karen

Hey there apepch7. You can make a dynamized remedy ("homeopathic") out of coffee, and at a very low potency it will help the weaning process. The same can be done for weaning off a drug. Put one drop of coffee or a tiny bit of ground coffee into a dropper bottle or jar. Fill up the bottle half way, ratio of water to substance roughtly 100:1. Succuss it at least 50 times or more (rap it against your palm or an upholstered chair). Now you have a 1C potency. One drop of that is one dose, and you can take many doses throughout the day or as needed. Coffee craving can be a need for phosphorus, sulphur, salt (living salt not dead table salt), or iron, so you might consider foods that contain those. Also you could just sit with the feeling you get when you crave coffee, and explore what that emotion is really about . Take care, Karen P.S. EFT can also be helpful.

Hagar, Any action you take to try to make amends is going to be like a palliative drug that masks symptoms but doesn't heal the underlying situation. You could run around doing all sorts of good works and make your false ego feel better. Or, you could focus more on finding forgiveness within yourself. As you work with that, I think you'll naturally be drawn to actions that resonate. It sounds like this triggered a deep issue for you, and it's beyond intellectualizing that it was the appropriate thing to do. I'd suggest contacting the deeper emotions - what buttons does this push for you, that have nothing to do with bees. The bees might just be the helpers who are leading you to open up more to yourself. Everyone has a beehive in their inner closet. Blessings. Karen

Since we've been talking about allopathic medicine and alternatives and deciding which to use, I thought I'd share a bit of personal history that illustrates why I made the choices I did. Twelve years ago, I was in septic shock (blood poisoning), and would have died in a matter of hours or minutes if I wasn't in the ICU where Vancomycin and massive fluids were being pumped into my bloodstream, and a machine was breathing for me. Everything that was done over the 10 days I was there, and the following month that I was on the regular hospital ward being treated for the complications of that intervention (lungs filled with fluid, congestive heart failure, cardiomyopathy, etc.), were absolutely necessary. The reason I developed septicemia to begin with was because I had a catheter going into a major vein to the heart, and that became infected. For 10 years I had had multiple tubes surgically implanted in my chest for intravenous feeding, since I couldn't digest enough on my own to sustain myself. I was being treated by the best TCM practitoners, and doing spiritual practices for years already at that point. But I kept declining, and being near death from starvation, I found out about and immediately chose the life-saving intervention courtesy of mainstream medicine. The question isn't which approach is generally right or wrong.. In a rational system of medicine, there really aren't two opposing camps, mainstream or alternative, but an understanding of which approach is appropriate for any given situation. And usually it's not an either/or choice, but a matter of understanding where each tool fits in. When the body is being assaulted and acutely overwhelmed by microbes, then life-saving measures are needed to kill them and suppress the symptoms. In such an extreme situation, the natural healing power of the body that would otherwise come into play with methods that balance, just can't compete with the invader, and you have to rush in with anti-pathic measures not just homeo-pathic. After I was out of the woods, I had a long recovery, but allopathic medicine had nothing to offer there. It continued to keep me alive with intravenous white liquid "nutrition" pouring into my veins, but even then, my body was starting to reject the catheters. It was time to sink or swim, shit or get off the pot. Conventional medicine had nothing to offer to take me past that impasse, nothing to help me overcome the complex, underlying problems. I had been researching natural healing relentlessly, and continued having just about every type of treatment no matter how obscure (which I had been doing before, since around 1980). Nothing touched it, including classical homeopathy that I had for about 8 solid years. But after a little over a year with a system that could map out the homeopathic remedies I needed in the sequence I needed them, my 10-year dependence on intravenous feeding was over. I no longer needed to be a full time medical patient, and I had my appetite and my body back again. (Living without tubes for the first time in 10 years brought a profound experience of gratitude, although I actually learned something about gratitude first while in the ICU, where the circumstances pushed me to discover that grace is everywhere even in that horrendous experience) The system I used helped to remove the underlying disturbances and provided the map I needed for the real journey of deep healing. But it's not exclusive of mainstream medicine - it incorporates the understanding of "jurisdiction" - If you're bleeding uncontrollably, or if you're in septic shock, you get to the hospital. Ideally, a homeopath could be there in addition to give remedies that are brilliant for shortening recovery time from all sorts of acute injuries, infections, etc. And then to brilliantly address the deeper issues over the longer run. I became a homeopath not because of an attachment to it or an emotionally charged aversion to drugs, but because I recognized a kernel of truth there. Through formal study, I began to understand its real jurisdiction. So I do my best to keep developing my capacity to resonate with the truth, wherever that takes me, without attachment to a particular tool. On a lighter note!... <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value=" name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src=" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object>

Hi Scotty, I'm sorry you feel that way. I have a feeling that there are many people who want to look at different views, and I'm sure that not all views are seen as useful to everyone. That's how it is when talking in a public forum where it's somewhat impersonal and you're not getting cues from the other person as you're talking. Yet, someone may be lurking who will be resonating with what you're saying. Best, Karen

Magitek, I know some of your questions were asked rhetorically, but I think there really are practical answers to them anyway . I think it's actually an important point - how do we know what we know, and is there a difference between truth and belief. I think that a true medical system has to be scientific and systematic rather than completely empirical. But the conventional system is limited to materialism and anything that's happening outside of the material realm is just not within its radar. If a system is based on empiricism and looking at the results in each case, then you have to ask, what does it mean to get favorable results as opposed to unfavorable results? If a treatment "worked" for you, how do you know whether it simply calmed down the symptoms temporarily but left the (hidden) cause of the problem to continue to develop? This is the trouble with evaluating a treatment or approach based on "what works for me." In order to make sense of things there has to be a map of the territory, an underlying system of principles based on laws of nature to guide our choices. Using such a map, I would say that the things that Smile mentioned all fall into a certain category of things that strengthen the life force and shore up the natural defenses of the body. We can understand the principle behind doing that, and know that that helps us reduce our susceptibility to infectious disease. All such supplements and treatment methods use the "law of opposites" (remove excesses or fill deficiences to restore balance) to support the system. But if you want to remove an energetic disturbance - and that is based on a different principle of nature - you would need to use remedies based on the law of similars, not the law of opposites. And similarly, if you want to use the principle of vaccination - which means to stimulate your body against a particular disease, you need to use the law of similars. In practice, you can use both - vaccinate, plus support the system. But they are two different, complementary principles. The difference between allopathic medicine and natural medicine - well, it's hard to generalize about natural medicine. But an allopathic drug will generally suppress symptoms and create a chronic energetic disturbance in the process. Something like the zapper may kill microbes, but it doesn't leave an energetic disturbance in the way that an antibiotic drug would. That's one important difference. The reason why people using the zapper might have a worsening of their condition later is because the microbe wasn't the real cause of the disease, so killing it may help with symptoms temporarily but it doesn't pull up the roots of the disease, which are lodged in the etheric, energetic body. Mostly people are trying to make symptoms go away without understanding the difference between the causative level of disease and the symptoms that are the *result* of that. It's important to be able to identify cause vs. effect and know what is being treated. -Karen Edit: I should clarify.. when I used the term "vaccinate" above, I meant to vaccinate according to natural law, which is very different from the allopathic vaccine. And about the zapper, that can be very useful as a supportive measure but can't remove the cause of disease.

Thanks for finding/posting that article! Using Oscillo or Influenzinum, or remedies based on the specific symptom picture can usually be done on one's own for this type of first-aid/acute homeopathy, and it can be very empowering for people to learn the basics of that. Although for prophylaxis it's best to have a skilled practitioner decide on the proper remedies, dosage and potency for the individual. And to monitor any reactions and adjust treatment accordingly. If the person has had the flu vaccine in the past, taking a homeopathic vaccine could trigger a healing reaction that could be difficult to know how to handle otherwise. (I'm not offering this at the moment but can refer anyone who's interested to a practitioner who does and can work by phone consult).

Hi A, Then you might also be interested in the other videos there by pleromicproductions, especially the series on polio. It's fascinating to me, to see a different view that challenges certain perceptions we've grown very attached to. Wild, natural polio is very different from the paralytic polio that we know of, and that's a good place to start asking questions about what that paralytic polio really is and what effect the polio vaccine had. Often when the subject comes up with various people, I ask them how much they know about vaccines - where they got their information, and how do they know that they're safe and effective. Most people, including myself until I decided to make a study of it, realize that what they know about this is what the "authorities" have always said, a kind of belief system that we grew up with. For most people, that taps into some very deep issues of safety and security. So I think that looking for the truth with this kind of issue is usually not just a matter of doing the research and discerning facts with an unbiased mind, but it requires a whole inner process of confronting fear and the whole issue of how we feel safe - do we depend on belief in outer authority and borrow a false sense of security, or do we develop a true sense of security from within. And it's not an either/or, and most of us are somewhere in that process of spiritual development. So I have a great respect for the difficulty of that personal, emotional challenge and what it takes for people to go through that process consciously. Karen

Hi BrainDance, I think that differing viewpoints are what discussion is all about.. and I don't think discussion is ever dangerous - I never suggested that I was giving medical advice - actually, the discussion has been largely about people taking responsibility for their own health care decisions. I do think it's important for people to have input they can use in making their own decisions, and to do their own research. In short posts like these, it's not possible to present exhaustive research but to point to ideas that people may not have come across before, or expand on ones they have, and if they want to follow up and consider them, fine. Maybe you're reading into my posts an agenda that isn't there. What I promote is thinking . Not mandates that prevent freedom of choice - even if the mandate was for homeopathy. I don't promote any belief system but support people making personal, conscious choices. Can I afford to be wrong - I honestly don't think I have as much power as you seem to think . There's a vast body of evidence that supports what I've briefly summarized, and I only intended to talk about that. For those who want to follow public policy whatever it may be, all ideas to the contrary can be easily dismissed. For those who want to challenge the assumptions that don't add up, they can do their research. The issue of how vaccines have affected (or haven't affected) infectious disease, historically, is rife with statistical error. We can either just accept the statistics as they're being handed to us, or examine them more closely. explains exactly how the statistical error happens, and I haven't seen this explained so clearly anywhere else. What I think is dangerous to consciousness is the fear that if people start doing their own research they'll make dangerously false conclusions. That leaves us like children dependent on parent-like health authorities to tell us what's best for us. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't trust anyone, but a healthy state of mind relies on one's own judgment and resonance with ideas. I sincerely hope you can come to terms with the issue in whatever way resolves it for you. Best, Karen

Exactly. They're conflating correlation with causation. A virus shows up at the scene of a crime - do we blame the virus in all cases? Strange that they blame the virus for the whole course of the illness, when the person may be in a weakened condition to begin with, and usually has also had dozens of highly toxic chemicals pumped into them which suppresses the immune system and the body's ability to throw off a self-limiting illness. Yup, because this is more about politics than science. Real science would be rigorously investigating those questions, even though it may be too soon to know all the answers. But material medicine doesn't even have the means to distinguish the real nature of one disease from another - all it can do is look at the outer symptoms and group them into arbitrarily defined conditions. That's how the disease called influenza is difficult to distinguish from other diseases that cause flu-like symptoms. If a microbe is found to be correlated with a particular condition, it's assumed to be causative. There's no real understanding of causation - because material science limits itself to the material realm, whereas the causative level is etheric, or energetic. We can, though, use a principled system of disease classification based on true causation, and know that it doesn't matter so much what's going on on the symptom level with this flu. It might be different from natural flu but the essence of the disease is energetically the same for all cases of influenza. Dr. Hahnemann called this a "constant wesen" disease - its essential nature is the same in all cases. It's possible for a skilled practitioner to see into a particular case and know whether it's actually influenza or symptoms related to other diseases. Even when the constant disease can't be known, we can treat based on the unique symptom picture in each case. With the natural flu, every year the viral strain is different anyway, but the law of similars is forgiving and we can use it prophylactically and to treat the disease if it manifests (which it almost always doesn't for those who've had the homeopathic vaccine .

A, I think that's exactly it - the agenda is being promoted with no interest in engaging any critical thinking. I saw a TV interview with some people who wanted to do some critical thinking on the vaccine issue. They were just saying, let's take an unbiased look at this, rationally, and examine the assumptions we've been told. Fair enough? The head of some major pediatric medical association was there, and all she could do was to defend "policy." The other people asked her how she responds to the fact that in Europe many of these vaccines are banned.. (and a thinking person would be interested in looking at that). But she could only reply with non-sequiturs about "policy." She actually said that she had no concern about what other countries do, because "this is what we have decided." It almost sounded like a child's retort, "Just because!" People often say they're too scared to go against policy or the doctor's orders. Well, personally I'd be more scared to go against irrationality . But it's a personal choice, and many people choose to indulge fear. -Karen

Hi Scotty, I understand your thought about my statement about people not dying from the flu - in a short post it's just not possible to lay out the whole background for such statements, so I'm sorry if you found the quick extracts lacking! I do happen to be sure of the principle behind the statement, though. We don't need to wait for empirical evidence in order to be able to have knowledge of principles of nature and the nature of disease. Although I never advise anyone personally to make a particular health care choice - that has to be their own decision based on what they're comfortable with. We need to be our own authority and decide what's right on an individual basis - not to adopt beliefs based on what government authorities say, nor what independent health consultants say There's a huge problem in trying to assess what happened when someone died who had the flu. What was the condition of their immune system before - did they have autoimmune disease; were they weakend by vaccinations and suppressive drugs? Did they die of the flu, or of pneumonia, and if the flu was treated without suppressive drugs might it have resolved without leading to pneumonia?.. -Karen

Hi A! The hysteria is here in the US too. This really plays in to irrational fear, even with people who consider themselves thinking people. There is just no way that people die from the flu per se, whether natural or produced in a lab. They die from complications arising from allopathic drugging. And flu-like symptoms can come from a multitude of causes, so what they're calling the flu is often not. What a statistical mess! Pretty interesting fact: Looking at the 1918 flu epidemic, none of the homeopathically treated patients died, whereas the deaths were among those who were treated with aspirin. So the population starts out being weakened because they're heavily vaccinated already. Then people develop fevers, but the natural healing power of the body to expel the disease is being suppressed with antipyretics and antibiotics, or now the antivirals - now that's a recipe for serious complications. On a brighter note, I'm doing well, thanks, hope you are too! Karen

I put up a site gathering together some of the best articles and links on the subject. More is being added. The Truth About Vaccines - The Dangers and the Alternatives

This website has lots of documentation. http://www.powerwatch.org.uk/science/studies.asp

It depends on how far away you are from it. I've tested my laptop with a Tri-field meter, and the EMF's are very high, but by about 6 inches away they drop off, which is why I use an external keyboard.