Minutus

Hello Shannon,

RSN> On Jul 28, 2007, at 10:06 AM, John Harvey wrote:

Monday, July 30, 2007, 12:56:20 PM, you wrote:
RSN> Nope. But it *would* over time change the "meaning" of the word,
RSN> according to the "meaning of 'meaning'", according to the way language
RSN> works, and evolves.
RSN> Shannon

This is never going to happen for the pure and simple reason that the
very name and use of homeopathy ie: similar suffering, hinges on an
underpinning natural law - the law of similars. Hahnemann may have
stated the definition but that definition is drawn from the unchanging
nature of a natural law. As homeopathy expoits and paraphrases this
law, there is no way the meaning of homeopathy can evolve to reflect
something other than this natural law. For this reason it is not about
to evolve to have a different meaning to that which Hahnemann defined.

Fran Sheffield

Homeopathy Plus! (Education and Information)
www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative Inc. (Homeopathic Immunisation)
www.d-n-h.org

One other interesting phenomenon I'm seeing is a spate of over the counter,
apparently allopathic, preparations that when you look at the label turn out
to be composed totally of potentized homeopathic remedies (usually in low
X/D strengths). The word "homeopathic" never occurs on the label or in the
advertising. I don't know where this is leading, but it confirms the idea
that Fran suggested that allopathic drug companies are integrating some of
the homeopathic ideas, without calling it "homeopathy" and of course without
any sense of what "homeopathic" really means in its totality.

Rosemary
--
I am using the free version of SPAMfighter for private users.
It has removed 145 spam emails to date.
Paying users do not have this message in their emails.
Get the free SPAMfighter here: http://www.spamfighter.com/len

Hi Rosemary,
There have been quite a lot of methods in Germany (and probably
worldwide) who use potentized remedies and do *not* call their method
homeopathy (e.g. Reckeweg, Anthroposophy) - and often they are indeed
used by "allopaths" -meaning mostly MDs who practice regular medicine
but also partly use naturopathy. But also our equivalent of
"naturopaths" (Heilpraktiker) uses such methods and combination
methods, calling all of it homeopathy (in most cases). I do not see
any chance of the latter ever changing.

But it is an interesting aspect to consider what would happen if it
did change - i.e.if they found for themselves a a different name.

That would mean that probably 90 percent of the people now fighting
for the recognition of "homeopathy" or for its not being taken off the
recognized therapies, fighting for the remedies to be available and
permitted, would no longer do so but would insted put their efforts
into fighting for something - to our idea - totally different. They
would then fight for the combo remedies in low potencies and leave
single redies of high potencies out of their efforts.

They would more than likely point out that the only dangers that have
ever been claimed/reported for potentized remedies was by the
classicals and mostly claimed fortheir own classical methods. This
they can easily backup from the literature available over the
centuries. They can very reasonable argue that, where the classicals
claimed danger for the combos, they did so from ignorance, prejudice
and animosity/competition.

They would also point out that most of the trials of homeopathy that
turned out significantly positive acccording to the parameters set by
the establishment - who are the more powerful groups - were done with
combos.

Only the may-be worldwide 10 percent of classicals/high potency
prescribers would be left to fight for these and themselves - against
the establishment AND possibly the other 90 percent formerly calling
themselves homeopaths. They might easily all band together to demand a
ban on high potencies or their being made prescription drugs. The same
could happen for low single potencies. Why the latter? It is quite
reasonable that combinations would be less danger since the different
remedies in a combo might work to blunt the effect - and they would
again have plenty of backup in classical publications for that claim.
Also, the combination people have never denied that single remedies
can be more effective when properly chosen - they only claim that the
classical homeopaths very rarely succeed in choosing them properly!;-)

Those 10 percent purists no doubt would"die as
martyrs" for their just cause of keeping the concept of homeopathy as
Hahnemann defined it.

It has happened in Germany to a degree. For about 100 years - 1860 to
1870 - there were praccatically no classical/Hahnemannian homeopaths
practicing in Germany! But the methods that you call non-homeopathy
thrived, and when classical homeopathy returned, there was fertile
soil for it to grow. And if it is as good as the "classicals" claim it
will keep growing and by and by the other methods may vanish, because
they are just not as effective.

Not long ago Soroush posted on this list that in the UK a group of
well-respected scientists and homeopaths has formed to work on
research and promotion of homeopathy. The same is happening in the
rest of Europe within a project for alternative medicine generally. It
is being launched in Brussels in October with a lot of prominent
scientist and politicians and representatives of regular medicine
attending and holding speeches.

In the light of all this - would it really be good for the future of
homeopathy if this question of definition, of exclusion and fight
against those calling their methods homeopathy - whether rightly or
wrongly - would come to be an issue outside a few "classical" or
purist email-lists?

At this time in history???

Regards

Luise
However,
--
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 <==========