Combo meds

[John Harvey]

Thank you, Jeff; but, in all that, you forgot to answer my question! Yes, you've clarified what you meant when you said that you don't use these patented combinations: you meant that you don't use them once they fail, but instead take the case and give an "appropriate" medicine. But you didn't say why you reject only the patented ones that fail.

That was the thrust of my question: why have you diverted a discussion of polypharmaceutical corruption of homoeopathic practitioners to the topic of whether (and, now, of why) you reject patented medicines, only to state the obvious: that it's because they fail?

Yes, of course they fail! Unlike the dumb luck that may enable a prescriber to hit upon a homoeopathic remedy by prescribing the most obvious polychrest, the prospects of true success in shotgun prescriptions are -- for all the reasons given to you many times over by Soroush, Fran, Chris, Sheri, Kerry, Joy, Magda, Rik, and others -- nil.

And if you understood the basis of homoeopathy, you'd also understand why the certainty inherent in the medicine of certainty is not available in the medicine of indecision; why it is that both patented and unpatented combinations must always fail to cure. The explanation lies in the scientific underpinning of homoeopathy's discovery.

Jeff, Liz, Varun, Shannon: underpinning Hahnemann's discovery of the principle Similia similibus curantur -- the one aspect without which no homoeopathic practice may be said to exist -- was a scientific principle of discovery. That principle is fundamental to all scientific discovery. In medicine, Hahnemann was the first to apply it to discovery in medicine, and it resulted in a gift to the practice of medicine that is more fundamental than the principle of homoeopathy. Can you describe it? Do you have the least clue how we come to inherit a two-century history of medical cures toward which the dominant medicine of trial and error cannot hope to aspire? Or are your patients doomed to see you repeat the errors of all the other geniuses who have reinvented polypharmacy as an original way to circumvent their aversion to the work of overcoming their ignorance?

If you need a clue, just ask.

Cheers --

John

[Shannon Nelson]

(a) Please skip the slurs ("cretinous"); it's unpleasant!
(b) I do not recall anyone talking about single symptoms, certainly not myself.
(c) Sure, that's the classical method. Use of combos is a separate thing, and I don't have more to say about it right now.
The manners of some who disagree?
)
Shannon

[John Harvey]

So... no thought, in all these years in which you've been bumbling around with mixtures and magic, about whether there's a single thing that homoeopathic practice actually means, Liz? No thought at all?

John

[John Harvey]

Oh, no: you and I agreed on the single principle long ago, Shannon. So there was no slur on your ability to recognise the principle. I know that you'd agree that it would be foolhardy to reinvent the definition of homoeopathy: that it would be confusing and leave homoeopathy and homoeopaths open to unwarranted criticism.

You don't recall anyone talking about prescribing mixtures for single symptoms? What did you think you were defending in this discussion? What did the discussion commence with: wasn't it a recommendation by Jeff Tikari for a (patented) mixture for a cough?

Yes, use of "combos" is a separate thing. That's precisely my point. It's separate, and it's separate because it can't be done on the basis on which homoeopathy is done: knowledge of patient, knowledge of pathogenesis, comparison.

Kind regards,

John

[Theresa Partington]

I think that referring to people as cretins is rude and unhelpful whatever the context.
Theresa

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi John,
Do you mean principle of single remedy? I have agreed that that is *classical* / Hahnemannian approach.
What I meant by "slur" is the word cretinous.
Yep, it's already been done, and yep that's what's happened.
To my mind there are basically two possible approaches: One is to *pretend* that it *hasn't* happened, and thereby cause more confusion.
The other is to yield to the fact that "life happens", things and words and language change--and use the goldurned modifiers...
John, this has gotten circular. I don't have time to re-trace the ground right now.
(1) Use of mixtures by some people, in some situations.
(2) The idea that such mixtures, in their usage and in their working (when they do), still fall under the purview of the (contemporary) *broader* usage of the term "homeopathy". I would prefer to call it "combo homeopathy" or some such, as a distinction.
Yawn. I don't feel like repeating myself... Am out again.

Best wishes,
Shannon

[John Harvey]

Theresa, I'm sorry that you took the abstract reference to cretins to apply to yourself, and sorrier still that discussion on this list remains second class when discussion in at least two other forums occurs at university level.

But perhaps those who continually highjacking what should be discussion of homoeopathic practice in order to recommend some reinvention of the polypharmacy that Hahnemann successfully, for a time, undermined even amongst allopathic prescribers should accept their responsibility for the confusion and indignation that understandably result.

Kind regards,

John

[Shannon Nelson]

Yep, and John, it's also beneath your usual standard--tho I do have sympathy for the frustration that produces it! Still, just saying...

[Shannon Nelson]

What forums are those?

[John Harvey]

"Homoeopathy cannot have different definitions according to what we may feel like it being. The term homoeopathy was very carefully chosen by Hahnemann. With knowledge of the Greek words he used to underpin the term, it also defines itself."

Would you agree with those words, Shannon?

What about:

"It would be foolhardy reinvent the definition of homoeopathy to make it more inclusive the the when you really talking about different approaches - it is just confusing for anyone trying to understand what is what and opens us up to criticism. Most people want accurate information."

Would you agree with that?

And, finally:

"There is a virulent flu and long extended cough doing the
rounds here in Delhi. Coughs last for two months and those
who visit homeopaths get quicker relief.
"I have used, and am using, a patent homeo med that is almost
magical. Gives relief very rapidly. Made by SBL Labs it contains:"

Do you remember this? This is the message that the discussion concerns. It refers, as you see, to a single symptom: cough. And relief of that single symptom that symptom ("clearing the way"!) is the sole justification given for prescribing the patient not one, not two, but many medicines blindly and simultaneously. Defence of that is what you have been participating in here; did you not realise that?

Cheers!

John