Minutus

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Dr. Lau" wrote:

Exactly - these different ideas in homeopathy have become like
religions based on faith and specious reasonings, instead of following
a simple science...
it is
the
grooves
but
things that
where
definition of
more I
nature
material
example
literal
made to
not need
simple.

You said:

#########
they do well in trials. They are not totally random collections and
are based on remedies that do have an action of similarity. I don't
use them myself because i wouldn't know where to go after the first
prescription in a chronic case and haven't really needed them in acutes.

#####################

I agree with this - and it was never a question of combos working or
not- they do-

as do allopathic antibiotics- and that is how I had used combos once-
instead of allopathic medicines mainly based on disease diagnosis- but
diagnostic prescribing is only part of homeopathy and when they are
done with a bunch of medicines combined together we are introducing
more uncertainty. But they would do well in clincal trials - because
clinical trials usually measure only a few parameters and much more
targeted. There is no way a clinical trial include the symptom shades
that are so important ) at least for me) in case taking and prescribing.

Exactly- but if it were a true science the "definition" would be
defined in a way that there are not too many individual
interpretations...otherwise it is not a scientific definition- and
that is exactly why we are saying we need a definitive definition and
that is not open to different interpretations and providng allowance
to suspect practices....( take and analyze any definition in physics
or chemistry or biology and you will see what I am saying)

The best definition would equate to a mathematical expression - it
means one and only that...

and that is the kind of exactitude that Hahnemann had in mind where
given a set of symptoms everyone can arrive at the same homeopathic
drug- not where some use sarcodes, some combos, some law of
signatures, some chakras, some nutritionals, some tonics, some medical
meditations, some remote operations, some biochemics and what have you.

There could be variations in case taking based on experience and
observational skills - but ideally - when it comes to selecting the
remedy given a set of symptoms everyone should select the same remedy.
That is not the case even when using standard remedy selection
process, leave alone all of these -
that
where
more I
material
made to
need

Hi Shannon,
To me it is, but then I have not tried to. I am not in the least an
expert on v. B. I also am hoping that someone can explain the method.
Afaik no-one has researched that question yet - but I may be wrong.

Well, I tell you what I told Soroush - anyone interested should look
at Allen's Encyclopedia, including some of the footnotes, as far as
"perfectly" healthy is concerned. The same applies to Hahnemann's
patients.

Well, if I had a better idea about the rates of cure, more
documentation as to the cures other than what the homeopaths chose to
tell, I should know more. As it is I just know that I know nothing.
Hahnemann's results were not that impressive
- and as far as v. B. is concerned, his publications do not seem to
"fully agree with documented evidence". So why should I be convinced
by the publications of any of the other homeopaths, past and present.

I am convinced that hom. CAN work - how WELL it has worked is to me an
open question. And if if it has not worked all that well - perhaps it
is because of the symptoms in the "provings" are not very reliable.

Well, it is indeed a full circle:-)


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 Irene,
cut

Hahnemann described 2 different mechanisms in the Organon - quite
different from each other.

There was a long discussion on then Lyghtforce on this topic quite a
few years ago, between John Lundstroth and David Little.

Regards

Luise
the same thing that has been observed in nature

--
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 Sam,

no - no more waste of time and energy on topics like these for me:-)

Almost 10 years of it has been enough. (If you google for Luise kunkle
you will appreciate what I mean:-)

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 <==========

alright Luise - I understand and I feel the same - though Googling
will not get you anywhere about me

regards

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:

hahnemannian2002 wrote:

I'm not so sure.
This is not mathematics where that might well apply - though even in
mathematics there are cases where interpolation is needed and a formula
is not available to determine the answer:-) There too, different
mathematicians use different methods of interpolation.
So if even such a precise science as mathematics involves various
interpretations - then why should homeopathy be any different.
It's not a competition to be more defined than some other science.

We need only point to what we have and use - Hahnemann's works - as the
core and basis for all our work. And it's a VERY solid core.
In my view it's a lot more solid than allopathy - which after all uses
experiments and peer opinion as the determining factor for their
"science" - and measures success not by restored health or resistance
but by invisibility of symptoms or even just "survival".

Why do we keep making excuses for homeopathy when it needs LESS excuses
than other sciences? Should we not stop excusing and start explaining?
Mathematics is not so cut and dried as they tell one in school:-)
An example: See if you can calculate (or supply a formula) for plannning
the ideal rigging and spreader angles on a Yacht with double-spreaders
on the mast. Sounds easy maybe, but there is no formula which ensures
these angles such that the forces are equal either side each spreader
(as they need to be, to keep the mast standing).
Here one is confusing something "to strive for" with something "we work
with".
We "work with" the Homeopathy Hahnemann gave us.
We strive for solutions (using it) each in our own way.
Just like yacht riggers who want to win the prestigious ocean races
strive for the solution using principles and/or techniques from their
science.
Hahnemann gave us techniques and principles - not solutions.
We do not need to define the solutions. And Hahnemann already defined
the techniques and and principles for us:-))
Nothing is left to define (besides our own individual interpretation!)

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Well, maybe the letters to the various homeopathy lists for me are
also no longer available to google or the search engine is no longer
interested - no idea:-)

Long time ago that I once googled and found pages and pages:-)

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 <==========