The world did not stop with Hahnemann....he did have a tough enough time to create and explain, as much as science in his time could, the works of homeopathy....others came after him and although his principle and definitions still are perfectly correct and have stood the test of time, others have done more research: Hughes, Crompton-Burnett, Vannier, etc,....

And I can tell you that H did not treat organs then constitutionally, remember that "konstituzion" for H meant the body build, not the Kentian and neo-kentian meaning.

And in his case books, at least the ones I read during my studies with David Little are often very clinical: Mr. X came if for this problem, gave him that remedy, he is cured......

As I wrote, take some time to compare the MM for the same plant or substance in different modalities, then you will seen the similitude, which goes hand in hand with what I wrote earlier on, that most of those treatment are working through homeopathic rules.

The rules of synergy are well known to herbalists and well demonstrated, it would take me hours to go into explanations, sorry.

Certainly, if you can find one single remedy able to treat a situation, that is the ideal. When dealing with organic changes it is not really a possibility except in very few cases or in real acutes, like belladonna or aconite or arnica situations.....the less remedies, the better....

Joe.

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.

"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

On Dec 22, 2011, at 8:15 PM, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. wrote:

> The world did not stop with Hahnemann....

Thank goodness, because the diseases did not stop getting worse either.

It takes much more to cure a complex case nowadays and they are a lot more complex than in Hahnemann's time. Just the mess made by allopathic drugs and vaccines has seen to that much - and then we must add in the pollution of every kind imaginable added in the name of "progress" - and all the interactions between them.

A practitioner has to be constantly seeking better ways to handle worse illnesses.
Both in humans and in animals.
Just this week, one poor kitten had been given FOUR different steroid drugs, three different and toxic antibiotics, a diuretic (when the disease was already losing blood serum through leakage) and a chemotherapy drug, supposedly to induce appetite, and that's without the presenting disease, which also only exists since man invented excessive "annual" vaccinations.
This kind of insult to a live system, never existed in Hahnemann's time and no single remedy would ever have a hope of fixing it - though one is needed at the core of treatment to re-set the immune system.
Without a lot of additional specific supports to the damaged system, there's be no chance for the main remedy to do any work, the kitten would long since have died from drug damage. And in fact most do die before the procedures needed can be begun.
>
> And I can tell you that H did not treat organs then constitutionally, remember that "konstituzion" for H meant the body build, not the Kentian and neo-kentian meaning.
>
> And in his case books, at least the ones I read during my studies with David Little are often very clinical: Mr. X came if for this problem, gave him that remedy, he is cured......
> Certainly, if you can find one single remedy able to treat a situation, that is the ideal.

Hard to find those cases these days - too much organ damage from allopathic and other manmade onslaughts - either directly, or more often as a long-term consequence of earlier internal damage such as to the thymus as is now universally applied starting soon after birth (via vaccines) - losing the security system that otherwise would prevent chronic disease - quite different from H's day.

One can use homeopathy at the core of the treatment, and I suspect it has to be there to succeed, but it will seldom be curative on its own any more.
So it matters that the world "did not stop with Hahnemann".
Practitioners who miss the train are as much at fault as allopaths who miss the point, or combo makers who have no clue what they are making mixtures to do.

> When dealing with organic changes it is not really a possibility except in very few cases or in real acutes, like belladonna or aconite or arnica situations.....the less remedies, the better....

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

On Dec 23, 2011, at 12:39 AM, Paul Booyse wrote:

>
>
> Hi Irene,
>
>> The world did not stop with Hahnemann....
>
> Thank goodness, because the diseases did not stop getting worse either.
>
> It takes much more to cure a complex case nowadays and they are a lot more complex than in Hahnemann's time. Just the mess made by allopathic drugs and vaccines has seen to that much -
>
> *********
>
> You think so ?


Yes I know so:-)
Hahnemann had it relatively easy. There were toxins indeed then, but never the onslaught against the organs of today's drugs, especially when it comes to the organs that need to respond to remedy, namely the immune system. It is regularly destroyed these days.

>
> So using a complex can have just such an effect and more so when it is used for extended periods.

If by a complex, you mean a mixture of remedies other than as Dr Rozencwajg described individualized for a patient, this will not help the involved diseses seen these days.

> Of course complexes have some effect and can help in acute cases....

I do not trust them for that myself.
Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Nov 5 & 6, 2011 - XXII Indian National Homoeopathic Science Congress in New Delhi

Resolutions found here: Resolutions of IHP XXII National Homoeopathic Congress | Similima

"The XXII National Homoeopathic Science Congress, held in New Delhi during November 5-6, 2011, had unanimously adopted the following 10 resolutions, calling for further strengthening the movement for spread of the homeopathic school of medicine across the country, and checking certain deleterious trends.

10] Suitable amendments to the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia to stop the mixing and compounding of Homoeopathic drugs, against the principle of Homoeopathy that calls for use of single, simple, similar remedies to achieve the goal of cure as propounded by the founding father Samuel Hahnemann."

On Dec 23, 2011, at 3:23 AM, Paul Booyse wrote:

> I know that argument that vaccines create a chronic state etc. I am just saying that in H's time patients were chronically and acutely poisoned by the heavy metals.

True, but their damage is easier to reverse than a missing immune system:-)

It's not an "argument" that vaccines create a chronic state.
What happens is the the vaccine literally destroys the thymus gland, atrophies it, so that it is not there to prevent chronic illness. No other aspect of the immune system can defend against chronic disease, so it is a matter of time before chronic disese ocurs. Not a question of whether it will but when it will.... and it can be cancer, FIP FIV, FeLV, diabtes, Cushigns syndrome, pemphigus, asthma, etc etc - any chronic disease has free access once the thymus is gone.

The immediate damage from a vaccine other than thymus damage, can also create chronic illness directly - by introducing non-attenuated or insufficiently attenuated live vaccine, while removing immune system ability to respond, by overwhelming numbers of pathogens introduced.

Or the introductio of forein protein to an already damaged immune system can cause serious reactions.

In adjuvanted vaccines, the adjuvant itself also does more damage than the thymus atrophy.

The worst damage however is the removal of thymus defence against the truly serious chronic diseases. A lot of drugs besides vaccines cause this atrophy - glucocorticoid steroids, chemotherapics are worst, along with formaldehyde, and other chemicals. Steroids are handed out like candy these days. It's hard to find a human or animal with any thymus left.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

Just FWIW, I did include that several times. I did mention that apparently
the first combos were made by the early homeopaths, for the use of their
patients while the homeopath was unavailable, e.g. traveling. Those combos
were based on the patients' known histories.

But to John, for e.g., that makes no difference at all, because the moment
you have more than one remedy being given at a time, you are into "not
homeopathy" and you are into having (according to him) not the faintest
idea of how any of theincluded remedies will function. Because of the
presence of the others...

Which I find to be a rather daring denial of the decades and century of
experience...



On Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 6:15 PM, Irene de Villiers
<furryboots (AT) icehouse (DOT) net>wrote:

>
> On Dec 22, 2011, at 2:53 PM, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD. wrote:
>
> > If I still had some hair on my head, they would stand straight right
> now, in
> > horror and awe at reading the total lack of knowledge and
> misunderstanding
> > about the real, scientific, way to use complex remedies.
> >
>
>
> Dear Joe,
>
> I don't think anyone was considering the use of complex remedies in the
> way you mean - where they are devised specifically in response to the
> symptoms and needs of a specific patient, and using the known features of
> each remedy.
> Probably you are one of the few experts in knowing how to do this well.
> I think all the discussion so far here, has been concerning the
> commercially available mixtures that you so correctly describe here as
> allopathy - and their misnaming as homeopathy.
>
> It would be a much more interesting discussion to learn more about how to
> correctly use one or more remedies in the pathology-oriented approach to
> suit a patient, that you are talking about, where the selected remedies
> whether herbal, mineral, etc or potentized, are of known activity and are
> selected to help suitably in the patient with the presenting pathology.
>
> I'm currently trying to do some of that - matching local symptoms to
> helpful remedies - and not succeeding very well yet. But I need to get on
> top of it in order to clear the way for a main homeopathic remedy to be
> able to work properly.
>
> I think my first experience with it was in 2000 when I needed support for
> heart symptoms in a more direct way, and not only a single homeopathic
> remedy to effect longterm heart healing. It was a simple example: I used
> hawthorn berry herb to strengthen the heart, building from 2 caps to 8 caps
> a day and continued that heart support till the simillimum homeopathic
> remedy could effect longterm healing about six months later - and then I
> tapered off the herb. That herbal support was not enough initially for
> daily needs, if I needed to move much. I also needed Quebracho 4C before
> each incidence of exertion (exertion being crossing a room to another chair
> for example), as that gave me the extra short burst needed for that
> activity to occur.
> So my "complex" was then hawthorn berry, Quebracho and a simillimum, dosed
> individually as needed. But all three components were specific to my
> particular needs and chosen based on their known action.
>
> > The complexist approach is different: first it is a clinical,
> > pathology-oriented approach, aimed at treating a state of disease in a
> > system or organ of a patient, using the symptoms, signs and modalities
> > developed by that system/organ and not relating to "totality" of the
> patient.
>
> It's a very important need to meet too.
> A single homeopathic remedy can not do everything needed in a case no
> matter how well matched it is. It needs nutrition, lifestyle, supplements,
> and often local pathology support.
> I like the example you gave. And I like the ideas available in your book
> on Organotherapy, Drainage Detoxification - which is where I am currently
> "stuck" with a case.
>
> It seems to me that there is another organ to be addressed besides the
> usual ones listed: The omentum. It is not just a fat collection organ; it
> turns out it is metabolically very active tissue, and can have a very large
> influence on all other organs if riled up during treatment, as it produces
> gluco-corticoids, which in turn trigger adrenaline and insulin with their
> effects, affect aldosterone, deplete electrolytes, and generally make a
> royal mess of the body's metabolic chances of homeostasis.
> As a secondary effect, it will deposit edema inches thick, if more
> toxin is released than can be handled immediately, which in turn has more
> far reaching effects.
> ALL these issues are essential to handle and will NOT be handled by the
> simillimum remedy - which if anything will release toxins from fat tissue -
> but not automatically usher them out of the system.
> So the omentum organ (and other organs) absolutely need other options in
> place to manage events during handling of pathology and working towards
> healthy organs.
>
> As to the omentum as an organ in this regard:
> (especially in an abdominally overweight individual). Perhaps the
> management of its reduction has to be handled by concentrating on excretory
> organs, treating it as if it is an inert toxin storage system like ordinary
> fat tissue, but I suspect that will fail. Somehow it needs selection of
> remedies for a complex that take into account the glucocorticoids produced,
> *and* the effects of those on multiple other systems *and* the toxins
> released from the fatty tissue. It's an awful lot that is going to need
> handling all at once, with each dose of toxin releasing simillimum.
>
> I've been reading the PubMed website (National Library of Medicine) to
> look for herbs or other substances proven to have an effect that may be
> useful for omentum "organotherapy, detox and drainage". (ODD for short).
> It's a slow process, but i find it encouraging that some of this research
> is now being listed at PubMed. [Much of it is from India or Russia that I
> have found so far - more open minded places in terms of investigating
> natural substances and their abilities, than USA.]
>
> My hope is that as the omentum tends to misbehave metabolically in a way
> that throws a spanner in the works during any attempt at homeopathy, it
> would be nice to find some remedies that address its metabolic misbehavior
> aspects.
>
> Does this "omentum organ health" approach fit with the kind of use of
> complexes that you are referring to? "Taking the case" of the omentum and
> what it is doing, and working to remedy that somehow, with however many
> items are needed to effect the needed results?
>
> > I eliminated the animal remedies (snakes...) as
> > being too potent for him right now
>
> Too potent? Please expand on this concept?
> Would you expect a snake remedy to aggravate regardless of potency or dose
> dilution or?
>
> > That is how you create a combo/complex remedy, that is how you use
> multiple
> > remedies at the same time.
> >
> > What is not acceptable for practitioners is to throw into the same bottle
> > remedies that vaguely related to a few symptoms and hope for the best.
>
> Well said. If I had any to spare, I'd lend you some hair to put back down
> again:-)
>
> >
> > Have a Happy New Year and a Merry Hanukkah.
>
> Thank you - to you the same.
>
> Namaste,
> Irene
> --
> Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
> P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
> www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
> "Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Hi, Shannon --

Clinical use and conscientious recording of successful use even of single
medicines produced, in *twenty-five* centuries, a pathogenesis of* no* useful
symptoms.

How much less valuable is "experience" that nobody has bothered recording
of sloppy use of arbitrary proportions of mixed medicines that even in
Hahnemann's time were known to alter each other's effects unpredictably!

By the way, this practice you say some of Hahnemann's contemporaries
adopted, of prescribing a mixture for self-administration: what did these
practitioners claim to learn from it? Do you have a *breath* of evidence
to suggest that any of these putative homoeopaths somehow had learnt that
everything that Hahnemann passed on to us and even modern allopathy knows
about synergy and antergy was incorrect? -- or that they had somehow learnt
to predict the synergies and antergies that would result from their
mixtures and been able to rely upon it?

No. I didn't think so. You were only, as usual, repeating the nonsense
that you find comforting, believable, and capable of memorisation. And
your conscience gives you no least qualm about
leading homoeopathy newcomers down the track of anything-at-all-opathy so
that somebody as familiar with homoeopathy as Wendy is can be so utterly
deluded as to claim that there is nothing to distinguish homoeopathy from
other natural therapies.

Such incomprehension derives directly, Shannon, from the nonsense that
people such as your good self propound, year after year, even whilst
claiming that they don't themselves believe it and would never put it into
practice!

It is not primarily homoeopathy's allopathic opponents who are damaging its
reputation; it is not even the manufacturers and charlatans who, *claiming
to practise homoeopathy*, actually practise self-deceit. Such opportunists
merely take advantage of the vacuum left in the public's understanding by
the efforts of people such as you to vacate the word homoeopathy of all
meaning. Your ability to posit simultaneously three or four mutually
contradictory premises can't make it easy for newcomers to discern the true
from the crooked. Tempting as it is to hold Wendy and others with
understanding no better than hers completely responsible for their own
ignorance, that ignorance arises very much as a primary consequence of such
flimsies as you, in your well-meaning gullibility, paint as rock
foundations and prop in every possible conversation -- though you claim
always to value real homoeopathy.

Imagine what it might be like to acknowledge how little we actually know,
and to work out how we might learn something more, something reliable.
That's what science is about: recognising the limits of knowledge and
doing something to extend them.

What science has always to contend against is not, surprisingly, ignorance.
Ignorance recognised is ignorance half-conquered. What scientific advance
has to contend against is superstition: belief ignorant of its own
baselessness.

It is superstition pure and simple that you continue to substitute for the
straightforward truths that you have not yet understood or prefer to
ignore. Yes, the harebrained ideas and schemes that we can rely upon you
to catch onto as they pass by you doubtless appeal to the lazy ignoramus in
every one of us; but what is it that follows from beliefs to which sure and
certain knowledge is in opposition, and where can schemes lead that devalue
all learning?

A "daring denial of the decades and century of experience"? Get a grip.

John



On 24 December 2011 12:59, shannonnelson tds.net <shannonnelson (AT) tds (DOT) net>wrote:

> Just FWIW, I did include that several times. I did mention that apparently
> the first combos were made by the early homeopaths, for the use of their
> patients while the homeopath was unavailable, e.g. traveling. Those combos
> were based on the patients' known histories.
>
> But to John, for e.g., that makes no difference at all, because the moment
> you have more than one remedy being given at a time, you are into "not
> homeopathy" and you are into having (according to him) not the faintest
> idea of how any of theincluded remedies will function. Because of the
> presence of the others...
>
> Which I find to be a rather daring denial of the decades and century of
> experience...

Synergy and antagonism (rather than antergy....): you should have a look at
the textbooks of phytopharmacology.

The reactions that can happen in the bottle are well known and clearly
explained, for example you do not put a resinous tincture together with
water soluble ones, they precipitate and inactivate.



That is plant chemistry and pharmacology, important when dealing with real
material doses.



3C is 1ppm (one part per million), very diluted but still in the range of
active pharmacological concentration and easily detected by lab tests; yet
it is also on par with blood levels of many hormones and other active
substances circulating in the blood. You do not see them react with others
in the very elaborate, complicated and crowded plasma of humans.



5C is 10ppb (ten parts per billion) very diluted, still capable of
physiological activity (I am speaking from the non homeopathic point of view
here) and in need of very sophisticated instrumentation to be detected.



When you put together potentised/dynamised substances in the same bottle,
they do not chemically react together, they are too diluted for that even if
by chance 2 molecules would collide. So physically, chemically, we are on
safe grounds.



A very frequent argument heard is that they would interact and send
confusing signals. Potentised substances are about transmission of signals,
of information to receptors open at the time of administration, for whatever
reason. That argument is the same as saying that TV signals should only be
beamed one at the time lest the image and sound we receive becomes garbled;
that only one phone call in the world should be made at the time, otherwise
who knows who will receive what.....obviously it is not the case....same
with combination of potentised remedies: the information transferred is
there, no matter what other stuff is added, even if you put together
remedies that are supposed to be antagonistic; each one will send and
provide its own specific signal.



The problem arises at the target, the patient or the organ or the system we
want to treat. That is where you need to know the action of your remedies,
whether you use them in tincture, potency, tablets or injection, same
principle for every type and methodology of therapy. In the examples I gave
in an earlier email, the remedies are synergistic: lauroceraseus,
strophantus and apocynum all work in the same "direction" albeit through
slightly different mechanisms (when you look at them herbally); taraxacum,
silybum and cynara all act towards normalisation and regeneration of the
liver through different pathways.

That is why I consider it kosher to put them together, AS LONG AS YOU KNOW
WHAT YOU ARE DOING, WHY YOU ARE DOING IT AND HOW AND WHEN TO ADAPT IT.



OTOH, you would not put in the same bottle Rhus Tox and Bryonia for example.
Not because of a magical interaction between them that would create plain
water, but because, based on their modalities, you would send at the same
time contradictory and opposite signals that IN THE PATIENT would eventually
result in no action whatsoever. If the patient seems to need both, then they
must be given separately and taken when the symptoms of each appear:
individualisation again and again and again......



And that goes back to the simple notion that we need to know our materia
medica, our remedies, their actions on the patient in order to prescribe
safely.



Once you fulfill those criteria, combos can be created knowledgeably and
safely, in an individualised manner, case by case and with a scientific
logic behind them.



The rest is laziness or commercialism.



Enjoy your holidays.



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: 24/12/2011 9:17:17 p.m.

To: shannonnelson tds.net

Cc: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com

Subject: Re: [H] Combos and complexes



Hi, Shannon --



Clinical use and conscientious recording of successful use even of single

Medicines produced, in *twenty-five* centuries, a pathogenesis of* no*
useful

Symptoms.



How much less valuable is "experience" that nobody has bothered recording

Of sloppy use of arbitrary proportions of mixed medicines that even in

Hahnemann's time were known to alter each other's effects unpredictably!



By the way, this practice you say some of Hahnemann's contemporaries

Adopted, of prescribing a mixture for self-administration: what did these

Practitioners claim to learn from it? Do you have a *breath* of evidence

To suggest that any of these putative homoeopaths somehow had learnt that

Everything that Hahnemann passed on to us and even modern allopathy knows

About synergy and antergy was incorrect? -- or that they had somehow learnt

To predict the synergies and antergies that would result from their

Mixtures and been able to rely upon it?



No. I didn't think so. You were only, as usual, repeating the nonsense

That you find comforting, believable, and capable of memorisation. And

Your conscience gives you no least qualm about

Leading homoeopathy newcomers down the track of anything-at-all-opathy so

That somebody as familiar with homoeopathy as Wendy is can be so utterly

deluded as to claim that there is nothing to distinguish homoeopathy from

other natural therapies.



Such incomprehension derives directly, Shannon, from the nonsense that

people such as your good self propound, year after year, even whilst

claiming that they don't themselves believe it and would never put it into

practice!



It is not primarily homoeopathy's allopathic opponents who are damaging its

reputation; it is not even the manufacturers and charlatans who, *claiming

to practise homoeopathy*, actually practise self-deceit. Such opportunists

merely take advantage of the vacuum left in the public's understanding by

the efforts of people such as you to vacate the word homoeopathy of all

meaning. Your ability to posit simultaneously three or four mutually

contradictory premises can't make it easy for newcomers to discern the true

from the crooked. Tempting as it is to hold Wendy and others with

understanding no better than hers completely responsible for their own

ignorance, that ignorance arises very much as a primary consequence of such

flimsies as you, in your well-meaning gullibility, paint as rock

foundations and prop in every possible conversation -- though you claim

always to value real homoeopathy.



Imagine what it might be like to acknowledge how little we actually know,

and to work out how we might learn something more, something reliable.

That's what science is about: recognising the limits of knowledge and

doing something to extend them.



What science has always to contend against is not, surprisingly, ignorance.

Ignorance recognised is ignorance half-conquered. What scientific advance

has to contend against is superstition: belief ignorant of its own

baselessness.



It is superstition pure and simple that you continue to substitute for the

straightforward truths that you have not yet understood or prefer to

ignore. Yes, the harebrained ideas and schemes that we can rely upon you

to catch onto as they pass by you doubtless appeal to the lazy ignoramus in

every one of us; but what is it that follows from beliefs to which sure and

certain knowledge is in opposition, and where can schemes lead that devalue

all learning?



A "daring denial of the decades and century of experience"? Get a grip.



John







On 24 December 2011 12:59, shannonnelson tds.net <shannonnelson@tds
net>wrote:



> Just FWIW, I did include that several times. I did mention that apparently


> the first combos were made by the early homeopaths, for the use of their

> patients while the homeopath was unavailable, e.g. traveling. Those combos


> were based on the patients' known histories.

>

> But to John, for e.g., that makes no difference at all, because the moment


> you have more than one remedy being given at a time, you are into "not

> homeopathy" and you are into having (according to him) not the faintest

> idea of how any of theincluded remedies will function. Because of the

> presence of the others...

>

> Which I find to be a rather daring denial of the decades and century of

> experience...

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.

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.



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.

Cc: homeopathy (AT) homeolist (DOT) com

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.