Minutus

on 9/1/04 4:42 AM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:

...

I also appreciate the irony, but -- if combos are "not homeopathy" (a
conclusion I agree with) then they are utterly outside the scope of our
"self-regulation", hm? So it is up to each practitioner to decide what
tools they will use or not use -- and that, IMO, is just as it should be.
I completely agree.
Yup, that's homeopathy.
I haven't advocated having homeopaths *prescribe* combos (tho I am happy
enough to trust an individual prescriber's judgment as to the needs of
individual cases, and H2002's scenario sounds okay to me, tho i realize
there are other ways one could go). That is an entirely different
discussion. But as to whether we should be calling for them to be banned,
*that* is what I find an alarming idea, for the reasons already stated. I
also don't think we should be trying to ban herbs or even allopathic meds;
let's mind our own house and leave other folks' houses alone. My opinion...
No, I don't necessarily think that's the case...
I think that comparing combos with single remedy properly selected by
someone who actually knows what they are doing, is really comparing apples
and oranges. They're different preparations, selected by different
criteria, suitable for use by different folks in different contexts and for
different purposes. Sure there are elements in common (same general rules
of use, and drawn from similar "ingredient pool") and that commonality
sometimes leads folks from combos into single remedies BUT the differences
IMO are enough, IMO, to make it really "none of our business" -- except as
yet another opportunity for (ta-da) education.
I would be interested to hear about how things go with French homeopaths;
shudder at the restrictions, but have no knowledge whatever about what they
do.

Cheers,
Shannon

Hi Chris,

Glad to hear this news.

Would you have an idea if someone has collated a list of homeopathic
pharmacies world-wide which adhere to principles (other than the rule of
$$ and expediency...)

I have heard waaay too many times, the phrase "oh, I tried homeopathy
and it didn't work" -when a little questioning reveals that the person
"tried" a combination Rx recommended by a non-homeopath... yet still
the damage remains; the person is convinced that what they "tried" was
homeopathy..

best,
David Hartley www.holistiq.com
San Francisco EastBay (510)776-5914
---------------------

But I think that's the bottom line -- that combos are "not homeopathy". I'm
not willing to call them bad or worthless, but they're *different*. To my
mind much of the trouble would be solved if we could change the labelling.
Maybe maybe a term like "Homeocombos" would both leave in place the
*association* with homeopathy (and it is a legitimate association!), but
also label it as "something else".

But, how on earth could one make this happen...
Actually, it seems *possible* that some of the pharmacies might simply be
willing, if asked? It's probably not possible to make a "legal" challenge,
so discussion "on its merits" is probably the only choice. Anyone have
contacts they might explore that with?

The pharmacies could even use it as a publicity opportunity -- articles in
health-related magazines, pamphlets in the retail outlets, describing the
reason for the change, and simultaneously extolling the "convenience" of
combos along with the "even greater" possibilities offered by working with a
homeopath or learning proper use of single remedies. They could even
combine that with offering an acute care correspondence course, wherein they
would learn what *not* to try managing on their own (e.g. chronic
complaints) and how to differentiate "cure" from "palliation" from
"suppression".
on 9/4/04 9:15 PM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote: