Re: BFR
Posted: Thu Jul 25, 2013 10:01 pm
Shannon, it might help you to recall Irene's oft-stated position on all this. Convoluted and self-contradictory as that is, I'm not going to attempt to sum it up here and now, but you're quite capable of referring to Irene's many facile claims: • regarding Hahnemann's inability to understand the superiority of prescribing multiple medicines at once; • regarding her confinement of polypharmacy to multiple medicines in the one tablet; • regarding her exclusion of two medicines from the meaning of "multiple"; • regarding the possibility, no, the necessity, of prescribing more than one medicine at a time to the one patient in order to fulfill two entirely different purposes; and • counting each of the tablets simultaneously prescribed for a different purpose as monopharmacy.
Irene has become quick, in recent years, to acknowledge that polypharmacy is not possible within homoeopathy. But she is equally quick to use these smoke-and-mirror devices to confine what she means by polypharmacy to the laughable particular of prescribing for the same symptoms three or more medicines in a single tablet. Two medicines, or three in separate tablets, as long as she can claim they're for entirely different purposes: in Irene's expressly stated opinion, these don't constitute polypharmacy. (You needn't take my word for this if you've forgotten it all again. At any moment now, Irene will issue a denial several pages in length of having said any of this, and accuse me of twisting her words. I'll respond by quoting her verbatim, in response to which she'll simply repeat that she didn't say what she said, didn't mean what she meant, and, even if she did, shouldn't be paraphrased or quoted.)
This is because Irene really doesn't understand at all that homoeopathy relies on the predictable primary medicinal effects of the medicine prescribed -- and because she doesn't want to understand. Regardless, the point is not that I have a confusion between Bach flower remedies and homoeopathy, but that I object to the two being confused -- especially deliberately so.
For as long, though, as Irene abhors the position (explicit or implicit) that Bach prescriptions are homoeopathic, Bach becomes a non-issue.
Of course, the underlying problem remains, and that is Irene's utter ignorance of the homoeopathic principle itself. Until she finally comprehends that principle (and at this stage it's highly doubtful that she ever will), Irene and others of her ilk will continue to return to attack homoeopaths as fuddy-duddies set in their narrow-minded ways, too limited to see the magic in using many medicines at once and too closed-minded to see that Hahnemann himself would one day have embraced the very polypharmacy whose irrationality he showed even to the satisfaction of many in the allopathic profession.
I hope that that satisfactorily illuminates why I have thought Irene's arrogant confusions worth slicing through once again. If not, the next chapter (Irene's bitter cries of unjust misrepresentation, and my verbatim citations of the statements she will deny having made) may shed a little more light on it.
Cheers --
John
Irene has become quick, in recent years, to acknowledge that polypharmacy is not possible within homoeopathy. But she is equally quick to use these smoke-and-mirror devices to confine what she means by polypharmacy to the laughable particular of prescribing for the same symptoms three or more medicines in a single tablet. Two medicines, or three in separate tablets, as long as she can claim they're for entirely different purposes: in Irene's expressly stated opinion, these don't constitute polypharmacy. (You needn't take my word for this if you've forgotten it all again. At any moment now, Irene will issue a denial several pages in length of having said any of this, and accuse me of twisting her words. I'll respond by quoting her verbatim, in response to which she'll simply repeat that she didn't say what she said, didn't mean what she meant, and, even if she did, shouldn't be paraphrased or quoted.)
This is because Irene really doesn't understand at all that homoeopathy relies on the predictable primary medicinal effects of the medicine prescribed -- and because she doesn't want to understand. Regardless, the point is not that I have a confusion between Bach flower remedies and homoeopathy, but that I object to the two being confused -- especially deliberately so.
For as long, though, as Irene abhors the position (explicit or implicit) that Bach prescriptions are homoeopathic, Bach becomes a non-issue.
Of course, the underlying problem remains, and that is Irene's utter ignorance of the homoeopathic principle itself. Until she finally comprehends that principle (and at this stage it's highly doubtful that she ever will), Irene and others of her ilk will continue to return to attack homoeopaths as fuddy-duddies set in their narrow-minded ways, too limited to see the magic in using many medicines at once and too closed-minded to see that Hahnemann himself would one day have embraced the very polypharmacy whose irrationality he showed even to the satisfaction of many in the allopathic profession.
I hope that that satisfactorily illuminates why I have thought Irene's arrogant confusions worth slicing through once again. If not, the next chapter (Irene's bitter cries of unjust misrepresentation, and my verbatim citations of the statements she will deny having made) may shed a little more light on it.
Cheers --
John