Minutus

What is this Soroush?

Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

What do you mean - what is this? The offer to treat Journalists?

Well if they experience the process and hopefully the benefits, their view might change!

Regards

Soroush

Duh!!! Now you have put the missing "s" on the end of the word Journalist
all is clear!!!! I have actually done this with my local newspaper and
NO-ONE would take me up on it!!!!!!!! This was a few years ago when I first
started. I offered to treat them free for a write up about it!!

Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

Hi John,
Again here you are lumping together all "variations" on Hahnemann's
method, in a way which makes discussion very difficult. "Sympathetic
magic or other nonsense" applies to only a small subset of those
"variants", and funnily enough to a variant being practiced by people
who actually *do* know "good homeopathy"; the situation there is more
akin to a plumber who's found he can dowse out pipes instead of
whatever is the usual method. So long as he kept getting the job done,
he wouldn't be kicked out of the plumber's guild. And yes I
recognize that this analogy is imperfect, and the stakes are higher for
the homeopaths here. But--I don't want to argue it with you at the
moment.

Below:
Okay, so throw them to the wolves, and don't accept their tainted help
if it came to that.

Now, the combo users--I assume we should toss them to the wolves too?

I assume you are simply re-stating your position that the only "real"
homeopathy is Hahnemannian homeopathy (I'm fine with that in theory,
just having trouble with it in practice). And, rather than settle for
making any distinctions--to the media or anyone else--and rather than
settling for a "come let us work together" approach, you prefer to keep
arguing over who the homeopaths *are*--would rather hang separately if
it comes to that.

Well, that is part of Dr. Bhatia's point--that we need to write
letters, educate, etc. So--go for it! I certainly do--verbally with
people I work with--tho I do it differently than you would... I do not
condemn people who are happy with their combination or etc.; but I do
mention that that's only a small part of what "homeopathy" has to
offer. The small group of people that I treat does not use combos.
Irrelevant to this discussion, and no need to go there now.

So if the only people called "homeopaths" were strict classicals, then
Lancet and Randi would love us and the government would support us?
Hah, dream on. I assume you're not really saying that, right?
Yes yes; like it did in Hahnemann's day?
This is relevant to a *different* discussion; it is not relevant to the
present one.
In fact in the present one, one has to come to an opposite conclusion
to yours.

Luise was not asking about individuals.

Agreed!
Interesting--Who have you seen "promoting scientific acceptance of
homeopathy ... as sympathetic magic? I don't believe I've seen this
anywhere...
Changing the label on the combos might be a nice idea, and Chris
assures us that in Australia it is being done. I have doubts that it
will ever happen in the US, but who knows...

That is a two-edged sword, tho; I have heard numerous people say over
the years--and I think a few of them may have been on this list--that
their introduction to homeopathy (leading them onward into "the real
thing") was via combos and/or cell salts, which so impressed them that
they were motivated to go deeper and learn more. One of those was one
of my (very classical) first teachers.

And despite the philosophical difficulties that "homeopathic
combination remedies" presents, they *can* act in a nicely homeopathic
way--that is why the old-time "country doctor" homeopaths sometimes
made them up for patients, and that is why they have been able to act
as a "doorway" to the "real thing" for some people. But if you would
like to insist that anything other than a single remedy (do we specify
that it needs to be a fully, properly proved single remedy, or are we
okay with including those used only by clinical indications?), that's
okay with me--people who are curious and interested will find out the
details when they need to--just as they have done so far.

Mmm, let's have Lancet do a study on dream provings! Do you suppose
they'd find they "work", once they've realized it's "not homeopathy"?
Yeah, that would convince them...
So again, if Hahnemann were to arise again, *he* would be able to get a
favorable article from the Lancet? In the same way that Lancet's
forebears (so to speak) spoke so favorably of him in his own day? It's
an interesting idea...
Yup, they care. We've seen that...
Mainstream, institutionalized medicine (etc.) doesn't attack anything
that actually *works*, does it (Want to buy a nice bridge?)

Best wishes,
Shannon

Hi H.,
You are talking about what is good for us!

If we consider the unicist approach to be the only kind of homeopathy,
if we fight that this should be recognized as the only kind of
homeopathy by the authorities, insurance companies whatsoever, if we
deny the non-unicists the right to call themselves homeopaths - is
there any motive for those non-homeopaths to join forces with us
fighting for the availability of single (high potency) remedies?

If I were on the other side I would empathically say "no". I should
join forces with our foes, and have much better chances to survive
myself!

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 <==========

Hi John,
Again I ask you to give us a reference where the enemies in the
publications and speeches we have talked about here, have argued that
way.

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 <==========

Yes, I heartily agree!

We could *in theory* just set aside the quarrels, learn to "play nice"
even with people with whom we disagree :-O and re-focus
on "protecting our freedoms" and "defending health care choice". This
is a separate, and IMO really more *fundamental* matter than (important
tho it is) the efficacy and the boundaries of any method. Efficacy
(and scientificness and etc. etc.) can and should be debated in various
times and places and ways; but there will be nothing *there* to debate
*about*, if decisions about availability, decisions about what choices
we are *permitted* to make, and what options are *permitted* to remain
available, are taken away.

And that is exactly what we are being "offered". While we are arguing
over "definition" and who's given membership in our club, other things
are taking place: laws being passed; legal (and illegal) maneuvering;
funding rescinded; money and power changing hands--forces restricting,
and even hoping to eliminate, those choices.

So now we have remedies that are illegal to buy and sell in various
places; homeopaths (AND OTHER TYPES OF PRACTITIONERS) whose practices
have been shut down *even tho there was no allegation of any harm*.
And anyone who thinks that this is a stable resting place, the
situation now will remain just as it is if we leave it alone--again I
ask, any takers for that bridge?

Ah, speaking of bridges--we ought to be building some more.
Best wishes,
Shannon

in
homeopathy,
we
should

Luise-

I have never said to ostracize the non-unicists. I have only said
that being unicist is a best practice and brings out all that is
best in homeopathy. It is an ideal for us and not too tough to
achieve either. And all the reasons that are being given for not
going for it - sound lame when one truly understands the basics. But
that does not mean that throw away the rest. I would not want
allopaths who practice homoepathy lose their license and so would
not want the same thing to happen in homeopathy either. But such
allopaths would know what is allopathy and what is homeopathy and
even in allopathy what is evidence based medicine and what is
experimental and what is supported or not supported. That is
accountability. That is what I want our folks to have- to have a set
of acceptable practices.

Also all of these fringe approaches need to be understood and if
possible should be accomodated. But for this to happen there should
be some criteria to judge this apart from the assertion that they
are effective. When we lay down such criteria then we need to say
what it would be- all of this is going to be an ongoing process. And
I do not think that it is going to happen anyway.

So till that time we need to be more accepting all such practices.
Can any one call Rajan Sankaran's or Scholten's approach speculative
and live to tell the tale? If we accept Rajan's approach valid then
I do not have any qualms accepting combinations as valid as well.
For me combination is not a combination at all. Combining all the
remedies together is NOT a collection of different medicines but it
generates a new medicine and as such could be proved in that way to
know its nuances. Till that time if that combination is considered a
specific to some disease condition then it is a pathological simile.
So be it- I do not see any harm with this excepting that we seem to
lose the richness of going thru the symptom route - it just feels
like using an axe where a scalpel would do much good work.

That is where I would think the concept of practice hierarchy comes
into place. What is best practice? What is the place a combination
should be allowed? When do we employ Rajan's method? What is the
best place of key notes etc.etc. And that is why I have been saying
that we need a revision of Organon as the practice manual.

Even in Indian medicines the experts use the least amount of
medicines to achieve the greatest effect. I have heard it said even
in acupuncture - the best practitioners who understand the ebb and
flow of Qi would employ the least number of points to impact the
most systems.

Homeopathy started with that concept firmly in place. It would be
disheartening to lose that kind of superior thinking, which other
systems of medicine only give to experts, that has been in
Homeopathy since inception.

Exactly, Shannon!!!!
The fight must go on the right to choose whatever type of therapy a patient wants, give him/her the entire freedom of choice and of course the responsibility that comes with it.
Once this is acquired, then the bickering can start.
That has been done in New Zealand. Herbalists are already listed as health providers, as are Osteopaths, Chiros, Acupuncturists. Homeopaths are next on the list.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

Dear Shannon,

The great abiding misunderstanding by homoeopathy's enemies is not one
of who the homoeopaths are; it's of what homoeopathy is.

Homoeopathy's enemies base their attacks primarily on a persistent
misunderstanding of what it is: that it relies on sympathetic magic or
mountains of speculation or implausible properties of water. I've
given examples before, but new ones appear regularly on forums
generally having nothing to do with homoeopathy.

Of course all of these assumptions are incorrect. But their attacks
on these bases are at least rational and can be answered rationally,
merely by naming and discussing the true basis of homoeopathy: the Law
of Similars (which itself entails provings, case-taking, and
analysis).

It's been pointed out often enough that potentisation, though it's a
wonderful refinement of our methods, is not at all essential; that
homoeopathy can be practised without it. Clearing that confusion,
conceptually simple as it is, has been a difficult enough task,
particularly as many homoeopaths themselves haven't yet identified
this simple distinction between what is and what is not essential to
an understanding of homoeopathy.

But there's a much greater confusion at work.

In the e-mail below, though you evidently think you're focusing on the
nature of homoeopathy, you return repeatedly to who is and who is not
a homoeopath.

As long as homoeopaths themselves continue to confuse what homoeopathy
is with the question of who practises it, they will never be able to
focus on the simple task of sorting out the confusion of what it is in
order to defend it.

That's why it's not helpful to turn discussions of the nature of
homoeopathic practice and how to represent it into discussions of who
is and who is not a homoeopath. The one question is one we can all
agree on if we focus on it. The other is inherently divisive -- not
because it's judgemental but because a strong motivation exists to be
known as a homoeopath no matter what absurdities one practises in the
name of homoeopathy.

The question of who is and who is not a member of any club is puerile
in its insignificance to the task of clarifying what is and what is
not essentially part of the nature of the practice under attack. Let
homoeopathy's enemies attack the Law of Similars and be rebuffed by
the science (note: not "global consensus of scientists") that supports
it. There is absolutely no rational reason to present a broader face
to attack than necessary -- except to ensure homoeopathy's
destruction.

That's why homoeopathy's enemies like to portray homoeopathy as
depending on potencies, on unproven hypotheses, and on all the
ridiculous (i.e. capable of being ridiculed) practices that one
homoeopath or another will try: each additional "part" of homoeopathic
practice increases the size of the target.

It's also why those who mistakenly include dowsing or sympathetic
magic or speculative materia medica or meditative nonsense as "part"
of homoeopathic practice play right into their hands.

The one thing, the ONLY thing, that we have to prove -- the ONLY case
we need to make, unless we WANT to go down the drain -- is that the
Law of Similars is valid.

Kind regards,

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands
science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We
might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this
combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our
faces."

-- Carl Sagan