Minutus

Dear Nader
I have NEVER done this.

But if you physically want to increase the size of the dose (quantity) then
the three spoonfuls should be added to a glass and the whole contents taken
at the same time.

However, in an acute case, I would rather they took three doses at intervals
watching carefully for a reaction before another dose is taken.

Rgds
Soroush

Message: 4
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 21:16:22 +0330
From: "Nader Moradi"
Subject: Re:

Dear Soroush,

Although I do not use this method in my practice but as I know it is said to
the patient to stop taking the remedy when the patient feels better or
worse.In fact in this instance you increase the dose till you/your patient
see the reaction,in solution form, if you want to tell the patient take,for
example,3 spoons from main bottle,how do you instruct?does the patient take
3 spoons one by one or he/she pours 3 spoons over into one glass and then
takes it?

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

Dear Shannon

Hn was a greater experimenter so we are permitted to experiment. However,
experiments and trials need to be carefully constructed and designed and the
approach in MHO should be double checked by a more experienced homoeopath.

Do we need to repeat the experiments of Hn? So yes just to verify them and
once you prove that Hn was truthful do you need to prove every of his
experiments.

He clearly advises against too frequent dosing.

All I am asking is for logic. After all Homoeopathy is scientific where as
allopathy is often based on a whim.

Indu would need to show me that if he had given just one dose his patients
would not have gotten better. But I think he is plying the remedy to keep
the patient psychologically on-side. For that I have already advised Sac Lac
- or even a bottle of water (perhaps with a few drops of alcohol to make it
taste different).
There is no need to repeat the remedy.

Rgds
Soroush

Message: 5
Date: Fri, 19 Nov 2004 12:06:41 -0600
From: Robert&Shannon Nelson
Subject: Re:

Hi Soroush,

I assume the reason for your objections is that you are afraid patients may
be harmed by the approach--or is there another reason? Do you feel that
Ramachandra's (indu's) experiences with curing these difficult or incurable
conditions are not accurate, or perhaps that they actually could/would have
been accomplished with the more usual, conservative dosing?

Personally, I am always interested when someone says they have a way of
accomplishing things that I've been told (or have found) "can't" be done.
While I would not want to be too uncritical in accepting someone's word for
things I cannot verify, but I would also not want to close the door on
valuable information simply because it doesn't suit what I have believed in
the past. What is your reason for wanting to close the door on his approach
and the experiences he reports, without any further understanding of what
value it may have?

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

Dear Shannon

I assure you that I WILL look through the telescope. So if shown the
evidence I would be happy to look through them.
You say that [ they were considered incurable by "everyone else". ]
Curability is an interesting concept. It cannot be predicted. We have seen
all sorts of cases cured by Homoeopaths. From then on-set of treatment you
cannot say this case is incurable. I am always the optimist and will aim for
cure in all cases.

Undoubtedly the correct choice of remedy and dose and repetition all play a
major role.

It could be of course said that like in an acute case where the remedy is
used up quickly and therefore needs to repeated at relatively quick
intervals, that in such cases of severe pathology the remedy NEEDS to be
repeated often. What I have been arguing about is that you have to establish
that there is a NEED and not just use a protocol that say I will repeat this
remedy without due consideration of the factors affecting it and
additionally calling three or four doses over a few hours as one dose.
That to me is a clear nonsense - better to call it 3 or 4 doses over X
hours. My question though still remain, how was the need to repeat the
remedy established in that period.

If I am being pedantic I apologise but I believe many a case has been ruined
by too quick decision by the hom to repeat or even change a remedy.

Rgds
Soroush

Message: 12
Date: Sat, 20 Nov 2004 08:25:40 -0600
From: Robert&Shannon Nelson
Subject: Re: One dose??

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