Re: [H] Combos and complexes

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

Op 4-1-2012 0:09, John Harvey schreef:
> Hmm. You never miss a commercial opportunity, do you!
>
> There seems to be a problem of communication here. If you see no
> inconsistency between Hahnemann's description of the complex of two
> diseases occupying different organs and your restatement of it as occupying
> the same ones, then either somebody needs to be clearer about expressing it
> or somebody needs to think a little more. I don't think Hahnemann could
> have stated it more clearly, and neither could I, at least for the moment.
> I'm flummoxed.
>
> Untrained patients have no great difficulty in understanding homoeopathy's
> very few, very simple, but absolute requirements; so it's of concern that
> somebody does who claims to practise it. In a nutshell, it would seem
> that, having dredged up from somewhere this oxymoron "complex homoeopathy",
> you have found the will to believe that it must exist and refer to the
> polypharmacy you insist is related to homoeopathy -- even if doing so
> requires holding mutually contradictory notions. Whilst I have no doubt
> that, like Joe, you know something about what you're doing (even if you do
> not yet have the skills Joe appears to be claiming in predictive and
> retroactive discernment of various medicinal effects), your inability to
> discern and acknowledge its distinctness from homoeopathy speaks volumes
> for the intelligence you set aside in the cause of self-promotion.
>
> This is not to disparage your unique and original brand of polypharmacy;
> you may very well have invented the bee's knees in complexopathy. It is,
> though, to say that attempting to pass it off as homoeopathy gets you
> persistent brownie points only with the incurably stupid.
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> John
>
>
>
> On 3 January 2012 15:51, Irene de Villiers<furryboots@icehouse.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> On Jan 1, 2012, at 6:14 PM, John Harvey wrote:
>>
>>> Whether Hahnemann was even correct in his deduction that the two
>> coexisting
>>> dynamic disease processes could occur in discrete parts of the organism
>> is
>>> open to question.
>>
>>
>> By yourself perhaps John.
>> I find it one of his greater wisdoms in PRACTICE
>>
>>> The notion certainly strikes me as inconsistent with the
>>> balance of our understanding of the dynamic nature of disease,
>>
>> It is not so.....
>>
>>> which
>>> affects the entirety of the organism even if only part expresses
>> symptoms.
>>
>> That is not inconsistent.
>> A disease affecting mainly the kidney WILL also affect other aspects of
>> the organism.
>> A coexisting disease forming a currently active dual complex disease, may
>> affect other aspects of the organism mainly, but possibly also the kidneys.
>> You then have two coexisting diseases both affecting the kidneys.
>>
>> I just had such a case.
>> The complex disease here was Feline Infectious Peritonitis (=FIP, itself
>> [blah blah blah]
> _______________________________________________
> Homeopathy Mailing List
> homeopathy@homeolist.com
> http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
>
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy