Minutus

The matter of provings was never a bone of contention between
homeopaths and its foes. Even during Hahnemann's lifetime many of the
most prominent allopathic doctors lauded him for that.

The matter of homeopathy versus allopathy ceased to be a matter of
controversy soon after H*s death. The paradigm of "allopathy" was
quietly buried by regular medicine.

The main the argument against homeopathy at that time, as now, was
that homeopathy is not effective.

V. Boenninghausen wrote an article on it "Triduum Homoeopathicum" in
which he explained this and in which hetried to show the contrary.
This article can be found in his Lesser Writings. I do not have the
page in the English version, but it should be still by that title and
thus not be hard to find.

The other controversy was and has been that regular medicine - at
Hahnmann's time (read his introduction to the Organons - it should
also come to the top in the aphorisms Soroush posts - watch for it)
that regular medicine saw illness as something material and that the
action of the remedies is based on matter, resp. needs a material
substrate. It is one of the things Hahnemann railed against most
strongly.

This argument is nowadays mostly based on the high potencies resp,
those where Avogadro's number plays no part, which the scientist
consider to consist of nothing except the carrier medium (water,
alcohol, sugar pellets) and thus can have no medical value in their
opinion. Of course they also do not accept the provings made by such
potencies.

The things I wrote in the last 2 paragraphs are the arguments of
to-day's scientist.

I have never read or heard in any debates any of the arguments
Hahnemannian and John H. cite as being obstacles to acception of
homeopathy. I have asked John numerous times to give me a source where
I can find such arguments - so far he has ignored my challenges to do
so. (Mark well: I said: scientist and the debates in journals like the
Lancet, Science, Nature or the more reputable newpapers - not some
crank sceptics sites, not Randi and his disciples)

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 <==========

Dear Luise,

I've just searched for an earlier e-mail from you mentioning The
Lancet, and didn't find it.

You did, however ask:

• (at 6:09 p.m. GMT, 21 May 07) for "any indications that the people
behind those attacks even know the difference between what you call
the Hahnemannian and only homeopathy and the various other methods";
"any indications that they have been using the latter for their
arguments to get the restrictions on board"; and "any indications to
fortify you opinion that combos are the principal goal of their
attacks or even included so far"; and

• (at 1:30 p.m. GMT, 19 Jul 07), for evidence that "apologists or
sceptics" love the misrepresentation of homoeopathy as including
arbitrary ideas (such as signatures) and arbitrary practices (such as
combinations).

To repeat verbatim what I said to you in my message of 7:14 a.m. GMT, 21 Jul 07:

"If you consider all the sources quotes in my message of 3:56 a.m., 28
May 07, to be quacks, then I don't know what to suggest except that
the ordinary man or woman's perception may be otherwise. I could add
to that list an article by William E. Thomas MD, "Is Homeopathy a
cult?", at and an old
chapter by Morris Fishbein MD, "The rise and fall of homeopathy",
still being purveyed as relevant
, and no doubt a few
more-recent articles would turn up in a Google search today than those
that did in May, but really if all that is currently being said of
homoeopathy by qualified mainstream medical practitioners and
articulate journalists representing the pharmaceutical industry's
interests has passed you by, then we're conducting a conversation
without a basis in experience common between us."

Kind regards,

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

"Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for
leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long
term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be
a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use
of vigorous criticism."

-- Carl Sagan

Hi John,

perhpas you could also find my reply to the last paragraphs below.

I think I showed why I do not consider their arguments to be of any
value and I also said that I am looking for sources where their kinds
of arguments were forwarded in journals, newspapers, TV/radio-debates
that are of any consequence.

Browsing the net for blogs and private sites and groups you can find
arguments for and aganst about anything. There are flat-earthers
groups and anything else airing their ideas on the web - if we want to
include all their sites....

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 <==========