WAS (Fluid in the inner ear)

[Sheri Nakken]

again it has nothing to do with this Hahnemannnian list...........therefore starting your own list might be a great idea.

Sheri

At 04:09 AM 10/20/2011, you wrote:

[John Harvey]

Well, that's fine, Jeff. But the suggestion that that Hering's law (or, as Sheri suggests, non-law) is an appropriate way to gauge follow-up doesn't in any way contravene homoeopathy's fundamental principle and doesn't suggest that some contravening principle may be incorporated into homoeopathic practice, though, does it?

On the other hand, suggesting that the simultaneous prescription (on the basis of a hunch, which is as strong a scientific basis as any that polypharmacy can enjoy) does. It contravenes the homoeopathic principle for the simple reason that it does not, cannot, and never will be compatible with the simple requirement that the medicine prescribed be known not for its clinical reputation (the basis of allopathy) but by its pathogenesis.

Now, if suggestions of alternatives to homoeopathy when in desperate straits were to accompany a statement honestly differentiating them from homoeopathy (perhaps using some phrase acknowledging that the suggestion is off topic, that the suggested means is not homoeopathic in nature), then you, Irene, and the other polypharmacists failing to acknowledge that homoeopathy inherently excludes polypharmacy would find yourselves putting your suggestions to people who are more open to them.

Instead, however, what you do do, and have done for years, on this list is to maintain the fiction that your distinctly allopathic methods somehow fall into a class of homoeopathic practice -- an advanced class of it, called polypharmacy, that Hahnemann could never have thought of! -- and that therefore no such acknowledgement is necessary, appropriate, or even accurate.

Once you (and your fellow polypharmacists) find yourself unable to refute that distinction, you inevitably fall silent for a time until the next occasion on which you attempt to perpetrate exactly the same outrageous fraud on exactly the same puerile basis. Don't you think it's time you stopped hedging and frankly acknowledged once and for all time that recommendations and practices that flatly contradict the homoeopathic principle -- polypharmacy amongst them -- therefore do not "advance" or "extend" homoeopathy or make "progress" in it or constitute "Premium Homoeopathy" but squarely violate the one principle that homoeopathy depends upon?

Kind regards,

John

[Kerry]

There is also the issue that patients are left in total confusion when non-homeopathic methods are done by homeopaths without it being explained that the "homeopath" is going beyond what the patient came for. I listened to a conversation yesterday where a woman was telling a customer to her health food shop that her homeopath had inserted soap up her backside when she was a child. She said that it was obviously some sort of homeopathic treatment for bowel problems. Luckily the woman she was saying this to knew enough about homeopathy to say "I don't think so!" but how many others will hear that and assume that it is part of homeopathic treatment? Certainly when you look around the web there is so much info that has nothing to do with homeopathy being peddled as homeopathy. Patients must be totally confused unless they have taken the time to read up well on the subject, but let's face it how many will do that before going to a practitioner? Most don't want to do a short study course before treatment, they just want their ailments (or chidrens/animals) cured. From a professional point of view a homeopath should be explaining to the patient what is going on and give the patient the opportunity to opt out of non-homeopathic treatment.

Kerry

[jtikari]

This is typical, just typical. I NEVER said Hering worked outside homeopathy. I merely asked where I
could find Hering's Law in the Organon...period. You guys are manuplating this to suggest that I inferred
that Hering's Law is not allied to Homeopathy.
This is exactly the reason some of us stop continuing the discussion because you misconstru it completely.
Have fun chasing windmills. I have no interest to continue.Adeu.
Jeff

[jtikari]

Of course, Kerry, I not only tell them about each med. but
they each have a personal card where the ailment is recorded
and meds given with dates and potencies.
Jeff

[Tanya Marquette]

some of the confusion is plain ignorance on the part of the public. they have no differential understanding between naturopathic treatment vs homeopathy. this is a standard rap of mine
over the past few years. add to this the intentional confusion on the part of drug companies who advertise their wares as homeopathic on tv or a dr. oz who adds to the confusion by
marketing a program on homeopathy with non-homeopaths doing the talking--remember this one from the summer?
tanya

[John Harvey]

Jeff, I'm really pleased to hear that you aren't after all making the infantile claim that Hering's rule of thumb for classifying observations of the success of homoeopathic prescription is in any way equivalent to, or in any way justifies, the claim that homoeopaths who regard the law of similars as being essential to homoeopathy are being unnecessarily narrow in their view of the limits of homoeopathy.
I'm pleased -- and, more so, relieved. What makes that relief especially poignant is that you so clearly were making that claim when you wrote
"Boger went beyond SH's teachings as did Herring, Bonning.Kent, etc. But somehow that's alright [sic]. None of us today dare",
thereby arrogating for your polypharmacy a status as being within homoeopathy, just before confessing your inability to practise within the confines of the law of similars.
It continues to reek of the old pattern of hedging, though, doesn't it. So it's always clarifying when you come right out and say what you really mean: that you "understand Hahnemannian Homeopathy and accept it for what it is" but -- if this is what you mean by that favourite hedge "can not" -- are unable to "keep only [sic] within its confines".
I'm sure your inability to practise according to the law of similars is a disappointment to you. But your moment of honesty in confessing it was refreshingly honest. I hope you can return every so often to that capability of honest admission. That statement demonstrated the humility requisite for appreciating too your present ignorance of what homoeopathy comprises, and for rectifying it. And it's a genuinely important step for you to have risked, as you will never learn anything while you insist upon ignorance and blame others for taking you at your word.
Good luck.
John

[Teresa Kramer]

That does it. After John’s latest sarcastic reply I am opting out of Minutus. Too nasty and anyway, I don’t think that, as an interested and concerned lay-person, I have learned anything here in a long while. If anyone has a suggestion of another list where people are kinder and posts more interesting, I would be glad of an email off-list (as I will not be seeing the list anymore.) Teresa (Northern VA)
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: Friday, October 21, 2011 9:40 AM
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] WAS (Fluid in the inner ear)
Jeff, I'm really pleased to hear that you aren't after all making the infantile claim that Hering's rule of thumb for classifying observations of the success of homoeopathic prescription is in any way equivalent to, or in any way justifies, the claim that homoeopaths who regard the law of similars as being essential to homoeopathy are being unnecessarily narrow in their view of the limits of homoeopathy.
I'm pleased -- and, more so, relieved. What makes that relief especially poignant is that you so clearly were making that claim when you wrote

Etc. etc. etc.

[Tanya Marquette]

teresa
while john can be a bit fundamentalist and judgemental at times, i dont see any meaness in this post.
jeff has put out some strange ideas over some time now and been pretty rigid in his perspectives and,
so, has been somewhat offputting for many here.
please rethink your participation
tanya

[Sheri Nakken]

and it isn't in the organon because it isn't a law of homeopathy.

Sheri

At 12:15 AM 10/21/2011, you wrote: