Minutus

I recall your saying something along these lines before, Shannon, and I wonder again at what motivates you to attempt to convince the world (on the blameless basis, of course, that you are merely proselytising the truth!) that anything goes in homoeopathy: substances annealed together, even unproven ones, and (obviously) all prescribed with no slightest idea of how similar any of them might be to the patient's (not the single symptom's) state.

A mystery somewhat deeper is what motivates you to overlook the glaring certainty of interactions (physical, chemical, and dynamic) between potentised medicines placed in the closest possible proximity to one another.
A mystery deeper still is what motivates you to attempt to convert the world to your blind faith -- another unfalsifiable hypothesis, I'm afraid -- that if one of the multiple substances bolted together to address one symptom in this way happens to hold a homoeopathic relationship to the patient's state, then it, and it alone, will affect the patient (in sharp contrast to Liz's hypothesis, which is that all will act in concert to "clear" the symptom in preparation for a homoeopathic consultation -- and in sharp contrast also to the hypothesis that Dr J. quoted that all the remedies, if carefully selected, may act in concert to address multiple disease states, even those that a present state has suppressed).

Be your motivations what they may, no two homoeopaths seem able to agree on where the boundaries of "Hahnemannian" might end: stipulating merely the law of similars: homoeopathy's definition? Or stipulating also potency scales, glasses of water, and preparation of your own medicines: Hahnemann's recommendations for its practice? Or stipulating also his recommendations for auxiliary measures: exercise, moderation, avoidance of herbs and woollens, and so on?

Even less likely to enjoy any consensus by homoeopaths (even real homoeopaths) is the meaning of "classical": its boundary might coincide with one of the boundaries just mentioned, or might include just any set of practices recommended by Hahnemann, Kent, von Bonninghausen, Hering, or Vithoulkas.

Of course, these terms have provided great scope for keeping alive some discussions (not all) that were first conducted 200 years ago rather than allowing homoeopathy to move on. As long as homoeopaths are kept busy fighting off the eighteenth-century anachronisms of polypharmacy and the doctrines of signatures and sensations, they will be too ulcer-prone to stomach real political work. And that's been incredibly valuable to an industry that has otherwise been hard put to counter the good evidentiary work that has come from the likes of Rey, Roy, O'Reilly, and Bell on potency, and from many, many others on homoeopathic results.

But let's suppose for an instant that we were interested in exploring how to have homoeopathy fulfil its potential to transform itself from the second-most-used medical system in use in the world today to the most commonly used one. Let's suppose for an instant that we might like to discuss how to practise homoeopathy. Not what medicine to guess at on the basis of a single symptom, not what "miasm" to use to the same end, but simply how to find the patient's closest medicinal mimics and how to select the most useful of these. (That's what we all mean by homoeopathy, is it not?)

In that case, we might short-circuit all the junk discussions very easily and simply if we used the nomenclature that reflects what we have all agreed upon and that coincides exactly with Hahnemann's (and every reputable dictionary's) nomenclature.

In other words, and as a prime example, if we agreed to use the words "homoeopathic practice" to refer only to practice that seeks to use certain knowledge of a substance's pathogenesis and the thorough case record of a patient's state in order to administer to the patient the closest possible symptomatic match of the two, then we could get out of this two-century-deep rut and actually discuss homoeopathy.

Even the most rational of us remain in the habit of using the terms classical and Hahnemannian rather than speak from the clarity of thought that all of us have access to. That clarity of thought that tells us that homoeopathy cannot include something that violates its very definition.

I propose therefore that the terms homoeopathic practice and homoeopathic process and, in denoting practice, the terms homoeopathy and homoeopathic prescription should be understood to refer to all and only those practices that truly attempt without guesswork the pathogenetic match to the patient's state.

I further propose, on exactly the same basis, that the terms homoeopathic remedy, homoeopathic medicine, homoeopathic substance, and homoeopathic potency, and, as used in relation to the identity of a medicine, the terms homoeopathic and remedy and homoeopathic prescription should be understood to refer always to any relationship between medicine and patient that is of sufficient pathogenetic similarity as to be capable under favourable circumstances (which may include potency) of invoking a secondary reaction in the patient that favours entire recovery from that state.

(This is not to say that it necessarily will invoke such a reaction. Nor is it to suggest that homoeopathicity is to be confirmed in any individual case by patient response. Patient response is merely a contingent result of homoeopathicity, not its defining characteristic. What determines homoeopathicity is similarity!)

Since we all say that we agree that these conditions -- i.e., knowledge and comparison in the one, and actual (known) similarity in the other -- are necessary to homoeopathic practice (method) and homoeopathic prescription (output of method) respectively, there should be no problem in agreeing to such usage.

Do I hear any objections? Soroush, Ardavan: what do you say? Could this understanding be communicated to all newcomers?

I'd hope that the accusation won't arise that I have arbitrarily chosen some definition that is to my liking, since we all recognise that these are, and remain, Hahnemann's stipulations on the terms. But I'll answer the accusation if it should arise.

This proposal is not to disparage any form of guesswork, by the way, or any other basis of prescription. Homoeopathy being the incomplete canon that it is, the certainties it offers too are incomplete, and I don't know of a practitioner who does not supplement his or her diligent homoeopathic work with guesswork: intuition, clinical experience, call it what you like. If that guesswork is informed by speculations upon sensations, delusions, the periodic table, chemical affinities, or even the old allopathic doctrine of signatures, it's neither here nor there; it's simply a form of guesswork that may (as any guesswork anywhere may) prove valuable. But guesswork upon any basis is no part of the homoeopathic method and must be distinguished from it if we are not to allow linguistic slovenliness to undermine the clarity that the above proposal seeks to reinstate.

To use the term homoeopathic practice, for instance, to refer only to methodology that is based on the knowledge mentioned -- knowledge of patient and of pathogenesis -- means, implicitly, to not use it to refer to methodology that substitutes reliance, in part or in whole, upon other knowledge, intuition, or surmise. In determining the homoeopathic relationship, only known pathognomic symptoms and known patient symptoms are taken account of -- as we all know and all acknowledge.

Substitution of any other, intuitive or surmised, wisdom or any other knowledge that may help guide us to a truly homoeopathic prescription is an auxiliary probably somewhat helpful but separate process from the process of discovering the medicine of greatest homoeopathic relationship to the patient. Only pathogenetic symptoms and the patient's symptoms are relevant to that, and no substitutes suffice.

Cheers --

John

I never said any such thing.
? What are you referring to?
Never said that either.
What???? Dunno what you are talking about!
Oh, you mean as in a combo remedy?
Is it your understanding that placing remedies close to one another changes their action? That's new to me... But beyond that, I am not going to debate "combo theory", both because I am not interested in it (and don't ahve the time) and more, because it is not relevant to any of the points I've been trying to make.
Now you're simply getting paranoid.
Not going to debate combo theory(s).
True. It is not a cut-and-dried category. Your point?
True. So what?
Ah, an epiphany!
Another thing we AGREE on! Ah, this makes the reading worthwhile.
YES! When we are so busy fighting against (what ought to be) each other, we are distracted from actually fighting *for* the interests of our own community(s). What a shame, isn't it!
Okay--good idea.
Yeeesssss John, that is what we (well some, anyway) are doing. I'm really sorry you find it so difficult to understand...
Yeeesssss, John, we could do that.
And in fact each of the classical homeopaths whose practice I *know*, do in fact make a point of telling the patient if they are giving a remedy that is not "fully proven" etc., or is not from the standard materia medica, or if they are recommending e.g. a flower essence or herb or whatever, which is not standard homeoapthy.

Does that make you happy?

Or would you only be happy to hear that if one calls oneself a classical homeopath one would of course NEVER recommend a patient to use anything other than a classically prescribed remedy?
John, have you been in actual practice as a homeopath?
Please give me a "yes" or "no" answer to this--and add whatever *short* further explanation you choose--and then I will make my comment.
And also includes correctness of the remedy--because what *appears* an obviously correct prescription is NOT always correct.
Hm. This I am intrigued by.
So if the patient does not respond, how do you explain it, if not by lack of similarity? (Which, as you noted, may include potency?)
What determines similarity? Can you describe that further for me?
Dang your "self-confidence" is inspiring! The way you can just "know" things to be true or not true, even independent of patient response...
Well, I think if we set our patients up to believe it's very straightforward--you simply give the remedy that you *know* to be the correct match to the patient--we had better be darned sure we can *deliver*, making every remedy a perfectly suited and effective one! Otherwise the patient might quite understandably wonder what we're screwing around with, instead of just giving the remedy that we "know" to be correct!

Shannon

Hi, Shannon --
Yes, I hear your consternation. Let me address one relevancy at a time:
I'm referring, of course, to compound prescriptions, including combinations of different potentised substances.
If it's news to you that mixing chemicals together often leads to chemical interaction, and if it's not obvious to you that mixing potentised substances together must entail uncertainty as to their total biological effect, and if you've never heard of synergy or antergy, then I begin to understand how you could think that the body might select the one lucky ticket in the lottery of medicines it receives from a polypharmatic, and how you could think that these interactions are insignificant enough to warrant your express disinterest in them even as you continue to advocate their use.
But perhaps you could take an interest.
Hahnemann himself expressed concern at the interactions between medicines in mixtures, noting that they multiply with each medicine added to the mixture, and I gave some mathematical precision to the uncertainties involved in our discussion on this topic several years ago (and reposted a year or two later).
Could you possibly think, if you'd comprehended it, that this message was recommending that anybody use the term classical homoeopath? I don't know how I could put this any more straightforwardly than I have. Let me recommend that you read from that paragraph to the end of my e-mail and try to see what it's getting at, and ask me if you're uncertain of any aspect of it. But I'll also try to clarify below.
Please, please read what you're replying to before replying.
Your consistency in replying before comprehending or reading onward is matched only by your consistency in failing to delete your premature remarks before sending.
That's a can of worms that really needn't concern this discussion, don't you think? Suffice it to mean whatever Hahnemann meant by it.
It was not my intent to criticise on this thread the method that seeks the simillimum only after administering a medicine to the patient. But, so help me, you do tempt me to it. Since you're evidently having trouble with this notion as I've expressed it, let me say it this way: that the homoeopathic relationship is independent of whether the medicine is actually administered, let alone of its result.
Its degree of homoeopathicity to the patient's state, as a substance that pathogenetic trials give us knowledge of via the materia medica, is also no function of its potency (or of the time at which it's administered, or of the absence or otherwise of antidotal influences, or of anything else).
Now, the result is of course contingent, to some extent, upon that relationship. A genuinely curative reaction may be, and probably is, the result of a sufficiently homoeopathic relationship. Probably. It may also be a coincidence, resulting from any number of other influences.
And there's every chance that a genuinely weak, brief, or absent secondary reaction is due to the medicine's insufficient homoeopathicity to the patient. But it may not be due to that at all; it may be due to any number of other influences, including extreme weather, extreme emotion, extreme physical stress, competing medicinal effects of industrial chemicals, a mild antidotal influence, or inactivation of the medicine by sunlight, (mobile phone) microwave radiation, petrol fumes, etc. It may even, in very rare cases, be due to entire inappropriateness of the potency for the patient's condition. It may be due to the patient's inability to react.
So what I evidently expressed insufficiently clearly last time round is this.
(1) Although we hope to see, from a prescription, a certain kind of reaction, neither obtaining it nor not obtaining it will tell us with any certainty whether the medicine was homoeopathic to the patient's state.
(2) Therefore, reaction cannot define homoeopathicity.
(3) What does define homoeopathicity is symptomatic similarity.
(4) Greatest symptomatic similarity is, by definition, what every homoeopathic practitioner seeks in reaching for the best possible prescription.
(5) The only contingent clues by which the homoeopathic practitioner may gauge that similarity are: (a) the symptoms of the patient and (b) the symptoms of the medicine.
(6) This is not to say that homoeopaths can always gauge with great certainty whether the judgement they have used in their choice of prescription is correct and that no greater homoeopathicity is possible amongst the medicines of known pathogenesis; it is only to say that the method requires that these clues be the basis of that judgement. So when I say, above, "actual (known) similarity", it's a poor choice of words. What I actually mean by it is "similarity of actual (known) symptoms". To correct my sentence, then:
(7) It is also not to say that other clues or guesses as to the simillimum's identity are not valuable. I have said repeatedly that it is my understanding that all homoeopathic practitioners, including me, supplement their homoeopathic skills with one or another kind of guesswork: intuition, clinical experience, feelings, sensations, interpolations, clairvoyance, voodoo, it doesn't matter. What matters is that we recognise that, regardless of its basis; regardless of its validity, helpfulness, and accuracy; and regardless of results, guesswork of any kind, and indeed any method that does not derive directly from comparison of patient and medicinal symptoms, is not homoeopathic in nature; it can only be either (a) auxiliary to homoeopathic methodology or (b) another method altogether, not even assisting homoeopathic methodology. If you have doubts about that, I can refer you to Hahnemann on these points.
I think that this addresses the doubts you raised. Feel free to explore further, but please read at least the paragraph you're reacting to before answering it, if not its context.
Cheers --
John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because we're supposed to have an open government—a democracy—everything the Government does is presumptively public, and can be legitimately concealed only with compelling justifications. That's not just some lofty, abstract theory; it's central to having anything resembling 'consent of the governed'."
—Glenn Greenwald, "The moral standards of WikiLeaks critics", Salon.com 1 Dec 2010, .