Minutus

Hi Irene,

I'm getting a feel for you as a science practitioner, and sure, there
is likely to be plenty of food for thought in "raw" uninterpreted
scientific data, provided one has all the parameters of how the test
may have been engineered to produce data supporting the pharmceutical
product of the company who paid for the study

So, anyhow .. you seem to be doing a great job at bringing your
science into service describing "cytokine storm."

I'm sure there is no such thing as "too much" understanding of biochemistry..
but since homeopathy isn't based on biochemical models .. it seems a
bit tangential at times.
(nothing against cosines or tangents, some of my best friends are radians

What's my point?
It is that I've seen, in "present times" M.D's and others of similar
training background ... to be over-infused with Cartesian
reductionist thinking pursuant to their "modern medical"
(bio)"mechanical" model of living beings.

Some few M.D. homeopaths seem to have "fused" their two schools of
knowledge (making them fabulous homeopaths,) and pretty much ALL of
our historical literature is from "medical people." I'm not sure
when "lay homeopaths" became more of the norm (here in the U.S. at
least) though I imagine it to be consistent with "the fall of
homeopathy" somewhere in the late 1920's? J.W. would know. But
somewhere in there, the two schools of thought radically diverged, as
science became more and more focussed on being a means to an $$end.

And speaking of J.W. -may he rest in lively discussion & banjo picking !
http://julianwinston.com/music/me_and_my_old_banjo2.php

I'd wager that his comment about Isaac Golden's take on
homeoprophylaxis is based in the fact that Isaac's claimed success
doesn't fit within the model of homeopathy .. including that it seems
180 degrees away from minimum dose (although Isaac claims not.)

There are plenty of bright minds working on stuff like trying to
figure out the physics of homeopathy.
Someday, they will all see how brilliant my model of subatomic quark
lattice phase change is in describing it.
(joke
anyhow... in order to collect on the wager I just placed (unfair .. it
is a sure thing.)
all I need do is quote Isaac:
"..in practice, the homoeopathic prevention of a targeted infectious
disease can occur.." (when)
"An energetic clearing of a specific area of the patient’s energetic
bodies, which allows the vital force to work effectively when
challenged in that area"

'k, so we're talkin' spiritual science here, which is one of my
favorite things on the planet, but (ready for the punchline?)
-it ain't homeopathy.

Maybe it works. Maybe not. Maybe immunizations only maim some of the
kids, some of the time.

Working on cats, much as I love 'em, is ... for most of us .. a little
bit different from where we're coming from.
Vethoms are faced with some facts of life that make their practice a
little bit different.

While I agree with the sanctity of all life, and REALLY wish we could
stop with all the disgusting factory farms and other animal abuses
such as vivisection... it is in the sphere of human suffering that
homeopathy was born, and it is there where most of its practitioners
do their work.. and somehow, while all life is precious .. I still
have that human-centric but that says a human incarnation is a rare
privilege, and so .. an even bigger privilege to be of service in
relieving some suffering therein.
That's just my stuff, I"m not trying to put it on anyone else.
But it does speak to the number of years a human is designed to live..
and the responsibility of "doing no harm" to that human through h/ir
span of years.

Am I rambling?
'k, the point here is that homeopathy is a medical system (an
"alternative" one, now that the religion of scientism is trying to rub
us out) with checks & balances .. when done "by the book" we have a
lot of lifetimes & a lineage going back to Hahnemann and before him
Paracelsus and before him Hippocrates ...
http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/clarke/paracelsus.htm
all rolled into a system, that within its circumscribed boundary is
demonstrable, repeatable, evidenced based AND empirical, supported by
many case histories, a large body of literature, a fair number of
colleagues ... and now, the Internet to expand communication ..
fraught as it is with the ease of mis-communication due to differing
native language &/or idiom, differing cultural norms, and apparently
the incredible vulgarity of some working class U.S. born & raised
persons ;-p

Homeopathy is both science and art .. and as you practice the art of
obtaining unsullied information from scientific studies commissioned
by a coalition of profit-agenda-driven advertisers and beancounters
(admirable !)
so you and we practice the art of bringing ourselves to an effective
and caring practice of homeopathy ... which, when practiced "by the
book" gives the integrity of "doing none harm" while gathering
experience and practical skills in the Science of homeopathy.

So. From this perspective, Isaac Golden's stuff is .. mmm.. sure, cockamamie.

By Isaac's description, it isn't homeopathy.
I don't know if "it works" .. I don't know by what standards you might
claim "it works."

I don't even care !
Oho, you think: "closed minded"
Negatory, sorry .. if my mind were any more open it'd be leaky !

I don't care, because homeopathic treatment isn't about trying to find
some outside-the-box way of creating biochemical immunity (assuming
for a moment that "it works" in that realm) .. nor is it about
phase-shifting my celestial bodies into a more perfect alignment so
that by some cosmic accident I can no longer be infected with
pertussis.) (I can do that with medical Chi Kung.)

I don't care because the depth of the art and science of homeopathy is
such that a lifetime of learning and practice will continue to deepen
one's skill at relieving Chronic Disease. That is as close to being a
channel for Quan Yin as I can imagine !
Working to lessen and possibly remove what Hahnemann terms Chronic
Disease and the miasmatic basis there-for is what I DO care about.

Many people are trying to find various shortcuts or methods which they
hope will alleviate suffering .. without having a clear and
demonstrable success in so-doing "by the book" of homeopathy: by
addressing the susceptibility, the miasmic taint of chronic disease.
Perhaps they mean well.
They do not provide me with anything I wish to emulate or experiment
with, though.

On the other hand, I wish Isaac Golden, Peter Morrell, Hulda Clark,
everyone studying the work of Royal Rife, Ed "Mr. Oxygen" McCabe,
Mantak, Chia, and hundreds if not thousands of other "alternative
health" researchers all the best.. much success.

-and I wish all homeopaths everywhere, good success in your cases,
good growth in your practice!

warm wishes,
david 510.776.5914 fax: 510.336.6671
www.holistiq.com
www.DavidHartley.com
I.T. support: www.cafegratitude.com
co-founder: www.GratefulMindandBody.com
web developer: www.iamResourceful.com
On Thu, Apr 30, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Irene de Villiers
wrote:

Um, Dave, since you don't know what Irene does--either what thinking
and processes have led to her practices, *or* what the results have
been; and you don't know whether Golden's approach works or not--and by
your statement below you don't care, since it is "not
homeopathy"--well, since you don't *know* anything in particular about
either subject, why are you declaiming so energetically about them?

Golden's work with homeoprophylaxis is not homeopathy, that's true.
And bingo, that's why it's called homeoprophylaxis, not homeopathy!

As to whether it works, if we define "working" as "preventing or
greatly reducing cases or the targeted diseases"--which I believe would
be a very standard definition of "prophylaxis", whether homeo or
other--then according to his long-term study, yes, it does. (Is that
unimportant, since it is "not homeopathy"?)

In fact, according to his long-term study (two books published on the
topic), the benefits go further, and have *also* led to substantial
increase in the children's health, as measured by various very
straightforward indicators.

*If* you care about whether it "works" or not, you should read at least
one of his books.

If you *don't* care, then you should simply admit that you're not
familiar with the subject, and stop passing judgments on it. Because
in the meantime, you sound just like Randi et al.! Same
"triumph of logic over evidence", same gleeful disdain for actually
learning about it, or *seeing* whether it works...

Shannon

A "subclinical proving" means "you won't notice it."
If you *notice* an effect (other than prevention or cure), it's a
proving symptom, and it's clinical!

In other words, it's a "medicinal disease" only in effect on the
*clinical* disease, and in name, because there is *no* uncomfortable
effect caused, only the protective one (and in some cases also curative
of preexisting miasm)--at least that is the goal, and I gather also the
usual result.

Shannon

Hi Shannon and all,

I have not been reading messages prior to this one - have only jumped in at this point but would like to make a comment.

I would say that homeoprophylaxis is homeopathy, as the Law of Similars underpins both.

The Law of Similars is about the relationship between similars. It cuts both ways - similars can either treat or prevent.

Homeopathy - ie., "similar suffering" - can both treat or prevent. We may have lost our focus on the prevention side of things in recent decades so that it doesn't seem like 'homeopathy' as we have come to know and be taught but that doesn't change the fact it is.

'Similia similibus curentur' however only refers to the treatment side of the Law of Similars. "Similar suffering" is both.

--
Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:

Hi Fran,

Just to put my remark in context, it was in response to posts of
David's noting that the remedies are not chosen according to symptom
similarity *of the individual*, and other differences between that
procedure and our more usual ways of "classical" prescribing. That's
an argument that's raised so often, by way of simply dismissing any
form (or purpose) of prescribing that falls outside of that person's
Organon-based comfort zone.

To my mind, the "is it homeopathy" debate, tho useful in its *broader*
application (we'd really rather not be confused with either
herbalists--estimable tho that field is--nor faith healers, shamans, or
whatever. (Again, not because those fields may not be useful, but
simply because they're not doing what we're doing!) But when it's used
as a way of verbally slapping the hands of ought-to-be colleagues, that
I feel is unfortunate and counter-productive, divisive where we need
to be working *together*, and *learning* more about what works, when,
why, where. E.g. we should stop arguing against variant homeopathy
practices we don't understand, and perhaps even learn a bit about them!
At least enough to engage in a meaningful and respectful
*communication* about the issues, not just blindfolded mudslinging and
naysaying.

Jump in more if you have the time!

Shannon

It seems to me that some are more concerned about the mud slinging and nay saying than what they are about the best way to practice homeopathy. The Organon based comfort zone is exactly that though, I'll agree. It is all that is needed and perversions of that are not. You have to ask why are there so many 'other' ways of practicing homeopathy 'type' methods. I am sure the reasons are many and so be it, people will practice what they want, the wrong doing is calling it homeopathy and encouraging it to infiltrate and perverse the best possible teachings and practice of homeopathy, i.e. Hahnemannian. For those who want to adhere to Hahnemann's methods might well feel outraged or whatever at these other masquerading practices and I don't see why one should be respectful of them when they continue to blind others away from Hahnemannian homeopathy.

You can't have it both ways - letting people speak their minds and not receiving it back.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Dear Joy
I have been reflecting on what you say....
" For those who want to adhere to Hahnemann's methods might well feel outraged or whatever at these other masquerading practices and I don't see why one should be respectful of them when they continue to blind others away from Hahnemannian homeopathy."
If you have a problem with these 'other ways', you can always stick to calling yourself a 'classical homeopath'. That tells people exactly what you do and don't do. Never mind what others choose to call their methods. And calling them 'masquerading' is not really fair, since people use them in good faith and with pure intentions - they don't set out to trick patients!
For my part, when I see a patient I try to analyse what method will be of the most use - it might be classical, it might well not be. Does that make me not a homeopath? At what point do I stop being a homeopath? And if I am a homeopath (since I use the tools of homeopathy when taking a case or looking at results achieved) then I think I can say that I use homeopathy - with all the variations that includes.
The early Christians were called Christians - now there are Catholics, Roman Catholics, Methodists, Baptists etc. etc. That doesn't stop them all being Christians, however disapproving they may be of each others' beliefs. They still share a basic common belief.
And so with homeopathy - like cures like, minimum dose - we all try to match a remedy with the picture the patient presents to us, and we don't work with crude doses. That, in my book, makes us homeopaths. You, in particular, will choose to be a 'classical' homeopath. That's fine - I respect your approach. But please don't be so contemptuous of those who don't wish to follow your path.
Liz

There's no way that I am foolish enough to expect everyone to work the same methods, that is not the way of the world. Neither will I call myself a classical homeopath because that doesn't mean anything these days either.

My only thoughts are around what gets accepted on this list and I cannot for the life of me think why people should be respectful to something they have disdain for - in this case non Hahnemannian methods. Same approach to the big wide world.

End of story for me.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Hi Liz,

Welcome to the neverendingstory.

There has been a seeming endless downward spiral of people who have
not seemed to have grasped the depth of Hahnemann's medical system ...
which in TODAY's world would be "copyright" and trademarked Homeopathy (tm)
hell-bent on "improving" what they have not learned to put into practice.

Homeopathy in acute situation is wonderful, powerful, "seemingly
miraculous" at times.

However. this is merely the tip of the iceberg; a toe cautiously
dipped in the water of homeopathic healing art.
The breadth and depth of the Hahnemann's homeopathy lies in its
application to what Hahnemann termed "chronic disease."

People who have success in acutes, and less or none in long term
chronic disease...
have repeatedly attempted to "revolutionize" homeopathy,
thus arrogating the term homeopathy,
and adding heaps of misunderstanding and dissension into discussion of
homeopathy,
which also confuses the overall public/world "image" of "what homeopathy is"
... and of course, ends up with a lot of "failed cases" .. "oh,
homeopathy doesn't work,"
-"my naturopath gave me homeopathic xyz for my case of efg and it only
made is worse"
and on, and on, ad nauseum ... ad headachium, ad annoyance majorus !

It is understandable that people may have the best intentions,
but ignorant actions with the best intentions seems to be a recipe for
proliferating ignorance.

So, originally - there was homeopathy.
than, there were a bunch of people, ignorant of homeopathy
(as defined by the founder of homeopathy, if you please.)
who claimed and to some extent dominated the public impression of,
arrogating unto themselves the term homeopathy.

So, as you suggest, the term "classical homopathy" came into being,
as those who were actually studying and deepening their practice of
HOMEOPATHY
-were defensively forced .. by an intellectually inimical and hostile
arrogation,
to differentiate themselves from the not-homeopaths who'd stolen the name.

What do you guess happened then?

Why do you suppose "we" are now forced to call ourselves "Hahnemannian
Homeopaths" ?

Intellectual dishonesty. Supreme arrogance, in the "classical" sense
of the word,
contemptuous in the extreme ... and apparently, a never ending stream of it.

Curiosity and innovation .. study and invention .. perfecting the invention
-all gigantically marvelous human traits.

PROBLEM: one is definitively incapable of perfecting that which s/he
has not understood.

and-- as we "Hahnemannian homeopaths" see and FEEL THE EFFECTS of the
various wanna-be "improvers" of homeopathy who (one must assume) were
not successful of practicing as Hahnemann, as Boenninghausen, and
Hering, as others who "GOT IT" ... whose success built upon the legacy
of Hahnemann rather than stealing it away (arrogating it) to their own
personal aggrandizement..
-we sometimes feel a bit annoyed.

go figure.

warm wishes,
david 510.776.5914 fax: 510.336.6671
www.holistiq.com
www.DavidHartley.com
I.T. support: www.cafegratitude.com
co-founder: www.GratefulMindandBody.com
web developer: www.iamResourceful.com

As I find this a mixture of irrelevant and inaccurate, I'll address
the inaccuracy and leave the rest.
(also, people reading the digest &/or web-version may appreciate the
once-common courtesy of not including the entire conversation thread
when replying.)

The context in which I "don't care" about (pick your poison: isopathy,
tautopathy, etc.)
is the context of homeopathy.
I ONLY care that people are being intellectually dishonest or ignorant
in arrogating and injuring the broader understanding of,
the public opinion of, the discussion here and elsewhere of,
and in a manner which personally and negatively impacts the practice of
h.o.m.e.o.p.a.t.h.y.

I apologize that I am not able to get this across in a hearts&flowers
pink fluffy cozy-warm manner,
but it is, to me not cute, not funny, not friendly !
It impacts me very personally.
It impacts one of the things I care about most in life.

I think Lynn corrected the misinformation re: Hahnemann's invention of
homeoprophylaxis.

Isaac Golden's work may or may not be "important."
It isn't homeopathy ; It is irrelevant to the discussion of homeopathy,
it is irrelevant to the understanding and practice of treating long
term chronic disease which is the
HEART and SOUL of homeopathy.
Kindly see above for the tragic effects!
I could make a case for the idea that Isaac's method of using
potentized medicinal substance may do great harm; see above as to how
and why.

There is a broader context, if you please!

Homeopathy as-is .. is capable in practice, of curing most of humanity's ills
If I fail, that is mine. It is not homeopathy.
The fact that I fail does not mean that homeopathy failed.
It means that I missed something in the case,
that my study of materia medica was faulty.

It does not mean that I need to attempt to blame homeopathy for my
failure, and then invent some sort of routinism or "method" to use
PART OF (that part which I am able to grasp) homeopathy, and then
pretend aloud to all that I have re-invented the wheel, when in fact I
have not at all understood the concepts of a hub, and spokes, and so
on.
warm wishes,
david 510.776.5914 fax: 510.336.6671
www.holistiq.com
www.DavidHartley.com
I.T. support: www.cafegratitude.com
co-founder: www.GratefulMindandBody.com
web developer: www.iamResourceful.com
On Sat, May 2, 2009 at 4:28 AM, Shannon & Bob Nelson
wrote: