Minutus

of

I did not say that one should not fight anti-vaccination groups... (
or pro-vaccination groups). How many people are swayed by what anti-
vaccination groups say- and how much can they do against such mass
media publicity FOR vaccination? Vaccination at best is a mixed
blessing ( what is not?). And there needs to be some one to lobby
against it so that people should not go for vaccination blindly. To
that extent it is good. It is unfortunate that the opposition is
also not balanced but blindly opposes. Anything that is rabid
generates animosity and so even the good that they achieve gets
drowned by the din they themselves create.
Luise -
Homeopathic "science" is NOT based on truth ( who knows the TRUTH?) -
may be on fact. Truth and Fact are at best slippery slogans...
Homeopathy acts- this is a fact for us - but not for allopaths- Can
you separate fact from personal view point? Is the thing observed
really separate from the observer? If you operate from a view point
of finding fault with old works I bet you can find fault with
anything... you must have heard of the "self-fulfilling prophecies"

What we are looking at as truth is - "does it work or not". That is
the TRUTH for us. We are not trying to find mechanisms... we are not
trying to find the ultimate truth or falsity of whatever anyone
says...( and that is the reason Hahnemann wisely said " not to
construct theories"). Our reality is in terms of making things work
with the least harm to patients in the shortest possible time ( and
also make sure we earn a living

since reality is what each of us constructs according to our tenets,
philosophy, back ground - we have these questions -is there a miasm
or not, does combination work or not etc. Because we all have
different world views- And we have the same self-fulfilling prophecy
at work here as well.... Even I have opposed meditative provings
etc. Not because that they are not possible... or false.. but with
the desire to align our system more with the current "scientific"
methodology and to garner more of the health field than we are doing
now - not because of some philosophical notion or because I know
the "truth"... it is for much more practical reasons....

For me truth is not something that is out there.... it is what we
construct ourselves ( with what is out there-) to attain our
purpose... In India there is this belief in talismans and magico-
religious practices... as a scientist I would say that they could
not work... but for a person with epilepsy if wearing a talisman
gives the person freedom from epilepsy - call it placebo or whatever-
then who am I to say that talismans are false - in that person's
world - this power of the talisman is the TRUTH....there is no
science there - but it is a fact that epilepsy did not appear after
wearing it....

you might say that the Baron lied etc. etc. We are sure that with
Baron or without- high potencies work, his teachings made better
prescribers out of us, his writings continue to inspire us and guide
us... I want to see what ways he helps us, you want to see what ways
he lied to us... Neither of us is right or wrong- and both of us
will see things that convinces us that we are right- ultimately it
boils down to the question of what we want to do with this
information- what truth are we constructing- I am slicing out from
his writings what has worked for me and what works - since my goal
is to get things to help my practice - if your goal is to prove that
Baron was a liar - you might get what you want too...once again
truth is what we bring to the table and what we want to see....
get

Necessarily so - how many of us will accept that our fathers and
mothers are idiots - even if they are?

Also we will not be here and homeopathy will not be here but for the
works of the pioneers- we ARE standing on the shoulders of the
giants- so in a way things will be different when you deal with old
masters... do you want to attack someone who is not around to defend-

Also - from a reality creation point of view- our homeopathic
reality was created with their teachings- it is difficult to change
it and if it not found necessary to do so - why change what works?
Systems do not change if they do not have to- heard of homeostasis?
That is alright then- good for you

Hi H.,

I agree with almost everything you say below.

Perhaps you did not read what is on my site and stated your views only
on what Chris said about it?

I have spent last year and will be spending at least another year on
making available for the first time parts of the manuscripts of v.
Boenninghausen. I have no stake whatsoever in it -- neither money nor
standing will be achieved by doing so. Some collegues do indeed
appreciate it - most are either not interested or react with
animosity. The job is strenuous and tedious for a person of my
temperament. I do it to provide facts and data - and those, for the
first time, also for the English-speaking community (the Germans do
have a chance to read some of Hahnemann's case books, should they want to.
People not speaking German do not).

The matter of v. Boenninghausen's publications is just a very small
snippet in the Preface. I was not looking for the misrepresentations I
found - I was quite incredulous and afterwards shocked. I tried to
find reasons why he should have done so (marked as "my speculations".)
To me they are good reasons, they may be correct, they may be wrong --
no-one will ever know for sure.

However, the other parts of that preface are not speculations but
facts and logical conclusions. The conclusions may also be wrong - but
the facts are there and cannot be disputed.

Let's forget about "truth" - I think when a researcher finds "facts"
s/he should publish them, "and let the chips fall where they may".

Readers can just look at the facts and skip my conclusions and
speculations:-)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Hi Luis-

Thanks for clarifying. Yes I admit that I did not see your articles
yet. I was just responding to the emails that were floating around.
I shall read them and respond.

Thanks
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
only
on
nor
the
do
want to.
small
misrepresentations I
speculations".)
wrong --
but
finds "facts"
groups... (
anti-
mass
To
that
TRUTH?) -
Can
point
prophecies"
is
not
work
and
tenets,
miasm
prophecy
with
doing
whatever-
after
guide
ways
it
from
goal
that
the
old
defend-
change
works?
homeostasis?
Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no
representations regarding the individual suitability of the
information contained in any document read or advice or
recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email
postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use
remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or
its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and
howsoever caused.
change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to
receive a single daily digest.

Luis-

I visited your site and noted the contents - the works on Baron,
Parimal and others...

You may be right - there might have been massaging of facts for some
purposes. But this is what we find all over the place even now. (
Esp. now when the monetary pay-off is higher) Still my contention
is - take the fact and not the evidence quoted... Do I prescribe
high potencies just because Boenninghausen used it? Nope... their
time is long past-they guide, yes but do not dictate my practice.
Now this practice is based on my experience over the years and on
those so many others since the old masters time...

And the power of high potencies is accepted...
And the potency business is always a lot of hot air for not so much
return in my opinion-I have never heard as much of aggravation in C
potencies as some LM practitioners beat us with and no delayed
reaction either...of ocurse if LM works better for people go for
it....I have seen all kinds of potencies work including mother
tinctures.... and it is sad that some of the old masters started
this in-fighting and slighted the works of others like Richard
Hughes, Dudgeon etc...
I accept that we may want to know the truth from a historical
perspective but not necessarily from a practice perspective... and
knowing how many half-truths etc. have been circulating would
probably make me look at my ethics - not necessarily practice-
But it still is interesting to see the number of remedies that were
prescribed to patients- considering the teachings that were coming
from the classical Gurudoms - the Greek Temple and the Bombay
Mandir....

so to that extent at least your work might anchor classicals to the
earth and not take too much of a flight in their fancies....
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "hahnemannian2002"
wrote:
articles
views
year
v.
money
they
to
but
wrong -
may".
myths
lobby
blindly.
is
observed
That
are
(
provings
current "scientific"
know
we
magico-
could
talisman
person's
with
better
what
us
ultimately
prove
are
they
and
for
with
simply

Hi H.,

Well, I think the pointing out of "massaging" should come from the
homeopaths - not one day from their adversaries. This was one reason
for publishing.

Another reason: I am not sure that you are totally right by saying
that it is irrelevant to practice.

*You* may be inured to the claims of the "terrible dangers" of giving
remedies in low potencies frequently. Most homeopaths are not, and one
of the roots of their fears are v. Boenninghausen's publications.

Also: While I was practicing it was quite disheartening to me that all
other homeopaths seemed to have nothing but success and in such a
smooth way (that was before homeopathy lists, where sometimes, after
all, some posters do admit to failures). I considered myself a very
poor homeopath indeed - one reason why I mostly concentrated on
acupuncture. It would have been very upbracing to me if I had read
Hahnemann's case books and v. Boenninghausen's patients' records at
that time.

This is not to call you wrong or even to defend myself - I am just
trying to show some aspects.

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

This terrible fear of low potencies ( which probably reading even
the small "Prescriber" from Clarke or Burnett or even Boericke
should get you over quickly) is unfortunate and so is the fear of
high potencies that some people have. If they are reading B's Lesser
writings then they are already past the beginner stage in
Homeopathic education and are into the intermediate stage. I would
not think repeating low potencies should cause them to quake.

Still what is needed to quell this fear is not proving
Boenninghausen twisted facts for his own ends. For me it sounds like
throwing the baby, bathwater and the tub all out. Of course I am not
saying you are not free to do that- you can - but sounds like a
roundabout way of achieving your need to quell someone's fear...
There is plenty of contrary ideas and explanations published for
doing that. More discussion and spread of knowledge is essential
even among homeopaths but this education is not just by reading
Boenninghausen's case books....

After all reading Boenninghausen / using his repertory etc. itself
is not that common.

Others who followed ( Kent, Lippe, Dunham and others ) also used
high potencies and not necessarily because of Boenninghausen- Kent
definitely did not do it because of the Baron. One way or other
excepting few notables, all the prescribers famous for their
clinical acumen had given more high potencies. It might be better
to bark at Kent's door considering the following.

Personally I have seen low potencies and high potencies repeated
frequently, both repeated infrequently and all the other kinds of
practice. Everything works and as need be the potency need to be
raised or lowered. Though it is common to go up the potency when
something does not work, there are instances where going lower might
be helpful.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
reason
giving
one
all
after
very
at
some
(
contention
their
much
in C
and
were
coming
the
around.
Germans
mixed
gets
allopaths-
anyone
again
see....
email
use
or
to
Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no
representations regarding the individual suitability of the
information contained in any document read or advice or
recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email
postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use
remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or
its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and
howsoever caused.
change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to
receive a single daily digest.

By "fear of low potencies", Luise, I assume you mean "fear" about
having them repeated daily (or more) over long periods of time, not
fear over short-term or supervised use? I have never heard anyone
express fear over short-term use, or use by someone with training, or
acute treatment with them. And even for long-term use, surely the
issue is similar to high potencies--whether the person is knowledgeable
enough to properly judge the nature of the changes (or lack of them)?
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Hi Shannon,
Yes.

Low potencies (e.g. C 6) have traditionally been prescribed to be
repeated daily or more often, and often over long periods of time.
This started out even during Hahnemann's lifetime or shortly after,
and this is what v. B. argued against - and he backed up his arguments
with those "cases from his own experience". By that time, high
single-dose potency prescribers had become a small minority as
compared to the others - this is what v. B. himself said.

It is all fully described and documented in my "Preface".

In Germany this kind of prescribing has been kept up over the 150
years until now. There was very little (if any) different kind of
prescribing, even as far as the unicists were concerned. The so-called
classical prescribing only started slowly again (after 100 years of
very little of it) after the war. Even now the classicals are a
minority. Even now they battle the low-potency, frequent etc.
prescribers and warn against the dire results of such repeated dosing.
Things have not changed much:-)

I have never heard anyone

In low-potency prescribing that has never been much of an issue.

As I have said again and again: it does not seem to have noticeably
harmed the German populace. I myself have never heard any patient
complain - and I know a lot of people who have taken them - same issue
as with the combination remedies.

Interesting in this respect also:

There is one homeopath in Germany (Helmut Trott) who is octracised by
the rest of the classicals (He was more or less chased off the German
list years ago, I understand). He considers the "Cancer Miasm" to be
to-day what Psora was at the time of Hahnemann. So, following what H.
did in his own practice, he gives Carcinosin the way H. used to give
Sulphur, with the exeption that he also goes very high. He gives the
carc. in LM and high potencies, often repeated daily and more often,
depending (I am not familiar with the details of his method).

He started out doing so 15 years ago. Some time ago I enquired on the
list what had become of him. Just a few days there was an answer. He
is still at it, and after 15 years of follow-up time it appears that
his patients are still alive and hopping. No dire results from that
unspeakable kind of prescribing, it seems:-)

(Of course he reports many cures [also of cancer] and better health
for his patients - but that is to be expected. The actual rate of
success etc. is, of course, just as unknown as with every other
homeopath)

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

Potency, as I have repeatedly stated in this forum, has been made into
this monster out of a mickey mouse. I have repeated low potencies lots
of times. People who use biochemics are repeating low potencies all
over the world. People who read Eli Jones would not get night mares
when using low potencies or even combos.

RT Cooper gives mother tincture in single drop and allows it to work
months before repeating.... anything goes in homeopathy.

When I used to practice serving as an Assistant to another doctor his
standard prescription for that asthma in that ( humid and sea coast)
area was Ipec 6 daily one dose, Nat.sulph 6x daily 2 doses, and then
after 3 months he will administer the indicated etc. He had an
excellent asthma practice. As you said all of them are alive and kicking.

So it is not as if people are afraid of repeating low potencies or
even high potencies. If you have read Sarabhai Kapadia he says how he
repeated high potencies and I think he says he learnt it from
Manganlal or some such person. So there are who repeat 1M amd 10 M
with impunity.

When you start your practice, for starters 30, 200 , 1M are good
conservative potencies and then one can give and watch and learn.
Follow the ground rules as laid out by masters.Afterwards move to any
thing you want. Even directly apply the medicine and potency to the
patient meditating upon the medicine and potency and concentrating all
your healing energy on one of the various chakras Or using Jung's
collective unconscious and Rajan's dreaming and group therapy or
whatever the current seminar buzz is - find your way of convincing the
patient that the medicine has been given and collect the fees ( have
you heard of Emperors new cloths? This will work)
But the discussion was to see why Baron needs to singled out for
retribution and if that is necessary at all to make people understand
that the potency phantom is just that...
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
knowledgeable
Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no
representations regarding the individual suitability of the
information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation
offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any
purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the
recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual
members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special,
punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
change your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to
receive a single daily digest.

Hi H.
concluding statement:
The Baron is the only one (afaik) whose publicashed cases *can* be
compared to the documents. We have no other casebooks of classical
homeopaths except of Hahnemann, who did not - to any extent - publish
about his own practice.

Also: Some of Hahnemann's casebooks have been published - and
some of these again have been commented on in great detail.

I now do understand why no publisher has considered it worth his while
to have any of those translated into English. No-one would be
interested enough to buy them. Julian Winston did say that on
Lyghtforce years ago, but I could not believe him.

Referral to Hahnemann and the classical homeopaths ( you cannot get
more classical than v. Boenninghausen, who was Hahnemann's star
student and converted more MDs to homeopathy than anyone else,
including Hahnemann himself) seems to be nothing but lip service
nowadays. I can just imagine what would have happened if at the time
of Boericke, Tafel etc. those casebooks had been available for
translation.
I think I clearly stated that this is just one of the reasons. But yes
- this potency phantom, as you call it, is still one of the most
powerful clubs the "classicals" wield over the others.

I am surprised that there is no outcry on this list about what you are
saying below. On the German list it would raise havoc! And do not
forget: My publications are primarily for the German readers - I just
threw in the English translation for good measure:-)

But I am reconsidering. If people like you, whose opinion I can
respect, think that "Project v. Boenninghausen" is a waste of time,
(and the others never even bother to read) I
tend to believe it as far as the translating is concerned. I'll
probably forget about it. The material will be there in German - let
others do the translating, if they want!

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========