Minutus

At 10:16 AM 9/2/2004 +0100, you wrote:

Dear Simon,

I have NOT jumped to any negative conclusions nor have I said one think
negative about the remedy. I merely stated that I find it ethically hard to
test a remedy on seriously ill people that I am not privy to what it really
is and how it is made. Is that really so surprising in the healing
sciences? You cannot even produce food or drink without telling them what
is inside it! We are speaking medicine not religion here. It is not just a
matter of one-sided faith.
I don't give medicines to patient's I DON'T UNDERSTAND! I know what is
in my remedies, how they are made, and how they are to be used. AND we have
almost 200 years of clinical experience behind us. The patient may not know
but I KNOW, but after all I am the prescriber. Nor, I am not blackmailing
or twisting arms. I am speaking about the ethics of me giving a remedy I
know nothing about on faith. That is not normal medical practice in any
system. Your starting to make some rather heavy personal charges here, Sir.
I don't care if it is homoeopathy or not. That is not the issue. I am
trained in several schools and it is all the same. We know what we are
working with.
I don't care about that either. I only spoke about what I perceived as
some inaccurate statements about homeopathy.
I am NOT simply playing "devils advocate"! I am speaking about my
understanding of scientific and medical ethics. I have only offered in my
posts (PC1-HIV/AIDS 1, 2, and 3) what I think are reasonable suggestions
that would help not hinder the investigations. I simply said I have trouble
with the idea of testing a remedy on seriously ill patients that I am not
privy to what it really is and how it is really made! My statements are NOT
a form of devils advocate, blackmail or arm twisting to get something out
of someone and I don't appreciate the accusations.

Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

S'ok David,
I was referring to the 'shazaam' attitudes, I do not recall you making
any negative comments re this
plus see# comments blelow...

regards
Simon King LCPH MARH

# quite agree - I too have no intention of using these remedies, long
way to go before that is even considered, I'm just interested in
DISCUSSING them.
But I am interested in the results that PC gets as he's the one using
them.
# agree ( same as above comment)

# well it wasn't aimed specifically in your direction. I didn't realise
anyone was acytually considering using them yet.

# agree ( same as above comments)
# I have no problem with rectifying innaccuracies!

# perhaps not , but I thought some (people) were.
# your comments make more sense to me now that I understand you ( and
perhaps others) were relating to the issue of actually using these
remedies yourself/ves-
that had not occurred to me!
I assumed ( wrongly perhaps) that it was only the principle behind the
remedies that was the issue being debated not whether we should start
to use them in our practice. To my mind such a suggestion would be
EXTREMELY premature.

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

Peter is not the only person using his remedy! E.g. Didi Anand talked a bit
about her experiences with it, and I have a friend here in the US who's used
it with two AIDS patients (early results were good, but I'll have to ask for
an update), and therefore I'm certain that others are too. Is that
unethical? Well, those using it have quite obviously not thought so.
Remember it's *not* untested!!!! It's *unproved -- as per homeopathy's
terminology*, but most definitely not untested. It's been tested, is still
being tested, and the results so far have been good -- and I'll see if I can
get any more specific information on that.

Shannon
on 9/3/04 9:33 AM, Simon King at sk2004@ntlworld.com wrote:

Do!

and I'll see if I can