[hpe] how close is too close....

[Liz Brynin]

Dear Didi

This is a very interesting question - but one that opens up another bag of further questions without, however, finding an answer!

It's very true that remedies are powerful - and we have all heard the story of those patients who simply have to hold a vial in their hand to receive a dose of the remedy. Applied kinesiology also demonstrates very well how simply holding a remedy in your hand is enough to affect your body's energy field. But likewise, it demonstrates how the wrong remedy can also be totally ineffective - your energy field is not strengthened in any way. So some kind of recognition is going on here - the body recognises and accepts what it perceives as useful. Maybe it works like the receptor cells in our body, which receive the hormone they are designed for, plus other closely similar but not exact substances (I'm thinking of oestrogen receptor cells, for example, which can also get clogged up with synthetic oestrogens) And perhaps this is why the close remedy, but not the simillimum, will nevertheless palliate, or move you on, whereas the simillimum will work best of all.

Furthermore, perhaps our energetic remedies need to meet our body's energy filed before they are activated - in this way, storing them side by side, or even mixing them up together is not a problem - nothing will happen until they meet the vital force.

As for combinations in practical use - well, if you look at remedies traditionally used in France, for example, and I believe in Germany as well, you can buy 'combi remedies' over the counter in pharmacies, which are targeted at a specific illness. And they work! So obviously the body/vital force is capable of selecting what it needs and discarding the rest.

Secondly, if you look at the wonderful Narayani remedies, they are a complex mix of remedies, again targeted at specific illnesses or conditions, even emotional ones. And they work amazingly well - no doubt about it. I speak from personal experience.

In France, potencies tend to be on the low side - CH 6, 9 etc. does this make a difference? Closer to material substances? maybe.....but, the Narayani remedies go the other way! Some of the mixtures are made up with 30Cs, some with 200cs, others up to 10M or even CM! There are also some remedies which use combinations dosed at 3X. There are also mixtures of mixtures! The only unifying characteristic that I can see (and I may be wrong) is that all the ingredients of a combination/mixture are at the same potency.

I feel instinctively also that intention is an important part of our input when selecting remedies - which is not to say that intention alone suffices. But somehow, perhaps that intention 'supports' the remedy action in a positive way and facilitates its action. Then when it meets the vital force, things start to happen, in the way that a chemical reaction starts when two substances, both inert, react as they are placed to gether - e.g. phosphorus and water, or bicarb and lemon juice.

Lots of 'maybes'. No real answers - but fascinating!

Liz
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Consider this: TRH, CRF, LH, FSH, ACTH, TSH, prolactine, oxytocine, T3, T4, oestrogenes, progesterones, cortisone, insuline, calcitonine, glucagon, epinephrine, nor-epinephrine, renine, angiotensine, etc,.....all different hormones together in the same container (the human body), yet they all have their different actions, sites of action and metabolisms working separately and not confusing each other, not acting on each other's targets.

Why should multiple remedies, herbal, homeopathic or even drugs "interfere" with each other in the container unless there is a physical or chemical reaction involved, like it can happen with some herbal tinctures that will precipitate other tinctures?

If you go along with the idea that homeopathic remedies are present in the form of clathrates, then there is even less reason to fear an "interaction": it is like mixing salt and pepper; even though the colour of the mix will change and the final taste might be modified, their action of the tastebuds will remain the same and their physiological action also.

When the prescribing homeopath mixes different remedies he/she believes have to be taken concomitantly (that is another discussion we already had many times), and I am not talking about OTCs, then it becomes a simplified way of delivering the goods, allowing for better compliance through simplification.

Should you or should you not give different remedies at the same time was not Didi's original question.

Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

[John Harvey]

No, the question of polypharmacy within homoeopathy was not Didi's original question; but you've certainly put that question front and centre here, Joe. And, yes, we've been right through that question like a dose of salts many times now, and you've even been closely involved in that several times; yet here we are again, expressing the same hoary old self-delusions about how each medicine you can't decide between will do the job you want it to and not interfere with the others.

This is despite careful demonstration by me and many others:

(a) that intrinsic to homoeopathy as a practice is the capability of the medicine to reproduce the patient's symptoms in toto in its derangement of health; and

(b) something axiomatic even to allopaths, that the deranging effects of any mixture of two substances, let alone more, is not predictable from the sum of their deranging effects.

The argument about various hormones' activities in the human body is a nice one. But it overlooks (1) that these activities are not deranging but merely functionally normal; (2) that this is so because the substances in question are not extraneously introduced but merely part of the organism's internal communication and control systems; (3) that, although one hormone may (ideally) have just one receptor and one receptor receive just one hormone, the effects of that one hormone via that one receptor are multiple; (4) that the correspondingly multiple pathogenetic effects too of such a hormone used as a medicine are not singular but multiple; and therefore (5) that exactly the same unpredictability arises even in prescribing the idealised case of hormones as arises in prescribing any other combination of medicines.

Cheers --

John
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

[John Harvey]

An apt analogy, Susan, your analogy with acupuncture-point selection! The irrelevance of convenient beliefs to what is actually happening is a point you make well here too. If the irrelevant belief is blasphemy, that may be merely unfortunate; but, whatever beliefs it may defy, practice on that basis certainly defies Hahnemann's definition of homoeopathy as we all profess to understand it.

Cheers!

John
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Oh boy...........change the word "believe" to "consider" or "knows"....or whatever you want...

As for blasphemy, yeah, sure, why not, now homeopaths are members of a cult and whoever dares getting out of line should be beheaded....the skeptic trolls on this list must be laughing their guts off.

Whatever, enjoy your week-end, I am finished with this, permanently.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Oh boy...........change the word "believe" to "consider" or "knows"....or whatever you want...

As for blasphemy, yeah, sure, why not, now homeopaths are members of a cult and whoever dares getting out of line should be beheaded....the skeptic trolls on this list must be laughing their guts off.

Whatever, enjoy your week-end, I am finished with this, permanently.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

[John Harvey]

Whether you think of it as a belief, a consideration, an intent, or a convenient assumption, the excuse that one medicine will do one job and another, another performs the same function: an attempt to justify polypharmacy within a discipline that by its very nature must exclude polypharmacy. That's why I don't think the concept of blasphemy is particularly relevant, however much you or anybody else may wish to emphasise it, Joe. Homoeopathy relies absolutely upon knowledge of the primary effects of the medicine; polypharmacy excludes absolutely such knowledge. Therefore the twain never shall meet.
Cheers --
John
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

You are completely wrong about polypharmacy not knowing the primary effect of the medicine.
But of course that is something you will not accept, you know better than those who use it what they do and do not know.... hence a totally sterile and useless conversation.
It is exactly the same concept and almost the same words used by the skeptics who are saying (and who wrote) that even if homeopathy was proven and demonstrated, they would not accept it as valid. To keep repeating something does not make it true, you should know that.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

[John Harvey]

Hi, Joe --

If mixtures have produced pathogeneses reasonably stable with increasing potentisation -- or predictable in any sense -- nobody has yet volunteered that information.

Yes, there's been a lot of convenient surmise in that direction; but you're suggesting that I'm not only closed-minded but also "completely wrong" about this. All right, then: to your knowledge, what pathogenetic trials have shown any consistency in the arbitrary mixtures you seem to be suggesting may "act separately" and "not 'interfere' with each other", "not confusing each other"? I'd be fascinated, actually, to learn of one polypharmacist whose energy to conduct such trials overcame his inherent intellectual torpor.

Do you know of any such trials at all, or does this confused set of contentions constitute simply more surmise arising from all the other surmise that that polypharmacists are obliged to engage in when trying to shoehorn their practice into homoeopathy?

Cheers --

John
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.

[Fran Sheffield]

Hi John,

As you know I am a single remedy prescriber but I am interested in understanding your position a little better.

What do you think of consumers or lay people who use potentised remedies in polypharmacy form ... and who have no desire or ability to do anything different. Should we tell them to stop? Should we introduce legislation to prevent combination remedies being available?

As analogies of real world situations and behaviours:
1. Do we tell those who are either unable to reach or who have no desire to climb to the top of the mountain, instead being quite happy to stay on a flat part way up, that they should not be allowed to climb at all? That it is the top of the mountain or nothing. Do we deprive them of the right to enjoy the view and health benefits of a smaller achievement because they either can't, won't or don't want to climb the mountain fully. Do we disadvantage them by depriving them of the smaller achievement? Or do we provide them with information of what is at the top, the difficulties of getting there, and how to get there if they want to.
2. Do we tell a mother that she has no right to feed her family because she either has no desire or cannot yet cook cordon bleu food? Would we cause harm or distress to that family in withholding less than perfect food from them? Or do we accept that while her cookery skills may not be advanced, they are meeting her family's needs at that time and it is not up to us to demand she do better - even if she could? If she shows and interest in Cordon Bleu cooking do we prepare her for the difficulties, the unavoidable failures, and teach her how to do it while still allowing her to feed her family on less than perfect food - by our standards?

Kind regards, Fran.
________________________________

This email is free from viruses and malware because avast! Antivirus protection is active.