classical homeopathy / Hahnemann and magnets

[APEX PRECITECH]

Dear Anna,
I want to engage you constructively. Spending quite a
time with this mail.
1. Your accuse schools that teach Homeopathy as it
is from the old texts simply because you see them as
old thinking and not updated or might not be in line
with current scientific thinking. Right?

My answer is: Homeopathy is now in a regeneration
phase. There was almost no big activity for fifty
years on new provings and repertorial compilation. And
add to them the fact that whatever had to be done as
far the theory and their practicability had been done
150 years ago. Only the provings and their proper
classification had to be done. I don't see any need
for research into whether homeopathy works or what is
the need for potencies etc...

I took up the study of homeopathy after a thorough
look at it. I am also from the engineering field which
asks nothing less than facts. Your accusation that the
students choose to remain ignorant is wrong and I
request you to substantiate.

2.You said your search for a good school is failed on
some counts. True . One has to look for good teachers
all his life. We have a pharse in India which goes
like " when the student is ready, the teacher
appears".
The fact that some of the schools are no good does not
automatically mean homeopathy is no good.

3. You said research costs money. What research ? In
homeopathy, the research is proving and clinical
testing.They don't cost you anything other than time.

4. You said students take homeopathy because 'it is
alternative'.No. Then why myself, with a decent income
and living choose to spend lot of time energy and
money on books and time on lists such as this ?
BECAUSE, homeopathy is a mature scientific system and
if I want to reprove the entire gamut of laws
governing homeopathy, it is equal to the reinventing
of the wheel and rediscovery of fire.

5. I have just one question: Are you piqued that you
were told," No , you are wrong" when you proposed the
age old (and forever new) question of mixtures ? I
feel it is time for you for some clinical
verifications of the simplex and complex. You alone
can come our convinced. If you want to rediscover the
wheel, well and good. But by that time, a new guy who
entered just now, would have become a wizard. Or else,
you can stagnate in the muddy cesspool of mixtures.

Regards
Venkat
________________________________________________________________________
Yahoo! India Matrimony: Find your partner online. http://yahoo.shaadi.com/india-matrimony/

[Julian Winston]

At 1:02 PM +0100 4/24/04, Joy Lucas wrote:

[snip the rest]

Most interesting, that there seem to be replies from TWO folks to
messages from Anna that were sent to the minutus list. I received
NEITHER of those messages, but I DID receive the replies.
Most interesting.

JW

To reply to a few points...

Anna says:
When you compare the income of the "nasty pharmaceutical companies"
to that of the homeopathic companies, the latter (it has been said)
are about a "12X" of the market. The income of the homeopathic
industry in the USA was several million last year. The regular drug
co's had income of over several hundred billion.
A good double blind clinical study, to have ANY standing in the
conventional community, MUST be done through a University (try
finding one) and can cost well over $300,000. When Michael Carlson
was doing a reasearch project at Stanford, the *postage* alone cost
about $12,000.
There we go! Accusations again!! No substance. NAMES PLEASE!! DETAILS!!
Ah "pseudoscience"-- a favorite word of quackbusters.

[Hennie Duits]

For those who are not sure how to move Anna de Burgo-mails unread to the
trash bin of Outlook Express:
http://www.eclectechs.com/outlookrules.html

Let her go unnoticed may help your peace of mind

Hennie
to

[Christine Wyndham-Thomas]

Anna, the term 'pseudoscience' exactly what is your definition of it? And
would you consider the survival of consciousness after death to fall into
this category?

Christine Wyndham-Thomas
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com

[Julian Winston]

At 2:43 PM +0100 4/24/04, J.VENKATA SUBRAMANIAN wrote:
[snip]

In the old adage, "time is money."
There are plenty of costs. If you are doing a really quality proving,
each prover needs a supervisor. The case has to be taken, and
followed every day for a number of weeks or longer.
Finding a busy practitioner who will do this gratis is no easy thing.
It takes up a lot of time.
THEN... the case books have to be reviewed and collated. This is VERY
time consuming. Our school did a proving a number of years ago, and
the case books have still not been edited and compiled for lack of
time by the interested parties. It is not work that will take a few
hours. It would take about a month. That time is a cost.
THEN... once you get it all compiled, what do you do with it? The
only way of getting it out in the community is to PUBLISH the
proving-- and that takes money.

Doing a good proving IS a costly proposition, because of the time
involved and the need of the people doing it to be compensated for
the time spent.

Clinical testing?
A good Clinical Trial which would be acceptable to all parties costs
quite a bit. The ads asking for volunteers cost. The supervisor's
time cost. The people taking the case cost. The link with the
university, and the help of a qualified statistician will cost.
It is NOT as easy as you seem to think it is.

JW

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Hennie,

If you are blocking my messages from your inbox, may I ask how come you are
still reading them?
Anna de Burgo's aim - if such a thing be possible - is to attempt to get
intelligent replies from homeopaths to some very important questions. I
think it is fairly clear that you are not going to be much help in this
quest.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Find a cheaper internet access deal - choose one to suit you.
http://www.msn.co.uk/internetaccess

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Dr Rozencwajg,

It seems I have touched a nerve here.
I haven't made up my mind, but in the face of the evidence it is rapidly
being made up for me. I have read the books. And as for your third point,
can I repeat once more for the record, although after several repetitions
one would expect normal people to have understood by now, that I have not
studied with any school for the reason I gave, that I am looking for one.
One would have thought that an MD would have been able to understand this?
And also to be able to exert a little self control.
You mean "pitiful", I think.
If your ability to do medicine reflects your ability to read and understand
messages, I suggest it would be safer to be trapped inside one of my
collapsing buildings than to enter your doctor's surgery.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Venkat,

Thank you for your message.
Not entirely. I think there are things in the old texts that show that
modern homeopaths have not entirely encompassed Hahnemann's scope. Which is
why I mentioned magnets, for instance. Julian Winston has already agreed
that many aspects of homeopathy now are overly influenced by Kent
overshadowing Hahnemann's writings somewhat. So I am not deriding the old
texts. Hahnemann was a genius.
I really think that no endeavour should ever be delared free of the need to
carry out further research or to learn more.
I am sure that some students have a hunger for knowledge. But whether they
do or not, it seems that the schools will seldom provide it. This, I am
afraid to say, is much evidenced by the discussions between qualified
homeopaths on this group.
I never said homeopathy was no good.
Sorry, it wasn't me that said this. But I do think that the nature of
homeopathic remedies and their influence on biological systems must be
researched. Why shouldn't it?
If, coming from an engineering background you recognise that the same laws
are apparent in homeopathy, isn't this an opening for some deeper research?
Hasn't engineering benefited from research into physics, thermodynamics,
etc?
No, why should I be piqued? I don't get too emotional about these things! I
was merely asking questions.
Sigh... I think we left "mixtures" behind quite some time ago??

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool emoticons - download MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Joy,

Thank you for this gem of wit! It has added so much to the discussion.

Warmly,
Anna
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Julian,
I think there have been some problems recently with some messages not
arriving. Nothing mysterious or sinister about it, and someone else has
already mentioned it with regard to other messages. I missed a few myself,
judging by replies. Of course, a person with a suspicious mind or a
persecution complex may well choose to interpret these things differently.
How about the one that purports to give out homeopathic "doctorates"? That
has to be done through a university, too, to be worth anything. I believe
there are one or two "homeopathy PhDs" on this group? Maybe we could ask
them.
OK. Here is some substance. In the UK there is the "Shamanic School of
Homeopathy". I have its "prospectus", which looks like a children's cartoon
book. It teaches zodiacal astrology, "animal medicine" and "power animals",
"the new-age changes in the genetic code" (whatever they are), distance
healing, channelling spirits, etc. The course is approved by the Homeopathic
Medical Association (UK) and the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, two
organisations which purport to be regulating homeopathy and turning it into
a "proper profession". Shame on them.

One website I visited recently, which is the site of a "respected" and
"reputable" homeopath, features a whole long poem, rather a silly one, about
the retrograde action of the planet Mercury and its influence on earthlings.
Again, absolute nonsense and bringing down the name of homeopathy. Hahnemann
would be ranting furiously at this.
Well, there are quacks and charlatans in every profession, including the
legal profession, the building trade, the publishing trade, and the medical
profession. These are all regulated with the goal of taking charlatans out
of circulation. So why should homeopathy be any different? I think there is
a need for quackbusters in homeopathy, as well as any other field. And
"pseudoscience" is indeed rife in homeopathy. Many of you seem to have a
hatred for science, which I can only assume is a deep-seated psychological
problem. I worry about this, as people with serious neuroses should not
really be taking cases and working with patients.

I am frankly amazed at the reactions to these discussions - what an
infantile bunch.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband