BFR

[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

[Hennie Duits]

If I were Irene, I would most definitely abstain from answering the half
truths, insinuations and concoctions as stated by John.

Hennie

Op 25-7-2013 22:01, John Harvey schreef:

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi John,
My point was that you were -- and are -- MIXING two SEPARATE and not-all-that-related topics. That just leads to (yet more) confusion.

Okay, let's switch the topic, and re-discuss Irene's use of homeopathic remedies…
I don't enjoy when simple exchange of conflicting ideas, becomes snarky and sarcastic… But okay, letting that slide for the moment.
Re this last point, recall that most of her patients are cats with a disease that is apparently *unanimously considered to be universally fatal*, Feline Infectious Perotonitis (I think I am remembering that right?) -- and she saves "the greater half" of them. Not bad at all, as heresies go…

So evidently your ire is not over the subject of "does it work" (clearly it does work, whereas I gather that traditional / classical / Hahnemannian methodology does not -- at least not that anyone here seems to have heard of).

So your ire, then, is simply over the fact that she is calling this heretical methodology "homeopathy" -- is that the problem?

[Shannon Nelson]

Ummmm I thought we were ALL in agreement that they are NOT homeopathic?
Bach himself said that they were not.

So your point is… ?

[John Harvey]

Thank you, Hettie; good of you to say so. You obviously understand Irene well.

Cheers --

John

[John Harvey]

Shannon, I'm sure you're not being deliberately obtuse here, but it bewilders me how it can have escaped your notice that Irene deliberately confounded Bach flower remedies with homoeopathy. Once you do notice that, all your questions to me will be answered, it seems to me. And yes, that is exactly the point that I have been hammering at: that any polypharmacy cannot possibly have a homoeopathic basis.

Cheers --
John

[John Harvey]

Hi again, Shannon --
The above was not an example of sarcasm, Shannon.
I don't care tuppence for Irene's claims, which frankly have no credence whatever for anybody who has had dealings with her, as she makes up any old thing on the spot. And actually her success or otherwise is of no consequence to this discussion, which Irene firmly placed in the court of identifying Bach prescriptions as being her kind of homoeopathy before she resiled from that position. If you want to keep discussing it forever as a great thing, please go ahead; but it's irrelevant to the topic of this discussion.
My objection is, yes, to deliberate confusion of homoeopathy with methods fundamentally distinct from it. This is the same discussion that occurs eternally between me and the polypharmacists here, though they'll always couch it in other terms. And no, that wasn't sarcasm either.

Cheers --

John

[Shannon Nelson]

On Jul 25, 2013, at 6:43 PM, John Harvey > wrote:
I did not see her "confounding" them at all; but I did (as I mentioned in my next post) see her *noting* certain parallels.
The only confounding of the two has been your own.
Ah, and there you skip again away from the subject of Flower Remedies (for which the mixing of remedies is not heresy, but is simply the *method*; and is also not-homeopathy for a number of reasons) and back into the land of "hammering at Irene".

Never mind, I'm out again…
Cheers

[John Harvey]

Okay, perhaps I'm wrong and this is deliberate on your part, Shannon. I can only find so many ways of saying that Irene's very deliberate reference to Bach prescriptions' basis in matching pathogeneses (multiple) to the symptoms of a patient (singular) is merely another underscore of her thesis that it is possible and even necessary to practise homoeopathy via polypharmacy. Please do try to understand the implications. I'm sure I'm not the only one here who is sick to death of this same discussion every year involving the same belligerents and the same "innocent" bystanders.

Cheers --

John

[Leilanae]

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Nelson wrote:
------------------

Hi Shannon,

It sounds like you might have read the link Lynn posted?

Interesting article by Peter Morrell "The Bach Flower Remedies and Homeopathy"

http://homeoint.org/morrell/articles/bach.htm

Atb,

Leilanae
-------------------------------------------------