Minutus

Quite right of course and I have no problem with it whatsoever, except
where it has been suggested that no remedies whatsoever except those
already proven be used.
Then there's a problem. I am not taking high moral ground, honestly, I
just cannot understand how one thing can be stated as the only
permissable thing then something else entirely be done. It is just
doesn't seem consistant to me.

Simon

What Chris wrote was eloquent as well as being spot on (partly repeated
below as it is worth reading again). If you still find you have the
inconsistency then it has to be with you alone, thankfully.

If one really has to use an unproven rx then it should be an exception
- not the rule. And that exception should be followed up with a proving
or a lot more clinical work, preferably. That way our work pertains to
a contemporary scientific standard.

"In fact, a patient recently
described the sensation that she felt as if she was a tower made out
of a
deck of playing cards and that someone was about to poke their finger
in the
middle and make it all fall down in a heap. No mention of being
"brittle" or
"made of glass" but it was the same sentiment of fragility. I'm using
this
example to show that by itself, this analogy could actually lead to
one of
many different remedies. Analogy by itself is not enough, inductive
reasoning by itself is not enough, but a balance in all areas of the
homoeopathic system can allow us to *deduce* safely and accurately."

Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

What chris wrote was quite erudite but missed the point.
I agree with your point that unproven Rxs should be the exception not
the rule, but this is off topic. You also miss the point.

You were suggestion that only proved remedies be available at the
pharmacies. I disagree, that IS the point.

Simon