A kind of magic?

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi H.
So far I have not read anything where the other camp (I do not mean
possible crank forums - the kind of people that write in the journals,
are on radio, TV etc) has referred to such things at all - it just
appears in in-fighting.

So IMO it is not really very intelligent to respond to claims that
werre never made;-\
It is very well possible that low potencies, say up to C 4 will be
allowed to remain on the shelves while the higher ones are removed.
Dilutions to a certain level are accepted by science as being by
science as having possible medicinal value.(It is conceded that as
long as some matter is left there is something there.)

Would that be desirable?

Or more generally speaking: would it be desirable for you to have
only low-potency homeopathy recognized as being non-quackery?

This latter would not be hard to achieve. Regular medicine does accept
pretty high dilutions and does not care wheter they are matched on
homeopathic, allopathic, supplement or whatever principle. (The
contrast homeopathy - allopathy has been off the table for 150 years).

You would then have all you *apparently* ask for: you have a therapy
accepted by science without any crank-appeal, you may use the
there will be nothing to keep you from applying the homeopathy
principle nor will anything prevent your giiving single remedies - you
will be fully inside the definition that is so dear to you and also
inside best practice.

Just the high(er) potencies will be non-available resp. - if you
potentize the substances higher and give them you will be chased down
by the quackbusters.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Low potency ineffective?
Tell that to a few generations of French homeopaths like Vannier, Zissu, Hodiamont (he was Belgian!), Lathoud, Pommier, Leclerc and many others who cured everything, including deep psychiatric cases with anything between MT and 30C.
Their books, cases and articles are not translated but there is a wealth of practical knowledge waiting to be tapped in........
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

[muthu kumar]

if 6c has enough curative

We are not talking about what will be allowed for practice Luise- We are talking about what potencies we can use for proving the effectiveness of homeopathy. The fundamental problem is NOT potency - potency is the excuse that is being used for beating us. Prove that our medicine works and potency will become a non-issue. Prove that when given in 6c or 6x for some condition we can achieve good results ( using acceptable methodologies) - and if we can do this consistently - everything including law of signature prescribing and periodical table prescribing - will become non-issues. But till then all of these will be different weak points that can be used against us. Even after we gain acceptance , all of these methods need careful study and some internal scrutiny from ourselves to make sure we do not end up back where we started. So for proving homeopathy do not cling to 30c or 200c and open yourself for attacks on potency issues.

Till then showing them material science research by Rustum Roy or Will Tiller is not going to work - because potency is just a club for them to beat us with. Proving that water retains memory or vital energy defies Einstein is not what is going to get us acceptance. First accusation - Homeopathy is a placebo....potency is only next- So prove conclusively that homeopathy is better than placebo and you got a case...

Proper double blind trial using individualized homeopathy using a standard methodology - it can be based on computer based selection or any expert system - and the results evaluated by a committee which includes some of the nay-sayers as well is the way to go. Prove that the system works. Then there will not be much question about potency. And it is in this context I am supporting low potencies. But if as some of the group people have been stating homeopathy is all about energy, only 6th edition water doses and energy medicine is homeopathy and the rest not so- we are confining ourselves and opening ourselves for more attacks on more fronts...This is what John has been stating as well..
I do not know why talking about definition so rankles you. It is not so dear to me as you make out. I do not care about definition or anything except to find out what are we practising and how it is different from other systems... Any self-respecting medicine should know what it is, how it is unique and what maintains that uniqueness. On the one hand if you say we believe in symptom similarity all the while your other hand is swinging a pendulum , you do not walk your talk- you show your system lacks integrity and honor. Then how do you expect respect?

Homeopath CAN practice whatever system of medicine in his / her practice

But not all of what a homeopath practices can be homeopathy...

I do not know why you people have so much problem getting it and accepting it...

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi JROZ,
30 C in this connection is to be considered as high potency.

I am quite familiar with the use of low potencies, which in Germany up
to a few dacades ago was up to 6x.

Soon after Hahnemann and even during his lifetime doctors in Germany
changed to low potencies, high pots incl. C 30 were rarely used - they
came back starting about 50 years ago.

However - and this is probably thrue for the French also: the mode of
using was up to 3 times a day for long stretches of time.

Also: many doctors used more than one remedy at the time - not
necessarily at the same time, but often alternating.

From what I have heard this may have been so in France also.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Luise Kunkle]

On Sat, 17 Nov 2007, hahnemannian2002 wrote:
Why aren't we. This is the core problem - as long as we have the
remedies and are allowed to use them, everything else is comparatively
harmless. There is real danger that exactly this will happen - this is
where worldwide they have been gnawing.

We are

This is where I very strongly disagree. The question of whether
remedies are used by homeopathic principle or other has been a
non-issue for a long time. Where do you find it addressed in their
arguments anywhere? Scientists grant possible effectiveness as long as
there are plenty of molecules around to cause that effect. They do
grant the possible effectiveness of mother tinctures, herbal teas etc
- and the question by what principle those are selected has been a
non-issue.

Prove that when given in 6c or 6x

The way they are selected has never been an issue in their judgement
of whether the trial was done methodolocigally correct. It is not
even enquired about. Whether it is by homeopathicity or whatever other
means - this question has not come up.

But till then all of these will be different

May be they could - but so far they have not played any part.

Even after we gain acceptance ,
Sam 2002 - this is frustrating.

Do read their arguments - and you will find that the matter of "curing
with nothing - is the principle argument for them to call it quackery!
And a very potent club it is, indeed. This has been exactly what we
cannot prove wrong. The matter of trials we could prove wrong - just
do not bother to grapple with.

Proving that water retains memory or vital energy defies
Only if you show that those positive trials were done with high
potencies.

So far they have not bothered with that aspect *as far as the trials
go*. As soon as we show that the trials show effectiveness beyond
placebo they will start on what potencies they were done with. Want a
bet?;-)

I was in a discussion once with severyl scientists in a forum on this
matter. They agreed one one aspect, viz. To accept that high potencies
can have effect would upset the basic concepts that to-day's science
is built on - quuote: "You cannot expect that we accept this".
I have explained it again and again. This definition is a kick below
the belt for those who practice the methods (not only once in a while)
that are excluded and makes them resentful. There used to be many of
the latter on Lyghtforce years ago. They were constantly hit that way
and withdrew - and yes, they were resentful and probably still are,
because of the kicks and because of the attitude behind those kicks.

We can hardly expect them to fight with us for a homeopathy that, by
definition, excludes them.

I really do not understand why you are not able to see my point.
It is not so
We can easily say that some homeopaths believe in symptom similarity
being the only way to chose a remedy - that some homeopaths believe
that this is the only way because Hahnemann said so. That, on the
other hand, the word homeopathy has extended to mean other things too,
so that now we have to use modifiers to identify which kind we mean.

This happens all the time: the meaning of certain words gets narrower:
philosophy used to include science, now it no longer does. Physics
used to mean Newtonian Physics - now it includes a lot more. It would
be silly to argue that quantum mechanics, the theory of relativity
etc. is not part of physics. Instead they extended the meaning
of "physics" and coined a modifier "Newtonian
Physics" or whatever for what used to be called physics.
Just imagine if all at once those physicists that still work in fields
using the laws found by Newton et al would all at once insist that the
others do not practice physics. Or that they say: as long as they are
working with the laws found by Newton et al they are using physics, as
soon as they use a laser they no longer practice physics;-)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[bty17859616]

Very well said Carol, and I entirely agree with you of course.
What will take to get homeopaths to unite and move beyond the
academic discussions that we see here and elsewhere? In my own
response, I had suggested practical things that people could do such
as supporting the Homeopathy Research Institute, and HMC21. All I
got, in a personal email, was someone complaining that their practice
numbers had gone down!! Grace
--re the Science - I posted an article I had published in Similia
June
2007 about the Science behind homeopathy - I didn't get one response
from the list. As someone who has spent the last two decades
working 'in the trenches' defending / promoting homeopathy (for no
reward) I wrote a long and detailed response to the Bleeding to
Death email pointing out some of the reality of our situation -
within minutes it had morphed into another internal debate about what
is and what is not homeopathy. At this rate that question will soon
be ACADEMIC.
- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Carol Boyce wrote:
June
response
what
soon

[Teresa Kramer]

And there’s my very effective Pakistani homeopath (now US citizen, I think) who used only up to 30c--and cell salts as an adjunct or for treatment in some cases--until he recently found out about LMs which he now uses dry, VERY sparingly. I am one who benefits enormously from this method—along with all his other patients, and his late father’s, and his brothers’, I guess! Of course I can’t speak for him, but that is I understand from being in his treatment for a year now and AFAIK what our study group observes of his treatment and hears from him when he speaks to us or teaches on cell salts. I wish he would write a book!
Teresa (Northern VA, USA)
Low potency ineffective?
Tell that to a few generations of French homeopaths like Vannier, Zissu, Hodiamont (he was Belgian!), Lathoud, Pommier, Leclerc and many others who cured everything, including deep psychiatric cases with anything between MT and 30C.
Their books, cases and articles are not translated but there is a wealth of practical knowledge waiting to be tapped in........
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.

_._,___

[John Harvey]

Actually a more appropriate analogy here would be to scientists using
ordinary light bulbs in experiments demanding the coherent light that
lasers emit.

In that analogy, for those scientists to cry that they're
discriminated against when other scientists insist on differentiating
between lasers and light bulbs for the sake of a sensible conversation
would be... what... a way of uniting all scientists interested in
lasers? And I suppose you imagine that conciliating and calling one a
coherent laser and the other an incoherent laser would lift the
credibility of laser research?

You surely cannot still believe, Luise, after all that you've read
here, that calling everything and anything by the same name -- lasers
or homoeopathy -- is a step forward.

Yes, medical interests writing in formal journals attack homoeopathy
on bases acceptable to scientists: theoretical coherence and formal
proof. But what is it that prejudices them and their readers to do so
in such shoddy fashion, aside from money? It's the idiocy and rank
ignorance of homoeopathy's practitioners as evidenced by their own
words. (If you want the evidence, try actually looking at the sites I
troubled to refer you to upon request.)

And for all this, the most incisive contribution that some can make is
to suggest that these questions are academic.

If discussion of homoeopathy's identity, methods, and strategies is to
remain on a footing of nothing more meaningful than adulation in the
seminars and money in the bank, then it is already doomed to a pitiful
demise. And this, unfortunately, is the level of critical discussion
that the anti-homoeopathy league on this list enjoys and promotes.

If homoeopathy's practitioners themselves are not going to take
seriously what it means to practise homoeopathy, then they frankly
deserve the attacks on their character that they are increasingly
suffering at the hands of others sharing the same interests.

I have seen no evidence that anybody has criticised in recent memory
any putative homoeopath for experimenting or for practising methods
beyond the bounds of homoeopathy. Certainly help has been offered in
terms of understanding why some methods beyond the fringe are
inferior, and discussion has clarified why some methods are more
troubling than others. But, as has repeatedly been stated here, most
likely all homoeopaths at one time or another practise something that
cannot be called homoeopathy (by any thinking person, anyway); it is
no basis, and is not used as a basis, for criticism or exclusion of
them from the ranks of homoeopaths.

That's an entirely different matter from refusing to misrepresent
homoeopathy itself as encompassing every or any kind of witchcraft and
stupidity.

This point has been drawn to your attention more times than I care to
count. But it keeps the tone of the discussion nice and lazy and
stupid to keep missing it and to churn out repetitious assertions
without any basis in logic or fact.

Let's all wake up, here.

Soroush has been posting the contents of the _Organon_, something
every practitioner should have read and understood fairly well at
least once, in digestible chunks for eight weeks. If you find it so
difficult to comprehend, then this is your opportunity to dispose of
the attitude and learn the humility to ask for help. You'll find that
there are plenty of selfless and intelligent and even informed
practitioners more than willing to cooperate and uninterested in
competing with you for the dodo award. This list is a potential gold
mine. To treat it as a rubbish dump is an abuse of your colleagues
and of future generations.

Kind regards,

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for
leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long
term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be
a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use
of vigorous criticism."

-- Carl Sagan

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi John,
Perhaps you do not realize that I was talking about a physicist
working in *Newtonian* physics, using a light bulb that is based on
electric phenomena, a part elctricity, which is not newtonian but
still "physics" and the priciples on which lasers were developed are
part of *quantum" physics. All the three are very much different from
each others but still part of *physics*.

The solution you have given yourself by talking about "coherent" and
"incoherent" lasers - i. e. using modifyers, in this case "coherent"
and "incoherent" - which is what I and e.g. Shannon have suggested as
THE reasonable approach in homeopathy also.
I did read them and I did answer. If thaose are the kinds of sites
purist homeopaths want to base their arguments on - well, it's their
choice.

Regards

Luise

PS: And no, I am not committed to share a point just because it has
been brought to my attention - quote John: "This point has been drawn
to your attention more times than I care to count" unquote. I am quite
a liberty to consider it nonsense.
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[george mentai]

Couldn't agree more with Grace. To me, homeopathy is alive and well and kicking. If you want to put homeopathy on par with the other systems, there has got to be R&D for without it homeopathy is surely doomed to fall. And it is the responsibility of all practicing / non-practicing homeopathic doctors, classical and modern alike, to provide whichever form of support required.
Another, if the number of clinic attendance declines, there must be something not right somewhere... and normally this has got something to do with the prescription. But then again, I might be wrong.

bty17859616 wrote:
________________________________

Be a better sports nut! Let your teams follow you with Yahoo Mobile. Try it now.