Minutus

I heartily agree that if a therapy is urgently needed and *successful*, that success is far more important than the name attached to it, and is a truly different issue.

As far as discussing it here, tho--from Ardavan's guidelines it's fine to discuss here (so long as it's in a general context of the classical framework; at least that's how I understood his explanation). If it rouses too much unpleasantness from other listmembers, tho, there are certainly other places where it *can* be discussed without fear of flames, including the three other lists I've mentioned--Homeolist, BeyondHomeopathy, and HomeopathyOpen. No doubt there are others, but those are the ones I know. Maybe the best would be simply to ask whether there are current list members who object to it being discussed here, or whether their objection is rather just that they don't want it to be called "homeopathy"? I *think* that has been the main issue, not so much about whether it's discussed at all. ?

Just FTR, the Periodic Table of the Elements was *not* developed through intuition! It was developed when ... er, "the guy" began mapping out certain properties of the known elements--atomic weight; density; ... I forget what else, and I think atomic number didn't come until later? And noticed there are regular patterns. On the basis of the observed patterns, predictions were made about elements that might be found to fill the un-filled spaces, and those predictions turned out to be really quite accurate--exactly analogous to the process Jan Scholten has used, which is apparently similarly successful. So--not intuition, but first observation, then making and testing of theories!!! Entirely scientific.

Shannon

I know of a homeo doctor whose daughter had asthma for many years. His homeopathy did not help her much. He heard of a visiting Siddha doctor and got her some medicine. The name of the medicine was never revealed. This is a "traveling " doctor -he tours various parts of the state every month and sells his wares and visits the same place every month or so.

The asthma was in abeyance as long as the medicine was taken but returned if she ran out of medicine. The patient ( victim) had put on so much weight -

Once when I visited this doctor he showed me the medicine... I looked at the color of the medicine and said it did not look like a Siddha medicine- it had such a synthetic color to it... it turned out to be a steroid...

Success is not always the only thing important... or we need to define success correctly - we need to know the source and the true name of the medicine... if not I might inadvertently use it on some one who might not tolerate it or who might even be hurt by using it- one person's meat being another's poison etc.

Thalidomide anyone?
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Shannon & Bob Nelson wrote:

It's quite true that lies and deception make correct choices much more difficult. But I don't think that's relevant to the present matter!

And yes, it's very important how one defines "success," cure, etc. Didi stated that she observes the Iqui-whatever bringing about cures by the expected homeopathic guidelines.
?
Shannon

this is interesting and brings up thoughts about traveling medicing shows of
yore where they sold laudenum for all that ails ye. laudenum, for those who
may not know, was an addictive opiate which they gave out like the aspirin
of today primarily to women. the doctors of that period prescribed it, too, as
a means of controlling 'hysterical' middle class women who might be so
audacious as to want to do something with their lives or who were anxious
and restless due to the extreme restrictions and supressions of their lives.
so an entire class of morphine addicts who floated throught life was created.
i think there will always be this type of scamming, real ignorance and stupidity
in our healing professions. and i don't think it can be eliminated without
eliminating that kind of thinking/creativity in humankind. so what it suggests
to me is that we will always be in a situation where we have to rely on our
best judgement in evaluating what things we will try or not. the alternative
is to develop a level of fundamentalistic behavior which i also find abhorent.
that kind of rigidity has never done humankind much good since life either
goes forward and regresses--life is never stagnant and, to me, that is what
fundamentalism tries to do. it wants to stop all change and rails against it.
this is true politically as well as in healing. so we are always in a position to
rethink what we know based on real life and make changes and allow for
changes in order to see where they can take us. as in 12-step programs they
say "take what you want and leave the rest!"
tanya

I have seen that what works is controlled change progress... which is what was discussed up and down the stream about definition of homeopathy etc.

Radical change might work or might not - homeopathy is proof positive that it worked and works - that there is another approach to health and disease other than allopathic or contraria contrariis

But there are still laws to practice, best practices that ensure that there is no abuse...code of ethics for doctors is geared towards that - and should be

because ultimately it is patient's health that matters and what we do contributes to the betterment or detriment of that in some ways - and that is why there are controls ...everything else is secondary

if dogma ( even if it is homeopathy) goes against curing patients then it needs to be revisited

At the same time it is a huge leap of faith to give something to the patient - we do not know the content, source or mode of preparation, possible side effects - short and long term- without clear logic guiding its operation and applicability; I might as well suggest the patient to go get the blessings of the head medicine man in the village and hope that it will drive away the spirits that are inhabiting him
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Tanya Marquette" wrote:

I'm reading an interesting book too by Thomas de Quincey called "Confessions of an English Opium Eater". In those days (early 19th Century), laudenum (tincture of Opium in alcohol) was readily sold OTC from every chemist's shop and was prescribed for every ache and pain and nervous disorder. It was also cheaper than alcohol. De Quincey also names a number of other famous persons who were laudenum addicts, namely the poet Samuel Coleridge and the emancipator of slaves W. Wilberforce. The book is a chronicle of his Opium induced dreams and is an interesting parallel to the homoeopathic proving.
Chris.