Minutus

Irene,

I'm curious why you are assuming that the other 20% are going to be just abandoned? My assumption (and I have not read nor watched anything of his) is that for those other 20% he would use other methods, which are more time-consuming but will pick up hopefully most of the missed cases.

Shannon

yes

It is not an assumption. It is the mathematical result of the method.
The intention described is to use the method for ALL people. By the very mechanism of it (and to which I object) it mathematically excludes 20% of folks, who will be given a prescription - but a wrong one - and sent on their way. There is no attempt to *identify* the 20% who do not get the right prescription.
The conclusion made is that 80% is good enough as a result - not that the other 20% need a new homeropath or different approach.
I would have liked to see that stated but it specifically was stated that 80% is enough success, and no attempt was suggested to follow up and try to identify or help the 20% - who get a wrong Rx, as oppsoed to nothing. They may actually be worse off in other words.

I tried to explain the mechanism of exclusion in my previous email. But suffice to say it is purely mathematical and statistical removal of repertory options so that 80% of cases (the easy most obvious onesm but no attempt to predict which) are helped and they can go on to the next 5 or 10 minute appointment.
(What I call cattle trough processing.)

I am sure some will say - fine give out 100 remedies knowing twenty are dead wrong. It helps 80 people. (I rounded up, they say 75 to 85)
It is the same to me as saying, put 80 people in a life boat and let the rest drown, it is good enough. We can say we saved most.
Very democratic, a majority issue.
But I vote for the minority. Those are the tricky cases who can not look up a remedy on google and "fit the usual picture" (which is what they are doing) and who really need a homeopath with their head screwed on - as opposed to an accountant with their calculator plugged in.

You know the age old question about accountants...
Q.
What is wrong with accountants burried up to their necks in beach sand?
A.
Not enough sand.

In other words, I do not see homeopathy as a problem needing an accountant to solve.
When health care goes to the accountants in 6 to 10 minute blocks that help "the majority", then we have lost sight of the principles of life and compassion and health ethics - which do not involve tossing out the weak and the different.

A principle of computer programming applies better:
In any good computer program, more than 90% of the code is for handling errors, things like typo entries, and days of the week entered as FRY or THIRSDAY etc.
In medicine/health the majority of our time also needs to go to the not-so-normal - the more challenging cases.
I feel we need to cater for that accordingly, not find ways to kick those out of the door with wrong RXs so they do not find homeopathy helpful and do not return - then brag that 80% were helped.

These accountant homeopaths are specifically NOT programming their time to handle the cases that need it.
The objective of the system is to have five or ten minute consults so they suit the allopathic appiontments paradigm.

All this per the video.

Namaste,
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."

Ooh, if remedies are given with no follow-up, then I agree with you it is bad homeopathy!!!!

All of us have a few people we are unable to "find the remedy" for, or for other reasons are unable to help. But even those people should be given whatever guidance we *can*. And equally concerning, a single dose of "the right remedy" will not be the last thing a person ever needs from homeopathy or from the homeopath. I do regard lack of follow-up as tragic!

Thanks for clarifying,
Shannon

Dear Irene,
It is your choice to distrust Frei. You are free and I will not argue with that.

I am quite sure that homeopathy is not a lucrative business. Making software, researching a method could only be done for the love of better results.
have studied with others who insist that their method is the best etc. IMO, any method has limitations. Thinking through what those limitations are is not easy. The best thinkers seem to have a good handle on humility.

Ardavan Shahrdar's course presented last year was an excellent example of thinking through the limitations and potential of a method. Among the few who come up with original contributions to homeopathic analysis, he is among the few who taught where his method is not used, where it is useful and why. For those who studied with him and Dr. Moraldi, the difficulty of explaining this was obvious. One difficulty in teaching people with a wide range of experience and study background in homeopathy.

If others are unable to meet this standard, I do not hold them totally responsible. I have not even studied with Frie, so I can't accuse of him anything. But, if for example, he teaches a nuanced approach to his method, hats off. If not, he is like many others. Discovery of where his method does not apply is left to the student's discrimination.

Try applying your high standards and see if you can get it out in public. I know you are doing your best with your website and your communications on Minutus, but not without a tremendous effort. I am sure you want better and more, but cut yourself and others a break. You know from personal hardship that it is not easy getting new ideas out into the world. Applaud yourself and applaud others for their efforts. The world is actually hungry for what is not perfect enough for you. So please try to hug yourself for all your contributions and survive the waves of negativity that surround not only you, but all of us. Surviving and getting those ideas out there in public is more essential than perfection.

Blessings,
Ellen

Dear Ellem,
You mistake my views, which need no huge effort as you assume, though unlike most people here, I took the trouble to study the video the full hour worth. I am not looking for, or expecting, perfection in any method.
But I am expecting ethical and non-discriminatory principles to be involved (unless specifically advertised otherwise) and I am expecting Homeopathy principles to be involved - by whatever method is chosen. Neither is the case here.

No matter how good the method, if it charges money for known wrong remedies becasue the method forces it, by intentionally excluding 20% of the right ones, then the method is at fault in principle, by MY value system.
I am not imposing my value system on others - this is MY opinion based on MY values. Others may think differently.

I criticise the principles used, not the fact that someone has a method, good or bad. AND I criticise calling it homeopathy as it removes individualization and that is not homeopathy. It is mechanized guesswork. It is mathematically based guess work, but not homeopathy, (much like combination remedies) and for me it breaks the inviolable rule that homeopathy is for everyone and is that way - by definition - by individualizing - matching the individual's characteristics with the remedy ones, not calulating the statistically most likey remedy based on past cases which is what is done here.

I do not adjust my views because you dislike my criticism.
It is merely my well considered opinion, based on my knowledge of what constitutes true homeopathy, plus my ethics code.

Namaste,
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."

Ok
I watched a 30 minute video and I probably understand less that you do. I watched it a half year ago. I also read an article on the idea written by Frie.
I use a repertory program that mathematically generates probabilities that I often use with considerable judgement. I would assume that I would do that with any mechanically generated "answer" Frie's included. I think I am normal if not right in your eyes. It is up to me to individualize the case. I do that partially through my choice of rubrics but also through other considerations that I do not include in my repertorization. I don't know that everything I do exactly fits the Organon, but it is the best that I can do. No program is going to do that part of the judgement. The patient is an individual, So am I. between us we come up with that is less mathematical and more human.
Best,
Ellen

Yes but your mathematics is based on the current case - and intended for it - and that's fine.
And every case needs judgement to suit the individual. I am happy wiht that.

Not what Frei is doing.

............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."

Thanks, I will restudy Frei.