Re: [H] single sxs [was: Combos vs. Singles

Inobservation, wishful thinking, inattendance, inadvertence,
miscommunication, the regression fallacy, the inherent tendency of
self-limiting conditions to right themselves, the inherent statistical
tendency of combinopaths to limit their observations to those that
"matter", the amplifying nature of the Internet, the tendency of belief
unconsciously to seek and find supportive information and reject opposing
information, scientific illiteracy, indiscrimination, uncriticality,
laziness, and above all else desperate gullibility are more than enough to
explain the legend, Shannon. There's no mystery there. But it's neither
here nor there whether the legend contains any substance. That is not the
topic of discussion regardless of the adroitness that you and Wendy and
several others show in attempting to shoehorn it in.

The topic -- the question at issue here -- is not one of tolerance or value
of the alternatives to homoeopathy. We all accept that our knowledge is
limited; that there is more to know in this corner of the world than we can
hope ever to comprehend.

The question at issue is whether the "combo" therapy of which you're so
enamoured "tho" you claim to have no experience of it is a "kind" of
homoeopathy.

Irene's point, made very well, is not that it is inferior, though clearly
it must struggle even to reach a second prescription. Her point is that it
inherently lacks homoeopathy's very basis, the one thing that makes
homoeopathy homoeopathy.

Does that clarify the topic at all?

Kind regards,

John

On 22 December 2011 00:58, Shannon Nelson <shannonnelson@tds.net> wrote:

> First let me stipulate again that I am *only* talking about acute
> conditions.
> I also am *only* talking about a not-hypersensitive and not-severely
> chronically ill patient. (Which, even today, covers the majority.)
>
> Given those caveats--the tricky thing is that they work, and usually
> without any trouble at all... (Tho not necessarily as well as in
> Rosemary's thoughtfully pursued example.)
>
> How do you explain that?
>
>
>
>
> On Dec 21, 2011, at 6:28 AM, Irene de Villiers wrote:
>
> >
> > On Dec 20, 2011, at 5:50 PM, Shannon Nelson wrote:
> >
> >>> As I understood it, Irene was in fact
> >>> distinguishing similarity of the patient to the medicine from
> >>> similarity of
> >>> a *single symptom* to the medicine.
> >
> > Yes.
> >
> >> If that is in fact what Irene meant, she wasn't at all addressing
> >> combos as they have been traditionally used--either prescribed or
> >> chosen, at least not to my understanding. I would be interested in
> >> hearing Irene's clarification.
> >
> > One can not choose a medicine before the patient is present with the
> > symptoms, which together determine the medicine needed. No combo can
> > meet that need.
> >
> > Combo mixmakers like to imagine that any numer of remedies witha
> > rubric in common are somehow able to fix a problem involving tha
> > rubric.
> > It's not true;
> > It takes litle medical experience with homeopaphty to find that a
> > notquitegoodenoughicum is no way to cure anytig.l It needs a real
> > simillimum that takes the totality of the patient ito account.
> >
> > Having a mishmash of remedies by definition can not achieve that.
> > The rubric in question can come right ONLY if the rest of the
> > patient's symptoms are in liine with the remedy. Otherwise there is
> > no "simlarity" as needed for the remedy to effect cure by law of
> > similars. And there is no other law that has been shown to work to
> > cure.
> >
> > .........Irene
>
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy