Re: [H] Combos and complexes

Hi, Hennie --

I've never used that particular phrasing, I'm sure. And I confess that
I've usually led up to its definition by quickly checking what my listener
already knows. (This usually includes a quite vague notion of homoeopathy
as something natural, as well as at least some knowledge of high-school
science.) That clear, usually an example or two suffices to cement the
notion.

There's a difference, of course, between explaining homoeopathy's meaning
sufficiently that somebody gets *what it is* (i.e. how it differs from
every other thing) and explaining its possible mechanism, its discovery in
experiment, its occurrence in the natural history of medicine, and its
technologies and what makes them plausible rather than implausible: what
makes it a down-to-earth idea.

Even that usually takes just five minutes' worth of explanation, of a
sophistication appropriate to the listener's degree of understanding of the
sciences.

You've probably seen the occasional introductory brochure about homoeopathy
that's written perfectly accurately and clearly. This too can usually be
consumed and fully understood in several minutes, and may contain the
definition of homoeopathy in its opening sentence.

I'm not suggesting for an instant that the content of the single phrase
you'll find in a definition is all that is worth the patient's knowing.
But a straightforward understanding of what it is that differentiates
homoeopathy from any other therapy, "natural" or otherwise -- that it is
homoeopathy's use of the substance known to cause in the healthy the
symptoms that the patient is experiencing -- I've never found any
difficulty in conveying. The trick to it lies in not overly complicating
it.

Kind regards,

John

On 5 January 2012 16:59, Hennie Duits <he.duits@wxs.nl> wrote:

> Do you mean to say that giving this explanation/statement:
>
>
> "it uses the known capacities of a drug to cause illness in the healthy as
> the basis for prescribing it in a natural illness to which its effects are
> most similar".
>
> has ever been sufficient for any one untrained patient to say - "OK, now I
> completely understand, thank you"?
>
> And if not, how valid/effective do you think your explanation of
> homeopathy really is?
>
> Hennie
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy