Eyaaaagh, never mind… (sighs heavily)
You have completely missed my point again, I give up.
cheers
[hpe] how close is too close....
-
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
-
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: [hpe] how close is too close....
Shannon, perhaps I have missed your point. But in that case perhaps you need to take some responsibility for pursuing a topic in such a way that somebody as dense as I obviously am can follow your train of thought. Partly because you and I have had so much difficulty in the past in communicating on the perfectly simple matter of what the homoeopathic principle implies, I've tried to keep my discussion as straightforward as possible and to stick to the one issue, without dragging in too many assumptions and side-issues. I'm still keeping to that topic: the inherence of monopharmacy to homoeopathy.
When you introduce a novel topic into the discussion, such as your assumption that "double-guessing" is a pejorative term (and shouldn't be), I try to respond without having the entire discussion highjacked by considerations of who is doing good and who is doing evil. But you seem bent on never sticking to the point.
Joe, your basic claim, it seems fair to say, was that polypharmacy cannot be excluded from homoeopathy by dint of our collective ignorance of the pure effects of a mixture. Your exact words, three days ago, were:
"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".
You then admitted, the next day, the entire falsehood of this claim, in these words:
"there are no pathogeneses of mixtures".
Is there anything more to say, once you've admitted that?
Kind regards,
John
When you introduce a novel topic into the discussion, such as your assumption that "double-guessing" is a pejorative term (and shouldn't be), I try to respond without having the entire discussion highjacked by considerations of who is doing good and who is doing evil. But you seem bent on never sticking to the point.
Joe, your basic claim, it seems fair to say, was that polypharmacy cannot be excluded from homoeopathy by dint of our collective ignorance of the pure effects of a mixture. Your exact words, three days ago, were:
"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".
You then admitted, the next day, the entire falsehood of this claim, in these words:
"there are no pathogeneses of mixtures".
Is there anything more to say, once you've admitted that?
Kind regards,
John
-
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: [hpe] how close is too close....
There are no pathogeneses of MIXTURES!
But there are pathogeneses of the different separate components, and those remain in the mixture, with the possibility of enhancing some aspects through synergy!
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com
But there are pathogeneses of the different separate components, and those remain in the mixture, with the possibility of enhancing some aspects through synergy!
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com
-
- Posts: 3237
- Joined: Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:00 pm
Re: [hpe] how close is too close....
Suggest YOU look in the mirror when you read that.

I
--
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."

I
--
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."