Originally Posted by Dillweed

That always seemed to me to be a very contradictory view. Either homeopathy works or it doesn't. I think the ones who say it only sometimes work don't really believe that it does. Otherwise, they would be more eager to learn how to use it effectively. Or they are still in a this-for-that mentality.

Originally Posted by drrejikumar

Dear Dilweed,

Those who say Homoeopathy rarely works are actually not skeptics. They just can't accept the plain truth before their eyes. In their innermost corners of mind, they will be brooding to have voted their life for a dangerous non healing system.

bye

Originally Posted by Robert & Shannon Nelson

For one thing I would define it as a goal rather than as a concrete
amount.
In my understanding that goal ties in with for e.g. Hahnemann's
injunction to repeat "as needed" rather than routinely (tho I realize
there are times when "routine" might be necessary and is often used in
any case), and with his original practice, when he still worked with
crude substances, of seeing just how *little* he could produce the
needed response with, and with e.g. water dosing.

There are so many variables involved in prescribing, and also so many
practical constraints, that IMO making too much out of determining some
"absolute minimum" would be both pointless and fruitless, but I think
it's clear that having this as a goal and principle does and should
shape certain areas of our practice. And to the extent that variants
of practice (by which I mean both different styles of homeopathic
practice and also different posology decisions by an individual
practitioner) discard or overlook that goal, that is exactly where
greater risks (aggravation, proving, suppression, etc.) come into play.

Does that work for you?
Shannon

On Nov 17, 2005, at 12:49 PM, Luise Kunkle wrote:

>
> Hi Shannon,
>
>
> On Tue, 15 Nov 2005, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
>
>>
>> Well, this turns on what one takes as the definition of "homeopathy".
>> As per discussions on the lists, some people (myself included, tho I
>> am
>> not so extreme as some) feel that the term should mean (at least more
>> or less) what its founder / inventor / discoverer--the person who
>> coined the term--intended it to mean: one remedy at a time, chosen
>> based on "like cures like", given in minimum dose (potentization being
>> an added tool, rather than actually defining; which is interesting,
>> because in popular usage, at least in many places, anything involving
>> potentized substances is called "homeopathy", regardless of how the
>> remedy is chosen or what the goal is or etc.
>>
> How would you define "minimum dose"?
>
> Regards
>
> Luise
>
>
> --
> One thought to all who, free from doubt,
> So definitely know what's true:
> 2 and 2 is 22 -
> and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
> ==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========
>