cranny of the world wide web by trolls led by the likes of James "the Amazing" Randi, how is that homeopathy hasn't been shut down by courts of law? Could it be that its protected from legal action by long held use and tradition, codified by the FDCA? .
No, I think the real problem here is that the majority of homeopathic practitioners are living in fantasy land, that, just as much if not more than their antagonists, they are totally opposed to the physical identification of "homeopathic remedies" as nuclear medicine, opposed to correcting the misnomer of "homeopathy." Homeopaths in reality are using ionized materials as subtle energy isotopes in the class of radiopharmaceuticals.
It can be easily done, but until homeopaths are willing to beat the homeopathy antagonist at his professed game of "science," the homeopath won't be able to win it as Copeland did.
So . . who is the new Copeland? Ron or Rand Paul?
I have found that the offices of U.S.Senators to be very effective in serving constituents. It would seem to me, if we, even though we're much like a herd of cats, were to try to do anything at all, the first thing we ought to do is get a handle on what this is all about, find out from the offices of our respective U.S.Senators more about the who what when and where of the hearing, and find out if this is even anything we should be concerned about, and if so, how to go about dealing with it.
Looking at it from a positive perspective, it could be that this is yet another opportunity to promote homeopathy. It could also be that everyone, both pro and con, really aren't going to have much to say or do about something that basically has a life of its own.
John Benneth
In a message dated 4/1/2015 12:50:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
________________________________
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

You just did.
Please support ALL actions.
Congress by law is to follow what their constituents tell them to do.
WRITE to them and record what you want them to do.
....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."

I tried responding to this yesterday, but my post didn't show up, so I'm trying again. John, I'm not a homeopathy practitioner, and although my knowledge of homeopathy is more than the average lay person's, that's not necessarily saying much. So I didn't understand much of what you wrote here, but I understood enough to have my interest piqued. I'm wondering if you might be willing to try to explain this part in easier-to-understand terms?
"Homeopaths in reality are using ionized materials as subtle energy isotopes"
Thank you,
Tely
---In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
I think Gisela is making some incisive points. The NCH hasn't appeared to me to be talking about this, and I'm not seeing any cogent analysis by anyone who ought to know. . . but then again, maybe this is a tempest in a teapot.
In the face of the obvious misnomer of "homeopathic", how is it that the materials used in "homeopathy" are not always used as such and are not always without molecular content? How is it that their physical assays and biochemical reactions are demonstratively nuclear actinic radiation, yet not clearly identified by convention as such, even though Hahnemann was the first to say that because of their sole magnetic basis no chemical assay would be found? Yet in the lynchings by chemistry vigilantes, no nuclear argument is recognized or made within homeopathic convention?
Listen, the FDA seems to be looked upon by American homeopaths as an enemy, when in fact, traditionally it has been our protector: Medical homeopath Senator Royal Copeland was the chief sponsor of the FDCA. One hundred and fourteen years ago he laid out the argument that the materials used in homeopathic medicine are ionized pharamaceuticals, yet almost 100% of the vast majority of professional practitioners are either ignorant of this fact or are trying to escape it when nuclear and plasma physics are unquestionably its central theme and only argument.
Why is that?
How many times have we heard in the Commonwwealth press and from medical establishment pundits in the US, that it's quackery, voodoo, that "there's nothing in it," or that "there's no clinical evidence for it," or that "there's no scientific support for it," when in fact there are almost nothing but clinical and pre-clinical proofs for it; the FDCA itself references the voluminous clinical literature as a guide, specifically naming John Henry Clarke, M.D.'s Dictionary of the Matreia Medica as the primary information source, wherein we find details for all sorts of serious diseases like cancer, diabetes, hemorrhagic fevers . . yet always there is some new indictment of homeopathy by a governmental body that presumably bodes "the end of homeopathy."
So how is it then that years later it's still growing at 20% a year?
And this new convening of the FDA is going to erase all of this? Come on! With all of the screaming of fraud on Youtube and every other nook an cranny of the world wide web by trolls led by the likes of James "the Amazing" Randi, how is that homeopathy hasn't been shut down by courts of law? Could it be that its protected from legal action by long held use and tradition, codified by the FDCA? .
No, I think the real problem here is that the majority of homeopathic practitioners are living in fantasy land, that, just as much if not more than their antagonists, they are totally opposed to the physical identification of "homeopathic remedies" as nuclear medicine, opposed to correcting the misnomer of "homeopathy." Homeopaths in reality are using ionized materials as subtle energy isotopes in the class of radiopharmaceuticals.
It can be easily done, but until homeopaths are willing to beat the homeopathy antagonist at his professed game of "science," the homeopath won't be able to win it as Copeland did.
So . . who is the new Copeland? Ron or Rand Paul?
I have found that the offices of U.S.Senators to be very effective in serving constituents. It would seem to me, if we, even though we're much like a herd of cats, were to try to do anything at all, the first thing we ought to do is get a handle on what this is all about, find out from the offices of our respective U.S.Senators more about the who what when and where of the hearing, and find out if this is even anything we should be concerned about, and if so, how to go about dealing with it.
Looking at it from a positive perspective, it could be that this is yet another opportunity to promote homeopathy. It could also be that everyone, both pro and con, really aren't going to have much to say or do about something that basically has a life of its own.
John Benneth
In a message dated 4/1/2015 12:50:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

I believe that the legislation is not the cause but a symptom, a symptom that could kill homeopathy. But it is a symptom of a bunch of skeptopaths getting together and thinking that they are going to change the world to their liking. This is a major campaign of the sciencism religion, which is really just materialism in disguise.

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 2 Apr 2015 04:51:37 -0400
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Legislation as a danger to homeopathy: Attn Dana Ullman and Dav...
I think Gisela is making some incisive points. The NCH hasn't appeared to me to be talking about this, and I'm not seeing any cogent analysis by anyone who ought to know. . . but then again, maybe this is a tempest in a teapot.
In the face of the obvious misnomer of "homeopathic", how is it that the materials used in "homeopathy" are not always used as such and are not always without molecular content? How is it that their physical assays and biochemical reactions are demonstratively nuclear actinic radiation, yet not clearly identified by convention as such, even though Hahnemann was the first to say that because of their sole magnetic basis no chemical assay would be found? Yet in the lynchings by chemistry vigilantes, no nuclear argument is recognized or made within homeopathic convention?
Listen, the FDA seems to be looked upon by American homeopaths as an enemy, when in fact, traditionally it has been our protector: Medical homeopath Senator Royal Copeland was the chief sponsor of the FDCA. One hundred and fourteen years ago he laid out the argument that the materials used in homeopathic medicine are ionized pharamaceuticals, yet almost 100% of the vast majority of professional practitioners are either ignorant of this fact or are trying to escape it when nuclear and plasma physics are unquestionably its central theme and only argument.
Why is that?
How many times have we heard in the Commonwwealth press and from medical establishment pundits in the US, that it's quackery, voodoo, that "there's nothing in it," or that "there's no clinical evidence for it," or that "there's no scientific support for it," when in fact there are almost nothing but clinical and pre-clinical proofs for it; the FDCA itself references the voluminous clinical literature as a guide, specifically naming John Henry Clarke, M.D.'s Dictionary of the Matreia Medica as the primary information source, wherein we find details for all sorts of serious diseases like cancer, diabetes, hemorrhagic fevers . . yet always there is some new indictment of homeopathy by a governmental body that presumably bodes "the end of homeopathy."
So how is it then that years later it's still growing at 20% a year?
And this new convening of the FDA is going to erase all of this? Come on! With all of the screaming of fraud on Youtube and every other nook an cranny of the world wide web by trolls led by the likes of James "the Amazing" Randi, how is that homeopathy hasn't been shut down by courts of law? Could it be that its protected from legal action by long held use and tradition, codified by the FDCA? .
No, I think the real problem here is that the majority of homeopathic practitioners are living in fantasy land, that, just as much if not more than their antagonists, they are totally opposed to the physical identification of "homeopathic remedies" as nuclear medicine, opposed to correcting the misnomer of "homeopathy." Homeopaths in reality are using ionized materials as subtle energy isotopes in the class of radiopharmaceuticals.
It can be easily done, but until homeopaths are willing to beat the homeopathy antagonist at his professed game of "science," the homeopath won't be able to win it as Copeland did.
So . . who is the new Copeland? Ron or Rand Paul?
I have found that the offices of U.S.Senators to be very effective in serving constituents. It would seem to me, if we, even though we're much like a herd of cats, were to try to do anything at all, the first thing we ought to do is get a handle on what this is all about, find out from the offices of our respective U.S.Senators more about the who what when and where of the hearing, and find out if this is even anything we should be concerned about, and if so, how to go about dealing with it.
Looking at it from a positive perspective, it could be that this is yet another opportunity to promote homeopathy. It could also be that everyone, both pro and con, really aren't going to have much to say or do about something that basically has a life of its own.
John Benneth
In a message dated 4/1/2015 12:50:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
________________________________
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

John, I'm not a practitioner of homeopathy, and although I'm more knowledgeable about it than the average lay person, that's not saying much. Although I didn't understand much of your post, I understood just enough to have my interest piqued. Could you please see if you could explain this part in easier-to-understand terms?
"Homeopaths in reality are using ionized materials as subtle energy isotopes"

Thank you,
Tely
---In minutus@yahoogroups.com, wrote :
I think Gisela is making some incisive points. The NCH hasn't appeared to me to be talking about this, and I'm not seeing any cogent analysis by anyone who ought to know. . . but then again, maybe this is a tempest in a teapot.
In the face of the obvious misnomer of "homeopathic", how is it that the materials used in "homeopathy" are not always used as such and are not always without molecular content? How is it that their physical assays and biochemical reactions are demonstratively nuclear actinic radiation, yet not clearly identified by convention as such, even though Hahnemann was the first to say that because of their sole magnetic basis no chemical assay would be found? Yet in the lynchings by chemistry vigilantes, no nuclear argument is recognized or made within homeopathic convention?
Listen, the FDA seems to be looked upon by American homeopaths as an enemy, when in fact, traditionally it has been our protector: Medical homeopath Senator Royal Copeland was the chief sponsor of the FDCA. One hundred and fourteen years ago he laid out the argument that the materials used in homeopathic medicine are ionized pharamaceuticals, yet almost 100% of the vast majority of professional practitioners are either ignorant of this fact or are trying to escape it when nuclear and plasma physics are unquestionably its central theme and only argument.
Why is that?
How many times have we heard in the Commonwwealth press and from medical establishment pundits in the US, that it's quackery, voodoo, that "there's nothing in it," or that "there's no clinical evidence for it," or that "there's no scientific support for it," when in fact there are almost nothing but clinical and pre-clinical proofs for it; the FDCA itself references the voluminous clinical literature as a guide, specifically naming John Henry Clarke, M.D.'s Dictionary of the Matreia Medica as the primary information source, wherein we find details for all sorts of serious diseases like cancer, diabetes, hemorrhagic fevers . . yet always there is some new indictment of homeopathy by a governmental body that presumably bodes "the end of homeopathy."
So how is it then that years later it's still growing at 20% a year?
And this new convening of the FDA is going to erase all of this? Come on! With all of the screaming of fraud on Youtube and every other nook an cranny of the world wide web by trolls led by the likes of James "the Amazing" Randi, how is that homeopathy hasn't been shut down by courts of law? Could it be that its protected from legal action by long held use and tradition, codified by the FDCA? .
No, I think the real problem here is that the majority of homeopathic practitioners are living in fantasy land, that, just as much if not more than their antagonists, they are totally opposed to the physical identification of "homeopathic remedies" as nuclear medicine, opposed to correcting the misnomer of "homeopathy." Homeopaths in reality are using ionized materials as subtle energy isotopes in the class of radiopharmaceuticals.
It can be easily done, but until homeopaths are willing to beat the homeopathy antagonist at his professed game of "science," the homeopath won't be able to win it as Copeland did.
So . . who is the new Copeland? Ron or Rand Paul?
I have found that the offices of U.S.Senators to be very effective in serving constituents. It would seem to me, if we, even though we're much like a herd of cats, were to try to do anything at all, the first thing we ought to do is get a handle on what this is all about, find out from the offices of our respective U.S.Senators more about the who what when and where of the hearing, and find out if this is even anything we should be concerned about, and if so, how to go about dealing with it.
Looking at it from a positive perspective, it could be that this is yet another opportunity to promote homeopathy. It could also be that everyone, both pro and con, really aren't going to have much to say or do about something that basically has a life of its own.
John Benneth
In a message dated 4/1/2015 12:50:14 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
________________________________
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

Hi Tely,
Thanks for asking for clarification. In answer to your request, "Could you please see if you could explain this part in easier-to-understand terms? "Homeopaths in reality are using ionized materials as subtle energy isotopes" allow me to present the following:
There are four classical phases of matter . . there are the three molecular phases we all are familiar with, solid, liquid, and gas, and then there is a fourth "supra" molecular phase ( supra means beyond) that seems to be forgotten, ignored or perhaps deliberately avoided in the discussion, and that is the plasma, or ionized phase of matter;
This is where the argument over homeopathy as to "what's in it?" gets derailed. Our antagonists insist that because of serial dilutions, after the 23rd decimal dilution there is not one molecule of the active ingredient left in the "homeopathic" solution, there's "nothing in it" that can have any biochemical effect.
In view of the demonstrable action of "homeopathic remedies," their composition really shouldn't be an issue as to whether or not the materials used as medicine here are inert, but it is . . a consistency prejudice and confirmation bias has developed among the dogmatic ranks of science . . and it is an interesting phenomenon, and it deserves to be addressed in classical terms. Although it is used as a club, it's a still legitimate question. There should be an answer within classical science as to why it is that water can be made to biochemicaly mimic.other substances, and there is such an answer..
Water is a cold plasma. It is well known that it is self radiolyzing. Putatively, radiolysis is "the molecular decomposition of a substance by ionizing radiation." But I'd like to tweak that definition a litte. I think that to say that radiolysis causes the water molecule to decompose suggests it loses the ability to recompose. I think it would be more accurate to say that water changes its phase unabated. But this is a minor detail. To be self radilyzing means it will make a natural phase shift, that it will simply do so without any help from another influence . . with the exception of course of one thing: the omnipresent natural background radiation.
So if water is self radiolyzing, it is not a leap to observe that it radiolyzes, i.e. ionizes, solutes, other materials in it. So. . can you see where I'm going with this?
An isotope is the ionized, hence radioactive form of a particular substance. We know that the homeopathic remedy does not exert a molecular chemical action on its target, but rather it exerts a supramolecular nuclear reaction on it. That this is solely a phenomenon of actinic radiation can not only be deduced by common direct observation, it can be demonstrated by electronic assay (Montagnier).
So then, in that the process of dilution and succussion extrudes the radioactive form of a particular substance into water, ethanol and lactose . . and I know this is going to rock some boats, the term "medical isotope" is the perfect physical, scientific description of the homeopathic remedy, and it should now be classified as such by the FDA..
The only theory from ancient times to make it into modern is Democritus' Atomic Theory, the theory that all matter is constrained to indivisible particles separated by the Void. This was a response if not a puerile relief for simpletons from Xeno's Paradox, the belief that the reality of the Void is in the Imagination, which of course is nonsense contradicted by observable evidence; Creation is filled with the infinitesimal, which is imponderabilia. Homeopathy demonstrates the specificity of the sub atomic field, while dogmatic science cannot so easily mathematize this infinite divisibilty.
The corollary in this thesis of hydromnemonics is tritium oxide, pure water that emits actinic radiation. In two words (tritium oxide) the whole null hypothesis against homeopathy falls apart.
In medicine, we know that like cures like; in chemistry, like dissolves like; in electrochemistry, like repels like; in science, like corrects like . .
Thanks again for your interest in this subject.
John Benneth
In a message dated 4/3/2015 2:59:10 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
________________________________
John Benneth, Homoeopath
PG Hom - London (Hons.)
http://johnbenneth.com
SKYPE: John Benneth (Portland, Oregon)
503- 819 - 7777 (USA)

NOT isotopes.
--
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."