Scholten/Sankaran was provings

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi John,
If you mean me, personally - I am not involved, just observing.

If you mean the classical homeopaths: while it will be diffcult to
establish the superiority of classical homeopathy and classical
homeopaths as compared to the common homeopaths, they meanwhile are
quite comfortably off, comparatively: They share what all the others
have: license, professional standing, support from the people's
supporting all homeopathy etc.

They can treat the matter as an attempt at icing the cake - the cake
is there:-)

And on their lists they can - and do - complain the same way, with
equal or similar arguments, as you do:-))

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 <==========

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon,
But certainly - about other things.

About the proving versus cured symptom issue.

About whether or not Scholten/Sankaran etc is classical homeopathy.

About whether the Indians are classical homeopaths.

About whether even Sehgal therapists - who only use mind symptoms -
need further training in clinical diagnoses, anatomy, physiology etc
(additional to what we need to know for the license exam)

There has been a very, very busy list going on all this for years.

The main difference is that they - except for some very few - that
they do accept homeopathy as an umbrella expression and the principle
discussions are about classical homeopathy, as far as name is
concerned.

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 <==========

[John Harvey]

Yes. Thanks, Luise; very interesting.

Cheers!

John
2009/7/9 Luise Kunkle >