A Skeptic Asks...

[Shannon Nelson]

? What did I say here about guesswork?

What I said is that clinical effects -- seeing a remedy cure a symptom that was not seen in provings -- is part of what has built our materia medica, and if I remember right, Hahnemann also does mention this as a valid contribution to materia medica.

I don't remember saying anything about guesswork in this context?

Shannon

[John Harvey]

Sorry, Shannon, if I was unclear in my reference to guesswork. The misuse of "clinical" symptoms has become so routine in so-called homoeopathy that many homoeopaths have become blind to the difference between a symptom acquired pathogenetically (i.e., in the course of a medicinal illness) and a symptom removed through treatment (i.e., removed in either primary or secondary response to a medicinal illness), though the two sources are poles apart.

Homoeopathy, as you know and as we all pay lip service to, rests on the certainties that come of acquiring symptoms through pathogenetic trials -- unlike its cousin allopathy, whose basis, like that of herbalism and possibly all other medical practices aside from Chinese herbal medicine, is prior success in removing symptoms.

When a homoeopath complements known pathogenetic symptoms with symptoms by analogy, such as in prescribing Causticum for burns as Hahnemann did, he has drifted over the border between homoeopathy (based on certain knowledge of pathogenetic–patient relationship) and guesswork (based on intelligent speculation -- in this case, as to the relevance of sensation and other functional skin disorders such as nettle rash and suppurating ulcers). So our intelligent homoeopath uses, as an adjunct basis for prescription, what is effectively guesswork -- prescription upon patient symptoms to which pathogenetic symptoms are analogous -- rather than homoeopathy's basis, which is prescription upon patient symptoms to which pathogenetic ones are similar. See the difference? One is a known relationship; the other is what I have, for years now, been referring to as intelligent guesswork, as there is no known similarity of the medicine's pathogenetic symptom to the patient's symptom. One is homoeopathy; the other is not homoeopathy; it is an intelligent adjunct to homoeopathy.

Prescribing upon a so-called "cured" symptom falls indisputably into the category of not being homoeopathy. It is something we might do more or less intelligently, but -- no matter how many times we do it, and regardless of our apparent success rate in using a particular "clinical" symptom, it remains, and always will remain, guesswork until that symptom has emerged as a genuine pathogenetic symptom in trials of that medicine.

Is that clearer now?

Cheers --

John

[Shannon Nelson]

Sorry John,

Your reply strays SOOOO very far from anything I had in mind, or anything I have any memory of having written, that I'm going to just let your remarks stand as the last word. Thanks for clarifying.

Cheers,
Shannon

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

What I fail to see and understand is the practical relevance of all this literature, despite being apparently correct from a semantic/grammatical point of view.

What is obvious is that many members of this list are now weary to post anything lest they be castigated and criticised in public. Fantastic result for a "discussion" list supposed to enhance the knowledge of members and make the practices progress!

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

[John Harvey]

Hi, Shannon --
It may well be that I’ve misunderstood your meaning in writing
“Yes we can assume that the remedies in the "stuttering" rubrics, are ones that have either (a) … or, depending on the repertory being consulted, (b) been found to cure that symptom (clinical symptom)”
and
“But if I remember right, Hahnemann also considered this acceptable; to be noted as clinical, but acceptable”.
My intent, regardless, was, and remains, to clarify that such practice, as valuable as it may be in certain contexts, is not part of the homoeopathic method, as it takes no account of whether the medicine has produced the symptom -- its ability to do so being merely assumed (and assumed on the basis of the three further assumptions I’ve referred to, all of which are unjustified).
Cheers --

John

[John Harvey]

You really fail, Joe, to see the relevance of calling any helpful practice homoeopathy? Perhaps you do. That would explain a lot of our past conversations.

The relevance of understanding what technique actually does fall within homoeopathy and what does not, regardless of its practical usefulness, is several-fold.

(1) In discussing other areas of practice, we needn't become embroiled in endless pitiful debates as to whether something else should be regarded as legitimate homoeopathic practice. Either it meets the definition of homoeopathic practice, or it does not.

(2) Similarly, we needn't become embroiled in endless debates as to whether some technique falling outside the bounds of homoeopathy should be called a kind of homoeopathy. Either it is homoeopathy, or it is something else.

(3) In considering a particular patient who has come to us for homoeopathic treatment, we needn't risk accidentally betraying her trust by straying into allopathy, sympathetic magic, or any kind of guesswork without conscious decision to do so in the interest of the patient. If we decide to stake a certain degree of choice in the prescription upon guesswork or to base the administration of the medicine puon some methodology falling outside homoeopathy, we will do so knowingly and have the opportunity to be frank and fair in explaining that degree of uncertainty to the patient trusting us to use certain knowledge of pathogenetic symptoms.

(4) In explaining homoeopathy to others, we needn't risk making fools of ourselves or of our listeners by inadvertently wandering into other territories; we can keep the matter as simple as it genuinely is.

Please think about this. I'm aware that all of these advantages will be anathema to anybody not serious about practising homoeopathy with integrity; but I trust that such is the position of few on this list.

Kind regards,

John

[Shannon Nelson]

My point there was that, *if I am remembering right,* Hahnemann gave his nod and even blessing to use of clinical symptoms. I am not positive that I'm remembering that correctly. I was asking if anyone could confirm that, OR quote him saying the opposite. No guesswork there, just a possible memory, and a question.

Just for the record, usage of clinical observations of a remedy removing a symptom, would NOT (not in reliable sources, anyway) be entered into the accepted materia medica on basis of a single such observation, but only on basis of repeated such observations, in a context and made by a person with appropriate training and experience.

I think "clinical" is one of the grades (lowest) in Kent; again I'd love for anyone to confirm or correct that; I dont have my books available to check, but it would tell in the intro what are the bases for the gradings.

[John Harvey]

Hi, Shannon --

I don't know what it is about seeing the word "guesswork" that confuses you, but let me relieve you of this anxiety: I wasn't, by that word, referring at all to your reference to your memory of Hahnemann's giving the nod to using clinical symptoms. I was referring, as one kind of guesswork, to use of clinical symptoms in lieu of pathogenetic ones.

And I hope that you've noticed by now that when I refer to "guesswork", it is not pejoratively; that, for the umpteenth time, I've stated the value of guesswork as an adjunct to what we do in homoeopathic practice.

Of course, such value as lies in the use of clinical symptoms as an adjunctive guesswork practice is somewhat offset -- perhaps more than offset -- by the by now very well-established confusion it engenders between homoeopathy and allopathy even in the minds of those as familiar as you are with what homoeopathy actually is.

Is it worth using clinical symptoms when the result is such deep confusion? I don't know. What's certainly not worth while is promoting the confusion itself as representing reality.

Cheers --

John

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

"(3) In considering a particular patient who has come to us for homoeopathic treatment,"

Patients do come for treatment of their suffering, their illnesses, their diseases, their discomfort; most, if not all, do not give a rat's gluteus maximus about which technique we use as long as it cures them (preferably) or relieves them.

That is what YOU fail to understand.

Knowing what is and is not homeopathy is a question for us, professionals, we agree on that. The rest is pure waste of time and energy.
And you do not seem to realise the amount of damage you have created in the minds of practitioners, especially those at the beginning of their careers, who feel diminished, insulted and made feel useless and worthless by your ramblings.
You have not read their private emails..........you are so full of yourself..........

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

www.naturamedica.co.nz

[Hennie Duits]

True.

'Dr. J Rozencwajg, NMD' jroz@ihug.co.nz [minutus] schreef op 15-5-2014
23:09: