Minutus

well, i don't think there is a field of anything that doesn't have its
controveries about how 'it' should be done. i use an integral chiropractor.
he went through the standard schools and then went on to develop this
type of adjustment work. it is pure energy. he considers himself to
be a professional chiropractor. others in the field have rejected that
way of working and refuse to acknowledge it as being chiropractic.
now i was told by a chiro once that in her school there were many
(over a dozen) styles of chiro taught. integral was maybe not one
of them. only to give one of numerous examples. the ama has very
rigid standards and if an md decides to go holistic or support home
births they may find themselves without a license (as did someone
in my county a number of years ago--and he still does not have it back

tanya

Dear Shannon and colleagues
Please read
http://www.vithoulkas.com/images/storie ... hy_fin.pdf
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Robert & Shannon Nelson
Sent: 02 August 2008 16:09
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] some advice wanted
Hi Luise,
The difference of opinion goes again to whether one defines homeopathy as "What Hahnemann told us to do," or "What people calling themselves homeopaths have done." It is a problem, and IMO a serious one!, that we can't come to an agreement about it.

Personally, I would vote that we ("classicals") acknowledge that the usage of the term has *changed* since Hahnemann's, in a way that would be difficult *or perhaps impossible* to recall, and move on from there. It's actually a *good* thing that the term has become so embedded, even tho not in the way we (or Hahnemann) would have preferred.

Again, I think that, instead of continuing the battle over "who's right" (i.e. who's really doing what Hahnemann directed) and "who's wrong" (i.e. everyone who uses the term or practice of "homeopathy" in any other way), we ought to simply embrace--and then MAKE PUBLIC USE OF-- good ol' modifiers: "classical homeopathy"; "Hahnemannian homeopathy"; even "combo homeopathy". If we do *that*, we can regain some control over at least *some* of the misjudgments that are currently being flung at us; we can stand or fall as "classical homeopaths" on basis of trials and practices that *conform* to "classical homeopathy", including individualization etc.

Shannon
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1586 - Release Date: 8/1/2008 6:59 PM

very clear article soroush.
but let me inflame the argment a bit.
there are people who function on that 'spiritual' level and
are real diviners. they may not even like my use of those words.
however, there is much about living in this world that most dont
understand.
our western culture has promoted this concept of science as
being very material in its protocols. it has eliminated all ideas
that can't be forced into a test tube. but here we are, in homeopathy,
trusting that things that have not been seen with a test tube or microscope
are real. our evidence based system is promoted on signs and symtoms
of provings and cured cases. but science still doesn't accept our evidence
as real or meaningful. clinical evidence in other fields is equally rejected.
it can't be controlled in neat, tight little packages.
many homeopaths pander to this version of science and keep looking
for the acceptable scientific demonstrations that homeopathy works
themselves. they call x number of cases healed as evidence based
science. but the mainstream rejects it.
however, functioning on other levels such as intuition is poo poo'd and
nonsense. why? because it cant be packaged and sold with patents!
interestingly, a few years ago there was a big resurgence of training in
the development of intuition. stock brokers were hiring intuits to teach them
so they could hone their prediction skills on the stock market. police
departments hired these people because, unofficially, they recognized
that goo detective work or interview work depended so heavily on
the intuitiveness of the officer. they recognized that this area of performance
would not be learned in a test tube, but it was core to their 'successful'
functioning in the field.
so why do we get so on the defensive about this? simply because homeopathy,
generally, has been on the defensive for so long and has bought into the
idea of meeting contemporary standards that cannot be applied to homeopathy
--at least at this time.
miasmatic theory is a very esoteric concept that even many homeopathys dont
quite get. but epigenetics, i think, may prove the basis for understanding how
this concept works. and we will begin to take cases based on very old family
or cultural history. i did a case once based on past life experiences of the person,
since that was the only arena that i had not included in the case analysis. and
that was the key to a very big piece of this pts puzzle. i am sure many would
laugh at my doing this, but it worked.
so, i think, much of the problem, as reflected in john doo's remedy suggestion
response, is that one needs to be able to explain what the reflection was about.
it goes to the heart of how do we teach others to develop their intuition and how
to become more open listeners which i think involves connecting on a deep
empathetic level that i call spiritual connection.
i think that much of the problem we have has to do with some folks not being
able to explain/teach what they do versus others who really need a more fixed
type of formula to operate out of.
sorry for the long post
tanya
________________________________

Dear poor Soroush,
Principles are a thing of the past. None of your crazy evidence is needed. We should spend more time re-imagining the Organon or ignoring it altogether. Just because Mr. Doo likes to play pseudo-path on your Hahnemannian website, does not mean that he is wrong. In fact not only is he rightish but in the new world of passive political correctness it makes you wrong to even challenge his ideas utilizing civil public discourse. How dare you try to hold your fellow homeopaths to a higher standard. What do you think this is, the science of medicine?
As for me, my intuition told me to burn all of my MM's a long time ago. I sent a sample of the ashes to Helios so they could make me a collection of all of the potencies from 1X to 307M. Then I burned the Organons in my keep and did the same. Now for every patient who comes in I just give Orga. 1X, LM4, 417C, 1M and MM. 1M and 47M. I go up the potency scale during the consultation and by the time they have left I have adminestered 6 doses of unproven rx's. And you know what? It actually affects some degree of amelioration in about 7% of my cases! So there is your evidence! The first time I did this back in the 40's I did wonder if perhaps for those it did help if it was just the placebo effect, but I had had enough of all this silly evidence and principle blah, blah, blah. For those it did not help, and only caused horrible aggravations, they must be incurable cases, obviously.
But I could not remember some of those aphorisms from my burned Organons, which made management very difficult. Of course that's what zealots do right! We burn everything and stand on our intuition...................... and dosing rods, magnets, crystals and dream/meditative provings, and the occassional spontaneous cure that falls into our 7%!
Please understand Soroush that Hahnemann would want "everything" to be Homeopathy now. He would be writing his 44th ed. of the Organon and every whim and passing idea would be included. Of course he would have to throw out the science part but that would make room for everybodies feelings. And if Hahnemann resisted? He would be burned as a zealot by said zealots.
Why dear Soroush can we not have our cake and eat it to?

All in fun....sort of
Peace and prosperity, Rik

Evidence is something you can show other people to justify what you do or say. Allopathic doctors consider themselves practice evidence based medicine. They use lab tests and such to justify their prescriptions, a way to escape responsibilities from what actually happen to the patients in my opinion.
Homeopathy works on energy level. We use the principle of like cure like to heal patients by matching energetic signature (or the spirit) of the patient with that of the remedy. Symptoms are just clues to the spirit.
As of now we have no tool to show energetic signature (or spirit) to use as evidence. If we attempt to use symptoms as evidence, we will discover that for every patient there are dozens if not hundreds of remedies that may or may not be the one. Who will accept that kind of evidence?
For liability reason, Mr. Soroush is not the only homeopath who doesn’t want to admit that homeopathy is not evidence based. In my opinion such deny is unnecessary. How can an evidence-based court prosecute a homeopath, if no one can produce evidence to show that the homeopath gives anything other than a little water and a tiny sugar?
Let’s focus on heal the patients instead. Results are the only valid testimony.
--- On Sat, 8/2/08, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

One remedy, two remedies or 8+ remedies. In India combos are becoming more & more
popular because they work! And most of the ingredients are around the 3 to 8 potency.
Jeff
________________________________

And what do you about the Second prescription?

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jtikari@vsnl.com
Sent: 03 August 2008 11:27
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] some advice wanted
One remedy, two remedies or 8+ remedies. In India combos are becoming more & more
popular because they work! And most of the ingredients are around the 3 to 8 potency.
Jeff
________________________________
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.10/1587 - Release Date: 8/2/2008 5:30 PM

Hi Shannon,
As always, the devil is in the detail.

How would you label v. Boenninghausen? He did not work the way Soroush
postulated, Hahnann certainly knew that and obviously did not mind. He
covered him with laurels in his letters - all through the time he knew
him. So I should think he definitely was a "Hahnemannian" homeopath -
but by Soroush's definition he was not a "classical" one.

Giving cell salst alongside with the simillimum is also not classical.

Scholten's and Sankaran's methods are not classical.

To what degree is "organ support" classical?

At least some homeopaths on this list do not consider Ardavan's method
classical. The same goes for Parimal Banerji, Ramakrishnan, Elizeaga,
Sehgal...

To some repeating the same remedy in dilution without first
re-evaluating is not classical.

So how will we define "classical"?
Let's list up those misjudgements and analyse what it really is they
fling at us. Let's also analyse **who** flings **what kinds** of
misjudgements and who the respective flingers are - and then
re-discuss.

we can stand or fall as
Where we have returne to the start: let us define "individualization".
I know that my definition is quite different from yours, just as an
example.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Sorry my last post didn't come out right. Here is the re-post:

Evidence is something you can show other people to justify what you
do or say. Allopathic doctors consider themselves practice evidence
based medicine. They use lab tests and such to justify their
prescriptions, a way to escape responsibilities from what actually
happen to the patients in my opinion.
Homeopathy works on energy level. We use the principle of like cure
like to heal patients by matching energetic signature (or the spirit)
of the patient with that of the remedy. Symptoms are just clues to
the spirit.

As of now we have no tool to show energetic signature (or spirit) to
use as evidence. If we attempt to use symptoms as evidence, we will
discover that for every patient there are dozens if not hundreds of
remedies that may or may not be the one. Who will accept that kind
of evidence?

For liability reason, Mr. Soroush is not the only homeopath who
doesn't want to admit that homeopathy is not evidence based. In my
opinion such deny is unnecessary. How can an evidence-based court
prosecute a homeopath, if no one can produce evidence to show that
the homeopath gives anything other than a little water and a tiny
sugar?

Let's focus on heal the patients instead. Results are the only valid
testimony.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
call
by
symptoms?
know how
Similimum.
is
not
therefore
com] On
He
this
young
girl.
you
mother
wrote:
same
com] On
the
best
co.uk>
course?
com]
One
Pulsatilla
report to

become
suicidal
sick
the
results
her
the
the
that
would
she has
periodically. she
acutally
that
which
comfort
Date:
Date:

Dear John
You wrote "Results are the only testimony" - Yes - but results can mean different things to different people - Cure, palliation and suppression need to be distinguished apart.
The evidence we have is in our experiments called provings.
As you well know the result of the first proving of China lead Hn to discover Homeopathy.
Full results are to be found in Hn's writings of Organon, Chronic Diseases and Materia Medica Pura and of course others by numerous authors of Materia Medica.
I you stand up in a court as a homeopath and state that you only gave a little water and a little sugar, the prosecution will ask you
"Did you give Sac Lac?"
If you answer yes, you would have lied! (They may even come back at you calling you a charlatan for having fooled the patient, given them just a little sugar and water and charged them lots of dollars etc).
If you answer no, and eventually admit that you had prescribed a remedy, then the case is proved against you.
Do not forget that this exchange could take place before the ethics committee of the body with which you may be registered as a Homoeopath and who covers your insurance etc. They will know the ins and outs of the case.
If your position is that 'I can do anything and no one can prove anything against me', then I fear for your patients.
Rgds
Soroush

________________________________

From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of johndoo8
Sent: 04 August 2008 16:06
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: some advice wanted
Sorry my last post didn't come out right. Here is the re-post:

Evidence is something you can show other people to justify what you
do or say. Allopathic doctors consider themselves practice evidence
based medicine. They use lab tests and such to justify their
prescriptions, a way to escape responsibilities from what actually
happen to the patients in my opinion.

Homeopathy works on energy level. We use the principle of like cure
like to heal patients by matching energetic signature (or the spirit)
of the patient with that of the remedy. Symptoms are just clues to
the spirit.

As of now we have no tool to show energetic signature (or spirit) to
use as evidence. If we attempt to use symptoms as evidence, we will
discover that for every patient there are dozens if not hundreds of
remedies that may or may not be the one. Who will accept that kind
of evidence?

For liability reason, Mr. Soroush is not the only homeopath who
doesn't want to admit that homeopathy is not evidence based. In my
opinion such deny is unnecessary. How can an evidence-based court
prosecute a homeopath, if no one can produce evidence to show that
the homeopath gives anything other than a little water and a tiny
sugar?

Let's focus on heal the patients instead. Results are the only valid
testimony.

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com , Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
call
by
symptoms?
know how
Similimum.
is
not
therefore
com] On
He
this
young
girl.
you
mother
wrote:
same
com] On
the
best
co.uk>
course?
com]
One
Pulsatilla
report to

become
suicidal
sick
the
results
her
the
the
that
would
she has
periodically. she
acutally
that
which
comfort
Date:
Date:
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
Version: 8.0.138 / Virus Database: 270.5.12/1589 - Release Date: 8/3/2008 1:00 PM