Since your ideas here clearly arise from a most unfortunate misreading of
every *Organon* aphorism that you referred to earlier -- §§ 40, 41, 52, 75,
149, 244, and 276 -- let's make an effort to comprehend them, beginning
with those you quoted or paraphrased.
(§ 40)
You paraphrased *§ 40*, which does indeed refer to treatment of complex
diseases. It does not, as you claim ("Hahnemann however GAVE UP on complex
diseases"), surrender to such complex disease. It states Hahnemann's
conviction (a conviction whose accuracy, as I indicated earlier, I think is
questionable) that two disease processes coexisting in the one organism --
that is, neither being suspended or annihilated, but both continuing to act
-- exist in "parts that are adapted for it", with their cure being "completely
effected by a judicious alternation of the best mercurial preparation, with
the remedies specific for the psora, each given in the most suitable dose
and form".
Do these sound like the words of somebody who has given up on complex
diseases?
(§ 75)
You quoted *§ 75*:
"These inroads on human health effected by the allopathic non-healing art
(more particularly in recent times) are of all chronic diseases the most
deplorable, the most incurable; and I regret to add that it is apparently
impossible to discover or to hit upon any remedies for their cure when they
have reached any considerable height."
It is certainly easier to see how you could mistake the meaning of this
short passage in isolation than the meaning of § 41, as supporting your
view that he had given up on complex diseases. All you need do are (a)
pretend that complex disease was the topic of discussion and (b) overlook
that the word "apparently".
In fact, of course, the topic under discussion is revealed in the passage
preceding this one, which refers not to complex diseases but, again, to a
state
"whereby the vital energy is sometimes weakened to an unmerciful extent;
sometimes, if it do not succumb, gradually abnormally deranged… in such a
way that… it must produce a revolution in the organism… and develop faulty
organic alterations here and there in the interior or the exterior (cripple
the body internally or externally)",
a state
"artificially produced in allopathic treatment by the prolonged use of
violent heroic medicines in large and increasing doses; by the abuse of
calomel, corrosive sublimate, mercurial ointment, nitrate of silver, iodine
and its ointments, opium, valerian, cinchona bark and quinine, foxglove,
prussic acid, sulphur and sulphuric acid, perennial purgatives,
venesections [along with food deprivation], shedding streams of blood,
leeches, issues, setons, etc."
In these two passages, then, Hahnemann was not giving up on treating
complex diseases, or giving up on anything. He was not even discussing
complex disease. He was referring to the enervation that he frequently saw
in patients deprived of their life blood; purged; and violently poisoned
till they were near death -- a state we do not see produced by violent
exertions in modern allopathy -- and the difficulty of saving them from
that moribund state.
(§ 149)
Finally, you quoted *§ 149* as follows:
"...More especially do the chronic medicinal dyscrasia so often produced by
allopathic bungling, along with the natural disease left uncured by it,
require a much longer time for their recovery; often, indeed, are they
incurable."
And you choose to interpret this as representing Hahnemann's frustration at
his inability to treat complex diseases.
If, however, you simply read in its entirety the passage from which you
excerpted that quote, you will find that you have again wholly
misunderstood his meaning:
"Diseases of long standing (and especially such as are of a complicated
character) require for their cure a proportionately longer time. [Not the
words of a man who has given up, you see; and not speaking in particular of
complex disease, or referring to it specifically at all.] More especially
do the chronic medicinal dyscrasia so often produced by allopathic bungling
along with the natural disease left uncured by it, require a much longer
time for their recovery; often, indeed, are they incurable, in consequence
of the shameful robbery of the patient's strength and juices (venesections,
purgatives, etc.) [there it is again] on account of long-continued use of
large doses of violently acting remedies given on the basis of empty, false
theories for alleged usefulness in cases of disease appearing similar, also
in prescribing unsuitable mineral baths, etc., the principal feat performed
by allopathy in its so-called methods of treatment."
What does this say, then, in a nutshell? It says that enervation of the
patient by heroic doses of truly violent drugs such as mercuric oxides; by
venesection; and by purging will necessitate a longer period for the
patient's cure, and may even be incurable. That is, the patient may die
before a cure is possible. That's hardly surprising, is it, considering
how weakened they had become and the commonness, at the time, of simple
nutritional deficiency!
(§§ 41, 52, 244, 276)
You made passing mention of a further four aphorisms as evidence for the
possibility of polypharmacy within homoeopathy: §§ 41, 52, 244, and 276.
*§ 41* states that the mercurial damage compounding the effects of masked
syphilis, especially if additionally complicated with psora or simultaneous
condylomata and gonorrhoea, is curable only with the greatest difficulty,
when it is not quite incurable.
Again, Hahnemann is discussing the most violent assaults upon the patient
of a most specific kind: not complex disease per se, but a specific kind of
double disease of a dire kind, a kind you do not see in daily practice with
your kittens. And he is hardly giving up.
*§ 52* distinguishes the two principal approaches to cure -- the
heteropathic or allopathic, and the homoeopathic -- and *§ 244* refers to
the need for antipsoric treatment of malaria even if prompt removal from
the malarial district leads to prompt recovery. How does either in any way
relate to your conclusions?
The last, *§ 276*, is most instructive of all of these, being most relevant
to your own incautiousness. In it, Hahnemann cautions against using a
homoeopathic medicine either in too large a dose or in frequent repetition,
because, he says, they easily lead to a more violent medicinal illness than
the original natural one -- a medicinal disease most difficult to destroy.
In order to forestall the otherwise inevitable flat denial of that, here
are Hahnemann's exact translated words:
"For this reason, a medicine, even though it may be homoeopathically suited
to the case of disease, does harm in every dose that is too large, and in
strong doses it does more harm the greater its homoeopathicity and the
higher the potency selected, and it does much more injury than any equally
large dose of a medicine that is unhomoeopathic and in no respect adapted
to the morbid state (allopathic). [If you the significance of that doesn't
strike you, then try reading it again, aloud. It's a passage easy to
dismiss if your mind has wandered.] Too large doses of an accurately
chosen homoeopathic medicine, and especially when frequently repeated,
bring about much trouble as a rule. [This too is easy to dismiss, as is
frequently evident in the unnecessarily confused cases that homoeopaths
bring to the attention of their colleagues.] They put the patient not
seldom in danger of life or make his disease almost incurable. [That is,
Hahnemann's reference to incurability here is not a reference to complex
disease at all; it is a reference to the intractability of purely medicinal
diseases occurring through patently unintelligent or uninformed overuse of
more-or-less homoeopathic medicines!] They do indeed extinguish the
natural disease so far as the sensation of the life principle is concerned,
and the patient no longer suffers from the original disease from the moment
the too strong dose of the homoeopathic medicine acted upon him; but he is
in consequence more ill with the similar but more violent *medicinal disease
*, which is most difficult to destroy."
This passage, then, relates to *homoeopathy* in which subsequent doses are
administered without regard to the patient's state, and warns, as Hahnemann
warns in many other places in the *Organon*, against injudicious
repetition: repetition without first checking that the medicine remains
suitable, is needed, and is not in a dose too large.
Here, Hahnemann is highlighting stupidity of a simple kind: a single
inattentiveness that he points out unnecessarily troubles the patient and
potentially prevents her cure. It's true that he is not, here, bothering
to go further and address the stupidity of complicating such unintelligent
practice by *doubling* it -- risking establishment of a *complex* medicinal
disease. His caution here is for the practice merely of injudicious
repetition of doses potentially too large of the single medicine prescribe
on the homoeopathic principle.
Yet you confidently -- not to say smugly -- assume that Hahnemann was too
witless or too clueless to understand the wisdom of the kind of
polypharmacy (whatever name you choose to give it today) that you, in your
ingenious originality -- in a long tradition of identical ingenious
originality -- personally developed and that, in your honour, your earlier
admirers named Irenopathy.
Could your total incomprehension of what you've read be due to something as
straightforward as careless inattentiveness? Or is it due to something
more complicated?
Kind regards,
John
On 5 January 2012 20:24, Irene de Villiers <furryboots@icehouse.net> wrote:
> John wrote non-indented quoted items below
> (assuming the indents are not lost in the bit bucket):
>
> > Hello, Irene --
> >
> > Hahnemann however GAVE UP on complex diseases
> >
> > Really, do you think so? What basis have you for making such a claim?
>
> It's not that *I* think so - *he* did, as I already quoted from the
> Organon - MUST you go in circles?
> :-)
>
> I'm afraid if you do not agree with what he wrote, you'll need to dig up
> his ghost to argue it with him directly. I'm not responsible for his
> published views.
>
> >
> > It's a matter of how you subdivide the system and its tissues and how
> you subdivide diseases and their separate effects.....
> >
> > Ah. Let's see the evidence for that hypothesis
>
> It's no hypothesis, it's simple anatomy. Did you forget to study it?
>
> > And, while you're about, it, if you have any evidence to offer that
> supports your contention that the dynamic derangements we know as illness
> may occupy entirely discrete tissues, then it would be very interesting to
> see it.
>
> Did you forget to read the detailed example (of an actual case) which I
> presented in order for you to see just that? (The one contrasting FIP and
> HLH). Or was your knowledge of anatomical terminology insufficient to
> follow the example? Did you even realize it was an example?
> I'll presume not, or you would not ask for evidence that was already
> supplied in sufficient detail to readily demonstrate the principle:-)
>
> > Also highly helpful would be any shred of evidence to suggest that the
> unpredictability of synergistic and antergistic (okay, antagonistic, if we
> must) interactions has been overcome in a systematic, replicable manner:
>
> That one's easy: Just read my paper describing over 500 cases with
> carefully matched remedies based of Law of Similars, in Nov 2009 issue of
> Hpathy:-)
> Now before adding more hot air, DO supply YOUR studies and cases to show
> the contrary that YOU claim?
>
> > Your usual response to the irrefutable being audacious point-blank
> denial,
>
> The only irrefutable point I see is that you spout your version of theory
> with not a single case as evidence.
> State your studies and cases to prove that YOUR interpretation of
> Hahnemann in the matter of the effective treatment of complex diseases,
> (not single diseases as you keep sending quotes about as if they were
> complex) is anything but hot air?
>
> > I'll include those quotes for you again below. If one of them
> accidentally catches your eye
>
> I do not work by "accident". I know what I am doing and why, before I do
> it.
> It's why I am approached to work on the very complex cases for which I am
> known. I get asked to take all the ones that vets and others find
> impossible to help.
>
> Show us your cases. When you've done that, we can continue the discussion
> as it takes understanding of real cases - complex ones at the very detail
> level - understanding the body and how it works, as well as the pathologies
> and how they work - plus the diseases as defined by homeopathic principles
> so as to know properly how to recognize which makes what symptom - to fully
> know how to USE homeopathy correctly for the diseases presenting. I speak
> of the cases Hahnemann claimed could not be cured (and any of the many more
> complex ones that have occurred subsequent to his time.)
>
> I challenge you to provide even one case of YOURS - so we can see that
> you understand the interplay between anatomy, pathology, cause and effect
> and homeopathically relevant symptom discernment towards a simillimum for
> each of at least two diseases presenting as simultaneously active diseases
> in a complex.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen