Minutus

Dear Y'all,

I believe, from experience and from the literature, that Urine Therapy uses the Law of Similars consistently.

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: ellen.madono@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:00:18 +0900
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Post 3
Irene said:
Can any known NON-homeopathy activity invoke the Law of Similars consistently?
Polypharmacy uses the law of similars, but I don't think that polypharmacy is homeopathy.
To exclude polypharmacy, we need to say that proving methods must be followed. That is, one remedy at a time is tested, therefore remedies must be administered and followed up one at a time in the clinic. The law of similars do not automatically include provings.
Best,
Ellen Madono

Before we can say what is homeopathy or not we have to define homeopathy.

I don't care what the definition of homeopathy is. But what homeopathy does I do care about, and when I see it elsewhere in healing modalities that are clearly NOT homeopathy, I like it. My last homeopathy greatly diminished my rage-trigger and excess fire: So I like flower remedies and urine therapy and think of them as homeopathy like. Nutrition is removing those maintaining factors that homeopathic literature talks about: so I think that nutrition fits into the homeopathy picture.

One of the neat things about homeopathy is that it re-arranges a deranged inner healing power. If the vital healing power isn't doing something that it is supposed to do, homeopathy sparks it to do what it is supposed to do. If the vital healing agency is doing something that it isn't supposed to do, then homeopathy stimulates it to stop doing what it is not supposed to do. To me, this is homeopathy.

Other things can do this, even if people or practitioners don't realize that this is what is happening. Near-death-experiences and out-of-body experiences can change people's personalities at very deep levels, so their energy and psychology stop messing their health and their lives up.

Just my thoughts.

Roger Bird
________________________________

To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
From: ellen.madono@gmail.com
Date: Mon, 17 Feb 2014 09:49:14 +0900
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Post 3
Hi Dr. Roz,
So IMO, orthbiotomy is not homeopathy. It applies the law of similars perhaps, but is not homeopathy.
Problematic abstract definition of the similum:
Similar causes for symptoms cause similar reactions in healing. In other words, this definition is very abstract so it will lead to misguided forms of homeopathy such as polypharmacy.

Better: In provings and clinical experience reactions to a stimulus cause symptoms. Similar symptoms in other natural setting (organisms, individuals, fields of corn) will induce similar reactions. These reactions can be healing if the similar stimulus is small enough to avoid secondary overreactions. That is, the state of the stimulus in the proving must approximately match the state of the stimulus (remedy ) in the treatment. (This eliminates historical data on poisons or herbs as provings, but does not eliminate poisoning or herbal medicine from our data concerning the gross possible symptoms of those substances in minimal doses.) The administration and follow up of such treatment must follow procedures similar to those of the proving.

If we agree that if mixes of remedies are to be homeopathic, they must be proved as mixes, then we exclude polypharmacy unless they do their own provings.

I think also homeopropolaxis is homeopathic because provings are done on existing not hypothetical individuals.
The Genius Epidemicus is homeopathic because the symptoms of the organisms are the final factor in selecting the remedy. Choice of miasmatic categories are not completely covered unless they are also based on proving symptoms. Perhaps this is a difficult to understand. The ambiguity here could lead to inclusion of homeopropolaxis.

Dr. Roz,
Once homeopathy is recognized as worth of scientific testing and funding, I can image provings of orthobiotomy too. From the little I have read and tried myself, the principles are clear and consistent. The problem is, I don't think you could test healthy subjects. They have to have a problem to apply orthbiotomy. Provings involve people without major problems therefore without the illness that will be eventually cured using homeopathy. I don't know how you would overcome this problem of "proving" orthbiotomy.

Best,
Ellen

I value your thoughts Roger. Beautiful.
________________________________

I like this notion.

To me, the Law of SImialrs was/is the one describerd by Hippocrates in 400BC, and also later independently described by Stahl somewhat later, and also by a few others ......and finally also by Hahnemann. Now if all these great philosopher/physicians found it so easy to see this law of nature by merely observing nature, why can modern homeopaths not alo see it? After all they spposedly (hopefully) actually use the concept so observed in their own work?
Is this discussion showing that nobody knows what that law is about - however much they use it?

Or is there a new claim here that Law of Similars does not define true homeopathic action?

....Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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."

Actually, you already had a term that seemed quite nice. But I thought of a few other relevant terms that might be useful: simulation; memory; replication; restimulation. So, for instance, "restimulation osteopathy", which perhaps captures the idea better than any reference to homoeopathy would, at least for the novice. Anyway, just some thoughts. Cheers!

John

Hi, Roger --

You're right: there are many things besides homoeopathy that can have such a beneficial effect.

It wouldn't help anybody (except perhaps the odd charlatan or two) to lump all these beneficial practices together under the umbrella term "homoeopathy". We need to retain that clarity that you've just expressed: that several quite different practices may have the same (healing) value, and that that equality of outcome doesn't at all make them the same thing, the same practice.

Cheers!

John
________________________________

On Feb 16, 2014, at 8:32 PM, "Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD" > wrote:
Seconding this! And it is consistent with Hahnemann's usages in e.g. intro to Organon. Homeopathy as the system of healing, vs. homeopathic therapies and practices

At some point we need to hold people responsible for their own understanding…

What am I missing…

f I recall right Hahnemann *does* describe this as an example of homeopathy which does not use potentized substance. He *does* define homeopathy as anything using Law of Similars, and remarks that any truly curative healing method makes use of Law of Similars -- but then he gives exceptions such as Mesmerism, and some forms of laying on of hands? I don't have Organon handy to check at the moment, but that is my recollection.

The term "homeopathic" has meaning (e.g. "less-is-more" small doses; and e.g. "hair of the dog" Law of Similars).

Its meaning IS BROADER than the practice of Homeopathy as per Hahnemann. Hahnemann himself stated this, strongly and clearly. In Intro to Organon (and ?) he states strongly and clearly, that homeopathic *principles* have deep and broad application to all healing. Why try to paper that over?

:-/