Minutus

Ardavan has also asked repeatedly that we treat each other with kindness and respect.

Sigh, love you too, Rik. Have a nice day.

Well, Rik, no marks for tolerance! Or for politeness!
I am well aware of the mission statement - I practise classical homeopathy along with the best of you. HOWEVER, there are also other ways of practising that others use and find very good. When such a subject comes up, only to be shot down in flames, by people who really know nothing about it, and with insults to boot, my hackles are raised.
I am not trying to convert anyone away from classical homeopathy, simply putting the case for other approaches where it is obvious the attacker knows nothing about the subject.
It costs nothing to be polite, Rik - and simply to listen and then beg to differ. And you know what? you might well persuade others, who don't really know anything about homeopathy at all, that you're right after all. But being abusive never won any new friends.
Liz

I am not sure how the point can be so precisely and specifically missed or purposely avoided so many times.
Some of us are very well versed about other methods and when the weakness of those methods is pointed out and/or how it does not even come close to fitting the schema of this site then you still blatantly persist. How? Why? You are trying to make this a question of others' tolerance. It is not. If this site had anything to do with tolerance it would say so in the mission statement.
You calling me an attacker is intolerant and offensive. Where is your politeness. How dare you tell me that I know nothing of other methods that's a real leap on your part. Frankly it is beyond ignorant of you and terribly arrogant to make such a gross assumption.
Of course we would not be having this conversation if you just stuck to the spread of Hahnemmanian/Classical Homeopathy, i.e. the mission statement.
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Liz Brynin" wrote:

What exactly has been impolite and disrespectful?
If Ardavan considers my posts to not be polite and not exuding of respect then he can have Soroush throw me off.

Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Nelson wrote:

I rest my case:
"You calling me an attacker is intolerant and offensive. Where is your politeness. How dare you tell me that I know nothing of other methods that's a real leap on your part. Frankly it is beyond ignorant of you and terribly arrogant to make such a gross assumption."
"Charlatans, revolutionaries, Liz's, whatever you want to call them, just read the Mission Staement of the site. Take yourself and your ever increasingly slippery and "flexible" ideas on Homeoapthy elsewhere. John's position isn't built on "his" rightness, it is built on the status/position/rightness of the site.

Yes, especially in France and Belgium where you cannot see/treat patients unless you are an MD, unless laws have become more liberal since I left.
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

Hi, Shannon --

It's not clear to me that we're in disagreement even regarding the type of discussion that may be valuable. If you or Liz want to seriously discuss whether another approach to healing might be superior to the one of prescribing the closest symptomatic mimic of the patient's state, I'm sure that most on this list would tolerate it. This I can confidently assert despite the nature of the list, because with few exceptions what prevails on the list is a good-hearted intelligence, and openness to evidence is the only way to check our certainties about what is best for the patient.

And every one of us at least claims to want what is best for the patient.

Though it pains me -- and pains any real homoeopath -- to think that somebody supposedly trained in homoeopathy would, merely in order to save a few hours of real work and whip up an illusion, send a patient away with anything less than the most approximate symptomatic mimic she could find, of course the value of doing so and all the other alternatives are worth assessing and highlighting. That way, it's at least theoretically possible that somebody might broaden horizons or gain in ability and ultimately do better by those who matter: patients.

Where discussion of this topic goes seriously awry, though, is in compulsive changing of the subject.

On a list dedicated to homoeopathic prescription, what you and Liz choose to discuss, interminably, are complexes, compound medicines, simultaneous prescriptions, and the wild speculative and unfalsifiable hypotheses you and others use to justify them.

When the subject under discussion then inevitably becomes the irrelevance to homoeopathy of polypharmacy, what you and Liz choose to discuss is the ignorance of homoeopaths who it comforts you to imagine don't understand your wild speculations.

When the subject is the irrelevance to homoeopathy of wild speculation, what you and Liz choose to discuss is intolerance and rudeness.

When the subject is the ethics of conscious misrepresentation, what you and Liz choose to discuss is the ignorance of real homoeopaths of those rationalisations for polypharmacy, the intolerance of those who won't corrupt themselves to "just try" it, the rudeness of those who discriminate between homoeopathy and polypharmacy… oh, and your lack of opportunity to present the evidence for the superiority of polypharmacy over homoeopathy.

But you refuse to present that evidence unless you're permitted to simultaneously call polypharmacy homoeopathy too -- bringing us full circle to the discussion's origin and successfully avoiding the all-important point that polypharmacy is not and can never be homoeopathy.

And what both you and Liz do, along with your polypharmacy cheer squad, when you realise that this circling around your prey (the name of homoeopathy) is becoming undeniable in its obviousness is to noisily and indignantly complain and withdraw from discussion -- till you perceive your next opportunity (two minutes to six months later) to misrepresent polypharmacy as being not only relevant to but actually a type of homoeopathy; and then you begin all over again, having learnt nothing from the previous rounds.

If you or Liz, in claiming special knowledge of the value of "individualised" mixtures over single medicines that are prescribable homoeopathically, wish to make a case for those mixtures, then you have only to do so.

The internecine strife whose origins you so self-righteously allocate to the homoeopaths on the list is perfectly avoidable at any time you'd like to begin some honest, straightforward communication that sticks to the topic at hand.

If you'd like to repeat the catchcry of the superior value of polypharmacy over failure to help the patient at all -- and perhaps even substantiate it with evidence -- I'm sure that everybody here who knows how to help the patient in other ways will be moved to offer comfort and advice.

If you'd like to assert that polypharmacy may at times even be better than going directly to a homoeopathic prescription, and perhaps even rationalise the assertion with a single case that "worked" to "clear" a symptom to make the patient -- the patient! -- ready for a homoeopathic prescription, I'm sure that the assertion and whatever evidence you can muster will be heard with at least polite, even smiling, tolerance, if not active interest.

If, however, what you'd prefer to do is to use every subject, every opportunity, every excuse, not to do what you claim you'd like to do but instead to restart the project of rebranding polypharmacy as its direct antithesis -- homoeopathy -- then you will have a struggle on your hands for the tolerance you claim you wish to enjoy.

Tolerance should be extended in humility to offers of evidence to overthrow ideas: mine, yours, and others'.

It should be extended in kindness to cries of difficulty or voicelessness: mine, yours, and others'.

But I can't think of ant situation in which tolerance toward the self-serving deception of others may be justified.

Self-serving deception of others, by the way, is -- in case you'd forgotten -- the topic of this thread, which began with the question

"Do you, or would you be willing to, as a matter of principle, refuse to accept payment for the consultation resulting in a "combination" prescription?".

I've seen plenty of intolerant backlash to the question from you and Liz and even Sue Boyle. I haven't yet, though, seen a relevant reply from any of you except for Liz's implicit "No" -- and even that was noncommittal.

On the other topic of potential interest, the one you and Liz have claimed for years to wish to discuss -- the topic of evidence for the sometime superiority of polypharmacy over homoeopathy -- if you really wish to discuss it, then there is a perfectly straightfoward way to do so; one that won't invite the scathing contempt that the two of you manage to invoke every time you raise the topic. Do you need it spelt out for you again?

Yes, perhaps you do.

It's perfectly simple. When you want to discuss the advantages of a spade over a pitchfork, call it a spade. Don't call it a superior pitchfork. Remember that, and you'll be all right.

But keep calling it a pitchfork, and watch what you get.

Kind regards --

John

? Liz and I are both classical homeopaths. So why would we want to do that? I think you have not *really* missed the intent in this matter, so I won't bother to reiterate.
Of course--that's what has always happened. "Most" are happy to let the discussion run, but a few insist on ... er, doing otherwise.
With certain striking and sometimes persistent exceptions.
Wow, something we agree on!
Yeah. Bummer about those of us who are lying, hm? :-/ (What on earth does *that* refer to???)

All right, the rest of this I don't feel like replying to.
Best wishes,
Shannon

And if I pick up where Shannon left off -
"If you or Liz want to seriously discuss whether another approach to healing might be superior to the one of prescribing the closest symptomatic mimic of the patient's state, I'm sure that most on this list would tolerate it. "
Nope. Sorry! I haven't seen any tolerance from you and a few others like you - ever - we are hounded out of the water each and every time.
"...somebody supposedly trained in homoeopathy would, merely in order to save a few hours of real work and whip up an illusion..."
I take exception to this slur - you obviously mean that Shannon and I (and by extension anyone else who uses anything other than purely classical homeopathy) always take the short cuts, that we are not prepared to spend time and effort on our prescriptions, that we are cheating our patients. That's a particularly nasty thing to imply. (And if this is NOT lack of tolerance , or an insult, then what is it?)
"...and the wild speculative and unfalsifiable hypotheses you and others use to justify them."
This phrase actually has me rather confused. I don't really know what you mean by 'unfalsifiable' However, to talk about "wild speculative hypotheses" is to talk complete rubbish. It's obvious from this that you have no knowledge of these other methods, so therefore you cannot assert what they are based on.
"But you refuse to present that evidence unless you're permitted to simultaneously call polypharmacy homoeopathy too "
No - er, I think you've missed the point here. I'm not arguing really about whether it's called homeopathy or not, because the world has passed you by! Like it or not, they are known as homeopathy, and there's not much you can do about that. (But if it makes you feel better, call it whatever you like. It's not going to change the fact that these approaches use certain homeopathic principles.)
No, actually, I'm more interested in the evidence that exists for these other approaches. But to repeatedly ask me to justify my assertions, to give chapter and verse, to expound on them? Why on earth would I want to even try? Would you be able to justify and explain classical homeopathy in just one email? Would you even want to try? I don't think so. Likewise, there is no way that I can ever explain the principles and philosophy behind something like the Narayani remedies in an email - or in one case - all that this will do is give you the flavour of what I am talking about. The rest is up to you. But whenever I present a case, based on personal experience, where one of my patients has been helped by polypharmacy or dry potencies - whatever - I am jumped on and ridiculed from a great height. Each. And. Every. Time!!
"If you'd like to assert that polypharmacy may at times even be better than going directly to a homoeopathic prescription, and perhaps even rationalise the assertion with a single case that "worked" to "clear" a symptom to make the patient -- the patient! -- ready for a homoeopathic prescription, I'm sure that the assertion and whatever evidence you can muster will be heard with at least polite, even smiling, tolerance, if not active interest."
Oh, would that that were true! It's farcical really - you can't even stand back at look at your own response objectively. You can't even see your own lack of tolerance and refusal to listen without piling on the insults.
"the self-serving deception of others"
This is an insult, plain and simple - and a rather nasty one.
"Do you, or would you be willing to, as a matter of principle, refuse to accept payment for the consultation resulting in a "combination" prescription?".

I've seen plenty of intolerant backlash to the question from you and Liz and even Sue Boyle. I haven't yet, though, seen a relevant reply from any of you except for Liz's implicit "No" -- and even that was noncommittal."
I have not commented on that question. My only responses have been to the question of the efficacy of combo meds as you like to call them, originally in reply to an email posted by Jeff.
"When you want to discuss the advantages of a spade over a pitchfork, call it a spade. Don't call it a superior pitchfork."
I have never put forward the idea that any of the other homeopathic approaches we have discussed are superior. Please don't put words into my mouth. They are simply other approaches - just that. No more and no less. The only question of superiority seems to come from you and those of your ilk.
Liz