On 25 December 2011 12:40, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. <jroz@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
> Nobody has ever demonstrated that the REMEDIES interacted in a bottle. It
> would be the same as saying that different pieces of music interact on the
> same CD, that you cannot watch Sky Movies if the Discovery Channel if
> broadcasting at the same time: we know this is not true, all the channels
> arrive on your TV at the same time, you decide what to watch and you can
> also have some TV sets with multi screen ability so you can watch a few
> different channels at the same time.
>
Really? The possibility that potentised substances could modify the
biological effect of each other through the complex processes that
dynamisation sets in train would be equivalent to the possibility that two
pieces of music recorded simultaneously would not be discernible
separately, or that two radio-frequency waves could interfere with each
other? If we knew that we could listen to two pieces of music recorded in
the one track and and restore them to our hearing as discrete works each
unblemished by the other, or if we knew that two radio transmissions did
not interfere with each other even if their frequencies were not kept
sufficiently apart, then that contention would be of some reassurance on
that particular point.
Of course, the fact is that we are *not* able to readily discern two pieces
of music recorded simultaneously on a CD track -- unless they are played by
widely different instruments. We may of course record them in different
channels of a stereophonic image; even here, on vinyl (which implements
stereo modulation by engraving latitudinal waveforms whose directions of
amplitude are at right-angles to, and therefore theoretically independent
of, one another), some crosstalk is, practically speaking, inevitable; and
the crosstalk between stereophonic signals from a CD is completely
avoidable only by using amplifiers for left and right that are on entirely
different circuits.
And the fact is that radio transmissions *do* interfere with one another
(unless either their frequency ranges are kept sufficiently separate for a
receiver to be capable of tuning one in and the other out or they use
entirely disparate modulation methods, such as amplitude modulation and
frequency modulations -- and even there some interference in the A.M.
signal would occur due to the F.M. signal).
But let's grant that we engineer those technologies accordingly so that
they meet the common ideal of non-interference.
What is of some assurance is that you're able to say that the dynamic
properties that the technology of potentisation imparts to water and
alcohol are absolutely as discrete as the ideal of, say, the separation of
left and right tracks in a stereo recording or non-interference by one
radio signal with another.
I wonder, though, on what basis you are able to offer that assurance with
such certainty. So little is known, even to leading materials scientists,
of the nature and properties of the phenomena of potentisation that it
would come as a great surprise to me to learn that a materials scientist
was able to state with certainty anything at all about the signals from a
high potency that a biological system responds to -- let alone anything
about that system's ability to discern (and intelligently prioritise!) any
single signal from the confusion without interference by the other signals.
Considering the very primitive state of potency detection at the present
day, I'd be very surprised to learn merely that a materials scientist or
anybody else had established the existence of a mechanism ensuring that the
mixed signals were theoretically separable.
Are you quite sure that you have a basis for such certainties?
This all leaves untouched, of course, the notion that such a confusion of
potency signals, once the biological system has discerned its components
and sorted them by priority and relevance, has the means by which to assign
them, in accordance with the physician's will, to the particular parts that
the physician's intellect has determined they should travel and no others
and should have there the effect that the physician's god-like
understanding of microbiology, functional anatomy, and pathophysiology
determines with unerring accuracy they should have. But I am too ignorant
in that area to be raise a mote of protest in that direction.
We do know how remedies behave from the provings of single remedies. Nobody
> can predict how they will behave TOGETHER in a patient because this depends
> on the individuality of the patient, not on what each remedy can or cannot
> do. Therefore in certain specific circumstances we are in need to use what
> we know, and learn from what we see.
>
Really, we need to do that? If I'm interpreting you correctly, then you're
asserting that Hahnemann's contention that we need only a thorough
knowledge of single medicines (and you'll recall that his materia medica
were limited to around a hundred such) and of the patient in order to
succeed in curing the patient is incorrect. I'm interested in that. Of
course, I understand that modern medicine has complicated the matter
somewhat by interfering in biological processes in ways subtle, profound,
and complex and by sometimes disabling biological systems requisite to
efficient healing responses. But I wonder still whether you can possibly
be right. The most successful homoeopaths I've encountered or read of,
even in modern times, have used with great consistency straightforwardly
homoeopathic methods, without resort either to psychic or other divinatory
methods of diagnosis or to polypharmacy. They don't seem to have this need
you refer to. Why, then, do the rest of us?
More than 20 years of using this type of combinations, and giving a fair
> trial when necessity called to pre-made ones has taught me one thing: it is
> possible, it is feasible, it respects the law of similarity at the level I
> try to use it (i.e the organ, the system, not the whole patient) and yes, I
> do call it homeopathy because I base it on similarity, period.
>
I'm sure that you'll agree that the word homoeopathy (not "homoeopathic
medicine", the happy coincidence of successful homoeopathicity, but the *
practice*) means something different from all other things. The question
is this: if it doesn't mean, as everybody imagines it does, the practice of
attempting to derive that homoeopathicity by means of known symptom
similarity, then what can it mean? Can it mean something no more specific
than an attempt to cure by guessing the identity of the homoeopathic
medicine, or even no more specific than an attempt to cure by natural means?
If homoeopathy means anything at all, then it clearly means that single
thing that delineates it from everything else. And, despite arguments to
the contrary, it does in fact still mean something, both in the dictionary
and in the minds of those who understand it.
When a practitioner wishes, for whatever reason (no matter how good it
is!), to depart from homoeopathy's single, simple requirement and either
prescribe mixtures or prescribe on the basis of a single organ's malady --
or, as in your case, to do both -- and does so in a spirit of careful,
ethical experimental research, it's obviously a potential advance in
medicine. It's most unfortunate, though, to encourage confusion of these
methods -- which as you know violate homeopathy's single principle of
prescribing upon the basis of known pathogenetic similarity to the patient
-- with homoeopathy. It's unfortunate in suggesting that the experimenter
lacks confidence, either in the ethicality of the experiment or in the
soundness of its theoretical underpinnings or in the business wisdom of
declaring with integrity the separation between homoeopathy and the
practice being tried. It's unfortunate too in sustaining the very
confusion that somebody such as you, somebody who loves homoeopathy, would
ideally like not to contribute to: confusion between the meaning of
homoeopathy and the almost indescribable anarchy of practices that utilise
some kind of "similarity" or some kind of potentisation or some marriage of
the two concepts, even literally mixing "similar" medicines in complete
ignorance of the resultant medicine's pathogenesis and prescribing
nevertheless with an imaginary certainty (a baseless certainty I'm sure you
don't indulge in but that is nevertheless amazingly common).
I have to repeat that most important aspect of all: the need to know what
> you are doing and the limitations of it. I have been able to revert liver
> failure and kidney failure to the amazement of GPs and specialists, using
> this system as part of the method, but that only means that I have been
> able
> to repair/cure ONE organ/function; this has allowed patients to stay alive,
> avoid heavy drugs or transplants, then giving me the opportunity to go
> deeper.
>
I'm gratified. But I wonder whether, despite your lack of confidence, you
might be able to reproduce the same results using homoeopathy. I rather
suspect, given the depth of your knowledge, that you could.
Both approaches are not mutually exclusive, both are in the interest of the
> patient, both are based on the law of similarity (and other laws too) and
> both should be properly taught and used by professional homeopaths.
>
I agree that two approaches (systems, principles) of medicine, even
conflicting ones such as these, need not be mutually exclusive, and that
use of both (though, obviously, not together) may be in the interest of the
patient. But it cannot be rationally argued that both are based on the
same principle or that both are homoeopathy. (Or, if it can, I have yet to
see such an argument.) There therefore seems to be no stronger basis for a
claim that homoeopaths should know this system than for a claim that they
should know how to prescribe medicines on the basis of the materia medica
constructed entirely by guesswork or that they should know how to diagnose
a patient in terms of psychobabblian interpretation.
Magnificently sunny, going to work in the garden but a lot of sadness as I
> do not know what is happening with some friends in Christchurch, I know
> nobody died in the quakes, but no idea if they have where to live.
>
We never know when it's going to be our turn, do we.
Kind regards,
John
--
"And if care became the ethical basis of citizenship? Our parliaments,
guided by such ideas, would be very different places."
—Paul Ginsborg, *Democracy: Crisis and Renewal*, London: Profile, 2008.
_______________________________________________
Homeopathy Mailing List
homeopathy@homeolist.com
http://lists.homeolist.com/mailman/listinfo/homeopathy
Keine Kommentare:
Kommentar veröffentlichen