> How is it SO much time and energy is expended on perpetually going round in the same circles?! Shouldn't the singular failure of this debate to advance so much as one step forward in ... what, 200 years? ... be telling us something fundamental and axiomatic about this question?! That, to quote Einstein, "No problem can be solved from the same level of consciousness that created it."?
Whatever level of consciousness produced the problem of combos, and tried to piggyback on the valid reputation of a genuine medical system, by misappropriating its name without any semblance of similar application, is exactly where the thinking needs to change and become honest.
Mixtures are just that. They are not homeopathy. It is fraudulent to pretend otherwise.
> Homeopathy does not exist in isolation. It utilises exactly the same universal principles used in many systems of healing.
Not so. It is the only system that uses the Law of Similars, which is what defines it as homeopathy.
Pretending anything else does that, is simply incorrect. No combo can do that.
> It's one among many, there are all manner of shades of grey in between and we don't know the half of it yet.
Not true. Law of Similars is as clear and easy to follow as that other natural law - the e Law of Gravity - and equally unmistakeable as a natural law. It's not an idea man invented. Homeopathy is by definition the system that uses it.
The objections that occur, are to the misuse of the term homeopathy to refer to anything other than this Law of Similars.
Mixologists TRY to pretend that what they do is homeopathy as that would be greatly to their advantage. Fancy having free access to 200 y ears of excellent reputation and trying to sell your unrelated product based on that reputation! A great selling point commercially - but there's no truth in it. Mixologists have no connection or cause to hang on the coat tails of the genuine system defined by Hahnemann and called homeopathy.
> If we don't even know the mechanism by which the practice of homeopathy actually achieves a curative reaction
We do not know how drugs do what drugs do either, but we know WHAT they do., Likewise with homeopathy. Nor is homeopathy's mechanism as much unknown as it was before all the research quoted by Bellavite and Signorini, which also proposes a avery plausible theory that holds for all the experimental double blind trials done so far. More research is currently under way, and it will not be long before the mechanism is known.
Even gravity has an unknown mechanism. As with homeopathy, we have a plausible theory only.
It's more than we have for any allopathic medicine or even for any combo remedy.
The beauty of homeopathy is its predictability. Unlike any other system, it is predictable what a remedy can be used to cure, and one can be chosen even for a disease never before seen in the planet.
No other system can make that claim, as they have NO LAW or principle of any kind by which they function.
> then the theory remains just that: theory, guesswork and post hoc rationalisation based on circular logic. To believe otherwise is to mistake the map for the territory.
No it is not. Homeopathic remedies are proved, and that is how it is known in advance what they can accomplish.
Combos can say no such thing - nor any other medicine.
> To look out in superficial judgement from the standpoint of our own perspective at what someone else is doing, without being open minded enough to take the time to completely immerse ourselves in THEIR outlook, logic and rationale,
The combo lovers have indeed been challenged to show what THEIR outlook, logic and rationale is, and they constantly come up blank - as there is none. If they had any logic, rationale or outlook or any system at all on which to base any combo, they would not need to stow away in a homeopathic coat tail to try to gain credence. They'd stand on their own two feet. Instead they sway they are "experimenting".
Homeopaths do not experiment - they know in advance why they are selecting a remedy and what it will achieve.
Big difference.
> How do we know that combos don't work as well as single remedies? Especially when we've never given them the benefit of the doubt, or attempted to see them in any other terms but from the perspective of a single remedy prescriber? We can theorise all we like, but theorising is a million miles from real experience.
And combos have none.
Homeopathy is based on experience and knowledge and proven usage before the patient needs a remedy. Each remedy IS proven as to what it can do. It's ethical to use a known effect remedy rather than a combo experiment that has no such investigation behind it.
> So where do we draw the line between 'homeopathy' and 'not-homeopathy'?
Where there is proven effect of a remedy - using Law of Similars - in advance of its use on a live patient. There is no fuzziness with that clear boundary and definition.
Hence combos are not homeopathy.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen