Minutus

Pontificating and theorizing as usual, same old arguments, especially your example of remedies A and B.

No reason to "suppose" can and is inverted in no reason not to suppose....etc,...ad nauseam...

You will continue to pose as the white knight defender of purity immersed in his own ocean of words, I will continue to follow Aphorism 1, cure my patients.

Have a nice evening, don't bother answering, I am not continuing this thread, at least not with you.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com

Dear fellow, you mustn't get so caught up in the importance of having black accepted as white that you begin to swallow your own medicine. Who knows what might result. If you decide you'd like to consider what I said, feel free to re-engage. Nobody is attempting to discredit the worth of what you're doing, Joe; only to clarify that homoeopathy absolutely requires pathogenetic knowledge -- with all that that entails. So chin up.

John

When the prescribing homeopath mixes different remedies he/she believes have to be taken concomitantly (that is another discussion we already had many times), and I am not talking about OTCs, then it becomes a simplified way of delivering the goods, allowing for better compliance through simplification.

1) Calling someone who "believes" mixing different remedies for concomitant administration a "homeopath" is no truer than calling an allopath a healer. It's blasphemy.
2) Hormones, drugs and herbs are not potentised substances, homeoopathic remedies are.
Why should an acupuncturist have to determine what chakras, meridians to stick needles in?
Why not just put needles in ALL meridians simultaneously to ensure the one you need to be stimulated is??
Then everyone can perform acupuncture without any knowledge about it.
Surely nothing wrong can happen???
3) One of my original suggested tweetable definition of homeopathy is now amended and untweetable for now:
"Homeopathy uses non-toxic potentized remedies made from natural substances SINGULARLY that cure similar symptoms produced when INDIVIDUALLY given to a healthy person"
Susan

5. Do you alternate the high potencies or do you rely upon the single remedy?
Here again our friend confounds a principle and quantity If it be right and advantageous to alternate the low it is right and advantageous to alternate the high potencies But in fact we do not alternate at all
We always rely on the single remedy at one time Dr Drysdalc says that everybody alternates and therefore there must be some necessity for the practice
But his illustrations are so far fetched and his definition of alternation is so contrary to the conceptions which all other Homoeopathieians from Hahnemann down have had on the subject that notwithstanding our respect for Dr Drysdalc we must repeat in the very face of his learned paper that we do not alternate
Our understanding of the practice of alternation and our objections to it were stated as well as we are able to state them in the number of the Review June 1863 Vol Ill No 12
We are opposed to it in theory and we abjure it in practice
It is an abominable heresy
As a shot gun maims where the rifle would kill so alternation may change and modify and maim the disease
but it never does nor can effect the clean direct and perfect cure that a single remedy exactly homoeopathic will accomplish
As a relic of the polypharmacy which has been the stumbling block of the old school we loath it
As a refuge of the careless prescriber and slothful student we despise it
Carroll Dunham, MD
American Homoeopathic Review, Volume 5, No. 1, page 237
July 1864
http://books.google.com/books?id=raYRAA ... cy&f=false

Susan,

I like what you said about acupuncture.

Do you know that EFT does exactly what you said. Why pay someone to tell you which point to tap when Gary Craig has taught us that we can tap all of the end points of the meridians and get very good (not perfect) results. Of course, acupuncturists who make their living off of acupuncture are probably not too crazy about this idea.

But as you implied, this won't work with homeopathy. We are all always ingesting vibes of all different strengths and frequencies and types, but we end up with brown and very dark brown or even black (and don't get healed) rather than wondrous colors like pure blues or pure reds, etc (to use a chromatic analogy), which we need to heal.

Roger
________________________________

From: healthyinfo6@aol.com
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2014 21:11:54 -0400
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: [hpe] how close is too close....
1) Calling someone who "believes" mixing different remedies for concomitant administration a "homeopath" is no truer than calling an allopath a healer. It's blasphemy.
2) Hormones, drugs and herbs are not potentised substances, homeoopathic remedies are.
Why should an acupuncturist have to determine what chakras, meridians to stick needles in?
Why not just put needles in ALL meridians simultaneously to ensure the one you need to be stimulated is??
Then everyone can perform acupuncture without any knowledge about it.
Surely nothing wrong can happen???
3) One of my original suggested tweetable definition of homeopathy is now amended and untweetable for now:
"Homeopathy uses non-toxic potentized remedies made from natural substances SINGULARLY that cure similar symptoms produced when INDIVIDUALLY given to a healthy person"
Susan

You know, John, this is just the same type of reasoning that lets some people convince themselves (without glancing at any evidence) that homeopathy doesn't work: making decisions based upon a theory that sounds good to them, and without bothering to find out more about it or consider any evidence.

This is why I thought it would be useful to simply argue "What is homeopathy?" as a matter of *definition*, and completely leave aside clinical questions. You're criticizing Joe's method even though (by your own repeated admission) you don't know what it is… Unfortunately you go a step farther and imply (say, actually) that he doesn't *have* a method.

Isn't that kind of like saying that, because I don't know *how* homeopathy works, surely it *cannot* work…? Etc.?
Surely explanations, illustrations, cases, etc., would be SO much more interesting and educational than more of this : ( dueling theories…

Shannon

But John, you ARE "attempting to discredit the worth of what [he's] doing! That is exactly the effect, or the apparent intention, of phrases such as "double-guessing" etc. And of the attitude conveyed.

And IMO *that* is the problem; disagreeing is no problem! It's one of the spices of life, one of the things that impels us forward.
But treating others' work and beliefs with disrespect, that simply keeps us warring with our own shadows, instead of doing the work that so badly needs to be done.

Shannon

Shannon, you're right: you really should read what you're trying to answer before making the attempt. It would save you most of these lunatic circular conversations, in which you can't make up your mind whether you're discussing homoeopathy as practice or homoeopathy as relationship, or even, as in the present case, whether you're discussing definition or worth.

If it helps clarify the territory for you, let me say this: this discussion, at least from my end (since this seems to concern you), is about what is and what is not possible within homoeopathy. It is not about whether polypharmacy has any place in the emergency room or anywhere else. It is not even about whether, in some bizarre confluence of circumstances, all but one of the medicines in a mixture may be inactivated and the remaining one, by dint of sheer statistical improbability, happen to remain unaffected by its companion medicines and, wonder of wonders, to be homoeopathic to the patient's state. It is not even about impossibility of making a second prescription on the basis of complete ignorance of which of these occult medicines effectively bested the others and was (or was not) homoeopathic to the patient's state. It is about understanding what homoeopathy is.

Secondarily, and in order to understand why homoeopathy is what it is, it's also about why we give the (single, simple) medicine whose pathogenesis most closely resembles that of the patient -- rather than a collection of little medicines whose effects sum up to the patient's known pathogenesis. There are some here who clearly have never understood that the monopharmacy that homoeopathy requires is not a theory or a rule but simply inherent in what homoeopathy is. To those people in particular, why monopharmacy must be inherent in the homoeopathic principle remains at best a mystery; in some cases, the question doesn't even seem to have occurred to them.

Has this question occurred to you, Shannon? And, if it has, can you make any headway in answering it?

To those to whom this question -- why homoeopathy must use no more than one single, simple medicinal substance at a time -- is too difficult even to think about at present, let me offer a more fundamental question that needs answering first: why do we give the medicine best capable of reproducing the patient's symptoms in the healthy?

Once you're clear on the answer to this, the next question not only will seem relevant but may even have a clear answer. Without clarity, though, about why we give a medicine capable of mimicking the very symptoms we're trying to remove, there perhaps can't be clarity about such a simple matter as the patient's totality of symptoms, let alone concerning the boundary between homoeopathy and allopathy.

Kind regards,

John

With respect, Shannon, it is you who have used "double-guessing" pejoratively here. For my part, I have maintained consistently that guesswork is an important tool in medicine. I have also maintained consistently that it is no part of the homoeopathic method. These two claims are not in contradiction; together, they imply that it is important to use other methods, including a degree of guesswork, as adjuncts to the homoeopathic principle.

Now, you may like to read that again, before leaping to the conclusion that I have just explicitly approved of guesswork as part of homoeopathy.

The difference between homoeopathy and allopathy is the difference between a relevant body of research (i.e. pathogeneses; pure materia medica) and the ages-old "this worked" approach that honours itself with the term "clinical experience". It is the difference, in other words, between knowledge and guesswork. And that difference is at the basis of the difference that is most obvious: between a known relationship of similarity, and an unknown relationship.

And that is what allopathy (as a method) fundamentally is: prescription of a medicine with an unknown symptomatic relationship to the patient's state. Contrast this with homoeopathy, which absolutely requires three things: knowledge of the patient's state, knowledge of the medicine's pathogenesis, and similarity between the two.

Now, when you look at polypharmacy, what do you see? What are its features?

(1) As Joe has, after blustering about it at first, just explicitly admitted: it has no body of knowledge of the pathogenesis of the "medicine" it would use.

(2) It holds no relevance in the totality of the patient's symptoms, but only in one symptom, the one it aims to rid the patient of.

(3) Knowing neither the patient's state nor the medicine's pure effects, it therefore cannot make the least claim to understanding the relationship between the two.

At least, in modern allopathy, the prescriber knows something of the effects of his medicine on the healthy. The polypharmacist pretender to homoeopathy knows nothing! So, in the most fundamental sense, his medicine is more allopathic to the patient than are many of the allopathic medicines he aspires to abhor.

And that is why polypharmacy, being pure guesswork (which, again, is a method that is essential in medicine), is not, and never can be, part of homoeopathy. It has nothing to do with rules or theories; it has everything to do with the one fundamental that brought homoeopathy into existence: knowledge of a medicine's pure effects.

Kind regards,

John
--
In consigning its regulatory powers to its subject corporations, a government surrenders its electoral right to govern.

Points 1, 2 and 3 are, as usual, pompous interpretations of what I wrote MANY times, with examples, and those can be read in the Archives if anyone is still interested in following this thread.

And I am answering this only because I am specifically named in this post.

No interest whatsoever in continuing a "discussion" that is drowned in verbosity and distortions.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. "The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind". www.naturamedica.webs.com