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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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.
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com
-------Original Message-------
From: John Harvey
Date: 25/12/2011 2:12:53 p.m.
To: Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
Subject: Re: [H] Combos and complexes
Hi, Joe --
Yes, as you've no doubt detected, I enjoy new words, and antergy rather
Takes my fancy. :-)
What you've said here about chemistry is both commonsense and interesting,
Though as far as I'm aware it's simply not true that dilution lowers the
Chemical affinity between ions that meet in solution or even prevents them
From meeting. It slows the process down, certainly; but even a single ion
Permitted (by normal ion channels) into an entire cell eventually (at a pace
Sufficient to keep the cell functioning) fulfils its destined function, and
-- again, as far as I'm aware -- there's no way on earth to depend on
Dilution to absolutely prevent the normal reaction from taking place
Eventually.
In that sense, the range of possible chemical interactions in the bottle --
And possibilities are of prime importance here, as they are what undermine
Certainties -- is not diminished by dilution.
Naturally, of course, no such chemical interactions in the bottle take place
At ultramolecular potencies.
That still leaves us with further unknowns. Most obviously, these include
The synergies and antergies (antagonisms, if you prefer) of dynamic action
That even Hahnemann found to be unpredictable. The example of Rhus tox. And
Bryonia is a nice one because the effect of motion in the pathogenesis of
The two is of opposite consquence; but that single contrariety is also one
Of the few examples that is potentially predictable. What other antagonisms
Exist between the two, and what synergies, and which of them are entirely
Predictable from a good knowledge of both? If these things are known, then
They must have been also confirmed in provings rather than in the blithering
"experience" of overconfident practitioners.
But they also include the rarely discussed uncertainties arising from the
Dynamic effects of one medicine on the other and vice versa -- and from the
Factorial increase in the number of such interactions that occurs in
Increasing the number of medicines: just 2 relationships to consider with
Two medicines, but 6 to consider with three, 24 to consider with four, 120
To consider with five, and 720 to consider with six. To simply sweep aside
All these difficulties that Hahnemann himself raised is to adopt a position
of certainty that surely is at best tenuous.
Nevertheless, it's an approach with evidently a lot of potential, and one
that undoubtedly will find its feet as it proceeds; and I appreciate that it
at least is not posing as homoeopathy and may well do much good alongside
(or more likely preceding) homoeopathic treatment.
I hope you're enjoying a festive morning across the ditch.
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