Minutus

At 09:11 AM 4/17/2006, you wrote:

What you say is very clever but if taken too literally it misses the mark.
Over a 30 year period one observes the effects of many treatments which
they may not use. Why? Because 1000s of people seek consultation and
recording the effects of medicines taken is part of taking a good case. For
example, we observe the effects of allopathic drugging but we do not give
those drugs. If one applies the same logic then Homoeopaths should are not
qualified to speak about 196 years of observations about allopathy? That
makes NO sense! Just because you don't "do it" does not mean that one can
not observe the effects of various methods on human beings. Careful
observation of various medical actions has been central to Homoeopathy from
the beginning. Just take a look at the Organon. It contains many detailed
observations about the effects of several methods of using medicines. I
might say, classical homoeopaths are some of the best trained to carry out
such observations. So YES, I retain the right to observe the actions of
various methods for better or worse without using those methods myself
because I observe the effects of medical treatment on 1000s of people.

Sincerely, David Little
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

Hi David,
I do not think Robin was saying that homeopaths aren't qualified to
judge *medicinal actions*, whether or drugs or of homeopathic remedies,
but rather that we aren't trained to understand these approaches and,
more to the point, have not seen nor treated people who have been
treated by them, and so do not have a basis for judging their
effectiveness or lack of it. If we *treat* such patients we will
become (more) qualified to judge their effects, just as we (as a
profession) have become extremely qualified to judge the effects of
allopathy. And if we could *talk with each other* about experiences
with the *results* of these methods, we could also gain some basis to
judge.

Our training in such things as the meaning of "cure" (far broader than
mainstream medicine's!); and of the usual progression of symptoms
leading to cure versus those leading elsewhere; our understanding of
"suppression"; our understanding of the meaning of long-term changes in
health--I agree with you, that all of these things make us very
*highly* qualified to judge the meaning of medicinal *effects*, which
leads me right back to another of the reasons why I think it's
important to meet these "controversies" in a spirit of exploration and
education, rather than repression.

There are many "creative thinkers" doing healing work; and most healers
are truly trying to *heal* (some of course have other agendas, but I
think these are the tiny minority). And that is one reason that I have
so, so, so heartily wished that we could *discuss* these other methods;
talk with (at least here and there, one or two, as they wander across
our "radar") people who are *practicing* these (to us) non-standard
methods.

I would like to learn whether or not they (individually, not as a
group) share our understanding of how to evaluate effects, and whether
these non-standard methods are being used in a context of true
understanding of their effects; whether there has been long-term
follow-up which could allow the practitioner to *know* whether the
long-term effects have been good or ill.

If someone offers such a method but demonstrates that they do not have
the deeper understanding of health versus disease (e.g. don't see a
connection between disappearance of one symptom but the subsequent
development of a more serious one), then we know that their enthusiasm
shouldn't sway us; if someone reports wonderful results, even by our
own standards, but states that they do not follow up with patients any
longer than a month or two, then we have to consider their successes an
open question; if they are doing the long-term follow-ups but don't
seem to have a good understanding of what they are seeing, then again,
we can't accept them as a reliable guide.

But unless one is willing to *have the conversation*, one will never
know.
And unless one is willing to *have the conversation*, one has no to
chance to share any cautionary thoughts or reasons or background with
them.

David, perhaps you *have* had the opportunity to treat people who had
previously received extensive treatment by combos, or long-term
repeated high potencies, or ST, or some of these other approaches? If
so, do you have observations about that?
Best wishes,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

I perfectly understand that people have an aversion to being told what they
can and what they can't talk about on a public list. In previous posts on
this topic I have stated that *balanced* discussion IS useful. What did we
get instead from the start?? Gleeful exclamations that we might have here in
Psorinum an exciting, tantalizing, time-saving short cut for treating ALL
acute disorders. Followed by an immediate question on what dosage should we
use....and almost as an afterthought, oh have you tested it? In the light of
recent happenings on the homeolist I find that extremely disheartening to
say the least.

The really confounding thing to my sense of logic is that all the people who
then proceeded to give information about the formula all agreed it was not
something they personally would even use!!! No reasons given as to why
(because the reasons must surely have been perfectly obvious) but anyway oh
here is a sample recipe for mini-protocol and there are maxi-protocols
examples too if anyone wants it. I don't find that *balanced* discussion. I
think the balanced discussion came from the link which explained carefully
why the procedure fails when used in that way.

In my practice it hasn't been difficult to see that a disordered Life Force
subjected to rapid formulaic protocols which are supposedly designed to
reverse years of recreational and/or allopathic drug use still remains a
disordered Life Force. The question for the classical homoeopath or anyone
else who's interested, is where was the law of similarity applied in all of
this? If I can't answer it sufficiently for my own understanding, then why
would I waste time using it on sick patients? I have medical, legal and
social responsibilities towards them, and to my profession, and that's the
bottom line.

Chris.

David makes an astute observation* and Shannon's remarks are also spot
on imo. Its just my experience that in the UK especially, where there
is probably a higher proportion of anti-classicists than anywhere,
most of the most vehement ones did not give up classical homeopathy
becasue they found it ineffective. Similarly the most strident
classicists usually seem to base their criticisms of certain clinical
approaches on philosophy rather than experience. For every classical
homeopath that has seen patients ruined by bad prescribing their is a
non classical homeopath who can point to cases that detiorated in the
hands of a homeopath, who in their view, stuck too rigidly to rules. I
am interested in these conundrums and contradictions. Its really hard
to find colleagues who want to discuss them though.

For what its worth I, like David, find after about 25 years of trying
many things, that less is more, or at at very least, less is sufficient!

*Although even homeopath's views of allopathy show a certain amount of
immaturity and prejudice in many cases.

This was your first post in reply to mine:
Oh yes, "let's all go for universal specifics". This is a joke, right?
Please say yes. Surely we don't want a repeat of what just happened on
the
homeolist . I mean we just saw the decimation of the good quality of
homoeopathic posts happen on the homeolist because a few people
believed
their right to proclaim and spread and discuss stubborn, oafish,
irresponsible recommendations for dangerous prescriptions was more
important
than common sense and discernment...

Does that fit your definition of "balanced discussion"?
The start of this was when Marco asked (re a successful but somewhat
mysterious acute cure via Psorinum): " On 14 Apr 2006, at 23:10, Marco
Franzreb wrote:
And then Simon said:
"Roger Dyson, among others, considers Psor to address ALL acutes as he
conceives all acutes to be psoric manifestation, according to my
understanding of his lectures."

Where is the glee, or the proclaimation? It was a "Roger Dyson
says..." Surely that was good opening for a "balanced discussion"?

Next was from me:
"Wow, now *that* could make life easier!!!"

[Observations: (a) Well, wouldn't it? [IF true?] And (b) Chris, can
you spell "tongue-in-cheek"? And (c), Chris, can you spell "say more
about", and "balanced discussion"? Then I continued:

"Simon, can you say any more about that tantalizing idea? What does
he say about dosage, and have you tested it??"

[That is called "balanced discussion", and "asking for information".
And PS it is *not* the same as "what dosage should we use." I *know*
it's different, because I was the asker and had no thought whatever
that I'd just been handed a magic key. Chris, I was asking for
*information and discussion*.
Well, it was *my* thought, and I assure you it was not an afterthought.
if you thought I was being too hasty, why not say to me--privately
and/or respectfully--"Don't be too hasty! Let's find out if this
thing *works* first."
Yes indeed.
Chris, have I posted anything over the past years that we've posted
here together, to lead you to think that I would hear "So-and-so says
Remedy X is the cure for everything!" and go "Wow, I'd better start
giving everyone Remedy X." I really don't think so. I think you've
seen enough of my posts to know that I WOULD NOT. I have never, I
would never. But what I *would* do, is engage is careful discussion
and reading and perhaps even (*after* doing the previous) careful
experimentation. Please can you give me a *little* credit here? Even
just a smidgen of benefit-of-the-doubt?

The really confounding thing to my sense of logic is that all the
people who

And very helpful it was, too (thanks again, Robyn!!)! Because after
reading that, I *know* it is not part of a style of practice I would
feel comfortable with. That was *exactly* the type of input and
information I was looking for. I haven't taken the book off of my
"read someday" list, but won't be rushing out to buy it today.
What is your definition of "balanced dicussion"? That seems to be an
important point right now.
So a discussion is balanced if it reaches the same conclusion you do,
or what makes it "balanced"? Is it balanced if it deals entirely with
the "right" side of the issue? What, in your opinion, made Robyn's
very helpful offering not balanced?
Shannon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Shannon,

Well, I've still got my sense of humour, and I hope you do too!! Maybe we
should all undergo a Myer-Briggs test and learn to appreciate the different
ways we set our priorities:))
By the way, no I don't think everyone must agree with me for a discussion to
be *balanced*. I did feel that it was rather pointless to refer people to
methods that one wouldn't personally recommend or use themselves without
stating the reasons why. My guess is, that they themselves find the mini or
maxi protocols unsatisfactory, confusing, or worse... downright dangerous or
silly.
I know you'd agree that traditional homoeopathy is already such a vast area
to study, and become proficient in to be of good service.
It's true I place a great investment in how homoeopathy is presented in
general and practised because it is my profession and a good part of my
sense of worth, and livelihood, is derived from being competent in it. I
don't really know yet how to deal with the BS, ego and twisted agendas and
pretence that sometimes surfaces in our community. We all mean well, we all
want to help other people, we all want to do whatever we can to make a
difference. It's like the Internet has also really escalated the potential
for the negative aspects to be enforced. I'm speaking generally here...Just
because one can pass on information with a few keystrokes and noone has to
know your name or see your face, or get close to you, doesn't mean all
personal responsibility vanishes, yet this is what I see happening. I'm
truly sorry if I've misrepresented your intentions, but I make no apology
for feeling shock and alarm at the way an idea that Psorinum (or any
specific) can be used as a panacea to stop ALL acute disorders can be
presented and taken up so readily without good qualification.

You mentioned peace, love, moving on....?
Best,
Chris.

Thanks Chris,

Yes, sense of humor always appreciated and happily reciprocated! I am
very happy to bury that hatchet and move on, no hard feelings on my
side. I would write more, but kind of have to rush off shortly. But I
think we understand each other's thinking, and perhaps it's 'nuff said
anyway.
Best wishes, and thanks!
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Dear Fran, great post!

"A "Womens Hormonal
Formula" is one that immediately springs to mind that contains Puls
and Sep in fifty millesimal potencies combined with vitamins,
minerals, and herbs. to be swallowed in tablet form twice a day. Saw a
nasty agg from this one."

How incredibly horrible ... reminds me of our friend Somenath and his
quick fixes. I'm just leaving on a long vacation and have had a very,
very, very busy month - so I never got back there ... for fear of
spending hours on my replies again

leela
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Fran Sheffield wrote:
to you