Hi, Soroush --
Thought I'd remind you that aside from anything you'd contest in my last (as yet unanswered) message on Single Substance, what you've raised here remains unclear to me as yet...
Cheers!
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
One single, simple medicinal substance at one time
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: One single, simple medicinal substance at one time
Dear John
We generally regard these mediums to be inert.
However, alcohol has a proving and so has sac lac.
So they have the potential of causing symptoms. So are they inert? Answer is therefore no in reality.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 16 July 2009 08:45
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] One single, simple medicinal substance at one time
Hi, Soroush --
Thought I'd remind you that aside from anything you'd contest in my last (as yet unanswered) message on Single Substance, what you've raised here remains unclear to me as yet...
Cheers!
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
We generally regard these mediums to be inert.
However, alcohol has a proving and so has sac lac.
So they have the potential of causing symptoms. So are they inert? Answer is therefore no in reality.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 16 July 2009 08:45
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] One single, simple medicinal substance at one time
Hi, Soroush --
Thought I'd remind you that aside from anything you'd contest in my last (as yet unanswered) message on Single Substance, what you've raised here remains unclear to me as yet...
Cheers!
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: One single, simple medicinal substance at one time
Hi, Soroush --
As we know, nothing appears to be medicinally inert once it's sufficiently potentised (given that it's potentisable). But I fail to see what you're getting at.
To put this in some context, I've pasted below the entirety of the post to which this paragraph of yours about magetism etc. was in reply.
Thanks!
John
2009/7/16 >
________________________________
==========================================================
Dear John
My understanding of a homeopathic 'single substance' is a substance that has been potentised on its own. For removal of all doubts, NOT two or more potentised substances mixed together (as in hay fever remedies etc).
The substance itself is never simple unless we are talking about using elements - eg gold, lead etc. Even then, they are not 100% pure.
What is important is the proving aspect - so it does not matter what it is, where it came from etc. So long as it is proved properly, then it can be used.
From Hn's time and more so now, we have Magnetic poles, electricity, lun, Sol etc. In effect what we are proving is the concentration of such things on a vial of water/alcohol. So immediately your pure substance has been mixed with other substances.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 07 July 2009 10:44
- Show quoted text -
- Hide quoted text -
Hi, Soroush --
It's helpful to have the full text there. And you may be right; he may have said something like that (though I fail to comprehend what a "combination based" might be; do you mean that the combination of two substances is potentised?). But (1) such a "remedy" would still be unprescribable in the realm of homoeopathy as he defined it; (2) assuming I've guessed your meaning correctly, this would represent Hahnemann's ready acceptance -- merely because it becomes potentised -- of a kind of "medicine" he railed against for most of his professional life and certainly for the entirety of his homoeopathic life: polypharmacy. And he railed against it for very specific, rational, explicit reasons that I've never heard of him retracting. So it just seems a little unlikely; (3) one of his timeless reasons was that (as I quoted earlier to Irene)
"... even though the simple medicines were thoroughly proved with respect to their peculiar effects... it is yet impossible to foresee how two and more medicinal substances might, when compounded, hinder and alter each other's action..."
(§ 274). This is an objection that I raised two years ago in great technical detail and that has never received a responsive reply. If anybody who missed that detail would like it reposted, just say the word.
Cheers!
John
As we know, nothing appears to be medicinally inert once it's sufficiently potentised (given that it's potentisable). But I fail to see what you're getting at.
To put this in some context, I've pasted below the entirety of the post to which this paragraph of yours about magetism etc. was in reply.
Thanks!
John
2009/7/16 >
________________________________
==========================================================
Dear John
My understanding of a homeopathic 'single substance' is a substance that has been potentised on its own. For removal of all doubts, NOT two or more potentised substances mixed together (as in hay fever remedies etc).
The substance itself is never simple unless we are talking about using elements - eg gold, lead etc. Even then, they are not 100% pure.
What is important is the proving aspect - so it does not matter what it is, where it came from etc. So long as it is proved properly, then it can be used.
From Hn's time and more so now, we have Magnetic poles, electricity, lun, Sol etc. In effect what we are proving is the concentration of such things on a vial of water/alcohol. So immediately your pure substance has been mixed with other substances.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com ] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 07 July 2009 10:44
- Show quoted text -
- Hide quoted text -
Hi, Soroush --
It's helpful to have the full text there. And you may be right; he may have said something like that (though I fail to comprehend what a "combination based" might be; do you mean that the combination of two substances is potentised?). But (1) such a "remedy" would still be unprescribable in the realm of homoeopathy as he defined it; (2) assuming I've guessed your meaning correctly, this would represent Hahnemann's ready acceptance -- merely because it becomes potentised -- of a kind of "medicine" he railed against for most of his professional life and certainly for the entirety of his homoeopathic life: polypharmacy. And he railed against it for very specific, rational, explicit reasons that I've never heard of him retracting. So it just seems a little unlikely; (3) one of his timeless reasons was that (as I quoted earlier to Irene)
"... even though the simple medicines were thoroughly proved with respect to their peculiar effects... it is yet impossible to foresee how two and more medicinal substances might, when compounded, hinder and alter each other's action..."
(§ 274). This is an objection that I raised two years ago in great technical detail and that has never received a responsive reply. If anybody who missed that detail would like it reposted, just say the word.
Cheers!
John