Minutus

Dear John,

I wish to thank you so much for clarifying the difference between homeopathy and allopathy.

John wrote: >just to put this in context....

Q: In which context are you talking about????

Hmmm....for some reason, I always feel that sharp pointy finger of condemnation from you *whenever* I write *anything* at all.

Gosh-dang all those people who take arnica for a bruise, aconite for a cold, cheledonium for liver tonic, berberis for kidneys, ceanothus for spleen and still get cured!! OMG, what will happen next!! Taking carcinocin for cancer?

Here's news: There's a category of remedies which are "near-specific" and "organ specific". Not all cures or treatments need have a psychical component or prescribed at 10M in order to cure. Some HOMEOPATHY actually cures when the organs and physicals are considered more than the personality or what-happened-to- your- mother-during-pregnancy, and even in low potency. News: It's still homeopathy. You should crack open Burnett or Clarke or Tyler sometime.

And don't readers want to learn more about their remedies? From earlier answers on this thread, no one wrote a direct answer to the question for a remedy except one.

John, just for YOUR sake I wrote 123 words - in context - about the need for the questioner to go for individualized prescription, but its still not satisfying you until you've the last word about " context ".

(Righty-o... The *questioner* only needed 10 words as he already read 2-3 other messages regarding getting individual prescription... but for sake of satifying *context*, I wrote 123 !!!)

(Oh, and yes, I wrote a list of near-specifics to consider, AND NOT one remedy as if it was an onlne prescription. Oddly you didn't jump on "the context" on that suggested lyc message, but only after I suggested a list and my practical experience on effects.)

So how is it? - we less-exalted homeopaths can only study certain remedies with your permission alone???

Let's see... one can write about suspicious lachesis, domineering nux, censorious arsenicum, philosophic but narrow-minded sulphur, fault-finding veratrum, contemptuous for opponents comocladia, intolerant of contradiction aurum, and haughty platinum but not about exciting yohimbinum? Gee, how did agnus castus get into our materia medica anyway? Did some allopath put it there?

In other words ... your message "in context " was quite unnecessary, to say the least, except to emphasize your distain towards homeopaths whose approach is different from yours.
With regards,
Didi Ananda Ruchira | Tel: +254 (0)723-869133 | www.abhalight.org

Didi, if much that you do happens to fall into the category of prescriptions that uses a method of relating medicine to patient other than the method that relates the patient's symptom and the medicine's similar pathogenetic symptom, the patient's symptoms and the medicine's pathogenetic symptoms, to build a case for a medicine's greatest similarity to the patient, then, I am sorry to say, you are not exceptional. Surely all of us do this to a greater or lesser extent because homoeopathy's study of medicines remains unfortunately incomplete.

My point was not to attack you or anybody, unusual as that may seem to you; it was to remind our questioner of what so many of us routinely forget and that you casually brush aside in your response below: that there is a difference between the two, and that forgetting that difference doesn't expand the nature of homoeopathy one whit but merely confuses it with its opposite.

For as long as we remember that there is a world of difference between prescribing on pathogenetic symptoms and prescribing on the many other bases that we use intelligently, for that long we may remain intelligently clear as to what homoeopathy is and not ourselves contribute to its confusion, deliberate or otherwise, with sympathetic magic and the other practices that arise through speculation, guesswork, analogy, and other thought processes and beliefs. Homoeopathy itself remains untouched and unchanged by the more-or-less intelligent use of these adjunctive devices, and even the reputation of a Compton-Burnett or a Foubister is no cause to discard our reason or our respect for what it was that Hahnemann created when he created homoeopathy as a practice based on homoeopathy the closely defined medical relationship.

Kind regards,

John

Just for the heck of it, let me offer…

John, when you consider the leap in methodology from acute prescribing to chronic / miasmatic prescribing, how do you fit into your schema below, matters such as:

- family history
- patient's history (medical, for instance; prior illnesses and patterns thereof)
- "never been well since"

I would offer that the practice of homeopathy -- at least when such is taken beyond the level of acutes and injuries -- does make use of a somewhat expended meaning of the term "symptom." I would offer that, very often in life, and even in homeopathy, "truth" is sometimes not as simple nor as tidy as might occasionally appear.

Shannon

Thank you!

Shannon, you make a very good point here. When we take a case, we take more than the symptoms presently before us: we note symptoms present at other times of day or otherwise ameliorated at the time of consultation; we note the general modalities themselves, which in one sense may be regarded as not being a symptom at all or related to a particular symptom; we note past symptoms no longer present. Yet all of these do reflect the patient's state of derangement from health.

In chronic cases, of course, "never been well since" offers knowledge of an event in consequence of which the derangement may have begun. In many cases, such a "never been well since" (for instance, a plunge into cold water on a hot day while menstruating) may correspond very well with a pathogenetic symptom. In others, it may offer merely insight, one of those foundations for intelligent guesswork. (For instance, if the "never been well since" event is a burn, then it might suggest looking amongst remedies for the effects of burns.) This is not homoeopathy as such, since it does not and cannot reflect a pathogenesis, but is of course useful.

For purposes of the fullest understanding in chronic cases, we take a family history too, yes, as it may shed light. Again, we cannot directly use it to prescribe upon; yet it may aid intelligent guesswork.

So how does this distinction become problematic in practice? I don't think it does.

Cheers!

John

Didi, I'm not clear on what you're saying here except that you evidently perceive me as having picked on you in particular. Please believe me when I say that if I'm setting out to show the insufficiency of your case, I'll do so unmistakeably, and that such was not my intent here.
You indicated sufficiently clearly that by using “homoeopathic” medicines to address this single sympomt without taking into account “the underlying problems you may be causing more harm through this ignorance”.
You also confused your own case somewhat, though, by adding:
"Nevertheless some remedies are there. Most of them work well… may work within 30-60

minutes. But… when not individuall prescribed may or maynot cure, but only work for sort periods"
-- which obviously at least appears to contradict your earlier message, being open to interpretation as suggesting that such medicines as you then proceed to list could be safely used -- and, in context, that their use is homoeopathic.
So the response
“… and, just to put this in context, when prescribed in order to attain such a result or without accounting for the patient's entire state, such a "remedy" bears no known homoeopathic relationship to the patient's state, and therefore cannot be said to have been prescribed homoeopathically; its use is, in the broadest sense, allopathic”
was intended, without picking on you, to clarify something that I’d have thought you would have intended to say yourself: that use of any such medicine in this way would be non-homoeopathic as well as -- for the reasons you’d already given -- unwise.
In other words, I was supporting what I understood you to be saying. (If you were actually supporting use of these medicines for short periods, go ahead and say it, and yes, then we can have a discussion as to whether it really is wise and whether it's homoeopathic.)
Incidentally, I’ve been unable to find any recommendation by another writer in the thread to use another medicine in “homoeopathic” treatment as you’ve suggested I’ve ignored. If you were referring to Roger’s reference to vitamin C, he was specifically speaking of sufficient vitamin-C nutrition, not of homoeopathic prescription.
Kind regards,
John

Really unbearable. Deserves worse than spam!
Atentamente, Mit freundlichen Grüssen, Kind regards

Dr. M. Franzreb Corbelletti
Pº de la Castellana 171 Bajo izda., E- 28046 Madrid
www.drmarcofranzreb.com
Tel.: 914491957
________________________________

From: "John Harvey John.P.Harvey@gmail.com [minutus]"
Sender: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Date: Thu, 15 May 2014 18:52:12 +1000
To:
ReplyTo: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Re: What the heck??? was ...Re: is it any medicine like viagra..
Didi, I'm not clear on what you're saying here except that you evidently perceive me as having picked on you in particular. Please believe me when I say that if I'm setting out to show the insufficiency of your case, I'll do so unmistakeably, and that such was not my intent here.
You indicated sufficiently clearly that by using “homoeopathic” medicines to address this single sympomt without taking into account “the underlying problems you may be causing more harm through this ignorance”.
You also confused your own case somewhat, though, by adding:
"Nevertheless some remedies are there. Most of them work well… may work within 30-60

minutes. But… when not individuall prescribed may or maynot cure, but only work for sort periods"
-- which obviously at least appears to contradict your earlier message, being open to interpretation as suggesting that such medicines as you then proceed to list could be safely used -- and, in context, that their use is homoeopathic.
So the response
“… and, just to put this in context, when prescribed in order to attain such a result or without accounting for the patient's entire state, such a "remedy" bears no known homoeopathic relationship to the patient's state, and therefore cannot be said to have been prescribed homoeopathically; its use is, in the broadest sense, allopathic”
was intended, without picking on you, to clarify something that I’d have thought you would have intended to say yourself: that use of any such medicine in this way would be non-homoeopathic as well as -- for the reasons you’d already given -- unwise.
In other words, I was supporting what I understood you to be saying. (If you were actually supporting use of these medicines for short periods, go ahead and say it, and yes, then we can have a discussion as to whether it really is wise and whether it's homoeopathic.)
Incidentally, I’ve been unable to find any recommendation by another writer in the thread to use another medicine in “homoeopathic” treatment as you’ve suggested I’ve ignored. If you were referring to Roger’s reference to vitamin C, he was specifically speaking of sufficient vitamin-C nutrition, not of homoeopathic prescription.
Kind regards,
John
--
“Those who have evidence to back up their beliefs do not try to censor opposition.”
—Meryl Dorey, Australian Vaccination-skeptics Network, commenting on hacking and threats by admitted vaccine advocates to prevent the Sunshine Coast Healthy Lifestyle Expo from featuring a public talk on vaccination.

Marco, I don't think Didi's intent was to sell anybody on anything; let's give her a break and assume that it was just incomplete communication in the first instance (and more incomplete in the last one).

Cheers --

John
________________________________

John, think you're mistaken as to the role of "symptoms" such as family history, patient history, and NBWS in chronic prescribing. I think if you (re)read Chronic Diseases you will see this to be the case.

Shannon, I think you're overlooking the forest for the trees. As I said, "all of these do reflect the patient's state of derangement from health". The exception amongst those you've listed is, of course, family history, which obviously cannot result from the patient's particular derangement from good health. Would you suggest otherwise?

Cheers --

John