• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Homoeopath exonerated

One of the listed proving symptoms David Ramey quoted was "excessive ability to become pregnant". I don't know what the remedy being proved was when that one came up, but logically, shouldn't that act in potentised form, as either a contraceptive or an abortefaciant?

Of course, assuming the proving was being done on a potentised preparation, and noting that a fertile woman wishing to be infertile is not suffering from any illness, how whould the remedy know it was supposed to do the mojo rather than "prove" in any individual person?

Psychic remedies? No dafter than a lot of the stuff they've already come up with.

Rolfe.

PS. We seem to have discussed this before.
 
Thanks...Got that now.

It wasn't a point or an argument. It was a question.

Thanks for helping.

.


You're welcome. You should probably get confirmation from someone who is more of an expert, hence my tentative ending. (By "argument" I just meant what you were asking about or saying.) :)
 
Of course, assuming the proving was being done on a potentised preparation, and noting that a fertile woman wishing to be infertile is not suffering from any illness, how whould the remedy know it was supposed to do the mojo rather than "prove" in any individual person?


Well, for that matter, when patients are given the wrong remedy as part of the elimination process involved in "individualisation", why don't proving symptoms appear as side effects?
 
I've seen homoeopaths use exactly that excuse to explain unwanted signs that appeared after giving a remedy in some patients. All part of the rich tapestry of "we can explain absolutely anything at all that might happen within a framework of the remedies having some effect". Or, as Geni so succinctly put it, "homoeopathy is a system of excuses masquerading as medicine".

Rolfe.
 

Back
Top Bottom