Golden & 'vaccination' remedies..........Questions for youall???????
Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 4:08 am
Sheri Nakken wrote:
Hi Sheri,
999 Yeah, however your assumption about a colleague was automatically total discount and even a bit of accusation of greed. Guilty until proven innocent. A little objective investigation sometimes leads to interesting possibilities (and sometimes not), but that is science. I've already said too much in this regard. Would be great if you could respond to previous questions when you have a chance.... Sorry if I seemed to be hitting you with questions about your viewpoint at a bad time personally. I became frustrated with what is in my view your lack of circumspection, when
this adjunct technique is highly relevant to your efforts and how you might inform homeopaths and clients about alternatives within the homeopathic system. (more below)
999 I think these are good questions. The point of clinical judgement in use of anything beyond the chronic simillimum is naturally important as I indicated. If there is ZERO danger from an infectious threat, then the risk of using adjunct prophylaxis automatically becomes greater than of that which it intends to provide protection against, whether the technique is really a risk or not. But risk is not always zero, and not always "clear cut".
Clinical judgement in application was not the thrust of my problem with your shall we say "lack of enthusiasm". I think it rather narrow minded to not investigate and become fully versed in techniques that have been used for so long in classical homeopathy; in the event they become necessary to use in the future. I saw "automatic disconnect" without logical explanations to be a disservice to homeopaths, myself on the list, and (especially) those who want to drop vaccinations and want to know ALL of how the homeopathic system deals with filling the vacuum. As you point out,
there may not be any real vacuum in many countries, and fear is a significant variable. But that is not all countries, and diseases have a way of returning. And in any case IMO that does not mean automatically discard the technique, the history and documentation of its use, or its modern proponents and their research. Does it?
Cheers,
Andy
Hi Sheri,
999 Yeah, however your assumption about a colleague was automatically total discount and even a bit of accusation of greed. Guilty until proven innocent. A little objective investigation sometimes leads to interesting possibilities (and sometimes not), but that is science. I've already said too much in this regard. Would be great if you could respond to previous questions when you have a chance.... Sorry if I seemed to be hitting you with questions about your viewpoint at a bad time personally. I became frustrated with what is in my view your lack of circumspection, when
this adjunct technique is highly relevant to your efforts and how you might inform homeopaths and clients about alternatives within the homeopathic system. (more below)
999 I think these are good questions. The point of clinical judgement in use of anything beyond the chronic simillimum is naturally important as I indicated. If there is ZERO danger from an infectious threat, then the risk of using adjunct prophylaxis automatically becomes greater than of that which it intends to provide protection against, whether the technique is really a risk or not. But risk is not always zero, and not always "clear cut".
Clinical judgement in application was not the thrust of my problem with your shall we say "lack of enthusiasm". I think it rather narrow minded to not investigate and become fully versed in techniques that have been used for so long in classical homeopathy; in the event they become necessary to use in the future. I saw "automatic disconnect" without logical explanations to be a disservice to homeopaths, myself on the list, and (especially) those who want to drop vaccinations and want to know ALL of how the homeopathic system deals with filling the vacuum. As you point out,
there may not be any real vacuum in many countries, and fear is a significant variable. But that is not all countries, and diseases have a way of returning. And in any case IMO that does not mean automatically discard the technique, the history and documentation of its use, or its modern proponents and their research. Does it?
Cheers,
Andy