Minutus

I do agree - the way I see it most prescriptions are based on 'guess work' and how can it be otherwise. We know that everybody's body reacts differently to anything that it ingest or experiences - so there can only be an 'educated guess' at best. Provings are there to show us what might happen and what symptoms can be seen if the body reacts with in the known frame of the remedy or medication. Again the operative word here is 'educated guess'. Always with the motto of:Do no Harm in mind. But will we be right a 100% of the time? I doubt it.

Gisela Di Carlo,
Dipl. Veterinary Homeopath
570 504 5848
http://thebeautygroup.org

I just thought it worth clarifying that the people and practices being
panned here go beyond Irene and myself, on into the ranks of Scholten,
Sankaran, Mangialavore, Will Taylor, *and* any homeopath who uses any
of their work. I find this so sad.

Okay, just checking. Anyway, let that give perspective to the opinions
expressed by some people re others on this list.

Which we have now labeled "sophistry", and made clear that it is all to
be condemned, yes?
That makes it okay, then? Phew, so my guys are off the hook!
Scholten too has readily confirmed the "guesswork", and encourages
provings to verify. (Tho he also finds clinical effects to be
meaningful. Imagine that! )
Good, like Scholten! Except that he also supplements "guesswork" with
"increasingly well-tested theory." BTW the Periodic Table of the
Elements was constructed in exactly the same way--observations of
patterns, then work to arrange the facts observed in a way that lent
predictive power, then making the predictions, then testing them. In
the case of the Periodic Table the predictions, when able to be tested
as new elements were discovered or created, turned out to be not
*exact*, but really extremely close.

Scholten appears to be having similar "luck" with his little delusional
efforts.
Sorry, you guys are giving "Hahnemannian homeopathy" a bad name, and I
think it would be MUCH better to have it left as a bedrock, a
foundation, a point of reference--rather than the be-all and end-all of
homeopathy.

This is sad.

What does this mean
Are you now suggesting we 'do' homeopathy via predictions?

What does this mean
Are you saying that Scholten is Hahnemannian and who now is giving Hahnemannian homeopathy a bad name and just why can you NOT accept Hahnemannian as the be all and end all - what exactly are your objections to it, please let us know (limited to 2 paragraphs by the way)!

Joy
http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Replying privately.

I would prefer you didn't. Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

But a reply here is expected but if you choose not to then so be it.

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

Well, I'll wait to see whether anyone else expresses interest.
If not, and you prefer no private answer, then I'll pass.

This isn't so much an answer or an opinion, more an attempt at clarification.

Hahnemann "rediscovered" laws of nature and found ways of harnessing them in a non-toxic method. So we have laws - which are bedrock, unchanging, around the law of similars. The ways of harnessing those laws, using artificial diseases by means of potentised remedies, are part of the methodology. We know that Hahnemann was constantly testing out the methodology, changing the way he worked, so it would seem to me that people who play with the methodology are being completely Hahnemannian. If he were alive he'd still be experimenting. Perhaps different forms of potentisation, even different ways of producing remedies, could come under this category. On the other hand, to the best of my knowledge (maybe someone can correct me here), Hahnemann didn't experiment with the law of similars. Once he'd found how it could be used, developed methodology to determine what remedy to give, that was more or less it.

So according to this, polypharmacy goes against bedrock. But dry dosing, plussing, water doses, grafting, external application, mixing potencies (I know someone who does this..), etc. are all part of the area that is open to experimentation. So even though I'm a committed water-doser - I can't say dry dosing is not Hahnemannian, just that it's not what Hahnemann was using at the end of his life.

If you look at this, speculation goes against bedrock. The methodology recommended by Hahnemann specifically trains us to match case to remedy according to the law of similars - speculation is very clearly not part of this. So although I doubt there's anyone on this list, me included, who has never speculated, found their hunch paid off, and was glad they had bent the rules, speculation can't be included in a definition of homeopathy. So although I acknowledge the great contribution of homeopaths like Scholten - just because he speculated and succeeded doesn't mean speculation can be included in the bedrock definition of homeopathy.

Perhaps part of what needs to be clarified in this whole discussion is the difference between the governing principles of homeopathy and between the many different practices of homeopathy. If a definition is ever to be reached, I think it's through the governing principles, not the different practices.

I'm not sure if this clarifies or muddies!

Vera
--
------------------------------------
Vera Resnick RCHom
Classical Homeopath
Alternative Medicine
054-4640736
e-mail: vera.homeopath@gmail.com
www.freewebs.com/verahomeopath

John, I'm a lurker on this list and I have been for a long time, just happen coincidentally to be posting more frequently this last week. I'm not a homeopath--at best a lay homeopath--but a successful journalist who has written about homeopathy in national magazines and now have a cover story assignment on biophotons where I may include some homeopathy research if I have time.

I just want to say that I think your posts are way out of line to me as a reader the past week. These posts don't reflect well on your profession. You seem to glory in relentless sardonic questioning, mostly philosophic not practical, and to attack rather viciously (Irene). I didn't think Joy's sardonic post to Irene was warranted either. What is the point?

I learn a lot when people ask advice and get answers about cases and approaches.

Perhaps you need to address your own mental state homeopathically!

With respect as, mostly, a lurker

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote: