Disarming critics

[Charlotte Gilruth]

Hi Charlotte, Soroush

On the contrary, I think Soroush scored a *very* valuable point with this
suggestion. This person was unwilling to meet the challenge because *he
wasn't going to take something that could harm him*, so Soroush pointed out
that he couldn't have it both ways. Indeed!!

I've said this before, but I think a lot of these detractors can be as
effectively disarmed by demonstrating to them the emotional, rather than
rational, basis for their opinions as by any number of pieces of evidence in
homeopathy's favour. Since very little of the evidence is completely
unequivocal, those who have an emotional investment in denying homeopathy's
effectiveness will always focus purely on the aspects of each study that
introduce an element of doubt.
Dear Wendy and Soroush,
I agree that it is much more effective to find the chink in the armor, or at
least to notice and point out the armor, rather than continuing to endlessly
pound on it. Soroush really did well to point out how contradictory his
statements were.

Still, what if one of the critics WERE willing to take him up on his
invitation to participate in a proving, and he didn't notice any difference
during the proving? Besides participating in some provings, I also
supervised one a few months ago, where I had to really probe the prover to
find any new symptoms from the proving remedy (and he had taken about six
doses of the substance!). There was only a little increased irritability
and an unusual dream. There are a number of people who are insensitive like
this.

Charlotte

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

You think if we keep plying some remedy day in and day out they will not
show any signs??

Boy, they WILL be sick!! Arsenicum I think is a good candidate! Any other
suggestions?

Soroush

[Wendy Howard]

> You think if we keep plying some remedy day in and day out they will not
other

Sounds good!! Nux vomica might be another.

Charlotte's comments are valid, though. Most provings seem to feature at
least one prover who doesn't produce many symptoms. The usual conclusion is
lack of susceptibility to the remedy being proved. But one thing strikes me
with regard to this. Those who feel drawn to take up a stand against
homeopathy *in particular* may well be demonstrating a susceptibility to
homeopathy. They have an issue with it. It engages them. It pushes their
buttons. That says to me that the potential to engage with it positively is
equally strong!!

So one approach might be to select a well-known polychrest - ie. a remedy
which has demonstrated susceptibility in a large proportion of the
population.

Another might be to try and individualise a bit. If you are to be given the
opportunity to take some sort of baseline case before sending the remedy to
be proved, it may be possible to identify certain susceptibilities and
select a remedy with affinities in the same area to increase the chances of
a noticeable reaction. It may even be very clear which remedy would
successfully address any existing chronic complaints. Now that would seem to
be the best outcome of all!!

Regards
Wendy

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

No remedy will be sent to them. They need to be under supervision. They
may even try to antidote.
So we will need to draw up a contract which is quite specific and ties them
down so that they do not cheat.

The contract should also absolve all those participating from any claims
whatsoever. Any budding lawyers amongst us especially those familiar with
US law please??
They would have to agree to call and take the remedy under the tongue in
presence of a co-operating homoeopath - every day until they are sick!

Then we will compare their symptoms with the remedy symptoms and SHOW THEM.

I would prefer something proven by Hn himself like Ars, Sepia etc where we
know no symptom has been missed out!!
Ohhh I am getting excited!!

But I think they won't actually sign their names to the contract!

Soroush