What is Homeopathy?
Homeopathy is a safe, effective system of medicine, used by millions of people worldwide for over 200 years. Homeopathic medicines are prepared from natural sources and are used in extremely small amounts. They are recognized as drugs by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration...........Homeopathy Today (Editor Julian Winston)
First in the email you were defining homeopathy without medicine. Then dragged the topic to tinctures-non-tinctures. And next is what? Just go to the original mail and try to reread it. And please correct your views on the back of Homeopathy Today so that people should not call us doublestandardpath.
Nanga Pir
Julian Winston wrote:
Which tree is that?
I do not understand the "allopathic or herbal."
As I said, in one case it was what was reccomended by Boericke. I the
others it was just for experimentation to see if, in a case with very
clear symptoms, the tincture would cure-- and it did.
What is homeopathic is very simple:
Take the case. Look at the Characteristic Symptoms. Give a remedy
that has been shown to have those symptoms in the provings. See if a
cure results.
If a cure results, then the medicine was homeopathic to the case-- be
it a mother tincture or a CM potency.
Your opinion. I will agree or not when I can understand what you are
talking about.
JW
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
potentization/homeopathy What is?
-
Julian Winston
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: potentization/homeopathy What is?
At 4:29 PM -0800 10/28/03, Nanga Pir wrote:
There have been so many messages on this list, that I have lost rack
of them. I do NOT save them after reading them.
So, perhaps you can tell me what was said in "the original mail."
Homeopathy, in the broadest sense, is the application of the similar.
I have come across the term "homeopathic magic" which referred to the
use of "similars" in magical rites as in the use of dolls in shamanic
work. As Hahnemann discusses in the introduction to the Organon, the
application of heat to a burn is homeopathic.
As it happens most people see "homeopathy" as little white sugar
pills, because that is the most outward expression of it.
I mentioned the use of tinctures only because you seemed to be saying
that to have a "homeopathic cure" one had to use dynamized
substances. I disagreed with that statement and still do.
You ask "what is next?" as if I have some kind of agenda here.
I am simply replying to what others are saying.
As for the statement in Homeopathy Today, it was written back in 1984
or so, and was written by a committee of physicians and pharmacists.
I had some input into it, but not much. Just because I am editor of
the journal does not mean I endorse what appears therein. However, I
do not see any problem with the statement above. It is a statement
for people who do not know anything about homeopathy. I think it's
pretty good and I wonder what problems you have with it.
Somehow, I get a sense that we are not communicating clearly. I do
not understand how that statement would make us
"doublestandardpaths." Would you care to explain?
I ask this not in a facetious manner, but out of a real query to gain
an understanding about what you are saying.
I really do not understand your statements.
JW (being as straight as I can)
There have been so many messages on this list, that I have lost rack
of them. I do NOT save them after reading them.
So, perhaps you can tell me what was said in "the original mail."
Homeopathy, in the broadest sense, is the application of the similar.
I have come across the term "homeopathic magic" which referred to the
use of "similars" in magical rites as in the use of dolls in shamanic
work. As Hahnemann discusses in the introduction to the Organon, the
application of heat to a burn is homeopathic.
As it happens most people see "homeopathy" as little white sugar
pills, because that is the most outward expression of it.
I mentioned the use of tinctures only because you seemed to be saying
that to have a "homeopathic cure" one had to use dynamized
substances. I disagreed with that statement and still do.
You ask "what is next?" as if I have some kind of agenda here.
I am simply replying to what others are saying.
As for the statement in Homeopathy Today, it was written back in 1984
or so, and was written by a committee of physicians and pharmacists.
I had some input into it, but not much. Just because I am editor of
the journal does not mean I endorse what appears therein. However, I
do not see any problem with the statement above. It is a statement
for people who do not know anything about homeopathy. I think it's
pretty good and I wonder what problems you have with it.
Somehow, I get a sense that we are not communicating clearly. I do
not understand how that statement would make us
"doublestandardpaths." Would you care to explain?
I ask this not in a facetious manner, but out of a real query to gain
an understanding about what you are saying.
I really do not understand your statements.
JW (being as straight as I can)