Hi Shannon,


On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

> Or... Perhaps there is value in
> a) Proving more remedies
> b) Learning more remedies
> c) Learning remedies in greater depth and breadth
> d) Learning further case management techniques
> e) To Be Determined...
>
> It's a rather long leap to go from noting that the *pioneers* were not able
> to cure everyone, to a conclusion that "homeopathy" cannot cure!
>
....and there is a big leap from what I said, i.e.

".... or there is at least
a possibility that not everything may be curable by homeopathy."

to

"homeopathy cannot cure":-)

Btw: This latter quote was not uttered or implied in anything
that was said by anyone in this discussion.

Regards

Luise



> But the observation is IMO good reason for us not to toss the rest of the
> toolbag overboard. :-)
> Sometimes herbs, nutrition, "other modalities" and even (gasp) allopathy can
> be useful too...
> Shannon
>
> On Nov 2, 2007, at 9:18 AM, Luise Kunkle wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Sheri, Jeff,
>>
>> correction noted. Thank you.
>>
>> However:
>>
>> There are many cases, quite a big percentage of cases, that Hahnemann did
>> not cure, that v. Boenninghausen did not cure. Some of them improved, some
>> of them did not. And that does not mean with the first prescription but
>> "not at all" - sometimes treating over long years.
>>
>> So either those two were "call it whatever you like" or there is at least
>> a possibility that not everything may be curable by homeopathy.
>>
>> Regards
>>
>> Luise
>
>

Sure. I just get a bit queasy when it feels like the matter is being
treated too lightly. I'm not saying *you* were doing that; only that
the "soul's choice" argument can IMO become way to glib and
self-satisfied! So I approach it with caution...
Best wishes,
Shannon

On Nov 2, 2007, at 2:17 PM, Dearing Fauntleroy wrote:

> Hi Shannon
> Most likely you do not know which of your patients has made the
> SPIRITUAL "choice" for cure thru homeopathy (probably not of the
> conscious mind), so you do your best for each patient and let the
> chips fall as they may. Maybe at times what a particular patient
> "needs" from you is not the great remedy, but your love and support,
> and everything in between.
> dearing
>
>
> On Nov 2, 2007, at 11:45 AM, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
>
>> Mm, having seen a couple of really transformative responses, I'm not
>> eager to be *too* quick to go determinstic on it... True tho,
>> sometimes the patient simply needs to go. Other times tho... Well if
>> it's all about soul choice, what the heck are we wasting our time
>> with, hm?
>> :-)
>> Shannon
>>
>>
>> On Nov 2, 2007, at 12:36 PM, Knapp, Richard wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> Second that. No little white pill has the power to transform a human
>>> life. The best medicine can only aid the soul's efforts to heal.
>>>
>>> Richard Knapp
>>> EAS - Data Warehouse Group
>>> University of Missouri
>>> 615 Locust Street #200
>>> Columbia, MO 65201
>>> 573-882-8856
>>> knappr (AT) umsystem (DOT) edu
>>>
>>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com
>>> [mailto:homeopathy-bounces (AT) homeolist (DOT) com] On Behalf Of Dearing
>>> Fauntleroy
>>> Sent: Friday, November 02, 2007 12:28 PM
>>> To: Homeopathy
>>> Subject: Re: [H] What didn't work?
>>>
>>> Hi Everyone
>>> AND on the bottom line, the soul of the patient makes it's "choices"
>>> and orchestrates circumstances to this end. As far as a cure goes,
>>> when
>>> it is time, it is time and when its not, then it's not, regardless of
>>> the skill of the homeopath.
>>> So many factors can intervene, if the time is not right - otherwise
>>> the
>>> best homeopath alive today would cure close to 100% of patients.
>>>
>>> dearing
>>>
>>>
>>> On Nov 2, 2007, at 8:18 AM, Luise Kunkle wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi Sheri, Jeff,
>>>>
>>>> correction noted. Thank you.
>>>>
>>>> However:
>>>>
>>>> There are many cases, quite a big percentage of cases, that
>>>> Hahnemann
>>>> did not cure, that v. Boenninghausen did not cure. Some of them
>>>> improved, some of them did not. And that does not mean with the
>>>> first
>>>> prescription but "not at all" - sometimes treating over long years.
>>>>
>>>> So either those two were "call it whatever you like" or there is at
>>>> least a possibility that not everything may be curable by
>>>> homeopathy.
>>>>
>>>> Regards
>>>>
>>>> Luise
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Sheri Nakken wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Well, the word incompetent is a very different thing than what Jeff
>>>>> said,
>>>>> the doctor is at fault.
>>>>> Maybe in German it isn't, but in English the use of the word
>>>>> 'incompetent'
>>>>> is much stronger and all encompassing
>>>>> I don't always get the right remedy at first or ever but that
>>>>> doesn't
>>>
>>>>> make
>>>>> me incompetent.
>>>>>
>>>>> incompetent
>>>>> adj 1: not qualified or suited for a purpose; "an incompetent
>>>>> secret service"; "the filming was hopeless
>>>>> incompetent" [ant: competent]
>>>>> 2: showing lack of skill or aptitude; "a bungling workman";
>>>>> "did a clumsy job"; "his fumbling attempt to put up a
>>>>> shelf" [syn: bungling, clumsy, fumbling]
>>>>> 3: not doing a good job; "incompetent at chess" [syn:
>>>>> unskilled]
>>>>> 4: not meeting requirements; "unequal to the demands put upon
>>>>> him" [syn: incapable, unequal to]
>>>>> n : someone who is not competent to take effective action [syn:
>>>>> incompetent person]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sheri
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 1 Nov 2007, jtikari wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Every homeopathic remedy will 'consistently not work' if given
>>>>>>> inappropriately;
>>>>>>> and every homeopathic remedy will work if symptoms are carefully
>>>>>>> matched
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> the ailment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If a homeopathic remedy didn't work - it's the doctor who is at
>>>>>>> fault.
>>>>>>> Simple as
>>>>>>> that!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Weeellll:-)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In that case Hahnemann and v. Boenninghausen were very incompetent
>>>>>> homeopaths!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Regards
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Luise
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> -
>>>>> Sheri Nakken, former R.N., MA, Hahnemannian Homeopath
>>>>> Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
>>>>> Vaccination Information & Choice Network (new website)
>>>>> http://www.wellwithin1.com/vaccine.htm
>>>>> http://www.wellwithin1.com/homeo.htm
>>>>> homeopathycures (AT) tesco (DOT) net
>>>>> ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes - next one September 5,
>>> 2007
>>>>> ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes - September 6, 2007
>>>>> ONLINE Intro to Diseases - Risk, Reality & Alternative Treatment
>>>>> September
>>>>> 5, 2007
>>>>> Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936
>>>>>

Hi Luise,

On Nov 2, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Luise Kunkle wrote:

>
> Hi Shannon,
>
>
> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
>
>> [...]
>> It's a rather long leap to go from noting that the *pioneers* were
>> not able to cure everyone, to a conclusion that "homeopathy" cannot
>> cure!
>>
> ...and there is a big leap from what I said, i.e.
>
> ".... or there is at least
> a possibility that not everything may be curable by homeopathy."
>
> to
>
> "homeopathy cannot cure":-)
>
> Btw: This latter quote was not uttered or implied in anything that was
> said by anyone in this discussion.

Okay, please add the word "everyone" to the end of my sentence! That
is what I meant. (a) the pioneers should hardly be used as ultimate
examples of what the method itself might in theory be able to
accomplish; and (b) knowing what *has been done* certainly doesn't tell
us what might be *possible* to do!
:-)
Shannon

>
> Regards
>
> Luise
>
>
>
>> But the observation is IMO good reason for us not to toss the rest of
>> the toolbag overboard. :-)
>> Sometimes herbs, nutrition, "other modalities" and even (gasp)
>> allopathy can be useful too...
>> Shannon
>

Hi Shannon,

On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:

> Hi Luise,
>
> On Nov 2, 2007, at 2:43 PM, Luise Kunkle wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Shannon,
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 2 Nov 2007, Robert & Shannon Nelson wrote:
>>
>> > [...]
>> > It's a rather long leap to go from noting that the *pioneers* were not
>> > able to cure everyone, to a conclusion that "homeopathy" cannot cure!
>> >
>> ...and there is a big leap from what I said, i.e.
>>
>> ".... or there is at least
>> a possibility that not everything may be curable by homeopathy."
>>
>> to
>>
>> "homeopathy cannot cure":-)
>>
>> Btw: This latter quote was not uttered or implied in anything that was
>> said by anyone in this discussion.
>
> Okay, please add the word "everyone" to the end of my sentence! That is what
> I meant. (a) the pioneers should hardly be used as ultimate examples of what
> the method itself might in theory be able to accomplish; and (b) knowing what
> *has been done* certainly doesn't tell us what might be *possible* to do!
> :-)

I agree.

And if you agree that we also do not know what can NOT be done, we are
in agreement:-)
>
Regards

Luise
>>

>>
>>
>>
>> > But the observation is IMO good reason for us not to toss the rest of
>> > the toolbag overboard. :-)
>> > Sometimes herbs, nutrition, "other modalities" and even (gasp) allopathy
>> > can be useful too...
>> > Shannon
>>
>
>

Hil Luise,

On Nov 2, 2007, at 8:34 PM, Luise Kunkle wrote:

> [...]
>> Okay, please add the word "everyone" to the end of my sentence! That
>> is what I meant. (a) the pioneers should hardly be used as ultimate
>> examples of what the method itself might in theory be able to
>> accomplish; and (b) knowing what *has been done* certainly doesn't
>> tell us what might be *possible* to do!
>> :-)
>
> I agree.
>
> And if you agree that we also do not know what can NOT be done, we are
> in agreement:-)

Yep, I do indeed.
:-)

>>
> Regards
>
> Luise

--- homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com wrote:


> I don't think that this is a question that can be answered like that.
> Homeopathy 'works' by treating the whole person rather than the
> symptoms.

The symptoms, as presented by the individual, are the only way to
determine which remedy may be appropriate for a given case.

> Just because a remedy doesn't appear to have an immediate
> effect doesn't mean that it isn't working on a more fundamental
> level.

Without a definite reaction from the patient, there is no way to
determine whether a remedy is in fact "working," i.e. whether the
prescription is correct.

> Well that's my opinion anyway. But maybe the experts here have a
> different view.

I'm not an "expert"...but I have yet to see someone *not* respond
immediately, to a greater or lesser extent, to the correct remedy.

--- homeolist (AT) otherhealth (DOT) com wrote:


> There seems to be some criticism on science blogs of the fact that
> there's little or no discussion of what doesn't work in homeopathy.
> Perhaps the image of homeopathy would be bolstered (and improvements
> made in the effectiveness of treatments) by a discussion of what
> consistently doesn't work?

First, provide data on "what doesn't work in homeopathy". *Then* there
can be a discussion. Otherwise, it's just airy-fairy theorizing.

> Do you know of a remedy that never or rarely works?

ALL remedies which are NOT prescribed according to the symptoms and
signs as presented by the patient, "rarely work."