Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Thank you, Hans.
This is more helpful, for I often seem to assume a great deal is understood about homeopathy and therefore sometimes provide explanations a little too advanced for many.
I will therefore correct these mistakes and then take your questions, for I was going to go back through this discussion to see if I missed any.
This will be easier.
----------
I quote you and then correct them:
No, it literally means "similar suffering."
Homo = same; homeo = similar.
Pathy = suffering, which in medicine refers to diseases in general and symptoms in particular since diseases can only make themselves known to our senses by symptoms, but pathy literally means suffering.
I dont see any fundamental difference here, but have it your way.
And this is very important to understand, for all allopathic therapies assume that diseases can be categorized according to disease-diagnostic categories -- remembering that diagnosis literally means "to thoroughly know" something -- which means per the symptoms common to large numbers of people; however, that is an artificial and unreal or statistically abstract view of diseases since NO curable patient has only those common symptoms and ALL curable patients have the highly individualizing, differential UNCOMMON symptoms with which Hahnemannian homeopaths and some high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs) determine a remedy diagnosis or prescription for a person, not for a disease.
Things would be much simpler if you could just explain and suppoer homeopathy, instead of mixing it with your constant attacks on allopathy, especially as those attacks constantly reveal your limited knowledge of same. Also, even if you could discredit medical science, this would not be evidence for homeopathy.
This is a basic premise of homeopathy that separates it from all other therapies, including the so-called holistic or alternative therapies (that's a farse), which are actually just part of the Empiricist half of allopathy while so-called modern medicine (that's also a farse) is historically part of the Rationalist school of allopathy.
Yes, as I noted, allopathy is anything that is not homeopathy.
Both of those are seen throughout history, but homeopathy appears to precede both of them in that it is also seen as -- in addition to Spagyric medicine in Europe from the 5th through 17th centuries -- Hermetic medicine in ancient Egypt and some unknown form of homeopathy in ancient India as witnessed by the four Laws of Therapeutics (and thus the rest by extention) being seen within the BHAGWAT PURANA of the ancient Rama Empire or what academics are calling the Harappan Culture of the Indus Valley, both cultures appearing on the historical scene without a period of progress and thus obviously coming from somewhere else already civilized.
Great age is not exactly a recommendation in the medical business.
No, it's not based upon any assumptions; it's based upon the natural Law of Similars, which, like all natural laws, is part of the fabric of space and has been in existence since Creation as an absolute for the cure of unnecessary human and animal suffering always only awaiting rediscovery by an astute individual like C.F.S. Hahnemann.
Since it has not been backed by evidence, I will take the liberty of terming it "assumption".
If you want to refer to basic assumptions of homeopathy, you cannot say that homeopathy is based upon any of them, for it is based upon the 10 absolute natural Laws of Medidine that allopaths only vainly say they search for but constantly demonstrate that is a lie since we have been offering them these for 213 years.
What are those laws?
Maybe, kinda sorta.
Causes of disease are pretty much dismissed as assumptions in homeopathy, and we observe that everywhere except in infectious diseases these causes are going to be mere effects since all evidence has pointed to a disordered or no-longer-integral vital force or etheric pattern for chronic diseases, which in homeopathy means all others.
More assumptions
Indeed, the "acute diseases," by which Hahnemann meant what we today call infectious illnesses, all require something akin to the foregoing disordered organizational level of the organism, because they all necessitate an immune system that is either immature (as in the case of children), dysfunctional (allopathic medicine seems to do this with all therapies) or fully compromised (dito allopathy's iatrogenic influences when their therapies are applied long-term and especially when with the aggressively "heroic" forms of it).
More assumptions
Hahnemann put forward your synopsis of disease origins at Article 201 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE --
http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html -- because allopaths and homeopaths both kept asking him this question. Most advanced homeopaths, however, prefer to define diseases in a generic way by terms like diseases are altered health or is a dynamic disordering of health.
But we will acquiesce to it arising from an internal malfunction so long as you mean what we do by "internal" and "external," which will be unlikely since allopathic medicine in today's form arose from the natural sciences and thus from reductionistic, methodistic, mechanistic, materialistic, biochemical and pathophysiological observations about causes and effects that thus have intrinsic limitations and are strewn with a great many doctrinal assumptions that, except for antibiotics (which were a total accident, mind you), have not yet proven effective constructs, namely, Receptor-Site Theory.
Still more assumptions. You do wise to acknowledge antibiotics, since you would be in grave trouble dismissing them. But how do you explain that a drug that kills bacteria can cure diseases? This seems contradict homeopathic doctrine. Many drugs are found "by accident", however, scientific testing proves their effect and puts them to use.
I say this knowing that the whole of allopathic pharmacology assigns specific target sites for all of its drugs; however, you had better be ready to admit that these are all total assumptions since those pharmacognostic scientists would have otherwise been able to design at least one drug based upon Receptor-Site Theory.
No, the effect of scientific drugs are not assumptions, thet are validated by testing. I do not understand the rest of your statement.
And, as for a "disease-management center" in the brain, Tim came up with that.
Nobody I know of or have ever read have been inclined to assign any particular place in the physical organism as a major or the major center for disease management.
It's a fancy notion, but I am not sure our understanding of neurology can support it.
It would stand to reason that some sort of thing like that exists, but nobody in homeopathy I am aware of has ever put forward that hypothesis.
Well, you'll have to sort that out among yourselves, but obviously some sort of mechanism is assumed to exist, and the question still stands: What is the purpose of such a mechanism?
Am seriously interested in what you think of Tim's notions, for he has clearly given a great deal of thought to them; whereas I hold that because we use ultramolecular, subAvogadrean drugs, we're forced to think in terms of the etheric pattern of organism and drug for scientific explanations of phenomena.
I do not understand the last part of your statement.
You clearly wouldn't like my explanations, but such explanations are meaningless as far as cures are concerned anyway, and I know how to do Hahnemannian homeotherapeutics.
True. If your explanations are meaningless, I will not like them. Yes, I am willing to take you word for it that you master these procedures, but can you prove that they work?
That's not a classical/Hahnemannian explanation of the mechanism.
Hahnemann observed that similar drugs cure and most similar drugs cure best and fastest.
For individual patients, these class as a great many drugs each called the simile compared with one simillimum ("thing most similar").
With the simile, we zig zag cases to cure over a much longer period of time compared with the simillimum; and in serious cases, the simile simply won't do, which is one of the reasons it is vitally important to make no mistakes and thus prescribe according to Hahnemannian precepts since Hahnemann apparently did settle all of the issues of homeotherapeutics, as we have repeatedly found over these subsequent decades since 1843.
Again, speculations lead nowhere, evidence does.
Likewise, although Tim has demonstrated that it seems to be quite difficult to tell exactly what Hahnemann meant by terms like vital force, vital principle of life, dynamic nature of disease and of medicines, "dynamis" and the like, it is not classical for homeopaths to refer to diseases and the human organism as being purely physical.
We have always been dynamists, meaning physicians in the middle of the schism of materialists on the one side and vitalists on the other.
In short, diseases arise from both directions of causes and effects, and they exist in both levels of being.
The last sentence does not seem tto make sense.
I hope that is not confusing, for it is something of a prideful notion with us that we hold a sciento-philosophic balance between purely materialistic and purely esoteric constructs seen in other therapies, i.e., Rationalist and Empiricist allopathy and low- and high-potency pseudo-homeopathy (LPH & HPH).
??
No, these are succussed high dilutions.
You left out the critical part, for mere dilution gets nothing medicinal.
I left it out intentionally, for simplicity. I am sorry that this seems to have been the important part.
Indeed, it is part of the mystery Tim and I are out scouring scientific sites looking for possible explanations, for potentization or dynamization in homeopathy simply refers to that vigorous aggitation of half-full vials.
So you cannot answer the question then?
Hahnemann specifically directed they be slammed against the back of a leather book a set number of times, but we have long since developed succussion machines to do this strident or aggressive shaking of half-full vials.
Call a homeopathic pharmacy and ask them to let you hear a potentization machine.
Oh, I believe you. But my question was: Provided some memory mechanism DOES exist, how is the water supposed to know which of the multitude of compounds it has been exposed to it should remember? Any water sample will have been exposed to innumerable substances over time, how is the right one selected?
It's really not much different from the aggitation machines seen in paint stores, although we control the number of succussions delivered to solutions.
As for saying that they are "diluted . . . to a point where it [the crude substance in the original tincture] is theoretically non-existent in the preparation," we actually almost exclusively use only such subAvogrean drugs in the c-potencies, while the Q-scale of potencies (quinquaginta-millesimal or so-called Millesimal potencies, LMs) settle all potency issues and begin in so-called "tangible doses" until they become ultramolecular at about the 4th step, called out as Q4.
"Ultramolecular" is an assumed function. You have no evidence that such a state exists.
That is the mystery: these drugs should NOT have effect but do.
Want to help us figure it out?
Well, if you can prove that they do, I'm sure lots of people will be interested.
It's a big ole long mystery, but Tim and I feel it's worth a look at again since Shiu Yin Lo's photos show something is definitely at work in succussed high dilutions to form apparently unique crystals of water and/or alcohol on a nanometer scale AT ROOM TEMPERATURE.
Yes, I have seen Shiu Yin Lo's photos, but obviously, they could be anything. He has not published any protocol for obtainnig those pictures.
Tim, tell them how to read where this started with us at homeopathyhome.com, for I tire of it.
This is where we debate, this is where you present your evidence. References are fine, indeed commendable, but I will not run around everywhere to gather YOUR arguments for you. Let me put this in another way: There exists literally TONS of literature presenting evidence for medical science. I do not just ask you to read through it, since you could not do that in a lifetime.
Yes, "trans" is also a viable prefex, but tradition has it as ultramolecular drugs for about 100 years.
Kinda sorta.
Allopathy literally means "contrary or other suffering."
It refers to the fact that all other therapies base their therapeutic approaches upon other than the Law of Similars or symptom similarity and in one way or another upon the doctrine of contraries as traditionally manifested back into the HIPPOCRATIC CORPUS and beyond.
There are two basic kinds of allopathic therapies, though, and it is good to remember this.
Rationalist allopathy is a kind of quasi-militaristic approach that arose out of Western medicine's emphasis upon the natural sciences, which thus ignored the herbalists.
Yes, modern medicine is very militant about proof. Prove your claims and you're in, fail to prove them, and you're out. Good for the patients, you know. Keeps the snake oil out.
The doctrine of the proximate cause does yoemen's service in Rationalist allopathy.
Empiricist allopathy is a healing strategem in which the healing power of nature and notions of toxicity and being in balance are constantly invoked.
But they all view diseases in the same manner, no matter how slightly differently; i.e., per disease-diagnostic categories.
They are all, indeed, allopathic.
This is succinctly stated at Article 52 of the ORGANON OF MEDICINE:
http://homeopathyhome.com/reference/organon/organon.html.
That's Rationalist allopathy, which we usually just call allopathy since the Empiricist spectrum is such a small group in the alternative therapies.
And I would like to point out who coined that designation, "scientific medicine."
No less than Sir William Osler, M.D., gave us the term scientific medicine.
That is the gentleman who was the demagogue of allopathic medicine from about 1880-1920.
But get this: he was still advocating and applying bloodletting as late as 1914!
Geeeeeze!
How does this vindicate homeopathy? It is not very interesting how the state of medicine was in 1914. If you haven't noticed, quite a few things has happened since.
See what we mean by occasionally calling homeopathy 25th-century medicine when we see such outrageous monstrosity all throughout allopathic history.
No, I do not. No matter what others do or do not, homeopathy is still 18th century medicine.
-------
ahbeback [/B]
