Correction: my summary of the relevant content of § 119, footnote 99, should say:
Any physician not entirely devoid of reason cannot employ in medicine any substance with whose positive action on the health of healthy individuals he is not thoroughly conversant; posterity will scarcely believe that hitherto physicians have prescribed medicines whose pure dynamic action on the health of man has never been tested and that they moreover mingled several of these unknown medicines and left it to chance to determine their effect on the patient.
Cheers --
John
Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Re: Erb and/or Erb-c - 2
Hello Tanya,
The spin you have associated and used to label anyone who would simply ask that a material substance be proven is a distortion that does not further the discussion at all. Please give just one instance where any one on this group has "attacked" the use of a new rx. based on the fact that it was new. If newness was the issue it would have been named as such. So when you spin it in this way it takes away from the real dialogue. It is almost as if you are purposely misconstruing what is being furthered and stated repeatedly.
Further, can you define for us what "energy" means in your post below?
When you call Homeopathy an "energy system", what kind of energy are you referring to? How is this definition different from "elemental energy"?
Did you know that the periodic table can be laid out differently that Scholten does? This would seem to throw a monkey wrench into the idea of a pattern. How does one go about matching the atomic weight of an element with the pathology of the pt?
How does Scholten go about the ethical quandary of giving a rx. in an experimental way to a pt. or giving an experimental (unproven) rx. to a pt? Further, how do the plethora of practitioners go about the same task? Do they divulge to the pt. that they will now be using a theoretical idea and a subsequently experimental rx. to attempt to bring about cure? If you went to your primary care doctor and he/she prescribed a medication that had not undergone a clinical trial and it was just prescribed on a theory, yet none of this was conveyed to you prior to ingestion, how do you square this flagrant ethical dilemma with the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics 101?
Also, where in Scholtens or Sankarans work and teachings is it stipulated that this is in the stage of experimentation? In the epilogue I believe, in the book Secret Lanthanides is the first place where Scholten has put forward that these ideas are in their infancy.
Regarding Sankarans work in the Plant kingdom, how does one square that a number of his plant groupings are losing rx's and having others added as we are now on to classifying the botanical families genetically as opposed to just the Dalgren or Cronquist systems.
If all of this will simply be pushed aside as an "attack" and not peer review, please don't bother with a reply. But I am asking these questions with sincerity. It is possible that the 2 aforementioned authors "might" be on to something. But that doesn't mean it is ready for the masses of practitioners or uninformed patients.
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "tamarque" wrote:
The spin you have associated and used to label anyone who would simply ask that a material substance be proven is a distortion that does not further the discussion at all. Please give just one instance where any one on this group has "attacked" the use of a new rx. based on the fact that it was new. If newness was the issue it would have been named as such. So when you spin it in this way it takes away from the real dialogue. It is almost as if you are purposely misconstruing what is being furthered and stated repeatedly.
Further, can you define for us what "energy" means in your post below?
When you call Homeopathy an "energy system", what kind of energy are you referring to? How is this definition different from "elemental energy"?
Did you know that the periodic table can be laid out differently that Scholten does? This would seem to throw a monkey wrench into the idea of a pattern. How does one go about matching the atomic weight of an element with the pathology of the pt?
How does Scholten go about the ethical quandary of giving a rx. in an experimental way to a pt. or giving an experimental (unproven) rx. to a pt? Further, how do the plethora of practitioners go about the same task? Do they divulge to the pt. that they will now be using a theoretical idea and a subsequently experimental rx. to attempt to bring about cure? If you went to your primary care doctor and he/she prescribed a medication that had not undergone a clinical trial and it was just prescribed on a theory, yet none of this was conveyed to you prior to ingestion, how do you square this flagrant ethical dilemma with the Hippocratic oath and medical ethics 101?
Also, where in Scholtens or Sankarans work and teachings is it stipulated that this is in the stage of experimentation? In the epilogue I believe, in the book Secret Lanthanides is the first place where Scholten has put forward that these ideas are in their infancy.
Regarding Sankarans work in the Plant kingdom, how does one square that a number of his plant groupings are losing rx's and having others added as we are now on to classifying the botanical families genetically as opposed to just the Dalgren or Cronquist systems.
If all of this will simply be pushed aside as an "attack" and not peer review, please don't bother with a reply. But I am asking these questions with sincerity. It is possible that the 2 aforementioned authors "might" be on to something. But that doesn't mean it is ready for the masses of practitioners or uninformed patients.
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "tamarque" wrote: