FIP, non-Hahnemannian etc. [was: British Institute : Att Joy
Posted: Fri May 29, 2009 12:05 am
On May 28, 2009, at 3:48 PM, Joy Lucas wrote:
Sorry (embarrassed), I don't remember what post you're referring to.
As you said in your last one, it can be important to have specific
information about "named diseases", e.g. to know what the prognosis and
development would be if untreated, and if possible something about what
processes are behind the symptoms, issues of management, and etc.
It's also a common observation that certain remedies tend to be
associated with specific diseases, tho that is not always relevant to a
particular case of the disease. (Might be, or might not be.)
That is a different matter than this-for-that prescribing.
Let me know if I've said anything above that you disagree with.
Well, since those posts were the main body of the information and
context within which Irene has talked about the "tweaks" she has made
to the "classical" process, it doesn't make sense to talk about unless
you do read those posts.
If you *want* to read them, I can try to find the most relevant ones,
and perhaps Irene will be willing to fill in the gaps. My hunch, tho,
is that you don't actually want to know if there was anything useful in
those "tweaks", as you have decided beforehand, in theory and on
principle, that any practice which departs from your own understanding
of "Hahnemannian", is bad, regardless of any other circumstances. (If
I'm overstating your position, I would be happy to be corrected!) I
don't see any point to digging up and re-sending those posts unless you
are motivated to have an actual discussion, based on fair consideration
of the events and etc. Otherwise it's just too much like "arguing for
homeopathy" to one of the "skeptics"--no chance of any way forward, so
why bother? So I'll let you tell me whether I should "bother" or not.
The general outlines, tho, are as I stated in my "What do you think
Irene ought to have done" paragraph.
Actually I don't remember if there was any unproven substance involved
in that; might have been (FIP nosode?), but that was very far from "the
main point" or the most interesting part of her story.
'
Oh, I see where that came from.
Well, yes, her approach to FIP is very much based in knowing that it
*is* (the named disease known as) FIP, and understanding its
progression, prognosis, and underlying processes. Which are more
important in that situation than in most, because the disease shows
very few outwardly observable symptoms, and then the cat dies. (Can't
remember more detail now, sorry.) Her thinking process was
interesting--actually if you can leave aside your prejudgment, you
might indeed find it interesting.
Yep, that ol' "death" symptom got suppressed right back into health!
)
I happily leave open the possibility that there was a more "classical"
way to do the job.
But no one seems to have come up with it yet.
The nosode is only small part of what she uses; the rest, if I remember
right, are "existing proven remedies."
Would indeed be interesting to prove it; I suppose it would have
usefulness for other situations, just as do the other nosodes.
Sorry, I guess I have made assumptions about what parts or how much of
the story you were aware of.
The story is that these cats were all (or nearly all?) terminal,
because there was not any effective allopathic or homeopathic treatment
for the disease. I don't remember what Irene gave as her current rate
of cure, but it was better than half, so a very big improvement.
(Irene??)
? Do you mean I seem to be changing the subject? No, not at all.
I guess that's another that would be clear if you had read the material
you're criticizing.
The choice appeared to be either (a) stick with the strict mainstream
classical method and maybe save one here and there, or (b) apply
"lateral thinking" (knowledge about how the disease kills, and
knowledge about its customary pace and process) and experimentation, to
arrive at a procedure which, tho not mainstream in certain respects (I
won't try to get details straight, but will re-post if you like), is
far more effective, in the very specific sense that it saves most of
the cats' lives, rather than letting them die.
That is the reason that I asked whether you felt it would be more
honorable to let the cats die, than to depart from the strictly
classical procedure. Because as I understood it, those were precisely
the two available choices.
Given that, do you still feel that this departure from the strictly
Hahnemannian was a dreadful thing, to be avoided at all costs? Even
tho it means the kitties die?
Yes, because the regular method was not being successful.
I am still open to the possibility that there might have been a way to
do so, but no one had found it, Irene had not found it.
Well, the feeling is mutual!
I hope this time I'm spelling it out more clearly, because the question
I'm asking is really completely simple. (As above.) The basic problem
*may* be simply that you didn't read the posts, so don't know what's
under discussion, as much as you think you do.
Or it may be that you just would not consider "allowing" / accepting
any (as you see it) non-Hahnemannian procedure, no matter how great the
loss in holding to the past, and no matter how great the benefit in an
innovation. If the latter case, well, it does seem to be a common
problem...
Sorry, that's not my intention.
Honestly I'm baffled by the way *you* have responded to the discussion,
both this time and also the last time.
So I'm going to infer that the missing "yes or no" to my question would
be a "no", you do not think it would be appropriate to let the cats
die, if they could be saved by a non-Hahnemannian approach (but so far
not by any known "classical" one)?
Hey, stay with the topic! This isn't about "successfully treating
animals," it's about some very specific issues (whether any
non-Hahnemannian method (per your own definition) is automatically to
be abhorred. The FIP matter is very specifically relevant, and was
discussed here in very specific detail--if you want to have meaningful
discussion about it, you really need to read the material, and know
*what* we're discussing.
Yes, and it's possible that there is someone out there having
as-good-or-better success in treating FIP. But "out there" is no use
to a patient who is "in here" and dying.
Again, if you read the material I hope you'll understand that I am no
way "warping" the discussion; that is, in fact, EXACTLY the issue--if
you can't do the job (which in this case means save the life of the
cats) by strictly classical method, is it better to just accept that
they'll die because you haven't found an "appropriately Hahnemannian"
way to save them, or is it better to try other things ("innovate"), and
use another method that will save them?
Obviously the same *sort* of dilemma can arise over much more trivial
situations; but for simplicity's sake, since this one is so very clear,
I wanted to stick with it.
Again, I really do NOT want to be insulting about it, and am sorry (tho
not surprised) that you see it that way.
The choice at this point is yours, whether you *want* to see the
material, find out just what the discussion is about, weigh for
yourself the "what happened", and then see whether you still feel that
Irene's "departures" are so horribly unjustifiable.
Let me know if you want me to try to find them. If you lack the time
or interest to follow up, I quite understand.
Best wishes,
Shannon
Sorry (embarrassed), I don't remember what post you're referring to.
As you said in your last one, it can be important to have specific
information about "named diseases", e.g. to know what the prognosis and
development would be if untreated, and if possible something about what
processes are behind the symptoms, issues of management, and etc.
It's also a common observation that certain remedies tend to be
associated with specific diseases, tho that is not always relevant to a
particular case of the disease. (Might be, or might not be.)
That is a different matter than this-for-that prescribing.
Let me know if I've said anything above that you disagree with.
Well, since those posts were the main body of the information and
context within which Irene has talked about the "tweaks" she has made
to the "classical" process, it doesn't make sense to talk about unless
you do read those posts.
If you *want* to read them, I can try to find the most relevant ones,
and perhaps Irene will be willing to fill in the gaps. My hunch, tho,
is that you don't actually want to know if there was anything useful in
those "tweaks", as you have decided beforehand, in theory and on
principle, that any practice which departs from your own understanding
of "Hahnemannian", is bad, regardless of any other circumstances. (If
I'm overstating your position, I would be happy to be corrected!) I
don't see any point to digging up and re-sending those posts unless you
are motivated to have an actual discussion, based on fair consideration
of the events and etc. Otherwise it's just too much like "arguing for
homeopathy" to one of the "skeptics"--no chance of any way forward, so
why bother? So I'll let you tell me whether I should "bother" or not.
The general outlines, tho, are as I stated in my "What do you think
Irene ought to have done" paragraph.
Actually I don't remember if there was any unproven substance involved
in that; might have been (FIP nosode?), but that was very far from "the
main point" or the most interesting part of her story.
'
Oh, I see where that came from.
Well, yes, her approach to FIP is very much based in knowing that it
*is* (the named disease known as) FIP, and understanding its
progression, prognosis, and underlying processes. Which are more
important in that situation than in most, because the disease shows
very few outwardly observable symptoms, and then the cat dies. (Can't
remember more detail now, sorry.) Her thinking process was
interesting--actually if you can leave aside your prejudgment, you
might indeed find it interesting.
Yep, that ol' "death" symptom got suppressed right back into health!
)I happily leave open the possibility that there was a more "classical"
way to do the job.
But no one seems to have come up with it yet.
The nosode is only small part of what she uses; the rest, if I remember
right, are "existing proven remedies."
Would indeed be interesting to prove it; I suppose it would have
usefulness for other situations, just as do the other nosodes.
Sorry, I guess I have made assumptions about what parts or how much of
the story you were aware of.
The story is that these cats were all (or nearly all?) terminal,
because there was not any effective allopathic or homeopathic treatment
for the disease. I don't remember what Irene gave as her current rate
of cure, but it was better than half, so a very big improvement.
(Irene??)
? Do you mean I seem to be changing the subject? No, not at all.
I guess that's another that would be clear if you had read the material
you're criticizing.
The choice appeared to be either (a) stick with the strict mainstream
classical method and maybe save one here and there, or (b) apply
"lateral thinking" (knowledge about how the disease kills, and
knowledge about its customary pace and process) and experimentation, to
arrive at a procedure which, tho not mainstream in certain respects (I
won't try to get details straight, but will re-post if you like), is
far more effective, in the very specific sense that it saves most of
the cats' lives, rather than letting them die.
That is the reason that I asked whether you felt it would be more
honorable to let the cats die, than to depart from the strictly
classical procedure. Because as I understood it, those were precisely
the two available choices.
Given that, do you still feel that this departure from the strictly
Hahnemannian was a dreadful thing, to be avoided at all costs? Even
tho it means the kitties die?
Yes, because the regular method was not being successful.
I am still open to the possibility that there might have been a way to
do so, but no one had found it, Irene had not found it.
Well, the feeling is mutual!
I hope this time I'm spelling it out more clearly, because the question
I'm asking is really completely simple. (As above.) The basic problem
*may* be simply that you didn't read the posts, so don't know what's
under discussion, as much as you think you do.
Or it may be that you just would not consider "allowing" / accepting
any (as you see it) non-Hahnemannian procedure, no matter how great the
loss in holding to the past, and no matter how great the benefit in an
innovation. If the latter case, well, it does seem to be a common
problem...
Sorry, that's not my intention.
Honestly I'm baffled by the way *you* have responded to the discussion,
both this time and also the last time.
So I'm going to infer that the missing "yes or no" to my question would
be a "no", you do not think it would be appropriate to let the cats
die, if they could be saved by a non-Hahnemannian approach (but so far
not by any known "classical" one)?
Hey, stay with the topic! This isn't about "successfully treating
animals," it's about some very specific issues (whether any
non-Hahnemannian method (per your own definition) is automatically to
be abhorred. The FIP matter is very specifically relevant, and was
discussed here in very specific detail--if you want to have meaningful
discussion about it, you really need to read the material, and know
*what* we're discussing.
Yes, and it's possible that there is someone out there having
as-good-or-better success in treating FIP. But "out there" is no use
to a patient who is "in here" and dying.
Again, if you read the material I hope you'll understand that I am no
way "warping" the discussion; that is, in fact, EXACTLY the issue--if
you can't do the job (which in this case means save the life of the
cats) by strictly classical method, is it better to just accept that
they'll die because you haven't found an "appropriately Hahnemannian"
way to save them, or is it better to try other things ("innovate"), and
use another method that will save them?
Obviously the same *sort* of dilemma can arise over much more trivial
situations; but for simplicity's sake, since this one is so very clear,
I wanted to stick with it.
Again, I really do NOT want to be insulting about it, and am sorry (tho
not surprised) that you see it that way.
The choice at this point is yours, whether you *want* to see the
material, find out just what the discussion is about, weigh for
yourself the "what happened", and then see whether you still feel that
Irene's "departures" are so horribly unjustifiable.
Let me know if you want me to try to find them. If you lack the time
or interest to follow up, I quite understand.
Best wishes,
Shannon