-----
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Digest Number 1700
Hahnemannian
minimum
a
and
though
concern
are
the
be
coming
what
bit
used
for
still
can
Digest Number 1700
-
Shannon Nelson
- Posts: 8848
- Joined: Fri Jun 28, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Digest Number 1700
Hi Theresa,
You raise many good points. It seems your main point is that a practitioner
should not prescribe something which they don't understand ("don't know
what's in it"), and the fact that Peter has a solid *past* should not
convince us that he's doing the right thing in this instance. With regard
to this situation, tho,
(a) the therapy is *no longer* unproven; Peter and others have already
amassed what to me appears a creditable track record;
(b) *every* treatment is to some degree "unproven", because we can't
know in advance how it will work *for that patient* -- this is true whether
we're talking about allopathic drugs, classical homeopathy, or anything else
(granted that both the odds and the risks differ from situation to
situation!)
(c) If you look over Didi's or Peter's sites, the results appear
impressive, and I will be interested in your thoughts on those.
More below:
on 9/5/04 6:00 AM, Theresa Partington at theresa@frogsisland.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
I am not arguing that PC1 *may* not be homeopathy -- as you note, since we
don't know what it is and haven't seen a proving, we can't make any call on
that subject. Peter refers to it as homeopathic, and states that it works
on the basis of its similarity to the disease, so it *sounds* like it's
homeopathic, but at this point we're just taking his word on that, we don't
know.
Actually, I said I felt it was up to the individual prescriber, based on
his/her assessment of the overall situation. In this case many others have
already "sucked" and found it useful.
This hasn't been my understanding, and will *certainly* not be the way it's
being done in e.g. Africa, as removing the need for complicated assessments
is (as I've understood it) part of its gift.
My understanding is that "regular" constitutional prescribing also works
well -- and will, I assume, cure at a far deeper level, as it's curing the
*reason* the person got sick, not simply the sickness. However, regular
constitutional prescribing is not available to "the masses" in this
situation, so the choice for most is either PC1 and a 60% chance of complete
cure, or no treatment, and die. Hm, which is the more honorable choice...
I realize that "60% chance of complete cure" is not a completely accurate
figure, since the website says (if I remember right) that only 60% of the
patients were able to be followed as long as needed. If we assume that all
of the rest had *no* benefit, that still leaves 60% of 60%, or 36% of the
*total*, achieving complete cure in three months, which still to me looks
more than respectable, especially considering the added presence of
starvation, other illnesses and other "lifestyle challenges". To me the
results look excellent; how do you read it?
I'm interested to hear that! I didn't know that anyone ran a *practice*
with combos. Sure you can't do deep constitutional work that way, or do
they feel they can, or ?? (Just curious.)
Sure. How about if you either had an AIDS patient you had been so far
unable to help (and all of us fail with some people), or knew someone with
AIDS who could not/would not get constitutional care but wanted help? Would
you feel it better to leave them to follow out their expected spiral however
they chose, rather than offer PC1 because you don't "understand" it? Even
having seen these very promising write-ups?
I agree that we shouldn't *judge* according to who's promoting. But in this
case we also have clinical results -- unless you think that Peter and Didi
are both making things up, which seems unlikely.
Yeah, not the US either. That's because "cure" doesn't pay as well.
Where?
What does Peter and Didi's work need, in your understanding, to get past the
label of "unproven"?
I don't think that is the point. MDs frequently don't know that much about
what they prescribe either. We don't necessarily know what's in our
"classical" remedies either (how many remember how to make Causticum, or
what minerals are in Sanicula? Not to mention what's "in" a marigold...)
But we have learned what to use them *for*.
Looks like you haven't read the site, which makes this discussion maybe
premature.
It's mentioned *very* clearly there that "failure to practice safe sex" is
one of the factors that can sometimes prevent PC1 from working, as the
patient "may" become reinfected. In other words yes, condoms are necessary!
The website gives results from what appear to me to be controlled clinical
trials.
Have a(nother?) look at the site and tell me what you think of it.
Best wishes,
Shannon
You raise many good points. It seems your main point is that a practitioner
should not prescribe something which they don't understand ("don't know
what's in it"), and the fact that Peter has a solid *past* should not
convince us that he's doing the right thing in this instance. With regard
to this situation, tho,
(a) the therapy is *no longer* unproven; Peter and others have already
amassed what to me appears a creditable track record;
(b) *every* treatment is to some degree "unproven", because we can't
know in advance how it will work *for that patient* -- this is true whether
we're talking about allopathic drugs, classical homeopathy, or anything else
(granted that both the odds and the risks differ from situation to
situation!)
(c) If you look over Didi's or Peter's sites, the results appear
impressive, and I will be interested in your thoughts on those.
More below:
on 9/5/04 6:00 AM, Theresa Partington at theresa@frogsisland.freeserve.co.uk
wrote:
I am not arguing that PC1 *may* not be homeopathy -- as you note, since we
don't know what it is and haven't seen a proving, we can't make any call on
that subject. Peter refers to it as homeopathic, and states that it works
on the basis of its similarity to the disease, so it *sounds* like it's
homeopathic, but at this point we're just taking his word on that, we don't
know.
Actually, I said I felt it was up to the individual prescriber, based on
his/her assessment of the overall situation. In this case many others have
already "sucked" and found it useful.
This hasn't been my understanding, and will *certainly* not be the way it's
being done in e.g. Africa, as removing the need for complicated assessments
is (as I've understood it) part of its gift.
My understanding is that "regular" constitutional prescribing also works
well -- and will, I assume, cure at a far deeper level, as it's curing the
*reason* the person got sick, not simply the sickness. However, regular
constitutional prescribing is not available to "the masses" in this
situation, so the choice for most is either PC1 and a 60% chance of complete
cure, or no treatment, and die. Hm, which is the more honorable choice...
I realize that "60% chance of complete cure" is not a completely accurate
figure, since the website says (if I remember right) that only 60% of the
patients were able to be followed as long as needed. If we assume that all
of the rest had *no* benefit, that still leaves 60% of 60%, or 36% of the
*total*, achieving complete cure in three months, which still to me looks
more than respectable, especially considering the added presence of
starvation, other illnesses and other "lifestyle challenges". To me the
results look excellent; how do you read it?
I'm interested to hear that! I didn't know that anyone ran a *practice*
with combos. Sure you can't do deep constitutional work that way, or do
they feel they can, or ?? (Just curious.)
Sure. How about if you either had an AIDS patient you had been so far
unable to help (and all of us fail with some people), or knew someone with
AIDS who could not/would not get constitutional care but wanted help? Would
you feel it better to leave them to follow out their expected spiral however
they chose, rather than offer PC1 because you don't "understand" it? Even
having seen these very promising write-ups?
I agree that we shouldn't *judge* according to who's promoting. But in this
case we also have clinical results -- unless you think that Peter and Didi
are both making things up, which seems unlikely.
Yeah, not the US either. That's because "cure" doesn't pay as well.
Where?
What does Peter and Didi's work need, in your understanding, to get past the
label of "unproven"?
I don't think that is the point. MDs frequently don't know that much about
what they prescribe either. We don't necessarily know what's in our
"classical" remedies either (how many remember how to make Causticum, or
what minerals are in Sanicula? Not to mention what's "in" a marigold...)
But we have learned what to use them *for*.
Looks like you haven't read the site, which makes this discussion maybe
premature.
It's mentioned *very* clearly there that "failure to practice safe sex" is
one of the factors that can sometimes prevent PC1 from working, as the
patient "may" become reinfected. In other words yes, condoms are necessary!
The website gives results from what appear to me to be controlled clinical
trials.
Have a(nother?) look at the site and tell me what you think of it.
Best wishes,
Shannon