ripe for discussion

[Shannon Nelson]

I quite disagree, but will leave it at that.

[Shannon Nelson]

It does us no credit when we make blanket statements that do not address the evidence.
Even when the speaker's opinions are very strong, and even when the speaker is very knowledgeable about *other* areas. It undercuts credibility.

[Sue Boyle]

Yes, this sort of struck me, since I was a prover for Jeremy's eagle and don't agree with the mass hysteria comment. I have researched how to do a proving by reading the Organon and if my memory serves me well, the proving was Hahnemannian. So hysteria has nothing to do with it.

Sue

[Tanya Marquette]

I posted the interview a) because it was Vithoulkas, and b) because his postion is is stated so strongly
without sufficient clarification that it struck me as doing damage itself.
I also had reservations about his statements on prophylaxis,provings and placebo effect. All of this playing
into the hands of the denialists and those who would actively seek to destroy homeopathy and access to it.
He doesn't reference the Cuba experience with Leptospirosis and I would wonder whether he thinks the
entire island was prone to the placebo effect. If you recall, Cuba reported a remarkable year without the
disease when using the nosode nationally.
Also, Shannon's point is well taken that if people had any proving symptoms in a prophylactic situation they
might not be noticed, expecially if they are insignificant in the course of a person's day. Or what about using
the genus epidemicus in a public health emergency? With all those doses given out, no homeopathy ever
recorded any proving symptoms?
He also seemed to be trashing all modern provings and sounded like he was referencing Jeremy Scher.
While it is true this was a general interview and not a paper on doing provings, I felt his comments way to
broad and general.
So in summary, I began to feel that we were hearing more of GV's ego than was warranted and that he might
have considered how his commentary might be heard by people in the general public, new homeopaths, and
the denialists. There was no balance, no effort to ask that people be more cautious in their practices, just
blanket criticism which sounded just as negative to homeopathy as do the denialists. And that is why I asked
for others reactions--to see how it came across to them.
tanya

[Shannon Nelson]

Tanya, I completely agree with you on all points.

And unfortunately, this isn't the first time I've reacted in that sort of way to GV's commentaries. I *very* much esteem his work, I think he's done fantastic things for homeopathy and homeopaths, and done some beautiful work--but he is not immune to the ego issue, which actually seems to be a rather common trap among homeopaths, and especially, it seems, among our "best of the best". Which is sad (better we should be collaborating) but perhaps not surprising--being a ground-breaker in a ground-breaking (aka "fringe")" field takes self-confidence as well as brains, dedication and chutzpah.

But I do continue to wish that more of our best were throwing their *support* to each other--and yes, sometimes support should take the form of criticism--careful, thoughtful, and appropriate criticism.

Shannon

[Joy Lucas]

I think you are missing the point about GE (and don't you love the way the i/v wrote 'genius') and let's face it this was a 'bad' interview and frankly I cannot understand GV being judged purely on that alone - George makes quite clear the misunderstanding about prescribing prophylactically and when it is done properly there will not be proving sx because of the 'need' for the GE simillimum - it is when prophylactic prescribing is done willy nilly that he is complaining about and sadly there is plenty of that about.

He didn't trash all modern provings - he's referring to some really poor quality meditative provings and group sessions, you know all that non Hahnemannian stuff - but again the interviewer should have picked up on that and taken it further so it could be clearer.

This is an out of context interview and at least I am glad to know that George doesn't need us to support him as his work is fine enough but the fact that some here are trashing him, well you are inadvertently proving his points probably!

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com

[Tanya Marquette]

I don't think the point was missed. It may have been a bad interview but it is out there and we need to look at it and what is happening in the field.
George is not being judged in total on this interview, just that fact that he made some blanket type statements with no clarification, no balance.
Many reading this will not be generous supporters of GV, but professional denialists and others not savvy enough to evaluate the article within
a broader context. I think GV ran with his ego, which he want to do, without considering the breadth of his audience. In that he is responsible for
any damage the article may bring.
tanya

[RichardS]

Ran with his ego? Sometimes the truth hurts. The broad generalizations he is making are the same ones he has been making since the gross advent of psuedopathy in the last 10 yrs. He sees Homeopathy going to hell in a hand basket and has something, that may be uncomfortable to some ears, to say about it. In this day and age of "touchy feely" political/social correctness, he is one of the very few who will, on a regular basis call for specificity and proofs in our science. Unfortunately it falls on deaf ears as the community of Homeopathy becomes more watered down and negligent.
If you are calling for him to be responsible for his broad generalizations, then I look forward to you being in his next class and/or conducting your own "balanced" interview.

Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "tamarque@..." wrote: