Re: that the same potency shouldn't be given twice in a row
Posted: Thu Dec 10, 2009 11:35 pm
Shannon, what "real cure" are you talking about?
As Joy has pointed out perfectly adequately (what percentage of a conversation do you read before entering into it?), time heals such wounds as you're talking about. The patient's life reestablished, her emotional equilibrium was reestablished. What's surprising about that? What makes it a "real cure"? It's life!
As Liz herself admitted fleetingly, the superficial symptoms had translated partially into further superficial symptoms. I'd be the last to criticise that reappearance -- giving first priority in treating anybody to removal of her warts, her eczema, or her dermatitis is, as far as I'm concerned, an unforgiveable breach of the trust relationship. That's not the matter in contention here, which is that to interpret the dermatitis's removal from the scalp, with or without taking into account its subsequent reappearance and persistence on other parts, as "real cure" would be a dangerous way to approach evaluation of any treatment. Liz's patient may be alive today only because there was no "real cure" of the skin symptoms.
If you and Liz and others continue to see only what you wish to see, you will leave behind you a trail of sequelae that the rest of us can only despair at. A responsible approach to medical treatment is not the childish one of making the assumptions most convenient to the practitioner, only to face up ten or twenty years further on to something of the destruction it has caused. Rather, it is the adult one of learning through the culture of investigation, keen observation, and caution that Hahnemann established in his textbooks on the subject and that a very few later observers have furthered.
The adult approach entails actually picking the books up off the bookshelf once in a while and paying close attention to what lies between their covers. It took me a few readings of the Organon to begin to really understand many of its subtleties, and that experience is a common one.
It entails learning by the mistakes others have made rather than having to make them ourselves all over again. Watch the cases that Liz presents here and that Irene presents elsewhere, and learn from them what not to do.
It entails acceptance of our own ignorance, and openness to the possibility that everything we have understood up to now is utterly false.
And that entails, in anybody with a responsible bone in her body, unswerving adoption of the precautionary principle: if you don't know it's safe, don't assume it's safe.
Armed with merely those principles, Liz and her ilk could actually learn something about homoeopathy even from the presentations of "homoeopathic" suppressions that appear here, as the assumptions that have kept, for instance, you from seeing just what Liz did to her patient no longer have any power to prevent us from seeing clearly through the self-deceptions that drive such as Liz to the destruction they pursue.
Frankly, I dislike having to be so cutting in getting through to Liz, and disliked having had similarly to treat Irene. But the alternative is to support the pursuit of more of the same destructive routinist allopathic approaches that both follow so stubbornly. If a little pain on both sides results in a little dent in their armour of self-assurance, then, in my callous way, I'll have to say that the patients who may in future be treated with a tad more respect for the integrity of their healing powers make it worthwhile. The overweening arrogance that preens itself on this list with monotonous regularity doesn't just deserve, it positively needs, cutting off at the knees for the sake of the patient. In the final analysis, all the hifalutin theories, interpretations, and castles of phantasies comfort the homoeopathically uneducated "homoeopathic" practitioner at the expense of real knowledge, real understanding, and real caution for the sake of the patient. Homoeopathy is not for the homoeopath, but for the patient, and the sooner the practising egotists realise that, who continue to think that they can make a name for themselves through their supposed originality of banal misinterpretation, the sooner arises the possibility of their acquiring sufficient insight, humility, and skill to genuinely do somebody some kind of good.
Kind regards,
John
2009/12/11 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
As Joy has pointed out perfectly adequately (what percentage of a conversation do you read before entering into it?), time heals such wounds as you're talking about. The patient's life reestablished, her emotional equilibrium was reestablished. What's surprising about that? What makes it a "real cure"? It's life!
As Liz herself admitted fleetingly, the superficial symptoms had translated partially into further superficial symptoms. I'd be the last to criticise that reappearance -- giving first priority in treating anybody to removal of her warts, her eczema, or her dermatitis is, as far as I'm concerned, an unforgiveable breach of the trust relationship. That's not the matter in contention here, which is that to interpret the dermatitis's removal from the scalp, with or without taking into account its subsequent reappearance and persistence on other parts, as "real cure" would be a dangerous way to approach evaluation of any treatment. Liz's patient may be alive today only because there was no "real cure" of the skin symptoms.
If you and Liz and others continue to see only what you wish to see, you will leave behind you a trail of sequelae that the rest of us can only despair at. A responsible approach to medical treatment is not the childish one of making the assumptions most convenient to the practitioner, only to face up ten or twenty years further on to something of the destruction it has caused. Rather, it is the adult one of learning through the culture of investigation, keen observation, and caution that Hahnemann established in his textbooks on the subject and that a very few later observers have furthered.
The adult approach entails actually picking the books up off the bookshelf once in a while and paying close attention to what lies between their covers. It took me a few readings of the Organon to begin to really understand many of its subtleties, and that experience is a common one.
It entails learning by the mistakes others have made rather than having to make them ourselves all over again. Watch the cases that Liz presents here and that Irene presents elsewhere, and learn from them what not to do.
It entails acceptance of our own ignorance, and openness to the possibility that everything we have understood up to now is utterly false.
And that entails, in anybody with a responsible bone in her body, unswerving adoption of the precautionary principle: if you don't know it's safe, don't assume it's safe.
Armed with merely those principles, Liz and her ilk could actually learn something about homoeopathy even from the presentations of "homoeopathic" suppressions that appear here, as the assumptions that have kept, for instance, you from seeing just what Liz did to her patient no longer have any power to prevent us from seeing clearly through the self-deceptions that drive such as Liz to the destruction they pursue.
Frankly, I dislike having to be so cutting in getting through to Liz, and disliked having had similarly to treat Irene. But the alternative is to support the pursuit of more of the same destructive routinist allopathic approaches that both follow so stubbornly. If a little pain on both sides results in a little dent in their armour of self-assurance, then, in my callous way, I'll have to say that the patients who may in future be treated with a tad more respect for the integrity of their healing powers make it worthwhile. The overweening arrogance that preens itself on this list with monotonous regularity doesn't just deserve, it positively needs, cutting off at the knees for the sake of the patient. In the final analysis, all the hifalutin theories, interpretations, and castles of phantasies comfort the homoeopathically uneducated "homoeopathic" practitioner at the expense of real knowledge, real understanding, and real caution for the sake of the patient. Homoeopathy is not for the homoeopath, but for the patient, and the sooner the practising egotists realise that, who continue to think that they can make a name for themselves through their supposed originality of banal misinterpretation, the sooner arises the possibility of their acquiring sufficient insight, humility, and skill to genuinely do somebody some kind of good.
Kind regards,
John
2009/12/11 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
