Dabblings on the theme of sea and sand and photographing same.......

Dealing with rejection as a writer....

How does one deal with rejection as a writer?

The simple reality is that success and talent are not synonymous and never have been. Good and great writing gets rejected and bad writing gets accepted. It has ever been so. Of course you can learn lessons and you will learn lessons but that does not mean that success will come.

Many of those writers which are now called 'great' were rejected for years; many were not published until after they were dead. In a hoax a few years ago submissions using the work of some great writers were sent to agents and publishers and all were rejected. Can you imagine James Joyce and Ulysses even getting a look-in these days when the fashion is for 'shopping list' writing? He was serially and seriously rejected in his time until someone actually recognised brilliance but today he would be unlikely to be accepted by anyone.

Which raises the other issues which relate to whether or not one is rejected or accepted and first on the list is, taste, or 'fashion.' With the death and dearth of brave and brilliant literary agents and publishers - although the developments online are helping improve this situation - it is the market which drives decisions. In other words, what the agents and publishers believe will sell is what matters, not the quality of the writing.

So your writing may be utterly brilliant, but not to the 'taste' of agents, publishers and the market at this point in time. Rejections will push many to make a decision as to whether or not they continue to write in their own unique and distinct way, no matter if they are never accepted, or whether they will try to change their style to 'suit' the fashion. The latter choice will not gaurantee acceptance either. Which brings me to the other factor at work and that is fate.

Returning to the stark reality that success and talent are not synonymous, and never have been, in any field, takes one to the issue of fate, destiny and plain old dumb luck. There are countless brilliant writers, poets, singers, artists, lawyers, architects - pick a profession or creative skill - out there who will never succeed. There are some who will, alongside lots of mediocre if not incompetent others.

So while there may be valuable lessons to learn which may bring acceptance and success for some, for most there will not. And the only lesson left is to enjoy what you do, speak in your own true voice, gain satisfaction from your creative expression and leave the rest to fate.

My words are for those who are in it for the long haul. Many people do fall in the face of rejection because for some, acceptance may be minimal or even not at all.

Anyone who is called to write and  who faces the possibility or the experience of being rejected in the main for decades needs to reach a place of acceptance and dedication to the writing art for itself.

 It is not easy to write without the encouragement of acceptance and publication. It is like spending days preparing a fabulous meal and having no-one eat but never telling you why. Too hot, too cold, too salty, too foreign, too plain, too rich. And when someone does like it but wants no more than a taste and is unable or unwilling to 'consume' the whole 'meal' it doesn't really mean much.

 It takes enormous courage and dedication, or perhaps pig-headedness, to write without the support of acceptance and in the face of constant rejection.  Writing is perhaps unique in that all that effort can be for virtually nothing in any real sense. You can self-publish and put it on a shelf, sure, but even with a painting, sculpture and other creative arts, you can give your work away as a gift, hand it over to someone who sees it and says they like it, hang it on the wall, put it on a shelf and have it receive an occasional admiring look – not so with books of prose or poetry. They must be picked up and read.

My hat goes off to and my heart goes out to writers who write for their soul, with no acceptance and the possibility they will never get it. A sense of humour and a sense of perspective in regard to life is invaluable. :)

At the end of your life, the quality of your creative expression will not be important, no matter how much of a success or failure society might deem you to be; who you were, are and how you lived your life as a person first and writer second will be what matters, to you and to everyone else you touched.

Would you let someone cut the wires to the warning light in your car..?

If a warning light came on in your car and you took it along to the technician and the advice was: 'I can fix that. I will just cut the wires and the light will go off.'

Would you think that was a sensible solution, after all, the light would no longer be on, or would you think they were mad?

Well, that is the approach most of modern medicine takes to symptoms, the 'warning lights' of the body. They 'cut' the connection with a knife or they 'cut' it with a drug and if the 'warning light disappears' they think and so does the patient, that the job is done.

But what would the result be if that is the approach you took to your car? Eventually it would break down. Little wonder then that serious disease and chronic illness is dramatically on the rise in those societies which have the most medical treatments. People should be healthier, not sicker. Remember the car!

Selling brand Russell - idiocy writ large.

Russell Brand uses a lot of words to say nothing very much at all. One example of the efficacy of voting is that in Australia it is compulsory and while the political system is far from perfect, Government is and always has been, pretty effective and society, has been comparatively, more balanced. The least effective societies are those where the least people vote; the most dysfunctional and unjust are those where people are not and were not allowed to vote!

Brand of course is talking about the US where things are worse and trying to project it onto the UK where he doesn't live and has never voted anyway.

He calls for revolution with absolutely no idea of what mythical, fantastical system can replace democracy - one where no-one has to vote, clearly in his opinion that doesn't work, and where wealth is equally distributed - fall about laughing - who is going to make that happen, particularly in the US where inequality is the greatest and where most Americans are armed to the teeth -  and where there is less injustice.

And given that the place most in need of change is the US, which strictly speaking is not a democracy anyway, but a constitutional republic, how on earth does Brand think that change can be brought about without violent revolution? All those guns again. All that fear and hatred of Government which is so particular to Americans. The US is largely ungovernable as it is so just who and how is the current system to be changed if not through voting?

Is he suggesting the rich and powerful will just hand over and share? Is he suggesting that Americans, or anyone for that matter, will say sure, let's end voting and let's ponder what we replace our system with? Is he suggesting that the military take charge - plenty of historical evidence for that - all of it bloody?

Just how, without a system where citizens can register their opinion, a vote, can any system be changed without violence? And never more so than in the US where 300million guns, including military assault weapons, are in the hands of most Americans who live in fear of just such a scenario. Any such move would make most Americans as fanatical as the Preppers.

But in terms of Brand's wishlist, sure, everyone wants a better world, more justice and equality. That would be great - bring it on but the reason no-one has any system which could bring that about is because it is simply impossible. Brand like so many has no perspective on history - at this point in time, the evil, developed, democratic world and the influence it has on the undeveloped world means, more people on a percentage basis live with more freedom and quality of life than at any other time in history.

That would be great - bring it on but the reason no-one has any system which could bring that about is because it is simply impossible. Brand like so many has no perspective on history - at this point in time, the evil, developed, democratic world and the influence it has on the undeveloped world means, more people on a percentage basis live with more freedom and quality of life than at any other time in history.

'But it isn't perfect,' moans Brand. 'No, it isn't but it is far better than it was and far better than in countries where people don't vote.'

Only an idiot calls for revolution, they are never pretty and always violent, without having some idea of what might be put in place after the revolution.

Brand may sound intelligent, and maybe he is, but he doesn't have a shred of common sense which is far more important. Neither does he, living in the US, really have any idea of how well democracies can work in other developed nations.

But, if he makes people think and talk about their society and their political system then all to the good. We do need to improve things but only backward and fear-ridden societies believe it needs revolution. The revolutionary approach was what brought democracy to birth in the first place. A little bit of knowledge can be a dangerous thing and never more so than in the mind and mouth of the rich and famous.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-10-29/berg-voting-is-futile-but-elections-are-necessary/5052418

The body is electric.....

Science/medicine rejects medical methodologies like Homeopathy which utilise energy healing and yet:



The existence of strong electric fields across cellular membranes is accepted as a basic fact of cell biology. The fact that cells have internal electric fields as well, however, is a whole new revelation.

Scientists previously did not know of the existence of internal cellular energy fields, and are just in the earliest stages of understand the phenomenon. Kopelman presented his results at the annual meeting of the American Society for Cell Biology this month. "There has been no skepticism as to the measurements," says Kopelman. "But we don't have an interpretation."

Daniel Chu of the University of Washington in Seattle agrees that Kopelman's work provides proof of concept that cells have internal electric fields. "It's bound to be important, but nobody has looked at it yet," Chu says.

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/06/human-cells-hav.html

Homeopathy is energy medicine

Homeopathy is energy medicine - the body is an energy field manifesting in material form. To quote:

'That Western medicine has not yet embraced modern field theories as fundamental and transforming speaks to a bureaucratically and economically driven medical system, an entrenched politics and a professional conservatism.

Nevertheless, there has been an explosion of research just outside the precinct of conventional medicine that is based on the body as an energy field, affirming that the material structure of the body is a secondary phenomenon of the primary and generative energy field that sustains it.

Some recent research goes so far as to propose that our human consciousness can, in some respects, be considered the field becoming aware of itself.

These sophisticated theories suggest a new description of disease as a field disturbance first and foremost, manifesting only secondarily as a pathology. In other words, illness arises from the field before it manifests in the material structure of the body.

So if we really wish to understand the problem of illness, and want to effect real change in our health, it is at the field level - the energy level - that we must begin.'

The Unbroken Field, by Dr Michael Greenwood. Trained at St. John's College Cambridge and St Mary's Hospital, London, he is also trained in Traditional Chinese Medicine, Ayurveda and Meditation.

Only a fool keeps doing the same thing and expects a different result......

I know I keep harping on about the damage done by science/medicine but I happen to believe it is important.

In this day and age, particularly in the First World which has no excuses, people should have better health not worse. And the simple fact is people do have worse health and it gets even worse by the day, week, month and year.

Children in particular have never been so sick, have never had such high cancer rates, have never had such high allergy rates, have never had such high asthma rates and have never had such poorly functioning immune systems. Something is very, very wrong and it won't be set to rights until people recognise that something is very, very wrong.

What we call modern medicine, although it has many barbaric and backward qualities, or Allopathy, has been promising for more than a century that it will cure this or cure that or rid the world of this disease or that disease and yet what has happened - all of it has not only come to nothing, but the diseases it told us it would conquer are back and in force. It has failed utterly.

Of course it has brilliant skills, but only where its mechanistic/materialistic mindset can be applied. Reconstructive surgery is thoroughly wonderful; treatment in a crisis or emergency is exceptional, although it may create problems for later down the track, but in the moment of greatest need, it does perform, and, and, and.... well that is about it!

Allopathy treats many things which were once considered untreatable, certainly after the Christian church was instrumental in killing off the women who practised medicine, but it doesn't cure. Or rather, it very rarely cures.

How often do you meet someone who says: I went to the doctor for my arthritis, diabetes, eczema, heart palpitations and I was cured? You don't. You meet people who are being treated for these conditions and who are never cured.

How often does a doctor hand over a prescription and say: You will need to take these for the rest of your life? Often. Too often. That is not medicine. That is not healing. That is seeking to manage a symptom and chronic illness.

And yet with such an approach Allopathy pats itself on the back and maintains its practice of Fear-based medicine and the public swallows the huge pill of delusion, along with the half dozen or more daily pharmaceuticals, and staggers into the unhealthy future.

Why on earth do people put up with it? Because they are frightened. Because they are terrified of taking responsibility for their own health. Because they believe the propaganda spewed out by  Allopathy, because that means someone else is responsible for their health and it is easier. Do what the doctor tells you and it will never be your fault.

And much of Allopathy is blame oriented - against the patient that is. It is the patient's fault that antibiotics are abused and overused because the poor doctor has to write out the prescription because that is what the patient wants! Ridiculous. Doctors are very good at saying no when it suits them but not for something like antibiotics. Why not? Even more so now as we face the reality of how Allopathy has squandered this wonderful and life-saving resource. Well, it isn't all their fault, science has played a part encouraging its use in the food production industry but doctors have been out there at the front since antibiotics were first discovered.

Don't get me wrong, Allopathy has brought comfort and new lives to many people where it restores sight, hearing, re-attaches limbs, repairs broken parts - all areas which fall into the mechanistic where Allopathy excels because it is the foundation of the methodology - but when it comes to sickness, beyond the immediate crisis, it fails more often than not.

And one thing it does not do is make or keep people healthy. And since healthy people do not get sick very often then keeping people healthy should be the main focus of any medical methodology. It is of Homeopathy and TCM! And Allopathy says this is what it does but the reality demonstrates the opposite.

All those vaccinations, all those antibiotics, all those invasive tests and procedures and in the First World, where all of those things are most available, and more people see more doctors more often,  people are sicker than they have ever been before. Syphilis is back, so is tuberculosis, gonorrhea and now rickets and a host of other diseases which plagued the past - whatever modern medicine is doing it is not keeping people well and in fact is probably instrumental in making them sick.

Why with more medicine, more drugs, more vaccinations, more tests, more procedures is human health deteriorating and Iatrogenic, doctor or medical induced now the third biggest killer after heart disease and cancer?

Why, if modern medicine is all it says it is have cancer rates risen, not dropped, risen from one in ten in 1900 when people actually lived with poorer sanitation and nutrition, to one in two today when people live with better nutrition and sanitation and when modern medicine is supposedly there to help.

Why have chronic illnesses like diabetes increased astronomically? Why have childhood cancers increased at even greater rates than adults? Why have chronic illnesses like asthma increased astronomically, particularly in children? Why are allergies endemic and disabling in the First World - the world which gets the most and supposedly the best medicine?

We live in a time when medicine meddles more than it has ever done before, from birth to death and a time when more people suffer from ill health and spend their lives with chronic illness which is never cured, only maintained, monitored and maybe managed. Something is wrong.

The medical claim is that people live longer but surely the important thing is that people live better and healthier lives. Who wants a long life of chronic suffering? Apart from which the data on which longevity rests in arrogant stance is skewed by higher rates of infant and child mortality in the past caused by poor nutrition and poor sanitation. Health rates began to improve from the moment nutrition and sanitation improved, not from the time modern medicine came into being with its vaccines, pharmaceuticals, tests and procedures.

Tests and procedures I might add, which, with the recent research, are being shown to do more harm than good as often as not. The entire system of testing is yet another aspect of the massive profit machine which is modern medicine. It is also sourced in the narrow and limited mechanistic mindset which makes Allopathy so often ineffective if not destructive.

It is also a part of the Fear and Blame-based nature of Allopathy where you, the patient, are held accountable for your illness because of all the things you have done wrong and you, the patient are appointed to be a security guard to your body, which is in essence, your enemy, the doctor being the soldier/s, and must be watched, mistrusted and feared.

All that time, effort and fear, not to mention guilt, for poorer health than ever. All that money for the science/medical industry!

The nation which has the most vaccinations and consumes most of the world's pharmaceuticals including 80% of the world's painkillers, the US, is also the sickest with the lowest longevity rates.

And surely, if Allopathic medicine was as good as it says it is then hospitals would get smaller, not bigger, because people would be healthier. Hospitals today are the equivalent of the enormous temples and palaces of ancient times - huge edifices which keep rising up faster and faster as people get sicker and sicker.

Logic, pure old fashioned logic and common sense suggest that if doctors really could keep people well then there would be less need for hospitals. And it also suggests that if Allopathy was about health then the system would not now be third on the list of killers. The two others are diseases - one of which Allopathy promised to vanquish decades ago - and for the medical system itself to stand alongside cancer and heart disease as the greatest threat to your life is quite simply, criminal.

Only a fool keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different result.  Modern medicine has been promising to cure this or that and make people healthier for decades and the opposite is the result. Little wonder billions are turning toward traditional medical methodologies like Homeopathy and Traditional Chinese Medicine.

The thing which differentiates Allopathy from all other medical methodologies is the one thing which will ultimately be found to have sabotaged its effectiveness and contributed to its often deadly destructiveness - the belief that the human body is no more than material, a collection of atoms, molecules and chemicals, to be approached as one would a car, washing machine or any other mechanical construction.

What science/medicine so conveniently forgets is that cars and washing machines are made by human beings and they can be stripped down and restored in mechanical fashion, very effectively but human beings are not made - as in designed, created and constructed - by human beings and they cannot be stripped down and restored in mechanical fashion as one would a car.

The Allopathic approach to the human body is quite simply ridiculous. As ridiculous as believing we can 'take apart' a cloud, mountain, ocean, plant and put it back together so it 'runs' more efficiently.

Older medical methodologies were never so stupid or so limited. They took and take the view that the human body is a complete organism and nothing happens in isolation - everything is connected and only when that fact is taken into account can there be true and lasting - the operative word here being lasting - healing. That means cured; not in remission, not in a state of chronic ill-health; not on medication for the rest of your life; not having checkups every few months or years - cured, end of story, cured!

Allopathy services bodies in the same way a car is serviced although such an approach works far better with a car than a body. And therein lies the utter failure of so much of what is called modern medicine.

The simple fact is this, if you want to be well, stay as far away from your doctor as possible and take responsibility for your own health; treat your body with the respect and consideration that it deserves, and if you are unwell, unless it is a crisis, explore every other medical methodology first and leave the Allopaths until last. 




Iatrogenic Disease: The 3rd Most Fatal Disease in the USA Ronald Grisanti D.C., D.A.B.C.O., D.A.C.B.N., M.S.

Iatrogenic Disease is defined as a disease that is caused by medical treatment. http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/335.cfm

The efficacy of Homeopathy

The band of fanatics who seek to discredit Homeopathy are best ignored. But the propaganda and lies they present are worth addressing for the sake of society in general and the ill in particular.

In reality 'word of mouth' is the most important way to get a message across and Homeopathy has always had that and will always have that.

But it is also important to have information to hand which can be presented to inform others about Homeopathy.

The Healing Paradox, by Steven Goldsmith, MD, a psychiatrist and homeopathy is well worth reading, as is The Impossible Cure, by Amy Lansky.

But Dr Goldsmith has put his information in very coherent form and I present some of it here in terms of dismissing the most common claim by naysayers, that Homeopathy only ever functions as a placebo effect:


. remedies have cured infants of innumerable maladies, and infants do not respond to placebos;

. remedies have cured animals (there are even homeopathic veterinarians) which also do not respond to placebos;

. remedies have affected the growth of plants, also not placebo responders;

. remedies have cured unconscious people, who regained consciousness and recovered from their illnesses, and placebos cannot affect unconscious people;

. remedies have cured people of conditions not responsive to placebo, such as cholera, typhus, yellow fever, tuberculosis, tumours, traumatic brain injury, severe depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia - meaning the patients got well and stayed well;

. remedies have cured many sceptics, who are unlikely to respond to placebos;

. remedies have cured some who have been unaware they have even received a remedy, such as alcoholics, into whose bottles spouses slipped remedies;

. a patient may not respond to a remedy for a chronic condition for one to several weeks, and such a delay is not consistent with a placebo effect, which tends to be immediate;

. before many patients feel better from a remedy, they may have a period of symptomatic aggravation - also not characteristic of a placebo response;

. remedies have cured those not previously cured by conventional drugs or by previous remedies (thus leading to the question, if the patient is a placebo responder and the current remedy is only a placebo, why were the previous ineffective remedies and the chemical drugs not placebos?);

. in multiple provings of the same remedy around the world, different subjects, unaware of the identity of the remedy tested, manifest similar symptoms, an almost impossible coincidence if remedies are only placebos and thus guided in their effects by wishful thinking alone;

. an ever-growing body of well designed research demonstrates the efficacy of homeopathy.

He also cites two reasonably objective and thorough meta-analyses  published in respected antipathic medical journals. (Antipathic is the word Dr Goldsmith has coined for conventional or modern medicine and what Homeopathy calls Allopathic Medicine. Allopathic means other and antipathic means against.)

The first appeared in 1991. The authors, a group of non-homeopath Dutch investigators found that in 105 trials with interpretable results, remedies were effective in 81 or 77% of the total. They then analysed the 22 best studies, finding that 15, or 68% showed remedies to be effective.

In another analysis of the medical literature, a group of German and American collaborators rigorously analysed the methods and results of 89 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies of remedies.  They found that remedies were 2.45 times more likely to help people than were placebos. Unfortunately they grouped the studies in antipathic fashion according tot he type of ailments treated which compromised the results.  Homeopathy does not prescribe for a symptom as allopathy does but for an individual.

Don't be a lab rat, eat real food

Do not take the word of science/medicine. Listen to what they say, do some research and then apply common sense and you will probably dismiss what they have said.

 Many of us, never swallowed (pun not intended) the rot about margarine decades ago and continued to opt for products which were as close to natural as possible, as opposed to the hideous (taste and content) of the chemical concoction produced in a laboratory and called margarine or those chemical hybrids of spreadable  butter, and now, yet again, science/medicine begins to change its mind.

 Well, it has been changing its mind on margarine for  a few years now but the margarine industry has a lot of people well and truly hooked. So is the damage done by science/medicine sourced in the materialistic, mechanistic, data and statistic (remember lies and statistics) driven paradigm.

Go back to butter and enjoy it. And opt for full cream milk and give up those hideous low-fat, non-fat chemical concoctions which are made for lab rats not humans.

http://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/oct/22/butter-cheese-saturated-fat-heart-specialist

Antibiotics are destroying health.....

Chronic ill health is rising and major diseases have increased massively with more illness and chronic illness in children than ever before.

I suspect it will be found that the abuse and overuse of antibiotics, which should only ever be used in life and death situations, is the major culprit, particularly when so many are given to babies and children and doctors have encouraged parents to fear temperatures in their children when higher temperature is a part of the body's healing system.

"It is ironic that this humbled fungus, hailed as a benefactor of mankind, may by its very success prove to be a deciding factor in the decline of the present civilization."

-Dr. John I. Pitt, The Genus Penicillium, Academic Press, 1979

Simply put, antibiotics are poisons that are used to kill. Only licensed physicians can prescribe them. The drugs are used to kill bacteria. Certainly, many people have benefited from using them. However, if bacteria were the only organisms that antibiotics killed, much of this book would be unnecessary.

In fact, I contend that poisons that kill small organisms in small doses -- organism-specific varieties notwithstanding -- can also kill big organisms, when they are taken in big doses. You, my friend, are a big organism.

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2003/06/18/antibiotics-bacteria.aspx

Scientism, the new religion

Science has become a religion with all the mindlessness, dogma, intolerance, prejudice, ignorance and narrowness that entails - it is called Scientism. Scientism is not real science but real science will be debased by scientism.

Excerpt: “Scientism” is the new religion of Western culture, and it is very important that we understand the difference between REAL science, and how the term “science” has been hijacked by those who follow scientism, which is a system of beliefs. We have seen the ugly results of scientism throughout history, as it naturally results in tyranny. We saw it exposed in Nazi Germany in WWII, for example.

Today in the 21st century, scientism and the tyranny that naturally follows is being seen especially in the field of medicine, and the medical system which dominates the U.S. economy. Be sure to watch the short video at the bottom where the British author and thinker C.S. Lewis warned about the dangers of sceintism shortly after WWII which are coming true today.

http://healthimpactnews.com/2013/scientism-aims-to-destroy-the-humanities/

Science is akin to a semi-literate adolescent armed with nuclear weapons....

Science is dangerous because it is arrogant and because it only sees the world through its blinkered paradigm of materialism and mechanism.

Any system which tells itself that it is the 'best hope' and the one which is 'most likely to be right' will become tyrannical and irrational. Look what happened to religion. The difference is that while religion could and did wreak havoc and cause destruction and the death of millions, science in its madness, arrogance and ignorance could destroy the world or most forms of life..... time for science to be brought under control.

At its best it may have integrity but as it functions that is long gone and it operates purely for profit, ego, personal gain and power most of the time.

And with no respect for and little understanding because of its materialistic and mechanistic mindset, of how this world really works, it equates with a semi-literate adolescent armed with nuclear weapons. And still they keep saying: Trust us, we are scientists and we know best and we are always right, as the evidence of their destructive capacity litters the world.

http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/lets-play-god-the-scientific-experiments-that-might-save-the-world-or-destroy-it-8884386.html

The gift in the curse of the movement against Homeopathy

Any cause will have an effect and any action will have a reaction and that includes forces we perceive as negative. There is no doubt that the uninformed and prejudiced views of the anti-Homeopathic movement reflects more on them than it ever will on Homeopathy, but there is also no doubt that Homeopathy can benefit from responding wisely to the challenge instead of reacting to it as a perceived threat.

It is easy enough to counter the charges which are laid against Homeopathy and tedious as well. Some countering is of course important otherwise the prejudice and ignorance will hold more substance, despite it being propaganda, than it otherwise would or could. But beyond that, the movement against Homeopathy needs to be seen as an opportunity; in other words, see the gift in the curse.

But just to go through a few of the more common charges:

1. Allopaths don't like Homeopathy. 

Then why are there so many MD's who have also trained as Homeopaths?

It also needs to be remembered that the first Homeopaths were all trained MD's and this remained the case for more than 100 years. Non medically trained Homeopaths began to appear after campaigns began, particularly in the US, to discredit Homeopathy; campaigns pushed by pharmaceutical companies and profit-driven medicine.

Many MD's frustrated with the ineffectiveness and damage done by Allopathy have and still do, turn to Homeopathy. Many of them drop Allopathy all together and focus on Homeopathy. Clearly if your field is surgery, an area which by its nature is mechanistic and materialistic, then this is not likely, but in most other areas of Allopathic medicine there is no doubt that Homeopathy is more effective and less dangerous.

Although there are surgeons who utilise Homeopathic remedies to reduce trauma and aid healing after surgery.

2. Homeopaths like to talk about the medical treatments of the time when Hahnemann developed Homeopathy when it has no relevance to today's world.

Homeopaths do not like to talk about how it was better than the
alternatives of the day, they merely cite the historical fact that
Homeopathy was developed because of the barbarism of the medical
practices of the day. Interestingly, those Allopathic doctors who decide
to train as Homeopaths today, some then give up Allopathic medicine (but not
all) and concentrate on Homeopathy, do so because of the barbarism and
ineffectiveness, not to mention the destructive nature, of so much of
what is called modern medicine.

What Homeopaths like to talk about is a world where all medical
methodologies are utilised and a world where Homeopathy works alongside
the best of Allopathy. I say the best because much of Allopathy is not
just ineffective it is destructive if not deadly. But no-one would deny
its usefulness in materialistic and mechanistic terms, i.e. in a crisis
or where your body has been seriously injured and requires surgery to
be repaired or restored.

3. Hahnemann coined the term Allopathy as a derogatory name for conventional medicine.
Hahnemann did not coin Allopathy as a derogatory term. He coined it to differentiate between the two systems of medicine.
And, for what it is worth, many medical practitioners don't have a
problem with the name either and Allopathy has become increasingly used
to label what we call modern medicine.

 It is useful to understand the meaning of Allopathy - from the Greek,' allos', meaning other, as opposed to Homeopathy, from the Greek meaning,' homeos', the same. Homeopathy uses 'like treats like', ergo, the same and Allopathy uses that which is other, or the opposite.

As Steven Goldsmith, MD, points out in his book, The Healing Paradox, while Allopathy has been accepted as a label by mainstream medicine, a better term would be Antipathic medicine from the Greek meaning, 'against,' because mainstream medicine takes an adversarial approach as one can see in words like: antibiotic, anti-inflammatory; antihypertensives; anti-arrhythmics; anticonvulsives; antacids and so on and so forth with its militaristic and mechanistic approach.

Goldsmith also makes the point that Allopathy is not just mechanistic and materialistic in its approach, but it is moralistic and militaristic.

I would take these two terms and define them as,  moralistic – according blame to the patient for his or her behaviour which ‘results’ in disease; adding guilt, regret and more fear to the equation,  and militaristic -seeing disease as an enemy and the treatment of disease as a war and the body of the patient as the battlefield. We all know in war there is a great deal of collateral damage and that even as battles can be won, wars can be lost.


It is very clear that Allopathy takes an antagonistic and 'anti' approach to disease and to the body. The body is seen as enemy for creating the disease and condemned as such. The treatment is seen as a battle or war to defeat the 'enemy' and bring the body under the control of the doctor and his equipment. The patient is often forgotten in this process and only plays a part by submitting to the power of the doctor and his or her 'tools' and becoming a 'guard' for his or her body; ever watchful, never trusting, always suspicious and eternally fearful.

Such a militaristic approach where body is the enemy, the 'bad' component for misbehaving and getting sick and where doctors and medicine are the 'good' and the ones who will defeat evil and destroy the disease - well, they don't often destroy disease as temporarily contain it, and they do often destroy the body in the process - creates enormous levels of anxiety if not terror and has led to the development of what can only be called Fear-based medicine.

Common sense suggests that Fear is only ever destructive in physiological, psychological and emotional terms and fear inhibits healing, it does not contribute to healing. But Fear is the basis upon which modern medicine stands with its tests, tools, drugs and procedures which more often than not, as research has begun to reveal, takes a healthy person and turns them into a sick one - often a chronically sick one who will never be well again.

Homeopathy on the other hand does not fear the body or the disease or the symptom. It sees the symptoms as the language the body uses for the individual to make them aware that something is out of balance, there is dis-ease - there is no generic cause of disease and no 'one pill fits all.' A dozen people with the same condition, say hayfever, may each get a completely different remedy. There are thousands of homeopathic remedies and the task of the Homeopath, often not an easy one particularly with chronic illness, is to find the right one - the 'signature' remedy which will trigger a healing reaction in the body - which will 'cancel out' illness as two soundwaves of the same frequency will cancel each other out.

Homeopathy is medicine which works at the molecular/atomic levels - energy medicine in essence - where the remedy acts to re-tune the system so that it re-balances and heals itself. Allopathy on the other hand seeks to over-ride the body and its wisdom and to destroy the symptom. Homeopathy works with the body; Allopathy works against the body.

4. Homeopathy is ineffective and has no use.

Homeopathy has been healing without harm for more than two centuries. If it had no use it would have disappeared long ago. Human beings do not bother with things that do not work. Homeopathy has consistently demonstrated that it does work and it has done so to patients and that is why it is still here today and growing in use around the world.

Allopathy by comparison to traditional medicine is young. It can be very effective in certain areas but it is the most dangerous medical methodology by far. The third biggest killer in the world today is Iatrogenic - doctor or medical induced - that's right, Heart disease,Cancer and then Allopathy is what kills people.  On a positive note, one of the biggest growth areas in Allopathy is the field of Integrative Medicine.

And within integrative medicine of course you find Homeopathy. We are
all fortunate that the ignorance and prejudice toward Homeopathy is not
shared by most people in the world, and increasingly, is being
discarded by Allopathic doctors, who, after all, do want to heal but are
limited by the materialistic, mechanistic (I would add moralistic and
militaristic) profit and fear driven approach of what is called modern
medicine.

The simple reality is that Homeopathy will come into its own when there is no longer an antibiotic to fight bacterial infection and we are getting closer to that day. Science/medicine has abused this resource in ways which are criminal and when the day comes when antibiotics are useless, then even the naysayers will turn to Homeopathy. Needs must is often the way that humanity changes course for the better.


There is no doubt that when the body is subject to serious disease the task is greater, whether Homeopathic or Allopathic, and there is no doubt that Allopathy is useful in crisis or mechanistic (when something needs to be surgically repaired) situations, but the point of Homeopathy is always healing. Homeopathy sensibly takes the position that dealing with minor symptoms (as opposed to repressing or removing them which is what Allopathy does) as they arise means that disease does not become major. Studies have shown that people who see a professional Homeopath regularly, and that may be every couple of years or less, experience less serious disease.

5. The 'like treats like' concept of Homeopathy is ludicrous.

Except it exists in Allopathy. Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy both cause cancer and are used to treat cancer. 

Ritalin, used to treat hyperactivity causes the same symptoms in healthy people: Digoxin, used by cardiologists has the same effect in that it causes in healthy people the same symptoms it treats in unhealthy ones. These are but two of a long list.

The difference however is that the Allopathic method is synthetic, and administered in very high doses, and can do harm or cause death while the Homeopathic treatment is gentle, harmless and more effective.

N.B. Homeopathic provings are done by giving healthy people a remedy. Just as something like Ritalin causes the symptoms it is used to treat, in healthy people, so a Homeopathic remedy triggers the symptoms it will be used to treat, in healthy people.

6. Homeopaths refuse to study the research done.

Professional homeopaths study all research carefully and ponder scientific objections carefully as well but the reality is that the science/medical system is mechanistic and materialistic and limited in its nature. It simply is not able to research something like Homeopathy because of the prejudice inherent in its paradigm.

That will change, but until it does, the way science/medicine currently tests runs counter to the philosophy and system on which Homeopathy is founded.

7. Double blind tests show Homeopathy does not work.

Running conventional 'double blind' tests on Homeopathic remedies can only ever be partially successful even when it takes into account the basis on which Homeopathy works - and mostly it doesn't.

However, Homeopathy has been shown to be effective even with some double-blind testing.

8. Hahnemann encouraged enmity between Homeopaths and doctors.

 Hahnemann did not seek to encourage enmity; he was horrified by the barbarism of the medicine of this time and would be horrified by a lot of the barbarism of medicine of this time. He looked for an alternative.

In Hahnemann's day and for the next hundred years or so, ALL homeopaths were also medically trained doctors. Hardly an argument that he encouraged enmity. Such a theory runs counter to the facts and logic regarding those facts.

9. Science/medicine rejects it  because it knows it cannot work and science is always right.
a. if rejection were based on supposing something should work most of scientific research would stop tomorrow.

b. categorically saying it cannot work because it does not fit the mechanistic/materialistic paradigm which has trapped science for a few hundred years would have meant that quantum physics would never have developed and neither would the research into cellular biology.
Science/medicine managed to get past its prejudice and ignorance in regard to bacteria - after killing a lot of people - so no doubt it will in time get past its prejudice and ignorance in regard to the Homeopathic process.

Homeopathy does work and it was and is a part of medicine. It is just less a part of medicine because of ignorance, bigotry, the power of the drug companies and the limited paradigm of science/medicine. It really is that simple.

And, if it did work, or rather when science can understand how it works,  then science would need to be rewritten. Not all of it, but some of it. There is a place for the mechanistic in science, which is why this website works, but only a fool would think that is all there is to this world. It is patently clear, which is why quantum physics was developed in the first place, that there is far, far, far more to this world than the materialistic and mechanistic.

10. Homeopathy is just a placebo effect.
Medical journals including The Lancet have published results showing that Homeopathy is effective and it most definitely is not just a placebo effect. All medical treatments have a placebo effect, something Allopathy admits and some have a nocebo effect, something Allopathy recognises.

Results are influenced if not prejudiced by the materialistic/mechanistic paradigm which controls and limits science/medicine and therefore limits its ability to understand a medical methodology which is far more advanced.

11. Homeopaths are charlatans and crooks.
Medicine has always had its charlatans and incompetents and still does or iatrogenic, doctor or medical induced, would not be the third biggest killer in the world today. No-one ever got it all right.

And Allopathic charlatans and crooks cause death and injury in ways Homeopathy cannot and does not.

12. Homeopathy has to prove that it works to science.

The reality is that Homeopathy does not have to prove their techniques work and never did. Efficacy, as in results, is enough and that proof is constantly demonstrated. The issue science has, is that it does not understand how it works because it is locked within a materialistic and mechanistic paradigm and Homeopathy works in ways beyond that narrow mindset.

Given the limitations of knowledge at the current time neither can Homeopathic practitioners state categorically how it works but there are a number of theories and the answers will emerge in time. Given that much of science is theoretical it is difficult to see what gives science the right to reject theory in others.

There is much of the 'one rule for us and another for you' in the position science takes to Homeopathy. Take gravity for instance. Science does not fully understand what it is or why and how it works but it understands its effects because they are demonstrated and works with gravity accordingly by observing its behaviour. Homeopaths do not completely understand what, why or how in regard to remedies but they see the effects demonstrated and work with it accordingly. by observing the behaviour of remedies. What is the difference? There is no difference.

Science is a system and systems drive behaviour and profit and peers and careers rest on the paradigms and Homeopathy, when it can be explained, will cause a radical rethink and rewrite of much of the scientific system and so will profit and careers be diminished. Of course, there will be new ones developing, for that is the way of it, but people fear change and never more so than when their ego is threatened.

But here is the simple reality, science may demand that it is the arbiter but it isn't. Science may rage for as long as it likes that Homeopathy cannot work because it does not fit the materialistic/mechanistic system which underpins science today, but, most people don't care. Homeopathy has continued to grow in use for more than two centuries because it works. Human beings only care if something works - they don't care how it works. Most people spend their lives making use of things with no understanding of how it works, and no ability to understand even if someone tried to explain it to them - and they don't care.

Most of the people in the world do not care what science thinks or says about Homeopathy and the fanatics who have taken on the 'role' of defending the position of science, represent no more than fleas on the back of an elephant. Such is the way of things.

13. Evidence for Homeopathy is anecdotal.

Much of medical evidence is also anecdotal and all human beings make decisions based upon their own experiences, which is, of course, anecdotal. Does that make it less powerful? No. When a doctor listens to what a patient tells him or her that is a doctor using anecdotal information to diagnose and prescribe. If people saw Allopathy as effective as it claims to be then billions would not be turning to other medical methodologies.

Anecdotal evidence is the foundation for many academic systems and is instrumental in scientific and medical research. Anecdotal is also instrumental in people forming opinions and beliefs which influence their decisions. We have our own personal anecdotal evidence and if it fits with the anecdotal evidence of others then we feel it adds weight to our beliefs. That is not just logical, it is common sense.

In the past five years I have watched eight people,  make their own decisions in regard to treatment for cancer - all chose the Allopathic route and all bar one died, with a great deal of suffering. As a failure rate that is astronomical.  The one survivor could be put down to luck more than good treatment. More importantly, these were people who had the best treatments Allopathy could offer in a First World country. They were also people who had previously lived lives which could only be considered sensible in terms of health. None of them had the 'factors' by which modern medicine regularly 'blames' people for their illness: poor diet, smoking, alcoholism or obesity.

All lasted about 18 months and all experienced minimal or no quality of life during that time. It is therefore hardly surprising that a number of studies done into what treatments doctors would choose when facing the same disease, show more than 80% would reject Allopathic treatments. I put the anecdotal evidence of my own experience together with what amounts to anecdotal evidence from studies of doctors and reach conclusions. That is logical. And that is what more and more people are doing, hence the turn to what are called alternative therapies, but which are in essence simply different medical methodologies.

14. Homeopathy exploits helpless people.

If you want to talk exploitation, which is a charge often levelled at non-Allopathic medicine, you have only to look at chemotherapy which has a failure rate so high that no other product would ever be considered marketable with the same failure rate - and yet medicine sells it because people are desperate. Even worse, read the data, and most doctors have little or no faith in it, which is why they admit they would not accept it for themselves,  but they have nothing else.

That is conscious exploitation and akin to witch-doctors dancing around a fire because it might heal the typhus outbreak - although the witch-doctors may well have a greater success rate because they believe in what they are doing and the placebo rate is powerful. Allopathic doctors are prescribing massively expensive and essentially barbaric treatments which cause enormous suffering, on the basis that they do not know what else to do and while it will probably fail, it might, just might work!

There are more Allopaths prescribing treatments and procedures in which they have little faith than there are Homeopaths or practitioners of Traditional Chinese Medicine or Herbal Medicine doing the same.

But perhaps the greatest indictment of Allopathy is the massive increase in societies of not just chronic but serious disease. In 1900 one in ten people got cancer; now it is one in two. Childhood cancer has increased massively. Not only has Allopathy failed to cure most of the serious or chronic diseases it has utterly failed to do that which is more important - keep people well.

Only a fool keeps doing the same thing and expecting a different result. Hence the massive turn by people, around the world, to other medical methodologies, with Homeopathy at the forefront.

In times to come people will look back and see Allopathic Medicine as the biggest experiment in human history, and possibly the most destructive. Even now the path of what is called modern medicine is littered with discarded theories, treatments, procedures and medications which at best have proved to be ineffective and at worst, to be deadly if not catastrophic like Thalidomide.

Much of Allopathy remains experimental. We do not know what long-term impact vaccination, pharmaceuticals, invasive tests, elective C-sections, IVF and even many surgeries will have on human beings. But we are beginning to find out. With more people suffering from chronic ill health and serious disease; more allergies and asthma; more behavioural and learning difficulties in children and more mental illness than has ever been seen before in history, it is very, very clear that Allopathic Medicine has not made for healthier people and less disease and suffering, but quite the opposite.

The counter to it all is the claim that people live longer. But do they? The figures are skewed in past times by higher infant and child mortality and those deaths have certainly declined. But they did not begin to dramatically decline with the advent of Allopathic Medicine, they began to decline with improved sanitation and nutrition. And both history and archeology show that well nourished human beings living in healthy environments have always lived long lives.

But let Allopathy wave the longevity flag even if it is sourced more in manipulated data than any reality because what people care about most of all is not how long they live but how well they live. Modern medicine may prolong some lives, but who wants to live in a state of chronic ill health, subjected to pain, suffering and little quality of life? Not many people. Allopathy has failed the most important test of all - proving that it offers health and therefore, an improved quality of life. It may do for a few, at least temporarily, and for a very few permanently, but it does not for most and that is the petard on which it will fall.

In the meantime there is more important work for those practising other forms of medicine, such as Homeopathy.  In every 'curse' there is a gift. One often overlooked fact is that the anti-Homeopathy brigade is actually doing Homeopathic Medicine an enormous favour because it is pushing the system to improve.

Any system, particularly any medical system requires professionalism and professionalism requires regulation. That does not mean that there will not still be charlatans, incompetents, mistakes and unprofessionalism as Allopathic Medicine so consistently demonstrates, but it does mean there are regulations in place which contribute to greater professionalism in general and the highest standards in general.

Regulation is required in all fields, as the banking/economic fiasco in the US some years ago so clearly demonstrated. And that is because without regulation you are relying on the best of human nature and the 'best' of human nature, without regulation, will always be pulled down to the worst of human nature because that will be the baseline which is set, or to which things are reduced in the name of profit. There are always people who will rort any system for profit, whether literal or metaphorical, and only regulations can keep them in check and maintain high standards of behaviour and operation.

The better regulated and more professional Homeopathic Medicine is, the better it is for practitioners and of course patients. With such a brilliant and advanced medical methodology, one which is going to be crucial to human health in the future as chronic illness increases due to Allopathic treatments, and Allopathic treatments fail because of abuse and overuse of antibiotics first and foremost,  but also because of procedures and interventions in general, it is absolutely vital that the profession and the system in which it functions operates to the very highest standards.

While most of what the opposers put forward is sourced more in ignorance and propaganda than any sort of fact, and that is easily recognised by anyone who knows something about Homeopathy and by ordinary people with good levels of common sense, the reality is that while Homeopathy is excellent, the system in which it is practised is in need of improvement.

Through reacting and responding to the negativity and the movement which seeks to discredit Homeopathy, the methodology, profession and system can only improve and that is to the benefit of all. And that will place Homeopathy in the best position to meet the needs of a failing Allopathic system and the failing health of billions of people around the world.

It will also put it in the best position to be seen as the medicine of the future - a form of energy medicine developed far ahead of its time, but a methodology which will be embraced by Allopathy, as it must be, and play a vital role in re-writing and re-working the understanding and approach of science/medicine in general.

I believe it is very important that Homeopaths, and those who support the system,  do not get caught up in personal battles with the naysayers, but use the impetus which such challenge brings, to make Homeopathy, methodology and practice, the best that it can be. The movement against Homeopathy cannot hurt it; the only 'hurt' it can bring is if Homeopaths are distracted by it and allow their focus to be on the anti-homeopathy movement and not on Homeopathy and its future.

Time to save poetry from the 'poets'......

Why is there so much bad poetry around today? Or so much prose which is called poetry but isn't.

Perhaps the problem is the fact that poetry is so little studied in any general sense by most people and therefore they have less ability to differentiate between what is good poetry and what is bad.

In recent decades poetry has become to mean any collection of words, anywhere from three to thirty thousand, written on a page when much of it is not poetry but prose and some of it akin to shopping lists, bus tickets or delusional dream remnants.

One wonders, with some of the poetry which succeeds or is acclaimed, whether judges are erring on the side of the obscure, as in, they don't really understand what it is saying, if anything, but it sounds clever (sometimes it meanders all over the page and so looks clever as well) and not wanting to admit to their ignorance, being sophisticated intellectuals after all, then they 'stamp' it as good, brilliant, excellent or exceptional.

Erring as we all do, on the side of caution. And one can do that more with poetry than other forms of writing because poetry pretty much never makes money for anyone. Ironically, the same argument should create a situation of higher standards not lesser.

There was in the past a criteria for poetry and generally it was expected to be thematic, rhythmic, musical (rhyme) to some degree, and to actually say something, if not paint a picture in words.

So much poetry, and even those poems which win awards, contain none of the above criteria and would have left our greatest poets throughout history shaking their heads. Does it matter? Yes and no.

 Language is like life always in a state of evolution so why should not writing be the same?  And if more people feel inclined to write because they don't have to follow any rules at all then that too is a good thing because it is creative expression which is vital for mind, body and soul.

But surely at some point, just as all systems require principles, standards, guidelines and 'rules,' so too does poetry. And if we are to have a world where poetry is again, the finest and highest expression of the bard - the ancient soul workers and guides - then that will need to be pushed not just by those who are weary of so much bad poetry, or prose masquerading as poetry, but by those who can actually tell the difference.

And the only way to tell the difference is to spend more time reading the work of our greatest poets, for therein lies not just knowledge but perspective.

The M factor which sabotages modern medicine - mechanistic, materialistic, moralistic and militaristic.

I have long thought that modern, Allopathic medicine was deeply flawed and less effective because it takes a materialistic and mechanistic view of the human body and of life but as Steven Goldsmith, MD, points out in his brilliant book, The Healing Paradox, its other flaws are that it is both moralistic and militaristic.

Any healing methodology which allocates blame for disease to the patient's behaviour and takes the view that the body is the enemy and medicine and doctors the army and weapons which will defeat the misbehaving body is doomed to fail.

All three factors play a part in the entrenchment of Allopathy in Fear-Based Medicine - a belief system which by its nature must sabotage any healing process to some degree.

http://www.randomhouse.com/book/224040/the-healing-paradox-by-steven-goldsmith-md

Sand, sea, sky

What you give out is what you get back - eventually

Perhaps one of the negative developments in life has been in recent times the belief that what matters is doing what is right for you regardless of the cruelty it may entail toward others or the suffering it may cause.

While people may have been hide-bound in the past by expected courtesies and rules, the reality is that we have come too far and now too little thought, time or effort is put into thinking about the impact your behaviour will have on others.

In terms of karma one can only believe that those who act in their own self interests and disregard common courtesies and considerations, will reap what they sow – what goes around comes around and if this is the lesson they teach their children then they can expect, at some point, to be on the receiving end of it.