Minutus

If you'd like to criticize my communication techniques further (anyone) you
are welcome to do so.

Since is it OFF-TOPIC, kindly direct your criticism to my personal address
instead of the list address.

send to: big-meanie@localcomputermart.com

ps - please re-plumb your viewpoint. There is no insult or innuendo posted
below.
Just the facts, Jack.
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

Hi Bob,

So what do you think should be done? Even if everything non-classical is
worthless (which I sincerely doubt), we are not going to make it all go
away.

Shannon
on 11/4/02 9:35 PM, Bob Needham at bneedham@amtelecom.net wrote:

What we should do, and especially in a group like this one where there
are quite a few professionals, is, when discussing non classical stuff,
request an explanation on the why, the how, the possible/probable
mechanism of action, etc,.....

In other words, not be satisfied with "I do like this, period" but try
to understand it, to reason it, to discuss the pros and the cons, to see
how it relates to Hahnemanian teaching and to others, how it relates to
other ways of thinking and what are the links, the relations between
them.

We will all gain from that, even if we do not include it in our
practices.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

Guess-o-pathy is not homeopathy by the broadest definition possible.

Using homeopathic remedies as paint remover is about as closely related as
the homotoxicology stuff.

If you've got a problem with my objection to Isali's constant posting of
off-topic stuff, why don't YOU take it up with Ardavan? (..who has just
reposted once again the list's guidelines which are very short & simple and
prominently state that the list is a "classical homeopathy list")

As for rudeness- you must've missed Isali's most recent non-answer to my
questioning whether or not he's ever studied Organon (I think we can safely
assume not)

When people who lack understanding of and grounding in *HOMEOPATHY*
take up a fringe-issue such as ST or Reckeweg's stuff there is near-zero
value in hearing about their 'cases'

What is there that is "homeopathic" about giving a mixture of 15 remedies in
3 potencies?
God only knows, no one else could ever hope to, especially someone who
hasn't even studied homeopathy as a stand-alone full system, and gained some
experience with remedies, remedy reaction, case management in strictly
homeopathic cases, and so on.

If you've been paying attention, you will have noticed my first 10 requests
to Isali to post on topic were purely polite and laid out my reasoning for
the request beyond the simple fact that it is incredibly arrogant to post
continually off-topic.

I hope that we can get back to the topic now, and try to stay on it.
"classical homeopathy"

If anyone would like assistance on how to find additional lists (or set up
h/ir own) where the topic is more of an anything-that-might-help type of
discussoin, I'd be happy to be of service.
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240

HI Shannon
I did not say everything non classical is worthless - I use whatever tools
are best for the moment with an 90% emphasis on classical. Case in point - a
few months ago a women suffering extreme PMS tried the health food store
approach with no results and only through the intervention of her friend and
patient of mine was persuaded to seek professional help. Had she not gone
the later route, she certainly would have left as she said with a view that
homeopathy was tradgically flawed.
You ask what to do - I guess be properly trainned in homeopathoic principals
to know what protocol may or may not be used.
Hope that helps
Bob

Yes

Bob

not forgetting A U Ramakrishnan... I spent last night reading this month's letter page from 'The Homeopath' and again there was discussion of acceptance .... acceptance of his method by an author of an article describing and reviewing his book in the previous journal . Her contention was because she couldn't say whether the nosode or the constitutional remedy used in each was the 'cure' she dismissed his method. She rejected as it didn't fit with her classically trained outlook- it stripped her of certainties - but as Dr Ramakrishnan maintains Cancer is doesn't follow 'normal'
rules.

Homeopathy essentially is not about rules and regulations, what everyone touts as the rules is our philosophy, our belief system about the best way to heal. Rules imply routine and rigidity ... we should be taking our cues from our patient's needs during the healing process.

Homeopathy is about thinking outside the box sometimes, often new ideas have to break through years of resistance from 'established practice and regulations' (no I am not making a case for half-hearted attempts at treating through batteries of possible remedies). One has to remember when Hahnnemann talks of the simillimum this is an IDEAL we all wish attain in practice, but reality kicks in and the complexity of modern diseases (artificial) often masks sign-symptoms to the extent that hitting the bulls-eye is very very hard.

The master himself was not happy with his method and continued refining and experimenting and it is in this spirit I think we should all remain open and susceptible to new discoveries through the experiential method- if we do not, we fail; we die as physicians and healers.

Jas
twhite7101@aol.com wrote:

You sir execute the philosophy of Descart. You find the rationale to
justify your conclusions. You are incorrect in your operable premise
regarding this site, and you are incorrect in your misreading of the thread
regarding Galileo. The issue there was how the holier than thou posture of
a select few bullied an entire culture into submission and ignorance for
several hundred years. I am directing the parallel to you where it belongs.
You are exceptionally judgemental and imposing of your singular views with a
righteous indignation for any differences, and a void of childish
inquisitiveness which is the catalyst that drove those teachers of
historical noteworthiness. Your placement would find appropriateness as a
radio talk show host, there you would have your finger on your red button
for 'mute that caller'. Here you are powerless, merely another entrant into
our common domain of colleagues and interested users. As such why not come
to the table, place the napkin upon your lap, utilise the appropriate
utensils, and don't talk with a mouthful of undigested thoughts.

Your offerings of disgust and discontent would be more appropriately
directed to me personally, or to the host of the site, where it belongs,
rather than the entire site that wish to discuss clinical cases.

greetings elham. I would like to pick up on your reference that insulin
must have a place in homeopathy, but..........must be done by provings and
not by the name of a disease....obtain its symptoms first. Pardon my
chopping of your e-mail. I hope I relate its essence.

In another thread I made reference to the patient's clinical manifestations
as being reflective of her Dx of Hep. and Diabetes in the extreme. I
believe it is fair to utilise the shorthand of allopathy for its descriptive
value of a morphological picture. No one on this site requires an
elaborated description of hepatitis or diabetes. If one is uncertain a
review of Merck's manual or some other source will provide a detailed
description. And the shorthand respects space limitations and time
involvement of the reader.

I infer from your reference of the existence of some homeopathic value for
insulin; that there is a common understanding amongst us that the reflection
of any substance has a definite correlation to its pharmaceutical action.
And that this action of a mother tincture will find reflection in the
soma,... the Arndt-Shulz rule. A formal proving establishes this in a
formated detail that allows for a more eloquent assessment and application
of its use....the materica medica.

Short of a formal proving, a patient comes to the physician for relief of a
mophological condition for which they suffer. My choice as a physician is
to render an intention to aid the patients inherent responses to their
condition by means of the application of the notion. 'practice do no harm'.

I take advantage of the allopathic identification of embryonic developement
of tissue which enables us to evaluate the course of treatment as it
reflects itself in the soma. Thereby establishing whether a suppression or
regressive vicariation is at play.

My intention is to merely share with others what I clinically observe.
Merely the sharing of information. I don't perceive anything less than the
application of 'practice do no harm' and the effective treatment of a
clinical case with exceptional results based on a good diagnosis by
colleagues unkown to me and by my observations, and follow-up visits which
establish the regressive vicariation of the case.

I hope this addresses what were your concerns

Dear friends,
You can tell a person to please sit down and you can also tell him to take his bloody seat. They both mean the same thing but what a difference.
I think more important than the Homoeopathy we practice is the type of physician we are.
Let us all agree to disagree and keep our discussions healthy.
The difference betwen classical Homoeopathy and the non-classical type is like going to a tailor.
In classical Homoeopathy you try to fit the clothes to the patient.
In the non-classical type you have one size suit for everyone-man, woman and child. At times you will get a perfect fit. But more often the size will not fit and you will face failures.
Try to learn classical Homoeopathy, it is difficult but worth the trouble.
May I request everyone to end this discussion.
best regards
elham