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

How can you prescribe something of which you have no idea what its
pathogenesis is?
Your only hope of any change is a) a lucky grab in the medicine chest
(JTK) a stronger similar, or b) a stronger dissimilar. anything else,
ie weaker similar or dissimilar, will have no effect
Jamie

On 19/12/2011 12:26, John Harvey wrote:
> Shannon, the relationship between your two positions is that the second
> position entirely contradicts the first. There is no slippery slope
> between them. Either homoeopathy requires knowledge of the medicine's
> effects on the healthy, or it does not. You agreed that it does. Either
> homoeopathy requires knowledge and taking account of the patient's entire
> state, or it does not. You agreed that it does.
>
> And then you instantly turn round and say that it does not.
>
> You simply can't have it both ways! Not because I say so, but because it's
> not possible.
>
> I'd have thought that if there's one thing all homoeopaths can agree on,
> then it's that homoeopathy of any stripe requires those two elements --
> knowledge of medicine's pathogenesis and knowledge of patient's derangement
> -- followed by one third element: analysis of one for its similarity to the
> other.
>
> Can you make up your mind on that?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> John
>
>
>
> On 19 December 2011 23:16, Shannon Nelson<shannonnelson@tds.net> wrote:
>
>> and inherently without a stable pathogenesis], "sometimes *one* of the
>> remedies is homoeopathic to the case; and that this makes its prescription
>> in the mixture homoeopathic (though some would disagree or would like to
>> call it homoeopathic but not classically homoeopathic).
>>
>>
>> Right. It may (or may not) be homeopathic *in its nature*, to the case
>> *in its nature*.
>> It may have been chosen based *in part* on actual homeopathic process of
>> symptom matching--again, matching symptom picture known to be associated
>> with the *single* remedies included.
>>
>>
>> ... I'd be interested to know how you can adopt both of them together, in
>> light of their mutual incompatibility.
>>
>>
>> Ah, but life is so often like that, especially when we get into the realm
>> of definitions.
>> How many legs and lungs does a fish need to have, before it is no longer
>> a fish?
>>
>>
>> It would also be instructive to understand the relevance of the method
>> you've described below, which mixes a small group of contenders for
>> medicine homoeopathic to the *entire* case at hand,
>>
>>
>> To the entire case? I never said that.
>> Any remedy matched to the *entire* case, will have that stunning,
>> thankyou-God, deep and broad and (if followed through with) permanent
>> effect that we all long for with every prescription. Most fall well short
>> of that, with or without other remedies mixed in.
>>
>> It's a matter of degree. Whether with single remedy or combo, the match
>> can be fuller or less full, and that will certainly affect the depth and
>> breadth of its success or lack thereof!
>>
>>
>> to the method you most often defend: prescription of "combos", which do
>> not use such a group of candidates chosen for similarity to the entire case
>> but instead combine medicines *prominent in the single symptom of interest
>> *:
>>
>>
>> Again, the depth and breadth of the match may be more or less. I think
>> that is irrelevant to the question of combos - vs- homeopathic/homeopathy.
>>
>>
>> warts, allergy,
>>
>>
>> Funny that you have gone straight to chronic conditions, whereas combos
>> are more *usually* (and more appropriately) used for acute complaints. Yes
>> I realize there are combos labeled e.g. "warts" and "allergy." And my
>> knowledge of that issue begins and ends with that observation. Well, and
>> also that I feel queasy at the thought of someone self-prescribing
>> *anything*--combo or single--for a chronic issue, without the needed
>> training or guidance to understand the results!
>>
>>
>> or whatever else it may be that the practitioner agrees is the target of
>> the day. How does one bear on the other? You surely aren't capable of
>> believing that if the warts disappear under the onslaught of these "wart
>> remedies", it means that one of the "wart remedies" has cured the patient's
>> entire malady?
>>
>>
>> Again, that's completely outside of the question we began with, and no, of
>> course I don't.
>>
>> Shannon
>>