Combo meds

[John Harvey]

I think you're right, Shannon; but in this discussion, that point is another red herring, and perhaps the whole mention of potentised medicines and cancer cells is too. (Tanya's point was in raising it was, I think, that similarity of energy makes those cells susceptible to that particular substance. But homoeopathy's methodology takes no note of similarities of energy; only of similarities of symptoms.)

We're already in a position in which "homoeopaths" are unable to distinguish homoeopathic from allopathic practice because they've spent their study time exploring every available rabbit-hole instead of knuckling down to any serious work.
If we can limit the number of rabbit holes we dive down, perhaps those with compromised abilities to pay attention for more than a minute at a time will be able to begin following this apparently challenging discussion of the notion that homoeopathy actually means something. It's clearly beyond them at the moment, and tangentially related observations do nothing to help them remain focused on that single, simple question.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .

[Shannon Nelson]

Oh John, Once again combo remedies *are* based on (either known or suspected) relationships between medicine and patient. In the case of generic combos those relationships are *guessed* rather than known (and when the guess is wrong, the combo will not work); in the case of individual prepared combo, the relationships are known by the prescriber. Can you admit to that, at least?

Why not stick to the parts of "combo theory" that actally *do* go against "homeopathic theory", i.e. the giving of "more than one remedy at the same time"? (That too is argued against by some, but let's let that pass for now!)

:-/

[Shannon Nelson]

Okay then, I'm happy to let my herring go by with just a footnote for a hook.

[John Harvey]

Shannon, every six or nine months you seem to learn anew what homoeopathy is, and six months later you've forgotten again. Is there a problem?

Let's begin at the beginning.
Where, in the Organon you learned your homoeopathy from, is the homoeopathic relationship defined as including "suspected" relationships?

Where, in the Organon you studied, is the aphorism stating that the practitioner's knowledge of the primary (deranging) effects of a medicine need not, in homoeopathic practice, come from a pathogenetic trial but may be *guessed*?

In what part of this wonderfully vague Organon appears the suggestion that any prescriber at any time in the history of the universe could know the primary effects of an "individual prepared combo" (ad hoc medicinal mixture); or the suggestion that homoeopathy be practised by guesswork; or justification of such practice on the basis that when the ad hoc mixture doesn't cure the patient, it does no harm because it simply "does not work"?

I'm fascinated to picture you falling once again into this mire of fanciful invention of convenience medicine and managing, with a straight face, to mistake this goop in which you're drowning for homoeopathic practice. Can you be serious? Have you no clue at all?

Tell me, Shannon, what do you actually remember of the meaning of the word homoeopathy, aside from permissions to do anything that takes your fancy?

And is it beyond your mental capacities to recognise that there may be some small difference between the symptom in which you take such an unhealthy interest -- in this case, a cough! -- and the state of the entire patient? Again, have you no clue at all?

Cheers --

John

[Liz Brynin]

No - not at all, Soroush! That's the point about the Narayani remedies - they can make the simillimum picture clearer. They are not an alternative - they are a support. You need to move on to the simillimum always.
Liz
________________________________

[Liz Brynin]

"the random peregrinations you and your fellow desperados favour"
First of all, they are not random, and secondly, we are not desperate!
ha ha! the very idea!
Liz

[John Harvey]

Oh, I wouldn't call it an idea at all. It's clearly a form of cognitive deficit. Inflicting the results of cognitive deficit on the patient trusting one to keep one's wits about one, though, is hardly something to be proud of or to espouse.

It is also not found amongst Hahnemann's writings defining homoeopathy, something he does so simply and well -- even in rude translation from his convoluted old German -- that a cognitively whole child cannot mistake his intent.

It is not humility that decides in all ignorance to forgo the rudiments of an art before presuming to exceed them, even to forgoing an understanding of what that art is. It is, rather, sheer unschooled egotism. Until you can get yourself in check, you will never appreciate even your own ignorance of the nature of the topic under discussion, let alone approach knowing what Hahnemann knew.

Every homoeopath with a sense of medical history should realise that hysterical speculation is no foundation for a medicine of sense, of ethics, or of happy endings. Every homoeopath with any humility makes an attempt, every so often, to remind him- or herself of what homoeopathy fundamentally is. And a homoeopath with an iota of wisdom compares temptaceous medical shortcuts with the single, simple principle that homoeopathy requires and gives the comparison some thought.

Good luck with all that, Liz!

John

[MMGM]

http://college-of-practical-homeopathy.com/

Useful to learn more than only classical Homeopathy.
This is in UK

[John Harvey]

No argument from me. Five-element acupuncture, doing things to chakras, understanding nutrition, you name it: all have the potential to help you help your patient.

What isn't helpful is to begin calling them all homoeopathy. What isn't helpful is to delude oneself that polypharmacy is not polypharmacy after all but is merely offering the body all the suitable and unsuitable medicines from amongst which it shall choose to be affected by only one (the correct one!). What isn't helpful is to delude oneself that forcibly removing a symptom via polypharmacy "clears the way" for an accurate prescription based on a consequently distorted presentation.

What isn't helpful is to base the practice of medicine on idle speculation of comfort and convenience only to the lazy charlatan.

Cheers --

John

[Shannon Nelson]

Homeopathicity is NOT dependent on the understanding of the practitioner--it is dependent on the nature of the substance, and of the patient. Remember?

That is why the one that works has to *be* homeopathic, not merely to be *thought* homeopathic. That's why (a) guessing-and-hoping sometimes works (NOT that I am recommending it), and (b) sometimes the "obvious" remedy is not the correct one.
This is an issue of method, not of efficacy.
Said it before, don't feel like repeating at the moment. ) Search your memory banks for phrases relating to "... includes the needed remedy", etc.
Issues of method, not relevant to efficacy.
No one here is saying that combo remedies represent good classical approach--they do not. The point at issue is whether there can be homeopathicity (correspondence) between a combo and a patient.
Yawn.
? Sorry, what cough?
John, I know how to practice classical homeopathy, and again, that is not the issue at discussion here--we all *know* that combos do not represent classical practice.

Shannon