Minutus

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

Okay; thanks, Shannon. If you want at any time to discuss these other approaches without invoking the scorn and contempt of those who don't want those approaches misrepresented as some kind of homoeopathy, you'll know from now on how to do it, won't you. Let's hope for an end to the circling.

Kindest regards,

John

Dear Liz,

Please get a grip on yourself and read what I wrote about continual changing of the subject. It remains relevant to your message.

If you want to discuss evidence of success as you claim to want to do, then discuss it, and don't keep turning the topic onto the intolerance of those who won't let you call polypharmacy homoeopathy. Whether that success is, in your eyes, preferable to complete failure or preferable to taking a homoeopathic approach is entirely up to you to communicate.

If you want instead to argue why polypharmacy should be considered a form of homoeopathy, then do so, but don't keep turning that topic into our refusal to hear evidence of success, which is not relevant to the question of definition.

Your way forward is really very simple. It's to maintain some intellectual integrity in your discussion -- which means to stick to the question at hand. Sticking to the question at hand will be far easier if you attempt to remain relevant to the question, not trying to shoehorn into it all the other, irrelevant, assertions by nominalising them in passing as being "new" kinds of homoeopathy -- kinds that just happen to violate homoeopathy's single principle. Yes, homoeopathy's principle -- remember the principle? -- is disposable, entirely so; but then you no longer have any kind of homoeopathy, do you?

By the way, in mentioning unfalsifiable hypotheses, what I was referring to are those hypotheses that fail the test of falsifiability. The test of falsifiability requires that the hypothesis entail factual predictions that, if proven false, would prove the hypothesis incorrect. To give an example: the hypothesis that there is a god is not a falsifiable one, because it does not entail the prediction (of anything) that, were it to fail, would show the hypothesis to be incorrect. In short, the nature of the hypothesis is that it cannot be disproven, regardless of the facts. It is unfalsifiable.

This we might contrast with, for instance, the hypothesis that there is a god who would not let injustice occur. That hypothesis entails a prediction -- that no injustice will occur -- that, were it to fail, would disprove the hypothesis. Such a hypothesis is falsifiable.

Lack of falsifiability does not show that the hypothesis is wrong. The hypothesis that there is a god may be perfectly true. But, not being open to disproof, not being falsifiable, it is not a scientific, or scientifically useful, hypothesis. From a standpoint of truth, it may be perfectly true. From a spiritual standpoint, it may be comforting and therefore useful. From a practical standpoint, it's just empty speculations: purposeless, useless drivel.

And that, to be perfectly frank about it, appears to be the nature of the reasoning applied to justify all breeds of polymongrelism counterfeiting as a "new" homoeopathy today. Spiritually, it's no doubt comforting and therefore useful, at least to the person believing in it. And the reasoning may even be true. But from a practical standpoint, it's purposeless, useless drivel that distracts the innocent and drives the informed to distraction. This is especially the case because that drivel comes always in the form of hypocritical pseudotolerant criticism of those who succeed in making homoeopathy serve its purpose -- criticism that they won't try peddling cocktails and recycling garbage as new.

Sorry to state it so bluntly, but only a two by four seems to get through to you, and even that's a risky bet.

You asked why you would even try to explain the foundations of the new polypharmacy. One purpose in doing so would be to make a single coherent statement on the topic. The reason that you have so far utterly failed to do so is that you cannot make up your mind whether your mission is to persecute the piranhas, defend the sharks, circle the encampment, explain your reasoning, give evidence, withdraw from combat, or cry into your milk. Try to do just one constructive thing with a clear mind, and you might get a pleasant surprise. Keep trying to have all things all ways, and your present disappointments will remain the template for your professional life, such as it is.

Kind regards,

John

Sheri, believe it or not, I practice almost entirely according to Organon. The only exception I can think of off-hand, is that I will use unproven remedies if I find sufficient guiding information, and if I deem it appropriate to the circumstances. Other than that, my training and practice (when I was practicing) are entirely "classical", and almost entirely Hahnemannian.

So when you give a rx with no proving what info do you use to prescribe? What is this methodology referred to as? And what is it called when you give a rx with no proving? Pseudopathy? This is the proverbial wanting your cake and eating it to. I practice entirely Classical/ Hahnemeannian Homeopathy, except when I practice something else also...
Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Nelson wrote:

Rik, if you would ever stick your nose beyond your own collar, you would know the answers to all of those questions. Beyond that, I will say to you what I said to John: If you want me to answer any questions, you need to put them to me in a non-combative, non-insulting, etc., manner. I'm doubting you can do it--or would want to--so I'll go happily on with the rest of my evening. )

To me classical suggests old, outdated, steeped in old ways with an iron clad closed mind.

Jeff

Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone

________________________________

From: "RichardS"
Sender: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Wed, 08 Dec 2010 01:53:35 -0000
To:
ReplyTo: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [Minutus] Re: An ethical challenge to combination prescribers [Was: "combo meds'; "combo rmeds"; "SPAM -- combo meds"]
So when you give a rx with no proving what info do you use to prescribe? What is this methodology referred to as? And what is it called when you give a rx with no proving? Pseudopathy? This is the proverbial wanting your cake and eating it to. I practice entirely Classical/ Hahnemeannian Homeopathy, except when I practice something else also...
Rik

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

Well, but it doesn't!
No more than classical music means "boring music."

In both cases, although the meaning is not *precise* and the boundaries are fuzzy, still it describes a method. That's all, just a method!
________________________________

Here are the questions:
1) When you arrive at a remedy choice and said rx has no proving, what are you practicing as a method? What is the name of this process when you prescribe a potentised substance with no MM? If we were to agree that it is not Classical Homeopathy, as the prescription is arrived at using something other than sx totality or the matching of a known substance to a similar pathology, then what is this process defined as?
Best regards...and minus the snarky sarcasm, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon Nelson wrote:

Don't forget to add "curative", and "awesome", and based on empirical evidence as opposed to what ever floats your fancy on any given day!
Rik

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, jtikari@... wrote: