Re: Single Simple Remedy
Posted: Thu Jul 23, 2009 3:38 pm
Dear John
If you think the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is not a single simple remedy, then I have said all can on the subject.
We are of course not talking about polypharmacy - which is a different case altogether.
Did you read Kent's chapter 8?
Bon chance
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 14:24
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Hi, Soroush --
If the best argument you can make for your contention is to repeat the contention several times over and suggest that Sheilagh or anybody else is a higher authority on Hahnemann's meaning than is Hahnemann himself, then I'm afraid that it doesn't serve to counter any of the arguments proving that the contention was incorrect.
Perhaps it would be worth your while to think about whether all or indeed any of those arguments are faulty.
The authoritative opinion of somebody on what constitutes Hahnemannian homoeopathy, be that somebody Hahnemann himself, is actually totally irrelevant to this twig of the conversation, which concerns not what is Hahnemannian homoeopathy but what Hahnemann clearly intended by such statements (said in various ways but all meaning exactly the same thing) as:
. (§ 273) "In no case under treatment is it necessary and therefore not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time";
. (§ 273) "It is inconceivable how the slightest doubt could exist as to whether it was more consistent with nature and more rational to prescribe a single, simple [159] medicine at one time in a disease or a mixture of several differently acting drugs";
. (§ 273) "It is absolutely not allowed in homoeopathy, the one true, simple and natural art of healing, to give the patient at one time two different medicinal substances";
. (§ 274) "[The true physician] will, mindful of the wise maxim that "it is wrong to attempt to employ complex means when simple means suffice", never think of giving as a remedy any but a single, simple medicinal substance; for these reasons also, because even though the simple medicines were thoroughly proved with respect to their peculiar effects on the unimpaired state of man, it is yet impossible to foresee how two and more medicinal substances might, when compounded, hinder and alter each other's action on the human body... and supposing the worst case to happen, that it was not chosen in strict conformity to similarity of symptoms, and therefore does no good, it is yet so far useful that it promotes our knowledge of therapeutic agents, because, by the new symptoms excited by it in such a case, those symptoms which this medicinal substance had already shown in experiments on the healthy human body are confirmed, an advantage that is lost by the employment of all compound remedies"; and
. (§ 124) "For these experiments every medicinal substance must be employed quite alone and perfectly pure, without the admixture of any foreign substance...".
If there is any reasonably rational way to counter all the evidence I've yet presented (or any of it) in favour of the commonsense interpretation of "one single, simple medicinal substance" (i.e. of substantial medicines, only one may be used!), or if there is any evidence for the interpretation that Hahnemann did not mean, by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance", more than one substance but only more than one insubstantial medicine, I'd be most interested to hear it!
But the dogma of what you and Sheilagh like to imagine it means grows no more substantial with repetition, and my arguments from as long ago as 8 July showing the falsity of the contention stand unrebutted.
It would be interesting even to see evidence that Hahnemann distinguished in some way between "complex" remedies (mixtures of potentised single substances) and other compound remedies (potencies of mixtures of single substances). So far I've seen no evidence to suggest that anybody had suggested, by the time of Hahnemann's 6th-edition revisions, that anybody had thought to employ complexes and thought them significantly different from other compound remedies. And so far I've seen no evidence to suggest that Hahnemann agreed that complexes, by some magic, overcame the requirement not to use more than one single, simple medicinal substance (even in creating a potency).
And when I ask you to use your intelligence, I am expressing my faith in your abilities, asking you to think through these things, knowing that you have the capability of arriving at some conclusions rather more rationally than through uncritical adoption of some unreasoned contention on the basis of authority.
My disappointment in the quality of this twig of the discussion concerns failure to apply any reasoning process rather than to simply trot out another repetition of the one groundless assertion simply because it appeals to you. This entire larger discussion concerned the nature of homoeopathy -- a fact -- rather than one's preferences; it would be rather silly to draw conclusions of fact from simple prejudice, wouldn't it. So how about we leave the prejudice, the preferences, the beliefs aside, look afresh at what is challenging us, and make an effort to rise to that challenge!
Cheers --
John
2009/7/23 >
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
- Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397-402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
If you think the Carcinocin remedy which is made up of a number of cancer tumours which have been potentised is not a single simple remedy, then I have said all can on the subject.
We are of course not talking about polypharmacy - which is a different case altogether.
Did you read Kent's chapter 8?
Bon chance
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Harvey
Sent: 23 July 2009 14:24
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Single Simple Remedy
Hi, Soroush --
If the best argument you can make for your contention is to repeat the contention several times over and suggest that Sheilagh or anybody else is a higher authority on Hahnemann's meaning than is Hahnemann himself, then I'm afraid that it doesn't serve to counter any of the arguments proving that the contention was incorrect.
Perhaps it would be worth your while to think about whether all or indeed any of those arguments are faulty.
The authoritative opinion of somebody on what constitutes Hahnemannian homoeopathy, be that somebody Hahnemann himself, is actually totally irrelevant to this twig of the conversation, which concerns not what is Hahnemannian homoeopathy but what Hahnemann clearly intended by such statements (said in various ways but all meaning exactly the same thing) as:
. (§ 273) "In no case under treatment is it necessary and therefore not permissible to administer to a patient more than one single, simple medicinal substance at one time";
. (§ 273) "It is inconceivable how the slightest doubt could exist as to whether it was more consistent with nature and more rational to prescribe a single, simple [159] medicine at one time in a disease or a mixture of several differently acting drugs";
. (§ 273) "It is absolutely not allowed in homoeopathy, the one true, simple and natural art of healing, to give the patient at one time two different medicinal substances";
. (§ 274) "[The true physician] will, mindful of the wise maxim that "it is wrong to attempt to employ complex means when simple means suffice", never think of giving as a remedy any but a single, simple medicinal substance; for these reasons also, because even though the simple medicines were thoroughly proved with respect to their peculiar effects on the unimpaired state of man, it is yet impossible to foresee how two and more medicinal substances might, when compounded, hinder and alter each other's action on the human body... and supposing the worst case to happen, that it was not chosen in strict conformity to similarity of symptoms, and therefore does no good, it is yet so far useful that it promotes our knowledge of therapeutic agents, because, by the new symptoms excited by it in such a case, those symptoms which this medicinal substance had already shown in experiments on the healthy human body are confirmed, an advantage that is lost by the employment of all compound remedies"; and
. (§ 124) "For these experiments every medicinal substance must be employed quite alone and perfectly pure, without the admixture of any foreign substance...".
If there is any reasonably rational way to counter all the evidence I've yet presented (or any of it) in favour of the commonsense interpretation of "one single, simple medicinal substance" (i.e. of substantial medicines, only one may be used!), or if there is any evidence for the interpretation that Hahnemann did not mean, by "more than one single, simple medicinal substance", more than one substance but only more than one insubstantial medicine, I'd be most interested to hear it!
But the dogma of what you and Sheilagh like to imagine it means grows no more substantial with repetition, and my arguments from as long ago as 8 July showing the falsity of the contention stand unrebutted.
It would be interesting even to see evidence that Hahnemann distinguished in some way between "complex" remedies (mixtures of potentised single substances) and other compound remedies (potencies of mixtures of single substances). So far I've seen no evidence to suggest that anybody had suggested, by the time of Hahnemann's 6th-edition revisions, that anybody had thought to employ complexes and thought them significantly different from other compound remedies. And so far I've seen no evidence to suggest that Hahnemann agreed that complexes, by some magic, overcame the requirement not to use more than one single, simple medicinal substance (even in creating a potency).
And when I ask you to use your intelligence, I am expressing my faith in your abilities, asking you to think through these things, knowing that you have the capability of arriving at some conclusions rather more rationally than through uncritical adoption of some unreasoned contention on the basis of authority.
My disappointment in the quality of this twig of the discussion concerns failure to apply any reasoning process rather than to simply trot out another repetition of the one groundless assertion simply because it appeals to you. This entire larger discussion concerned the nature of homoeopathy -- a fact -- rather than one's preferences; it would be rather silly to draw conclusions of fact from simple prejudice, wouldn't it. So how about we leave the prejudice, the preferences, the beliefs aside, look afresh at what is challenging us, and make an effort to rise to that challenge!
Cheers --
John
2009/7/23 >
________________________________
________________________________
--
------------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."
- Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397-402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)
