otherhealth.com  

Go Back   otherhealth.com > Homeopathy > Homeopathy List Discussion

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #51 (permalink)  
Old 22nd December 2011, 02:45 AM
John Harvey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Combos vs. Singles

Dear Wendy,


I appreciate that you imagine that the debate about combination medicines
focuses on their appropriateness. In fact, it centres on the misuse of the
term "homoeopathy" to describe the practice of prescribing medicines of
unknown effect.


Homoeopathy is not, as you allege, an experience. Neither is it a
philosophy, a belief, or a fact. It is not a discovery, a truth, or a
possibility. Certainly it is not a value, or, in *method*, a happy
accident.


It is a single, simple principle of medical practice that most certainly
and readily distinguishes its genuine practice from all imitators.


That principle requires something that no other medical practice (not even
an imitative one) does, and it is the one tiny spark that distinguishes
homoeopathy from every other medical practice.


The principle, or requirement, is that the choice of medicine be made on
the basis of matching knowledge of the patient's symptoms of natural
disease with knowledge of competing medicines' effects in the healthy in
order to choose from amongst the latter the one most similar to the former.


The principle fulfilled, no matter how one goes about it, one is practising
homoeopathy.


It can be fulfilled in various styles and with various tools. What it
cannot be fulfilled with is combination medicines.


Every defence of combination medicines rests on obscuring that simple
contradiction between homoeopathy's unique requirement -- *knowledge *of
pathogenesis -- and combination medicines' eternal inherent limitation
-- *ignorance
*of pathogenesis. When the hysteria and the dust settle, what remains to
prevent the prescription of combination medicines from occurring *on the
principle of homoeopathy* is this simple limitation: ignorance of the
effects of the medicinal agent *upon the healthy*.


It's true that a two-century tradition of using rabid self-interested
accusative hysteria has attempted to pass blatantly ignorant
prescribing off as homoeopathy. Such a tradition offers lazy
ignoramuses no moral basis, however, for levelling further self-interested
accusations. It behooves the ignorant to study rather than to uproot and
destroy.


Kind regards,


John




On 22 December 2011 06:45, Wendy Howard <wendy (AT) smeddum (DOT) net> wrote:

> Since this discussion epitomises exactly why I stopped participating in
> the homeopathy lists the best part of a decade ago, I'll have my say
> (somewhat lengthy - apologies - but hey! you won't have to read any more
> than this from me) then disappear back into oblivion again ...
>
> To paraphrase Anne Lamott quoting a priest, "You can safely assume that
> you've created Homeopathy in your own image when it turns out Homeopathy
> excludes all the same people you do."
>
> How is it SO much time and energy is expended on perpetually going round
> in the same circles?! Shouldn't the singular failure of this debate to
> advance so much as one step forward in ... what, 200 years? ... be telling
> us something fundamental and axiomatic about this question?! That, to quote
> Einstein, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness
> that created it."?
>
> Homeopathy does not exist in isolation. It utilises exactly the same
> universal principles used in many systems of healing. It's one among many,
> there are all manner of shades of grey in between and we don't know the
> half of it yet. If we don't even know the mechanism by which the practice
> of homeopathy actually achieves a curative reaction, then the theory
> remains just that: theory, guesswork and post hoc rationalisation based on
> circular logic. To believe otherwise is to mistake the map for the
> territory.



--


"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments,
guided by such ideas, would be very different places."


—Paul Ginsborg, *Democracy: Crisis and Renewal*, London: Profile, 2008.
Reply With Quote
  #52 (permalink)  
Old 22nd December 2011, 03:55 AM
Celia M. Malm
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Combos vs. Singles

Wendy Howard wrote:

> Since this discussion epitomises exactly why I stopped participating in
> the homeopathy
>lists the best part of a decade ago....


It also sheds a lot of light on why the REAL problem is not being addressed.
When I first mentioned the issue of things being called homeopathy that
aren't homeopathic at all, I wasn't remotely thinking of combination
remedies, which are at least based on ideas that are recognizable as
homeopathic principles, even though they don't come up to Hahnemann's full
standard. I was thinking of products that use the word "homeopathic" to
describe something that even the most confused mixopath would not recognize
as homeopathy.

For example, I have seen a product labeled as "homeopathic" which...well, it
contained a 1X potency of some remedy or other....in addition to a variety
of allopathic and herbal ingredients, the most prominent of which was
CAMPHOR! In other words, the remedy was apparently included solely for the
purpose of giving the manufacturer a slim excuse to call the product
"homeopathic" (the greenest student of homeopathy would realize, from
examining the list of ingredients, that the product was inherently
ANTIDOTING the remedy).

As long as homeopaths waste all their energy fighting among themselves over
Organon editions and combination remedies, the manufacturers of these kinds
of products will continue to go unchallenged, deceiving the public about
homeopathy a thousand times worse than any Boiron combo could ever do (and
no, I'm not a combo user or supporter). Worrying about combos when the real
PR damage from fraud is occurring elsewhere is like trimming your toenails
when your hair is on fire.


Cee

Reply With Quote
  #53 (permalink)  
Old 22nd December 2011, 03:55 AM
Irene de Villiers
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Combos vs. Singles

On Dec 21, 2011, at 5:46 AM, John Harvey wrote:

>
> :D Irene, from trucks to symphonies: another delightful analogy!
>
> We seem to be in agreement an awful lot lately. It's worrying. Have you come down with a fever, or am I hallucinating?


I was wondering the same...
I live where a deep freeze seems warm this time of year. So maybe I just need to be frozen to slow down enough to be readable:-)

Namaste,
Irene
-
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






Reply With Quote
  #54 (permalink)  
Old 22nd December 2011, 04:45 AM
Irene de Villiers
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Combos vs. Singles

On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Wendy Howard wrote:
> How is it SO much time and energy is expended on perpetually going round in the same circles?! Shouldn't the singular failure of this debate to advance so much as one step forward in ... what, 200 years? ... be telling us something fundamental and axiomatic about this question?! That, to quote Einstein, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."?


Whatever level of consciousness produced the problem of combos, and tried to piggyback on the valid reputation of a genuine medical system, by misappropriating its name without any semblance of similar application, is exactly where the thinking needs to change and become honest.

Mixtures are just that. They are not homeopathy. It is fraudulent to pretend otherwise.

> Homeopathy does not exist in isolation. It utilises exactly the same universal principles used in many systems of healing.


Not so. It is the only system that uses the Law of Similars, which is what defines it as homeopathy.
Pretending anything else does that, is simply incorrect. No combo can do that.

> It's one among many, there are all manner of shades of grey in between and we don't know the half of it yet.


Not true. Law of Similars is as clear and easy to follow as that other natural law - the e Law of Gravity - and equally unmistakeable as a natural law. It's not an idea man invented. Homeopathy is by definition the system that uses it.
The objections that occur, are to the misuse of the term homeopathy to refer to anything other than this Law of Similars.
Mixologists TRY to pretend that what they do is homeopathy as that would be greatly to their advantage. Fancy having free access to 200 y ears of excellent reputation and trying to sell your unrelated product based on that reputation! A great selling point commercially - but there's no truth in it. Mixologists have no connection or cause to hang on the coat tails of the genuine system defined by Hahnemann and called homeopathy.


> If we don't even know the mechanism by which the practice of homeopathy actually achieves a curative reaction


We do not know how drugs do what drugs do either, but we know WHAT they do., Likewise with homeopathy. Nor is homeopathy's mechanism as much unknown as it was before all the research quoted by Bellavite and Signorini, which also proposes a avery plausible theory that holds for all the experimental double blind trials done so far. More research is currently under way, and it will not be long before the mechanism is known.
Even gravity has an unknown mechanism. As with homeopathy, we have a plausible theory only.
It's more than we have for any allopathic medicine or even for any combo remedy.

The beauty of homeopathy is its predictability. Unlike any other system, it is predictable what a remedy can be used to cure, and one can be chosen even for a disease never before seen in the planet.
No other system can make that claim, as they have NO LAW or principle of any kind by which they function.

> then the theory remains just that: theory, guesswork and post hoc rationalisation based on circular logic. To believe otherwise is to mistake the map for the territory.


No it is not. Homeopathic remedies are proved, and that is how it is known in advance what they can accomplish.
Combos can say no such thing - nor any other medicine.

> To look out in superficial judgement from the standpoint of our own perspective at what someone else is doing, without being open minded enough to take the time to completely immerse ourselves in THEIR outlook, logic and rationale,


The combo lovers have indeed been challenged to show what THEIR outlook, logic and rationale is, and they constantly come up blank - as there is none. If they had any logic, rationale or outlook or any system at all on which to base any combo, they would not need to stow away in a homeopathic coat tail to try to gain credence. They'd stand on their own two feet. Instead they sway they are "experimenting".

Homeopaths do not experiment - they know in advance why they are selecting a remedy and what it will achieve.
Big difference.

> How do we know that combos don't work as well as single remedies? Especially when we've never given them the benefit of the doubt, or attempted to see them in any other terms but from the perspective of a single remedy prescriber? We can theorise all we like, but theorising is a million miles from real experience.


And combos have none.
Homeopathy is based on experience and knowledge and proven usage before the patient needs a remedy. Each remedy IS proven as to what it can do. It's ethical to use a known effect remedy rather than a combo experiment that has no such investigation behind it.

> So where do we draw the line between 'homeopathy' and 'not-homeopathy'?


Where there is proven effect of a remedy - using Law of Similars - in advance of its use on a live patient. There is no fuzziness with that clear boundary and definition.
Hence combos are not homeopathy.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






Reply With Quote
  #55 (permalink)  
Old 22nd December 2011, 04:55 AM
Irene de Villiers
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Combos vs. Singles

On Dec 21, 2011, at 8:44 PM, Celia M. Malm wrote:

> Worrying about combos when the real
> PR damage from fraud is occurring elsewhere is like trimming your toenails
> when your hair is on fire.
>

Two frauds do not make an ethical:-)

Once combos are seen for the fraud they are in claiming any aspect of homeopathy applies, the more obvious defrauders will fall away automatically,.
So it needs only one fight, not several layers starting form the blatantly obvious.
The simple answer is best - homeopathy has a clear definition given to it by its inventor. It just needs to be upheld.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."






Reply With Quote
  #56 (permalink)  
Old 22nd December 2011, 10:48 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 91
courier is on a distinguished road
Default Resolution: Single Remedy=Homoeopathy - National Homoeopathic Congress, India

Nov 5 & 6, 2011 - XXII Indian National Homoeopathic Science Congress in New Delhi

Resolutions found here: Resolutions of IHP XXII National Homoeopathic Congress | Similima

"The XXII National Homoeopathic Science Congress, held in New Delhi during November 5-6, 2011, had unanimously adopted the following 10 resolutions, calling for further strengthening the movement for spread of the homeopathic school of medicine across the country, and checking certain deleterious trends.

10] Suitable amendments to the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia to stop the mixing and compounding of Homoeopathic drugs, against the principle of Homoeopathy that calls for use of single, simple, similar remedies to achieve the goal of cure as propounded by the founding father Samuel Hahnemann."
Reply With Quote
  #57 (permalink)  
Old 22nd December 2011, 11:05 AM
John Harvey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Combos vs. Singles

Bravo! I'd be proud to have drawn the line so succinctly and precisely and
to have defended homoeopathy so ably from obdurate confusion with all that
it is not. Thank you, Irene!

John



On 22 December 2011 16:40, Irene de Villiers <furryboots (AT) icehouse (DOT) net>wrote:

>
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Wendy Howard wrote:
> > How is it SO much time and energy is expended on perpetually going round

> in the same circles?! Shouldn't the singular failure of this debate to
> advance so much as one step forward in ... what, 200 years? ... be telling
> us something fundamental and axiomatic about this question?! That, to quote
> Einstein, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness
> that created it."?
>
> Whatever level of consciousness produced the problem of combos, and tried
> to piggyback on the valid reputation of a genuine medical system, by
> misappropriating its name without any semblance of similar application, is
> exactly where the thinking needs to change and become honest.
>
> Mixtures are just that. They are not homeopathy. It is fraudulent to
> pretend otherwise.
>
> > Homeopathy does not exist in isolation. It utilises exactly the same

> universal principles used in many systems of healing.
>
> Not so. It is the only system that uses the Law of Similars, which is what
> defines it as homeopathy.
> Pretending anything else does that, is simply incorrect. No combo can do
> that.
>
> > It's one among many, there are all manner of shades of grey in between

> and we don't know the half of it yet.
>
> Not true. Law of Similars is as clear and easy to follow as that other
> natural law - the e Law of Gravity - and equally unmistakeable as a natural
> law. It's not an idea man invented. Homeopathy is by definition the system
> that uses it.
> The objections that occur, are to the misuse of the term homeopathy to
> refer to anything other than this Law of Similars.
> Mixologists TRY to pretend that what they do is homeopathy as that would
> be greatly to their advantage. Fancy having free access to 200 y ears of
> excellent reputation and trying to sell your unrelated product based on
> that reputation! A great selling point commercially - but there's no truth
> in it. Mixologists have no connection or cause to hang on the coat tails of
> the genuine system defined by Hahnemann and called homeopathy.



--


"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments,
guided by such ideas, would be very different places."


—Paul Ginsborg, *Democracy: Crisis and Renewal*, London: Profile, 2008.
Reply With Quote
  #58 (permalink)  
Old 22nd December 2011, 11:15 AM
John Harvey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Combos vs. Singles

Irene has put her finger on something really important here in
homoeopathy's practice via a tested principle as opposed to the trial and
error that holds sway everywhere else -- a principle whose foundation is in
fact the testing, the pathogenetic proving, that revealed the principle.
Again, thanks, Irene.

John

On 22 December 2011 16:40, Irene de Villiers <furryboots (AT) icehouse (DOT) net>wrote:

>
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 11:45 AM, Wendy Howard wrote:
> > How is it SO much time and energy is expended on perpetually going round

> in the same circles?! Shouldn't the singular failure of this debate to
> advance so much as one step forward in ... what, 200 years? ... be telling
> us something fundamental and axiomatic about this question?! That, to quote
> Einstein, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness
> that created it."?
>
> Whatever level of consciousness produced the problem of combos, and tried
> to piggyback on the valid reputation of a genuine medical system, by
> misappropriating its name without any semblance of similar application, is
> exactly where the thinking needs to change and become honest.
>
> Mixtures are just that. They are not homeopathy. It is fraudulent to
> pretend otherwise.
>
> > Homeopathy does not exist in isolation. It utilises exactly the same

> universal principles used in many systems of healing.
>
> Not so. It is the only system that uses the Law of Similars, which is what
> defines it as homeopathy.
> Pretending anything else does that, is simply incorrect. No combo can do
> that.
>
> > It's one among many, there are all manner of shades of grey in between

> and we don't know the half of it yet.
>
> Not true. Law of Similars is as clear and easy to follow as that other
> natural law - the e Law of Gravity - and equally unmistakeable as a natural
> law. It's not an idea man invented. Homeopathy is by definition the system
> that uses it.
> The objections that occur, are to the misuse of the term homeopathy to
> refer to anything other than this Law of Similars.
> Mixologists TRY to pretend that what they do is homeopathy as that would
> be greatly to their advantage. Fancy having free access to 200 y ears of
> excellent reputation and trying to sell your unrelated product based on
> that reputation! A great selling point commercially - but there's no truth
> in it. Mixologists have no connection or cause to hang on the coat tails of
> the genuine system defined by Hahnemann and called homeopathy.



--


"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments,
guided by such ideas, would be very different places."


—Paul Ginsborg, *Democracy: Crisis and Renewal*, London: Profile, 2008.
Reply With Quote
  #59 (permalink)  
Old 22nd December 2011, 11:15 AM
Wendy Howard
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Combos vs. Singles

John & Irene, I'll repeat ...

> So where do we draw the line between 'homeopathy' and 'not-homeopathy'?
>
> The answer is we can't, because the boundary is not a line. It's a wide region of fuzziness. No matter how close you pull the boundaries in towards Hahnemannian homeopathy, they remain, and will always remain, fuzzy. Paradoxical maybe, because to each of us individually the boundaries no doubt appear pretty clear, but they're fuzzy because very few of those individual clear boundaries exactly coincide.


You've both fallen into the paradox. The things you perceive that create a crystal clear boundary around 'homeopathy' FOR YOU aren't necessarily seen that way by others.

Everyone's perspective is unique and everyone's perspective is no less valid than anyone else's, so for as long as we each persist along a line of I'm-right-you're-wrong, we consign ourselves to this perpetual argument. If, on the other hand, we accept the value of diversity - meaning that your perspective is accepted and acknowledged as valid and essential ... and so is everyone else's - then not only do we get to stop fighting about it, we get to see far more of the elephant by putting all our individual perspectives together. It's a win-win situation! What's not to like about it? All that's necessary is to clarify this deep conviction that there's only 'One True Way'. There is. And it's universal. But it's not a single 'One True Way' for everyone, it's everyone's individual 'One True Way' for each of us which, in turn, constitutes the "One True Way' for all.

Take the Law of Similars as an example. You say it's unique to homeopathy, but it's not because the Law of Similars is only a partial and contingent expression of a much more fundamental and universal 'law' which has to do with mirroring. Many therapies use the principle of mirroring the complaint. In my experience, you can sometimes dispense with the process of selecting and prescribing a remedy altogether purely by reading the language of a patient's symptoms and reflecting it back to them: cystitis - "what are you pissed off about?", crippling cervicalgia of several months's standing - "who's the pain in the neck then?", rash with maddening itching - "what's irritating you?" ...

The trouble with any 'system' of healing is that it becomes a well-beaten track and we all have varying degrees of a sheep-like tendency to play follow-my-leader without much further thought. This also sits easily with our tendency to think in straight lines which blinkers us to the fact that those straight lines exist only in our perception. We can see this very clearly from the outside looking in - eg. in how allopathic thinking becomes constrained to seeing everything in terms of common symptoms and DBRCTs - but it's far less easy to see where we're doing it ourselves. In imagining we've liberated our thinking from one limiting system, it's all too easy to fall straight into another. It's in the very nature of systems, so all but impossible to avoid ...

Mary

oooops ... no, Wendy
Reply With Quote
  #60 (permalink)  
Old 22nd December 2011, 12:25 PM
John Harvey
Guest
 
Posts: n/a
Default Re: Combos vs. Singles

Dear Wendy,

You've made here the perpetual error of mistaking a discussion of meaning
for a discussion of value. Nobody here wishes to prevent others from
practising whatever kind of medicine their conscience or unconsciousness
may dictate; and nobody here is, at present, discussing the value of
alternatives to homoeopathy. Thus, it is most unhelpful to slide from
"everyone's perspective is no less valid than anyone else's", which is
fair enough, into suggesting that it's failure to appreciate "the value of
diversity" that has motivated homoeopaths to challenge confusions such as
yours.

If you think that this discussion has concerned the value of other systems,
then you have not been attending properly to it. It has concerned
therapeutic value only incidentally, when other defenders of combinopathy
have insinuated that intolerance of diversity underlies the definition that
homoeopaths insist upon maintaining between one kind of therapy and all
others.

Much as I'm sure I'm not alone in enjoying your gaming with psychological
punning and so on, and although you may be perfectly correct in ascribing
to it and other "mirroring" therapies the power of homoeopathy, there are
at least two very sound reasons for maintaining clarity as to what is, and
what is not, homoeopathy rather than treating anything that's similar to
anything else as (possibly, potentially, conceptually) some "kind" of
homoeopathy.

One reason is that the slide from homoeopathy's actual meaning -- which
rests securely and incontestably in a knowledge of the primary power of
medicinal substances and thorough investigation of the nature of the
patient's malady -- to the plenitude of metaphorical, fancied, and virtual
applications of a "kind" of homoeopathy arising in some "kind" of knowledge
of some "kind" of dynamic agency has unfortunate consequences in a
practical sense: far from liberating the aspiring homoeopathic
practitioner, attempting to confound homoeopathy's meaning -- which rests
upon knowledge of the medicinal tools! -- with anything utilising
similarity to anything else leaves the student and the patient alike
rudderless and uncertain as to whether hard-won homoeopathic knowledge is
just as fanciful as the tricks every snake-oil salesman pulls out of his or
her bag on this list. The analogies dressed as homoeopathy tend to
be confusing, overwhelming, unhelpful, usually unproven, often inaccurate,
generally unreproducible, and without fail unfalsifiable.

In other words, for the purposes of practising according to the
homoeopathic principle, the practices whose champions wage on homoeopathy
the zeal of the desperate amount to nothing: they are not possible to
teach, learn, improve, or test as homoeopathy is. And, by that reason
alone, the confusion you champion leads to intellectual laziness so
extremely debilitating for the practitioner that the practitioner becomes
unable even to distinguish the outlines of a discussion such as the one
whose nature you've mistaken here.

The first reason, then, is fundamentally strategic.

The other reason is not strategic but epistemological and aesthetic. The
truth, beauty, spirit, and elegance of homoeopathy are sufficient cause to
renovate the line between homoeopathy, a medical practice based on the
knowledge of medicines' primary effects, and *everything* else -- every
doddle that resembles or poses as homoeopathy. If any additional reason
were necessary, it may be found in the contrasting speciousness, ugliness,
and artificiality of the methods that snake their venomous way far too
easily into the gentle hearts of the long-suffering homoeopaths who (unlike
me) bite their tongues and tolerate the aggression with which combinopaths
pursue their "tolerance" agenda.

When you've understood what this discussion is about, please do contribute.
But all of those who'd like to discuss *homoeopathy* rather than
the aggressively intolerant presumptions of the wilfully ignorant would
appreciate desistance from the continual assault on it by the attempt to
pass 18th century allopathy off as 21st century homoeopathy. By all means,
discuss any kind of allopathy that takes your fancy, if you can do so
without recourse to the fraud of calling it homoeopathy; standing out as
unusually perceptive, you'll receive a great deal of kind tolerance. But
if you choose to pursue a zealous crusade for acceptance of unknown
medicinal agents as useable in some "kind" of homoeopathy, then understand
that the response you obtain arises not from intolerance of your faith but
from the injury you do to the sensibilities and the intent of those here
who respect and cherish that bright, pure thread that runs through all
homoeopathic practice.

Kind regards,

John



On 22 December 2011 23:09, Wendy Howard <wendy (AT) smeddum (DOT) net> wrote:

> John & Irene, I'll repeat ...
>
> > So where do we draw the line between 'homeopathy' and 'not-homeopathy'?
> >
> > The answer is we can't, because the boundary is not a line. It's a wide

> region of fuzziness. No matter how close you pull the boundaries in towards
> Hahnemannian homeopathy, they remain, and will always remain, fuzzy.
> Paradoxical maybe, because to each of us individually the boundaries no
> doubt appear pretty clear, but they're fuzzy because very few of those
> individual clear boundaries exactly coincide.
>


--


"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments,
guided by such ideas, would be very different places."


—Paul Ginsborg, *Democracy: Crisis and Renewal*, London: Profile, 2008.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are Off
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT. The time now is 09:14 PM.



The information contained on OtherHealth.com arises by way of discussion between contributors and should not be treated as a substitute for the advice provided by your own personal physician or other health care professional. None of the contributions on this site are an endorsement by the site owners of any particular product, or a recommendation as to how to treat any particular disease or health-related condition. If you suspect you have a disease or health-related condition of any kind, you should contact your own health care professional immediately. Please read the BB Rules for further details.
Please consult personally with your own health care professional before starting any diet, exercise, supplementation or medication program.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2005-2012 otherhealth.com
For books in the UK visit our sister site Dealpond.com

SEO by vBSEO 3.3.2