I deplore greatly that the allopaths do not use us. I personally studied
homoeopathy as I wished for more tools, but, there have been times I thank
The Good Lord for the orthodox system, acute trauma, once when someone went
into acute renal failure with sarcoidosis. His remedy later turned out to
be Lyssin with addition of Tub.. We do not always find the answer even
though we know it is there . I maintain we should be valued members of a
team. I think there are healers in all systems. Many General Practitioners
have results that they may put down to drugs but really it is their being
there for the individual. I must say however that it is galling for ones
results when they occur not to be validated. Regards Jean
Allopathy and orthodox
-
Tanya Marquette
- Posts: 5602
- Joined: Tue Oct 30, 2001 11:00 pm
Re: Allopathy and orthodox
Galling over results? I am not sure that I agree with you, Jean.
I think the results that happen before your very eyes are plenty
validation. I think the argument has to be centered around
questions such as the validity of what goes for 'science' on one
hand and the validity of experiential evidence in the field. I feel
that the so-called scientific method is based on control--it is the
old man over nature battle. And it is often limited and wrong.
I think we have to stop apologizing for not being something that
we are not and we need to begin lobbying for the validity of other
forms of evidence. You know, a very few years ago there was
a concept in education called 'authentic' evidence of performance.
The concept meant that students performance could, with equal
authority, be judged by alternative performance; ie, evidence other
than test scores (the science lab of evidence in education). The
new world order that we are struggling with, now, wants to up the
ante with testing and creative teachers are being fired or forced to quit.
It is all part of the same struggle. We need to be really clear about the politics
behind the arguments (and there always are politics and money),
and we need to frame our arguments pro-actively, not defensively.
tanya
I think the results that happen before your very eyes are plenty
validation. I think the argument has to be centered around
questions such as the validity of what goes for 'science' on one
hand and the validity of experiential evidence in the field. I feel
that the so-called scientific method is based on control--it is the
old man over nature battle. And it is often limited and wrong.
I think we have to stop apologizing for not being something that
we are not and we need to begin lobbying for the validity of other
forms of evidence. You know, a very few years ago there was
a concept in education called 'authentic' evidence of performance.
The concept meant that students performance could, with equal
authority, be judged by alternative performance; ie, evidence other
than test scores (the science lab of evidence in education). The
new world order that we are struggling with, now, wants to up the
ante with testing and creative teachers are being fired or forced to quit.
It is all part of the same struggle. We need to be really clear about the politics
behind the arguments (and there always are politics and money),
and we need to frame our arguments pro-actively, not defensively.
tanya