Minutus

But suppose it were possible to mount a campaign to defend any and all use of potentised substances, single or polypharmaceutical, as consistent with homoeopathy.
Try Irene, for one, who will deny that administering two remedies together constitutes polypharmacy, and will claim that a potency of a multivalent vaccine against cat flu is being prescribed homoeopathically, and who will claim that homoeopathy rests on a bigger law than the law of similars, the law of cure, which overrides it. Such claims are much broader than the claim of homoeopathy.
The point is that the first temptation in drafting legislation is to make everybody conform to the allopathic way of doing things. Homoeopathy continues, often at least, to wriggle out of this, but only because of two things: it's easy to write off as harmless because it's easy to understand; and it has a genuine provenance of being not only harmless but reputedly useful. Both those things are lost in arguing that we actually don't care about differentiating homoeopathic practice from prescription on some other basis than the law of similars or even differentiating it from prescription of complex remedies. Prescription of complexes is a practice that I understand, from your earlier post, you are NOT advocating including as homoeopathic practice, though. So we can probably leave this alone.
"It" is homoeopathy.

I'm not calling homoeopathy magic. I'm speaking of blurring the line between homoeopathy and magic.
You can respond to abuse by participating in it and corrupting yourself or by calling for it to stop. I call for it to stop.
Homoeopathy's opponents frequently write of its practitioners as believers in magical thinking. It's my impression that most of them do so in genuine ignorance of what homoeopathy is rather than in seeking to misrepresent it.
Well, I was shortcutting. This fell under the heading "Would it be desirable?". What I should have said was that no real homoeopaths will tolerate your saying something about them that implies that they don't recognise the difference between homoeopathy and everything else. Such would be one implication of their evident acceptance of, for instance, prescription of complexes as potentially occurring homoeopathically.
It may be that I have completely misinterpreted your intent, Shannon, which seemed plain enough: to include a lot of non-homoeopathic prescriptions in homoeopathy on the basis of the abuse of the term "homoeopathic" by allopathic manufacturers. What seemed to be your wholehearted support for further similar abuse of the term led me to welcome you to continue saying of yourself that you don't care to differentiate homoeopathy from prescriptions not based on the law of similars -- but to not to say it of homoeopaths, who plainly do.
Oh, I can see that. But there are lots of things that not everybody gets, and their ignorance is rarely proposed as a good reason to dumb down. Less is it a reason to destroy that which defines the thing. Without a basis in the law of similars, there is no homoeopathy; it's the law of similars that defines it. If somebody has never heard of that, we surely would find no rational advantage to homoeopathy in explaining to him that it's something else, such as prescription of a small dose?
Lately, yes. I'm wary of what it is you mean by this, I confess; it could denote quite a range.
I take back everything I said about having misunderstood your intent. I really can't tell whether you're playing the same cat-and-mouse game that Irene is, but this reversion to arguing that real homoeopaths should agree that combinations may be prescribed homoeopathically is a backward leap in this discussion. You know exactly why that's not possible.
Certainly. Three more short paragraphs and you would have reached the heading the proposals.

Here they are in a nutshell:

(1) agree that homoeopathy is the ideal way of practising medicine when it's possible and that other means can always be used when we deem them necessary regardless that they fall under other categories than homoeopathy.
Or:
(2) invent a new term to cover all those practices that you want to fall under one term. If you'd like suggestions, mine is potency medicine, and I'll perhaps use that term for this collection of practices for the remainder of this discussion. For reasons that I think I've made clear above, it would be undesirable for homoeopaths to be identified as practising mere potency medicine; it would as well unnecessarily limit them, as neither high nor low potencies are always necessary in homoeopathic practice, as Hahnemann could tell you. Primarily, though, it would have the disadvantage of identifying homoeopaths as not valuing the law of similars over any desperate alternative basis for prescription.
Further suggestion: create your own "potency medicine" discussion list. In that place, you can argue for any definition you prefer of any word that you find inconveniently restrictive either to yourselves or to the patients and potential patients you have yet to educate or to your entire country -- whatever mass of people you believe share your view of homoeopathy.
That's it in a nutshell.
Cheers!
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

Shannon,
I'm truly gladdened by the increasing understanding between us and by our agreement at last on suitable terminology.
Was this your intent all along? I understood that you wanted those on this list practising or purporting to practise homoeopathy to agree on terminology, not to go shopping.

If you and I have agreed that the supercategory "potency medicine" is a suitable term to include homoeopathy, Irenopathy*, and all other practices using potencies, then surely our job is now -- in accordance with your original brief -- only to check what the rest of the readers on this list think of it? Or were you indeed proposing to go to the shops and tell them that the homoeopaths agree with the Irenopaths that the boxes are appropriately labelled that say "homoeopathic" as long as there's an ingredient X in them?
John
*As ably illustrated by selected Irenisms of its inventor in espousing her understanding of the "principles" of great medicine:
From Iren. (3): "The point is that some combinations that are well matched to aspects of

the patient symptoms DO work well."
From Iren. (4): "Ah but the combinations I am referring to ARE homeopathic and are not

some polypharmacy or other. They are individually repertorized - both

the constitutional remedy and the simillimum were repertorized with care."
From Iren. (8): "Ah but the combinations I am referring to ARE homeopathic and are not some polypharmacy or other."
From Iren. (10): "My point is that this WILL be part of homeopathy (and in my book already

is) as it is relevant to every principle stated by Hahnemann - from Aph
1 and 2 to cure rapidly and gently - to the details of how to repertorize.
HEnce I would vehemently oppose ANY definition of homeopathy today,
which was exclusionary and not able to later (if not now) include this
and other discoveries and developments that DO assist to cure by the
principles in the Organon - whether those add in constitutional
remedies, combinations of remedies, alternation of remedies or any other
as yet unproven..."
From Iren. (14): "You have not PROVED [prescription of multiple medicinal substances, mixed or unmixed, simultaneously] to be non-homeopathic."
Iren. (32): "YOU want to accuse me of polypharmacy. Why I do not know - it is clearly not something I do:-))"
Iren. (39): "I do not accept the concept of Homeopathy without potency.
"The principle of like cures like was not one devised or invented or by
Hahnemann and is really not why homeopathy exists at all... that principle,
though it inspired Hahnemann, is not homeopathy's core principle."
Iren. (40): "So the like cures like issue is not to do with Hahnemann's work."
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

Oh dear. And I thought we'd come so far together. So, given the choice between, on the one hand, incorporating the word and practice of homoeopathy within a larger supercategory of practices including all those you could wish for, and, on the other, kicking homoeopathy into the only corner you believe it rightfully occupies ("classical", or whatever other adjective you choose by which to marginalise it) and inviting the barbarians through the gates, you choose barbarism.

Well, that's your personal choice. But did you read Chris's post in which she suggested setting a good example in the way you yourself use the word? Her suggestion was:

"Easy. Take personal responsibility for what comes out of YOUR mouth and off YOUR keyboard. Be a good example."

That suggestion came, by the way, at the end of a very erudite refutation, with useful references, of your suggestion that the only reason homoeopaths never use complexes is that Hahnemann said that they should not. If you read anything this year, you'd find any of those small pieces by Hahnemann to which she referred you an eye-opener.

Cheers --

John
2009/7/1 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

Okay, try this:
Have you yet read the counterproposal (#2, at the end of the first message in this thread) that you agreed was a good idea, the proposal to create a supercategory?
And if you did, was the proposal clear enough?
If it was clear enough, do you still agree that it's a good idea to use a supercategory rather than a subcategory to resolve the tension between those wishing to associate complexes and other randomopathy with homoeopathy (oh, sorry; I mean those wishing to "acknowledge" the "*common*" ignorance that supposes that homoeopathy includes complex prescriptions -- by echoing and amplifying that same ignorance in order to use it as a basis for legislative protection of such practices) and those wishing to maintain homoeopathy's definitive dissociation from it?
If you do still agree that it's a good idea, then why are you still arguing about it?
If you no longer think it a good idea, then why not?
Cheers --
John
2009/7/1 Shannon & Bob Nelson >
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

No more than you were proposing, no. But you sought a definition. You now have a term to define: potency medicine. Job nearly done. Whatever you want to include, include it. You can even include homoeopathy as a style of potency medicine, and none of us will care, as long as it doesn't misrepresent homoeopathy. Your definition might be: any medical practice dispensing medicines manufactured using the processes developed in homoeopathy. Or anything like that.
I think that Chris made a really important point, Shannon, about what we can do about our own mouth and our own writing. Now, if you understood her message, all you need do is that. We can all only play our little part. But one of the things we can do is to not hold up the volunteer bushfire brigade while the fire burns. If you're not prepared, or not fully equipped, to get out there and tell bigots opposed to homoeopathy that they have in the first place misunderstood what homoeopathy is and in the second relied upon and quoted presumption rather than scientific evidence, then one thing that you can do is to help keep discussion that's supposedly of homoeopathy on track rather than succumb to the temptation to derail it into discussions of why we should include non-homoeopathy.

This list has a useful and even noble purpose: to promote homoeopathy. What I'd urge is that we contribute to that purpose thoughtfully rather than use up people to counter needless speculations, especially as there apparently are a lot of beginners reading it.
All addressed, I think?

Cheers!

John

--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)

Hi, Shannon --
Yes, it's a shame that it's so hard to see that what we do makes a difference. When you think about it, that's largely how the entire world mess has progressed, isn't it. Yet we have enormous power to effect change in our own lives, in the lives of others who see and hear our example, and in the social and political landscape of agreements, treaties, and legislation.
I'm a little surprised that you put in this enormous effort without envisaging that it would have some result; anyway, I hope it has clarified a number of matters for anybody able to take advantage of it. It's certainly brought a few thinkers into the discussion!
It certainly has -- especially with the involvement of Fran, Rik, Chris, and Joy, whose sense of humour I enjoyed enormously! Thank you, Shannon, for the opportunity to clarify all these matters between us.

Let's do it again some time.

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

"Nothing is so fatal to the progress of the human mind as to suppose that our views of science are ultimate; that there are no mysteries in nature; that our triumphs are complete; and that there are no new worlds to conquer."

— Sir Humphry Davy, in "An Account of some Galvanic Combinations", Philosophical Transactions 91 (1801), pp. 397–402 (as quoted by David Knight, Humphry Davy: Science and Power, Cambridge, 1998, p. 87)