Minutus

Hi all,

This is feeling to me like a situation we ought to know more about.
With apologies, I am cross-posting this to Minutus and Homeolist because
this guy is putting up stuff that we all need to be aware of.

For instance, I suddenly realize he put this statement of mine made on
Homeolist up (stripped of its context) onto Minutus. (Saying that when
Hahnemann developed miasms theory, it was "not homeopathy" according to his
understanding at that time. This was by way of illustrating that by
boundaries of "homeopathy" have expanded to incorporate observations, as
needed. And David correctly noted that miasms thoery was an *expansion* of
H's first development of homepathy, NOT a departure from it.

I said the same in my (deleted origial) post to Minutus, and am angry that
Homeo Bond chose to quote me out of context, in a misleading -- no, in a
*deliberately deceitful* way.

More worrisome, I'm told that he posted the same (stripped, out-of-context,
deliberately misleading) remark to HHBB, on which I am not present, and
therefore don't have the opportunity to correct misrepresentation.

I am angry that he is doing the same thing -- but on bigger scale and with
more fodder for his cannon of lies -- with remarks of David Johnson from
HHBB. He notes that David is using PC1 for AIDS cases, and implies that
this is now David's whole practice, and states that David has abandoned
classical homeopathy in favor of PC1. All of this is lies.

Technically one can re-interpret each sentence in a truthful way -- if we
take PC1 as a non-classical rx (perhaps), then David is indeed treating his
AIDS patients non-classically. However, he has *two* AIDS patients, out of
a very busy and *very classical* practice. So to say that he has
"abandoned" classical, without adding "for the moment, with these two
patients, if we take PC1 as non-classical", can only be taken as deliberate
deceit.

In each case (and who knows what else?), the way he is "quoting" amounts to
deliberate lie, in a way that serves no purpose of ours.
But presumably *does* serve some purpose of his.
I have to wonder what his agenda is, and who *he* is.

With more apologies, I am re-posting (old to homeolist, new to Minutus) his
recent post re David Johnson, and my replies.

I suppose I am taking this "too personally", as I know both David and myself
(weak smile), but I am also finding this alarming. It does seem to me that
this guy is *not* a retired homeopathy (so then what *is* his relationship
to homeopathy, and why is he misrepresenting it?), and that his primary
interest in posting is to cause trouble.

The fact that he *does* seem to know at least some homeopathy, and the fact
that he speaks of a professional conference he attended, causes me more
alarm, not less. Does this guy have nothing better to do than try to get
hoemopaths fighting with each other?

I think one lesson I am taking from this is: Anywhere you see an
out-of-context quote, from a person whose opinions you do not know, and
especially *by* a person whose motives you do not know -- doubt it!!! If
the truth and intent of someone's (quoted out-of-context) remark matters --
check it out!!! If you can't check it out, ignore it. (E.g.: David is
still a "classical homeopath"; I know perfectly well -- and I'm glad that
David was alert to point out -- that miasms theory expands upon H's prior
work, and does *not* go against it.)

Who IS this guy????
Besides an argument in favor of censorship, I mean?

* * * *
re-post from Homeolist:

Homeo Bond,

Do you sow dissention for a hobby, or what??? I've forwarded this to David
for his reply, and will be interested to hear what he says.

But in the meantime, my thoughts:

on 3/14/03 6:45 AM, Homeo Bond 007 at homeobond007@hotmail.com wrote:
What is this -- recreational flattery before you stab his back???
For a start, how about if we agree that (and I do not know whether this is
true, but only for sake of argument) that PC1 is not a homeopathic remedy.
Why does someone's use of something other than a homeopathic remedy mean
they have abandoned homeopathy?

If someone comes in with a nail thru the foot, are we going to refuse to
take it out unless we can do so with a remedy?

If someone comes in with a severe tooth abscess, are we going to insist on
healing the abscess with remedies just because in theory we "can"? Or will
we say, it will be quicker and easier if you just have the dentist take care
of it?

Peter's rx, *if* it works as he claims, will

(a) not replace classical homeopathy, as it has a strictly limited sphere of
activity -- *the disease of AIDS*, not the other susceptibilities that were
there before the AIDS began. These are different tools, with different
spheres of influence.

(b) provide a feasible way to save the lives of millions, with minimal
output of resources (e.g. well-trained classical homeopaths, clinical
experience, and case follow-up), in a way that full individualized
prescribing has absolutely no hope of achieving, as we have far too few
homeopaths (as well as various other relevant lacks).
David's work is to heal people, not to defend principles.
Your last two lines are to me indecipherable; would you care to explain what
it means?
Despite your "promise", you never told us who you are. Now I am really
wanting to know. Stephen Barret, perhaps, with an "accent" for a disguise?

Please explain why you consider this a "blow on the face" of classical
homeopaths. I'm gathering this is "wishful thinking" on your part.
Wow, I wonder what you'd be saying if you *didn't* fully support him?
Or is that you fully support anything that can be used to weaken homeopathy?
Which you seem to know just enough about to be able to effectively attack,
and to sow dissension.
Sure it is!
So you have abandoned classical hoempathy, and eschewed principles of the
Orgagnon? I know that David has not, but from what you've said here, I
gather that your own usage of the remedy means that you yourself have done
so.
??? Interesting phrase! Who is "his Cro-Magnon companion", and how does he
earn that moniker?
He has not overruled them.
*If* we accept that the remedy is not homeopathic, he has simply decided to
use an apparently effective "other modality" because of its (in the opinions
of some) demonstrated effectiveness. We are all free to dispute the choice,
but let's do so on basis of facts, not innuendo and lies.
Your language here is a little hard to understand.
I gather you are annoyed at David for being (in your opinion) too insistent
about promoting classical methodology? And feel that if he thinks classical
approach is so great, he shouldn't have the nerve to use any other tools? I
will apprecaite clarification on this point.
What does this mean?
Excuse me, but where does Hahnemann, or any writer since, suggest that
"principles" are more important than curing the patient? I think the
situation is exactly the reverse.

Hahnemann's first duty was *always* to the patients, and this is why he
continued refining and expanding his "principles" to lead to greatest
effectiveness. And this is why he [Hahnemann] was unhesitating about
recommending "other measures" when he felt it necessary, and why he was
quick to say that *not* every problem calls for homeopathy as a solution --
he strongly promoted proper lifestyle habits, diet, hygiene, and also gave
brief nod (and presumably more than lip service) to "naturopathic" methods
such as hydrotherapy and others.

Patient's wellbeing is the bottom line, and principles are refined as needed
to further that goal.
So you too are "willing to experiment", in the way you are so damning of
here? Very interesting...
As Georgianna points out, he has most certainly not left the classical
approach. She says he is using PC1 with *two* patients, out of his entire
busy practice. His overall practice is *not* on AIDS, not using PC1. His
overall practice is most emphatically classical. To be less than a lie,
your statement above needs to read, "... left the classical hoemopathic
approach *in his treatment of these two patients*" -- a very different
statement! (And still debatable, IMO.)
It may be true that the development of this remedy does not meet the model.
However numerous remedies have entered our materia medica in "non-standard"
ways, and that did not mean that their developers had eschewed homeopathic
principles.

But I will say again, even if we start from an assumption (which is only
that) that PC1 is "not homeopathic", nothing you say above has any truth or
relevance IMO, and can have no possible motive except to spread dissension
and mistrust.

Please do tell us who you are. Maybe this will help us to better understand
just what you are about.
I believe that would be, "Do no harm."
And here is another point in favor of trialing PC1: One way of "doing harm"
is to delay getting "best" treatment to the pt. In individualized care,
even the best prescribers do not always get the "right rx" on the first try;
then there's a necessary waiting period to judge its activity. If in fact
PC1 is universally effective at stopping AIDS, then if fact it becomes
irresponsible *not* to begin AIDS treatment in this way.

So the matter really turns upon one's view as to Peter's credibility. David
has obviously made his choice, and you are free to make yours. (Hm. You
and David made the *same* choice, and yet you are assaulting him over it.
???? What is going *on* here?????)
This has been discussed.
It has only tangential relationship to this discussion, and I'm not up for
"playing" right now.

What does this sentence mean? (In case it has greater relevance than the
former two.)

I gather you are saying here that the remedy does not have a long enough
clinical record to demonstrate its effectiveness and safety?
(I won't say further without hearing if this is in fact what you are saying;
if so, I will reply further.)
"Hearsay" is always shaky evidence.
Just what is the "hearsay" that you feel is being given too much weight?
Please be specific. Do Peter's recountings of his experiences with the
remedy come under that category in your mind?

(snip)

Interested in your reply,
Shannon