Veterinary homoeopathy illegal?

[Kiwi Kid]

Thanks for making my point - I can't even ask for a definition of conventional medicine without the old tired line - we are talking about homeopathy, don't bring up conventional medicine or your just trying to evade or distract or whatever.

I'm sorry, but homeopathy is exactly what we were talking about. You are the one who tried to distract by asking about conventional medicine.

I am asking because the message was that there is no consistant definaition of homeopathy so - I'd like to see if there is a consistant definition of conventional medicine by this group. So how do you define it?

There still does not appear to be a consistent definition of what homeopathy is. Other posts have done a pretty good job at defining conventional medicine.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

quote:

• Multiple tablets
  
  Repeated dosing
  
  Combination therapy as promoted by Wim and unchallenged by you
  
  Adherence to and dependence on conventional medical diagnoses
  
  Prescribing to those diagnoses without taking full homeopathic histories
  
  Use of "constitutional remedies"
  
  Using homeopathy as a complement to medicine rather than as an alternative
  
  "Grafting"
  
  "Plussing"
  
  The lack of leather bound Bibles in pharmacies
  
  All the other problems of manufacture that mean you have no idea what the pharmacies are really selling you or which of the various steps in manufacture are required to produce a successful remedy.

I'm also genuinely interested to find out the answers to that lot.

Barb has returned to this thread with 3 posts;

Please Rolfe -explain to me why it is perfectly exceptable for you to take the time and energy to post an entire post regarding my ignorant usage of the term allopathy and yet when I refute what you say - providing evidence to back up my comments I am simply wasting time - or evading?

There is such an unbelievable double standard with this group it is sickening.

Explain aslo, why if I miss a few frigging hours in not replying I am evading and yet - Prester John who first requsted my definition of homeopathy hasn't replied yet and no one cares - ooh is he evading my answer - ooooh.

Regarding the allopathy term - one of my links is to the britannica encyclopedia site - another is to Med terms - a totally ALLOPATHIC site - I can find a bunch more examples if you like. Oh, no comments on how allopathy is not cure by opposites? No comment on how your favorite term "woo" is totally unacceptable to me but that doesn't matter, does it? YOu get to post whatever you like regarding this topic and when I do I am wasting time - huh.

Or yikes - she has a life beyond this lovely place - Now I have made that clear many times before so my questio to you - why must you continue with your petty little digs?

ANd gee taking those snippy remarks out made so much of a difference, until I read any of your other posts with your own included.

Hey the ball is in your court - just stop the rudeness and just watch how nice and accomidating I can be. Easy as pie - and all within the control of you folks. The only time I "misdirect" as you say is when I feel the need to defend myself due to some nastiness or outright lie - I never just throw out these "misdirected " posts randomly, ya know.

More discussion of the discussion. An answer did appear in the "Grafts" thread comprising the following deeply argued points;

"I have found this to work with liquid potencies, I have no experience in using the dry gr]fting.



I don't know, I have my strong doubts that grafting is as effective as traditional remedy production.



if they have evidence to support it's efficacy


Not sure what you are talking about"

Time for a new thread.

 

[Sarah-I]

Kiwi Kid,

No, giving pepper as a remedy for hayfever is NOT an example of Isopathy.

As example of an Isopathic hayfever remedy would be giving a sufferer grasss pollen. If someone's hayfever is caused by grass pollen, then giving then grass pollen is Isopathic rather than homeopathic. If someone gets hayfever in Spring that is caused by tree pollen, then giving them tree pollen would be Isopathic treatment.

Isopathy means giving the same or identical thing, whereas homeopathy means giving something that is similar rather than identical.

There are lots of remedies that are used to treat hayfever, but it depends on the symptom picture that is presented by each patient and also whether you are treating it on an acute level or a chronic level outside the hayfever season.

 

[geni]

Kiwi Kid,

No, giving pepper as a remedy for hayfever is NOT an example of Isopathy.

As example of an Isopathic hayfever remedy would be giving a sufferer grasss pollen. If someone's hayfever is caused by grass pollen, then giving then grass pollen is Isopathic rather than homeopathic. If someone gets hayfever in Spring that is caused by tree pollen, then giving them tree pollen would be Isopathic treatment.

Isopathy means giving the same or identical thing, whereas homeopathy means giving something that is similar rather than identical.

There are lots of remedies that are used to treat hayfever, but it depends on the symptom picture that is presented by each patient and also whether you are treating it on an acute level or a chronic level outside the hayfever season.

I'm sory but what you describe is not isopathy. Isopathy involves giving either auto-nosodes and sarcodes. Pollen (which of course if you are reconising as a course you are not being claisical) whould be closer to homeopathy than isopathy.

 

[Barbrae]

I'm sorry, but homeopathy is exactly what we were talking about. You are the one who tried to distract by asking about conventional medicine.

There still does not appear to be a consistent definition of what homeopathy is. Other posts have done a pretty good job at defining conventional medicine.

It's not frigging distrction - I cn count numerous posts by you folks tht don't exctly stick with the topic but never comment bout it.

Well, you re looking for consistent definition of homeopthy nd you hve ll of 2 homeopths here - seems like stupid thing to do - uh, my definition is consistnt with itself - hs nyone (homeopth) disgreed with it?

Yes, if the remedy given is not the similimum nd meliortion doesn't follow thn it wsn't homeopthy per se.

 

[Barbrae]

Huh, looks like my letter before B is not working on my keybord - gret.

 

[Barbrae]

I'm sory but what you describe is not isopathy. Isopathy involves giving either auto-nosodes and sarcodes. Pollen (which of course if you are reconising as a course you are not being claisical) whould be closer to homeopathy than isopathy.

I will be typing the letter "x" insted of the stuck letter on my keybord.

Geni - thxt is not correct. isopxthy often involves the use of nosodes or sxrcodes but not xlwys. It often utilizes toxins xnd chemicxls xs well.

Interestingly - the premise by which isopxthy works differs from thxt of homeopxthy too. Below xre some good definitions.

"Isopathy is based on the same principle except that instead of using a similar remedy, the Isopathic practitioner will use a homoeopathically potentised preparation of the substance or organism that is causing the symptoms displayed by the patient. Thus the remedy could be derived from bacteria, viruses, gases, and chemical substances, which includes radio-active materials.

This is not a radical departure from Classical Homoeopathy as considered by the purist classical practitioners, as it is well documented that Dr Hahnemann himself frequently used isopathic remedies, particularly during the last decade or two of his life.

Other sub-branches of Homoeopathy include auto-isopathy - where the remedy is made from diseased tissue or other material taken from the patient and made into a potentised remedy which is then used to treat the patient. This too forms a part of Isopathic medicine as we currently practise it. The other division is known as tautopathy - this is where the remedy is made from a medicinal substance i.e. a chemically synthesised substance which has been given to the patient as a medicine. This form of Homoeopathy also has its place in the practice of Isopathic Medicine."

 

[Barbrae]

So you would use something like, say, pepper for a hayfever remedy?

only if pepper produced hxyfever symptoms in x proving. Yes, if you snort pepper you will sneeze but thxt is not how x proving is cxrried out - xlso you need to mxtch the entirity of symptoms - not just one selective one (sneezing). Most people with hxyfever hxve swollen red eyes, running eyes, congestion, coughing xnd sneezing - your chosen remedy needs to mxth the totxlity.

 

[geni]

I will be typing the letter "x" insted of the stuck letter on my keybord.

Geni - thxt is not correct. isopxthy often involves the use of nosodes or sxrcodes but not xlwys. It often utilizes toxins xnd chemicxls xs well.

Not as orginaly invented by Johann Lux

Interestingly - the premise by which isopxthy works differs from thxt of homeopxthy too. Below xre some good definitions.

"Isopathy is based on the same principle except that instead of using a similar remedy, the Isopathic practitioner will use a homoeopathically potentised preparation of the substance or organism that is causing the symptoms displayed by the patient. Thus the remedy could be derived from bacteria, viruses, gases, and chemical substances, which includes radio-active materials.



This is not a radical departure from Classical Homoeopathy as considered by the purist classical practitioners, as it is well documented that Dr Hahnemann himself frequently used isopathic remedies, particularly during the last decade or two of his life.

This doesn't makes sense.
Homeopathy claims that illness is caused by desturbances in the vital force not illnesses

 

[Rolfe]

Barb, like I said before, I'm fed up walking on eggshells with you. I can post innumerable posts in which I'm perfectly polite to you, I can even have a stand-up fight with Bill Hoyt because I believed he was attacking you unfairly, and you don't even notice. You just go back over the old posts where I said something you took exception to. Mostly, that you don't seem to realise how rude you yourself often are - a fact eminently borne out by your own words. You even dismiss my attempt to take the sting out of BSM's questions by raking back over old posts to have a second round of whining.

Did I even call you, personally, a woo? I have no recollection of it, and I challenge you to find such a post.

On second thoughts, no, I don't. I challenge you to quit with the whining and address the questions.

As BSM so clearly pointed out, our complaint is that you seem to have time for nothing else than complaining about the tone of the debate. Yes, I and others have answered these complaining posts, but we have also repeatedly addressed the core of the subject matter. How often do we have to re-post the questions, in between your dementing on about how you have the right to use the word allopath no matter how objectionable we find it, before your evasion of the questions becomes an issue?

And when you do finally allow two or three lines to the questions, you never give anything that seems to us to be a straight answer.

Here (as placeholders till the next installment in the question of the legitimacy of UK vets using homoeopathic remedies appears) we are enquiring into what, exactly, homoeopathy consists of. Because, as several people have already commented, we're getting a bit tired of constantly being told that a certain common homoeopathic practice is "not homoeopathy".

You denied that dowsing was homoeopathy. What would you say to Mark Elliott, VetMFHom, revered veterinary homoeopath, high on Wim's worship list? He dowses for remedies.

How about the following? Which of these are "real" homooepathic practice?

Multiple tablets

Repeated dosing

Combination therapy as promoted by Wim and unchallenged by you

Adherence to and dependence on conventional medical diagnoses

Prescribing to those diagnoses without taking full homeopathic histories

Use of "constitutional remedies"

Using homeopathy as a complement to medicine rather than as an alternative

"Grafting"

"Plussing"

The lack of leather bound Bibles in pharmacies

All the other problems of manufacture that mean you have no idea what the pharmacies are really selling you or which of the various steps in manufacture are required to produce a successful remedy.

This, I think, is the fourth time of posting this list. If you're short of time, which we quite understand, why not do the interesting thing and concentrate on these?

Rolfe.

 

[Rolfe]

In fact, Mark Elliott is a very good example of the "questionable" homoeopathic practices we frequently encounter, presented as mainstream homoeopathy.

That paper he published in Homeopathy claiming to have treated Cushing's disease homoeopathically is actually the only paper about treating animals that the veterinary homoeopaths have put forward to advance their case. (The others were about tobacco mosaic virus in plants, and some experiments with arsenic in mice, carried out in India.) Now, first Mark takes a group of 30-odd patients, diagnosed by other people (conventional vets) as having "Cushing's disease". He accepts these diagnoses at face value, and neither presents the evidence the other vets based their diagnoses on, or does any confirmatory testing for himself.

Now any vet will tell you that the clinical signs of Cushing's can vary quite a lot from patient to patient - even within the same species. But more than that, Mark includes both dogs and horses in the group, but although the name of the disease is the same the clinical signs and even the pathogenesis are quite different between the species. For example, dogs go bald, typically, while horses become unnaturally hairy.

Never mind, Mark takes no account of this, and all 30-odd animals get the same treatment. So, no control group. No blinding either, everybody concerned knew exactly what was going on.

The treatment. This was TWO homoeopathic remedies mixed together. Once was potentised ACTH, and although Mark did mention some proving signs reported in the homoeopathic literature, this is actually isopathy - ACTH is the hormone which is in excess in most cases of Cushing's. (Just as an extra wrinkle, Mark did comment that about 20% of canine cases have a different aetiology, and in these cases ACTH is low, so if there were any such cases in his group - which statistically there probably were, assuming all the animals did have Cushing's in the first place, which I don't think is by any means certain - then the treatment wouldn't be expected to work on them. But even though there is a simple test to distinguish these cases, he didn't do this, but just lumped them all in regardless.) The other remedy I can't recall the name of (the paper is in my filing cabinet at work), but that is the one he dowsed for. No mention of proving.

And if I recall correctly, the animals were given the remedies twice daily, for quite a long time.

Scientifically, this paper is a joke. No confirmation of diagnosis in any of the cases presented. Equine Cushing's, canine pituitary-dependent Cushing's and canine adrenal-dependent Cushing's all bundled together as if they were all the same disease. No control group. No blinding. No objective assessment of progress. (Not only were no laboratory tests done to see if the patients really had improved, standard practice with conventional management of the condition - and anyway that would have been difficult since there were no baseline pre-treatment results available for comparison - it appears that it was Mark himself who declared that an improvement had occurred!) Oh, and a fair proportion of the patients were only followed up for two weeks, which is a mere blink of an eye in the time course of this condition. It's chronic, and untreated patients can often be up and down, so wow, a subjective improvement was decided upon by the author himself, in a two-week period! This is laughable.

But homoeopathically, it's also a litany of these fuzzy, questionable practices that are so often denounced as "not true homoeopathy" whenever they appear in a scientific trial of homoeopathy.

Allopathic diagnosis
Non-individualisation of remedies
Isopathy
Dowsing
Polypharmacy
Repeated multiple dosing

But this is the best, the only paper demonstrating homoeopathy apparently working on animal patients that the veterinary homoeopaths can find to display to us.

So where does this leave us?

If it were possible for BSM and I to repeat Mark's experiment exactly (which it isn't, because it represents a gross breach of the legislation governing animal experimentation, and I'm quite surprised Mark was never called to account for it), but we made sure by lab tests that the animals really did have Cushing's disease, and split the group into two, one lot getting the remedies and the other a placebo dose, and then followed up both groups (with us not knowing which was which) by repeating the objective laboratory tests, just as is routinely done with patients on the licensed treatments for the condition - and then reported that there was no difference between the groups - what would happen?

Is it not the case that the dowsing and the isopathy and the polypharmacy and the lack of individualisation (especially the last) would be held by the homoeopaths to be "not true homoeopathy", therefore our careful trial was of no account in demonstrating that homoeopathy is useless?

I posted all this about three times on H'pathy, and asked for comments. I got none, and the posts were all deleted after a while. I'm genuinely interested in this. If it's good homoeopathy when Mark does it, and reports what he thinks is a positive result, why is it not good homoeopathy when suddenly it doesn't work?

Rolfe.

 

[Suezoled]

Hey the ball is in your court - just stop the rudeness and just watch how nice and accomidating I can be. Easy as pie - and all within the control of you folks. The only time I "misdirect" as you say is when I feel the need to defend myself due to some nastiness or outright lie - I never just throw out these "misdirected " posts randomly, ya know.

I just filled my Bingo card. Anyone else?

I've got:
"woe is me I'm being persecuted"
"you're being meeeeaaaannnnn"
"that horrible unfortunate death is NOT homeopathy"
"homeopathy is used all over the world and has been in the world for over 200 years."
"look how many times allopathy kills people as opposed to homeopathy."

 

[Sarah-I]

Geni,

It seems that all the homeopathic statements you attempt to make are loaded with inaccuracies.

Barb beat me to it, but isopathy is most certainly not the use of auto nosodes and sacrcodes exclusively. It encompasses other things too, including my examples of grass and tree pollen.

Rolfe,

With reference to you list.

Allopathic diagnosis
Non-individualisation of remedies
Isopathy
Dowsing
Polypharmacy
Repeated multiple dosing

When I treat a patient, I take a full case that lasts up to 1.5 hours. I then analyse this case and pick the appropriate symptoms that will lead me to a certain group of remedies. I will then differentiate between the remedies if there is more than one and pick the one that is most similar to the case. However, I do take a conventional medical diagnosis into account when picking the remedy.

If a woman comes with gynaecological problems, then I will not give a remedy that has no affinity for the gynaecological system. All remedies have affinites for different parts of the body, so yes, in this way a conventional medical diagnosis can be helpful in guiding your remedy choice. Remedies that have an affinity for this area are Pulsatilla, Sepia, Lachesis and other.

I always individualise my remedies to the patient. If you don't do this, then they will not work on the whole.

I have never used isopathy myself, rather I prefer to individualise the remedy.

I have not used polypharmacy and would never consider using it. You do not know which remedy has been effective if you do this.

I have never used dowsing and would not consider it either.

I am not quite sure exactly what you mean by repeated multiple dosing? However, at times this depends on whether you are treating an acute or a chronic case.

If you are treating an acute, then you would find the acute remedy according to the individual symptoms and then give a dose of the indicated remedy. You may have to give up to three or four doses of the same remedy before the acute resolves.

However, if you are treating a chronic case, then the remedy is individualised and I would normally give ONE tablet as ONE dose of the remedy and then wait and see. The only exception to this is when you choose to give a patient a remedy in an LM potency. This is a liquid potency, so differs in the way that you take it and most patients will be instructed to take this remedy once daily.

You seem to keep picking on Wim somewhat, so from what I know of him, he is a homeopath that treats both people and animals. I think that he treats people on a classical basis, however, he has a lot of experience in treating animals and has found from this clinical experience that one dose of one remedy and wait and see just does not work for animals. He has found that most animals need either lower doses of remedies or they need remedies repeating more frequently than humans do. This is all from his experience of practice however and he has found what works for him and his patients. This is not classical prescribing at all, but it seems to work for him and comes from his vast experience of practice.

I would say that Mark Elliotts's research was questionable. Dowsing for remedies, non individualisation and no blinding is not good or valid research.

 

[geni]

Geni,

It seems that all the homeopathic statements you attempt to make are loaded with inaccuracies.

Barb beat me to it, but isopathy is most certainly not the use of auto nosodes and sacrcodes exclusively. It encompasses other things too, including my examples of grass and tree pollen.

That is how it is commenly used. However this is not "clasical" Isopathy.

However, if you are treating a chronic case, then the remedy is individualised and I would normally give ONE tablet as ONE dose of the remedy and then wait and see. The only exception to this is when you choose to give a patient a remedy in an LM potency. This is a liquid potency, so differs in the way that you take it and most patients will be instructed to take this remedy once daily.

LM's have no more need to be liquid than other remedies. They are just diluted by 50,000 with each sucestion rather than the 100 or 10 that is used for C and X/D

 

[Rolfe]

You seem to keep picking on Wim somewhat, so from what I know of him, he is a homeopath that treats both people and animals. I think that he treats people on a classical basis, however, he has a lot of experience in treating animals and has found from this clinical experience that one dose of one remedy and wait and see just does not work for animals. He has found that most animals need either lower doses of remedies or they need remedies repeating more frequently than humans do. This is all from his experience of practice however and he has found what works for him and his patients. This is not classical prescribing at all, but it seems to work for him and comes from his vast experience of practice.

I would say that Mark Elliotts's research was questionable. Dowsing for remedies, non individualisation and no blinding is not good or valid research.

Well, of course I "pick" on Wim! He's a blatant fraud, and his habit of muscling into every thread regarding an animal with his daft and ignorant suggestions is one of the biggest threats to animal welfare on the Internet. The way he tried to persuade Alphonse to let Sarah (the cat) die rather than try the tested and effective real treatment that could save her was simply appalling.

He does not have the experience in treating animals that he pretends to have. It is illegal for him to treat animals in Holland, as he is not a vet. He is only allowed to treat his own animals - and have you not noticed that his examples when he gets into the "justify by anecdote" part either involve his own or his family's animals, or are simply quotes from someone else (usually an actual deluded vet).

He is making it up as he goes along, Sarah. He has even stated that you can pick two remedies and deduce what the combined effect will be without doing any proving. This is completely contrary to homoeopathic teaching, as you well know.

He is a patent fraud and liar, and the fact that the admins at H'pathy haven't banned him is a disgrace.

Now, Mark is supposed to be one of the top veterinary homoeopaths. That paper of his was published without any criticism by your top journal, Homeopathy. It is the only paper purporting to show an effect of homoeopathy in treating disease in animals that the veterinary homoeopaths seem to have to show. It is considered to be the jewel in their crown.

And yet, dowsing, isopathy, no individualisation, two remedies at once.... AND HE SAYS IT WORKS! HE HAS JUST THE SAME LEVEL OF EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS PRACTICE AS YOU HAVE TO SUPPORT YOURS! And just to recap, he is VetMFHom, trained and certified by the Faculty of Homoeopaths.

He also recommends a three-remedy combination for "hyperthyroidism" in cats, without any consideration of the individual clinical signs displayed by the cats - and these can vary quite a lot.

AND HE REPORTS A 60% SUCCESS RATE! JUST AS STRONG EVIDENCE AS YOU HAVE FOR YOUR METHODS!

So, if it works so well, why is it questionable?

Rolfe.

 

[Suezoled]

Geni,

It seems that all the homeopathic statements you attempt to make are loaded with inaccuracies.

Barb beat me to it, but isopathy is most certainly not the use of auto nosodes and sacrcodes exclusively. It encompasses other things too, including my examples of grass and tree pollen.

Geni, who knows more about the mechanics of homeopathy than you do, and you criticize him for knowing more. How funny!

Rolfe,

With reference to you list.

Allopathic diagnosis
Non-individualisation of remedies
Isopathy
Dowsing
Polypharmacy
Repeated multiple dosing

When I treat a patient, I take a full case that lasts up to 1.5 hours. I then analyse this case and pick the appropriate symptoms that will lead me to a certain group of remedies. I will then differentiate between the remedies if there is more than one and pick the one that is most similar to the case. However, I do take a conventional medical diagnosis into account when picking the remedy.

I simply cannot see how you would be able to make a diagnosis in reference to contraindications from OTC and prescribed medications since you seem to have a very poor grasp on basic chemistry to begin with. And I am frankly appalled that you are picking and choosing which symtoms to treat as part of the illness; mainstream medicine considers all the symptoms. And unlike you, they tend not to take 1.5 hours; enough research has gone into very common cases that a diagnosis can be reached much sooner.

If a woman comes with gynaecological problems, then I will not give a remedy that has no affinity for the gynaecological system. All remedies have affinites for different parts of the body, so yes, in this way a conventional medical diagnosis can be helpful in guiding your remedy choice. Remedies that have an affinity for this area are Pulsatilla, Sepia, Lachesis and other.

Oh good. I'm glad you won't be treating men with gynocological problems the same way as you do women. Whew. What a relief. Of course, if you're a woman with obgyn problems it's probably a better thing to go to an MD, PA, or RN.

I always individualise my remedies to the patient. If you don't do this, then they will not work on the whole.

Well yes humans are soooo unique that everyone needs their own formula. Glad to know that that "allopathic" stuff doesn't work on the whole body, since it made only for the average human body.

I have never used isopathy myself, rather I prefer to individualise the remedy.

I have not used polypharmacy and would never consider using it. You do not know which remedy has been effective if you do this.

I have never used dowsing and would not consider it either.

Wait a moment. Didn't you say you were a student?

I am not quite sure exactly what you mean by repeated multiple dosing? However, at times this depends on whether you are treating an acute or a chronic case.

(snipped)

Oh geez. Repeat= do over. Multiple= Many times. Dosing=amount of medicine.

You seem to keep picking on Wim somewhat, so from what I know of him, he is a homeopath that treats both people and animals.

I would say that Mark Elliotts's research was questionable. Dowsing for remedies, non individualisation and no blinding is not good or valid research.

Yeah, he's a good guy UNTIL he messes up and then you'll be chorusing "that's not REAL homeopathy!"

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Wait a moment. Didn't you say you were a student?

I think she said she's got her certificate now. Must have collected enough coupons or box-tops I suppose. 300 hours of watching clinical cases apparently were involved. Puts my 1600 hours of "seeing practice" into the shade (not). Since she's so impressed by the authority that these certificates give her, I guess that gives me about 5 times as much right to comment on clinical matters (ignoring the 20 years since, the PhD, the journal peer-reviewing and the ability to run rings around homeopaths in debate). It's a theme Rolfe has remarked on. How come the word of some, frankly not very good vets and medics, gets to be the authoritative voice to the Sarahs of this world?

 

[geni]

I think she said she's got her certificate now.

Must be a summer couse uni term is only just starting in most places.

 

[Badly Shaved Monkey]

Must be a summer couse uni term is only just starting in most places.

At Hpathy she claimed to be a 3rd year student of both homeopathy and craniosacral therapy. I must say though, that when you have gone through and shown us the various courses that some of the poorer and more desperate universities are running I didn't notice any on CST. Maybe she is doing magic water at one place and wig-waggling at another.

Mind you, we also caught her out lying completely about her homeopathic credentials. Remember Rolfe spotted that she was claiming a qualification that is only open to qualified doctors. Frankly her track record of lies means that we should doubt anything she says about herself, but on the other hand does it matter? If she was a 12-year old schoolboy making good solid arguments we would respect them, if she was Head of Medicine at Guy's Hospital we would still not be impressed by erroneous thinking (though in that case we might be writing to the university authorities about her!).

 

[Rolfe]

Puts my 1600 hours of "seeing practice" into the shade (not).

My God, was it really that long? I thought it just seemed that way.

Has anyone really added up the hours of actual formal lectures, practical classes, seminars and seeing practice we have to do? In the five year course? Did your six year course actually give you more hours, or just the chance to diversify your studies a bit?

I can't cope with these numbers right now.

Then like an idiot I went right back and did two more years (the first of which involved doing all of 3rd year biochemistry and half of second year all at the same time, and writing up lab practicals at the kitchen table till I fell asleep on my notes at 11 o'clock).

If we're having a pissing-up-the-wall contest as to who has studied most, Sarah, you're not even in the game.

Rolfe.