Dear John
If you think the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is not a single simple remedy, then I have said all can on the subject.
We are of course not talking about polypharmacy - which is a different case altogether.
Did you read Kent's chapter 8?
Bon chance
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 14:24
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Hi, Soroush --
If the best argument you can make for your contention is to repeat the contention several times over and suggest that Sheilagh or anybody else is a higher authority on Hahnemann's meaning than is Hahnemann himself, then I'm afraid that it doesn't serve to counter any of the arguments proving that the contention was incorrect.
Perhaps it would be worth your while to think about whether all or indeed any of those arguments are faulty.
The authoritative opinion of somebody on what constitutes Hahnemannian homoeopathy, be that somebody Hahnemann himself, is actually totally irrelevant to this twig of the conversation, which concerns not what is Hahnemannian homoeopathy but what Hahnemann clearly intended by such statements (said in various ways but all meaning exactly the same thing) as:
. (§ 273) "In no case under treatment is it necessary and therefore not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time";
. (§ 273) "It is inconceivable how the slightest doubt could exist as to whether it was more consistent with nature and more rational to prescribe a single, simple [159] medicine at one time in a disease or a mixture of several differently acting drugs";
. (§ 273) "It is absolutely not allowed in homoeopathy, the one true, simple and natural art of healing, to give the patient at one time two different medicinal substances";
. (§ 274) "[The true physician] will, mindful of the wise maxim that "it is wrong to attempt to employ complex means when simple means suffice", never think of giving as a remedy any but a single, simple medicinal substance; for these reasons also, because even though the simple medicines were thoroughly proved with respect to their peculiar effects on the unimpaired state of man, it is yet impossible to foresee how two and more medicinal substances might, when compounded, hinder and alter each other's action on the human body... and supposing the worst case to happen, that it was not chosen in strict conformity to similarity of symptoms, and therefore does no good, it is yet so far useful that it promotes our knowledge of therapeutic agents, because, by the new symptoms excited by it in such a case, those symptoms which this medicinal substance had already shown in experiments on the healthy human body are confirmed, an advantage that is lost by the employment of all compound remedies"; and
. (§ 124) "For these experiments every medicinal substance must be employed quite alone and perfectly pure, without the admixture of any foreign substance...".
If there is any reasonably rational way to counter all the evidence I've yet presented (or any of it) in favour of the commonsense interpretation of "one single, simple medicinal substance" (i.e. of substantial medicines, only one may be used!), or if there is any evidence for the interpretation that Hahnemann did not mean, by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance", more than one substance but only more than one insubstantial medicine, I'd be most interested to hear it!
But the dogma of what you and Sheilagh like to imagine it means grows no more substantial with repetition, and my arguments from as long ago as 8 July showing the falsity of the contention stand unrebutted.
It would be interesting even to see evidence that Hahnemann distinguished in some way between "complex" remedies (mixtures of potentised single substances) and other compound remedies (potencies of mixtures of single substances). So far I've seen no evidence to suggest that anybody had suggested, by the time of Hahnemann's 6th-edition revisions, that anybody had thought to employ complexes and thought them significantly different from other compound remedies. And so far I've seen no evidence to suggest that Hahnemann agreed that complexes, by some magic, overcame the requirement not to use more than one single, simple medicinal substance (even in creating a potency).
And when I ask you to use your intelligence, I am expressing my faith in your abilities, asking you to think through these things, knowing that you have the capability of arriving at some conclusions rather more rationally than through uncritical adoption of some unreasoned contention on the basis of authority.
My disappointment in the quality of this twig of the discussion concerns failure to apply any reasoning process rather than to simply trot out another repetition of the one groundless assertion simply because it appeals to you. This entire larger discussion concerned the nature of homoeopathy -- a fact -- rather than one's preferences; it would be rather silly to draw conclusions of fact from simple prejudice, wouldn't it. So how about we leave the prejudice, the preferences, the beliefs aside, look afresh at what is challenging us, and make an effort to rise to that challenge!
Cheers --
John
2009/7/23 >
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
Single Simple Remedy
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Single Simple Remedy
Hi, Soroush --
It's a deeper matter than what either of us believes: it concerns the fundamental stuff of meaning in Hahnemann's words. He was not one to use words too mystically, actually, but if you have doubts about that, then I think one way to resolve them is to see how one interpretation stacks up against the rest of his writings. I believe I've done a fairly thorough job of showing that the "substance = insubstantial potencies" contention has no support in the many passages I've quoted and discussed and is strongly rebutted by those very passages. Once you decide that you're more interested in what Hahnemann had to say than in what Kent and Sheilagh did, it may strike you that you've been overcomplicating what is a very simple reading of his meaning in § 273.
And, yes, I first read chapter eight 33 years ago, thanks.
John
2009/7/23 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
It's a deeper matter than what either of us believes: it concerns the fundamental stuff of meaning in Hahnemann's words. He was not one to use words too mystically, actually, but if you have doubts about that, then I think one way to resolve them is to see how one interpretation stacks up against the rest of his writings. I believe I've done a fairly thorough job of showing that the "substance = insubstantial potencies" contention has no support in the many passages I've quoted and discussed and is strongly rebutted by those very passages. Once you decide that you're more interested in what Hahnemann had to say than in what Kent and Sheilagh did, it may strike you that you've been overcomplicating what is a very simple reading of his meaning in § 273.
And, yes, I first read chapter eight 33 years ago, thanks.
John
2009/7/23 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Single Simple Remedy
Dear John
Just answer the question I asked you:
Do you accept that the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is a single simple remedy?
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 15:02
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Hi, Soroush --
It's a deeper matter than what either of us believes: it concerns the fundamental stuff of meaning in Hahnemann's words. He was not one to use words too mystically, actually, but if you have doubts about that, then I think one way to resolve them is to see how one interpretation stacks up against the rest of his writings. I believe I've done a fairly thorough job of showing that the "substance = insubstantial potencies" contention has no support in the many passages I've quoted and discussed and is strongly rebutted by those very passages. Once you decide that you're more interested in what Hahnemann had to say than in what Kent and Sheilagh did, it may strike you that you've been overcomplicating what is a very simple reading of his meaning in § 273.
And, yes, I first read chapter eight 33 years ago, thanks.
John
2009/7/23 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
Just answer the question I asked you:
Do you accept that the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is a single simple remedy?
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 15:02
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Hi, Soroush --
It's a deeper matter than what either of us believes: it concerns the fundamental stuff of meaning in Hahnemann's words. He was not one to use words too mystically, actually, but if you have doubts about that, then I think one way to resolve them is to see how one interpretation stacks up against the rest of his writings. I believe I've done a fairly thorough job of showing that the "substance = insubstantial potencies" contention has no support in the many passages I've quoted and discussed and is strongly rebutted by those very passages. Once you decide that you're more interested in what Hahnemann had to say than in what Kent and Sheilagh did, it may strike you that you've been overcomplicating what is a very simple reading of his meaning in § 273.
And, yes, I first read chapter eight 33 years ago, thanks.
John
2009/7/23 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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: Single Simple Remedy
Dear Soroush,
I do apologise. If by "question" you mean
"If you think the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is not a single simple remedy, then I have said all can on the subject",
then I simply didn't recognise it as such; it read more like a statement to me, concerning your unwillingness to engage in a reasoning process.
I think I've made more than clear the basis of Hahnemann's (not mine!) division of materials into single, simple substances and multiples of single, simple substances; the problem appears to be that your unwillingness to engage with the subject. My post under "Of substance" (6:59 a.m. GMT 16 Jul 09) explaining in detail that others have found helpful just what Hahnemann intended in his § 273 footnote 159 illustrations, has met with skirmishes by you around the margins but nothing that invalidates it in any way. My follow-up post under the same topic a few hours later (11:35 a.m. GMT 16 Jul 09) illustrating what Hahnemann meant in that same aphorism and footnote by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance" and using all the obvious examples I could think of is merely a slight clarification of that argument a few hours earlier. I suggest you try to engage with that argument rather than state that any of its conclusions may be so unacceptable that they excuse you from all further responsibility to give reasons for views very firmly stated as fact rather than as the tired hand-me-downs they actually are. You'll find the Carcinosin whose reputation you're concerned for mentioned in that argument, but you'll also see that rather than simply pronouncing things, I've argued my case, which is more, I'm sorry to say, than you have done.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
I do apologise. If by "question" you mean
"If you think the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is not a single simple remedy, then I have said all can on the subject",
then I simply didn't recognise it as such; it read more like a statement to me, concerning your unwillingness to engage in a reasoning process.
I think I've made more than clear the basis of Hahnemann's (not mine!) division of materials into single, simple substances and multiples of single, simple substances; the problem appears to be that your unwillingness to engage with the subject. My post under "Of substance" (6:59 a.m. GMT 16 Jul 09) explaining in detail that others have found helpful just what Hahnemann intended in his § 273 footnote 159 illustrations, has met with skirmishes by you around the margins but nothing that invalidates it in any way. My follow-up post under the same topic a few hours later (11:35 a.m. GMT 16 Jul 09) illustrating what Hahnemann meant in that same aphorism and footnote by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance" and using all the obvious examples I could think of is merely a slight clarification of that argument a few hours earlier. I suggest you try to engage with that argument rather than state that any of its conclusions may be so unacceptable that they excuse you from all further responsibility to give reasons for views very firmly stated as fact rather than as the tired hand-me-downs they actually are. You'll find the Carcinosin whose reputation you're concerned for mentioned in that argument, but you'll also see that rather than simply pronouncing things, I've argued my case, which is more, I'm sorry to say, than you have done.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Single Simple Remedy
John
Are you unable / unwilling to answer a simple question?
Do you accept that the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is a single simple remedy?
A yes or a No will suffice.
Tnx & Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 15:44
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Dear Soroush,
I do apologise. If by "question" you mean
"If you think the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is not a single simple remedy, then I have said all can on the subject",
then I simply didn't recognise it as such; it read more like a statement to me, concerning your unwillingness to engage in a reasoning process.
I think I've made more than clear the basis of Hahnemann's (not mine!) division of materials into single, simple substances and multiples of single, simple substances; the problem appears to be that your unwillingness to engage with the subject. My post under "Of substance" (6:59 a.m. GMT 16 Jul 09) explaining in detail that others have found helpful just what Hahnemann intended in his § 273 footnote 159 illustrations, has met with skirmishes by you around the margins but nothing that invalidates it in any way. My follow-up post under the same topic a few hours later (11:35 a.m. GMT 16 Jul 09) illustrating what Hahnemann meant in that same aphorism and footnote by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance" and using all the obvious examples I could think of is merely a slight clarification of that argument a few hours earlier. I suggest you try to engage with that argument rather than state that any of its conclusions may be so unacceptable that they excuse you from all further responsibility to give reasons for views very firmly stated as fact rather than as the tired hand-me-downs they actually are. You'll find the Carcinosin whose reputation you're concerned for mentioned in that argument, but you'll also see that rather than simply pronouncing things, I've argued my case, which is more, I'm sorry to say, than you have done.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
Are you unable / unwilling to answer a simple question?
Do you accept that the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is a single simple remedy?
A yes or a No will suffice.
Tnx & Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 15:44
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Dear Soroush,
I do apologise. If by "question" you mean
"If you think the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is not a single simple remedy, then I have said all can on the subject",
then I simply didn't recognise it as such; it read more like a statement to me, concerning your unwillingness to engage in a reasoning process.
I think I've made more than clear the basis of Hahnemann's (not mine!) division of materials into single, simple substances and multiples of single, simple substances; the problem appears to be that your unwillingness to engage with the subject. My post under "Of substance" (6:59 a.m. GMT 16 Jul 09) explaining in detail that others have found helpful just what Hahnemann intended in his § 273 footnote 159 illustrations, has met with skirmishes by you around the margins but nothing that invalidates it in any way. My follow-up post under the same topic a few hours later (11:35 a.m. GMT 16 Jul 09) illustrating what Hahnemann meant in that same aphorism and footnote by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance" and using all the obvious examples I could think of is merely a slight clarification of that argument a few hours earlier. I suggest you try to engage with that argument rather than state that any of its conclusions may be so unacceptable that they excuse you from all further responsibility to give reasons for views very firmly stated as fact rather than as the tired hand-me-downs they actually are. You'll find the Carcinosin whose reputation you're concerned for mentioned in that argument, but you'll also see that rather than simply pronouncing things, I've argued my case, which is more, I'm sorry to say, than you have done.
Cheers!
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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: Single Simple Remedy
Dear Soroush,
If you imagine that I'm being evasive about this simple question, then what is your motivation in leaving aside for up to 15 days now the many questions that you say you've had no time to answer because you're too busy earning a living?
The question you want a simple answer to without the burden of facing the reasoning behind it has its answer already in one of the carefully crafted arguments, just referred to you, to which I still await a response. How about going and looking at it and having a go at answering it responsively, if you have a little time now?
Cheers!
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
If you imagine that I'm being evasive about this simple question, then what is your motivation in leaving aside for up to 15 days now the many questions that you say you've had no time to answer because you're too busy earning a living?
The question you want a simple answer to without the burden of facing the reasoning behind it has its answer already in one of the carefully crafted arguments, just referred to you, to which I still await a response. How about going and looking at it and having a go at answering it responsively, if you have a little time now?
Cheers!
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Single Simple Remedy
John
Please just answer this one! Like I said Yes / No would be lovely. Too much to ask?
Depending on your answer, it is possible that you have answered a lot of the questions you asked me.
Else I have an uphill task in front of me.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 15:55
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Dear Soroush,
If you imagine that I'm being evasive about this simple question, then what is your motivation in leaving aside for up to 15 days now the many questions that you say you've had no time to answer because you're too busy earning a living?
The question you want a simple answer to without the burden of facing the reasoning behind it has its answer already in one of the carefully crafted arguments, just referred to you, to which I still await a response. How about going and looking at it and having a go at answering it responsively, if you have a little time now?
Cheers!
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
Please just answer this one! Like I said Yes / No would be lovely. Too much to ask?
Depending on your answer, it is possible that you have answered a lot of the questions you asked me.
Else I have an uphill task in front of me.
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 15:55
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Dear Soroush,
If you imagine that I'm being evasive about this simple question, then what is your motivation in leaving aside for up to 15 days now the many questions that you say you've had no time to answer because you're too busy earning a living?
The question you want a simple answer to without the burden of facing the reasoning behind it has its answer already in one of the carefully crafted arguments, just referred to you, to which I still await a response. How about going and looking at it and having a go at answering it responsively, if you have a little time now?
Cheers!
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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: Single Simple Remedy
Soroush, read what I wrote about it, and you may even come away from it with a fraction of the insight that others have glimpsed in reading straightforwardly Hahnemann's own words on the topic and its profound implications for this question and hundreds of questions just like it.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
Cheers --
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Single Simple Remedy
If you have answered it with a simple yes / no some where before, I must have missed it.
I do not see why you are so reluctant to answer?
Will your position weaken if you answered?
Go on, be a devil and for once give a short answer - like Yes / No! It may change your life
Good luck
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 16:11
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Soroush, read what I wrote about it, and you may even come away from it with a fraction of the insight that others have glimpsed in reading straightforwardly Hahnemann's own words on the topic and its profound implications for this question and hundreds of questions just like it.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
I do not see why you are so reluctant to answer?
Will your position weaken if you answered?
Go on, be a devil and for once give a short answer - like Yes / No! It may change your life
Good luck
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 16:11
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Soroush, read what I wrote about it, and you may even come away from it with a fraction of the insight that others have glimpsed in reading straightforwardly Hahnemann's own words on the topic and its profound implications for this question and hundreds of questions just like it.
Cheers --
John
2009/7/24 >
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"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)
Re: Single Simple Remedy
Just to turn this around a bit - why should the carcinosin rx be made from more than one source - it shouldn't be as there is no need for it.
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
________________________________
Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/
________________________________