Scientific medicine, was: Ancient Wisdom and Acute diseases- the Paradox - PLEASE READ

[John Harvey]

I think that two important points may easily be overlooked or confused here:

(A)
It is not the case that the only value in listening to other views or
assertions of fact and considering them lies in then accepting as fact
the assertions of the speaker. (If that were the case, then we would
have no value from this list except by accepting all the mutually
contradictory assertions on this list, which is of course an
impossibility.) The chief value of listening and considering lies in
the ability of these assertions from a scientific standpoint is to
expand the range of TESTABLE hypotheses in order to more reliably
approximate the truth that the listener is seeking. In sharp
contradistinction to most of those asserting their views today about
homoeopathic treatment and its rationale, Hahnemann was prepared to
entertain all kinds of possibilities for better treatment, including
even the possibility that "double remedies" could sometimes have
superior results to what was available in a limited range of single
ones. And he was willing to test that hypothesis, unwelcome as it
must have been.
(B)
Let's think of this in context. First, homoeopathy was under stronger
attack then that it is even now. Yes, it had plenty of public support
too, but legal tendencies and powers were draconian, and assertions as
to the harm possible simply through ignorantly and inadvertantly
keeping a patient from "real" treatment were made as powerfully at
that time as they are today. Allopaths were as inclined then as now
to cry "Fraud!" in the belief that patients don't understand what
their homoeopaths openly tell them about the quantitiy of medicine
they'll be receiving. Homoeopathy had much to lose and trod a
hazardous path.

Second, the mood within homoeopathic circles was, if possible, more
divided than it is today. (Partly, it has to be said, this was
probably due to the approach of Hahnemann himself, who was not at all
conciliatory or gentle in his approach to persuading "mongrel
homoeopaths" back into the fold and was more inclined to kick them
right into the arms of allopathy.) Consequently there was great
psychological pressure to assert the superiority of one speculative
(unproven and unprovable) system or another -- double remedies,
external applications, alternations between homoeopathic and
allopathic treatments without compelling reason -- as well as that of
homoeopathy, as defined by its developer. There was little
recognition -- except by Hahnemann and a few close colleagues -- of
the imperativeness of scientific experiment; little vision of the
power that well-derived experimental evidence could wield. So the
politics of medicine depended less on results than on believable
rhetoric and some of its allies: assertion, accusation, insinuation.
The first victim of such critical rhetoric is not going to be the
allopathic methods, of course, which are everyday, but the
unbelievable: the homoeopathic ones. Similar symptoms? How
dangerous! How stupid! Zero doses? How cheap! How callously
fraudulent! How imbecilic!

Third, Hahnemann may have been lacking in political finesse, but he
was not completely without foresight and was not about to hand any of
his enemies an obvious weapon after hearing how they planned to use it
against homoeopathy. This particular obvious weapon, which never sat
well with Hahnemann anyway as it ran against all that he'd discovered,
was one that could easily have brought about homoeopathy's total
downfall. All it would have required was some evidence for the
accusation that homoeopaths practised no differently from allopaths;
that their success, such as it was, lay in mimicking allopathic
methods. To interpret Hahnemann in this context as seeking to hide
the truth in order to protect his turf would be less than fair on this
basis alone. But...

Fourth and finally, let's think how it came about that Hahnemann was
ready to publish mention of "double remedies".

Here was a man who for decades had stood for the single remedy and the
clear result; who for decades had stood for the unambiguous,
reproducible proving of a single substance; who even as a "successful"
allopath had criticised multiple prescriptions.

Now, late in his career, having enjoyed worldwide fame as the
originator of medicine that actually worked for the patient, here he
was about to take the brave (possibly even ill-conceived) step of
writing aloud his thoughts about the possibility of being wrong in
this respect -- the possibility that a "double remedy" might
occasionally be called for -- and the preliminary experiments he'd
conducted in order to learn, as he always demonstrated a willingness
to do, what was best for the patient.

The results were not yet conclusive, but there seemed to be no
compelling evidence for creating the necessarily muddy trails and
mountains of speculation that a double remedy creates. He was
obtaining, after all, world-beating results with the single remedy.
The methodology for single remedies was clear, and the results were
easy to interpret. The same cannot, and never will, be truly said of
double remedies.

Yet, against all scientific understanding, Hahnemann made the effort
to break that new ground, just in case there was something of benefit
to be unearthed.

Now, there's a scientist.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

The sick are entitled to exact knowledge, not to guesswork.

-- James Tyler Kent

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi John,
benefit

Indeed, I never said otherwise.

The topic was whether he was "what Rolf had defined as a 'true'
Scientist"

Perhaps if you read Rolf's definition again you understand what I have
been talking about. (I don't know whether there has ever existed
anyone who would be a true scientist by that definition)

Regards

Luise
^> ones. And he was willing to test that hypothesis, unwelcome as it

--
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 <==========

[John Harvey]

Hi, Luise --

I've been unable to locate Rolf's definition of a "true scientist",
but your clarification is fair enough. My aim, though, was to give
some sense of Hahnemann's uncompromised scientific integrity, which is
what seemed to be at stake in this discussion. My concern was that
such integrity should not be judged negatively because he did not
accept the assertions of others. To the contrary: it is the
acceptance of the unproven that marks the pseudo-scientist. This is
exactly the major problem that homoeopathy faces today: the
limitations of so-called skeptics, and technologists posing as
scientists, who have accepted a very narrow idea of how the world
works and refuse to receive evidence overturning that idea. Hahnemann
indulged himself in no such limitation.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

The sick are entitled to exact knowledge, not to guesswork.

-- James Tyler Kent

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi John,

Thank you for your fair discussion.

As I wrote to Hahnemannian:

If I did not share the admiration for Hahnemann and v.
Boenninghausen, I would not be spending my time, energy and money in
retirement on doing what I am doing. I get nothing out of it - no
prosepct of money or reputation.

By my reseaarches I do find many things that may be considered
shortcomings. As far as I myself am concerned they do not detract from
the value of their work - no more than the fact of e.g. Newton's
hounding Leibnitz into depression and probably death detracts from the
value of Newtons's achivements.

The German language homeopaths seem to share my attitude, where they
show interest at all, their response has been positive.

For the English-speaking homeopaths the effect has been diametrically
opposite. So I repeat what I have said before, this time in a
non-ironical manner: If the English speaking homeopaths are adverse to
the publication of my results, it is their privilege. I accept it and
will not spend any more time and energy on translating and typing.

I hope that this clarifies matters.

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 <==========

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Please, you know that in homeopathy you individualise, not generalise, so it also goes for the language(s) homeopaths speak.
Many of us do silently appreciate your work, and further generations certainly will. We might disagree on conclusions, but facts are facts.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

[John Harvey]

Hi, Luise --

I'm sure that homoeopaths of all languages like to think these things
through and can agree to disagree about conclusions. It doesn't
render the process any less valuable. Please keep it up.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

The sick are entitled to exact knowledge, not to guesswork.

-- James Tyler Kent

[dimitri rolf]

Hi Luise,
maybe here in this list there are one or two persons that would like you to stop writing. The rest of us need you though! Do us a favor and not to them.
Have a good week everybody
________________________________

Don't get soaked. Take a quick peak at the forecast
with theYahoo! Search weather shortcut.

[Shannon Nelson]

And yet "railing against the enemy" is frequently less useful than
simply speaking one's "own truth", focusing on building up one's own
castle. For us, today, the situation is very similar, and we too have
to decide where to put our energy--railing against "them", or building
upon our strengths, both shared (things that allopaths and homeopaths
*both* want to see) and individual (strengthening our own knowledge,
ability and community)?
Cheers,
Shannon

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi List,

Just a few facts:

Every single homeopath on this list and off, worldwide, practicing
now, belongs to the group around Moritz Mueller - all of us are
mongrel-homeopaths. Even those few who themselves practice nothing but
the purest Hahnemannian homeopathy - if any exist - will send
patients to hospitals or allopaths for treatment or will accept that
this is done.

Most homeopaths, in addition, will claim the right to decide for
themselves what methods to use - this is what happened first in
Leipzig.

------------

Soon after Hahnemann's death there was a split region-wise. The pure
Hahnemannian Method "emigrated" to the USA (and possibly other
overseas countries). In Germany the MD homeopaths of the next
generations followed the methods of the Leipzig group resp. the group
that later evolved around Griesselich.

Although small in number as compared to the allopaths, they kept
single remedy homeopathy alive, though not thriving. It could not
thrive, since homeopath MD's were few in number - and the reason for
the small numbers was thair low social/professional status as compared
to the allopaths, not their lack of success: their practices were
crowded, their patients happy, in spite of their prescribing low
potencies at relatively big doses and practically always frequently
repeated for long stretches of time.

Homeopathy or "non-homeopathy" if you wish, anyhow the treatment by
(low-potency) multiple remedies, started around the same time, perhaps
just a little later. It went on to thrive and grow. It was the
non-MD's that used this method - some of them self-treating, some
getting together in study groups, some of them semi-professional
non-MD's.

These are historical facts.

As JROZ said in his mail: what we make of them, is our own judgement.

This is true for everyone of us, it is also true for the historians.

Haehl I do not remember - but I should think that he considered
Hahnemann to have been persecuted all his life, Prof. Juette sees it
somewhat more balanced, but still considers that in the Leipzig
question Hahnemann probably did right, Tischner saw it more critical.

The question is quite up-to-date, isn't it? What is better for
homeopathy to-day: To remain pure and stand-offish if not inimical to
to-day's allopathy resp. "non-true:-)" science or to try and integrate
the two? (This is just a rhetoric question - I am not trying to
re-open that argument, matter of fact I think it would be nonsense to
do so. All that can be said about it has been said, IMO)

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 <==========

[John Harvey]

On 2/15/07, Chris Gillen wrote:
[snip]

In particular, the footnote to aph. 67 refers to use of allopathic
palliatives in the most urgent cases, "to stimulate the irritability
and sensibility (the physical life)".

We're in agreement that Hahnemann should not have tolerated "mongrel
homoeopathy"; I was merely acknowledging that he might have made
allies of some rather than enemies had he left their egos intact. On
the other hand, my memory of the history of events leading up to
publication of his criticisms is hazy; perhaps he had already given
that approach its chance.

Cheers --

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

The sick are entitled to exact knowledge, not to guesswork.

-- James Tyler Kent