Minutus

Hi John,

Why don't you consider that the term "evidence" applies to these things:
- proving results, and their usefulness in accurate prescribing;
- results of giving the (correct or incorrect) remedy
?

Shannon

Hi Luise,

You ask how we would define "classical."
That would have to depend on the purpose. If it's for purpose of
defining it amongst ourselves, I think we can just use Hahnemann's
definition, and also accept that this is our *basis*, not our endpoint,
and that different of us will interpret and use parts of that in
different ways--and not stress out about it.

If it's for purpose of setting guidelines for a *study*, then the
guidelines would have to be stricter, and to some degree determined by
the needs of the study.

Cheers,
Shannon

Hi Shannon,
Well, as far as I am concerned it is for the purpose of this list. As
Soroush said, it is supposed to be a classical list.

Over the years of exposure on various lists I have got by now kind of
allergic to the recurring yells of "this is not classical homeopathy",
I have got tired and resentful of people leaving the list or answering
only by pm because they had been flamed for trying to help by sharing
their own experience.

Using Hahnemann's definition and his statements in the Organon, hardly
anyone could post, as I have been trying to show. Since he had
included the use of double remedies, i. e. giving two remedies at the
same time!, in the 5th Organon and only withdrew it to spite Hufeland,
double remedies are what would be closest to being acceptable by that
criterium.

However, Soroush is the list manager. I will submit to any definition
he spells out. But it should be spelled out, e. g.:

Not permitted is: discussion of double or multiple remedies, of
sequential dosing, of ...., finding the remedy by intuition, ....

Permitted is discussion of herbs and cell salts accompanying the
simillimum, using aars (or whatever the method David Little described
is called)

So why not make up a FAQ,
spelling out in detail!! what is considered to be classical and thus
acceptable. People get this when they subscribe and once a month. This
seems to work pretty well on Suriya's list.

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 <==========

Hello Luise, Chris,

First to Luise:
Here I am ' interested' in Boenninghaussen. More than getting
interested I feel indebted. Two years back I was writing on his and
Boger's methods here in minutus and homeolist. Let me tell you the why
of my indebtedness.

1. Kent's repertorium and all the subsequent variants are all
adaptations of Boenninghaussen's method. it was Von B who first
separated a valid symptom comples into 'Location, Sensation, Modality' .

2. VB method allows for prescribing on one valid symptom , eg
'hammering pain the head better by bending back'. If only this is
available, then this is enough for a prescription. Location head
(internal, sensation- hammering pain, modality
wrote:
Bönninghausen
be
prescription
the
and
preferred
into the
antidotal, and
sphere of
entirely
learn.
others
the
just one
closely
main
detail
patient
simple
example,
the
the
given
the
where the
more
been
on the
Sulphur; of
of
had the
that
principle of
action of
non-psoric
could be
*qualitatively
remedy,
within the
know
didn't, and
first
and
episode was
may be
necessary
Emergency
it's
Bönninghausen
perfectly
and
status.

Hi Chris, list,

I stick to not wanting to discuss v. B.

But do give me SOME credit. I have studied and researched as my "main
job" v. B's prescriptions, as evidenced by his own documentations
(case books) for about 3 years now, and what you are saying below is
just not correct.

I do not want to change your mind. If you want to believe it that way,
it is ok with me.

The people on the list who agree with you without having taken the
trouble to look at my documentation on my site -- I have no problem
with that, either.

To the others, who might be interested, I say: a lot of the
documentation of what I have written is on my site, a part of it in
English. The German part ist easy to read, since for verifying or
falsifying my assertions you only have to read the dates and remedies.

On http://hpathy.de/papersnew/kunkle-evide ... cine-1.asp
there are more cases. They are taken from one of his publications, an
article headed "Triduum Homoeopathicum" - some of those cases are
exactly like he published them. You should find these cases in English
in v. B's Lesser Writings.

I do not know whether I have presented myself as a fool on this list.
I sort of resent being treated like one - I would have to be a fool
not to know what I am talking about after having worked on that aspect
of v. B. for about 3 years!!!

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 <==========

Luise, you certainly did not seem like a "fool."

Also, personally, I've found the reminder about the Boenninghausen method of
repertorization useful and interesting. It's another tool that sometimes
indicates the correct remedy when other methods haven't worked.

Rosemary

Hi Rosemary,
Sure - and some homeopthas (in Germany) use it or rather the
*Boger*-v. B. method almost exclusiveley, some use it partly.

But that was not the question, was it?:-)

The usefulness and probable excellence of his rep. has nothing to do
with the FACT that he prescribed pre-determined sequences of remedies
and thus does not fall into Soroush's definition of classical
homeopathy.

And regarding the extraordinary knowledge that made it possible for
him (and no-one else!) to prescribe that way: he started experimenting
with it early in 1833, i.e. after mere 3 years of part-time praxis. He
kept up with it from then on.

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 <==========

Shannon,

It is not up to me to define the term. The mainstream medicine has
already had it defined.

Evidence based medicine:

A system of medicine practiced without considering the overall health
of the patient before and/or after the treatment. The prescription
is justified by pre-established evidence. Such evidence is created
based on theory, which is often based on another theory. The theory
is promoted by a school of religion called science. Such religion
believes that anything beyond communicatable human perceptions does
not exist.

Disclaimer:
The author respects and recognizes wisdom in all religions including
science.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
things:
you
evidence
actually
cure
spirit)
to
spirit) to
will
of
kind
my
that
valid
the
patient's
the
than
This
if
and a
sight.
The
this
that,
the
co.uk>
the
yahoogroups.
are
up
the
its
yahoogroups.
alternately.
life
able to
no
term
her
disability
better.
she
times).
inability
get
understand.
her
she
will
relies
periodically
world.
her
also
was
strikes
she
stuff
suspect
family.
anxiety
see
details
cause for
the
nose
in
keeps
from
that
witnessed, i
recovery.
time
year
a
Date:

Thanks John,
I find this definition confusing! Maybe you can clarify:
Hm, that's interesting. So improving the "health" is not the point,
then what is--specific symptom only, or ?
I would have *thought* that provings and clinical experience were
"evidence". What *do* they consider it to be--clinical trials alone,
or what?
I can't make out what they're saying! (Where are you quoting from?)
Can you give me an example, or explain why provings and clinical
experience don't "qualify"?
Ah, it's a *religious* definition. Now I'm really lost...
Is "evidence based medicine" a religious term (confused)?
Many, many scientists would heartily disagree with this last sentence!
Science does NOT say that "anything beyond communicatable human
perception does not exist." It simply doesn't *address* matters that
can't be tested etc., because they are beyond its realm. Any
"scientist" who claims that "science" proves ANYTHING about anything
that it cannot test, is speaking not as a scientist, but rather from
their own "religious" beliefs.

Here's a non-religious definition of it, from
http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art ... ekey=33300

o------------------------------
Definition of Evidence-based medicine

Evidence-based medicine: The judicious use of the best current evidence
in making decisions about the care of the individual patient.
Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is mean to integrate clinical expertise
with the best available research evidence and patient values. EBM was
initially proposed by Dr. David Sackett and colleagues at McMasters
University in Ontario, Canada.
o--------------------------------

According to *this* definition, I sure can't see why homeopathy doesn't
fit: We make "judicious use of the best current evidence in making
decisions about" what remedy to give, if any, etc.

Well, it's sounding like the only reason for *not* considering
homeopathy as an example of "evidence based medicine" would be a
religious one. And I don't want to get into arguing religion!

Best wishes,
Shannon