|
| |||||||||||
| ||||||||||||
Forums
Courses
Shop
Diseases
Articles
Journal
Directory|
|
|||||
Interviews |
|||||
|
|
|||||
| Hpathy Ezine - June, 2004 | |||||
 |
Joe Lillard<-- Interviewed by Elaine Lewis |
 |
|||
|
Ladies and Gentlemen, please welcome Joe Lillard of Washington Homeopathics. Joe, you are really quite well-known, one of the original Millersville, Pennsylvania students, along with Julian Winston, am I right, who got this whole ball rolling again in the United States? Would you like to tell our readers what the significance of that was? Well there were several people there and nearly all of them stayed in homeopathy - Mitch and Nancy Shapiro, Sylvia Faddis, etc. so from that perspective it was very important - I didn't just go back home. We all continued to work in homeopathy and with each other. The NCH taught one weekend course - we lobbied for more and got it - the summer school today is a result of our bugging the NCH Board. I was first taught by Henry Williams who got the idea - we were serious and he taught us at a serious level. That might have been '82 or '83 - WOW! So, you were pretty much responsible then for the NCH Summer School! Also, you own Washington Homeopathics, which is a famous homeopathic pharmacy, and you'll be happy to know that I have some of your remedies right here, and I love the "emergency kit" you sell in 1/2 dram bottles, so small and compact, very convenient to carry in a back pack or pocket book, and, the other thing people should know about you--you are in that wonderful video recently aired on PBS called "Homeopathy: Mystery of Healing". (See my review in this issue.) Here's a question for you if I can change the subject: Why do we say that antibiotics "suppress" a disease? Not that I'm a fan of these things because they have horrible side effects, it's just the concept of them suppressing that I'm not sure about. We hear the phrase, "This patient has suppressed gonorrhea," by which we mean, he's been treated with antibiotics. Why should this be a problem? It suggests that when the bacteria are destroyed, the patient hasn't been helped, which is hard to believe! Can you make sense out of this? Well, Elaine, I think that many cases are "cured" with antibiotics, but often enough they are simply beat back where they are picked up as "miasms". I think the question is one of degrees rather than absolutes. A clearer example would be talking to a psychiatrist - he/she talks you out of your illness, but when a major stress comes along - bang - you're right back where you were. Here's a possible explanation, Joe; tell me if it makes any sense: The purpose of the antibiotics would be to stop the discharge. It must be that the bacteria are involved in this disease only insofar as they create a discharge. Hahnemann would say that by the time the discharge appears, gonorrhea has already taken over the whole body and that to protect the internal organs, the vital force consigns the illness to a discharge, and that as long as the discharge is there, there is no internal damage. But, if the antibiotics come along, curing the discharge, it then signals a flare-up of the whole disease in all parts of the body--possibly taking the form of arthritis, or a sinusitis, or warts, or asthma, or a combination of these; so, I think the answer must be that the bacteria are only involved in a small part of this disease and that killing the bacteria really does not address the disease as a whole. What do you think? Reasonable. |
|||||
| -- Next --> | |||||
|
|||||
