On Dec 21, 2011, at 12:50 AM, Jamie Taylor wrote:
> Aegidi was the contemporary of Hahnemann who tried double remedies
>
> On 21/12/2011 05:55, John Harvey wrote:
>> Shannon,
>>
>>
>>> As to why it shouldn't (strictly speaking, per Hahnemann) be
>>> considered homeopathic, is simply that he specified giving *one
>>> remedy
>>> at a time*. From the historical record, it appears that he made
>>> that
>>> choice somewhat arbitrarily--not because one *can't* use remedies in
>>> combination -- quite obviously, one can -- but because there are
>>> some
>>> disadvantages, and he felt that keeping simplicity was both
>>> advantageous, and sufficient.
>>>
>> Yes, one *can* use any number of medicines at once. One can't do
>> so and be
>> practising *homoeopathically*, as you've acknowledged. Hahnemann
>> did not *
>> choose* that, and it's disingenuous of you to state that he did.
>> (Where do
>> you dredge up such garbage?) Rather, because without knowing the
>> effects
>> of the medicine, you can't prescribe it on the basis of similarity
>> to the
>> entirety of the patient's state, so no other option was available
>> to him.
>> No other option is likely to become available in the near future
>> or ever,
>> either, for reasons that have been explained to you countless times
>> in
>> pervious iterations of discussions attempting to educate you in this
>> matter. (I hear that you led Julian Winston to tear his hair out by
>> pursuing exactly this same course of self-contradictory blather about
>> "combos" when he was alive! Does it not concern you that you have
>> learnt
>> nothing in all the years since despite all the crazes and fads that
>> enthuse
>> you?)
>>
>>
>>
>> One reason he gave was the vastly increased complexity of prescribing
>>> remedies in tandem; this wasn't with reference to "combinations" as
>>> we've been talking about them; it was with reference to what... I
>>> forget who the contemporary was that had discussed it with him...
>>> whoever, referred to as "dual remedies" -- remedies chosen to be
>>> given
>>> at the same time, complementing each others' effects. (Having been
>>> proven only singly, not in tandem.)
>>>
>> This does shed some light on the origins of the persistent
>> confusions here.
>> Complementarity of remedies is something that refers to one
>> medicine's
>> effect in continuing and completing the work of another. This means
>> actually waiting till the first one has had the chance to exhaust its
>> secondary (curative) effect, not waiting merely till the primary
>> effect has
>> passed, and not waiting merely long enough to open a second bottle.
>>
>> Hahnemann was *not* opposed in any sense to prescribing a different
>> medicine the second time around. Let's be clear about that. He was
>> explicitly opposed to doing so without checking the altered state
>> of the
>> patient's derangement -- something inherently impossible, of
>> course, when
>> the second medicine does not even wait five minutes for the first
>> to act.
>> But his most vehement opposition was reserved for the practice of
>> prescribing medicines with no known relation to the patient's entire
>> derangement -- a practice he named allopathy -- and prescribing again
>> without learning from the consequences of the first mistake. (If
>> that
>> sounds as if it describes the practice too of the "homoeopathic"
>> polypaths
>> you're so keen to "understand", it's because it does.)
>>
>> Mixing two or more known medicines does not give you a known
>> medicinal
>> agent; it gives you an unknown one. That was the chief basis of
>> Hahnemann's objection to polypharmacy of all stripe, under any
>> name, of any
>> philosophical origin.
>>
>> Secondarily, of course, comes the minor objection of the difficulty
>> of
>> attempting to understand what the heck happened after the
>> prescription -- a
>> task of such subtlety, even after a legitimate prescription, that it
>> comprises the chief obstacle that most contributors on this list
>> encounter
>> once they have prescribed homoeopathically.
>>
>> The difficulty of ascertaining and understanding what has occurred in
>> response to the effects of *two* medicines -- even two with no
>> chemical or
>> dynamic effect on each other -- is of such difficulty that nobody
>> has ever
>> claimed to be able to do it.
>>
>> Yet you suggest complicating the matter further still, with your
>> "understanding" (!) that medicines combined in potentised form and
>> administered together -- thus altering each other dynamically and
>> producing
>> synergistic and antergistic effects ad hoc without foresight,
>> perception,
>> or comprehension of the fact by the practitioner -- will self-
>> eliminate and
>> that it is possible to rationally interpret that the consequent
>> disappearance of the symptom under attack is a curative response.
>>
>> The problem in making these double leaps of faith is *not only*
>> that they
>> remain unfalsifiable and therefore pose illegitimate modes of
>> experimentation; it is *also* that *the experiment occurs at the
>> patient's
>> expense, without the patient's informed consent, and **very
>> possibly** if
>> not certainly to the patient's detriment*.
>>
>>
>>
>> Other reasons were more "political": he feared (and I would think
>>> probably quite rightly) that part of what distinguished the practice
>>> of homeopathy from the practice of the "mainstream medicine" of his
>>> day (applies also to ours), was the principle of *single* remedy,
>>> chosen to have a deep, subtle and specific effect of causing "the
>>> whole" to rebalance -- really amazingly elegant, isn't it! I think
>>>
>> Actually, that sounds exactly like biomedicine, and not like
>> homoeopathy at
>> all. It even describes quite well the prescription of penicillin
>> for ear
>> discharge that you called homoeopathic but that was not. Is that
>> because
>> you forgot *again* what homoeopathy is while you were writing that
>> sentence? Homoeopathy is not a practice that aims to have any
>> *specific*effect, and it certainly doesn't aim to cause the whole to
>> rebalance.
>>
>> But if by this you meant what I hope you meant -- that the intent in
>> choosing the most homoeopathic (i.e. *symptomatically* similar)
>> medicine is
>> to dynamically annihilate the entirety of the natural derangement
>> to which
>> it is similar -- then it's an important concept to remember when
>> considering the basis for combination prescriptions, which never
>> (because
>> they cannot) take into account the entire derangement.
>>
>>
>>
>> the power and beauty of that approach (when it is working well) is
>>> really something quite special. Maybe that could be replicated with
>>>
>> skillfully chosen combinations, but Hahmenann made the choice to
>> In relation to the proposal that homoeopathy *could* include or
>> *could
>> have*included polypharmacy, please see above.
>>
>>
>>> bypass that field of complexity, stating that the approach he was
>>> outlining -- using *single* remedies, and changing the remedy only
>>> if
>>> and as required by the change of symptom picture -- was sufficient,
>>> and therefore preferrable to the (far less tested, generally
>>> unknown,
>>> and still very uncertain and, he felt, ultimately more difficult)
>>> path
>>> of complexes.
>>>
>> Do you know better? Was he wrong about that? And did you happen to
>> overlook again the *chief* obstacle (hint: read above) to using
>> more than
>> one single, simple medicine in a prescription made homoeopathically?
>>
>>
>>
>> Sooooo.......... That's why it is not strictly homeopathy -- because
>>> of the definition Hahnemann gave.
>>>
>> To be clear, then: the necessity for polypharmacy's exclusion from
>> homoeopathy was a matter of neither politics nor practicality nor
>> simplicity; it was not a *rule* arising from *reasons*. It was, and
>> remains, the consequence of definition: the consequence of the
>> unknowability of the deranging effects of a medicinal mixture on the
>> healthy, which homoeopathic practice necessarily requires.
>>
>>
>>
>> Will it work as billed? I have no idea! Seems plausible to me that
>> You said it.
>>
>>
>>> it *could*, but I would think that individualizing with single
>>> remedies would still be preferable *if* it is an available
>>> option. Do
>>>
>> And when is it not an option, Shannon? When is it not possible to
>> take the
>> patient's case? What amazing circumstances could conspire to give
>> you a
>> moment in which to learn that the patient is threatened with a
>> terminal
>> wart but no opportunity to learn more?
>>
>> Could it be the kids? The television? Perhaps you've encountered
>> a wart
>> doubling in size every 15 seconds and realised that there are times
>> when
>> there's *no other option* but to prescribe on the basis of that
>> symptom and
>> hit it with the combined cannon at your disposal?
>>
>> John
>>
>>
>>
> <jamie_taylor.vcf>
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen