Hahnemann however GAVE UP on complex diseases
Really, do you think so? What basis have you for making such a claim?
It's a matter of how you subdivide the system and its tissues and how you
> subdivide diseases and their separate effects. Clearly to me, Hahnemann
> understood those principles. If you do ot, well I am sorry, it'd also not
> my problem.
>
Ah. Let's see the evidence for that hypothesis, shall we, if you find it
of interest? 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. So far, it appears to be an assumption of
convenience.
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 the absolute obstacle to scientifically based polypharmacy -- inherent
uncertainty -- has been overcome.
Then it would be useful to your cause to show that homoeopathy as its
meaning appears plainly in various parts of the *Organon* has been
interpreted, by everybody except you and a few others with a penchant for
simultaneous medications (also known, universally, as polypharmacy, even if
the medicines are not mixed in the same bottle!), far too narrowly.
It's Hahnemann's idea that complex diseases exist and can be helped by
> homeopathy.
>
How very true. And you'll notice, in §§ 168–171 (quoted for you several
times in this discussion), his most insistent and careful directions,
repeated in four aphorisms consecutively, that each medicine must be
preceded by a careful evaluation of the effects of the previous one --
precluding polypharmacy of any stripe, including yours, which he
addresses explicitly and unmistakably in §§ 273 and 274 (also quoted for
you several times).
Your usual response to the irrefutable being audacious point-blank denial,
I'll include those quotes for you again below. If one of them accidentally
catches your eye, first-aid treatment for it won't be necessary.
Kind regards,
John
§ 168: "And thus we go on, if even this medicine be not quite sufficient to
effect the restoration of health,*examining again and again the morbid
state that still remains*, and selecting a homoeopathic medicine as
suitable as possible for it, until our object, namely, putting the patient
in the possession of perfect health, is accomplished."
§ 169: "If… the totality… would not be effectually covered by the disease
elements of a single medicine -- owing to the insufficient number of known
medicines -- but that two medicines contend for the preference in point of
appropriateness *it is not advisable, after the employment of the more
suitable of the two medicines, to administer the other without fresh
examination*, and much less to give both together (§ 272, note), for the
medicine that [had] seemed to be the next best would not, under the change
of circumstances that has in the meantime taken place, be suitable for the
rest of the symptoms that then remain; in which case, consequently, a more
appropriate homoeopathic remedy must be selected in place of the second
medicine for the set of symptoms as they appear on a new inspection."
§ 170: "Hence in this as in every case where a change of the morbid state
has occurred, *the remaining set of symptoms now present must be enquired
into*, and (without paying any attention to the medicine which at first
[had] appeared to be the next in point of suitableness) another
homoeopathic medicine, as appropriate as possible to the new state now
before us, must be selected."
§ 171: "In non-venereal chronic diseases… we often require, in order to
effect a cure, to give several antipsoric remedies in succession, every
successive one being homoeopathically chosen in consonance with the group
of symptoms remaining after completion of the action of the previous
remedy."
§ 273: "In no case under treatment is it necessary [or] therefore *
permissible* to administer to a patient more than one single, simple
medicinal substance at one time."
§ 274: "[The true physician] will… never think of giving as a remedy any
but a single, simple medicinal substance; for these reasons also, because…
it is [nevertheless] impossible to foresee how two and more medicinal
substances might, when compounded, hinder and alter each other's action on
the human body… and supposing the worst case to happen, that it was not
chosen in strict conformity to similarity of symptoms, and therefore does
no good, it is [nevertheless] so far useful that it promotes our knowledge
of therapeutic agents… by the new symptoms excited by it in such a case… an
advantage that is lost by the employment of all compound remedies."
--
"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