Minutus

At 6:42 PM +0000 3/5/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:

[snip]
A second reply to these questions after a bit more thinking...

Back on January 1, 1997, Al Bradley wrote to the lyghtforce list:
I found this a good series of questions at the time and, obviously, still do.

So my question is, "Who are you Anna?"
You come to the list saying you are just beginning and are looking
for information. The list takes you at face value. Then you start
being insistent about homotoxicology and multiple remedies. It is
pointed out that this is a "classical" list. Dr. Joe Rozencwajg gives
a good explanation that homeopathy and homotoxocolgy are two
different things. You persist. Many people reply to you. Some ask
questions. None are ever answered-- except with more questions.
This, from experience, is the behavior of a "troll"-- someone who
joins a list to screw it up and get everyone fighting.

You ask why I can't stay calm. It is out of sheer frustration of
asking questions and not being replied to.
I have been in education 34 years, all of that teaching at a
university level. My ability to explain things calmly and rationally
allowed me to progress to rank within my school and become a tenured
professor. Others who have watched me teach remark about my amazing
patience and my ability to work with students until I find a model
that will allow them to have the big "aha!" and then progress
further. Watching that happen in a student is what I live for. It is
a gift of immeasurable value.
I also have the reputation for not suffering fools lightly.

Who *I* am is an open book. It's all on my web-site at
http://julianwinston.com in more detail than you probably need.

Who *you* are is a mystery.
I have a name. I (and the list) know nothing about you-- where you
reside, what your level of education is (in homeopathy), what you
expect to gain from participation on the list.

You seem to have an agenda-- homotoxocolgy and combination remedies.
This list is NOT the place for that.
You seem to ask questions (which is good) but rarely reply to
questions asked of you.
To encounter such behavior is frustrating.
I have attempted to remain rational in the face of irrationality.

Over the years I have met many of the people I talk to on these
lists. Some I've never met, but look forward to doing so. Some will
have to remain just folks I exchange mail with-- simply out of
geographical necessity.

How about telling us about you. Make yourself into a person for us!

JW

Dear Mr Winston,
Is it really relevant to the discussion who I am, and where I live (?!) If a
student stands up at the back of a class and asks questions, does the
lecturer request the story of their life before answering?

However, if you feel it makes a difference, here I am: I have a background
on the arts side, having studied Mod Lang at Cambridge. I am 36. I am a
writer / researcher and am at present in the US to do book research for a
famous architect on the effect of architectural design on the human psyche.
I normally reside in the UK and will be returning there later in the year.
My uncle is a homeopath and several members of my family have used
homeopathy for many years. I have long been interested in it and intend to
study it thoroughly. I have no formal studies in it as yet, but when I
finish my research I am taking early retirement as I have a private
independent income. I am then going to devote my time to serious and
prolonged studies. I have already done a good deal of private study and
reading. I am interested in a whole range of issues within homeopathy.
No, I wouldn't say that. I have a curiosity, certainly. But it extends to
all sorts of areas and this is only one of them.
I have replied to a lot of them. Sometimes with questions as well as
answers, because questions can lead to other questions. I cannot answer
everybody all the time, or the numbers of emails I would have to write would
increase exponentially every day!
I don't think I have said anything irrational. I have only been probing at
the issue of what Hahnemann really said, what it means and whether there are
grounds for developing his ideas. I have pointed out that certain
developments have been made that seem to work, and I have raised the issue
that these developments also seem to be based on Hahnemann's principles.
Much of what I have said hasn't been answered.

In the midst of this, I have been repeatedly accused of all manner of things
that are untrue. It has been said that I have deliberately tried to disrupt
the group, which is untrue. I am being called a troll, which is insulting.
And I have received hate mail, which is amazing. I do feel that if there is
any irrationality going on, it has not come from me. There is no doubt that
my input has caused a stir. But I think I was only the catalyst, and the
turmoil was already there in latent form. I have heard from other people
that this group tends to react similarly whenever uncomfortable or difficult
subjects are mentioned. It has been very interesting to note that anyone
wanting to support me has done so privately, because of fear of criticism or
retaliation on the group. That strikes me as remarkably unhealthy, although
this is not to blame the people who wish to remain in the sidelines.

You say you are renowned for your patience with students, yet almost
immediately you accused me of "prattling on". I have more than once tried to
end the discussion, but you keep inviting me to come back out again. One
thing I will say in respect to you is that you alone amongst my newly found
circle of detractors on this group have taken the time to respond to me blow
for blow, and I can see you have made a good effort to keep your hat on and
"take it like a man". I thank you for that, as it has encouraged me to think
a lot about these matters. As Dr Rozencwajg has said, nobody learns anything
if we are all in total agreement all of the time.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Hi Anna,

Just a few more reactions from me:
What sounded irrational to me is when you make strange-sounding assertions
(e.g. Hahnemann's approval of multiple remedies was "suppressed", and he was
actually teaching it in private) with no back-up, and complain about lack of
"evidence" without replying to that evidence which has been offered. Those
patterns make it seem like you're pursing an agenda, rather than having an
honest discussion.
Based on some of them, but not based on that set of principles which he
named "homeopathy". It was this aspect that got all the "heat" going. And
the "fuse" had been set by others before you.
And much you have not answered.
Some of the questions you raise will be answered when you study classical
method, tho Julian took a stab at answering them for you. What have you
asked that hasn't been addressed yet?
Yup, and that is unfortunate. The accusations start to fly when it seems
that one party is not playing straight, not participating honestly. That
was how your line of questioning (and failures to respond) seemed to some of
us.
Because you failed to answer crucial questions ("Did you read the article?"
"What is your background in homeopathy?" "Why are you asking?"). Thank you
for taking the time to fill us in on some of that.
Well, not *entirely* from you.
Maybe, but the group was formed with a particular intent -- classical
homepathy -- by and for people who are choosing to focus on that. So for
some folks the issue isn't necessarily "uncomfortable" topics, but rather
"topics of zero interest that I came here to get away from." That's one
possible benefit of having the discussion on a different list, with a
broader mandate.

Shannon

Hi Anna,

It's nice to learn a little more about you, and it does lend some
perspective to your questions.
on 3/6/04 9:24 AM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:
A fascinating field!
Should be wonderful. One bit of food-for-thought that might come from this
discussion: people are more receptive to ideas that they don't feel
attacked with or threatened by. Consider the debate we've just had:
"Homotoxicology is homeopathy, too. How come you guys won't admit it?" "No
it isn't, because it doesn't follow the rules!" "Yes it does, because your
rules are bogus." "Well yeah, but they're *our* rules!" I think that's the
gist of what we've just been thru...

Contrast with this: "Homotoxicology also uses potentized remedies, altho in
a different way, and also produces useful results, tho of a different sort.
What can we learn by comparing the similarities and differences of these two
related yet different approaches?" To me (and to some but not all others, I
am sure) this would be a *very* interesting study, and could yield insights
useful to both "camps". Also, no one could argue with your *facts* in this
case.

If you ever do such a study, I hope you'll give us a chance to see it!

Cheers,
Shannon

Dear Shannon,
With regard to the alleged suppression of Hahnemann's ideas, there is
backup. It is pretty clear from the letters record that H publicly renounced
the idea of dual remedies for political reasons. He came down heavily on
them in his amendment to the infamous paragraph later reinstated by Lutze,
to prevent certain allopaths from misunderstanding and abusing his system.
Meanwhile he remonstrated with Aegidi for being too open about dual
prescribing, and advised him to take his own (H's) approach and not talk
about such things publicly. (I am beginning to understand the dangers of
talking publicly about homeopathy, and the reasons why so many people, to
this day, choose to keep quiet.) There is no proof that Hahnemann did not
use dual remedies and continue using them, and authors such as Handley have
much detail to offer on this. I am told that other documents on Hahnemann
and dual remedies have never been released and are kept secret. (I can't
comment too much on this, but I was told this by someone very high up and
well respected in the homeopathy world)

There are other examples of information being suppressed, too, such as the Q
potencies. This was kept very quiet until long after H's death, Melanie H
and others actively preventing anyone finding out about this development
that H himself had created.

There have been controversies in literature before over the validity of an
author's claim to a manuscript. The most famous example of this is probably
the Shakespeare / Marlowe debate. This has been resolved now, by rigorously
testing the syntax, use and rhythm of language, scope of vocabulary, etc. It
is actually very hard to convincingly ape someone else's writings. Now, if
there are claims that people like Lutze actually made things up and forged
documents attributed to Hahnemann, this could most likely be tested. The
only problem is, the only people in the world who actually care about the
issue are the ones who would stand to lose if the documents were shown to be
true! So I guess nothing will ever be done and the beliefs will not be
challenged.
Well, based on the use of potentised remedies with names like Arnica,
Aconite, Belladonna, etc, to treat the sick. If we want to get into
ultra-semantics, fine.
So, am I to take it I am no longer a troll? I have been de-trolled?? I am so
grateful.
It is a shame that results on 1000s of people who were suffering from a wide
range of diseases and were safely and effectively treated using combination
remedies is of zero interest to you. But maybe some people would rather walk
than get a ride in a 6-wheeled car.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

Hi Anna, Shannon, all,

just SOME remarks about the 'double remedy'-discussion.

It comes up, once in a while, because there seems to be a mystery in all
that.

Well, I didn't find one.

I read:
- letters: Hahnemann to von Boenninghausen
- letters: Hahnemann to Aegidi
- letters: Aegidi to Hahnemann
- the related articles in Stapf's Archiv
- I have the photostated Aphs from Lutze's Organon in my library
- I read several of Hahnemann's case-books (the original ones, without
stumbling upon any double remedies...)
- I read the 'Lesser writings' of Hahnemann (till now only available in
German, as most of the other books/articles mentioned above)
- how many times I read my organons I have no idea...

etc. (...I only have a small library compared to JW's...)

Therefore I always wondered how people who had no access to all these
sort of German literature could so easily try to hold up the myth of
Hahnemann propagating the double remedies?

Because of lack of time, I can't go into depth (perhaps the German book
about Aegidi is already being translated into English - that should stop
most of the mythology).

JW gave enough proofs from the historical literature, where there are
only a few things to add.

I didn't follow the entire discussion - therefore I'm not sure if the
following remarks from Aegidi were already quoted:

Aegidi, Allg. Homoeopathische Zeitung, 1835:
"My suggestion didn't concern a rule, but an exception - namely a very
rare one. Only in these cases the use of giving a double remedy should
be made, where in spite of the most pertinent efforts and in spite of
the application of the most diligently selected single remedies, no
favourable effect could be achieved."

He repeats this statement 2 decades later, 1857: he calls it a "misuse
of our...remedies", and wrote he "had thought to be able to recommend
(Stapfs Archiv, 1834) a modification for very rare exceptions, a
procedure, far from the nonsense that is now dealt with and incited."

[Both sources: Translation Gaby Rottler]

He repeats it again in 1865, after Lutze's publication of the Organon,
in an article where many medical doctors strongly protested against the
Lutze Organon.

So, my short summary:

Aegidi tested it, recommended it in VERY RARE cases, and had to repeat
several times during the next 30 years that this was, even by himself,
only meant as AN EXCEPTION (a very rare one) FROM THE RULE.

(which is far from the continuous use of complex remedies...)

Hahnemann was informed, tried it, and rejected it as a method.

So did the homoeopathic doctors.

So: I have no doubts.

If others have doubts and can substantiate it with much more sources
than I have access to: well then they should come forward with it.
I'd love to read them.

Best,

Gaby

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de

http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

At 5:29 PM +0000 3/6/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:
[snip]
Oh my. Here we go again. Did you read Gaby's thing? The infamous
paragraph was put in by Lutze to justify HIS practice. That it ever
came from Hahnemann is in question.
Ther casebook, which Rimaq has seen, offer ALL the proof that he did
NOT use dual remedies. It is in HIS writing, or (at the end)
Melanie's writing.
Stop beating the dead horse!!
That's a load of crap. Who said this? What proof? ALL Hahnemann
correspondence is known and preserved. All letters NOT at the Bosh
Collection in Stuttgart, have known locations.
It was NOT suppressed. Read some history. That he was using them was
know to many people through the writings of Everest and (I believe)
Croserio. But non one was paying any attention to them. The 5th
edition of the Organon was out, and people were using it. Even though
Hahnemann spoke in the 5th of using water potencies, few even took up
that. Melanie wanted the 6th edition Organon published, but her price
for doing so was too great for people to accept. In 1865 she was
negotiating with the AIH and Dunham, but she wanted a sum equal to a
number of years of yearly income.
She died in 1878, and the manuscrip went to the estate of Karl
Boenninghausen in Westphalia-- where it was found by Haehl after the
world war.
Always will be those. Even in the 6th edition, some of the
handwriting is of unknown origin.
Using a single remedy based upon the similia principle is NOT ultra
sematics. It is homeopathy in practice.
It is NOT that it is NOT of interest. It is that ON THIS LIST, we
have enough to explore in the use of the single remedy prescribed on
the basis of the simillimum without getting into all sorts of other
semi-related branches.
Take your lead from Dr. Joe-- he does Sequential Therapy,
Homotoxicology, Homeobotanicals, acupuncture, and Homeopathy... plus
more. When HERE he talks about the single remedy, and does so quite
knowledgeably. The only time I have seen him (in the five or so years
he's been on lists I've been on) talk about Hom\otoxicolgy, was when
he said "I do it and it is NOT homeopathy."
Does that give you a clue?

JW

At 3:24 PM +0000 3/6/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:
To me, it is. I don't like talking to strangers. And in MY class, I
always start out by asking background of each student-- what they
know, how they got there, what their background is. And we do that at
our homeopathic school as well.
I have been to seminars where a student asked a question and the
presenter answered without asking the level of the questioner--
student? What year? Practitioner? How long? If you don't know THAT
how can you adequately pitch the level of the reply?
Which architect, may I ask?
Many lists have lurkers. For whatever reason they don't want to stick
their necks out. I have no such modesty.
You seem to be single groove of homotoxicology and multiple remedies.
It is time consuming and tedious replying to the same thing over and
over.
Oh? When? I have never seen "I am ending this. No more."
I cannot let what you say lie fallow.
Those who lurk deserve to hear it from the Hahnemannian side.

JW

Dear Mr Winston,
Sure, you may ask. But I won't tell you, because in the world of
professional book publishing (as opposed to the world of amateur
self-publishing) such things are not divulged. I am employed to carry out
research. What more do you need to know?
No, I can see that.
Don't do it, then! It is plain by now that is it not getting either of
us anywhere. The reason one gets stuck in a groove is when people are for
whatever reason unable to understand questions. I get stuck in the same
groove when trying to talk to my Grandmother, who is deaf and senile.
I take back the above statement, having seen your other message to me, which
I am not going to answer. I have learned enough, and this discussion has
been extremely enlightening to me, both from a homeopathic viewpoint and a
psychiatric one.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband

This would be a suitable combo prescription - Platina, Naja, Sepia, Thuja
and let's throw in some Syphilinum to finish off the case.

Joy

www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 7/3/04 10:16 AM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:
I take back the above statement, having seen your other message to me, which
I am not going to answer. I have learned enough, and this discussion has
been extremely enlightening to me, both from a homeopathic viewpoint and a
psychiatric one.

Warmly,
Anna
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]