arnica case - chronic/acute - & dentist

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Colleagues

In Arvada's absence, as moderator of the list, may I state some facts:
"The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy
and educational benefit of its members."

It is principally a Hahnemannian forum and members are those who would like
to apply Hahnemann's principals in their practice.

This does not preclude considering in depth any of his statements and
evaluating their truth in the light of experience and observation.

One of the main requirements of the site is politeness and respect. Imagine
yourself to be in a lecture hall amongst colleagues.

So as to remove any doubts, the list belongs to Ardavan!
Rgds
Soroush

[Joy Lucas]

And is this the nod to saying it is ok to thoroughly promote the use of
combination remedies on this list - it really is on a need to know
basis for me.

Regarding respect - what always happens in these passionate discussions
is they begin with a challenge from one or several Hahnemannian
homeopaths - the discussions get more passionate (I use this word
because it is how I see it encompassing beliefs, years of study, years
of practice etc, following Hahnemann's writings, along with humour,
laughter, sadness, intelligence and all that goes toward forming a
lively and important discussion ) - then what happens is the usual
forum of a few people come out and complain about the 'nature' of the
discussion, take a stance against the original challengers by pointing
fingers at their 'attacking temperament'; divert the original challenge
through peripheral and disguised counter-arguments; then they join
forces by patting each other on the back, thinking they are being peace
makes and yet their pointing fingers are actually stirring sticks, then
they make a few jokes, then laugh amongst themselves, enjoy the fact
they are bringing out even more anti-hahnemannian attitudes, until the
original challenge has been almost killed off - all this for the
original attempt to promote homeopathy of the best kind, should be the
only kind, i.e. Hahnemann's.

Well, if that is respect, it's new to me. I have been staggered as
always at the shenanigins of corruptive spin and anti hahnemannian
attitudes visualised during this recent discussion. More than adequate
knowledge has been put forward to show why combination remedies should
not come under the banner of homeopathy at all and yet here we are,
some of us, encouraged to re-write Hahnemann's homeopathy as we have
done many times before. It isn't enough for a number of people to say,
"I use combos and they work really well" - what we should be asking is
how they got to make the decision to use combos in the first place!

As far as I can make out NO-ONE has yet given a justification or
highlighted their reasons why they decide initially to use a
combination remedy and I reckon that if that decision process was shown
it would be so obviously anti-hahnemannian or at the very least a
really poor approach to practising homeopathy. And yeah we (the
homeopathic community) really need this don't we.

It seems to me that it has never been about who's list this is, it has
never been about temperaments, it has never been about what we can
discuss or what we can't but it is becoming very clear that isn't about
Hahnemannian homeopathy.

If any respect should be shown, it should be to Hahnemann and I can't
say it enough but this whole discussion has not been directed against
Didi but obviously Didi thinks that now, thank you!!! May there be no
more interesting threads here, ever. Spoken from the back row of the
lecture theatre. Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.blogspot.com
http://homepage.mac.com/joylucas/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/provings
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[muthu kumar]

Picking up a helpful posting and blowing it out of proportion to make
it sound as if it were the whole edifice of Hahnemann is going to
collapse and crumble by that is not how one goes about cultivating a
respectful attitude- obviously there is a difference between saying
"you do not understand my point of view" and "you ant-hahnemannian
shenanigans of corruptive spin".../ "I do not accept your view" and
"What nonsense is this?"

Since it is claimed that Didi is not aimed at here and only
anti-hahnemannian combination practice, the question should be how
such a Hahnemannian practitioner like Didi ended up giving a
combination remedy. Under what circumstances do otherwise good
classical single remedy practitioners end up giving combinations? Does
it really work? Is it warranted under any circumstances at all? This
is not just a question of whether it is in Organon or not-

A very good homeopath I know, used to give Sepia 1M to all the women
who came to him for Infertility. For women who have excess menses he
used to give a particular combination product with a few mother
tinctures, another similar one for those with scanty menses. When I
asked him about this he said he got excellent results and there are so
many happy women with children with this protocol. He did not get this
with individual medicines. This is the only combination he uses. For
all the rest of his prescriptions it is single medicines. Is Sepia the
one that works or the combination or both. None knows, except that it
does and all medicines are bought from homeopathy stores. What do we
call him? An occasional mongrel? The women who were helped would be so
glad about this...Is not any therapeutics about helping- everything
said and done?

I would think the practice of homeopathy- as anything else- a bell
curve of normal distribution. There will always be combinations in one
end of the spectrum ( and also mixing treatment modalities Homeopathy
+ EFT, homeopathy + Reiki etc) as will be people at the other end of
the spectrum using cutting edge "theories of delusions and
hallucinations" and ( who give only one medicine for the entire life
cycle of an individual ( or even a soul's life cycle). It is
inevitable in a free society and practice. And this is the reality out
there. Combinations are necessary for the pharmacies to survive and
they are not going to stop it. These combinations have been around
since the time of Hahnemann (in fact even before that ,forever) and
will not go away.

And the "more than adequate knowledge that had been put forward" did
not address the fundamental question of what other current
cutting-edge methods could be suspect when you apply the same yard-
stick that is applied to combination remedies. And these new-fangled
methods are once again supported using the same argument "they work so
well when other classical methods fail".

Once again it was never the intention of any of the anti-Hahnemannian
shenanigans ( respectfully named so) to dilute the value of single
remedy prescriptions or those who do that. Most of homeopaths do
excellent single medicine prescriptions and combinations are only a
fraction of their practice and posts here. This is no way an open
season for all combinations to be thoroughly promoted here. Most of
the regular members have a sense of what is acceptable and not -

As Didi said we can post a statutory warning for such posts if that
would end some of the anguish that is caused to the "The exalted
spirits of homeopathy" here...
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote:
facts:

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Soroush,
But that does not really answer the questions...
To my mind this thing has only erupted as it has because of *prior*
incidents, and unresolved conflicts that come up over and over again.

So--if I can depart from this latest one and ask, if in the future
someone were to come to the list and want to discuss another
methodology *in the context of* classical, as happened several times
with ST practitioner or students, is it proper or not proper for those
who don't want to hear it, to shout the discussion down?

One, Ardavan asks us not to shout each other down... And certainly
this episode has been more "mannerly" than prior ones, so maybe we're
learning. (Or maybe it's just that the most energetic prior offenders
are gone...) But there is the other question--is it or is it not
permissible to discuss those "other topics" on the list? And to post
our ccasional (positive or negative) experiences with non-classical (or
even non-homeopathic) methods? Given, *OF COURSE*, that those would be
"side-trips", and not involve any change in the primary focus of the
list?
Thanks,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Shannon Nelson]

On Sep 26, 2006, at 1:32 PM, Joy Lucas wrote:
?? Who was trying to "thoroughly promote the use of combination
remedies"? What do you mean by "thoroughly promote"?

Are you trying to imply that no rudeness nor condescension nor attempts
at censure have been involved? I will say that this was a more
"mannerly" episode than we've weathered in the past (much!), yet the
basic attitudes don't seem to have changed. One can be "passionate"
without being rude or belittling!
What do you mean?
?? So the peacemakers are the ones keeping the flames alight?
Interesting theory...
Are jokes bad? What's your point...
Personally I enjoy humor even when I don't agree with it, but I suppose
that's a matter of taste...
Who's enjoying "bringing out even more anti-hahnemannian attitudes"? I
truly don't think anyone involved in this most recent discussion has
had any such agenda. If you think some one or more of us *do*, please
do tell whom, and let's clear this up!
things, but rather to *permit it to be discussed*. There is a huge
difference. Now if anyone were trying to turn this into a "list about
combos" or a "list about..." anything other than classical homeopathy,
that would be a different matter--but that has NEVER been the case,
during the... well, I've been on this list since its start, and I have
NEVER seen anyone attempt any such thing. Again, if you think you have
seen that, please describe it for me.
before it, is that "certain members" would like to maintain "purity" to
a degree that some of the rest of us (which seems to be a majority)
find suffocating; and have responded (in the past more so than in this
episode)... well, been less-than-professional, let's just say.
Hm. You mean until the poor purists are left gasping in the dust
while polypharmacy gruels are spooned mercilessly down their
unresisting throats?

Well, who's "won"? We never *have* managed to have an actual
discussion about any of this stuff--thinking back on several attempts
to discuss ST on the list, which several of us WANTED TO DISCUSS.
Wanted to look at it IN CONTEXT OF CLASSICAL HOMEOPATHY. The ST-ers
involved, at least in two cases, actually *wanted* to hear "our side of
it", but never got the chance because they were swiftly branded "Devil
Child" and hounded out of town. (Sure they could have stayed, but
sheesh, they were only coming to *talk*, and where's the fun in having
conversational hot oil poured down your neck...)

This is so silly. How can one *learn* about what's out there, if we're
not allowed to *talk* about it? Sure one can go to a list that focuses
on it, but why... That's not what we're primarily working on, is it?
Why not promote it BY REPLYING TO THE CONVERSATIONS, rather than by
shouting them down? SO much more educational!

Whose do you refer to? Can you give specific examples? I do not think
I have heard any of those.
Again, that is not the issue mainly under discussion--at least not as I
h ave understood it. So far as I remember, EVERYONE who's talked here
about combos has said either "I don't use them (but open to
discussion)" or, "I use them [under certain circumstances] but consider
single remedies generally best."

Okay, so let's say they are "not homeopathy". Fine. *Now* can we let
those mentions be made, so long as we clearly label them
"not-homeopathy"? That would work for me!
Okay--why not ask! In the past numerous reasons have been given. Some
people will find those reasons reasonable, and others will not. If
that's what you want to know, why not ask? Instead of shouting down
the discussion?

Are you serious? I've heard several, and I've given several. (Of
*others's* reasons--as I've also said, I have never used a combo
myself, tho would not categorically refuse to try one, if circumstances
seemed to call for it.)

Would you like to hear reasons? (Again?)
If we are talking just about the combos most commonly available
"off-the-shelf", then sure, I would agree it's not a good approach to
practicing homeopathy. AND most of the people using them are not
practitioners; tho some are, and it is not the main part of their
practice, only for certain circumstances.
The *other* thing we really don't need is knee-jerk defensiveness, and
inability to "dialogue" with folks who don't think the way we do.
Well, that's *your* opinion. To me, that is JUST what it's about. I
resent the idea that *you* (for e.g.) get to decide what *I* am able to
discuss, on a list whose owner has steadfastly refused to draw any
boundaries other than "homeopathy", and "play nice".
Nope, discussions about combos are not about Hahenamnnian homeopathy.
But they could / would / should be about how these *fit in* with our
primarily classical educations and/or practices.

Shannon

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