For your info
From: ARH-Media@yahoogroups.com [mailto:ARH-Media@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Friday, April 7, 2017 6:32 PM
To: ARH-Homeopathy@yahoogroups.com; ARH-Media@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Here is a good article by Lynne McTaggart from WDDTY about the latest attack on homeopathy via the Charity Commission. She makes a number of very valid points that can be pointed out to the Charity Commission and suggests that we write to them in defence of homeopathy.
It would be good if as many of us as possible do so – I am certainly going to do so.
The article is below – I hope the link works. Scroll down until you come to CLICK HERE. If not, please could someone let me know and I will cut and paste the article itself.
Liz
Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Last night I went to a screening at London’s Curzon Soho of the film JUST ONE DROP (www.justonedropfilm.com ), a great new film about homeopathy, which miraculously didn’t get banned or trolled.
This professional, eight-year effort attempted to be quite even-handed, while featuring many compelling and documented success stories.
To read the full blog: CLICK HERE
[Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
-
teresamoore1
- Posts: 14
- Joined: Mon Feb 28, 2005 11:00 pm
Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Hi Liz
Yes please to 'cut and paste' as I couldn't get to the article from the link
Warm wishes
Teresa
Yes please to 'cut and paste' as I couldn't get to the article from the link
Warm wishes
Teresa
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Here is the article
Soroush
Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Last night I went to a screening at London’s Curzon Soho of the film JUST ONE DROP (www.justonedropfilm.com), a great new film about homeopathy, which miraculously didn’t get banned or trolled.
This professional, eight-year effort attempted to be quite even-handed, while featuring many compelling and documented success stories.
There was a child with autism who began to speak, make eye contact and connect with his parents only once he’d been treated with homeopathy, with the before and after home videos to prove it. There was a fellow whose MRSA was successfully overcome not by antibiotics but by homeopathy, and who also had the before and after photos to demonstrate it.
There was a parade of medical doctors who haven’t a clue how it works, but turn to homeopathy every day because they have seen for themselves that it can cure all those chronic problems that conventional medicine has no answer for.
Suppressed evidence
But the movie’s real point was all about suppression of evidence. The greatest revelation had to do with the dirty pool employed by the Australian government’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), when it decided to assess the effectiveness of homeopathy by reviewing all research that had been done to date.
Except they didn’t. They created all sorts of criteria for whether a study should be included in their assessment (it must have more than 150 patients, for instance, criteria never used by conventional medical science), which naturally eliminated many of the most rigorous studies showing a positive effect.
By the time the NHMRC had sliced and diced some 1800 studies, they were left with just five, all of which had failed to show a positive effect.
Ergo, they concluded, homeopathy doesn’t work.
Questionable conclusions
That conclusion was challenged by Dr. Alex Tournier, the executive director of the Homeopathy Research Institute, and one of the heroes of the film, and members of the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA), who decided to investigate exactly how this assessment had been conducted.
They discovered:
The NHMRC had carried out the review twice, but rejected the first report, which had been carried out by a reputable science – and author of the organization’s own guidelines about how to conduct a proper review. To this day, that report has never seen the light of day.
The final study was based on only 176 studies, not 1800, as the NHMRC claimed.
Professor Peter Brooks, chair of the NHMR committee conducting the 2015 review, failed to declare that he was a member of the anti-homeopathy lobby group ‘Friends of Science in Medicine.’
In violation of the commission’s own guidelines, not a single homeopathy expert was on the committee.
Rigorous Swiss review
Australia blatantly ignored the work of the Swiss government’s Swiss Network for Technology Health Assessment, which based its decision to allow homeopathy on its National Health system after commissioning a report edited by Gudrun Bornhöft and Peter F. Matthiessen, from both the University of Witten/ Herdecke in Germany and PanMedion Foundation in Zurich.
The Swiss team had comprehensively reviewed all the major evidence for homeopathy, everything from preclinical research to double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and meta-analyses.
After assessing all the available data, the Swiss team concluded that the high-quality investigations of preclinical basic research proved that homeopathic high-potency remedies induce “regulative and specific changes in cells or living organisms”.
Of the systematic reviews of human research, said the report, 20 out of 22 detected “at least a trend in favor of homeopathy”, and five showed “clear evidence for homeopathic therapy”.
The report found particularly strong evidence for the use of homeopathy for upper respiratory tract infections and allergic reactions.
Perhaps most significantly, the report concluded that the effectiveness of homeopathy “can be supported by clinical evidence” and “regarded as safe”.(Forsch Komple-mentmed, 2006; 13 Suppl 2: 19–29).
Uncharitable efforts
This type of attempted suppression carries on in the UK, with the latest efforts of Simon Singh, the self-appointed attack dog on all things alternative, who has now mounted a legal challenge with the Charity Commission, claiming that Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) groups should lose their tax-advantageous charitable status in the UK unless they can demonstrate that the therapies they represent ‘benefit the public’.
The Charity Commission says they will only be convinced by ‘robust’ trials that have been published in prestigious medical journals, like The Lancet and British Medical Journal. This, of course, eliminates any second-tier journals or anecdotal evidence.
The CC has yet to acknowledge that the legal challenge is being brought by a member of two charities himself, one of which, Sense about Science, publicly mounted a noisy campaign in the press against the ‘sugar-is-bad-for-you’ argument, until it was discovered that it had taken funding from the likes of Coca-Cola.
The CC has created a short timescale (May 21) for the public to make its arguments. If you value alternative medicine, here’s what to write the CC before the deadline:
Tell them to read the Swiss report on homeopathy, the most contentious of alternative therapies, which shows very good evidence for it.
Demand a level playing field. If they are going to challenge charities for alternative medicine based on scientific evidence, then they need to evaluate Cancer Research UK, Arthritis Research UK and every other charity partly or wholly funded by pharmaceutical companies, an estimated 75 percent of whose research is massaged, manipulated or fabricated.
Have them check out Retraction Watch, set up to monitor fraud in medical research. In the past five years, they’ve discovered least 300 allegations of fabrication, inaccuracy and plagiarism reported at 23 of the 24 research-led universities the group investigated. Is that what the CC means by ‘robust’?
Ask the CC to apply the same standard to the charities to which Mr. Singh is affiliated. Please ask them to explain how a paid lobbying organization for the sugar industry – a product now agreed by many in the medical community to be a major cause of heart disease, tooth decay and most degenerative disease – can be regarded as ‘beneficial to society’ and deserving of charitable status?
Ditto, a charity which largely attempts to suppress free speech or freedom of choice in areas to which its founder disagrees. How is suppression of free speech or freedom of choice of benefit to a free society?
Email them at legalcharitablestatus@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk Or write: Charity Commission
Re: CAM Consultation
PO Box 211
Bootle
L20 7YX
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 9:22 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Hi Liz
Yes please to 'cut and paste' as I couldn't get to the article from the link
Warm wishes
Teresa
Soroush
Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Last night I went to a screening at London’s Curzon Soho of the film JUST ONE DROP (www.justonedropfilm.com), a great new film about homeopathy, which miraculously didn’t get banned or trolled.
This professional, eight-year effort attempted to be quite even-handed, while featuring many compelling and documented success stories.
There was a child with autism who began to speak, make eye contact and connect with his parents only once he’d been treated with homeopathy, with the before and after home videos to prove it. There was a fellow whose MRSA was successfully overcome not by antibiotics but by homeopathy, and who also had the before and after photos to demonstrate it.
There was a parade of medical doctors who haven’t a clue how it works, but turn to homeopathy every day because they have seen for themselves that it can cure all those chronic problems that conventional medicine has no answer for.
Suppressed evidence
But the movie’s real point was all about suppression of evidence. The greatest revelation had to do with the dirty pool employed by the Australian government’s National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC), when it decided to assess the effectiveness of homeopathy by reviewing all research that had been done to date.
Except they didn’t. They created all sorts of criteria for whether a study should be included in their assessment (it must have more than 150 patients, for instance, criteria never used by conventional medical science), which naturally eliminated many of the most rigorous studies showing a positive effect.
By the time the NHMRC had sliced and diced some 1800 studies, they were left with just five, all of which had failed to show a positive effect.
Ergo, they concluded, homeopathy doesn’t work.
Questionable conclusions
That conclusion was challenged by Dr. Alex Tournier, the executive director of the Homeopathy Research Institute, and one of the heroes of the film, and members of the Australian Homeopathic Association (AHA), who decided to investigate exactly how this assessment had been conducted.
They discovered:
The NHMRC had carried out the review twice, but rejected the first report, which had been carried out by a reputable science – and author of the organization’s own guidelines about how to conduct a proper review. To this day, that report has never seen the light of day.
The final study was based on only 176 studies, not 1800, as the NHMRC claimed.
Professor Peter Brooks, chair of the NHMR committee conducting the 2015 review, failed to declare that he was a member of the anti-homeopathy lobby group ‘Friends of Science in Medicine.’
In violation of the commission’s own guidelines, not a single homeopathy expert was on the committee.
Rigorous Swiss review
Australia blatantly ignored the work of the Swiss government’s Swiss Network for Technology Health Assessment, which based its decision to allow homeopathy on its National Health system after commissioning a report edited by Gudrun Bornhöft and Peter F. Matthiessen, from both the University of Witten/ Herdecke in Germany and PanMedion Foundation in Zurich.
The Swiss team had comprehensively reviewed all the major evidence for homeopathy, everything from preclinical research to double-blind, placebo-controlled studies and meta-analyses.
After assessing all the available data, the Swiss team concluded that the high-quality investigations of preclinical basic research proved that homeopathic high-potency remedies induce “regulative and specific changes in cells or living organisms”.
Of the systematic reviews of human research, said the report, 20 out of 22 detected “at least a trend in favor of homeopathy”, and five showed “clear evidence for homeopathic therapy”.
The report found particularly strong evidence for the use of homeopathy for upper respiratory tract infections and allergic reactions.
Perhaps most significantly, the report concluded that the effectiveness of homeopathy “can be supported by clinical evidence” and “regarded as safe”.(Forsch Komple-mentmed, 2006; 13 Suppl 2: 19–29).
Uncharitable efforts
This type of attempted suppression carries on in the UK, with the latest efforts of Simon Singh, the self-appointed attack dog on all things alternative, who has now mounted a legal challenge with the Charity Commission, claiming that Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) groups should lose their tax-advantageous charitable status in the UK unless they can demonstrate that the therapies they represent ‘benefit the public’.
The Charity Commission says they will only be convinced by ‘robust’ trials that have been published in prestigious medical journals, like The Lancet and British Medical Journal. This, of course, eliminates any second-tier journals or anecdotal evidence.
The CC has yet to acknowledge that the legal challenge is being brought by a member of two charities himself, one of which, Sense about Science, publicly mounted a noisy campaign in the press against the ‘sugar-is-bad-for-you’ argument, until it was discovered that it had taken funding from the likes of Coca-Cola.
The CC has created a short timescale (May 21) for the public to make its arguments. If you value alternative medicine, here’s what to write the CC before the deadline:
Tell them to read the Swiss report on homeopathy, the most contentious of alternative therapies, which shows very good evidence for it.
Demand a level playing field. If they are going to challenge charities for alternative medicine based on scientific evidence, then they need to evaluate Cancer Research UK, Arthritis Research UK and every other charity partly or wholly funded by pharmaceutical companies, an estimated 75 percent of whose research is massaged, manipulated or fabricated.
Have them check out Retraction Watch, set up to monitor fraud in medical research. In the past five years, they’ve discovered least 300 allegations of fabrication, inaccuracy and plagiarism reported at 23 of the 24 research-led universities the group investigated. Is that what the CC means by ‘robust’?
Ask the CC to apply the same standard to the charities to which Mr. Singh is affiliated. Please ask them to explain how a paid lobbying organization for the sugar industry – a product now agreed by many in the medical community to be a major cause of heart disease, tooth decay and most degenerative disease – can be regarded as ‘beneficial to society’ and deserving of charitable status?
Ditto, a charity which largely attempts to suppress free speech or freedom of choice in areas to which its founder disagrees. How is suppression of free speech or freedom of choice of benefit to a free society?
Email them at legalcharitablestatus@charitycommission.gsi.gov.uk Or write: Charity Commission
Re: CAM Consultation
PO Box 211
Bootle
L20 7YX
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Saturday, April 8, 2017 9:22 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Hi Liz
Yes please to 'cut and paste' as I couldn't get to the article from the link
Warm wishes
Teresa
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Combination remedies as discussed above relate to prescribing for unrelated local symptoms without thinking about the whole symptom picture of the patient. If you are cooking a delicious soup, you never dump in several spices and expect to get a clear definitive taste to your soup. With a remedy, you also want clarity. So you use one at a time. But, there are other ways of thinking about combinations. They are not just a taboo.
I am going to describe what I think of as a combination remedy - sort of. It lacks a good proving.
I am currently giving a remedy from a hot Springs. Before I gave Nat-mur and the reaction was not totally curative. An elderly person with chronic problems was taking Nat-mur, so I was only expecting palliation. (He was supposed to lose all his teeth to gum disease years ago but I have been treating each problem as it occurs.) Then, a gum inflammation occurred and I gave a hot Springs remedy, Wiesbaden. (Aqua-marina or Sanicula are more familiar examples.) Gum inflammation is mentioned in the description of the remedy, but in no detail and it does not have a good proving. Also the remedy is usually given for rheumatic or gout symptoms not for the gums. But I gave it because of the relationship with Nat-mur which seemed to fit the patient very well.
The hot Springs remedy is mostly salt with a lot of other different salts of of other nutritive type elements that are easy to relate to the patient's condition. Lots of Muriaticums, Calc, Silicea and Magnesium (see below). The gum problem disappeared the next day. Of much more interest, an explosion of pent up anger occurred several days after starting the new rx. Muriaticum and Magnesium are both very irritable angry elements. This patient rarely shows his anger, but political discussions reveal a lot of anger. I'm now giving it in F Potency and it seems to be working on a much broader scale. New symptoms that do not exist in the written information on the remedy are occurring and I will go up in potency when after 24 hours a new application of the old potency does not seem to cure the symptom. See Dr. Roz for instructions. I am only tentatively hopeful, but certainly Wiesbaden is better than Nat-mur.
When we choose remedy or think about their relationships with other remedies, we think about the substance (what they contain). Remedies are never just one substance. Even if we lack full information, we do make intuitive leaps like what I described above.
Clark: Wiesbaden [Wies.]
The Spring at Wiesbaden, in Prussia. (Contains in sixteen ounces Carbonic acid 6.416 cubic inches, Nitrogen 0.103 cubic inches, of the following solids, in grains, Nat. m. 52.49, K. mur. 1.119 Li. mur. 0.00138, Am. mur. 0.128, Calc. mur. 3.617, Mag. mur 1.566, Mag. bro. 0.027, Calc. sul. 0.692, Calc. ph. 0.0029, Calc ars. 0.0015, Calc. c. 3.210, Mag. c. 0.079, Fer. c. 0.043, Mang. c. 0.004, Silicic acid 0.46, Alumina silicica 0.603, traces of Mag. iod., Stro. c., Cup. c.) Dilution.
Information is based on observations of people drinking the water of the springs.
(Not sure how to think about the carbonic acid and the Nitrogen. The carbonic acid seems to be a common alkaline by product of related to asphyxiation from elements affecting the lungs and also blood poisoning. I can't imagine how they could be related to this case.)
I am going to describe what I think of as a combination remedy - sort of. It lacks a good proving.
I am currently giving a remedy from a hot Springs. Before I gave Nat-mur and the reaction was not totally curative. An elderly person with chronic problems was taking Nat-mur, so I was only expecting palliation. (He was supposed to lose all his teeth to gum disease years ago but I have been treating each problem as it occurs.) Then, a gum inflammation occurred and I gave a hot Springs remedy, Wiesbaden. (Aqua-marina or Sanicula are more familiar examples.) Gum inflammation is mentioned in the description of the remedy, but in no detail and it does not have a good proving. Also the remedy is usually given for rheumatic or gout symptoms not for the gums. But I gave it because of the relationship with Nat-mur which seemed to fit the patient very well.
The hot Springs remedy is mostly salt with a lot of other different salts of of other nutritive type elements that are easy to relate to the patient's condition. Lots of Muriaticums, Calc, Silicea and Magnesium (see below). The gum problem disappeared the next day. Of much more interest, an explosion of pent up anger occurred several days after starting the new rx. Muriaticum and Magnesium are both very irritable angry elements. This patient rarely shows his anger, but political discussions reveal a lot of anger. I'm now giving it in F Potency and it seems to be working on a much broader scale. New symptoms that do not exist in the written information on the remedy are occurring and I will go up in potency when after 24 hours a new application of the old potency does not seem to cure the symptom. See Dr. Roz for instructions. I am only tentatively hopeful, but certainly Wiesbaden is better than Nat-mur.
When we choose remedy or think about their relationships with other remedies, we think about the substance (what they contain). Remedies are never just one substance. Even if we lack full information, we do make intuitive leaps like what I described above.
Clark: Wiesbaden [Wies.]
The Spring at Wiesbaden, in Prussia. (Contains in sixteen ounces Carbonic acid 6.416 cubic inches, Nitrogen 0.103 cubic inches, of the following solids, in grains, Nat. m. 52.49, K. mur. 1.119 Li. mur. 0.00138, Am. mur. 0.128, Calc. mur. 3.617, Mag. mur 1.566, Mag. bro. 0.027, Calc. sul. 0.692, Calc. ph. 0.0029, Calc ars. 0.0015, Calc. c. 3.210, Mag. c. 0.079, Fer. c. 0.043, Mang. c. 0.004, Silicic acid 0.46, Alumina silicica 0.603, traces of Mag. iod., Stro. c., Cup. c.) Dilution.
Information is based on observations of people drinking the water of the springs.
(Not sure how to think about the carbonic acid and the Nitrogen. The carbonic acid seems to be a common alkaline by product of related to asphyxiation from elements affecting the lungs and also blood poisoning. I can't imagine how they could be related to this case.)
Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Thank you, Soroush! Retraction Watch is a real find.
I loved the story about the fake urinary tract disease based on a Seinfeld episode: it was submitted as a spoof to a "predatory" medical journal -- i.e., author pays for the privilege of publication -- and actually published when the editor failed to catch those fake citations.
Twenty-five years ago, back when medical journals had stronger rules against ties to drug companies, I had to read through hundreds of articles on nephrology. Even then it was apparent that most of them were bull, protestations about "scientific rigor" notwithstanding.
Peace,
Dale
I loved the story about the fake urinary tract disease based on a Seinfeld episode: it was submitted as a spoof to a "predatory" medical journal -- i.e., author pays for the privilege of publication -- and actually published when the editor failed to catch those fake citations.
Twenty-five years ago, back when medical journals had stronger rules against ties to drug companies, I had to read through hundreds of articles on nephrology. Even then it was apparent that most of them were bull, protestations about "scientific rigor" notwithstanding.
Peace,
Dale
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Ellen, nice!
Just one comment (saying what I know you already know): What makes a remedy such as this--and the others you mentioned, aqua marina and sanicula, and others--different from a combo remedy, is simply that their provings are done on the *entire* mix. So, it’s not used as a mixture of distinct proved substances, but rather as a proved substance which happens to be also mixture. As you say, we see elements of the components in the prescribing picture—but neither will substitute for the other, at least not deeply or long-term.
Same would be true of combo remedies; the combo will not substitute the component remedy which is needed—at least not deeply, or long-term.
But for acute care it might indeed be good enough, and that’s part of why combos have continued to be popular and useful, Hahnemann’s remarks notwithstanding.
Shannon
Just one comment (saying what I know you already know): What makes a remedy such as this--and the others you mentioned, aqua marina and sanicula, and others--different from a combo remedy, is simply that their provings are done on the *entire* mix. So, it’s not used as a mixture of distinct proved substances, but rather as a proved substance which happens to be also mixture. As you say, we see elements of the components in the prescribing picture—but neither will substitute for the other, at least not deeply or long-term.
Same would be true of combo remedies; the combo will not substitute the component remedy which is needed—at least not deeply, or long-term.
But for acute care it might indeed be good enough, and that’s part of why combos have continued to be popular and useful, Hahnemann’s remarks notwithstanding.
Shannon
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Hi Shannon,
Yes, I do think that the natural combinations have their own balancing process which may be closer to our natural processes then arbitrary combinations of remedies.
The remedy that I mentioned doesn't have good provings. Wiesbaden. What it has is people having side effects from drinking water from the spring. Much like taking symptoms from herbal medicine clinical experience, those side effects are seen as "symptoms". Still, I only use the remedy because it was close to my repetorized remedy that didn't work well enough, Nat-mur.
Then something similar to combination remedies, there is homeopathy as formula. I am not sure, but I think that Banerji prescribes a set list of remedies in succession. Not necessarily one at a time and not carefully watching to see what happens. I hope someone who is reading this knows better than me and can correct me.
Here's an example given by https://joettecalabrese.com/blog/how-of ... eopathics/
Joette writes:
"So when my son texted me that he had become sick on his trip overseas, I responded with “Nux vomica 30 (or 200) every 15 minutes, Aconitum 200 taken at the same time as Bryonia 200 (a Banerji Protocol), alternating with Nux vomica every 15 minutes.”"
I would not practice this way, but I have skills to to observe change and prescribe appropriately. On the other hand, most patients don't have those skills, yet they want to use homeopathy for acutes at least. So, is this a good alternative to random combinations?
How much skill do you think this kind of protocol requires? What you think of it? Experience anyone?
Blessings,
Ellen
Yes, I do think that the natural combinations have their own balancing process which may be closer to our natural processes then arbitrary combinations of remedies.
The remedy that I mentioned doesn't have good provings. Wiesbaden. What it has is people having side effects from drinking water from the spring. Much like taking symptoms from herbal medicine clinical experience, those side effects are seen as "symptoms". Still, I only use the remedy because it was close to my repetorized remedy that didn't work well enough, Nat-mur.
Then something similar to combination remedies, there is homeopathy as formula. I am not sure, but I think that Banerji prescribes a set list of remedies in succession. Not necessarily one at a time and not carefully watching to see what happens. I hope someone who is reading this knows better than me and can correct me.
Here's an example given by https://joettecalabrese.com/blog/how-of ... eopathics/
Joette writes:
"So when my son texted me that he had become sick on his trip overseas, I responded with “Nux vomica 30 (or 200) every 15 minutes, Aconitum 200 taken at the same time as Bryonia 200 (a Banerji Protocol), alternating with Nux vomica every 15 minutes.”"
I would not practice this way, but I have skills to to observe change and prescribe appropriately. On the other hand, most patients don't have those skills, yet they want to use homeopathy for acutes at least. So, is this a good alternative to random combinations?
How much skill do you think this kind of protocol requires? What you think of it? Experience anyone?
Blessings,
Ellen
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
I would call that MIXAPATHY!!
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 4:00 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Hi Shannon,
Yes, I do think that the natural combinations have their own balancing process which may be closer to our natural processes then arbitrary combinations of remedies.
The remedy that I mentioned doesn't have good provings. Wiesbaden. What it has is people having side effects from drinking water from the spring. Much like taking symptoms from herbal medicine clinical experience, those side effects are seen as "symptoms". Still, I only use the remedy because it was close to my repetorized remedy that didn't work well enough, Nat-mur.
Then something similar to combination remedies, there is homeopathy as formula. I am not sure, but I think that Banerji prescribes a set list of remedies in succession. Not necessarily one at a time and not carefully watching to see what happens. I hope someone who is reading this knows better than me and can correct me.
Here's an example given by https://joettecalabrese.com/blog/how-of ... eopathics/
Joette writes:
"So when my son texted me that he had become sick on his trip overseas, I responded with “Nux vomica 30 (or 200) every 15 minutes, Aconitum 200 taken at the same time as Bryonia 200 (a Banerji Protocol), alternating with Nux vomica every 15 minutes.”"
I would not practice this way, but I have skills to to observe change and prescribe appropriately. On the other hand, most patients don't have those skills, yet they want to use homeopathy for acutes at least. So, is this a good alternative to random combinations?
How much skill do you think this kind of protocol requires? What you think of it? Experience anyone?
Blessings,
Ellen
Ellen, nice!
Just one comment (saying what I know you already know): What makes a remedy such as this--and the others you mentioned, aqua marina and sanicula, and others--different from a combo remedy, is simply that their provings are done on the *entire* mix. So, it’s not used as a mixture of distinct proved substances, but rather as a proved substance which happens to be also mixture. As you say, we see elements of the components in the prescribing picture—but neither will substitute for the other, at least not deeply or long-term.
Same would be true of combo remedies; the combo will not substitute the component remedy which is needed—at least not deeply, or long-term.
But for acute care it might indeed be good enough, and that’s part of why combos have continued to be popular and useful, Hahnemann’s remarks notwithstanding.
Shannon
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com]
Sent: Tuesday, April 11, 2017 4:00 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Hi Shannon,
Yes, I do think that the natural combinations have their own balancing process which may be closer to our natural processes then arbitrary combinations of remedies.
The remedy that I mentioned doesn't have good provings. Wiesbaden. What it has is people having side effects from drinking water from the spring. Much like taking symptoms from herbal medicine clinical experience, those side effects are seen as "symptoms". Still, I only use the remedy because it was close to my repetorized remedy that didn't work well enough, Nat-mur.
Then something similar to combination remedies, there is homeopathy as formula. I am not sure, but I think that Banerji prescribes a set list of remedies in succession. Not necessarily one at a time and not carefully watching to see what happens. I hope someone who is reading this knows better than me and can correct me.
Here's an example given by https://joettecalabrese.com/blog/how-of ... eopathics/
Joette writes:
"So when my son texted me that he had become sick on his trip overseas, I responded with “Nux vomica 30 (or 200) every 15 minutes, Aconitum 200 taken at the same time as Bryonia 200 (a Banerji Protocol), alternating with Nux vomica every 15 minutes.”"
I would not practice this way, but I have skills to to observe change and prescribe appropriately. On the other hand, most patients don't have those skills, yet they want to use homeopathy for acutes at least. So, is this a good alternative to random combinations?
How much skill do you think this kind of protocol requires? What you think of it? Experience anyone?
Blessings,
Ellen
Ellen, nice!
Just one comment (saying what I know you already know): What makes a remedy such as this--and the others you mentioned, aqua marina and sanicula, and others--different from a combo remedy, is simply that their provings are done on the *entire* mix. So, it’s not used as a mixture of distinct proved substances, but rather as a proved substance which happens to be also mixture. As you say, we see elements of the components in the prescribing picture—but neither will substitute for the other, at least not deeply or long-term.
Same would be true of combo remedies; the combo will not substitute the component remedy which is needed—at least not deeply, or long-term.
But for acute care it might indeed be good enough, and that’s part of why combos have continued to be popular and useful, Hahnemann’s remarks notwithstanding.
Shannon
Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
Hi, Ellen
Joette uses the Banerji protocols regularly and claims good success rates with them. But some make me quail, like their protocol for hair loss: Ustilago 200c daily ad infinitem. What nice proving symptoms that would give!
While I take your point about few patients having the skills to observe subtle changes and prescribe appropriately, I'd rather they keep in close touch and let me help them through the process. That educates me as well as the patient.
BTW, I hear they're looking for homeopaths in San Francisco. I'm sorry to hear that practicing homeopathy is difficult in Japan. One would hope that as it becomes more popular, it would be more widely accepted. Still, knowing how decorous and reserved Japanese can be, I'd think case-taking there would be real challenge.
Peace,
Dale
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab® S
Joette uses the Banerji protocols regularly and claims good success rates with them. But some make me quail, like their protocol for hair loss: Ustilago 200c daily ad infinitem. What nice proving symptoms that would give!
While I take your point about few patients having the skills to observe subtle changes and prescribe appropriately, I'd rather they keep in close touch and let me help them through the process. That educates me as well as the patient.
BTW, I hear they're looking for homeopaths in San Francisco. I'm sorry to hear that practicing homeopathy is difficult in Japan. One would hope that as it becomes more popular, it would be more widely accepted. Still, knowing how decorous and reserved Japanese can be, I'd think case-taking there would be real challenge.
Peace,
Dale
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Tab® S
-
Ellen Madono
- Posts: 2012
- Joined: Fri Aug 15, 2003 10:00 pm
Re: [Hom-Media] Of dirty medicine and double-standards
I agree. I love learning about Homeopathy. Wish everyone could learn the basics. Not so hard.