Lindsay and other friends,

I forwarded your midwifery question to Farra Swan, ND, who practices
obstetrics here in AZ and teaches at SCNM. I've done 2 rotations with
her and many of us SCNM'ers have had the privelege of assisting with
births with her.  It's a phenomenal experience and I personally would
hate to see us give up this part of practice.  I am forwarding her
response with her permission.



As the first OB resident at Bastyr, I was (with Tim Birdsall) involved
in  the accreditation of Bastyr as a midwifery school in WA . For
those of you old enough to remember our history, many of our elders,
including Dr. Bastyr, Dr. Niles Ettinghausen, Dr. Babnick, etc.
delivered babies. When WA state required midwifery licensing (thus
reducing the ND scope of practice). a number of ND's (Joe Pizzorno,
Les Griffith, Charlie & Leyardia Black) sued the state for and won the
right to take the midwifery exam. The rules were then changed to
require graduation from a 3-yr. midwifery school (like SMS). After we
successfully demonstrated that Bastyr fulfilled the requirements and
was accredited, I was the first LM from Bastyr. Since then, the
midwifery program has grown under the direction of Morgan Martin and a
number of dedicated ND's have committed the time and energy to
complete the program and carry the principles of Naturopathic Medicine
to the women and children they care for.
     I have been living in AZ and delivering babies here since 1983. I
initially had a midwifery license here but gave it up because there
was a conflict between the scope of the 2 licenses and as an AZ LM, I
would have had to follow the regulations of the lesser license. Since
AZ has a progressive ND license, including almost full prescriptive
rights, we can treat our pregnant pts as appropriate without referral.
That is obviously an indication of the difference in our training and
scope of practice.
     I also teach the OB course at SCNM (and have been doing so since
the beginning).I understand that there are not overwhelming  numbers
of us who get the advanced training and are willing to maintain the
lifestyle of delivering babies, but I am absolutely shocked at the
possibility that OB/ midwifery would not be considered a part of the
naturopathic curriculum. Where does good health begin if not
preconception/pregnancy? Since most of our pts are women and women get
pregnant, how handicapped will we be if we do not have decent clinical
knowledge of pregnancy? As we are seeking increased licensing and
scope of practice, what will it mean if we have such an obvious
deficit in our education?
     What is also not being considered is what the early MD's who stole
childbirth from the midwives knew: work with pregnant women  and the
whole family will become your pts. A large percentage of my practice
is the women, children, family, and friends of women whose babies I
have delivered for 25 years. I have never really advertised and have
built a successful practice from referrals.
     As the obstetric community is getting more restrictive due to
fears of malpractice, who represents normal birth? With the current
high c-section rate and increasing conservatism about VBAC, is it
really important how a woman delivers? I have been requiring my
students to write their own birth experiences and may someday write a
book about how our births affect us. I was a c/sec in 1947 and never
bonded with my own mother. Does it really matter to the woman who is
has the power for her birth? Does it affect bonding? The  increasing
incidence of postpartum depression? What has birth become in America
(see Marsden Wagner's new book). Are we going to give up our voice and
philosophy in support of women and children just because there are not
large numbers of us willing to get up in the middle of the night?
    Is there a difference between naturopathic midwifery and other
midwives? CNM's still practice in an allopathic system. Non-ND
midwives don't have our level of training and don't do family
practice. Our profession holds very high standards. There are many
herbalists, but we had Bill Mitchell, who didn't just teach botanicals
but inspired us all. Do we want to forfeit the role of inspiring
women/families?  Is this any less important than doing IV's and
esthetic medicine?
     We have an arts fair twice a year here in Tempe. Two years ago I
was buying a mosaic plaque with a saying from Mother Theresa. I told
the artist I was going to hang it in my office. She asked me what I
did. I told her I was a naturopathic physician/midwife. She became
excited and told me she'd had two homebirths. Her first midwife was an
ND. She said she'd had a long difficult labor but her ND didn't give
up on her. After the birth, she said she was completely
transformed---as a woman, as a mother, and as an artist. ...
     Do we want to lose this?
                         Farra Swan

I would like to pose the question of the philosophical differences between
naturopathic midwifery and lay midwifery.  First, because both Bastyr
University and NCNM have proposed to or have already decided to drop the
program from our curriculum.

I am currently at NCNM as a 4th year student in the OB class curriculum and
have experienced this program as somewhat inhospitable to students who do
not choose to do births but who would like to complete the curriculum
itself.  This seems like it isn't an ideal approach to expanding the
professional mind to the possibility of keeping natuorpathic obstetrics
around. However, for those who do decide to stay in the program, there seems
to be a very sincere difference in capability as a student physician who
treats pediatric and pregnant patients.

How come the curriculum at the different shcools does not mandate students
to complete a course of study in obstetics any longer?  Do the elders
perceive this as a positive or negative change in curriculum-  I understand
that naturopathic physicians had to complete a program in obstetrics until a
point in time which seems rather unclear to those of us who are in the
program currently.

I am curious to hear the opinions of some of the porfession's elders in
regards to how we perceive naturopathic OB different, even superior, to lay
midwifery or nurse widwifery.

Sincerely,
Lindsay M. Baum

Hello, Jared,

Thanks for sharing so much.  I do have a point of confusion regarding
what you wrote.  Is the only difference between, say, oral Captomer and
IV DMSA, for example, both of which are used to chelate patients, the
fact that a needle is inserted into the vein directly with the IV DMSA,
vs. the Captomer being absorbed into the portal vein post ingestion?
Are you saying it's the actual insertion of the needle that violates
the Vital Force, vs. essentially the same medicine being absorbed
orally, which is why you are okay with oral chelation medicine?  On
that same line, then,  is a monthly injection of B12 for a person with
pernicious anemia then a violation of the Vital Force vs. using a
sublingual tablet?   Please clarify these points for me with your
unending wisdom!

Mona Morstein, ND
Mesa, AZ




   I would disagree with this statement. In the first place, IV therapy
   violates the vis medicatrix, in my opinion, in that it bypasses the
body's wisdom
   regarding the composition of the blood. This does not mean that it
should
   never be done, necessarily but that it is a high force intervention.

   The therapeutic order contains several concepts. The first step,
really, is
   to address acute concerns. The next step is to identify and remove
causes.
   The plaquing in the arteries is not a cause as much as it is an
effect. I
   have totally cleared arteries, by evidence of arteriogram, by dietary
changes,
   exercise, and hydrotherapy, much to the amazement of a local
cardiologist.
   If this is possible, why introduce foreign substances into the blood
by an
   unnatural route which may have significant adverse consequences for the
   patient? I am not arguing against chelation therapy, per se, but it is
not a first
   order therapeutic, it is a 6th or 7th order therapeutic by its nature.
At
   least, in my opinion.

   Jared Zeff, ND
   Salmon Creek, WA

I do not usually pipe in on these sort of topics, but I want to this time. 
Combining a single or combination of substances that have been extracted or
aquisitioned from nature, or a natural origin in powder form and putting it into
a manufactured gel capsule can hardly be called "Natural".  I have never seen or
heard of a gel cap growing indigenously any where in the world "Naturally". 
Sticking a sharp, hollow metal pipe into one's arm is anything but "Natural",
and eating, or living ourselves into unhealth, or disease by choice can hardly
be synonamous with "Natural".

  Some may say it is "Natural to strive in any way, shape, or form to improve
ourselves in every aspect of our lives. Fortunately along the way we make
mistakes which we hopefully learn from and make corrections while moving
forward.  We are practioners of medicine, and medicine comes in many forms.  The
way most people live is extreme, and may require extreme therapies to resolve
challenges that arise concerning health and wellness.  Picking an apple off of
the tree (in the season therof), and biting into it with the teeth that God gave
us is "Natural", but drying it and pulverizing it into powder form to be put
into a capsule, or sold in bulk form is not "Natural".

I think Naturopathic medicine revolves around the individual, and chelation as
well as all other therapies should be approached with this core principle in
mind.  Some may need, and be able to handle chelation therapy, whereas others
may not be able to handle any type of chelation other than what the body does
naturally as they return to health through the many therapies we as Naturopaths
have available to us. I could write much more concerning this topic, but alas, I
have taken enough virtual space for one email.    The point I am trying to make
is "I love you man!!!"    As doctor Deng would say  "Pizza....out!"

JT


-----Original Message-----
From: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com on behalf of Carol Anne spooner
Sent: Tue 4/17/2007 7:13 PM
To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [NDPhilosophy] Is chelation therapy philosophically in line?

I think utilizing chelation therapy gives us the opportunity to remove
significant obstacles to health that most people in this age have as a result of
pollution, etc. Utilizing chelation biochemistry we can disengage progression of
certain pathologies- therefore eliminate disease occurance.

I realize Dr Crinnion has taught us @ SCNM that oral EDTA doea not work, but I
have seen studies where it did. Further, I have seen studies that showed
Autistic kids successfully chelating by taking a bath with EDTA. It is very
gentle and when given with RNA drops it increases the chelating potency (due to
this RNA "unlocking" the autistic patient's cells - apparently their bodies
don't respond to heavy metal challenges and hold onto metals more readily than
an average person's body.)... Think about that- a bath helping autism...it is
gentle and less risky.

I have often thought that checking cr. clearance before and periodically during
chelation is a smart idea. I haven't seen it done though....

As far as IV's go, chelation or otherwise, it seems to me I have been told
anytime we include magnessium we risk an event :. we need a code cart. It is
that way in the hosptials also.

The issue of chelation therapy not being "natural" indicates a preconceived
thought that only treatment that is natural = naturopathy. I think removing
obsatcles to cure without doing harm is our job as naturopaths. Further, I think
in some cases to not utilize a risky treatment measure (in which we have
expertise) can potentially risk someone's health as much as that same treatment
could have adverse effect in another person...again it boils down to individuals
being treated individually.

I think it most wise to generally start with the basics of nutrition and certain
supplements to increase optimal function... adding in anything extra after a
baseline is established. In that way, you truely know what helped-it is not a
guessing game. By fortifying neurotransmitter functions optimizing brain & body
function allows the patient to heal herself/himself. From there we have any
number of protocols to allow optimum anything.... While I find it hard to
imagine a patient can dump the same volume of metals possible as with chelation
treatment, I suspect the body would increase dumping from its previous status
quo simply because I believe the intelegence of the body, being fortified by the
bountiful fuel we provide provides impetus for the patient's internal mileu to
cleanse... I believe in the power of nature.

I have chelated my body. It was one of the hardest things I did to heal- also
among the most effective.

Well I just rambled on a little longer than I intended...
I  enjoy reading what you all write... keep it up

peace
Carol










MaryK Martin Geyer <naturecure@...> wrote:
I see that my original question was more poorly articulated that I had realized.
Let me expound.  My question is not whether or not it is in our arsenal (as I
will point out is mesotherapy and many other 'debateable' philosophical topics),
or where one might place it in the therapeutic order/hierarchy (although,
perhaps Drs. Zeff or Snider could augment this aspect of the discussion).  My
question is regarding the fundamental foundations of our medicine, predating the
therapeutic order, predating our "six principles".

  Is introducing a foreign substance, that is potentially harmful to the patient,
fundamentally Naturopathic?  If we wanted to put it in the context of our six
principles, would it fulfil 'first do no harm'?  While I realize that the most
serious adverse effects, such as kidney damage with EDTA, that were not uncommon
in the beginning of its use are now none to rare with safer practices and doses.
I've also seen it be very rough on patients, and have witnessed it do more harm
than good.  I know that AZ requires a 'crash cart' in our practice if doing
chelation, because of a potential.

  I don't believe that IV nutrients are comparable with IV chelation.  With IV
nutrients, we are adding exactly that, nutrients to build, feed, aid our body. 
Obviously we have to respect and maintain healthy osmolarity,drip rates, and
always practice safely (this is why we trained in accredited naturopathic
medical schools).

  I can't help but wonder what Lindlahr, Lust, Hahnemann, and the many others
would say.  This is why I turn to all of your brilliant minds.  I look forward
to some of you adding dimensions I have not realized.

  Naive, idealistic, and in constant aw of this amazing medicine called
Naturopathy~ MaryK



  On 4/15/07, Jennifer Williamson <dj.williamson@...> wrote:
  Sorry to answer a question with a question, but I'm new to the clinic and
actually using the therapeutic order.  Isn't the first step "Remove obstacles to
health"?  Wouldn't chelation therapy fall into this category?

  If we avoid chelation therapy because of its potential for harm, despite its
benefits in patients with heavy metal toxicities, I think that we would actually
be doing a disservice to the patient and causing them more harm by not using
something in our arsenal.  Some botanical medicines are toxic and can cause
harm, yet if we use them responsibly and when appropriate they are quite
beneficial.

  Also, if we avoid the first step of the therapeutic order, wouldn't any
treatment be considered palliation?  Isn't the first step what differentiates us
from the allopaths?

  Jennifer Williamson


  ----- Original Message ----
From: Greg Nigh <gnigh2@... >
To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:50:07 PM
Subject: Re: [NDPhilosophy] Is chelation therapy philosophically in line?

   Well, I'll weigh in with a few thoughts.

My first thought is that I'm not sure I understand the question. It seems to me
that it assumes  chelation causes harm. If that's an accurate reading of the
question, then I think it's simply a trick question.

Chelation therapy does not, in and of itself, cause harm. It is a very useful
therapy (yes, I do chelation therapy on occasion) that  has the *potential* to
cause harm. That certainly does not make it unique within the naturopathic set
of tools. Further, I would say that it does something that can't be done with
any other therapy, at least none that I know of. If someone has a very
significant amount of mercury (or lead, or cadmium, or arsenic, or etc., or more
commonly a combination of these) in their body, I don't know of any other
therapy that will pull it out. In fact, any therapy that *does* pull it out is,
by definition, chelation therapy.

In this light, I believe it follows the principle of using "the least force
necessary" to accomplish the goal.

I suspect that the intention behind the question was to explore where people
feel it fits within the therapeutic hierarchy. It certainly has a greater
potential for harm than, say, homeopathy, and I would also say that it's more
"invasive" than many other therapies we do (invasive is in quotes because not
all chelation is via IV, but is also done orally).

Given it's greater potential for harm, I think that it falls further down the
therapeutic order than many other kinds of therapy. I also think there is a
greater onus of responsibility on the practitioner to be competent in its use so
that harm isn't done. This is no different than, say, physical manipulation,
which can do very significant and lasting harm if done incompetently.

That's my $.02

Regards,

Greg

MaryK wrote:
   I would love to stir up some deep reflection and thoughts on a topic
that I've been adamently questioning for a long time now. Is chelation
therapy philosophically in line with our medicine? Does it fall
  under 'first do no harm'?

This was the last conversation I had with Dr. Bill Mitchell, who I
deeply respect. I think there are many docs on here, and brilliant
questioning students, that might be able to share things that I have
not considered previously.

Peace and Light
MaryK













---------------------------------
  Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out  new cars at Yahoo! Autos.









--
To be impeccable means to put your life on the line to back up your decisions,
and then do quite a lot more than your best to realize those decisions.
--Don Juan Matus, The Art of Dreaming




---------------------------------
Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
  Check outnew cars at Yahoo! Autos.

I see that my original question was more poorly articulated that I had realized.  Let me expound.  My question is not whether or not it is in our arsenal (as I will point out is mesotherapy and many other 'debateable' philosophical topics), or where one might place it in the therapeutic order/hierarchy (although, perhaps Drs. Zeff or Snider could augment this aspect of the discussion).  My question is regarding the fundamental foundations of our medicine, predating the therapeutic order, predating our "six principles".   

 

Is introducing a foreign substance, that is potentially harmful to the patient, fundamentally Naturopathic?  If we wanted to put it in the context of our six principles, would it fulfil 'first do no harm'?  While I realize that the most serious adverse effects, such as kidney damage with EDTA, that were not uncommon in the beginning of its use are now none to rare with safer practices and doses.  I've also seen it be very rough on patients, and have witnessed it do more harm than good.  I know that AZ requires a 'crash cart' in our practice if doing chelation, because of a potential.

 

I don't believe that IV nutrients are comparable with IV chelation.  With IV nutrients, we are adding exactly that, nutrients to build, feed, aid our body.  Obviously we have to respect and maintain healthy osmolarity,drip rates, and always practice safely (this is why we trained in accredited naturopathic medical schools).

 

I can't help but wonder what Lindlahr, Lust, Hahnemann, and the many others would say.  This is why I turn to all of your brilliant minds.  I look forward to some of you adding dimensions I have not realized.

 

Naive, idealistic, and in constant aw of this amazing medicine called Naturopathy~ MaryK 

 

 
 

On 4/15/07, Jennifer Williamson <dj.williamson@yahoo.com> wrote:

Sorry to answer a question with a question, but I'm new to the clinic and actually using the therapeutic order.  Isn't the first step "Remove obstacles to health"?  Wouldn't chelation therapy fall into this category?    

 

If we avoid chelation therapy because of its potential for harm, despite its benefits in patients with heavy metal toxicities, I think that we would actually be doing a disservice to the patient and causing them more harm by not using something in our arsenal.  Some botanical medicines are toxic and can cause harm, yet if we use them responsibly and when appropriate they are quite beneficial. 

 

Also, if we avoid the first step of the therapeutic order, wouldn't any treatment be considered palliation?  Isn't the first step what differentiates us from the allopaths?

 

Jennifer Williamson

 

----- Original Message ----
From: Greg Nigh <gnigh2@vagner.net >
To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:50:07 PM
Subject: Re: [NDPhilosophy] Is chelation therapy philosophically in line?

Well, I'll weigh in with a few thoughts.

My first thought is that I'm not sure I understand the question. It seems to me that it assumes  chelation causes harm. If that's an accurate reading of the question, then I think it's simply a trick question.

Chelation therapy does not, in and of itself, cause harm. It is a very useful therapy (yes, I do chelation therapy on occasion) that  has the *potential* to cause harm. That certainly does not make it unique within the naturopathic set of tools. Further, I would say that it does something that can't be done with any other therapy, at least none that I know of. If someone has a very significant amount of mercury (or lead, or cadmium, or arsenic, or etc., or more commonly a combination of these) in their body, I don't know of any other therapy that will pull it out. In fact, any therapy that *does* pull it out is, by definition, chelation therapy.

In this light, I believe it follows the principle of using "the least force necessary" to accomplish the goal.

I suspect that the intention behind the question was to explore where people feel it fits within the therapeutic hierarchy. It certainly has a greater potential for harm than, say, homeopathy, and I would also say that it's more "invasive" than many other therapies we do (invasive is in quotes because not all chelation is via IV, but is also done orally).

Given it's greater potential for harm, I think that it falls further down the therapeutic order than many other kinds of therapy. I also think there is a greater onus of responsibility on the practitioner to be competent in its use so that harm isn't done. This is no different than, say, physical manipulation, which can do very significant and lasting harm if done incompetently.

That's my $.02

Regards,

Greg

MaryK wrote:

I would love to stir up some deep reflection and thoughts on a topic
that I've been adamently questioning for a long time now. Is chelation
therapy philosophically in line with our medicine? Does it fall
under 'first do no harm'?

This was the last conversation I had with Dr. Bill Mitchell, who I
deeply respect. I think there are many docs on here, and brilliant
questioning students, that might be able to share things that I have
not considered previously.

Peace and Light
MaryK

 

---

Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.

--
To be impeccable means to put your life on the line to back up your decisions, and then do quite a lot more than your best to realize those decisions.
--Don Juan Matus, The Art of Dreaming

Thanks for the clarification.

It seems to me that the issue is around this phrase "fundamentally
Naturopathic."

If that is defined as meaning that only those therapies used by Lust et
al are Naturopathic, then certainly chelation using EDTA or DMSO is not
Naturopathic.

If, however, being fundamentally Naturopathic has to do with the
principle of using the least force necessary to serve the overall health
of the patient (as Lust did in his day and as we do in our day), then I
believe that chelation is fundamentally Naturopathic.

If a patient with Addison's is put into an enormously stressful
situation to the point of full blown adrenal failure, then I believe
that prednisone is a fundamentally Naturopathic treatment. Lust didn't
have it available to use in his time, but so far as I know it is the
least force necessary to accomplish the goal.

If my daughter had a confirmed case of spinal meningitis, with all signs
of escalating symptoms, along with everything else I do, I'd be sure I
get her to an ER for IV antibiotics. I believe that is a fundamentally
naturopathic therapy, the least force necessary to accomplish the goal.

I personally don't define "naturopathic" based upon synthetic vs
natural, but upon what I believe to be most protective of a patient's
health. In that calculation, I think the risk of metals sitting in the
body is greater than the risk of chelation (again, applied wisely, using
therapies to mitigate potential problems, etc.).

Regards,

Greg

MaryK Martin Geyer wrote:
> I see that my original question was more poorly articulated that I had
> realized.  Let me expound.  My question is not whether or not it is in
> our arsenal (as I will point out is mesotherapy and many other
> 'debateable' philosophical topics), or where one might place it in the
> therapeutic order/hierarchy (although, perhaps Drs. Zeff or Snider
> could augment this aspect of the discussion).  My
> question is regarding the fundamental foundations of our medicine,
> predating the therapeutic order, predating our "six principles".
>
> Is introducing a foreign substance, that is potentially harmful to the
> patient, fundamentally Naturopathic?  If we wanted to put it in the
> context of our six principles, would it fulfil 'first do no
> harm'?  While I realize that the most serious adverse effects, such as
> kidney damage with EDTA, that were not uncommon in the beginning of
> its use are now none to rare with safer practices and doses.  I've
> also seen it be very rough on patients, and have witnessed it do more
> harm than good.  I know that AZ requires a 'crash cart' in our
> practice if doing chelation, because of a potential.
>
> I don't believe that IV nutrients are comparable with IV chelation.
> With IV nutrients, we are adding exactly that, nutrients to build,
> feed, aid our body.  Obviously we have to respect and maintain healthy
> osmolarity,drip rates, and always practice safely (this is why we
> trained in accredited naturopathic medical schools).
>
> I can't help but wonder what Lindlahr, Lust, Hahnemann, and the many
> others would say.  This is why I turn to all of your brilliant minds.
> I look forward to some of you adding dimensions I have not realized.
>
> Naive, idealistic, and in constant aw of this amazing medicine called
> Naturopathy~ MaryK
>
>
>
> On 4/15/07, *Jennifer Williamson* <dj.williamson@...
> <mailto:dj.williamson@...>> wrote:
>
>     Sorry to answer a question with a question, but I'm new to the
>     clinic and actually using the therapeutic order.  Isn't the first
>     step "Remove obstacles to health"?  Wouldn't chelation therapy
>     fall into this category?
>
>     If we avoid chelation therapy because of its potential for harm,
>     despite its benefits in patients with heavy metal toxicities, I
>     think that we would actually be doing a disservice to the patient
>     and causing them more harm by not using something in our arsenal.
>     Some botanical medicines are toxic and can cause harm, yet if we
>     use them responsibly and when appropriate they are quite beneficial.
>
>     Also, if we avoid the first step of the therapeutic order,
>     wouldn't any treatment be considered palliation?  Isn't the first
>     step what differentiates us from the allopaths?
>
>     Jennifer Williamson
>
>
>     ----- Original Message ----
>     From: Greg Nigh <gnigh2@... <mailto:gnigh2@...> >
>     To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com <mailto:NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com>
>     Sent: Sunday, April 15, 2007 8:50:07 PM
>     Subject: Re: [NDPhilosophy] Is chelation therapy philosophically
>     in line?
>
>     Well, I'll weigh in with a few thoughts.
>
>     My first thought is that I'm not sure I understand the question.
>     It seems to me that it assumes  chelation causes harm. If that's
>     an accurate reading of the question, then I think it's simply a
>     trick question.
>
>     Chelation therapy does not, in and of itself, cause harm. It is a
>     very useful therapy (yes, I do chelation therapy on occasion)
>     that  has the *potential* to cause harm. That certainly does not
>     make it unique within the naturopathic set of tools. Further, I
>     would say that it does something that can't be done with any other
>     therapy, at least none that I know of. If someone has a very
>     significant amount of mercury (or lead, or cadmium, or arsenic, or
>     etc., or more commonly a combination of these) in their body, I
>     don't know of any other therapy that will pull it out. In fact,
>     any therapy that *does* pull it out is, by definition, chelation
>     therapy.
>
>     In this light, I believe it follows the principle of using "the
>     least force necessary" to accomplish the goal.
>
>     I suspect that the intention behind the question was to explore
>     where people feel it fits within the therapeutic hierarchy. It
>     certainly has a greater potential for harm than, say, homeopathy,
>     and I would also say that it's more "invasive" than many other
>     therapies we do (invasive is in quotes because not all chelation
>     is via IV, but is also done orally).
>
>     Given it's greater potential for harm, I think that it falls
>     further down the therapeutic order than many other kinds of
>     therapy. I also think there is a greater onus of responsibility on
>     the practitioner to be competent in its use so that harm isn't
>     done. This is no different than, say, physical manipulation, which
>     can do very significant and lasting harm if done incompetently.
>
>     That's my $.02
>
>     Regards,
>
>     Greg
>
>     MaryK wrote:
>
>>     I would love to stir up some deep reflection and thoughts on a topic
>>     that I've been adamently questioning for a long time now. Is
>>     chelation
>>     therapy philosophically in line with our medicine? Does it fall
>>     under 'first do no harm'?
>>
>>     This was the last conversation I had with Dr. Bill Mitchell, who I
>>     deeply respect. I think there are many docs on here, and brilliant
>>     questioning students, that might be able to share things that I have
>>     not considered previously.
>>
>>     Peace and Light
>>     MaryK
>>
>
>
>
>     ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>     Ahhh...imagining that irresistible "new car" smell?
>     Check out new cars at Yahoo! Autos.
>    
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=48245/*http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html;_ylc=X3o\
DMTE1YW1jcXJ2BF9TAzk3MTA3MDc2BHNlYwNtYWlsdGFncwRzbGsDbmV3LWNhcnM->
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> To be impeccable means to put your life on the line to back up your
> decisions, and then do quite a lot more than your best to realize
> those decisions.
> --Don Juan Matus, The Art of Dreaming
>

I would love to stir up some deep reflection and thoughts on a topic
that I've been adamently questioning for a long time now. Is chelation
therapy philosophically in line with our medicine? Does it fall
under 'first do no harm'?

This was the last conversation I had with Dr. Bill Mitchell, who I
deeply respect. I think there are many docs on here, and brilliant
questioning students, that might be able to share things that I have
not considered previously.

Peace and Light
MaryK

Mary -

What, exactly is your take on it?  Why would you consider it harmful?  If
so, would any IV therapy or therapeutic vitamin therapy be in the same
category?

Just wondering where you'd like to start... we DO have some very brilliant
NDs and students out there...

Chance Diebold, ND
Wilmington, NC

-----Original Message-----
From: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of MaryK
Sent: Saturday, April 14, 2007 8:13 PM
To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NDPhilosophy] Is chelation therapy philosophically in line?

I would love to stir up some deep reflection and thoughts on a topic
that I've been adamently questioning for a long time now.  Is chelation
therapy philosophically in line with our medicine?  Does it fall
under 'first do no harm'?

This was the last conversation I had with Dr. Bill Mitchell, who I
deeply respect.  I think there are many docs on here, and brilliant
questioning students, that might be able to share things that I have
not considered previously.

Peace and Light
MaryK




Yahoo! Groups Links

I would love to stir up some deep reflection and thoughts on a topic
that I've been adamently questioning for a long time now.  Is chelation
therapy philosophically in line with our medicine?  Does it fall
under 'first do no harm'?

This was the last conversation I had with Dr. Bill Mitchell, who I
deeply respect.  I think there are many docs on here, and brilliant
questioning students, that might be able to share things that I have
not considered previously.

Peace and Light
MaryK

Dear Yinhsu,

 

    Palliation is the mitigation of symptoms without actual healing, to reduce or moderate the intensity of symptoms. Suppression, from the Latin, "to press under" is a different phenomenon.  If the peasants are hungry and you give them bread, but do not alleviate the conditions that caused the hunger, you reduce their hunger temporarily.  If you shoot at them and force them to run and hide, you do not ease their hunger, and yo make them angry and afraid, so they are liable to revolt.  If a person is dying and you give morphine to relieve pain, you are not dealing with the cause, but you are palliating the symptom of pain with little consequence to the patient other than easing the suffering.  If a child has a headache from tension or fatigue, and you give an aspirin, you may relieve the headache with little consequence.  If the child has a fever an you give the aspirin to relieve the fever, you have disrupted the healing process that the fever is a manifestation of, and have suppressed the healing process.  The problem with suppression is that there are potential and actual consequences.  Reyes syndrome is one example of this.  So may be Henoch-Schoenlein Purpura.  Another example.  If the child has chronic ear infections, and you give antibiotics each time, you have done nothing to undo the cause of the ear infections, which is almost always dietary.  The problem is accumulated toxemia.  The toxemia is doing other damage over time, including causing recurrence of the ear infections, which will either result in damage to the ear drum, or the insertion of drainage tubes through the ear drum.  the antibiotics do not improve the health of the child, and may actually damage it.  The dietary change, on the other hand, will not only be curative, but will result in a healthier child. especially when combined with hydrotherapy and an appropriate homeopathic medicine. 

    If you recall the diagram of the "process of healing" (cf. Journal of Naturopathic Medicine, Vol 7, #1, 1997).  You can see the origin of chronic disease is, in part, due to the suppression of acute disease reactions the body mounts in a curative attempt.  Suppression is a major cause of chronic disease.  Taking an aspirin for an occasional headache, or giving morphine to relieve chronic pain does not have that effect.  Hence, the difference between palliation and suppression.

 

Jared Zeff, ND

Aslmon Creek, WA       

Indeed! There are many patients that come in wanting to get better, and
will in fact do everything to get better, only to revert later to their
previously (unhealthy) behaviors and habits. Still, they continue to show
up... and it turns out, they got better only to discover that they either
did not know who they were or that their families didn't like the new
dichotomy. I remember writing a paper on it as an undergrad, but the idea
of a 'sick member' of a family didn't really ring any bells until I began to
see patients who were seriously ill.

There are so many kinds of healing, and I really believe that we need to be
open to all of them. If we get stuck on any one path, it is such a
disservice to our patients. And to ourselves for that matter - I learn and
grow as a direct result of the people who come to see me, every bit as much
as they do!

By the way - there are no clueless students. Every single practioner brings
something special into the practice of naturopathy. The new ND has fresh
ideas and retains a willingness to learn and to be wrong, while the more
established have the benefit of experience and some wisdom gathered over
time. Both are vital to the profession, to the patients, and to each other.

Chance Diebold, ND
Wilmington, NC
http://DrDiebold.com
-----Original Message-----
From: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of MaryK
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:43 PM
To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NDPhilosophy] Re: Most people don't want to be cured, they want
relief; cure is too painful.

I think it is also important that we recognize people's emotional
connection to their illness. Sometimes, their pain or their
diagnoses' has become such an integral part of themselves, that it is
part of their identity. How would each of us feel if our identity
was altered, and we no longer knew who we were?

I too am just a clueless new graduate, in many ways. But, I was
blessed to work with many docs in the community as a student. From
what I have witnessed, I agree with Chance's post.

We affect change every time we speak or touch someone. It may not be
the change we were hoping for, or they were hoping for. But, then
again...we have less to do with the healing process than we like to
delude ourselves. Remember, we are there to hold their hands and
make them laugh, while the real healing takes place (in spite of us).

Our Medicine IS our philosophy (that is truly what sets us
apart)...but, we can't let our dogma's stop us from helping a
patient. Sometimes a patient needs to be met a little closer to
their point of confortability (or their pain alleviated enough for
them to see what life could be like) and then babystepped towards
their ultimate health.

Peace and Light~MaryK Martin Geyer (just fallen from the nest)

--- In NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com, "Chance Diebold, ND"
<chance@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Clueless Student.
>
>
>
> YES - it is true! So many people have been raised in the current
medical
> climate that it is very difficult for them to understand personal
> responsibility or the inherent health within the human body. If a
pill will
> do it, then why go through the effort? You have to admit, our
medicine is
> hard. And too, certain palliative treatments are necessary
sometimes - it
> is very difficult to get anyone's attention if they are in too much
pain to
> think, or too frightened by a diagnosis to make clear and
appropriate
> decisions. The trick is holding their attention long enough for
that cure
> to happen. and once it does, most people will climb right on board.
>
>
>
> . still, I don't think the patients interested in this 'cure' are
all that
> rare, and the ones who aren't interested are generally dissuaded
before they
> even make an appointment. I tell them, in a short consultation on
the phone
> before they come in, what I'm about. Diet. Exercise. No smoking.
> Emotional and spiritual growth and balance. Naturopathy is not for
> everyone, but neither is heart surgery! We have to allow for
individual
> differences in everything, after all. We have to remember this
too: even if
> they don't take us up on our first offer, they will remember us.
It may be
> as a kook, or it may be because we said something brilliant, but
they will
> remember us because we listened and cared and offered something
nobody else
> ever did - whether or not they were in a place to accept it at the
time.
> The same person who ran screaming from that painful cure may be the
one who
> turns up at the door weeks or months or years later, now ready for
what we
> have to say.
>
>
>
> -- Chance Diebold (NC)
>
>
>
> The capacity for hope is the most significant fact of life.
>
> It provides human beings with a sense of destination and the energy
to get
> started
>
> _____
>
> From: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of William Franklin
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:26 PM
> To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NDPhilosophy] Most people don't want to be cured, they
want
> relief; cure is too painful.
>
>
>
> Do you find this to be true? In my experience it is the driving
factor
> behind the success of the palliative mainstream medical approach.
And it is
> the main obstacle to cure that our profession faces.. the lack of
interest
> in actually being cured. It looks like our medicine is for those
rare
> individuals that are willing to take responsibility and work at
changing
> their lives around. If this is the case, then can we really say
that our
> medicine is for everyone? Not should it be, but rather. is it
actually?
>
>
>
> How do you get people in the door in order to offer them the healing
> alternative? How do you remove this obstacle once they are in the
door?
> The expectation is that you'll give some secret magic herb or
ancient
> chinese acupuncture technique or whatever and that it will take
care of all
> their problems, in precisely the way that the mainstream wonder
cures have
> been unable to do. How do you break the news to them that this is
far from
> the case and that it is going to require real change and effort on
their
> part?
>
>
>
> File this under "putting the philosophy into action 101". Sub
category,
> "clueless student seeks advice". Thanks y'all.
>
>
>
> William Franklin
>
> SCNM student
>
>
>
> William Franklin
> SCNM Student
>
> "How can a man find a sensible way to live? One way and one only -
> Philosophy. And my philosophy means keeping that vital spark within
you free
> from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and
pleasure, doing
> everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and hypocrisy, not relying
on
> another person's actions or failings. To accept everything that
comes, and
> everything that is given, as coming from that same spiritual
source."
> --Marcus Aurelius
>
>
>
> _____
>
> Cheap Talk? Check
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.c
om/evt
> =39663/*http:/voice.yahoo.com> out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-
Phone call
> rates.
>

Yahoo! Groups Links

Indeed!  There are many patients that come in wanting to get better, and
will in fact do everything to get better, only to revert later to their
previously (unhealthy) behaviors and habits. Still, they continue to show
up... and it turns out, they got better only to discover that they either
did not know who they were or that their families didn't like the new
dichotomy.  I remember writing a paper on it as an undergrad, but the idea
of a 'sick member' of a family didn't really ring any bells until I began to
see patients who were seriously ill.

There are so many kinds of healing, and I really believe that we need to be
open to all of them. If we get stuck on any one path, it is such a
disservice to our patients. And to ourselves for that matter - I learn and
grow as a direct result of the people who come to see me, every bit as much
as they do!

By the way - there are no clueless students.  Every single practioner brings
something special into the practice of naturopathy.  The new ND has fresh
ideas and retains a willingness to learn and to be wrong, while the more
established have the benefit of experience and some wisdom gathered over
time.  Both are vital to the profession, to the patients, and to each other.


Chance Diebold, ND
Wilmington, NC
http://DrDiebold.com
-----Original Message-----
From: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com [mailto:NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com] On
Behalf Of MaryK
Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:43 PM
To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [NDPhilosophy] Re: Most people don't want to be cured, they want
relief; cure is too painful.

I think it is also important that we recognize people's emotional
connection to their illness.  Sometimes, their pain or their
diagnoses' has become such an integral part of themselves, that it is
part of their identity.  How would each of us feel if our identity
was altered, and we no longer knew who we were?

I too am just a clueless new graduate, in many ways.  But, I was
blessed to work with many docs in the community as a student.  From
what I have witnessed, I agree with Chance's post.

We affect change every time we speak or touch someone.  It may not be
the change we were hoping for, or they were hoping for.  But, then
again...we have less to do with the healing process than we like to
delude ourselves.  Remember, we are there to hold their hands and
make them laugh, while the real healing takes place (in spite of us).

Our Medicine IS our philosophy (that is truly what sets us
apart)...but, we can't let our dogma's stop us from helping a
patient.  Sometimes a patient needs to be met a little closer to
their point of confortability (or their pain alleviated enough for
them to see what life could be like) and then babystepped towards
their ultimate health.

Peace and Light~MaryK Martin Geyer (just fallen from the nest)

--- In NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com, "Chance Diebold, ND"
<chance@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Clueless Student.
>
>
>
> YES - it is true!  So many people have been raised in the current
medical
> climate that it is very difficult for them to understand personal
> responsibility or the inherent health within the human body.  If a
pill will
> do it, then why go through the effort?  You have to admit, our
medicine is
> hard.  And too,  certain palliative treatments are necessary
sometimes - it
> is very difficult to get anyone's attention if they are in too much
pain to
> think, or too frightened by a diagnosis to make clear and
appropriate
> decisions.  The trick is holding their attention long enough for
that cure
> to happen. and once it does, most people will climb right on board.
>
>
>
> . still, I don't think the patients interested in this 'cure' are
all that
> rare, and the ones who aren't interested are generally dissuaded
before they
> even make an appointment.  I tell them, in a short consultation on
the phone
> before they come in, what I'm about.  Diet.  Exercise.  No smoking.
> Emotional and spiritual growth and balance.  Naturopathy is not for
> everyone, but neither is heart surgery!  We have to allow for
individual
> differences in everything, after all.  We have to remember this
too: even if
> they don't take us up on our first offer, they will remember us.
It may be
> as a kook, or it may be because we said something brilliant, but
they will
> remember us because we listened and cared and offered something
nobody else
> ever did - whether or not they were in a place to accept it at the
time.
> The same person who ran screaming from that painful cure may be the
one who
> turns up at the door weeks or months or years later, now ready for
what we
> have to say.
>
>
>
> -- Chance Diebold (NC)
>
>
>
> The capacity for hope is the most significant fact of life.
>
> It provides human beings with a sense of destination and the energy
to get
> started
>
>   _____
>
> From: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of William Franklin
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:26 PM
> To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NDPhilosophy] Most people don't want to be cured, they
want
> relief; cure is too painful.
>
>
>
> Do you find this to be true?  In my experience it is the driving
factor
> behind the success of the palliative mainstream medical approach.
And it is
> the main obstacle to cure that our profession faces.. the lack of
interest
> in actually being cured.  It looks like our medicine is for those
rare
> individuals that are willing to take responsibility and work at
changing
> their lives around.  If this is the case, then can we really say
that our
> medicine is for everyone?  Not should it be, but rather. is it
actually?
>
>
>
> How do you get people in the door in order to offer them the healing
> alternative?  How do you remove this obstacle once they are in the
door?
> The expectation is that you'll give some secret magic herb or
ancient
> chinese acupuncture technique or whatever and that it will take
care of all
> their problems, in precisely the way that the mainstream wonder
cures have
> been unable to do.  How do you break the news to them that this is
far from
> the case and that it is going to require real change and effort on
their
> part?
>
>
>
> File this under "putting the philosophy into action 101".  Sub
category,
> "clueless student seeks advice".  Thanks y'all.
>
>
>
> William Franklin
>
> SCNM student
>
>
>
> William Franklin
> SCNM Student
>
> "How can a man find a sensible way to live? One way and one only -
> Philosophy. And my philosophy means keeping that vital spark within
you free
> from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and
pleasure, doing
> everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and hypocrisy, not relying
on
> another person's actions or failings. To accept everything that
comes, and
> everything that is given, as coming from that same spiritual
source."
> --Marcus Aurelius
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> Cheap Talk? Check
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.c
om/evt
> =39663/*http:/voice.yahoo.com>  out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-
Phone call
> rates.
>





Yahoo! Groups Links

I've just joined and I haven't made it through all the posts thus
far.  But, I have to say that this is a really beautiful post, Andy.
And add in response to this statement,  "I do believe that some of us
get closer to understanding the essence of this concept through
self-cultivation.", that I believe Bill Mitchell was one of the these
few.  It is a profound loss to our profession, but what an amazing
blessing he was to us.  His presence will not be forgotten, as he has
influenced so many of us to seek deeper understanding of the Vis, of
our medicine, of ourselves...

Peace and Light

--- In NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com, andy <aswanson5@...> wrote:
>
>
> Where does the idea of life as an illusion come from?
>
> What about those dreams that are so real, you don't
> know you are dreaming?
>
> What about waking experiences that seem dreamlike?
>
> What about the phenomenon of "Synchronicities", in
> which multiple seemingly unrelated events come
> together in one orchestrated moment full of meaning?
> Are these experiences coincidence?   Or a revelation
> of the ever-present, organizing force that guides our
> daily life?
>
> Certainly, the five senses we are provided with don't
> account for an awareness of an "intelligent"
> organizing force such as the VIS.  We know people who
> have cultivated a sense for this power.  We see the
> power work its way into our interactions with patients
> and family.  We know it exists because we experience
> it in our own subjective ways.
>
> If it's any surprise, I happen to have accepted that
> these synchronicities are a part of the human
> existence, and involve all life forms.  This is the
> VIS.  It is beyond explanation because WE are the fish
> in the tank, and the VIS is the tank and everything
> within it and beyond.  How is it possible to KNOW or
> even to explain an ever-present power?  I enjoy our
> attempts as a profession to understand this
> magnificent force, and how it assists in our medicine.
>  And honestly, I don't think that any given naturopath
> will ever know or explain the vis in the same way.
>
> It is the TAO.  And the Tao that can be named isn't
> the TAO.  It is and it isn't.  The VIS is not the VIS,
> and vis versa.
>
> It is a circle, a sphere, a fish bowl, a spider web,
> an algebreic equation, a rainbow.  There are so many
> ways to grasp the essence of this power.  Have you
> ever chased a rainbow?  I have.  What happens is you
> keep getting closer, but you never get there.  When I
> watch the moon rise over Mt Hood, it still fascinates
> me that people in Seattle are watching it rise over
> Mt. Ranier.  We both see the beauty of this great disc
> in the night sky, but from different angles, and at
> times we just get the clouds.  The VIS, like the moon
> or the rainbow changes shape, color, texture, and
> meaning depending on your perspective.  Some see it,
> and some don't.
>
> I do believe that some of us get closer to
> understanding the essence of this concept through
> self-cultivation.  By learning to step out of the five
> senses, one learns the art of feeling the vis, perhaps
> seeing the web, and knowing the great universe.  Yet
> notice that these great teachers use metaphor and
> analogy to help others understand these concepts.
> Conceptualization occurs at the level of the five
> senses through the art of story.  The story is the
> illusion, and the VIS gave birth to the story.
>
>
> Andy
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>

I think it is also important that we recognize people's emotional
connection to their illness.  Sometimes, their pain or their
diagnoses' has become such an integral part of themselves, that it is
part of their identity.  How would each of us feel if our identity
was altered, and we no longer knew who we were?

I too am just a clueless new graduate, in many ways.  But, I was
blessed to work with many docs in the community as a student.  From
what I have witnessed, I agree with Chance's post.

We affect change every time we speak or touch someone.  It may not be
the change we were hoping for, or they were hoping for.  But, then
again...we have less to do with the healing process than we like to
delude ourselves.  Remember, we are there to hold their hands and
make them laugh, while the real healing takes place (in spite of us).

Our Medicine IS our philosophy (that is truly what sets us
apart)...but, we can't let our dogma's stop us from helping a
patient.  Sometimes a patient needs to be met a little closer to
their point of confortability (or their pain alleviated enough for
them to see what life could be like) and then babystepped towards
their ultimate health.

Peace and Light~MaryK Martin Geyer (just fallen from the nest)

--- In NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com, "Chance Diebold, ND"
<chance@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Clueless Student.
>
>
>
> YES - it is true!  So many people have been raised in the current
medical
> climate that it is very difficult for them to understand personal
> responsibility or the inherent health within the human body.  If a
pill will
> do it, then why go through the effort?  You have to admit, our
medicine is
> hard.  And too,  certain palliative treatments are necessary
sometimes - it
> is very difficult to get anyone's attention if they are in too much
pain to
> think, or too frightened by a diagnosis to make clear and
appropriate
> decisions.  The trick is holding their attention long enough for
that cure
> to happen. and once it does, most people will climb right on board.
>
>
>
> . still, I don't think the patients interested in this 'cure' are
all that
> rare, and the ones who aren't interested are generally dissuaded
before they
> even make an appointment.  I tell them, in a short consultation on
the phone
> before they come in, what I'm about.  Diet.  Exercise.  No smoking.
> Emotional and spiritual growth and balance.  Naturopathy is not for
> everyone, but neither is heart surgery!  We have to allow for
individual
> differences in everything, after all.  We have to remember this
too: even if
> they don't take us up on our first offer, they will remember us.
It may be
> as a kook, or it may be because we said something brilliant, but
they will
> remember us because we listened and cared and offered something
nobody else
> ever did - whether or not they were in a place to accept it at the
time.
> The same person who ran screaming from that painful cure may be the
one who
> turns up at the door weeks or months or years later, now ready for
what we
> have to say.
>
>
>
> -- Chance Diebold (NC)
>
>
>
> The capacity for hope is the most significant fact of life.
>
> It provides human beings with a sense of destination and the energy
to get
> started
>
>   _____
>
> From: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
[mailto:NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com] On
> Behalf Of William Franklin
> Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2007 4:26 PM
> To: NDPhilosophy@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [NDPhilosophy] Most people don't want to be cured, they
want
> relief; cure is too painful.
>
>
>
> Do you find this to be true?  In my experience it is the driving
factor
> behind the success of the palliative mainstream medical approach.
And it is
> the main obstacle to cure that our profession faces.. the lack of
interest
> in actually being cured.  It looks like our medicine is for those
rare
> individuals that are willing to take responsibility and work at
changing
> their lives around.  If this is the case, then can we really say
that our
> medicine is for everyone?  Not should it be, but rather. is it
actually?
>
>
>
> How do you get people in the door in order to offer them the healing
> alternative?  How do you remove this obstacle once they are in the
door?
> The expectation is that you'll give some secret magic herb or
ancient
> chinese acupuncture technique or whatever and that it will take
care of all
> their problems, in precisely the way that the mainstream wonder
cures have
> been unable to do.  How do you break the news to them that this is
far from
> the case and that it is going to require real change and effort on
their
> part?
>
>
>
> File this under "putting the philosophy into action 101".  Sub
category,
> "clueless student seeks advice".  Thanks y'all.
>
>
>
> William Franklin
>
> SCNM student
>
>
>
> William Franklin
> SCNM Student
>
> "How can a man find a sensible way to live? One way and one only -
> Philosophy. And my philosophy means keeping that vital spark within
you free
> from damage and degradation, using it to transcend pain and
pleasure, doing
> everything with a purpose, avoiding lies and hypocrisy, not relying
on
> another person's actions or failings. To accept everything that
comes, and
> everything that is given, as coming from that same spiritual
source."
> --Marcus Aurelius
>
>
>
>   _____
>
> Cheap Talk? Check
>
<http://us.rd.yahoo.com/mail_us/taglines/postman8/*http:/us.rd.yahoo.c
om/evt
> =39663/*http:/voice.yahoo.com>  out Yahoo! Messenger's low PC-to-
Phone call
> rates.
>

I too am inspired by the Secret movie.  In fact, it totally changed
my perspective and made me appreciate the power of our medicine even
more.

I am also inspired by the teachings of Dr. Sensenig and the other
"greats".  They help me appreciate the history and power of
naturopathic medicine, and inspire me to some day become an
inspiration to those that follow me.

A relaxing chat with a good friend over coffee, a long hike in the
Arizona mountains, and being a part of the naturopathic society at
SCNM inspire me.

This chat group inspires me too.  I love hearing your wisdom and
learning from you all.  Thanks.

Aimee Knauff
SCNM

Do you have an amazing mentor, patient, friend who inspires you? A
book that really encouraged you or a movie that changed your
perspective? An experince that has really shaped who you are today?

Looking forward to your responses!
Aimee Knauff
SCNM