Re: [H] Combos and complexes

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> 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