Which way is effective for remedies/medicines administration........ Tablets Form, Liquid Dilutions or Tinctures.

__________________
Me

In the sixth edition of "The Organon of the Healing Art", Hahnemann recommended liquid potencies, after using all forms for many years!

__________________
Regards,<br /><b>Simone H</b><br /><br /><i>Aude Sapere</i><br /><br />"Never be a passive listener or learner" ~ Christian Gottfried Hahnemann

I agree with Simone.

Tinctures are given only rarely because so many of our remedies are poisons and CANNOT be given that way. They are given potentized, which means diluted many times, and shaken between dilutions.
By the time the consumer buys them, there is no poison left in the medicine, in fact, there is no material substance of any kind besides sugar, water, and alcohol.

In tincture, we give Equisetum for kidney problems, Craetegus for heart problems, Avena Sativa as a nerve tonic to help get people off of drugs; and there are a few others.

Snoopy

simone, I will disagree with your opinion with respect!

Liquid (alcohol/dilution) is best for preserving. But when you want to use them there is no difference in effect of tablets and dilution.

__________________
<b><a href="mailto:drsalim@inbox.com.pk">drsalim@inbox.c om.pk</a></b>

Dr. Salim

With the greatest respect to your knowledge, since I have obviously not learned it very well, can you quote the aphorism in the Organon (sixth edition) where Hahnemann says that dry dosing (tablets) is preferable to water potencies (which can be dynamised before each intake?

Or, if it is in Chronic Diseases, can you also direct me to the section that I must re-learn?

__________________
Regards,<br /><b>Simone H</b><br /><br /><i>Aude Sapere</i><br /><br />"Never be a passive listener or learner" ~ Christian Gottfried Hahnemann

simone,
With all respect. will you give me all references from the organon which homeopaths are doing now a days in their practice.

__________________
<b><a href="mailto:drsalim@inbox.com.pk">drsalim@inbox.c om.pk</a></b>

Sure thing.

Aphorisms 1 to 294, which can be found at:

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/refere...n/organon.html

Can anyone who does not follow these rules call themselves a homoeopath?

You would disagree with Hahenmann then? After all, I was not putting up an opinion, but merely restating Hahnemanns, as he wrote it, in the Organon. So, I ask again, please can you find me the aphorism?

I am looking but, since your last posting, I have not been able to find it.

[ 02. October 2002, 06:46: Message edited by: Simone ]

__________________
Regards,<br /><b>Simone H</b><br /><br /><i>Aude Sapere</i><br /><br />"Never be a passive listener or learner" ~ Christian Gottfried Hahnemann

Dear Simone,

My answer is YES

When I said "Yes", then, I don't think so you need any reference more.

Now tell me some names which are in your opinon are homeopaths on this board?

__________________
<b><a href="mailto:drsalim@inbox.com.pk">drsalim@inbox.c om.pk</a></b>

1. Do you want to say any body who will disagree with Hahnemann or from his written aphorism are not homeopath?

2. Organon is not scripture divine. Nor Hahnemann was an angle. Nor you can claim every thing written in orgnon is correct. Do you claim?

3. Which edition of orgnon you are talking about, 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th. If you are talking about 6th then why not 1st. What was wrong with the first? In which there is no vital power concept. Which is the base of homeopathy today.

4. Why Hahnemann added new aphorism in improved editions of his organon. Why did he eliminate some old aphorisms.

5. Now Julian is talking about a new edition of Orgaon. Will you believe on that edition, when it will going to publish.

__________________
<b><a href="mailto:drsalim@inbox.com.pk">drsalim@inbox.c om.pk</a></b>

I cannot tell you that, because you have not said what a homoeopath is. You say that a homoeopath does not have to follow rules of Organon and Chronic Diseases.

So, you tell me, how to define homoeopath, and I will tell you who is not a homoeopath on this BB, using your definition and any information I can gather from this BB. It may take a few years, but I am willing to undertake it, if you provide the definition and all members of BB agree your definition of a homoeopath is correct.

Perhaps if I ask a few questions to help?

</font>

• Does a homoeopath have to use medicines with provings? If yes, do provings have to be physical provings, or are dream and meditation provings suitable? If no, what substances can a homoeopath use?</font>
• Does a homoeopath have to use potenised remedies made from simple substances? Or, can a remedy be made from complicated substances like antibiotics and vaccinations?</font>
• Can a homoeopath repeat remedies for as long as they like without plussing?</font>
• Can a homoeopath prescribe remedies based on disease name rather than the totality of the symptoms?</font>
• Can a homoeopath combine remedies to make one big super remedy to cure all ills?</font>
• Can a homoeopath use the materia medica of two remedies to predict what a combination of both may do and then prescribe that remedy?</font>

I will try to think of more later today, but for now, I have to leave.

[ 02. October 2002, 08:25: Message edited by: Simone ]

__________________
Regards,<br /><b>Simone H</b><br /><br /><i>Aude Sapere</i><br /><br />"Never be a passive listener or learner" ~ Christian Gottfried Hahnemann