[Minutus What is homeopathic - was combos
Posted: Mon Oct 15, 2007 4:59 pm
Dear Irene,
Nice to hear from you again. My apologies for replying under the
altered subject line "What is homeopathic", but you seem to have left
me little choice.
The "combos" thread now renamed "What is homeopathic" actually kicked
off with a question from Margaret at 5:12 p.m. GMT, 11 May this year:
"I'm wondering why today homeopathy can't move on to combo rems as a
branch of practice rather sidelining combos as "not homeopathy." ...
If we can eat several foods at one time, all of which have energies,
or take a multi-vitamin ditto, why can't homeopathy consider a
multi-rem dosing of more than one well-indicated substance?... And
also especially since commercial in-store combo rems, in my
experience, don't hurt, they only help, if something in them is the
right thing. Combo allergy rems, for instance."
(It was only later that you began suggesting that two remedies
constituted one more than silly old Sam had thought of when he failed
to treat F.I.P. in your kittens!)
The question received some excellent answers before attempts were made
to portray polypharmacy as being as homoeopathic as apple pie (you
remember what apple pie is: single remedy, provings...?). It received
further excellent answers afterward. And none of them was an attack
on your good self. All were various attempts to recall a simple
definition for those whose memory wasn't up to it.
The point about Calendula was not to say that anyone who uses it does
so on no basis at all, (not even something written in a book!). It
was to say that we probably all occasionally practise something that
is not homoeopathy (as clearly is the case with ANY prescription
untested for its effects on the healthy, including combinations!)...
... or, in other words, that at various times, we all practise
something other than homoeopathy, entailing no shame.
I'm sorry if that wasn't plainer, and I hope we might now agree to
practise our homoeopathy, our polypharmacy, or our plain old allopathy
happily together and play nicely without having to brand every old
allopathic approach a new homoeopathy, which stirs the pot
unnecessarily. You have the right to name your therapy; Sam retains
the rights on "homoeopathy".
I did quote you verbatim on several occasions, by the way, and
unfortunately it did nothing to help you accept that having more than
one medicine act on the one patient at the one time is still called
polypharmacy, not homoeopathy. Nobody here is attacking you for that,
Irene, but for heaven's sake let's not confuse the two because of
unnecessary fear of rejection.
Oh -- here comes somebody else, ready with another accusation against
the poor defenceless baron, now!
Cheers --
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
Nice to hear from you again. My apologies for replying under the
altered subject line "What is homeopathic", but you seem to have left
me little choice.
The "combos" thread now renamed "What is homeopathic" actually kicked
off with a question from Margaret at 5:12 p.m. GMT, 11 May this year:
"I'm wondering why today homeopathy can't move on to combo rems as a
branch of practice rather sidelining combos as "not homeopathy." ...
If we can eat several foods at one time, all of which have energies,
or take a multi-vitamin ditto, why can't homeopathy consider a
multi-rem dosing of more than one well-indicated substance?... And
also especially since commercial in-store combo rems, in my
experience, don't hurt, they only help, if something in them is the
right thing. Combo allergy rems, for instance."
(It was only later that you began suggesting that two remedies
constituted one more than silly old Sam had thought of when he failed
to treat F.I.P. in your kittens!)
The question received some excellent answers before attempts were made
to portray polypharmacy as being as homoeopathic as apple pie (you
remember what apple pie is: single remedy, provings...?). It received
further excellent answers afterward. And none of them was an attack
on your good self. All were various attempts to recall a simple
definition for those whose memory wasn't up to it.
The point about Calendula was not to say that anyone who uses it does
so on no basis at all, (not even something written in a book!). It
was to say that we probably all occasionally practise something that
is not homoeopathy (as clearly is the case with ANY prescription
untested for its effects on the healthy, including combinations!)...
... or, in other words, that at various times, we all practise
something other than homoeopathy, entailing no shame.
I'm sorry if that wasn't plainer, and I hope we might now agree to
practise our homoeopathy, our polypharmacy, or our plain old allopathy
happily together and play nicely without having to brand every old
allopathic approach a new homoeopathy, which stirs the pot
unnecessarily. You have the right to name your therapy; Sam retains
the rights on "homoeopathy".
I did quote you verbatim on several occasions, by the way, and
unfortunately it did nothing to help you accept that having more than
one medicine act on the one patient at the one time is still called
polypharmacy, not homoeopathy. Nobody here is attacking you for that,
Irene, but for heaven's sake let's not confuse the two because of
unnecessary fear of rejection.
Oh -- here comes somebody else, ready with another accusation against
the poor defenceless baron, now!
Cheers --
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