Re: [H] Did homeopathy kill Steve Jobs, founder of Apple

Hi, Shannon --

> I will try again to draw distinction between whether
> (a) prescribing the (a) *entire mixture* meets the requirements of (b)
> *Hahnemann* for the homeopathic (c) *process* -- and we agree that no, it
> does not.
>
> Because (a) is excluded from the definition of (c) which was formulated by
> (b).
>
> I believe we have also agreed in the past that homeopathicity -- whether
> or not a *substance* is homeopathic to a *case or disease* -- is a separate
> matter.
>
> It is by virtue of this distinction that we can have, as you mentioned,
> "accidental homeopathy", that is, giving a drug which is homeopathic to a
> case or to a disease, without having arrived at that prescription through a
> homeopathic process or line of thinking.
>
> Good so far?
>

Yes! Great.

That explains *half* of our disagreement re combos
>
> If someone is prescribing (and I will include self-prescribing, or being
> prescribed to by the bottle's label) a "combination homeopathic remedy",
> that prescribing can be done different ways. Some of those ways have
> nothing to do with homeopathy, are simply about reading the label. So
> let's skip that, and pretend we are dealing with an actual homeopath (we'll
> skip the question of whether they are a "good" homeopath etc.) who has made
> the choice.
>
> They will have made the choice on the basis of knowledge of the *possible*
> homeopathicity of one or more of those remedies, based upon their knowledge
> (however limited and superficial) of the case, and also their knowledge
> (however limited or superficial) of the nature and healling capabilities of
> the remedy(s).
>
> That paragraph above is where "homeopathy" comes into the realm of
> combination remedies.
> Yes once the needed remedy is put into combination with others it has
> become a "banned substance" per the laws stated in Organon. That does not
> change the fact that the prescription has been arrived at through a process
> of homeopathic thinking.
>
> Yes we have a contradiction here.
>
> I'll do the second half of this separately.
>

Righto. But let me tease this apart a little. Please tell me if you
disagree with the following.

(1)

The "homoeopathic thinking" that you credit the homoeopath with who has
performed this operation is "thinking" that *need* be no more sophisticated
than the following:

"Patient: warts.

"Warts are caused by (amongst others) *Causticum*, *Lycopodium*, *Natrum
sulphuricum*, *Nitric acidum*, *Thuja*.

"Ergo: Patient: *Causticum*, *Lycopodium*, *Natrum sulphuricum*, *Nitric
acidum*, and *Thuja*!"

(2)

That is not homoeopathy!

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