Re: Re: A Different Look at Bird Flu and Pandemics

[Guest guest]

I quoted it as Wrong!

Steve

At 11:01 AM 11/10/2005 -0800, you wrote:

>Steve Culpepper wrote:

> > Irene,

> >

> > The fact is I did not make that post.

>

>You quoted it.

>Same idea.

>

>--

>Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom.

>

>

>

>

>

>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]

Personal digs and name calling are not acceptable behaviour if you want

an answer from me.

> Irene:

> You're still speaking " ex cathedra, " that's a euphemism for your

> Enneagramatic archetype. I'm not sure you understand what is meant by a

> " state. "

>

> There was a question at the end of my email to paraphrase, " What are

> the optimal states for learning? " What are they and how would Homeopathy

> address this producing the desired permanent result within two hours?

[Guest guest]

Being personal is rude - there's no justification for it.

B. Monier- wrote:

> Irene:

> Archetypes are not personal digs they are, according to you, optimal

> states in this case as expressed within your long previous answer. I've

> called you no name. Polarizing, mind reading and jumping to conclusions

> are things that are outside Homeopathic training and purview.

>

> Irene, there are other therapies in this world that are more efficient,

> faster and just as permanent in psychological cases than Homeopathy.

>

> Blessings,

>

>

>

>

>

> Irene de Villiers wrote:

>

>

>>Personal digs and name calling are not acceptable behaviour if you want

>>an answer from me.

>>

>>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> 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:

> So far the only thing you've been able to show is that the flu vaccine

> back in 1918 (almost a century ago) wasn't safe.

The problem is more that no vaccine has been shown safe. I see the onus

as the other way round - vaccines need to be proven effective and safe -

not assumed so and others asked to disprove it:-))

Whenever vaccines are compared - not just in past eras of epidemics -

there are current modern ones where the same thing is the case - the

vaccines fall down on the job compared with alternatives like homeopathy.

I did mention that before:-))

The *current* vaccine for TB for example is currently used to no avail

by millions.

> You have not been

> able to show that for today's vaccines.

I have discussed that too. There are many epidemic diseases - and

epidemic ones are mentioned because they have enough numbers of ill

people to show statistical significance - or in the case of vaccination

statistical uselessness.

Malaria in Africa kills huge numbers daily - vaccinated people using

today's vaccines - as does TB in India and other countries where that is

endemic. Those are today's vaccines.

Or visit any cat shelter - they are ALL sick from the vaccines of today :-))

> I've never gotten sick from a

> flu vaccination.

Are you suggesting that this proves their efficacy and safety for all?

How do you know it has not predisposed a chronic disease - I've asked

that before too:-))

Did we come full circle?

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]

With all due respect, shouldn't we consider renaming the group for the

sake of not misleading any new members? To read any new or divergent

points of view one needs to eliminate an awful lot of mail before

sampling what might be of interest to non-believers.

Just a generally benevolent point of view, though I expect those who

still read all mail with the word Longevity in the e-address can expect

an attack from the source of current orthodoxy (which due to exhaustion

of patience I personally simply can no longer click on; a most

unfortunate reality. No- I'm not even curious).

-Lenny

[Guest guest]

a1thighmaster wrote:

> No rememdy is 100% safe nor 100% effective.

A remedy used correctly is both.

The trick is in selecting it correctly.

> Every

> treatment has its risks (even homeopathic ones).

Yes but you are comparing apples and oranges. A twenty minute

aggravation where symptoms might once in a while worsen for that time

before improving is hardly worth writing home about compared to tens of

thousands of deaths per year in USA plus 6 million a year maimed from

medical drugs.

As with any system, inappropriate remedy selection will do nothing good.

If you think taking an aspirin will achieve brain surgery that will also

not be 100% effective:-)

These so-called risks need to be seen in perspective.

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:

> What if the remedy was not prepared and/or stored properly? It may

> have become contaminated.

What if the aspirin/tamoxifen/etc was not prepared and/or stored

properly? It may have been contaminated.

Same idea.

We were not talking about contaminated drugs were we?

That would be a new subject?

> The rememdy might also be improperly chosen by an incompetent

> homeopath

Likewise an incompetent doctor for conventional drugs. At least the

homeopathic ones don't kill and maim, like the regular ones when ill

chosen - or even when well chosen!

> (and there seem to be many of them)

Only due to consumer apathy. It's not that hard to look for a proper

credential from a proper school. You do that for plumbers, police and

electricians - why not for something as important as one's health?

Have you written to your state legislature to ask that homeopaths who

are properly qualified get recognition as such at state level as doctors

and vets do? It's up to the consumer to get that done, if they want to

easily be able to know who's who in that field. There are certifications

required in many professions which are managed as to quality, by

respected members of the profession in question.

I would certainly support that, but until that happens it is

appropriate and relevant to discuss the homeopath's qualifications and

schooling instead, and to look for referrals to ones who know their

stuff. Would you not do that with your doctor if anyone could call

themselves a doctor instead of at least being licensed at a specific level?

> so it might worsen a

> situation.

That does not follow. In 30 years of practice I have handled many cases

bungled by so-called homeopaths and the situation usually does not

worsen - I have seen it once only that a remedy was grafted due to the

client taking it in crazy doses for years at a time with no change.

It isn't usual for someone to take a remedy " for ever " when it is

obviously doing nothing for them - but that's what it takes to induce

symptoms from a remedy that are more than transient.

If one was to take the wrong dose of the wrong drug, it would do a

lot more damage in a lot less time.

Malpractice is no different in one profession than another from an

ethical perspective - but to suggest that because there are fly by night

operators, the profession is useless, is hardly a logical result!

If we did that we'd have no doctors, no electricians, no plumbers, etc.

Instead we make them achieve a minimal level before we call them

qualified. Homeopathy needs the same approach - and till then onus is on

the consumer to do their homework.

It's not hard to write to the biggest homeopathy school on the

planet to ask for help with that:

info@...

> No remedy or treatment is 100% safe nor 100% effective . .

> . none.

Not true. The remedy and treatment I had for gangrene, breast cancer,

plantar's fasciitis, and a host of other things, was in every case, 100%

safe and 100% effective.

Conventional treatment drugs correctly chosen, are never 100% safe or

100% effective because they are allopathic - they go *against* the

system, they do not put it back to normal like a correctly chosen

homeopathic remedy. Your prejudice against drugs and their ability and

safety is valid in allopathy - but not in homeopathy which works by

different " normalizing as nature does " principles.

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:

> Homeopathic remedies can kill and/or maim if they do not work

They do not kill or maim :-))

If they do not work, the person should have enough brains to figure that

out - or if they do not have that minimal functional grey matter, then

they would need a caregiver anyway who should have the brains to figure

out that a remedy is not working and do something different - like find

a real homeopath or use allopathy etc.

But no - the wrong remedy does not kill. A wrong drug kills.

Stupidity can kill regardless of method used :-))

Even herbs only (accidentlally) kill 40 people world-wide per year

through misuse.

Doctors kill hundreds of thousands with prescriptions they write, just

in USA alone and by their own admission in published hospital data.

There are no homeopathy death statistics - the remedies are not

dangerous enough to warrant any.

Where's your sense of proportion?

I get the impression you are arguing for the sake of arguing and not

with any data or point. You just want to " be right " regardless whether

your 'argument' makes any sense or not.

It's a pity to downgrade the discussion here to that?

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 Homeopath,

I've heard these arguments of yours before as they are not at all

uncommon in other " healing " professions. The insistence is that the

" real " part of the business are the practitioners who've paid the

largest dollars for training/education/certification, and that is where

people really must go, or if they are not " cured " then it's only

themselves to blame. This exclusivity posture props up a particular

segment of the practice as worthy of the highest fees, and argues that

this segment, and this segment only, should be utilized at all. This is

hardly a novel " technique " . In fact it is the very argument used some

years ago by the arrogant blood-letting lettered doctors of that day

against any and all " alternative " efforts at healing- yours included.

(Yes, yes- some knowledge of the matter is clearly important, so skip

that retort. It evades the point here.)

I'm not surprised that you'd endlessly push this argument as you'd no

more fail to display this cluster of letters after your name than a

police officer would fail to display his badge. (Admittedly a poor

analogy.) Half your argument is your credentials and the rest is your

insistence that homeopathy is a flat-out panacea- if done by a " real "

homeopath, of course.

And for goodness sake, your personal attacks are not only predictable,

they are almost amusing. You reveal your frustration by inevitably

accusing people of what you yourself are invariably guilty of. If

someone has a point of view that differs from yours, you seem to see

this as not yielding to you, and then it is somehow they who is " arguing

for arguments sake " . (That is a " personal " attack if ever there was one,

by the way.)

The woman currently daring (the audacity) to differ from you apparently

has no inclination to participate with you in this " personal " thing you

do so enjoy introducing to discussion, so I thought I'd take a shot. I

don't mind. It's not below me at all.

With your abrasive manner, you appear to me to be somewhat of a walking

case against any serious consideration (or re-consideration) of

homeopathy, assuming one were one so inclined in the first place.

So there...... :-)

-Lenny

[Guest guest]

LBrucian@... wrote:

> Dear Homeopath,

> I've heard these arguments of yours before as they are not at all

> uncommon in other " healing " professions. The insistence is that the

> " real " part of the business are the practitioners who've paid the

> largest dollars for training/education/certification, and that is where

> people really must go, or if they are not " cured " then it's only

> themselves to blame. This exclusivity posture props up a particular

> segment of the practice as worthy of the highest fees,

You talk a lot of nonsense with nothing behind it.

The good homeopaths DID pay a lot to get educated but it is the

charlatans that charge the clients a lot.

Do some investigation before you point fingers at people who are the

epitome of kindness and compassion with their clients.

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.