Wise words from Hahnemann

[Liz Brynin]

No - I don't just 'want' it to be that way. It IS that way - as I said, there's increasing evidence for this.

[Chris_Gillen]

And you can't explain it?

[Richard Nash- Shannon]

Hello Liz,
Instead of "parahomeopathy" can I suggest "lackdaisicalpathy" or "pseudopathy"? I feel that including the word Homeopathy would be an enormous stretch in describing what it is that your doing.
And I might add that if you are sick of being dragged over the coals for your perceived insights into the greater world of digital medicine and polypharmacy, here is a radical idea: Don't post about it constantly!
After all, the topic of discussion here very recently was a laundry list of what is not Hahnemannian and what is.
On another note, I get upwards of 15-20% of my clients from 2 "pseudopaths" who are also using a "machine" to digitize the rx and deliver it to their customers. And to my surprise no success at all! All the result of mediocrity, laziness and ineptitude.
I started in Homeopathy with acute cases in 93' and am one of the only Classical prescribers who will do both acutes and chronic cases. In the last 12 mos. I have treated 2 rattlesnake bites, 1 Brown Recluse bite, after effects of chemo, diabetic shock, broken bones, staph, swine flu?, severe keratitis, diverticulitis etc etc. Not once did I find it necessary to seek poly pharmacy from a lack of time or b/c I thought that not just a single medicine would cover/cure the case. In my opinion the "extra support " you are seeking in the aforementioned cases could be had from the simillimum.
And yes I have used/experimented /combos on myself and work with another Homeopath who has been doing the same both about 7 years. Our findings with wholly different experiences are that there has always been one single medicine that will cure the case. More times than not combos give Homeopathy in general a bad name b/c most of the time there are no effects at all or they are short lived. And what "proof" do you have that they are not suppressing?

Best regards, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Liz Brynin" wrote:

[Liz Brynin]

Dear Rik
Firstly, you don't read my posts very carefully, do you?! I have already given my opinion on digital medicines - go back and read what I said. I don't think anyone on this list could take exception to what I said.
Secondly, I only post in response to someone else's comments. This whole 'second round' of attacks came about because Rochelle mentioned using a combo for a flu patient, and I indicated that I agreed with her choice.
Could anyone of you 'pure' classicists leave it at that? Could you simply note that not all the people here are as 'pure' as you, maybe raise a metaphorical eyebrow and move on? Oh, no - you have to write an immediate rebuttal.
Even worse, the rebuttals are rarely limited to a simple comment, but usually make use of heavy sarcasm or scorn.
Lastly, I know this is a classical list. As I have said several times, I also practise classically - which is why I appreciate some of the exchanges and the insights on this list. But I don't always practise that way. And I don't go out of my way to rub your noses in it, but if the topic comes up, I would like the option of commenting on it. And if it provokes an attack, I will reply - that's all. Surely I am allowed to say what I think without the 'thought police' going for me (as someone else so aptly called some people on this list)?
Attacking me or anyone else who dares to raise their head above the parapet is simply drawing out the discussion, which you say you don't like! As I said before: you disagree? Say so, and move on. That's all.
Liz

[Liz Brynin]

Dear Rik
Firstly, you don't read my posts very carefully, do you?! I have already given my opinion on digital medicines - go back and read what I said. I don't think anyone on this list could take exception to what I said.
Secondly, I only post in response to someone else's comments. This whole 'second round' of attacks came about because Rochelle mentioned using a combo for a flu patient, and I indicated that I agreed with her choice.
Could anyone of you 'pure' classicists leave it at that? Could you simply note that not all the people here are as 'pure' as you, maybe raise a metaphorical eyebrow and move on? Oh, no - you have to write an immediate rebuttal.
Even worse, the rebuttals are rarely limited to a simple comment, but usually make use of heavy sarcasm or scorn.
Lastly, I know this is a classical list. As I have said several times, I also practise classically - which is why I appreciate some of the exchanges and the insights on this list. But I don't always practise that way. And I don't go out of my way to rub your noses in it, but if the topic comes up, I would like the option of commenting on it. And if it provokes an attack, I will reply - that's all. Surely I am allowed to say what I think without the 'thought police' going for me (as someone else so aptly called some people on this list)?
Attacking me or anyone else who dares to raise their head above the parapet is simply drawing out the discussion, which you say you don't like! As I said before: you disagree? Say so, and move on. That's all.
Liz
p.s Oh - and by the way, I didn't come up with the word 'parahomeopathy' It was John!

[Richard Nash- Shannon]

In the spirit of opening the discussion to all things non homeopathy I will now join ranks with you and suggest a combo: mix Victim 50M with Attacked 12x then send it to yourself via email! Voila! Cure!
In the meantime please do continue to "raise your head above the parapet", I on the other hand am off to do a proving of Gravity from the roof of my house, as what qualifies at this point as discussion of Hahnemannian Homeopathy seems ripe with the Californication of our art and science.

See you on the other side, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Liz Brynin" wrote:

[John Harvey]

Rik, don't do it!

I confess that it was I who included the word "homoeopathic" in a term, parahomoeopathic, as potentially pertaining to prescription beyond homoeopathy's scope but based on (still potential) similarity between patient symptoms and pathogenetic (or possibly only parapathogenetic) symptoms.

If you thought that Liz was the inventor of parahomoeopathy, it just goes to show that you don't devote yourself sufficiently to studying my posts! And I'm crushed! Your prescription, please?

John
2009/8/3 Richard Nash- Shannon >