....but I will just point out that you have no idea what type of patients
come in my office (and I have the dubious honour to see too many of those
you describe as NOT being ones who come and see a homeopath), therefore you
are once again theorising.
That I do NOT have to accept those patients is again a reflection of your
way of thinking and practicing (if you do), not mine: I have never refused
any patient, any difficult case, any pathology, even in my surgical times
where I was known as the guy on whom to dump the complications of others....
.....no wonder my morbidity and mortality rates were higher than usual, I
dared go there and at least try. NOt completely true for distance patients,
some I refuse as I would really need their physical presence.....
Same thing with Natural Therapies.
You keep arguing on theoretical bases. I practice on scientific bases,
therefore I agree with your last sentence/question.
And it is that science, that knowledge, that research that I keep flowing
continuously, integrating everything until that time I will reach a very
simple reality, all those different methods, techniques called by many a
Jack of all trades", all this allows me to practice the way I do, with the
knowledge you cannot imagine one can have, with the understanding you have
no idea about, with good safety for my patients (and myself), and yet still
not get every case right.
I have explained at length what I do, how I do it. Anyone can do the same,
really, just need lots of pigheadedness, which I am largely endowed with....
.......
I do not feel the need to comment or argue any more, enough theorising,
enough hot air.
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-------Original Message-------
From: John Harvey
Date: 2/01/2012 10:44:10 p.m.
To: Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
Subject: Re: [H] Combos and complexes
Hi, Joe --
Every one of us would wish to help the patient as rapidly as possible who is
facing such a complex of problems, and I don't suppose that many would wish
to make the patient wait for a week or a month till the next visit in order
to address the next problem, one on another "level".
I wonder whether it occurs to you, though, that you are solving a
nonexistent problem: that in striving to exercise the wisdom of Solomon in
discerning -- as no other has done before you, least of all Irene or Shannon
to whom I have chiefly directed my remarks concerning the stupidity of
arbitrarily dividing the patient into various whimsically discrete diseases
-- the effects of various simultaneous medicines, you are striving to
overcome a hurdle that is purely artificial: the limit of the office
consultation.
I'm always amazed that polypharmacists should ever pose the ticking-bomb
scenario.
Torture apologists use the argument that if there were a ticking bomb in
some major city and the only way to find out where it was was to torture
somebody, then it becomes morally justifiable, even compelling, to do so.
That argument is based squarely on ignorance (of the reliability of
information that emerges under torture); on unimaginativeness (concerning
the other ways to obtain the information, the F.B.I. Having been
consistently far more successful in obtaining information from criminals
than the C.I.A. Though its approach is diametrically opposed to the "beat it
out of them" approach); on an inclination to hurt others; and, I'm sorry to
say, on sheer lazy convenience.
Though it's perhaps an unfortunate analogy, there may be lessons here in
considering the legitimacy of the ticking-bomb argument that Shannon, Irene,
and other polyphamacists frequently indulge in, which culminates in the
accusation that not prescribing everything under the kitchen sink for the
very ill patient for whom one has not discovered "the" homoeopathic medicine
would mean a preference for doctrine even at the expense of the patient's
life.
It's pure comic farce. The ticking-bomb torture argument fares no worse than
the ticking-bomb polypharmacy argument, whose seeming plausibility dissolves
instantly upon application to it of any least amount of critical thought.
Once you do apply it, you realise:
(a) that neither you nor the person posing the argument has yet faced a
patient who has approached with death threatening from several different
levels" (e.g. Injury, emotionality, measles, and eczema);
(b) that neither has yet faced a patient unable to deal for five minutes
with the emotions, the measles, the recent fall, and the eczema -- for if
anything were quite so urgent, it must be the fall itself, and in that case,
it will have just occurred and demand immediate treatment without
consideration of the other matters;
(c) that a patient does not turn up to an appointment at his or her
homoeopath's office unable to walk, unable to talk, unable to bear the
receding measles, and unable to live for five minutes with an eczema of long
standing -- and is unlikely to turn up in a condition in which he or she is
not able to do all of those things just as well this afternoon as this
morning;
(d) that a homoeopath who is genuinely concerned that the welfare of a
patient is under imminent, dire, or even severe threat will not be satisfied
to prescribe the contents of the entire pharmacy and merrily send the
patient on his or her way in order to see the next patient in dire straits;
and
(e) that there is an alternative to doing so.
Now, you haven't put the ticking-bomb scenario here yourself; but the case
you have put is not far from it.
• We have the requisite patient crippled on many levels.
• We have the requisite faith in our own ability to discern -- as no other
physician in 2700 years of polypharmacy has managed to do -- the exact
effect of each of our medicines on the various parts of the patient.
• We have the limitation of having to send the patient away before assessing
the effect even of a medicine acting to overcome the effects of injury.
• And of course we have the ringing accusation of doctrinal bigotry against
any who would stay prescription of the entire pharmacy if that prescription
would help the patient as freely asserted.
But what is the reality? The reality is:
(a) that nobody is forcing you or any other homoeopath to treat the patient
at all;
(b) that no new patient, freshly injured and desperately ill on several
levels", is going to approach a homoeopath in the first instance,
particularly in an office appointment;
(c) that no physician in 2700 years has been able to state the positive
effects of medicines on human health except singly;
(d) that, for very good reason, no physician has yet written convincingly of
the ability to discern with certainty which medicine of the recipe
prescribed acted in which way upon which illness in the patient;
(e) that the homoeopath's opportunity to assess the effects of a single
medicine in relation to something as acute as an injury from a fall on the
same day is constrained by nothing more than the homoeopath's own capricious
decision to send the patient on his or her way;
(f) that it will be possible to assess the effects of a well-prescribed
medicine suitable for the early discomforts and threats from such a recent
injury within a very short time of prescribing it, whereupon the physician
will not only have the freedom to prescribe a medicine for the patient in
his or her (at least, possibly) somewhat improved state but also, given
accuracy of that prescription, find the patient in less urgent need -- and
therefore be better able to prescribe without reliance upon the uncritical,
emotive thinking that accompanies ticking bombs;
(g) that, besides the impossibility of assessing even retrospectively their
indistinguishable secondary effects, the other chief insurmountable obstacle
to rational simultaneous prescription of several medicines in homoeopathic
practice is the impossibility -- despite your very grand assumptions of
having overcome this small obstacle that has proven too much for 2700 years
of your predecessors in medicine -- of predicting their sum positive
(primary) effects even with reasonably full and accurate knowledge of their
individual primary characteristics; and, as a final nail in the coffin,
(h) that we do not know well even in isolation the primary effects of the
medicines whose properties in acting together we presume we may understand
-- meaning that there is no foundation for beginning to realise the dream of
understanding their simultaneous effect.
The illogicality and ignorance inherent in the process of polypharmacy is
not changed one whit by the presumption -- convenient, but absurd and
unfounded -- that one medicine will act at only one "level" and another only
at another. This is the kind of allopathic self-delusion Hahnemann
repeatedly warned homoeopaths as well as his early allopathic colleagues not
to fall into.
When the logic of polypharmacy proceeds to its absurd conclusion, then we
find the likes of Shannon's claims that it is possible to proceed from "cure
to deduce pathogenesis and thereby to prescribe homoeopathically,
completing a full circle of materia medica and clinical "verification" with
exactly the same basis as Cullen's explanation of the action of Peruvian
Bark in intermittent fevers: uncritical wishful thinking and egoistic
self-promotion in the (sincere) guise of concern for the patient.
Medicine is an art, certainly; but in homoeopathy, if that art is not based
upon rigorous science, then we have lost the basis of the art, and we can
practise nothing more than allopathy. Wouldn't you agree?
John
On 2 January 2012 14:40, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. <jroz@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
Very nice theoretical ranting, John, and for once in plain English, thank
you.
That a second remedy should not be given without assessing the effect of the
first one is absolutely evident, and valid in any form of medicine, it is
called interactions in pharmacy.
But this is valid for remedies that are supposed to act at what I would call
for the time being "the same level of energetic intensity", meaning that in
the imaginary patient I presented, I certainly would treat his emotional
status right away, ALONGSIDE a physically oriented treatment AT THE SAME
TIME to relieve the physical pain (different levels!).
That is called helping the suffering of a fellow human being, that is my job
my calling, and not applying to real life situations philosophical
discourses that have theoretical values but practically are hurting the
people who come to ask for help and relief.
By that time his measles would have been almost finished. I would then keep
this in mind and assess later on if he managed to go through the whole
measling" or if he is in a NBWS situation....that is for later.
When his emotional and physical upheavals are taken care of, the deeper
treatment whose external expression is the chronic eczema will be attended.
And while this is done, any acute, sub-acute or flare up of a chronic
situation will be attended immediately with the needed remedies.
Most of us are not dim-witted automatons who cannot differentiate between
the action of very different remedies.
Can your majesty grant us that we know what we are doing????
Yes, I certainly do not follow strictly and rigidly whatever H, and Kent,
and Hering, and Dunham, and Clarke, and Boenninghausen, and Vithoulkas, and
Herscu, and Sankaran, and Scholten, and Vermeulen, and others have taught
and written............I happen to have a brain of my own, I happen to
interpret and adapt other's teachings and findings to my understanding based
on my studies and my experiences (which I keep publishing, wait for the next
one on miasms and constitutions, now if you ever read that one, I suggest
you use some prevention as it might give you a stroke and a heart attack
while you go in a frenzied spat of rage and fury.......).
Have you ever been a patient yourself, John? Have you conducted or
participated in a proving, even an accidental one? Or are you a theoretical
professional pontificator?
Joe.
--
"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments,
guided by such ideas, would be very different places."
—Paul Ginsborg, Democracy: Crisis and Renewal, London: Profile, 2008.
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen