Question on Homotoxicology

[Julian Winston]

At 7:38 PM +0000 3/3/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:

The Lutze Organon is a long story. It was NEVER established that it
was written by Hahnemann. Lutze had his own reasons for changing
things because he was, in his practice, a compexicist, and a
manufacturer of simple combination.
The Lutze Organon was discredited as a work of Hahnemann at the time
of its printing back in 1865.
Hahnemann, on advice from Aegidi, experimented with multiple remedies
*in cases where the complex symptoms were covered by two remedies.*
Ageidi abandoned the practice, as did Hahnemann. At the time Lutze
published his *version* of the Organon, the 6th had not been released
by Madam Hahnemann. In the 6th edition (finally released in 1921-22)
Hahnemann speaks very clearly about the use of the single remedy, and
the prohibition of more than one at a time.

Furthermore, the whole basis of the science and repeatability of
homeopathy lies in the application of the single remedy. If you use
more than one at a time, you have no way of evaluating the results of
your prescription. Did one or the other or both act? You don't know.
Well chosen for the case? Perhaps. Repeatable? No way opf knowing--
especially if you look at each case individually-- which is what
Hahnemann asks us to do.
Homotoxicolgy is NOT homeopathy as Hahnemann outlined it, and has
been practiced for the last 200 years. It is, perhaps, a very
allopathic way of thinking about using the remedies. And once you go
down the road of thinking like an allopath, you are lost to
homeopathy.
You got it.

JW

[J.VENKATASUBRAMANIAN]

Dear Anna,
you wrote,

""Now, if this is true, why not combine more together if they are

1. Does not homeopathy look at just one side , i.e. the totality ? The
simple remedy
which is similiar and minimum is what he advised.

The MM in H's days were minimum and a partial similimum would have been
necessary and then another one neutralized the reainder. But today is that
relevant ?

2. The acutes: The usage of two or more rx in alternation defies logic. This
subject has
to be taken up seriously. I have been treating acutes 100 % in my family,
friends and
employees for sometime mostly with single remedies and single dose. There
will be a follow up
remedy but, no alteration. ( In contrast, most of the homeopaths in my city
advise patients
to go to an allopath and then later come back for the continiuty of chronic
treatment)
This bad name for Homeopathy that it is no good for Acutes is primarily
because of the
incapacity to individualise the disease. My friends son, in treatment for a
long lasting
psoriasis developed fever in the middle of treatment and was given a vial of
an rx
. The mother called me and told me that every time she gave the rx the fever
subsided
with parspiration and a few hours later, started again. The rx was
allopathic to fever.
Funnily, when the boys sister contracted the same inflammation, she again
called me to ask
whether she can use that rx on her too. I said 'try'. The fever
responded.(Aconite?).
The homeopath possibly didn't know more than that.
If you are patient till now, allow me to rant further.
I am using Boger's rep (especially on fever - it is a self contained
repertory with sensations with
a section on concomittants( a great one this) which when used for
conformation, fetches
fabulous results.
Also I consult the Vijaykar's chart of acutes- which goes mostly on
generalities in acutes.
This is memorizable.After I work with the MM or any repertory, I mentally
work out the
conformity with the group indicated.
An example:
My niece,14,came early morning and complained of fever.The previous evening
I gave her
her Aconite for sore throat on exposure to chill. It was the onset of a flu
and was in full force
now. I told her to wait .Took bath and when was getting ready for school
when she told me this.
Uncle, I cannot stand this dress! Lachesis! (praful vijaykar-dull+ hot+
thirsty/thirstless+ cloth
intolerance). She hated heat, and complaining and was thirsty. Lach 30 in
the morning and
asked her to go to school. In the evening, she came back and told me that
she was worse in
school and slept the last periods. Without thinking gave lach 200. Within
an hour she was alright!
Puls was needed as follow up.

A pity boger's is still not updated. If done, this will prove a wonderful
tool with every single case.
(end of rant)

All the best to you.
Regards
Venkat

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Mr Winston,
That is interesting. By whom? And on what grounds? Did Lutze forge or
falsify the text, and why did he do this? Did he confess to it? It is very
easy to say something was discredited. Many people say that homeopathy
itself has been discredited.
Interesting too! Do we know on what basis H abandoned the practice? Where
did he publish his reasons?
Yes, but as I believe someone else has pointed out, this may have been a
political cover-up. Is the fact that the text was amended being given as the
sole evidence that H abandoned dual remedies?
Yes, and where is the basis for that, please? Isn't the basis of homeopathy
the use of energetic remedies to help disease?
But that's irrelevant anyway. It is more a question of case management than
the principles of homeopathy. Surely we can tell by the results that our
choice has been successful. If you choose 3 remedies that are all wrong, you
can tell that they were wrong because they didn't help.
I believe there are extremely compelling statistics to show the efficacy of
the homotoxicology combinations in controlled studies on up to and over 3000
patients. Someone on this group kindly guided me to the Heel website, where
there is fascinating information. I think this work must surely be taken on
board by any self-respecting doctor or homeopath who cares about their
patients (more than about theories)?
Or as we are being given to believe he outlined it. Because if this
translation genuinely comes from Hahnemann - and it seems there is no real
evidence that it does not - the rigid doctrine presented here is going to
crumble somewhat.

Also, shouldn't a medical science, like any other, be allowed to evolve?
Let's say that you are right about Hahnemann's ideas. Does this mean the
truth is carved in stone? Many scientists have presented wrong or incomplete
work - even people like Kepler, Newton, Maxwell. It takes an Einstein to
carry that on, and then someone else to cast light on the faults in
Einstein, and so on. If we are seeing such good results from a system that
appears to contradict the traditional tenets of homeopathy, perhaps the
tenets need to be modified. Otherwise we have a flat-earth society that is
holding back the progress of medicine and indirectly causing harm to needy
patients.
No need to be rude. I thank you for your reply. All this is very intriguing.

Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Anna,

I'm curious why you find the idea of two or multiple remedies at once so
compelling, and why do you apparently feel that the 6th edition Organon as
commonly accepted today is suspect? Maybe it would help if you further
explain your thinking about it.

Comments below:

on 3/4/04 4:19 AM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:
The article recently posted from Homeopathy Today (let me know if you need
that re-sent) I think explains this well. Hahnemann's thinking on the
subject is tracked in part thru various letters he wrote on the subject, and
in his final (6th) edition of his Organon he states his views on the subject
quite unequivocably. We also have the comments of those who worked with or
observed him, which certainly don't talk about dual remedies.

Do you have some reason for feeling that Lutz's version has more
credibility? Because nowhere have I heard it suggested that he actually
*used* dual remedies in practice, other than that brief period of
experimentation. If you have reason for thinking something different,
perhaps you could share that with us.
I was the one who mentioned that "some people feel" there was "a political
aspect" to his change of heart. I also said that Hahnemann gave as his
main/ultimate reason, the added layers of uncertainty and complication that
come from changing the way materia medica is learned and applied. One might
in fact say that the leap from single to dual or multiple remedies would
need to be studied as a separate methodology, as in fact it no longer meets
the definition of homepathy which was established by its founder.
The term "homeopathy" was coined by Hahnemann as a name for the system of
healing *which he developed*. The system he developed is one which is based
upon single remedies, minimum dose, and "like cures like". So, while the
*basis* of homeopathy may indeed be "use of energetic remedies to help
disease", one could say the same of faith healing, laying on of hands,
electroshock therapy -- all of those are "energetic" remedies to help
disease, but they are most certainly not homeopathy. I think we have to say
the same about various other methods of using potentized remedies (and yes,
I realize that's what you meant by "energetic remedies" ).

Taking it from the other end, when Hahnemann was first developing
homeopathy, he did *not* use potentization, but only the other two --
minimum dose, and "like cures like". Potentization is not actually a
necessary part of the homeopathic method -- tho it's a darned useful one!!!.
...

Ah, so *that's* your point.
Sure, homotoxicology can be useful, but it's not homeopathy. They don't
even *call* it homeopathy -- they call it Homotoxicology! Why does that
trouble you??? Why not just let it be something different?

Anna, I'm curious whether you have any first- or second-hand experience with
treatment thru *classical* homeopathy? If you have, I think you will agree
that the processes are simply different. Like a llama and a dogsled they
might both get you there (depending on the terrain), but they are most
certainly *not* the same.
You seem to feel that Homotoxicology needs the "permission" of homeopathy to
evolve. This seems to me like an odd position. It seems to be doing nicely
under its own name -- what's the problem? What, in your opinion, would be
the benefit of lumping them together despite all the differences in tools,
protocol, type of study, progress expected, patient expectations -- they are
*totally different* in so many ways. What could possibly be the benefit of
lumping them together???

Some of us use various other therapies alongside homeopathy if we feel it
necessary (and others cringe at the thought); some of us might suggest
things such as herbs, lifestyle changes, counselling, acupuncture,
chiropractic, diet -- all of these and more can indeed be useful to
patients. *But* they are not homeopathy. Why do you feel that's a problem?
Okay, that's an analogy I can work with. Consider physics. We got our
first bit of physics from folks such as Newton, Euclid, those guys. It
works awfully well for a wide range of problems.

Then we encountered areas where Euclidian geometry breaks down, and
Newtonian physics runs screaming. Others developed geometries and systems
of physics that elucidate, explain, predict, etc., for those areas. Is one
"better" than the other? Depends entirely upon where you are and what
you're trying to do. Use the wrong tool for the task and you haven't a
prayer of getting thru it.

There are some patients and practitioners for whom classical homeopathy just
won't work out, but other therapies (perhaps including Homotoxicology) could
indeed be helpful. There are other patients for whom nothing will work as
brilliantly as the well-chosen single remedy. Why muddle the matter and
faster or further of who's doing what or why...

Anna, maybe you should talk more about why you feel these things ought to be
lumped together? That would just make *everyone*'s training yet more
difficult, which classical folks certainly don't need (it's tough enough
already!), and clinical folks wouldn't want (tho if they do, they're welcome
to clinmb aboard!).

Cheers,
Shannon

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Shannon,
It isn't so much that. What fascinates me is the degree of resistance, and
emotionality, that I am meeting with as a result of asking a few simple
questions. I have been warned about this in the past by my uncle, but I must
say I had to experience it to believe it! I have received very nice private
emails from people who agree that these questions are important. But I have
also been receiving some quite nasty, emotional messages from others.
No, but I would like to see some evidence that it has *less* credibility!
...Or the definition that is being handed to us, apparently without
evidence.
Not if the "suppressed" information is correct!
You forgot to mention laser beams, radiation therapy, X-rays, and all the
other uses of energy in medicine. But of course they are not the same as
homeopathy. Doesn't this rather go without saying?
If the potentised remedy (either on its own or acting within a combination
of others) is resonating by electromagnetism and working by similar
resonance, then it is homeopathic to the imbalance it will theoretically
correct. So whatever the use or the context, if we are applying homeopathic
remedies, it is homeopathy.
They do use the word homeopathy too, as I saw by reading through their
website. I think the reason they wanted to differentiate themselves from
homeopathy by adopting a different name was for two reasons. First because
they were applying a new, more scientifically up to date application for it
(which I am sure Hahnemann would have strongly approved of) and second
perhaps to distance themselves from the popular view of homeopathy as
something a little far-out. Perhaps also to extricate themselves from the
dogma that seems to go hand in hand with homeopathy (as I am rapidly
learning).
Actually I think that it may be the other way around.
No, I was using this as an analogy for scientific evolution of ideas. I
don't understand your comment "depends on where you are". Facts are facts,
until someone proves otherwise.
Who are the clinical folks? Doesn't clinical practice enter into homeopathy?
I feel these things should be not lumped together, but intelligently
integrated.

I will make one final observation and then stop, because I sense that people
are starting to get upset (not me).

First I was asking about double remedies. Then we are told "oh, that's a
mistranslation". Then when I quote the German we are told "oh, that's not
authentic text". But then we are told "but Hahnemann DID use double remedies
but then stopped" (no evidence offered as to why). Then we are told "double
homeopathic remedies are not homeopathy". How many more contradictions can
you pile up?

Ultimately, none of it matters anyway. We are not having a theological
debate, where the only proof of the pudding would be to ask God what he
thinks. In this debate, we can test whether the assertions are correct or
not. What puzzles and amazes me is that homeopaths have easy access to vast
quantities of information, conducted far more methodically and
scientifically (it seems to me) than anything classical homeopathy can
offer, showing conclusively that you can indeed combine several remedies
together, still take advantage of the way they work individually (i.e.
similars / energy) and produce consistent, repeatable results with 1000s of
subjects across the range of virtually all known diseases. This is not an
abstract debate, it is provable. My only real question is why homeopaths
would apparently rather cling to rather dogmatic notions, set down centuries
ago, without looking ahead at potential developments. Even if it were true
that Hahnemann was against, or abandoned, double or multi remedies, does it
ultimately matter if now in the 21st century we have a system based on the
same concepts, allied to modern medical knowledge and working a treat (going
by the results, which are the only things to go by). To sideline this great
development by saying "it isn't homeopathy" seems to me to be an exercise in
religion, not science. To suppress uncomfortable ideas or try to scream them
down by referring to scripture is the act of a priest, not a doctor.

But we can certainly agree to differ.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

A small comment as a fully trained Homotoxicologist...............

Homeopathy is based on the Law of Similars.
Homotoxicology is based on the phase theory and on vicariation, i.e. evolution through different reactive phases of the body.

They both use the same instruments, the dynamized remedy.
But the principles and the theory behind those techniques are different.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[Julian Winston]

At 7:14 PM +0000 3/4/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:
People who are new to homeopathy ask questions. The question of
double remedies always arises. Once one has a good understanding of
homeopathy, one understands why double remedies (or triple, or more)
and NOT homeopathic in concept, and are not needed for cure.
As I said, Lutze ran a Naturopathic Clinic in Kothen. He idolized
Hahnemann. He made his own combos. Like others who distort the works
of Hahnemann he tried putting words into Hahnemann's mouth. He did
this is 1865. Hahnemann was long gone.
What do you mean by that?
NO. It is not. The application of the remedy has to do with the
matching of the state of the patient to the disease. By definition of
"simillimum" we are looking for the SINGLE substance. The application
of more than a single substance, even if it is potentized, is NJOT
homeopathy.
A lot of people use the world homeopathy, and use it wrongly. Just
because they have a website, it deoes not make what they they are
doing homeopathy.
Anna. Are you in practice? Have you studied? Have you TRIED to apply
homeopathy in a clinical setting? It DOES work without the use of
combinations.
From Haehl, Volume II, page 253. I will summarize. To see them
exactly, go to the book.
All Hahnemann to Boenninghausen:

June 17 1833. He tries double remedies and discusses putting a
mention in the 5th ed. of the Organon

Sept. 15, 1833. He decides to remove the paragraph. "As it is never,
as we know, absolutely necessary (although at times advantageous) to
prescribe for the patient a double remedy, and the advantage gained
from this sometimes useful method is, as I see, greastlyu
overbalanced by the disadvantage which would certainly arise by
misinterpretation by allopaths and allo-homeopaths, I have, wioth
your approval, I feel sure, had the manuscript sent back to me, and I
have put everything back *integrum*, and hqave also added a reprimand
against such a proceeding, so that the orthodox pope of the old
school will be considerably upset when he sees in the Organon a
publication that will make his rejoicing melt away..."

Oct 16, 1833. In Hahnemann's experience with double remedies only
"one or two have been successful."

Sept 18, 1836 (from Paris). He berates Boenninghauses for giving
double remedies. "Has not even Aegidi, after much reflection,
abandoned such an abominable heresy which gives the death blow to
true homeopathy, and throws it back to blind allopathy?"

So. Hahnemann stopped because he had minimal success. The above
paragraphs are from letters from Haqhnemann to Boenninghausen that
are NOT heresay, but actually exist in the archives at the Bosch
Institute in Stuttgart.
He tried it, had little success, gave it up on both practical AND
philosophical grounds.
Throughout the 200 years since Hahnemann first formulated his ideas,
people have both used his methods, and have tried to move away form
them.
Those who understand the beauty of his system of the single remedy
have found it a difficult study and a rewarding one. They have (as we
read in the journals) cured those who were abandoned by conventional
medicine. The cures of Boenninghausen, Lippe, Nash, Kent, Dixon,
Hayes, Boger-- all happened through intense study, and the
understanding that the proper simillimum WILL cure.
Along with these people are those whose minds either can't understand
the fineness of the system, or are locked into an
allopathic/mechanistic view of the functioning of the human
instrument. Some of them have apparent successes, but there is no
METHOD in their work. They fall into the allopathic trap of thinking
that person X with disease Y can be treated the same as person Z with
the seemingly same disease.
It takes a lot to understand that this is a false proposition. It is
what allopathic medicine is based upon.
To extract oneself from that thinking is very difficult.
And it is probably why homeopathy will never gain sweeping
acceptance-- because only certain people can truly understand the
beauty of the method.

This minutus list was set up to discuss what is known as "classsical"
homeopathy. Questions as you ask are useful to define our position,
but further debate is not needed.
The list seems to answer you, Anna, with good answers, and still you
persist in arguing about it.

JW

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Anna,

I think the "resistance" is easily explained (multiple remedies are
specifically excluded by Hahnemann), but I agree that the emotionality is
interesting. Sometimes it just comes up from frustration, when one would
rather be dealing with other issues.

on 3/4/04 1:14 PM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:

Dear Shannon,
Interesting! So your uncle must be either a Homeotoxicologist who wants to
be "taken seriously" by the Homeopathic community, or a homeopath who has
been ostracized for "consorting with Homeotoxicologists". Is it an
interesting story? Would you like to tell us your uncle's background and
story?
say I had to experience it to believe it! I have received very nice private
emails from people who agree that these questions are important. But I have
also been receiving some quite nasty, emotional messages from others.
It seems to me that "less credibility" is demonstrated by the *further*
letters Hahnemann wrote, and the events described in the article sent by
Robyn, in which Hahnemann specifically refutes those experiments.
There's been plenty of evidence offered. Did you read the article? What do
you think about it?
So you are saying that the letters and events described in Robyn's article
are fictitious, or have you not read it yet? For Lutz's version to be
correct and the other reports wrong, would require a great deal more than
simple suppression of a few paragraphs. It would also require brainwashing
a whole lot of the people who worked with Hahnemann and have described his
method. Do you think someone kidnapped and brainwashed them, or else how
did Lutz come to be the only one aware of Hahnemann's "true" thoughts and
intentions on the subject? Hahnemann did not work in a vacuum, and there
seems to be a good "paper trail" on the subject...
That was my point. And my further point was that Homotoxicology *also* is
"not homeopathy"; different principles, different method, doesn't fall
within the definition.
Errrrr.... No. Where do you get this "definition", may I ask? And why do
you feel you (or whoever) have the authority to *change* the definition that
Hahnemann gave to the method he developed and the term that he coined?

And... all of matter/creation is simply electromagnetic resonance anyway,
right? So if I throw a remedy bottle at someone, is that homeoapthy too?
After all I am using a potentized remedy.

Oooooh! )))) What makes it more "scientific", might I ask?
And conversely, what makes classical homeopathic approach *less* scientific?
(Do you know the two systems well enough to make a comparison for us?)
This is a serious question, BTW; I would like to hear what makes one method
more or less "scientific" comopared with the other.
er.... Only if those letters and meetings and whatnot were complete
fabrications and the Organon is a complete forgery. Have you read the
Organon, BTW? (Not an academic question in context of this discussion!) If
his written and witnessed words are correct then no, he would most certainly
not have approved.
Well, and what's wrong with that??? As I said before, some people -- both
patients and practitioners -- will be more attracted to one approach, and
some to the other. Why not leave them/us all alone, to be attracted as
we/they see fit? Why try to smash that square peg into that round hole --
just "on principle", or what?

...
So I would think both sides would be awfully happy to be just left to
proceed as they see fit. I'm still baffled about your motive here.
Facts are facts, but each patient is an individual. What I meant by "where
you are" (etc.) with regard to physics, is that you need Newtonian physics
for tasks in "the everyday world", but you need other physics for tasks
involving the very small (sub-atomic) and the very large (galactic or
whatever).

With regard to patients, "where you are" means this: Some people will
*prefer* some approach, and some will prefer the other. That is a fact.

Some people will (for a variety of possible reasons) get better results form
one approach, and others from the other. That is another fact.

Each of these is a "where you are" sort of fact; there are others too, but
you get the idea.
A "clinical" prescriber is considered to be one whose approach is more
slanted toward the practical, and less apt to be disturbed by "drawing
outside the lines", using non-approved methods. Naturally every successful
practitioner will have a blend of theory (need it to find starting points)
and clinical skill (need it in order to apply the theories).

But you haven't answered my question: Why do you feel these two *different*
approaches ought to be "integrated" (if you prefer that term)? I'm quite
certain that some practitioners *do* integrate these two approaches, just as
others choose to "integrate" their homeopathy work with e.g. acupuncture,
counselling, nutrition, whatever. Same thing: Different areas of
expertise, but no law against "integrating" them if the prescriber chooses.
Me either, but I *am* still baffled.
I will ask you a third time (not counting the prior one in this post): Did
you read the article that Robyn sent, from American Homeopath? The
"evidence... as to why" is provided by Hahnemann's own words, some in
letters and some in the Organon. Have you read them? Do you know what I'm
referring to?
Well, just as many as folks want, if they/we choose to continue the
discussion without looking at the evidence. Please read (or re-read) the
article I keep asking about, and tell me what you think about it. To me it
seems a "case closed" kinda thing, but maybe you'll have different thoughts.
Well, as I keep repeating, the fact that something is "not homeopathy" does
not in itself mean that it is "not useful". I've already conceded that I
have seen homotoxicology produce useful results, tho I don't have enough
exposure to it to say much more than that.

I also hear wonderful things about many other therapies, and they too are
not homeopathy, according to the definition *clearly* stated by the person
who developed the methodology and coined the term.

Y'know, I think this is a lot of the problem. Humor me thru another
analogy: If a friendly stranger sets up a shop next to mine, catering to a
similar yet different market, and comes by to chat with me, see what I've
got, etc., I'll be happy to visit, happy to exchange tips about business,
crowds, management; trade stories, whatever. Great.

Now if that same friendly stranger appears in my shop saying "Hm, nice place
we got here! Problem is, tho, you've got to improve this decor. That wall
now, it's got to go. We need access to the street, yes that's it, access!
So here, I've got some catalogs for some new things we've got to carry..."
Etc. And I'm going whoa, who *is* this nut, and what the #$(@#( is s/he
doing in *my store*???

See the difference?
There are lots of possible reasons, different ones will apply for different
people. Why do you care? Some cling to "dogma" because for them it
*works*, and works beautifully. They do *want* to learn Homotoxicology, and
most emphatically don't want to be "confused with" a homotoxicologist -- or
an herbalist, acupuncturist, or whatever.

Hm, I wonder whether electricians and plumbers get into debates about
whether they should both share the same job title...
Mmm, very flattering. You're saying that anything which "isn't homeopathy"
has been sidelined! That's more egomaniacal than *I* was prepared to be,
LOL!

If you have knowledge of both systems i would be interested to hear your
comparison. If you *don't* have knowledge of both systems, this seems a
rather pointless argument...
Only if you figure that Hahnemann is God! ))) Sigh, I'm being
flippant, sorry. But seriously, let's leave religion out of it and stick to
"the facts, ma'am." As in, read the article and tell me what you think
about it.
Well, in this case it is the act of an historian ("What really happened?")
or a linguist ("What did he mean by that?")

The question is, Why does it matter?
If we lump them together, what will be gained, and what will be lost?
My opinion: What would be gained -- warm fuzzy feelings of "inclusion".
What would be lost -- clear delineating of a powerful system whose depths
have not yet been reached.

Better, in my opinion, to let Homotoxicology and Homeopathy co-exist
side-by-side as "neighbor shopkeepers". Let them/us become respectfully
acquainted with each other's accomplishments, safe in the security of our
respective domains. From a place of safety one has freedom to venture out
and explore; while one feels under seige ("What is this nut doing in my
shop?"), one is more apt to be defensive than curious.
Sure.

Cheers,
Shannon

[Julian Winston]

At 10:23 AM +1300 3/5/04, Dr.J Rozencwajg wrote:

And that says it.

Homeopathy is homeopathy.
Homotoxicology is Homotoxicology.

Both have value.
Neither is the other.

Thank you Joe!

JW

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Mr Winston,
And then you get over it, and stop asking? Is that healthy?
OK, that is an assertion that should be substantiated with data. Have you
got cases to back this up? Control groups would have to consist of dual or
multi-remedy cases, showing that they did not work as well as the single
remedy "magic bullet" approach.

I thnk you are misunderstanding me. I am not attacking anyone's approach,
merely asking why the other approach should be dismissed when it seems to
show very strong evidence. I am not so far seeing any such evidence to back
up the assertions being made in favour of the single remedy.
I mean that in order to dismiss certain writings as not being Hahnemann's,
one has to have concrete evidence. So far, none is presented.
Does this also apply to remedies given one after another in quick
succession? Hahnemann refers to situations where one remedy alone will not
cure, and you have to bring in others one after another to finish the job.
If this means that the single remedy was insufficient, what is the
difference in practical terms between giving them in quick order or giving
them all at once?
I agree that not everything on the internet is useful. But I would set more
stock by a company that can produce proven results consistently over a
period of several decades, than in a bunch of assertions that we are asked
to swallow without evidence.
Again, you misunderstand me. I have not said that it doesn't work with the
use of a single remedy (I will leave that to Hahnemann to say). I am saying
that it appears to work also with two, three or ten remedies, correctly
chosen based on a strong knowledge of the MM.
Exactly! This proves what I have said. He was concerned more that some
people would misconstrue what was said on double remedies. He was afraid
that the allopaths would accuse him of self-contradiction. If Hahnemann
actually said: "it is... at times advantageous... to prescribe... a double
remedy" and that it is "sometimes... [a] useful method", then this is all
the proof we need.
So here he is admitting that it can be successful, in certain cases. Room
for development of this approach, then.
If Hahnemann contradicted himself so violently, what this really does more
than anything else is cast doubt on his validity as a witness. Hence, can we
rely so heavily on his writings as "gospel"? The whole thing does not make
sense, and anyone with an open mind will see it. Especially in light of the
fact that in modern times homeopathy has been developed so as to strongly
prove the multiple remedy approach.
And all they prove is that H changed his mind, not *why* he did or may have
been forced to. They also suggest strongly that certain pressures were on
him to alter parts of his writings for political reasons and to censor
findings such that double remedies were "at times advantageous". This is
exactly what Galileo had to do, when under pressure and threat of torture
from the Inquisition. The official version reads that Galileo gave up his
heliocentric theory of cosmology. In fact, he went on teaching it secretly.
The Catholic church may have gloated, just as some homeopaths may gloat that
H "gave up" double remedies. But it may not be the case.
That is simply an assertion. It sounds good, out of context, and may fool
some people, but you need to back this up convincingly and it isn't
happening here.
Maybe it will (although, again, there are references in Hahnemann saying
that it may not always). But that isn't my point, as I have repeated several
times.
Yes, I've heard all this before. Only the chosen few, etc, etc.
That is only true in a closed system, e.g. a religion.
No, I am not satisfied with any of these answers. However, you will see from
my previous message that I did say I would not continue with the discussion.
I am not stubborn enough to keep banging my head against a brick wall when
it is so clear that dogma does not respond to debate.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Use MSN Messenger to send music and pics to your friends
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger