Minutus

Dear Irfan

Thank you for your response.

Firstly Finrod (faithful friend of man - Lord of the Rings) is my company
name!

Secondly, please give me the references to Kent's practice.

It all depends on whether the case is chronic or acute.
If it is acute and desperate, you can repeat often provided you plus the
remedy. In one of my best cases I gave the remedy Ant-t 200 C in water and
plussed 10 times every time in 10-15 minute intervals.
Nothing happened after the first 2 doses. However, within 2 minutes of the
third dose, the PND that was causing the painful cough stopped and the
patient went on to make a recovery.

However, chronic cases are completely different.
Kent also says that the best result he ever had was when he waited for 60
days for a reaction!

If I may give an example from a car. Let us assume that the engine has been
flooded and won't start well. You turn the starter until it fires. At first
the engine may run very badly but while doing so, do turn the starter? No,
if you do you damage the engine. So you wait, either the engine will
eventually fire well, or will stop - in which case if former all is well and
if the latter you start again (using auxiliary battery even).

All I need is logic - explain the logic properly with good evidence and it
may become acceptable. But not just because X, Y or Z said so.
These guys were not infallible.

All experiences - even wrong ones are valuable - that is how we learn!
History repeats itself because we do not learn from experiences!

Rgds
Soroush

Message: 16
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 05:08:56 +0000 (GMT)
From: "M. Irfan Qureshi"
Subject: One dose/ finrod and Soroush

Dear Finrod & Soroush
I agree to you that 3 doses cannot be one dose. One dose must be given
sufficient time to act before administrating next dose. Giving them in quick
succession does not have strong basis. But.....
Dr J.T.Kent, one of the srict followers of Hahnemann, used to give four
doses in quick successin (4 hourly) and waited till action stoped. I think
doing so aborts aggravation and accelerates action of remedy. I seek your
comments on Kent's practice. Ramachandra, however, may be pardoned and
thanked for giving her valuable experiences.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

AND WHY? To what purpose and to achieve WHAT?

There are so many homoeopaths doing weird and wonderful things - but that
does not make it right.

Pls bring me anything which justifies this kind of practising homoeopathy
and hopefully as a group we will discuss it more.

Rgds
Soroush

Message: 9
Date: Thu, 18 Nov 2004 22:02:50 -0000
From: "rochelle"
Subject: Fw: One dose/ finrod and Soroush

Dr Ramakrishnan prescribes 200C 4 doses at 8 am 12 noon 4pm and 8 pm . I
have done this on occasions and there have been no aggravations. He often
does this fortnightly .

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

I am remembering some ten or more years ago, my homeopath at that time
talking about a colleague of his, who had spent time in India studying the
method of someone whose name I either don't recall or never heard, which (it
was said) was producing cures for some conditions that had been previously
thought incurable--by homeopathy or anything else, so far as these folks
knew. He had *painstakingly* documented all that he'd seen, came back with
a thick binder full of before-and-after photos of really grizzly conditions
and their progressive relief, and meticulous records of what remedies had
been given (and when). When he came back (he lived in California, USA) he
assumed that his ("very classical") colleagues would be as excited as he
was, by this glimpse of possibilities.

Au contraire (according to my h'th), after some efforts to share what he had
learned and seen, and efforts to start conversation on the topic, he was
basically shunned by his former colleagues. Why? Because the apparent
reason for these unexpected cures was not new remedies, nor even new
casetaking methods, but instead a (by "classical" standards) very aggressive
treatment method, involving (and again, this is my ten-year-old memory of a
brief conversation) high potencies repeated *far* more frequently than was
considered acceptable (I don't know whether this was several times a day or
daily, or what).

Why were they unwilling to consider these "impossible cures" (nice phrase,
Amy!) simply because the method lay outside their idea of "acceptable"
method? Soroush, what do you think?

While I *certainly* understand the need to evaluate unexpected information
very carefully, in that instance there was lots and lots of material
available to *use* for evaluation, but no one (so far as I heard) was
willing to even look at it. Why?

Shannon
on 11/19/04 9:36 AM, Finrod at finrod@webstar.co.uk wrote:

Dear Shannon

As I said in the previous mail I am for carefully conducted experiments.
But the homoeopath you mentioned needed to have shown in his cases that
those he gave one dose and waited did not respond as well as the ones he
dosed closely and often.

Once he can show this, then the evidence is before our eyes.

But this is different to saying doses given in the space of x hours is 1
dose.
That is not logical and our enemies would laugh at us if the heard about it!

Rgds
Soroush

Message: 6
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:16:00 -0600
From: Robert&Shannon Nelson
Subject: Re: One dose??

I am remembering some ten or more years ago, my homeopath at that time
talking about a colleague of his, who had spent time in India studying the
method of someone whose name I either don't recall or never heard, which (it
was said) was producing cures for some conditions that had been previously
thought incurable--by homeopathy or anything else, so far as these folks
knew. He had *painstakingly* documented all that he'd seen, came back with
a thick binder full of before-and-after photos of really grizzly conditions
and their progressive relief, and meticulous records of what remedies had
been given (and when). When he came back (he lived in California, USA) he
assumed that his ("very classical") colleagues would be as excited as he
was, by this glimpse of possibilities.

Au contraire (according to my h'th), after some efforts to share what he had
learned and seen, and efforts to start conversation on the topic, he was
basically shunned by his former colleagues. Why? Because the apparent
reason for these unexpected cures was not new remedies, nor even new
casetaking methods, but instead a (by "classical" standards) very aggressive
treatment method, involving (and again, this is my ten-year-old memory of a
brief conversation) high potencies repeated *far* more frequently than was
considered acceptable (I don't know whether this was several times a day or
daily, or what).

Why were they unwilling to consider these "impossible cures" (nice phrase,
Amy!) simply because the method lay outside their idea of "acceptable"
method? Soroush, what do you think?

While I *certainly* understand the need to evaluate unexpected information
very carefully, in that instance there was lots and lots of material
available to *use* for evaluation, but no one (so far as I heard) was
willing to even look at it. Why?

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

Hi Soroush,

(First, I'm not addressing the questions of "split dose/multiple doses" at
all.)

In the cases I was being told about, probably those patients had *not* been
treated first with single doses, because the treating homeopath was past
"experimenting", and had already established his method and its sphere of
usefulness. But the "control" (prior experience) in these cases came from
the *types* of cases, and the fact that they were considered incurable by
"everyone else". From the way my own homeopath described the situation to
me *no one* had objected on the grounds that they could have done it just as
well "their way"! The conditions treated were simply considered incurable
by homeopathy. The fact that the Indian prescriber was *curing* them, in
this unorthodox manner, was something they simply refused to look at.

I am still fascinated by the question of why no one would even look at his
"evidence". It brings to mind Galileo's experiences with the Pope, who
(assuming my history is correct) refused to look thru the telescope,
insisting "It isn't true, because it *can't* be true!" But Galileo
won, eventually. I guess time will tell!

Cheers,
Shannon
on 11/20/04 5:28 AM, Finrod at finrod@webstar.co.uk wrote:

Dear Indu

I think there is a logical flaw in your statement.

If the patient is going to antidote the remedy, then the number of times
you give it in 5-6 hours makes no difference it is still going to be anti
doted!!

If you use LMs and have the patient call in after 3-4 days, then you have
not wasted 15 days!

Box clever!

Rgds
Soroush

Message: 21
Date: Sun, 21 Nov 2004 09:37:54 -0800 (PST)
From: indu masoor
Subject: Re:

Dear Soroush,
Once again it is my experience ,that number of time ,single dose
administered has not acted ,if U ask why I say I dont know .(It is my
observation 2- 3 doses are safe bet ).May be Suceptibility,may be drug
got antidoted because pts mental make up ,ie sudden emotional disurbance,or
certain food taken ,may be tobaco smoking or chewing .I cant say why . 15
days have been wasted till he comes once again .
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]