Re: Re: Who is Ian Sinclair

[Guest guest]

Hopetek:

My God man! Didn't you realize that before we are bio-chemical beings

we're bio-electrical. Long before disease becomes manifest in the

bio-chemical arena it's been there long before in the bio-electrical.

What do you think acupuncture, prana, and bio-energetics are all about?

It's all about little bits of information being transferred indirectly.

Just as the windmill can create electricity by the action of wind on its

sails so to the needle of acupuncture, the breath in prana the words in

hypnosis and the energy in homeopathy. Now where do you think this

communication, information and love comes from?

You want faith healing to have scientific explanations, then go to

Lourdes and study the very limited numbers of miracles attributed there.

Study the scientific results including those of non believer doctors.

Then you have to decide if you believe in something bigger than yourself

and science ...or not.

Step out of your little box throw away your blinders and see hear smell

taste and touch the Universe. The common expression used to be, " Get a

life " now made famous by general Honore, " Don't get stuck on stupid. "

There's so much good out there in the world. Life is too short to be in

one's own little world believing that it's reality.

hopetek@... wrote:

>I am sure that substituting one pain for another has some merit. Pain is

somewhat manupulable, However, when I went to a chiropracter who pinched me and

made me sore it didnt do anything for my ruptured disc. I am sure there are many

valid manifestations of chiropracty however. I heard one explaination of

acupuncture that made a bit of possible logic.....the plasma energy body that we

see in a high electromagnetic field through kirlian photography is supposed to

pour through your veins and out of your eyes, but I heard someone say that the

acupuncture points are at the locations where this energy comes in and out. This

energy is charged with breathing negative ions. It would also lend merit to

prana, which is breathing, in the East Indian philosophies. As for me I am a

scientist and I go by legal citations and the results of repeatable studies.

Yet, even a faith healing should even have a scientific explaination.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Kind of over react, dont ya? If you look at my comment I simply said that there

may be good scientific basis for acupuncture and prana, etc, and I believe that

all miraculous and wonderous things have scientific explanation. That is why I

database cures for diseases and energy answers not recognized by modern science.

When we give a tadpole a taste of iodine, and speed up its metabolism, we can

watch under a microscope as every atom and cell of it's body changes to a frog

without any waste whatsoever. This is pure design, yet miracle also. When we see

the woodfrog in Canada freeze solid all winter, then thaw back out we are

observing what would seem as miraculous. Yet these miracles have scientific

explanations, just as closed cycle fuel-less motors have scientific explanation

I do not think it reflects well on you, in a scientific forum as this one is, to

jump on people with name calling, like " get a life " or " stupid " . Someone

commented earlier that this tyranical behavior discourages participation, Some

people think it o.k. to just beat people to death who dont agree with

you....others think it is o.k.to humilaite them. Both are tyranical.

Actually we agree, but you didnt see it because you are looking to be a hotshot.

[Guest guest]

Hopetek:

What your referring to are scientific wonders indeed but NOT miracles.

The miracles of Lourdes are miracles in the proper meaning of the word

Actually, you picked on the wrong word to describe me. I am a hotshot---

with a pistol that is. I should be I've been at it for about 50 years

This past Thursday and Friday I completed the Advanced Defensive Pistol

Course given by my friend and pistol guru Kent Turnipseed. The course

should really be called the Zen of Marksmanship. Thought you'd get a

laugh anyway.

hopetek@... wrote:

>Kind of over react, dont ya? If you look at my comment I simply said that there

may be good scientific basis for acupuncture and prana, etc, and I believe that

all miraculous and wonderous things have scientific explanation. That is why I

database cures for diseases and energy answers not recognized by modern science.

>When we give a tadpole a taste of iodine, and speed up its metabolism, we can

watch under a microscope as every atom and cell of it's body changes to a frog

without any waste whatsoever. This is pure design, yet miracle also. When we see

the woodfrog in Canada freeze solid all winter, then thaw back out we are

observing what would seem as miraculous. Yet these miracles have scientific

explanations, just as closed cycle fuel-less motors have scientific explanation

>I do not think it reflects well on you, in a scientific forum as this one is,

to jump on people with name calling, like " get a life " or " stupid " . Someone

commented earlier that this tyranical behavior discourages participation, Some

people think it o.k. to just beat people to death who dont agree with

you....others think it is o.k.to humilaite them. Both are tyranical.

>Actually we agree, but you didnt see it because you are looking to be a

hotshot.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I know we are truly splitting hairs now, but I believe that this fits within the

context of longevity discussion. I find it meritorious to look at life as a

miracle. Let us look at a God based definition of miracles.....In the Christian

community if someone is healed of diabetes in a healing service, that would be a

divine healing.... if someone is healed of diabetes by changing their diet and

taking cinnamin or gymnema sylvester, that is called a " natural healing " .

However, if God, or faith in general, were to execute a miracle.....the fact

that it alludes " normal " scientific explanation does not mean that there is not

a scientific explanation. For instance, the Japan magnetic fan company is

marketing the magnetic motor in the form of a ceiling fan. It works, but

conventional science has taught that it is not possible. Same thing with health

breakthroughs. I contend that if it happens in this world then it's process uses

atoms and some form of energy and that it only appears to be a " miracle "

because it is above our heads. Thus, I use the terms wonders and miracles

somewhat synonamously. However, I think we should find some common denominators

rather than splitting hairs.

[Guest guest]

Firstly I was tired and some of my grammar was a bit iffy, what I meant

to say is there are hypotheses about how acupuncture works which don't

require mystic explanations (e.g. out-of-body energy fields), the best

hypotheses I read says something like, the needles obscure pain by

confusing the brain with another source of pain or irritation at a

strategic location on the nerve map; this does not require higher brain

functions, that is why it works on animals. As for hypnotism, that's an

attempt to bypass the conscious filters to program the subconscious part

of the mind to change it's perception of reality and behave accordingly

(e.g. physically) as though the illusion were real, an effect may

religions, advertisers and rulers are well aware of!.

I have tried many alternative ideas and found them wanting, I find I now

waste less time and money as a sceptic and now only run with alternative

ideas where I see strong enough proof that it is worth me investing my

time and money.

The human body does not to my knowledge produce much electrical power,

uses fairly low frequency signals (so no 'skin effect') and generally

has a very high resistance at the skin, so very few (weak) electrical

signals get to the skin, thanks to signal attenuation, so low noise,

high impedance, high gain amplifiers are needed for ECG, EEG and

nerve-driven robotic hands, this suggests that an external body energy

field is unlikely. It also tends to require much higher voltages and or

higher frequencies, than inside the body, to influence the body e.g. in

T.E.N.S. units, muscle stimulator's, stun guns. It is also known that

strong magnetic fields can influence the body (e.g. cause 'divine'

hallucinations in the brain), however this is not surprising given

electrical principles.

As I said faith is belief without proof i.e.often a subjective belief

based on feelings, emotions and other faith, not a solid foundation!.

This is not compatible with science, a rational, objective methodology

and process, this may explain why some religious or mystic scientists

fail to reach their full potential. BTW it is a cop out to say let the

scientists explain these spurious effects *, also you can get in trouble

here too e.g. BBC Horizon sponsored a scientific experiment to see if

homoeopathy works or not, they found no statistically significant proof

that it works, pretty damning!

* 'Cold fusion' and 'bubble fusion' both looked very convincing on the

surface, but were clearly proven wrong, several times, by other

scientists, without a blinding emotional investment in it's proof.

I will grant that there are some genuinely useful alternative sources of

information e.g. herbalism, given that there is extensive scientific

proof that lots of herbs work, however I have not heard any definitive

proof that the Eastern energy healing ideas are viable except possibly

as a rather indirect way of mapping nerves and other physical nodes in a

human body.

I agree science does not know it all, it would be pretty boring if it

did, however science is not just facts, it is a well thought out process

and methodology to strive to better understand how everything works

(e.g. Occam's Razor is damned handy for cutting out the BS), science is

not a static edifice, it is dynamic and can take wrong turns sometimes,

but tends to correct itself with time and has a nasty habit of

convincingly disproving superstitions, which is the intention. Just

because some Eastern philosophies look like science does not necessarily

mean they embody the same high standards of proof as science, age and

tradition do not automatically make something true, only objective proof

does that, science is not religion and should never be confused with it

e.g. Intelligent Design (Creationism) is clearly religion not science

(see Darwin's Watch: Science of Discworld III by Terry Pratchet, Ian

and Jack Cohen for an amusing demolition of ID).

http://pespmc1.vub.ac.be/OCCAMRAZ.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_Razor

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_Razor>

Apricot85 wrote:

>Faith is also based on someone's personal experiences & perceptions. I

>value hearing about the experiences of others. I respect each point of

>view. Absolutely, I believe each side holds merit on this whole issue.

> My experiences have taught me there isn't just one 'right' way.

> Simply, science doesn't know it all yet.

>

>nospam.rwp@... wrote:

>

>

>

>>Faith is belief without proof, that maybe OK when building a hypothesis, but

is no good for a scientific theory, this requires repeatability and impartial,

statistically verified testing e.g. double-blind testing.

>>

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under no

circumstances should any information published here be considered a substitute

for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the owner

>

[Guest guest]

Celeste:

There's a law it goes, " All therapies work for some people. "

a1thighmaster wrote:

>This still doesn't explain why homeopathy doesn't work for everyone.

>Or why acupuncture doesn't work for everyone.

>

>Best regards,

>Celeste

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Friends,

There are several levels of homeopathy, several levels of acupuncture.

In fact, there are several levels of conventional medicine, too.

A bad personal experience does not give anyone the right to condemn

a systen. It only speaks of a single experience. Anecdotal, they would

say...

The main question is whether you can have access to the proper treatment

for your particular ailment.

The current disillusionment with modern medicine stems from the fact that

contemporary medical training and practice rely on massive research

that doesn't take individuality into account. In fact, it shuns it.

Acupuncture and homeopathy, conversely, - through different ways -,

take individuality and variance very seriously,

as factors at the core of their treatments.

Double-blind studies are not easy to gear, for such systems.Other kinds of

scientific methods are needed.

If reviewers or researchers don't know enough about the basics

of the studied alternative method

they are bound for methodological monstruosities and false conclusions.

To have such an extentensive a command of anything, you need to love -or

fear-

the subject in question.

Superficial knowledge will produce wrong,inconducive results.

Conversely, if negative conclusions were purposely wanted,

the current methods are perfectly adequate.

Best regards.

Ignacio

On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:55:03 -0300, B. Monier-

<dbmw@...> wrote:

> Celeste:

> There's a law it goes, " All therapies work for some people. "

>

>

>

>

> a1thighmaster wrote:

>

>> This still doesn't explain why homeopathy doesn't work for everyone.

>> Or why acupuncture doesn't work for everyone.

>>

>> Best regards,

>> Celeste

>>

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Mille grazie

Ignacio Fojgel, M.D. wrote:

>Friends,

>There are several levels of homeopathy, several levels of acupuncture.

>In fact, there are several levels of conventional medicine, too.

>A bad personal experience does not give anyone the right to condemn

>a systen. It only speaks of a single experience. Anecdotal, they would

>say...

>

>The main question is whether you can have access to the proper treatment

>for your particular ailment.

>The current disillusionment with modern medicine stems from the fact that

>contemporary medical training and practice rely on massive research

>that doesn't take individuality into account. In fact, it shuns it.

>Acupuncture and homeopathy, conversely, - through different ways -,

>take individuality and variance very seriously,

>as factors at the core of their treatments.

>Double-blind studies are not easy to gear, for such systems.Other kinds of

>scientific methods are needed.

>If reviewers or researchers don't know enough about the basics

>of the studied alternative method

>they are bound for methodological monstruosities and false conclusions.

>To have such an extentensive a command of anything, you need to love -or

>fear-

>the subject in question.

>Superficial knowledge will produce wrong,inconducive results.

>Conversely, if negative conclusions were purposely wanted,

>the current methods are perfectly adequate.

>Best regards.

>Ignacio

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

a1thighmaster wrote:

> This still doesn't explain why homeopathy doesn't work for everyone.

Homeopathy only works when the right matching remedy is selected - and

that depends on the skill of the homeopath mainly, and on there being a

matching remedy among the currently 4500 or so options to choose.

The match is made on symptoms - and if some major aspect is missed by

mistake, or if the symptoms chosen are not given the right relative

emphasis during repertorizing (the selection process), it will skew the

selection and you'll get a mismatched remedy - in that case the remedy

will do nothing - or may do a little and then stop helping. The

homeopath in such a case needs to repertorize again.

Perhaps you were unlucky in your selection of a homeopath?

> Or why acupuncture doesn't work for everyone.

I do not know enough to comment with any authority. My *guess* would be

that acupuncture needs accurate assessment of where the life force is

out of balance as well, so as to help appropriately.

What I do know is that acupuncture and homeopathy can work well in

tandem - or not. If the acupuncturist does " first aid " acupuncture when

you are trying to do chronic case homeopathy, it can interfere - but if

the acupuncture is also aimed at long-term health rather than short-term

palliation - then they work well together.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

nospam.rwp@... wrote: the needles obscure pain by

> confusing the brain with another source of pain or irritation at a

> strategic location on the nerve map;

No, it's not at all that mechanism. Acupuncture is energy medicine as is

homeopathy or reiki. no pain is caused.

It IS possible to mask one pain with another - capsicum as a herb does

that for example by stimulating nerves till they are tired of it and

stop triggering.

Or you can do it yourself by bashing your thumb with a hammer - and your

back pain will be temporarily forgotten:-))

But it's not the acupuncture mechanism.

> this does not require higher brain

> functions, that is why it works on animals.

No chance on that theory fellow!!!

First of all, animals have plenty of " higher brain functions " but the

point here is that acupuncture is energy medicine.

> As for hypnotism, that's an

> attempt to bypass the conscious filters to program the subconscious part

> of the mind to change it's perception of reality and behave accordingly

> (e.g. physically) as though the illusion were real, an effect may

> religions, advertisers and rulers are well aware of!.

No comment - I have not studied hypnotism.

> The human body does not to my knowledge produce much electrical power,

Now there you are quite wrong. In fact the human body consists of energy

power. Energy does not need to be electric by the way - there is light

energy, sound energy, magnetic energy, electrical energy, radio energy,

microwave energy. BAsically energy comes in waves or particles or

strings or something - nobody knows yet - but ALL matter - is made of it.

As to how much is in the body - there's a lot. For example thought

molecules (yes physicists have detected such things) are found up to a

meter (3 feet or so) from the body, and they come in positive and

negative styles. (So the idea that one can pass off bad vibes is true!!!)

This works in live people, not dead ones. Dead people have no energy

forces. Live ones have it in every molecule of every cell. At the atomic

level, ALL reactions have electrical components without which no

reactions can occur - positive and negative charges on atoms that pull

atoms or molecules apart or together - so in fact nothing happens in the

body at all without this energy aspect coming into play. When two or

more atoms combine into a molecule this is noting other than electrical

bonding between positively and negatively charged aspects of atoms.

(If you take a course in physical chemistry that's where you learn the

details.)

> It also tends to require much higher voltages and or

> higher frequencies, than inside the body, to influence the body

According to your personal theory you mean?

Science has already shown that even thought molecules affect the body

they emanate from, and other bodies they contact.

Research shows the value of hugs to babies is so important they actually

die without the contact.

There's a difference between influencing the body with electricity at

levels to interfere with physical composition - and making specific

changes to the life force energy field that will direct the body to be

in better homeostasis.

It's like the difference between boiling water enough to make steam,

and merely stirring it to make it balanced in composition :-)

e.g. in

> T.E.N.S. units, muscle stimulator's, stun guns.

These affect the COMPOSITION of a body.

Health energy fields do not go near the composition of the body. They

affect only the energy field in which the intelligence of the system

functions to moderate life.

Perhaps you forget that the body is managed centrally in the brain. MOST

of the brain is nothing to do with thinking and everything to do with

health management. If this is functioning optimally, the body will send

energy to direct molecules at a physical level, in a way that balances

out imperfections and causes a disease-resistant healthy state.

In a dead body, there is no intelligent brain to do this for you -

the life force quits at the moment of death - and it is progressively

weaker in a terminal person as they approach death. You can literally

see this happening - as the life force slows and weakens and no longer

can use energy to intelligently manage the body.

These energy signals are subtle, there is no need to use a cattle

prod when a thought molecule is sufficient :-))

Our human design is way more efficient than that :-) Good grief imagine

what amount we'd have to eat daily (an elephant?) if every function was

managed by cattle prod energy levels instead of very small ones.

> It is also known that

> strong magnetic fields can influence the body

You are again talking about physical conformation changes rather than

messages. You are busting the computer hardware with a stun gun instead

of looking at the emails in the system.

The energy fields to manage the body are more like emails from and to

places they are needed - it's the instructions level as opposed to the

hardware level. You are looking at the hardware - the computers -

instead of the software - the energy instructions.

You are talking about lightning bolts zapping the hardware - and not

seeing that very little energy is needed to send an email in comparison

to a lightning bolt.

> As I said faith is belief without proof

You seem to have faith in an awful lot of hocus pocus - like the idea

that the body has no electrical signalling - what else do you think

makes the brain work or atoms work or thoughts occur?

> i.e.often a subjective belief

> based on feelings, emotions and other faith, not a solid foundation!.

> This is not compatible with science

With respect it is you here who is behind on the science.

One gets the impression that you have decided (without investigating)

that energy medicine can not be valid.

> BBC Horizon sponsored a scientific experiment to see if

> homoeopathy works or not, they found no statistically significant proof

> that it works, pretty damning!

Damming towards BBC Horizon yes.

Homeopathy has never stopped working.

I could also devise a water channel to see if airplanes fly, and then

claim I proved they do not fly. In fact it was often " proved " that

airplanes could not fly - until people saw it with their own eyes:-))

homeopathy has no need of proofs - all you need to do is watch it

work:-)) Same as you watch airplanes fly without understanding how they

do it, and watch ball games on tv without knowing how they get there.

Homeopathy works by the principles of nature, not by the lack of

principles of allopathy's double-blind fictions or whatever BBc thought

up as their criteria. Homeopathy will not stop working until nature

stops working:-)) It can't. It uses the principles devised not by man

but occurring naturally. It's like suggesting gravity doesn't work -

another thing nature provides that we use:-))

> * 'Cold fusion' and 'bubble fusion' both looked very convincing on the

> surface,

Wait a moment.

These are human inventions.

Whether they work is open to question.

Homeopathy is only copying nature and it's not questionable whether

nature " works " .

> I will grant that there are some genuinely useful alternative sources of

> information e.g. herbalism, given that there is extensive scientific

> proof that lots of herbs work,

There's extensive scientific proof on energy medicine too. How come you

agree the herbal ones and not the others? Did you forget to read up on

the energy medicine data?

All herbs can do is to add chemicals to the system that the energy

fields of the body might be able to use:-))

> however I have not heard any definitive

> proof that the Eastern energy healing ideas are viable

Checked for wax lately?

:-)))

Take a physical chemistry class. I did in 1965 and found out then that

every atom runs on energy:-))

Then read " The Healing Brain " by two doctors who have nothing to do with

alternative health but present some interesting science: Ornstein

PhD and Sobel MD. Perhaps that will fill in the gaps in your

thinking to connect energy to body functioning.

> I agree science does not know it all,

No but nature does know it all, so it is safe to use principles from

there:-)

> Just

> because some Eastern philosophies look like science does not necessarily

> mean they embody the same high standards of proof as science

It's a fallacy that " science " has high standards of proof. some areas do

- mathematics and physics are not bad. But certainly the aspect called

allopathy definitely does not have high standards, anything but. So

perhaps allopathy should never be called science, as it has no

principles on which to be based. It's a toxin system with opinion-based

decision-making - that's not science:-))

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

a1thighmaster wrote: (Incidentally, none of Beechwold's practitioners in

any field

> were able to produce any results for me.)

That seems to say something less than positive about the whole

organization??

Can you say what credentials the " homeopaths " had there and elsewhere

that you tried?

Certainly poison oak should not be hard to handle. But if you got a

first aid remedy choice without proper case taking and repertorizing,

then it would likely not work.

Either way I am sorry you had an unhelpful experience. It is extremely

frustrating to well qualified homeopaths to keep hearing such stories,

but to be unable to verify a lack of credentials - or a lack of

credentials PLUS full-time practice.

We really need a way to ensure homeopaths give clients their credentials

and clients understand to look for them.

That is truly a disadvantage of homeopathy in the USA - designed to be

that way by allopaths not wanting the competition - but it is nasty for

the client who then has to do homework before seeing a homeopath - or be

put off of homeopathy due to seeing someone not suitably qualified who

purported to be a homeopath.

Sorry for your negative experience. If you ever try again with

homeopathy, do be sure to check out credentials. You want a full-time

homeopath (not a part-doctor or chiropractor or whatever) with a

multiple-year degree such as D.I.Hom and not some weekend seminar

graduate (and there are MANY of these in USA who really think they are

homeopaths.)

Alternatively, read up enough on homepathy to be in a position to judge

what's good and what's not. We all tend to know a good deal about

allopathy - but go in " blind " for other modes of health care.

Namaste,

IRene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

Well said :-)))

....Irene

Ignacio Fojgel, M.D. wrote:

> Friends,

> There are several levels of homeopathy, several levels of acupuncture.

> In fact, there are several levels of conventional medicine, too.

> A bad personal experience does not give anyone the right to condemn

> a systen. It only speaks of a single experience. Anecdotal, they would

> say...

>

> The main question is whether you can have access to the proper treatment

> for your particular ailment.

> The current disillusionment with modern medicine stems from the fact that

> contemporary medical training and practice rely on massive research

> that doesn't take individuality into account. In fact, it shuns it.

> Acupuncture and homeopathy, conversely, - through different ways -,

> take individuality and variance very seriously,

> as factors at the core of their treatments.

> Double-blind studies are not easy to gear, for such systems.Other kinds of

> scientific methods are needed.

> If reviewers or researchers don't know enough about the basics

> of the studied alternative method

> they are bound for methodological monstruosities and false conclusions.

> To have such an extentensive a command of anything, you need to love -or

> fear-

> the subject in question.

> Superficial knowledge will produce wrong,inconducive results.

> Conversely, if negative conclusions were purposely wanted,

> the current methods are perfectly adequate.

> Best regards.

> Ignacio

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Mon, 24 Oct 2005 20:55:03 -0300, B. Monier-

> <dbmw@...> wrote:

>

>

>>Celeste:

>>There's a law it goes, " All therapies work for some people. "

>>

>>

>>

>>

>>a1thighmaster wrote:

>>

>>

>>>This still doesn't explain why homeopathy doesn't work for everyone.

>>>Or why acupuncture doesn't work for everyone.

>>>

>>>Best regards,

>>>Celeste

>>>

>>>

>>>

>>

>>

>>

>>

[Guest guest]

For the man saying cold fusion did not work...Not that it matters that much to

the discussion, but I have abundant information proving that cold fusion has

been made to work, and in afordable practical application, it is worthy of

mention here .......since health cures are often poo pood and hope in general is

so systematically dashed.

[Guest guest]

Irene de Villiers wrote:

>nospam.rwp@... wrote: the needles obscure pain by

>

>

>>confusing the brain with another source of pain or irritation at a

>>strategic location on the nerve map;

>>

>>

>

>No, it's not at all that mechanism. Acupuncture is energy medicine as is

>homeopathy or reiki. no pain is caused.

> It IS possible to mask one pain with another - capsicum as a herb does

>that for example by stimulating nerves till they are tired of it and

>stop triggering.

>Or you can do it yourself by bashing your thumb with a hammer - and your

>back pain will be temporarily forgotten:-))

>But it's not the acupuncture mechanism.

>

>

>

Sorry, 'energy medicine' makes no sense to me given the laws of

thermodynamics, quantum theory does not provide a satisfactory route

either e.g. quantum entanglement only works in very specific contexts.

>>this does not require higher brain

>>functions, that is why it works on animals.

>>

>>

>

>No chance on that theory fellow!!!

>First of all, animals have plenty of " higher brain functions " but the

>point here is that acupuncture is energy medicine.

>

>

>

Possible, but as you said earlier animals are not influenced by mystical

ideas, so that leaves training and physical causes. Energy medicine in

the alternative sense does not make sense to me given my understanding

of electromagnetic radiation and Physics.

>> As for hypnotism, that's an

>>attempt to bypass the conscious filters to program the subconscious part

>>of the mind to change it's perception of reality and behave accordingly

>>(e.g. physically) as though the illusion were real, an effect may

>>religions, advertisers and rulers are well aware of!.

>>

>>

>

>No comment - I have not studied hypnotism.

>

>

>

>>The human body does not to my knowledge produce much electrical power,

>>

>>

>

>Now there you are quite wrong. In fact the human body consists of energy

>power. Energy does not need to be electric by the way - there is light

>energy, sound energy, magnetic energy, electrical energy, radio energy,

> microwave energy. BAsically energy comes in waves or particles or

>strings or something - nobody knows yet - but ALL matter - is made of it.

>

>

>

I agree that the body uses (tiny) electrical signals, but through

conductive electrical channels e.g. nerves and synapses, however these

electrical signals are so tiny than few make it to the surface of the

skin and even then the voltages are minuscule due to the high

resistances outside the conductive electrical channels. Also a lot of

signals are sent by chemical and ion waves which can not easily be

influenced by external electromagnetic energy fields.

I read a lot about the waves/particles (which you see depends on the

observation method), from what I read Quarks are the smallest

'particle', possibly with strings in many dimensions underneath, however

it is not an sensible to attempt to justify alternative-medicine

vibrational theories with String Theory (actually several), because it

is still an actively forming area of science, it may even be replaced!

>As to how much is in the body - there's a lot. For example thought

>molecules (yes physicists have detected such things) are found up to a

>meter (3 feet or so) from the body, and they come in positive and

>negative styles. (So the idea that one can pass off bad vibes is true!!!)

> This works in live people, not dead ones. Dead people have no energy

>forces. Live ones have it in every molecule of every cell. At the atomic

>level, ALL reactions have electrical components without which no

>reactions can occur - positive and negative charges on atoms that pull

>atoms or molecules apart or together - so in fact nothing happens in the

>body at all without this energy aspect coming into play. When two or

>more atoms combine into a molecule this is noting other than electrical

>bonding between positively and negatively charged aspects of atoms.

>(If you take a course in physical chemistry that's where you learn the

>details.)

>

>

>

It is not about size, it is about power and impedance, too little power

and too much impedance and there is too little signal to get past noise,

this is critical given that noise can hide signals and the body allows

noise as a way to improve precision over time and for active senses e.g.

the ear.

> > It also tends to require much higher voltages and or

>

>

>>higher frequencies, than inside the body, to influence the body

>>

>>

>

>According to your personal theory you mean?

>Science has already shown that even thought molecules affect the body

>they emanate from, and other bodies they contact.

>Research shows the value of hugs to babies is so important they actually

>die without the contact.

>There's a difference between influencing the body with electricity at

>levels to interfere with physical composition - and making specific

>changes to the life force energy field that will direct the body to be

>in better homeostasis.

> It's like the difference between boiling water enough to make steam,

>and merely stirring it to make it balanced in composition :-)

>

>

>

Social interaction, the use of the senses and possible chemical transfer

is realistic, however energy field transfers are unlikely, it is

possible that direct skin contact may pass some electromagnetic signals,

however I have not seen documented scientific proof for this.

> e.g. in

>

>

>>T.E.N.S. units, muscle stimulator's, stun guns.

>>

>>

>

>These affect the COMPOSITION of a body.

>Health energy fields do not go near the composition of the body. They

>affect only the energy field in which the intelligence of the system

>functions to moderate life.

>Perhaps you forget that the body is managed centrally in the brain. MOST

>of the brain is nothing to do with thinking and everything to do with

>health management. If this is functioning optimally, the body will send

>energy to direct molecules at a physical level, in a way that balances

>out imperfections and causes a disease-resistant healthy state.

> In a dead body, there is no intelligent brain to do this for you -

>the life force quits at the moment of death - and it is progressively

>weaker in a terminal person as they approach death. You can literally

>see this happening - as the life force slows and weakens and no longer

>can use energy to intelligently manage the body.

> These energy signals are subtle, there is no need to use a cattle

>prod when a thought molecule is sufficient :-))

>

>Our human design is way more efficient than that :-) Good grief imagine

>what amount we'd have to eat daily (an elephant?) if every function was

>managed by cattle prod energy levels instead of very small ones.

>

>

>

Yes I know that the brain has dedicated automatic systems to keep the

body alive, some of which can be influenced by other parts of the brain

e.g. by tiny electrical signals, 3D nitric oxide broadcasts, ion

exchanges, hormones and other brain chemicals. The brain still a large

proportion of the bodies chemical power to run it is, because it is a

large and dense organ with a massive number of cells, a lot of which are

active, however the voltages signals inside it have to be tiny,

otherwise the total power consumption would be too high and the brain

would overheat or be an excessive evolutionary burden. A large brain

it's already a pretty expensive 'luxury', that is why few animals have

such large brains, and such a proportionately large cerebellum, I think

only some sea creatures are possible comparisons, however that maybe

offset by the extra requirements for complex sonar senses and/or a

larger body.

>>It is also known that

>>strong magnetic fields can influence the body

>>

>>

>

>You are again talking about physical conformation changes rather than

>messages. You are busting the computer hardware with a stun gun instead

>of looking at the emails in the system.

> The energy fields to manage the body are more like emails from and to

>places they are needed - it's the instructions level as opposed to the

>hardware level. You are looking at the hardware - the computers -

>instead of the software - the energy instructions.

>

>You are talking about lightning bolts zapping the hardware - and not

>seeing that very little energy is needed to send an email in comparison

>to a lightning bolt.

>

>

>

Other than the nose, eyes, ears, and tactile, heat, cold and pain senses

of the skin, I see no way for the body to sense any other form of energy

unless it is quite strong (e.g. strong magnetic, electrostatic or RF

fields), we lack the sensitive electrical sensors which sharks have in

their skin and lack the sensitive magnetic sensors which birds have in

their brains.

>>As I said faith is belief without proof

>>

>>

>

>You seem to have faith in an awful lot of hocus pocus - like the idea

>that the body has no electrical signalling - what else do you think

>makes the brain work or atoms work or thoughts occur?

>

>

>

That is a flawed deduction, see electromagnetism in basic Physics. BTW

I used to work in analogue/digital electronics (R & D and repair) and

investigated bio-electronics out of curiosity.

>>i.e.often a subjective belief

>>based on feelings, emotions and other faith, not a solid foundation!.

>>This is not compatible with science

>>

>>

>

>With respect it is you here who is behind on the science.

>One gets the impression that you have decided (without investigating)

>that energy medicine can not be valid.

>

> > BBC Horizon sponsored a scientific experiment to see if

>

>

>>homoeopathy works or not, they found no statistically significant proof

>>that it works, pretty damning!

>>

>>

>

>Damming towards BBC Horizon yes.

>

>

That is your opinion, however it looked a fair experiment and evaluation

to me.

>Homeopathy has never stopped working.

>I could also devise a water channel to see if airplanes fly, and then

>claim I proved they do not fly. In fact it was often " proved " that

>airplanes could not fly - until people saw it with their own eyes:-))

>homeopathy has no need of proofs - all you need to do is watch it

>work:-)) Same as you watch airplanes fly without understanding how they

>do it, and watch ball games on tv without knowing how they get there.

>

>Homeopathy works by the principles of nature, not by the lack of

>principles of allopathy's double-blind fictions or whatever BBc thought

>up as their criteria. Homeopathy will not stop working until nature

>stops working:-)) It can't. It uses the principles devised not by man

>but occurring naturally. It's like suggesting gravity doesn't work -

>another thing nature provides that we use:-))

>

>

>

>>* 'Cold fusion' and 'bubble fusion' both looked very convincing on the

>>surface,

>>

>>

>

>Wait a moment.

>These are human inventions.

>Whether they work is open to question.

>Homeopathy is only copying nature and it's not questionable whether

>nature " works " .

>

>

>

How ironic that Homoeopathy is a human invention too, it is very

doubtful that lower animals could devise or practice it, nature does not

tend to provide such extreme dilutions of a specific substance on demand

>>I will grant that there are some genuinely useful alternative sources of

>>information e.g. herbalism, given that there is extensive scientific

>>proof that lots of herbs work,

>>

>>

>

>There's extensive scientific proof on energy medicine too. How come you

>agree the herbal ones and not the others? Did you forget to read up on

>the energy medicine data?

>All herbs can do is to add chemicals to the system that the energy

>fields of the body might be able to use:-))

>

>

>

Sorry, I'm still waiting for rational proof for energy medicine, I've

looked and found nothing definitive yet, lots of very expensive gadgets

though e.g. for Rife radiation. Placebo effects could easily explain

most if not all of the of the results I read about, placebos can have

powerful effects on behaviour and brain chemistry and even cause

addiction, yes Pavlovian principles work on humans too e.g. the

experiment with hidden vocal actors and fake electrical torture equipment!

>>however I have not heard any definitive

>>proof that the Eastern energy healing ideas are viable

>>

>>

>

>Checked for wax lately?

>:-)))

>Take a physical chemistry class. I did in 1965 and found out then that

>every atom runs on energy:-))

>Then read " The Healing Brain " by two doctors who have nothing to do with

>alternative health but present some interesting science: Ornstein

>PhD and Sobel MD. Perhaps that will fill in the gaps in your

>thinking to connect energy to body functioning.

>

>

>

I have very good hearing, cheeky!

I did Chemistry, Physics, Biology etc. at school and college, and got

excellent grades, I also found out a lot more about matter and energy

from my own study (e.g. high energy physics, quantum theories etc.), and

when learning and doing electronics for a living, for several years!

If the library has it I may read it, but it don't take it as a good sign

when a 6 year old book has only one review on amazon.com, even if a

favourable one, I like to see a good range of opinions on a book, it's

annoying when I buy 'duds'.

>>I agree science does not know it all,

>>

>>

>

>No but nature does know it all, so it is safe to use principles from

>there:-)

>

>

>

Nature is everything, including us and galaxys, not just plants and

animals, that is what science strives to understand, science used to be

called Natural Philosophy, this is referred to in the name of some

higher education qualifications. Yes it is safe to use natural

principles provided you recognise real principles (not wishful thinking)

and any danger is managed carefully, to limit harm e.g. many (natural)

mushrooms can kill if eaten, others are safe and useful.

> > Just

>

>

>>because some Eastern philosophies look like science does not necessarily

>>mean they embody the same high standards of proof as science

>>

>>

>

>It's a fallacy that " science " has high standards of proof. some areas do

>- mathematics and physics are not bad. But certainly the aspect called

>allopathy definitely does not have high standards, anything but. So

>perhaps allopathy should never be called science, as it has no

>principles on which to be based. It's a toxin system with opinion-based

>decision-making - that's not science:-))

>

>

>

Proper science does have high standards, however if commercial

interests, state interests, other coercion, self deception or mysticism

corrupt the process, that is not the fault of science, rather a flawed

application of the scientific method by people who are labelled

scientists. I agree that the FDA and some medical organisations have a

lot to answer, for allowing and enforcing bad science e.g. release of

know flawed drugs and selective reporting (lying by omission), but good

science does occurs outside their influence. I bet alternative methods

have a lot more some serious flaws, built-in, given the shear volume of

incoherent descriptions I have seen.

Allopathy is a word made up in 1850, by an alternative medicine

proponent, it is a propaganda label used to stigmatise conventional

medicine and is possibly misleading, I have only see it used by

alternative medicine proponents and evangelists. From what I can see

conventional medicine and alternative medicine overlay in some areas, so

there are grey areas, however there are some differences in approach

e.g. costs, targets and training have reduced the patient consulting

time by many conventional medicine doctors, alternative practitioners

tend to have more freedom to ask more questions and provide a more

social environment, probably at a higher cost. I agree that more social

interaction and a more wholist approach maybe helpful, however it needs

to be used to identify rational solutions based on reason not mythology,

IMHO there is still too much mythology and not enough reason in some

areas of alternative medicine, it may help to use more precise western

scientific language concepts instead of wooly Eastern religious language

concepts *, then appropriate science techniques can be used to verify

any ideas with merit, t.

* IMHO religion can confound rational thought, because much of it is a

mishmash of mysticism and fact, often based on several disparate sources.

>Namaste,

> Irene

>

>

[Guest guest]

a1thighmaster wrote:

> Beechwold Clinic was (and still is) one of the premier alternative

> health care clinics in the country.

That'll be the day:-))

I'd never heard of them, but checked their website that you provided:

It's a single little clinic in Columbus Ohio, which has been there

started by an osteopath, for many years. They are not proud enough of

the staff to even list them on their website, much less their

credentials if any. And they do not have any homeopaths, they only offer

a " homeopathic modality " - which means someone there may have a first

aid course in homeopathy.

Certainly no real homeopath would allow themselves to be listed as

providing " a modality " !

> You can read all about it at

> http://www.beechwoldclinic.com

Indeed I did, and I am no longer surprised you had no luck with

alternative health.

A properly qualified set of practitioners will list the practitioners

available, with credentials and experience, speciality areas,

achievements in the field, memberships of professional organizations,

publications and so forth.

All this site emphasizes is sale of such fly by night remedies as

influenzium, and they are proud to have this year's version.

A real homeopath uses the oldest one they can find in order to ensure it

is similar and NOT identical to the current one!!!

So much for understanding homeopathy principles!

> Overall, I have had almost no success with any alternative health

> treatments or practitioners in diagnosing or treating any illnesses

> I've tried them for.

I'm sorry about that and that what is called homeopathy is so

uncontrolled in USA but it explains why you had no luck.

> OTOH, I've had pretty good success with

> allopathic practitioners. There are bad apples in any career field,

> but there seems to be an overabundance of them in the alternative

> health field. And they are so expensive too!

The real ones are not, and where needed they will do pro bono work. Most

good homeopaths do charge more than I do, I tend to be very inexpensive,

and the going rate for the top ones in USA is $60 an hour, with $120

being usual for a first consult (which can take 1 to 8 hours, and I work

by email but I spend an average of 6 hours initially. As the time is not

predictable, and as the time needed comes as a shock, most homeopaths

have a special flat fee for first consults and a $60 an hour follow-up,

charging $1 per minute for less than an hour.).

That's a very good price for what you get from a good homeopath, as

they spend a lot of money staying up to date on remedies, software,

texts, research, medical issues, and whatever is needed.

If you are being charged more, then you are probably seeing a charlatan

and not a homeopath. (IMO)

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

Dear nospam,

You have written so many things that are very far from associated

with this discussion that it would take me some hours to explain and

answer fully. I also know you do not believe in energy, but tonight I do

not have the energy to write an answer for hours to do it thoroughly -

which I regret as you took the trouble to write in detail - but I am too

involved in a shelter of New Orleans rescued dogs and homeopathy to get

them well fast tonight.

So I'll make just a few comments here and there:

> Sorry, 'energy medicine' makes no sense to me given the laws of

> thermodynamics,

It's not only thermodynamics you toss into the fray here, but several

other areas of science that have no relevance at all to homeopathy or

energy medicine. Thermodynamics has to do with temperature changes in

chemical reactions. You seem to forget that energy is all that is NOt at

the physical/chemical level so of course thermodynamics does not apply,

and nor do any of the other subject areas you have tossed in, ranging

from botany to electrical circuitry - of which you are obviously fond.

But there too you have missed the point. Conductance and impedance and

resistance etc is at the physical level and has to do with the CARRIER

of energy and not with the existence of energy - it's to do with wire

length and thickness and composition and so forth. So like

thermodynamics it has no place in a discussion of healing energy.

What you should be discussing is other forms of energy:

Radio waves, microwaves, heat waves, light energy, sound energy,

magnetic energy, healing energy, life energy, whatever energy is

photographed in kirlian photography and so on. That is the realm of

which we speak - there is nothing physically tangible about it as there

is in chemistry, thermodynamics, or the other subject areas you toss

into your email - none of which are relevant to the discussion.

Sadly people have always been afraid of any new energy they could not

see or touch. The discoverers of all these energy forms were ridiculed

the same way you are doing here - by throwing irrelevant objections at

the discovery that pertain to other subjects but not this one. Anything

to avoid the real issue :-))

Or anything to try to force a new concept into an old moulding:-))

You need to not see it that way.

See it as something you had not seen before. A new concept to you.

Put it in a new place in your mental filing system, do not try to fit it

into an existing slot. There is not one!!!

It's a new entity - it has its own set of rules and principles - it is

not for grafting onto the rule set of another discipline as you are

trying to do.

Just do some observing of nature instead:

Ask yourself for example:

" Why is it that you do not see a person with two infectious diseases at

the same time? " Even during the huge epidemics it never happened.

They had EITHER whooping cough OR smallpox OR measles OR plague - etc.

Never did they have two at a time.

If the city had one epidemic under way and a new one arrived - everyone

either kept the old illness or had the new one - but not both.

Ask yourself why this is? Why can individuals not have two infectious

diseases at the same time?

Once you can get your thoughts wrapped around that notion - if you look

into the matter further, you will end up asking yourself another question:

How come in so many epidemics (it doesn't have to be an epidemic but

epidemics give a statistically significant number of examples) - if a

new disease arrived, quite often *everyone* all of a sudden had the new

infection and the old one was suddenly nowhere to be seen, nobody had it

any more! At least so it seemed till the new one was resolved - and then

the old one re-emerged!!!

Now why was that?

See if you can wrap your thoughts around that idea to add to the

previous one.

Why did the old infection come back after the new one took over for a

while?

Again- there was one infectious disease at a time only - but the new one

took over till cured - then the old one continued where it had left off.

Explain this?

Then if you can understand and explain all that, add something else that

nature does with infections:

Some disease are very similar to other diseases, and can be used to

cancel them out. Why is this? For example, one way to try to cure

someone of smallpox (before modern medicine came along) was to get hold

of some cowpox pus from a cowpox-infected cow, and give it to the person

with smallpox. In a very large number of cases, this actually works and

the person with smallpox gets well. Quickly.

Why is this?

Why does pus from cowpox help a person with smallpox to get well?

It works with any two similar diseases too:

Material from human AIDS will protect cats against feline AIDS.

Material from tuberculosis (mycobacterium tuberculosis) will protect

people from Leprosy (mycobacterium leprae).

ANY two *similar* (but not identical) diseases are protective or

curative of the other disease. Why?

Why is it like this in nature?

Another pair are whooping cough and measles. A child with measles will

NOT get whooping cough as measles prevents against whooping cough.

That also was observed during the epidemics. If the town has a measles

epidemic under way and someone arrived with whooping cough- nobody

" caught " it in that town. They just carried on with the measles.

It is these natural occurrences with diseases that you need to

understand before you can understand homeopathy. Nature is doing some

odd things here, and understanding them is the key.

I leave you with those puzzles for now - see if you can figure out

what's happening to ensure that:

* Nature disallows two infectious diseases to occur in one person at the

same time.

* If a strong different disease arrives it will take over as the active

infection - until cured - then the original infection will re-surface.

* If a weak different disease arrives it will have no effect as the

first one will be " in residence " too strongly to be ousted and nobody

will catch it.

* If a strong similar disease arrives it will cancel the infection and

cause health to occur.

* If a weak similar disease arrives it will have no effect, nobody will

catch it.

Now this is just how things work in nature.

See if you can explain WHY it is this way.

HINT:

It's the energy of the disease at work, not the physical effects.

For example, If you dilute the cowpox enough so no cowpox is left, but

retain the energy - it will still cure the person with smallpox.

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.

[Guest guest]

I just found this http://www.ncahf.org/articles/a-b/allopathy.html via

this http://skepdic.com/allopathy.html so Allopathy looks like a widely

misused term, in many cases!

[Guest guest]

Yours are not the only explanations, there is plenty of good science

which can easily explain the effects you listed e.g. common molecular

key features on related viruses and bacteria can offer cross protection,

there are also plenty of instances of people with multiple infections,

as for a new disease taking over,.this is nothing new A more virulent

or fast growing disease can swamp or poison prior competing diseases *,

also the immune system will not be able bring it's full effect

immediately on a new infection, so a new infection will have a time

window to potentially gain a foothold, this extra stress will probably

make it harder for the body to kill off all the prior infection. When

the second disease is killed off by the immune system, the body is then

open to attack from any mutated survivors of the prior infection, these

are then free (with little competition) to resume their attack and the

(possibly weakened) immune system responds as best it can after the

damage from both diseases.

* There is documented scientific proof of bacteria using poisons against

other bacteria (see Science Daily or in New Scientists, I forget which).

See a rational explanation, no energy fields or super nature required,

just evolution and the very fast life cycles of bacteria, viruses and

fungi etc..

Irene de Villiers wrote:

>Dear nospam,

> You have written so many things that are very far from associated

>with this discussion that it would take me some hours to explain and

>answer fully. I also know you do not believe in energy, but tonight I do

>not have the energy to write an answer for hours to do it thoroughly -

>which I regret as you took the trouble to write in detail - but I am too

>involved in a shelter of New Orleans rescued dogs and homeopathy to get

>them well fast tonight.

>

>So I'll make just a few comments here and there:

>

>

>

>>Sorry, 'energy medicine' makes no sense to me given the laws of

>>thermodynamics,

>>

>>

>

>It's not only thermodynamics you toss into the fray here, but several

>other areas of science that have no relevance at all to homeopathy or

>energy medicine. Thermodynamics has to do with temperature changes in

>chemical reactions. You seem to forget that energy is all that is NOt at

>the physical/chemical level so of course thermodynamics does not apply,

>and nor do any of the other subject areas you have tossed in, ranging

>from botany to electrical circuitry - of which you are obviously fond.

>But there too you have missed the point. Conductance and impedance and

>resistance etc is at the physical level and has to do with the CARRIER

>of energy and not with the existence of energy - it's to do with wire

>length and thickness and composition and so forth. So like

>thermodynamics it has no place in a discussion of healing energy.

>

>What you should be discussing is other forms of energy:

>Radio waves, microwaves, heat waves, light energy, sound energy,

>magnetic energy, healing energy, life energy, whatever energy is

>photographed in kirlian photography and so on. That is the realm of

>which we speak - there is nothing physically tangible about it as there

>is in chemistry, thermodynamics, or the other subject areas you toss

>into your email - none of which are relevant to the discussion.

>

>Sadly people have always been afraid of any new energy they could not

>see or touch. The discoverers of all these energy forms were ridiculed

>the same way you are doing here - by throwing irrelevant objections at

>the discovery that pertain to other subjects but not this one. Anything

>to avoid the real issue :-))

>Or anything to try to force a new concept into an old moulding:-))

>

>You need to not see it that way.

>See it as something you had not seen before. A new concept to you.

>Put it in a new place in your mental filing system, do not try to fit it

>into an existing slot. There is not one!!!

>

>It's a new entity - it has its own set of rules and principles - it is

>not for grafting onto the rule set of another discipline as you are

>trying to do.

>

>Just do some observing of nature instead:

>

>Ask yourself for example:

> " Why is it that you do not see a person with two infectious diseases at

>the same time? " Even during the huge epidemics it never happened.

>They had EITHER whooping cough OR smallpox OR measles OR plague - etc.

>Never did they have two at a time.

>If the city had one epidemic under way and a new one arrived - everyone

>either kept the old illness or had the new one - but not both.

>Ask yourself why this is? Why can individuals not have two infectious

>diseases at the same time?

>

>Once you can get your thoughts wrapped around that notion - if you look

>into the matter further, you will end up asking yourself another question:

>How come in so many epidemics (it doesn't have to be an epidemic but

>epidemics give a statistically significant number of examples) - if a

>new disease arrived, quite often *everyone* all of a sudden had the new

>infection and the old one was suddenly nowhere to be seen, nobody had it

>any more! At least so it seemed till the new one was resolved - and then

>the old one re-emerged!!!

>Now why was that?

>

>See if you can wrap your thoughts around that idea to add to the

>previous one.

>

>Why did the old infection come back after the new one took over for a

>while?

>Again- there was one infectious disease at a time only - but the new one

>took over till cured - then the old one continued where it had left off.

>Explain this?

>

>Then if you can understand and explain all that, add something else that

>nature does with infections:

>Some disease are very similar to other diseases, and can be used to

>cancel them out. Why is this? For example, one way to try to cure

>someone of smallpox (before modern medicine came along) was to get hold

>of some cowpox pus from a cowpox-infected cow, and give it to the person

>with smallpox. In a very large number of cases, this actually works and

>the person with smallpox gets well. Quickly.

>Why is this?

>Why does pus from cowpox help a person with smallpox to get well?

>

>It works with any two similar diseases too:

>Material from human AIDS will protect cats against feline AIDS.

>Material from tuberculosis (mycobacterium tuberculosis) will protect

>people from Leprosy (mycobacterium leprae).

>ANY two *similar* (but not identical) diseases are protective or

>curative of the other disease. Why?

>Why is it like this in nature?

>

>Another pair are whooping cough and measles. A child with measles will

>NOT get whooping cough as measles prevents against whooping cough.

>That also was observed during the epidemics. If the town has a measles

>epidemic under way and someone arrived with whooping cough- nobody

> " caught " it in that town. They just carried on with the measles.

>

>It is these natural occurrences with diseases that you need to

>understand before you can understand homeopathy. Nature is doing some

>odd things here, and understanding them is the key.

>

>I leave you with those puzzles for now - see if you can figure out

>what's happening to ensure that:

>* Nature disallows two infectious diseases to occur in one person at the

>same time.

>* If a strong different disease arrives it will take over as the active

>infection - until cured - then the original infection will re-surface.

>* If a weak different disease arrives it will have no effect as the

>first one will be " in residence " too strongly to be ousted and nobody

>will catch it.

>* If a strong similar disease arrives it will cancel the infection and

>cause health to occur.

>* If a weak similar disease arrives it will have no effect, nobody will

>catch it.

>

>Now this is just how things work in nature.

>See if you can explain WHY it is this way.

>

>HINT:

>It's the energy of the disease at work, not the physical effects.

>For example, If you dilute the cowpox enough so no cowpox is left, but

>retain the energy - it will still cure the person with smallpox.

>

>Namaste,

> Irene

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Celeste,

'alternative' is an overused word.

Allopathy has a very good rate of success in acute conditions,

but for chronic conditions it is a sorry system.

Nonetheless, it also depends on the underlying cause of the acute condition

in question. You might be burying it deeper inside, until a later date,

instead of letting the body dispose of it immediately.

It is not about bad apples, but about understanding what you do

with what you are doing.

A surgeon will almost always negate that a surgical scar is of any

electrical/energetic consequence for the body.

Ask any acupuncturist or any neuraltherapeut about it,

and you will contemplate a completely different scenario.

For a conventional dermatologist, a milk crust in a baby is a 'nothing'

that is to be 'cured' with an ointment,

but for a homeopath it signals a specific diathesis that has to be dealt

with

very thoroughly, not to create a serious aggravation of the case.

Asthma or even a meningitis may ensue as a result of a supression

of the epidermic " nothing " .

Alternative (a bad noun for too many techniques and systems),

traditional and complementary physicians are seldom controlled or

supervised

by boards or colleges, mainly because they are few and scattered,

as a result of the prevalent conventional bias against them

that started some 100 years ago.

The public is giving a veredict with their money, as anybody can see.

Mainstream physicians are steadily loosing clients to alternatives,

(sometimes, not a good idea, specially regarding diagnosis and acute

conditions).

Alteratives, complementary and traditional medicines

should not be more expensive than mainstream, but they are not covered by

HMOs

and their remedies are not reimbursed, so everything has to be out of

pocket.

Chemotherapy is way more expensive, but it is subsidized and thoroughly

covered

by the system.

Things are not balanced.

Best regards.

Ignacio

On Tue, 25 Oct 2005 19:47:53 -0300, a1thighmaster

<thighmaster@...> wrote:

> Beechwold Clinic was (and still is) one of the premier alternative

> health care clinics in the country. You can read all about it at

> http://www.beechwoldclinic.com (I long ago discarded all the

> information I had received from them back in the 70s).

>

> Overall, I have had almost no success with any alternative health

> treatments or practitioners in diagnosing or treating any illnesses

> I've tried them for. OTOH, I've had pretty good success with

> allopathic practitioners. There are bad apples in any career field,

> but there seems to be an overabundance of them in the alternative

> health field. And they are so expensive too!

>

> Best regards,

> Celeste

>

> Irene de Villiers wrote:

>> That seems to say something less than positive about the whole

>> organization??

>> Can you say what credentials the " homeopaths " had there and elsewhere

>> that you tried?

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under

> no circumstances should any information published here be considered a

> substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the

> owner

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dr. Fojgel,

Please elaborate " A surgeon will almost always negate

that a surgical scar is of any electrical/energetic

consequence for the body. Ask any acupuncturist or any

neuraltherapeut about it, and you will contemplate a

completely different scenario. "

Thank you,

Pamela

--- " Ignacio Fojgel, M.D. " <ignacio@...>

wrote:

> Dear Celeste,

> 'alternative' is an overused word.

> Allopathy has a very good rate of success in acute

> conditions,

> but for chronic conditions it is a sorry system.

> Nonetheless, it also depends on the underlying cause

> of the acute condition

> in question. You might be burying it deeper inside,

> until a later date,

> instead of letting the body dispose of it

> immediately.

>

> It is not about bad apples, but about understanding

> what you do

> with what you are doing.

> A surgeon will almost always negate that a surgical

> scar is of any

> electrical/energetic consequence for the body.

> Ask any acupuncturist or any neuraltherapeut about

> it,

> and you will contemplate a completely different

> scenario.

__________________________________

- PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

http://mail.

[Guest guest]

Hi Pamela,

scars of any origin will interfere with the normal path of bio-electric

currents in the body, and might create interference fields,

with dire remote effects.

Old infection sites, surgical and accidental scars,

obstetrical scars(conditions after a second delivery),

treated or excised tonsils,

apical cysts in tooth roots, etc.,

should be depolarized with a local anaesthetic, normalized

and reintegrated to the system, for its normal function, whenever possible.

Many chronic conditions stem from these sources of biological ¨noise¨.

Best regards.

Ignacio Fojgel, M.D.

Buenos Aires, Argentina

On Fri, 28 Oct 2005 14:59:46 -0300, Pamela <southallp@...> wrote:

> Hi Dr. Fojgel,

>

> Please elaborate " A surgeon will almost always negate

> that a surgical scar is of any electrical/energetic

> consequence for the body. Ask any acupuncturist or any

> neuraltherapeut about it, and you will contemplate a

> completely different scenario. "

>

> Thank you,

> Pamela

>

> --- " Ignacio Fojgel, M.D. " <ignacio@...>

> wrote:

>

>> Dear Celeste,

>> 'alternative' is an overused word.

>> Allopathy has a very good rate of success in acute

>> conditions,

>> but for chronic conditions it is a sorry system.

>> Nonetheless, it also depends on the underlying cause

>> of the acute condition

>> in question. You might be burying it deeper inside,

>> until a later date,

>> instead of letting the body dispose of it

>> immediately.

>>

>> It is not about bad apples, but about understanding

>> what you do

>> with what you are doing.

>> A surgeon will almost always negate that a surgical

>> scar is of any

>> electrical/energetic consequence for the body.

>> Ask any acupuncturist or any neuraltherapeut about

>> it,

>> and you will contemplate a completely different

>> scenario.

>

>

>

>

>

> __________________________________

> - PC Magazine Editors' Choice 2005

> http://mail.

>

>

>

> Note: This forum is for discussion of health related subjects but under

> no circumstances should any information published here be considered a

> substitute for personal medical advice from a qualified physician. -the

> owner

>

[Guest guest]

a1thighmaster wrote:

> As alternative medicine shows greater success and safety rates, the

> insurers will cover more.

That's debatable.

The healthier we get, the less money there is to be made from insurance

premiums. The costs of conventional care involve heavy insurance

premiums for malpractice insurance which get factored in - plus the

heavy costs of drug research that get factored in - all of which makes

for LARGE sums of money to be charged and made by insurance companies.

There is no expensive drug research in homeopathy, (there is research

but usually volunteers do it) and no huge malpractice insurance needed

as it is a safe system, and the treatment results in LACK of recurrence

- in other words, where are the profits and large sums of money to be made?

It all gets very low cost and efficient - and that's not how you make

big bucks!!!

The campaigns against homeopathy and other alternatives are to " get rid

of the competition from " them - it's really a fear that people will use

energy medicine and other options - and the expensive drug approaches

will be left high and dry without clients to milk for big bucks for drug

development costs and doctor's malpractice premium costs. It's BIG money

business the current medical system, especially the drug-related aspects!

> After all, there are many new and high-risk

> treatments within traditional medicine that insurers won't cover.

Most treatments in allopathy are high risk. Throwing toxins at

individuals will never be safe.

> Some

> years ago my insurance would not cover chiropractic care. Now it does.

USa is behind the times. SOme countries are a bit more up to date and

insurance covers other options besides the conventional system. In USa

the problem is the drug companies are too powerful here. In small places

- take New Zealand for example - each practitioner is state registered

in their profession after they achieve the required level of competence

and pass appropriate exams (registration being optional) and IF they are

registered then they may charge insurance for care of clients whether it

is homeopathy, herbalism, chiropractic, conventional or whatever.

In addition, prescriptions may only be written by the appropriate

professional. Doctors may not write homeopathy prescriptions or herbal

ones, and so on. That's how it should be, but I do believe the drug

company propaganda and actively funded campaigns prevent that kind of

progress in USA.

> Insuarance companies have to be able to stay in business and they can

> only do so by covering treatments that have high success rates and

> safety records.

No, that is not so. High success rates and safety records will close

down insurance companies. There is no money to be made from safe things,

as no insurance is needed for malpractice, or for research to figure out

less toxic doses or for law suits for deaths and injuries from what are

euphemistically called " side " effects. Nobody dies from homeopathy, so

we homeopaths do not need malpractice insurance - though it is available

for a relatively small fee. That lowers our costs, our patient costs,

and insurance profits:-))

An example:

Average cost for a post-menopausal woman with breast cancer treated

conventionally - and I am not sure if diagnosis cost is included or not:

http://www.asco.org/ac/1,1003,_12-002636-00_18-002-00_19-00202588,00.asp

" The cumulative 10 year cost per patient = 30,710 EURO (US$ 37,065). The

cost constitutes of 27% hospital, 28% systemic treatment and

radiotherapy, 14% testing and 31% other costs. The majority of costs

occur in the years after diagnosis and before death. "

A LOT of that $37,065 is insurance company profit.

Compare with homeopathy approach:

$1000 Fine Needle Aspiration biopsy to confirm diagnosis.

$4 Specific remedy for the case.

$10 Specific remedy cream for the case.

$120 Homeopath consultation.

$20 homeopath follow-up.

Total $1154 most of it being cost of diagnosis confirmation.

The cost by homeopathy is 3 per-cent of the cost conventionally, and you

can expect the insurance companies to thus make 3% as much profit using

this safe system without any need for follow-up.

That will NOT please them!!!

Namaste,

Irene

--

Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.

www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)

Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it.