Minutus

Hi, Irene --

This is very funny, and I'm sorry I haven't had time to read it any sooner:

JH: "I think that what you're getting at is that Hahnemann's use of
intercurrents as described here sounds very like what Irene is doing."

IdeV: "Very comparable yes."

JH: "... if I'm understanding correctly
-- please correct me if not --
you are saying that you too believe that Hahnemann's practice was
comparable to what you do."

IdeV: "... I did not enter the realm of comparing what I do to what
Hahnemann or 
anyone else did."

So let's see... in the space of two consecutive messages, you have
confirmed and then denied your view that Hahnemann's use of
intercurrents is comparable to what you do.

This style of argument, though you've demonstrated it several times in
this discussion of combinations and polypharmacy, is one I'm afraid I
still don't understand except as clowning around (which I admit has
its value). You have used it to suggest both that Hahnemann would
support polypharmacy (or whatever you call the prescription of two
medicines or more) and that he was so deficient in his understanding
that he didn't realise the necessity or the value of polypharmacy (or,
again, whatever it is you call it).

Neither argument, of course, is actually relevant to the topic, which
concerns the breadth neither of Hahnemann's practice nor of his
understanding but simply of his definition of homoeopathy.

The question whether that definition can incorporate polypharmacy (or
dual prescribing or whatever else you'd like to call it) cannot be
resolved by reference to whether Hahnemann was a wise man, a fool, an
ignoramus, or a hypocrite. (Ad hominem!) It can be resolved only by
reference to the way in which the practice has been defined, the
boundaries set around it. And those boundaries clearly, explicitly,
and unambiguously exclude multiple (even just two!) remedies and
multiple prescriptions of simultaneously acting remedies.

That homoeopathic practitioners may all occasionally depart from
homoeopathic practice is also neither here nor there in considering
what it is that homoeopathic practice comprises in essence. If we all
became allopaths or faith healers tomorrow and considered allopathy or
faith healing to be superior to Hahnemann's fuddy-duddy homoeopathy,
would that transform the nature of homoeopathy to include faith
healing or allopathic practice? Clearly not.

The same argument must apply to all departures from homoeopathic
practice. No matter how effective, how rational, how wonderful they
are -- and I offer no dispute with your discovery of dual
prescriptions' being groundbreaking and miraculous in effect -- they
cannot be both homoeopathy and not homoeopathy.

It would be petty to argue that somebody who tries other methods, as
you clearly have with unparallelled and under-recognised success, is
not a homoeopath. On many other occasions, that same practitioner may
clearly use homoeopathy and therefore be a homoeopathic practitioner.
What remains fundamentally important, though, is clarity as to the
essence of the practice that Hahnemann named homoeopathy.

The importance of that clarity is that future generations of students
not be churned out as confused as the present one is concerning just
what homoeopathy is. The mounting confusion between homoeopathy and
various other practices pushed forward as "acceptable" parts of
homoeopathic practice affects not only students, who more and more
commonly give up in despair the practice they've never learned to
master, but also scientists, governments, and other gatekeepers
capable of allowing homoeopathy a place in the life of every citizen.
And it affects patients.

Homoeopathic practice can be, and is, defined very simply. That
definition allows huge variation. Beyond that boundary, we have many
other things, such as anthroposophic medicine, radionics, kinesiology,
and polypharmacy of various persuasions. Even if it were possible to
rationally name all these things "homoeopathy", what useful purpose
would it serve? It would serve to confuse and befuddle -- exactly
what is occurring. But it would advance exploration not one iota.

It might be argued to serve "inclusiveness" -- but if we accept that
chiropractic may be good and vaccination may be harmful today, or if
we accept that both questions are worth exploring, will naming them
both homoeopathy change our positions on either tomorrow? It would
not -- and it would create unnecessary and distracting debate on the
misuse of terminology.

But you know all this, many times over. And you know that such a
scenario is not possible anyway, as homoeopathy does have boundaries.

If those who practise homoeopathy and those who practise pottyopathy
can live and let live, then practitioners of each can explore whether
there may be value in what the other does. But as long as pottyopaths
insist that homoeopathy must include pottyopathy, they will have a
fight on their hands to gain the respect that they themselves refuse
both homoeopaths and language.

Homoeopaths with "superior wisdom" as to what is better than
fuddy-duddy chiropractic, fuddy-duddy dentistry, and so on do not
demand that the definition of chiropractic, dentistry, allopathy, or
even pottyopathy expand to incorporate homoeopaths' superior wisdom.
Why? Partly it's because homoeopaths know better than to think that
such a definition can arbitrarily be changed by popular demand; partly
it is because they respect the right of practitioners of those methods
to retain their identity as practitioners of those methods.

Conversely, and for the same reasons, to have every chiropractor and
crackpottyopath demand that homoeopathy incorporate his or her latest
insight into new medical or surgical methods would not advance the
cause of homoeopathy one iota. And in the same way, and for the same
reasons, even one superior, rational step beyond homoeopathy's
definition cannot (and cannot be expected to) arbitrarily fall within
it.

Other methods -- including anthroposophical medicine, radionics, and
polypharmacy of whatever stripe -- may, in time, come to seem superior
to homoeopathy. If they do, then no doubt the majority of homoeopaths
will come to embrace those other methods, just as they commonly
already embrace dietetics, exercise, counselling, community
development, and other commonsense means of improving health. And
those other methods of prescribing potentised substances will remain
beyond the boundaries of homoeopathy itself -- just as dietetics and
exercise do today EVEN THOUGH Hahnemann clearly considered them useful
and vital components of physic.

What is good, what is useful, and what is safe are all good questions
-- even great questions. But clearly none have a bearing on what is
homoeopathy. And that's the simple point that homoeopaths continue to
ask others -- even other homoeopaths -- to have the respect and the
intelligence to acknowledge.

Kind regards,

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

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands
science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We
might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this
combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our
faces."

-- Carl Sagan

Hi John,
Does it make you happier if we say that Irene has found a
situation--FIP cats treated with prednisone--in which homeopathy fails,
but she has found another method which is able to (often) cure it? I
agree with you that success and failure do not change the definition; I
also agree with you that the definition matters, and also agree that a
"homeopath" may sometimes do things that are "not-homeopathy". Even
with "hoemopathic" remedies, I mean.

But the arguments over whether Irene has (a) found a way to use
homeopathy to cure FIP, or (b) found a way to use homeopathic remedies
in a non-homeopathic way to cure FIP... I'm not sure what the
usefulness of the continued discussion might be? Are you concerned
that she's doing damage to her patients, or that she's damaging the
reputation of homeopathy, or simply that it's better to state
"homeopathy fails in certain situations" than it would be to (perhaps)
push the definition?

Shannon

I do not have much time to write at the moment but ....

Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
Who is the we? I for one am not saying this - is it only you and Irene?
Who says? Firstly, there are not that many homeopaths who are well trained in veterinary practice and there are not that many vets well trained in homeopathy. Furthermore, out of these there are even less who are capable of applying best practice methods in homeopathy with in their treatments - in fact I do not know of one but hope springs eternal that some do exist. This hardly means that homeopathy has failed, just that it has failed in the hands of those who are unable to apply it at its best.
This discussion was never about FIP. Also your statement, "homeopathy fails in certain situations", would be more accurate and meaningful if you added "when used in certain ways by certain people". A tradesman with limited experience, skills or training is always prone to thinking the problem lies with his tools.
--

Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Information - Education - Treatment)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org

Hi, Shannon --

Perhaps we have moved forward after all. It's a very good question,
if what makes me happy matters, though I'm uncertain why you're asking
it.

We seem (I say tentatively!) to have arrived at a point at which we
can agree that what is relevant to the definition of homoeopathy has
nothing whatever to do with Irene or other particular practitioners or
what they do and nothing whatever to do with their results.

So, if I may omit reference to particular practitioners and their
methods, your question concerns generally what the definition of
homoeopathy is relevant to.

That question has been answered already, in May, several times since,
and even tonight. In a nutshell, what homoeopathy is -- and the
imperviousness of that to arbitrary change -- is relevant to its
future because it affects its future. This occurs, for instance, via

• a (scientist or medical practitioner's) understanding of the
significance of a clinical trial (it's a trial of homoeopathy, not of
combinatorics, guesswork, or sympathetic magic);

• a (government's) understanding of the significance of our claims
(they're not ridiculously convoluted but rather simple); and

• a (patient's) understanding of the aim of the practitioner in
conducting consultation, research, and prescription,

and these are just three instances. Take into account the deep and
abiding confusions that looseness in usage of the word "homoeopathy"
has introduced to practitioners also, and you see the basis for the
very convolutions we few are just -- perhaps -- emerging from in
months of discussion.

That's why I care: the future of homoeopathy -- and the future of
whatever better medicine may emerge from it -- depends deeply on our
knowing what homoeopathy is.

If that means, in any particular instance, that we frankly acknowledge
that something beyond the bounds of homoeopathy is an improvement on
it, then surely we can be big enough to step up and acknowledge it;
give that practice a name; and continue to study the two. For
instance, it may be the case, for all I know, that the results of
radionics based on radiaesthesia are far superior to those of
homoeopathy. We do ourselves no particular service and no credit to
sneak radionics and radiaesthesia in under the boundary fence and call
them homoeopathy too. Keeping the distinction clear allows us to know
better what we're studying and to conceptualise comparisons --
particularly in quick-and-dirty communication forums such as this --
free of at least two confusions and free of all hypocrisy and
tautology concerning the value of homoeopathy (which, if it's always
to be understood as "whatever works best", will always be... the best,
won't it!).

They're the kinds of things that make no difference to day-to-day
practice in the immediate term but all the difference in the world in
the long term.

Kind regards,

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

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands
science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We
might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this
combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our
faces."

-- Carl Sagan

Hi Fran,
Points well taken.
Perhaps the best thing would have been to leave those observations for
what they were--an application of homeopathic training which (by
whatever name) that has been useful in the specific situation--rather
than stage a beating of drums over whether it "is homeopathy."
Regards,
Shannon

How about saying we are Health Practitioners who are using and adapting different methods and techniques, one of which is called Homeopathy, which is the main interest of this list?
Would that make everybody happy?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

Whew, *that* would solve a lot of problems! (Tho some will still
want to nail down a definition of homeopathy, and others will still
disagree...)
:-0

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD,NMD. wrote:
It Should - It's the truth:-)
....Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

You are right- it does not address the core issue what started this-
not that I care - just pointing out that it is besides the point...

it is defining what is homeopathic practice rather than any
individual's practice-

It is defining what kinds of things can be called a homeopathic
practice within the wide spectrum of practices any eclectic health
practitioner does...

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
still
not

So if I may (although I swore not to get involved....darn....), I would define Homeopathy as a therapy based on the application of the law of similarity, with the condition that the instrument/medium/remedy can be demonstrated as similar.
But then that would confirm what many have said, that group therapy is a form of homeopathy, where you receive a similar dose of the suffering of others, which eases yours.
I have no problem with that........what would psychologists and counselors say if we call them "accidental homeopaths"?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".