Not to rekindle the fires; but what real value, if any, do Sanka

[Piet Guijt]

Hello Samual,
You're a real master in trying to change the subject !
First you criticized Scholten and Sankaran, because their remedy pictures and methods would be too speculative.
After that you say you don't need their additional remedies anyway (so even if they had proven all their remedies, you still would reject them)
You try to ridicule people, who see the benefits of their information as a additional approach, by calling them faithful followers.
You ignore the positive and well documented results of these methods and doubt the integrity of Scholten and Sankaran.
You don't have any substantial answers to defend your point of view, because you are wrong and you know it.
So that isn't really your issue, when you are content with all the traditional available remedies, it is fine for you and I agree we can do a lot with them.
The patients who need another remedy to cure, will after a while leave your practice, and go to a doctor with a less limited pool of remedies.
But the good news is that you still can say, you don't need the new remedies!
As a last attempt to get away with your mistakes, you change the subject to me as a person.
Do you really expect me to be upset, by someone with such an incoherent behaviour?
Kind regards, Piet

[Shannon Nelson]

I was thinking, it's interesting that H was first being slammed by
Sheri et al. as being too loosey-goosey (tho I forget why), and is now
being... well not slammed, but "argued with", as being essentially too
Hahnemannian. Funny...
sour when we get frustrated at not being able to "convert" others to
our own view. But really that's not what we're here for. IMO one huge
benefit of a large, open, (mostly) unmoderated list such as this, is
that we *can* entertain a diversity of opinion and of approach.
much untapped "gold" in the already available materia medica. As to
whether the various attempts at systematizing mat. med. will pay
off--time will tell.
Shannon

[muthu kumar]

Thanks Piet- I could not have characterized myself better than this -

you just missed out on my horns and a forked tail



One person's meat - the other's poison- if you do well with Sankaran
and Scholten - good luck to you-

no hard feelings - ok?
pictures
(so even
information as a
because
can do a
leave your
subject to
value,

[Luise Kunkle]

cut-
For that we would first have to sort out the symptoms in the MMs (and
then of course repertories) that do not come from provings. I am all
for that, and would work in a group who did that.
No, not the ones I have been talking about. All this information is in
Allen's Encycloopedia of Pure MM, which is what I used for
comparisons. I have been referring to sx that cannot be found there.

and observations prior to

No, but they did not come from provings. They are experience-based
(as mostly are the combos too)
and the only way we can get this kind of experience as regards to
Scholten's approach or Sankaran's .... is by trying them out.

I definitely also think that this is valid - but then this is how we
should define homeopathy, not keep up the myth that, in order to be
valid, a symptom has to be from a proving, and on healthy people to
boot.

Asserting such kinds of things, which our detractors and downright
enemies can find out to be untrue as easily as I could ( I, btw., was
looking for the opposite when I did that bit of research) is what
will make us look like fools or quacks - not freely admitting that so
far there are a lot of different ways and the only definite knowledge
we have is the EVIDENCE that the methods we call homeopathy can work.

THIS is science. To find out what we do know for sure and to admit
that there aare lots of things we do not know. This is what science is
all about. There used to be a time, around 100 years ago, when the
physicists claimed to know just about all there is to be known about
this field of science - you will hardly find any scientist now who
makes that kind of claim. They will tell you that what is known about
their own field, where they have the maximum knowledge, is but a
small fraction of that which is not known.

If you should really encounter an allopath who tells you that it is
different for allopathy, you might just ROTFL;-)

Regards

Luise

--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[always.question]

I've enjoyed the tag line for this thread: 'not to rekindle the fires'... To throw s.th. else on the flames - please, I'd like to just say that I am not expressing any opinion here - it's interesting that while Scholten's ideas are widely disseminated, they are not, perhaps, so very new: see Clarke's MM (first published 1900) - Baryta iod: "has been used empirically [...] on indications suggested by its two elements". This is one example of many.

SUSE

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

Scholtens "Elements" book have no proving at all, and
only speculation on one mans part about what two
elements together may look like.