BFR

[John Harvey]

Thank you, Leilanae. That is more in keeping with my impression of it before Irene gave me to understand that its indications are based on a rather more complete pathogenesis "matched" to part of the patient's state.

If the description you've supplied is accurate, it would appear that there's no justification either for regarding Bach prescription as loosely homoeopathic or for regarding it as capable of meeting (singly or in combination) any illness with a physical component. Whether uncertainty in defining emotional state justifies use of multiple Bach medicines together is another matter; but if it does, then it cannot be on the basis of pathogenetic similarity as Irene claims it is.

Thanks again; that clears some of that up --

John

[Leilanae]

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

--------------------------------------
Hi John,

Here is the link to the Bach Center. Lot's of info including case studies. Perhaps it will answer some of your questions, including
how to select a custom mix - just for you.

http://www.bachcentre.com/index.php

Leilanae

----------------------------------------------

[John Harvey]

You're too, too kind!

Cheers!

John

[Irene de Villiers]

Irene is always careful with explanations of what is advocated by her and why and with which and under what circumstances - all careful and in context.
YOU are an ace at polyword-pharma-seeing it out of context.

Nice to see that people are getting wise to the difference.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[John Harvey]

If you're resiling from the position that multiple medicines in the one patient (for different purposes) are just fine in homoeopathic practice, Irene, please feel free to go right ahead and say so; I'll be the first to congratulate you.

Nice wordplay, anyway.

John

[Shannon Nelson]

John -- again, this question is not up to your usual standard of precision.

"Medicines"? If you mean "homeopathic remedies", you need to say so.

If you are asking whether she approves of using non-homeopathy in the context of homeopathic treatment, that is a different question and you need to say so.

[John Harvey]

Hi, Shannon --

Actually, although I take your first point, I meant just what I said. No, I couldn't mean multiple homoeopathic remedies in this context, because only one of them could be regarded as (most) homoeopathic to the patient.

To answer your second point, no, I'm not concerning myself with the other treatments that Irene or anybody else feels necessary as well as homoeopathy; I've concerned myself in this discussion only with the misrepresentation of those additional, auxiliary, or otherwise allopathic treatments as being homoeopathy.

It's just the same old battle once again, the battle to call anything and everything homoeopathy; both points you've raised here are addressing a choice of language on my part that reflects the position that if it's not homoeopathy, then it's not homoeopathy, and that saying otherwise can never make it so.

Cheers --

John

[Shannon Nelson]

So you are leaving the topic of BFR? Then let's change the subject line to reflect that.

[Shannon Nelson]

Nowhere does she say that Flower Remedies are homeopathy.

She draws some parallels between them. Is that what is troubling you, the parallels?

[John Harvey]

Shannon, it might help you to recall Irene's oft-stated position on all this. Convoluted and self-contradictory as that is, I'm not going to attempt to sum it up here and now, but you're quite capable of referring to Irene's many facile claims: • regarding Hahnemann's inability to understand the superiority of prescribing multiple medicines at once; • regarding her confinement of polypharmacy to multiple medicines in the one tablet; • regarding her exclusion of two medicines from the meaning of "multiple"; • regarding the possibility, no, the necessity, of prescribing more than one medicine at a time to the one patient in order to fulfill two entirely different purposes; and • counting each of the tablets simultaneously prescribed for a different purpose as monopharmacy.

Irene has become quick, in recent years, to acknowledge that polypharmacy is not possible within homoeopathy. But she is equally quick to use these smoke-and-mirror devices to confine what she means by polypharmacy to the laughable particular of prescribing for the same symptoms three or more medicines in a single tablet. Two medicines, or three in separate tablets, as long as she can claim they're for entirely different purposes: in Irene's expressly stated opinion, these don't constitute polypharmacy. (You needn't take my word for this if you've forgotten it all again. At any moment now, Irene will issue a denial several pages in length of having said any of this, and accuse me of twisting her words. I'll respond by quoting her verbatim, in response to which she'll simply repeat that she didn't say what she said, didn't mean what she meant, and, even if she did, shouldn't be paraphrased or quoted.)

This is because Irene really doesn't understand at all that homoeopathy relies on the predictable primary medicinal effects of the medicine prescribed -- and because she doesn't want to understand. Regardless, the point is not that I have a confusion between Bach flower remedies and homoeopathy, but that I object to the two being confused -- especially deliberately so.

For as long, though, as Irene abhors the position (explicit or implicit) that Bach prescriptions are homoeopathic, Bach becomes a non-issue.

Of course, the underlying problem remains, and that is Irene's utter ignorance of the homoeopathic principle itself. Until she finally comprehends that principle (and at this stage it's highly doubtful that she ever will), Irene and others of her ilk will continue to return to attack homoeopaths as fuddy-duddies set in their narrow-minded ways, too limited to see the magic in using many medicines at once and too closed-minded to see that Hahnemann himself would one day have embraced the very polypharmacy whose irrationality he showed even to the satisfaction of many in the allopathic profession.

I hope that that satisfactorily illuminates why I have thought Irene's arrogant confusions worth slicing through once again. If not, the next chapter (Irene's bitter cries of unjust misrepresentation, and my verbatim citations of the statements she will deny having made) may shed a little more light on it.

Cheers --

John