ISOPATHY

[Joy Lucas]

And I will repeat again ad nauseum, you are promoting using potentised substances that have had no proving - that is NOT homeopathy - who would possibly have an issue with a substance that has been proven as per Hahnemann.

And again, what differences do you understand about infectious miasms that Swann was referring to and causative agents such as you have been referring to, i.e. vaccines.

Finally, lots of methods of so called healing 'work', lets bring in all the allopaths, the herbalists, the dieticians, the psychologists, the surgeons, the drug companies et al.

You and your cohorts might insist on a 'who cares less' approach to administering potentised substances (and they are not homeopathic) through guess work as to their outcome and raising the potential of causing damage and relying on a hit and miss approach, i.e what you call prescribing the idem but it is still not homeopathy and never will be thankfully so it can be ranked along with all other claims of healing as per stated above.

As I said it is useful to know who is prescribing like this so we can make better choices.

Prove these substances and then we do not have an issue, then they become homeopathic and are safely within the cardinal requirements of safe Hahnemannian homeopathy.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.streetcollege.co.uk

[Joy Lucas]

As I have said to you before Soroush, I do not have endless energy in teaching people basic homeopathy, it is not my responsibility here to do that and also we get to groundhog day again - we have had these discourses so many times before so I am going to disagree with you again on what you write (go search your own archives to delve deeper into what has been written before by others such as John, Chris, Vera, Fran, Sheri and many others.

The moment a substance is potentised and is prepared for a proving and a proving is conducted and the data collected for our materia medica, i.e. we have a sx picture then it is homeopathic from that point on, it is already part of the homeopathic paradigm. Without that proving it is outside of that paradigm and thus cannot be considered homeopathic.

I cannot believe we are still going over this.

Go study § 20 and 21 - the power of the medicines cannot be discovered by mere reason only by the phenomena it displays when acting of the state of health - that means when we have the sx picture to know what that medicine, through provings.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.streetcollege.co.uk

[Joy Lucas]

So you have no understanding of the miasms, infectious (so called - and I am adding that codicil because I am not entering into yet another discussion about infection) or chronic and their intimate relationship with susceptibility - how do you draw the conclusion (from what you are saying) that vaccinosis is an infectious miasm and not chronic.

If your method of prescribing, i.e. guesswork, give the potentised causative agent, actually works then logic tells us that it must always work. I do not love anything about the way you jeopardise Hahnemannian homeopathy, I would much rather be doing something else, believe me.

So explain why we cannot always use isopathy then, it either works or it doesn't, it either removes the chronic miasm or it doesn't.

And I would have loved to have stuck to what this discussion was about initially, Pongo came here for some help and now your subscription to isopathy has driven her away.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.streetcollege.co.uk

[Joy Lucas]

1) - see my other reply regarding what makes a substance homeopathic

2) - no sx similarity in homeopathic language comes from the sx derived from a proving

3) - when the sx correspond - precisely - what this doesn't mean is that every case of Mercury <<< needs a dose of mercury.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.streetcollege.co.uk

[Shannon Nelson]

On Wednesday, October 27, 2010, at 10:45 AM, Joy Lucas wrote:
Okay, so you are in disagreement with Swan, and apparently with David
Little (or did he say something elsewhere to contradict the
assumption?) and others who have followed that lead. Disagreement is
fine. Let's "let the record show" that this is a disputed point, not
flat-out heresy.
Oh, we've seen how *that* can be done too! Disagreeing as to the
"validity" of symptoms, or of analysis, or interpretation...
Differences sure--one class is considered "living" and the other is
not. But to my mind the similarities are more significant. I'm
curious to hear why you disagree.
Oh come on, let's not pretend that either of us is not familiar with
the different uses of the term "work."
When a well-trained and successful *homeopath* says that a method
"works"--in the context of homeopathic practice--it has different
import.

Joy, you are again in conversation with *yourself*, rather than
actually taking full part in the discussion. That would involve
listening, and at least *trying* to understand the other's point and
experience. You see no value in this effort, so I don't want to pursue
the conversation further. (Again.)
Yep, it should be done.

Shannon

[Shannon Nelson]

Yes I do; we've discussed it in the past.
What makes you think that I think vaccinosis is infectious? I did not
say that.
Of course it is chronic--once again you are talking with--or at least
listening to--yourself, not to me.
Sigh, gee, thanks again.
Uh, what sort of logic tells us that?
Nooooo....... No further comment.

Sorry, I've got to get back to other things.
Best wishes

[Joy Lucas]

Again sadly you misunderstand as it is you who is in disagreement, nay practising heresy, if you think that Swan and David Little promoted using unproven (as per the hahnemann method) potentised substances.

Please tell us where Hahnemann instructed us to do that.

I think when one wants to claim success they can resort to lots of devices.

I would rather be talking to myself but feel the need to reply to your posts so that makes me replying to you unfortunately. Stop being silly.

Look forward to you telling us where Hahnemann instructs us to use unproven potentised substances and also to say you now seem to be confusing acute miasm with the chronics which sadly I am going to have to reply to your other post.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.streetcollege.co.uk

[Joy Lucas]

You included your reasons for using isopathy in regard to Swan's points on infectious miasm so now you are saying differently? Curious, but then we expect U turns.

Strange delusion you have about me talking to myself I wonder how long this will last or is this part of your separation from the topic. Hopefully it says more about you than me.

Effectively what one is doing when giving an unproven (H style) potentised substance is guesswork because (yawn) there is no sx similarity to work with. This guessing also involves an account of aetiology as well as one is assuming that the developing diseased state is down to just vaccine - we tried to tell Pongo that only careful case taking and case management can reveal that and even then it remains only assumption, however strong that assumption may be it remains part of the totality - remember that? TOTALITY.

What you are selling is that ispoathy works - yes or no, simple question, simple answer. If it works then it always works, that is the logic - what is not to understand there? Why wouldn't it work, oh I know, please read all the posts so far. No comment? Fine, that serves well. But I am sure you'll be back when it suits you.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://www.streetcollege.co.uk

[Shannon Nelson]

Seems to me the points apply equallly to non-infectious substances.

I did correct that to "listening to yourself"--because you speak to
points that no one has made (tossing out sx similarity etc.), and you
are not listening to me.
What about the sx similarity of multiple cases of the disease (or
poisoning etc.) which is caused by the agent.
Noooooooooooo......... Again, you are not listening.
I have not heard anyone proposing to use *only* isopathy.
I have not heard anyone failing to recognize that susceptibility is
prime.

Account of aetiology? Well yes--as Hahnemann instructed. What problem
do you have with that??
No one but you is suggesting anything other.
Good lord, you really do want simple answers, don't you.
I have not heard anyone claiming that it is always necessary, or that
it is sufficient.
So no, no simple answer.
Noooooooooooo........

Bye.
Yep.
Bye.

[Shannon Nelson]

I'll give you a break... I have only a few minutes here and there
at the computer, so I am dropping out of this one again.