Minutus

Dear All, I don't get the minutus digest emails but once a day, so I didn't get all responses until late, hence my delayed response.

Dear John Harvey et al,

Gosh. You blindsided me there, John. I really wasn't expecting so much vitriol from the self-appointed spokesman of "classicists". But this time, I think I'm really fed up with it.
I wish you had "read" the case instead of "reading into" it what pleased you to interpret with so many inferences about my presumed incompetencies.
What could have opened an interesting discussion on nosodes, aetiology, pre-natal infection and miasm turned into a nasty tiresome defence of "classical homeopathy as per John Harvey".
This kind of thing (diversion into trivialities) happens too often ... and its boring.
Normally, as anyone might know from my previous contributions, I would be first to admit a mistake if I made it. But as such, I'm just not going to answer your complaints.
Especially since others - dear Rochelle, Shannon and Paul - attempted to point out to you that most of what you were all hepped up about was fanciful on your part. One by one you've had to back down on different points, but still don't see the necessity of a simple word or apology to me for the excessive overreaction on your part and unnecessary rudeness to score some small points in the name of "defence of Classicism"

I only wish you could direct all that acid to our real opposition instead of your friends.
Ironically you (John) wrote "You'll find fault where you look for it, I suppose, but it helps to read properly what you're attacking" By the way, you found fault and misread some points un-properly read. Here's two.

John criticised:
Didi actually wrote:

Maybe my grammar is loose, i dunno, but I did mean that the mom called me 2 days later. I wrote what she reported. She used the word "dramatic".
John criticised

Didi actually wrote:

There's no mention of this being part of the curative treatment, nor of homeopathy, no matter what way you want to try reading it. I, for one, have never heard of the term "follow through" being used in our case taking procedure. We generally use the phrase "follow up" around here. But maybe I'm from a different backgroud than you. Beyond that, I will make no reply to you about tissue salts.
IN THE FUTURE, John, since you have problem with this, I will be more careful to write something like this:

. . . "...some tissue salts [ATTENTION ATTENTION
. . . ATTENTION Dr John Harvey - these are tissue salts
. . . as I wrote and not homeopathy DISCLAIMER
. . . DISCLAIMER DISCLAIMER]...."
But since you see no need to address me directly regarding rude-shock endured, (tho you did throw a few grudging "sorry's" to dear Shannon and Rochelle), in the future I would kindly ask you to simply delete my emails unread. I'll gladly reciprocate. You so obviously have nothing to gain (learn) it's better you don't waste your time reading them. It certainly wastes all our time reading vitriol from your pen and then again wasting time trying to explain to someone who makes no mistakes what mistakes they made.
I invite the rest of Minutus readers can share the joy of homeopathy with me.

And maybe young practitioners can take away from this case some lessons learned. (eg the effect of disease and environment in pregnancy, understanding why or how the mother didn't get sick, understanding how nosodes can be brought to cure, etc)
Sincerely,
Didi Ananda Ruchira | Director | Tels: +254 (0)733-895466 / +254 (0)723-869133 | www.abhalight.org

Dear Didi,

Claims of cure sent to 3000+ readers, including novices; those who know nothing at all of homoeopathy; and rabid opponents of anything called homoeopathy need a modicum of rigour if they're to withstand a modicum of examination.

As a case in point, and recalling the readership I've just mentioned, any claim for the cure of a (possible) miasm originating when the baby was a fœtus should surely -- leaving aside whether the miasm exists beyond psora -- be supported by just a couple of basics:

• a long-standing disappearance of all related symptoms;

• no treatment in that time.

That's one thing.

Then there's another thing. Again recalling the readership of the list as well as its stated purpose, "follow through" of a treatment that, let us grant, is homoeopathic -- a dose of Pertussin -- requires too, in homoeopathic practice -- which the Pertussin treatment is claimed to be part of -- a couple more basics:

• checking the patient's changed state (follow-up);

• finding the medicine that is most homoeopathic to them. The latter is done through records of pathogenetic trials (provings), as you know.

It's as well to have distinguished this polypharmacy from homoeopathy as you now have, and I thank you for doing so. If your new account of the timing of the phone call is meant to convey your understanding that the patient had appeared to be asymptomatic for more than a few hours, perhaps an entire two days, then you have not managed to say so. But let's suppose that that's what you meant. Are you truly confident that that asymptomatic period constitutes the cure of a condition that has lasted the baby's entire postnatal life? Are you sure you're not misleading readers here as to what you regard as the cure of a chronic condition?

Kind regards,

John

It could be interesting for someone to try role-playing how, say, Will Taylor or David Little or Julian Winston, just for some e.g., might have chosen to raise such points (if they found it needed). It's true that we have a very mixed readership, and points that are obvious to some, are not obvious to others, and many things do bear repeating *even tho* they are well-known to the writer and most respondents.

But why not do it gently, in the manner of inquiry and instruction.
Or if you prefer, any other sort of comradely, we're-on-the-same-team-and-in-this-together sort of manner.

Shannon

Fair enough, Shannon. It becomes a matter of faith that somebody expressing a short-lived alleviation as a cure and a polypharmaceutical prescription as relevant to homoeopathic practice is doing so inadvertently, and I find my faith sorely tested when that person is of very long standing on the list but is able to overlook the need to not confuse newcomers. I stand abashed and will endeavour to be gentler.

John

Your path through this paragraph involves a lot of things I did not say and did not see--but your conclusion is a fine one, so I'll leave it at that!

Best wishes,
Shannon