"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
Op 4-1-2012 2:44, John Harvey schreef:
>
> Hi, Hennie --
>
> It surprises me to read that you'd have trouble explaining what
> homoeopathy is in a single sentence. A dictionary tells the entire
> story in just a few words. But you may not be alone. I think that the
> problem for many who have immersed themselves in various techniques may
> be that they've lost sight of the single, simple essence of it: that 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.
>
> When you think about it, that is what homoeopathy is, and it really is
> that simple. It's only the alloying to it of /other/ bases for
> prescription -- bases such as that of interpretation of the patient's
> single history as if it should be broken up into multiple concurrent
> histories for multiple concurrent prescriptions, or that of the doctrine
> of signatures and its modern face in Sankaranist semeiotics -- that
> gives complicates it to the point of incomprehensibility.
>
> Describing homoeopathy's scientific basis is not much more complicated
> than that either. It can begin with observations of the apparent course
> of events following administration of a similar medicine or following
> acquisition of a similar natural infection. For the sake of enabling
> your listener to overcome the perennial hurdle, ultramolecularity, it
> needs to address the difference between potencies and mere dilutions;
> but all that needs to be offered on the subject, I've found, is how the
> two can be distinguished objectively. That barrier knocked over, I've
> never found anybody who began with a reasonably open mind who didn't
> consider it worth looking into.
>
> Cheers --
>
> John
>
>
>
> On 4 January 2012 12:22, Hennie Duits <he.duits@wxs.nl
> <mailto:he.duits@wxs.nl>> wrote:
>
> If any one untrained patient, with a reasonable sound mind,
> challenged me, in real deep, to explain the essence of homeopathy, I
> always encountered difficult to answer such questions.
> So, in my opinion, stating "Untrained patients have no great
> difficulty in understanding homoeopathy's very few, very simple, but
> absolute requirements" is plain untrue.
> Citing this with a slight correction:
> "Untrained patients have great difficulty in understanding homoeopathy's
> very few, very simple, but absolute requirements."
> And rightly so.
>
> Hennie
>
> --
>
>
> "Do pertussis vaccines prevent children and adults from breathing in
> pertussis bacteria from the air? No. Do children vaccinated with the
> pertussis vaccine somehow stop carrying pertussis bacteria in their
> airways simply because they've been vaccinated? No. Do pertussis
> vaccines stop vaccinated children from transmitting the pertussis
> bacteria to other people? No. Do pertussis bacteria disappear from
> society once vaccination rates are high? No.
>
>
> "Vaccination rates for pertussis have no impact on whether the pertussis
> bacteria are in the air or not, or whether or not we breathe them in.
> The presence of the pertussis bacteria, and the exposure to them, are in
> no way affected by vaccination status or vaccination rates."
>
>
> —Lawrence B. Palevsky, M.D., "False alarm over pertussis 'outbreak': a
> letter from Lawrence B. Palevsky, December 2011",
> <http://drpalevsky.com/dr_palevsky_letter_pertussis.asp>
>
>
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen