I do, Sorush, when ever required. Every now and then a remedy will need a follow up procedure - how ever carefully one has repped. It is to do with layers, you know it and we all have done it - so what are you implying? How does one rep a followup symptom before it appears?
Jeff
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
________________________________
From:
Sender: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 14:09:27 -0000
To:
ReplyTo: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds
Jeff, you wrote:
“If ever I need a follow up medicine, it's no problem. I just study the case as it now presents and give an appropriate remedy.”
So why not do it from the start and stick with homeopathy?
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J tikari
Sent: 05 December 2010 13:54
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds
What I Meant to say was that I do not use combos normally - but I have on occasion used them......OK?
Homeopathy today is bigger than you, me, and HN put together. Its progress can not be halted.
It will grow in ways that may seem non homeopathic. But it is homeopathy, nevertheless.
Using a minute dose of a simillimum in combination with other minute (potentised) doses IS homeopathy - say
what you wish. And I very CERTAINLY give combos to my dog and other animals with very gratifying results.
If ever I need a follow up medicine, it's no problem. I just study the case as it now presents and give an
appropriate remedy.
Call me a cretin if it salves your ego.
Jeff Tikari
size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3297 - Release Date: 12/04/10
Combo meds
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
Dear Jeff,
Your blade, sir!
I would far rather we came to a more nearly shared view. The point I was hinting at below, one that is always easily forgotten because we take it for granted in the homoeopathic world, underlies how Hahnemann's pioneering scientific ways arrived at homoeopathy as a method by first discovering it as an observation. And how it did so was to think through the value of making the observation first.
Hahnemann's true genius is not best exemplified in his working out of chronic miasms, or of the use of intercurrents, or of the applicability of the similia principle, though each of these in itself was a work of genius. His true genius shines most brightly in something preceding all of that: his insight into the necessity to know what a medicine's primary effects are; the necessity to know just how it deranges health.
Only once he'd embarked on that course did his opportunity to glimpse the worth of the similia relationship present itself.
But that's not why this decision best epitomises his genius.
The necessity of knowing a medicine's primary effects was an early example of what is now regarded as reductionism, which seeks to isolate an influence so that observation of its effects will be clearest by being least subject to what are now called confounding variables: other influences. The decision to take a medicine in health was in part an example of such reductionism because symptoms due to other influences were hardly a consideration.
But even that is not the major aspect of the idea's genius. The most important part of Hahnemann's decision was not to take the medicine in health rather than in sickness. Even had he been ill, the primary effects could have been (unless he had been suffering a China-like syndrome) more-or-less distinguished; and on eight, ten, a hundred sick people, would have been be clearer still.
The most important decision of Hahnemann's life from the point of view of homoeopathic history was not to take the medicine in health. It was to change the point of observation.
In all of previous history, observation on the effects of medicines had been interested primarily in one thing: whether it helped reduce, remove, even reverse a symptom of particular interest: headache, fever, diarrhoea, constipation. Occasionally, in more recent history, one allopathic medicine has been understood to be potentially effective in reducing two or three related symptoms, such as fever and headache resulting from the one infection. But in essence the point of observation was to gauge therapeutic success in reducing a symptom. That gauge, that criterion, is the sole yardstick of allopathy, and allopathy is the sole method that depends on it -- and it depends on it utterly -- in order to derive its indications for prescription.
The point of Hahnemann's observations of the effects of China on himself in good health was utterly different. So alien was it, in fact, and so alien does it remain to the allopathic mind, that even today somebody new to homoeopathy -- except, as in Shannon's (unusual) case, somebody who accepts "homoeopathic" treatment long before learning what homoeopathy is -- somebody new to homoeopathy finds, even today, at least novel and often alarming the thought of taking in good health a substance for no other purpose than to acquire knowledge. When Hahnemann undertook the experiment whose echoes continue to awe the homoeopathically literate today, what he undertook to do for the first time in recorded history was to subject himself to a poison for the pure purpose of creating and recording new knowledge: knowledge of its deranging effects.
Furthermore, Hahnemann devised this experiment for a purpose that would not initially suggest it: in order to gain insight into why China, rather than any other drug then tried for the purpose, had unique power over malarial symptoms. The leap from that question to his experimental design was one that had never before been contemplated in recorded history, let alone made and acted upon. It was a leap of pure genius.
But you have to get some insight into Hahnemann's thinking processes in order to understand that genius for what it was. For this was no leap in the dark, no random thought. It arose from Hahnemann's stance on a matter of principle; and the principle led him directly to the most ingenious experiment to fulfil the need. It's that principle that I hope that you and Liz and anyone else unclear on the homoeopathic principle come to see underlies the homoeopathic principle.
The principle that led Hahnemann to his China experiment was that medicine should be practised not on the basis on which it had always been practised -- a basis in speculation -- but on a basis in certainty.
The principle of a need for a basis for medicinal indications in certainty lit Hahnemann's way. Having led him to reject the practice of medicine altogether, it now led him to reject reliance on negative (i.e. counteractive) medicinal effects as any basis for understanding how a medicine affects illness. And that left him to think about positive (deranging) medicinal effects. He was the first person in history to imagine that there might be any value for therapeutics in knowing a medicine's primary effects, and the mental terrain must have been difficult at first to explore. Despite that, he clearly drew the conclusion that in order to understand China's unique relationship to malarial symptoms, he would have to know not the symptoms it could remove but those it could produce. Even for us today, that conclusion is a difficult one to reach clearly from the clues I've just given. But Hahnemann could never have reached it without a deep appreciation for the importance of the principle of basing medicinal prescription always upon certain knowledge.
The certainty principle in medicine is, if you like, a particular expression of a broader principle: that of seeking to become more certain in our understanding by checking other possibilities. You'll readily see the broader principle in action in Hahnemann's use of multiple provers, provers of both sexes, provers of various ages, and in his extraordinarily meticulous cross-checking of historical and contemporary medical case histories.
And that principle is his greatest legacy not only to homoeopathy and even to that pretentious child Evidence-Based Medicine and its fraternal frauds but also to all modern scientific endeavour, which it now underpins.
In light of Hahnemann's epic journey of intellectual creativity merely to arrive at the devising of the China experiment, you will understand that when some overgrown pup purports to have outthought Hahnemann by tiresomely inventing yet again the very polypharmacy that Hahnemann successfully destroyed when he began espousing the medicinal certainty principle amongst his allopathic colleagues, some of us enjoy a good laugh before we roll up our sleeves and take a slug at them.
Kind regards,
John
________________________________
Your blade, sir!
I would far rather we came to a more nearly shared view. The point I was hinting at below, one that is always easily forgotten because we take it for granted in the homoeopathic world, underlies how Hahnemann's pioneering scientific ways arrived at homoeopathy as a method by first discovering it as an observation. And how it did so was to think through the value of making the observation first.
Hahnemann's true genius is not best exemplified in his working out of chronic miasms, or of the use of intercurrents, or of the applicability of the similia principle, though each of these in itself was a work of genius. His true genius shines most brightly in something preceding all of that: his insight into the necessity to know what a medicine's primary effects are; the necessity to know just how it deranges health.
Only once he'd embarked on that course did his opportunity to glimpse the worth of the similia relationship present itself.
But that's not why this decision best epitomises his genius.
The necessity of knowing a medicine's primary effects was an early example of what is now regarded as reductionism, which seeks to isolate an influence so that observation of its effects will be clearest by being least subject to what are now called confounding variables: other influences. The decision to take a medicine in health was in part an example of such reductionism because symptoms due to other influences were hardly a consideration.
But even that is not the major aspect of the idea's genius. The most important part of Hahnemann's decision was not to take the medicine in health rather than in sickness. Even had he been ill, the primary effects could have been (unless he had been suffering a China-like syndrome) more-or-less distinguished; and on eight, ten, a hundred sick people, would have been be clearer still.
The most important decision of Hahnemann's life from the point of view of homoeopathic history was not to take the medicine in health. It was to change the point of observation.
In all of previous history, observation on the effects of medicines had been interested primarily in one thing: whether it helped reduce, remove, even reverse a symptom of particular interest: headache, fever, diarrhoea, constipation. Occasionally, in more recent history, one allopathic medicine has been understood to be potentially effective in reducing two or three related symptoms, such as fever and headache resulting from the one infection. But in essence the point of observation was to gauge therapeutic success in reducing a symptom. That gauge, that criterion, is the sole yardstick of allopathy, and allopathy is the sole method that depends on it -- and it depends on it utterly -- in order to derive its indications for prescription.
The point of Hahnemann's observations of the effects of China on himself in good health was utterly different. So alien was it, in fact, and so alien does it remain to the allopathic mind, that even today somebody new to homoeopathy -- except, as in Shannon's (unusual) case, somebody who accepts "homoeopathic" treatment long before learning what homoeopathy is -- somebody new to homoeopathy finds, even today, at least novel and often alarming the thought of taking in good health a substance for no other purpose than to acquire knowledge. When Hahnemann undertook the experiment whose echoes continue to awe the homoeopathically literate today, what he undertook to do for the first time in recorded history was to subject himself to a poison for the pure purpose of creating and recording new knowledge: knowledge of its deranging effects.
Furthermore, Hahnemann devised this experiment for a purpose that would not initially suggest it: in order to gain insight into why China, rather than any other drug then tried for the purpose, had unique power over malarial symptoms. The leap from that question to his experimental design was one that had never before been contemplated in recorded history, let alone made and acted upon. It was a leap of pure genius.
But you have to get some insight into Hahnemann's thinking processes in order to understand that genius for what it was. For this was no leap in the dark, no random thought. It arose from Hahnemann's stance on a matter of principle; and the principle led him directly to the most ingenious experiment to fulfil the need. It's that principle that I hope that you and Liz and anyone else unclear on the homoeopathic principle come to see underlies the homoeopathic principle.
The principle that led Hahnemann to his China experiment was that medicine should be practised not on the basis on which it had always been practised -- a basis in speculation -- but on a basis in certainty.
The principle of a need for a basis for medicinal indications in certainty lit Hahnemann's way. Having led him to reject the practice of medicine altogether, it now led him to reject reliance on negative (i.e. counteractive) medicinal effects as any basis for understanding how a medicine affects illness. And that left him to think about positive (deranging) medicinal effects. He was the first person in history to imagine that there might be any value for therapeutics in knowing a medicine's primary effects, and the mental terrain must have been difficult at first to explore. Despite that, he clearly drew the conclusion that in order to understand China's unique relationship to malarial symptoms, he would have to know not the symptoms it could remove but those it could produce. Even for us today, that conclusion is a difficult one to reach clearly from the clues I've just given. But Hahnemann could never have reached it without a deep appreciation for the importance of the principle of basing medicinal prescription always upon certain knowledge.
The certainty principle in medicine is, if you like, a particular expression of a broader principle: that of seeking to become more certain in our understanding by checking other possibilities. You'll readily see the broader principle in action in Hahnemann's use of multiple provers, provers of both sexes, provers of various ages, and in his extraordinarily meticulous cross-checking of historical and contemporary medical case histories.
And that principle is his greatest legacy not only to homoeopathy and even to that pretentious child Evidence-Based Medicine and its fraternal frauds but also to all modern scientific endeavour, which it now underpins.
In light of Hahnemann's epic journey of intellectual creativity merely to arrive at the devising of the China experiment, you will understand that when some overgrown pup purports to have outthought Hahnemann by tiresomely inventing yet again the very polypharmacy that Hahnemann successfully destroyed when he began espousing the medicinal certainty principle amongst his allopathic colleagues, some of us enjoy a good laugh before we roll up our sleeves and take a slug at them.
Kind regards,
John
________________________________
-
Soroush Ebrahimi
- Moderator
- Posts: 4510
- Joined: Thu Feb 07, 2002 11:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
When Hn said "be an unprejudiced observer", he meant do not guess!
One needs to act on real facts.
Best wishes
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jtikari@gmail.com
Sent: 06 December 2010 05:11
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds
I do, Sorush, when ever required. Every now and then a remedy will need a follow up procedure - how ever carefully one has repped. It is to do with layers, you know it and we all have done it - so what are you implying? How does one rep a followup symptom before it appears?
Jeff
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
________________________________
From:
Sender: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 14:09:27 -0000
To:
ReplyTo: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds
Jeff, you wrote:
“If ever I need a follow up medicine, it's no problem. I just study the case as it now presents and give an appropriate remedy.”
So why not do it from the start and stick with homeopathy?
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J tikari
Sent: 05 December 2010 13:54
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds
What I Meant to say was that I do not use combos normally - but I have on occasion used them......OK?
Homeopathy today is bigger than you, me, and HN put together. Its progress can not be halted.
It will grow in ways that may seem non homeopathic. But it is homeopathy, nevertheless.
Using a minute dose of a simillimum in combination with other minute (potentised) doses IS homeopathy - say
what you wish. And I very CERTAINLY give combos to my dog and other animals with very gratifying results.
If ever I need a follow up medicine, it's no problem. I just study the case as it now presents and give an
appropriate remedy.
Call me a cretin if it salves your ego.
Jeff Tikari
size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3297 - Release Date: 12/04/10
One needs to act on real facts.
Best wishes
Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jtikari@gmail.com
Sent: 06 December 2010 05:11
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds
I do, Sorush, when ever required. Every now and then a remedy will need a follow up procedure - how ever carefully one has repped. It is to do with layers, you know it and we all have done it - so what are you implying? How does one rep a followup symptom before it appears?
Jeff
Sent on my BlackBerry® from Vodafone
________________________________
From:
Sender: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Sun, 5 Dec 2010 14:09:27 -0000
To:
ReplyTo: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds
Jeff, you wrote:
“If ever I need a follow up medicine, it's no problem. I just study the case as it now presents and give an appropriate remedy.”
So why not do it from the start and stick with homeopathy?
Rgds
Soroush
________________________________
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of J tikari
Sent: 05 December 2010 13:54
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: Combo meds
What I Meant to say was that I do not use combos normally - but I have on occasion used them......OK?
Homeopathy today is bigger than you, me, and HN put together. Its progress can not be halted.
It will grow in ways that may seem non homeopathic. But it is homeopathy, nevertheless.
Using a minute dose of a simillimum in combination with other minute (potentised) doses IS homeopathy - say
what you wish. And I very CERTAINLY give combos to my dog and other animals with very gratifying results.
If ever I need a follow up medicine, it's no problem. I just study the case as it now presents and give an
appropriate remedy.
Call me a cretin if it salves your ego.
Jeff Tikari
size=1 width="100%" noshade color="#a0a0a0" align=center>
No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3297 - Release Date: 12/04/10
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
I'm sorry John, I just don't have the time right now.
And would only be saying again what I've said before.
Best wishes,
Shannon
And would only be saying again what I've said before.
Best wishes,
Shannon
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
-
Theresa Partington
- Posts: 431
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
I didn't as I am not really participating in this. I just think that it gets personal and aggressive enough on this list without name-calling in general.
To change the subject, however, you were involved in a more adult (and interesting to me) discussion about those poor pollywogs and i had hoped someone involved could have told me exactly how the original research had been conducted (original source link?) or whether there were two lots coming up with different results. I got no response, though, so am still wondering.
Cheers
Theresa
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:
To change the subject, however, you were involved in a more adult (and interesting to me) discussion about those poor pollywogs and i had hoped someone involved could have told me exactly how the original research had been conducted (original source link?) or whether there were two lots coming up with different results. I got no response, though, so am still wondering.
Cheers
Theresa
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, John Harvey wrote:
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
No worries, Shannon. It seems to me that there's no need for defeatism over the corrupt misuse of "homoeopathic" by a few manufacturers. It's simple misrepresentation for which legal remedies already exist.
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
Pollywogs, Theresa? Oh -- tadpoles! Yes, I was hoping to see such a link too.
Kind regards,
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
Kind regards,
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
-
Fran Sheffield
- Posts: 676
- Joined: Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
Hi Theresa,
If you are talking about tadpoles, there is reference to the published research in the Homeopathy journal (found at the bottom of our article to it).
http://homeopathyplus.com.au/tadpole-research/
The full paper can also be purchased from the online science houses - just google the name of the article and those houses holding it will come up.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
If you are talking about tadpoles, there is reference to the published research in the Homeopathy journal (found at the bottom of our article to it).
http://homeopathyplus.com.au/tadpole-research/
The full paper can also be purchased from the online science houses - just google the name of the article and those houses holding it will come up.
--
Kind regards,
Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Tutorials - Remedies - Immunisation)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Free Information on Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org
Homeopathy for Autism (Guidelines for Treatment - Search for Practitioners)
http://www.homeopathy4autism.com
-
John Harvey
- Posts: 1331
- Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 10:00 pm
Re: Combo meds
Thanks, Fran! So, Theresa, it appears from the summary on Fran's site that it was gross doses of thyroxine that were causing the developmental abnormalities. Whether it was counteracted by the potentised thyroxine's interaction with the fish or with the aqueous thyroxine can only be guessed at, and one can only assume that the article conveys that the potentised thyroxine was ultramolecular, but essentially the suggestion that ultramolecular thyroxine caused their developmental changes was mistaken.
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .