Re: [H] Combos and complexes

Hi, Shannon --

Clinical use and conscientious recording of successful use even of single
medicines produced, in *twenty-five* centuries, a pathogenesis of* no* useful
symptoms.

How much less valuable is "experience" that nobody has bothered recording
of sloppy use of arbitrary proportions of mixed medicines that even in
Hahnemann's time were known to alter each other's effects unpredictably!

By the way, this practice you say some of Hahnemann's contemporaries
adopted, of prescribing a mixture for self-administration: what did these
practitioners claim to learn from it? Do you have a *breath* of evidence
to suggest that any of these putative homoeopaths somehow had learnt that
everything that Hahnemann passed on to us and even modern allopathy knows
about synergy and antergy was incorrect? -- or that they had somehow learnt
to predict the synergies and antergies that would result from their
mixtures and been able to rely upon it?

No. I didn't think so. You were only, as usual, repeating the nonsense
that you find comforting, believable, and capable of memorisation. And
your conscience gives you no least qualm about
leading homoeopathy newcomers down the track of anything-at-all-opathy so
that somebody as familiar with homoeopathy as Wendy is can be so utterly
deluded as to claim that there is nothing to distinguish homoeopathy from
other natural therapies.

Such incomprehension derives directly, Shannon, from the nonsense that
people such as your good self propound, year after year, even whilst
claiming that they don't themselves believe it and would never put it into
practice!

It is not primarily homoeopathy's allopathic opponents who are damaging its
reputation; it is not even the manufacturers and charlatans who, *claiming
to practise homoeopathy*, actually practise self-deceit. Such opportunists
merely take advantage of the vacuum left in the public's understanding by
the efforts of people such as you to vacate the word homoeopathy of all
meaning. Your ability to posit simultaneously three or four mutually
contradictory premises can't make it easy for newcomers to discern the true
from the crooked. Tempting as it is to hold Wendy and others with
understanding no better than hers completely responsible for their own
ignorance, that ignorance arises very much as a primary consequence of such
flimsies as you, in your well-meaning gullibility, paint as rock
foundations and prop in every possible conversation -- though you claim
always to value real homoeopathy.

Imagine what it might be like to acknowledge how little we actually know,
and to work out how we might learn something more, something reliable.
That's what science is about: recognising the limits of knowledge and
doing something to extend them.

What science has always to contend against is not, surprisingly, ignorance.
Ignorance recognised is ignorance half-conquered. What scientific advance
has to contend against is superstition: belief ignorant of its own
baselessness.

It is superstition pure and simple that you continue to substitute for the
straightforward truths that you have not yet understood or prefer to
ignore. Yes, the harebrained ideas and schemes that we can rely upon you
to catch onto as they pass by you doubtless appeal to the lazy ignoramus in
every one of us; but what is it that follows from beliefs to which sure and
certain knowledge is in opposition, and where can schemes lead that devalue
all learning?

A "daring denial of the decades and century of experience"? Get a grip.

John

On 24 December 2011 12:59, shannonnelson tds.net <shannonnelson@tds.net>wrote:

> Just FWIW, I did include that several times. I did mention that apparently
> the first combos were made by the early homeopaths, for the use of their
> patients while the homeopath was unavailable, e.g. traveling. Those combos
> were based on the patients' known histories.
>
> But to John, for e.g., that makes no difference at all, because the moment
> you have more than one remedy being given at a time, you are into "not
> homeopathy" and you are into having (according to him) not the faintest
> idea of how any of theincluded remedies will function. Because of the
> presence of the others...
>
> Which I find to be a rather daring denial of the decades and century of
> experience...
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy