Originally posted by Hahnemannian
Right, dummy!
"A causes B."
You take a high-potency homeopathic (A) and it causes symptoms (B).
That is what ALL homeopathic provings do, you idiot!
Did you get it this time?
Sure! The proof of Homeopathy is: "If you take poison, you get sick." --- Big deal 
*snip*
We then take a case and record it fully so as to have the symptom totality.
From that symptom totality we determine which medicines are uncommon and which are common.
Those that belong to a disease diagnosis (remembering that most modern patients come with a diagnosis already) are thus common symptoms and are ignored for differential remedy diagnosis ("to thoroughly know" something).
Those that are attributable to an avoidable disease agent or influence are also ignored since they disappear with the cause.
For instance, a woman has feet problems, but we find that she wears high heels all of the time.
Out the window with those shoes and Poof! no symptoms.
If those symptoms remain, which can happen, then they should gain the attention of the physician since there is no discernable causation remaining and they are not part of the presenting diagnosis, which could be anything but let's say it's diabetes.
If sufficient information can be gained from those feet symptoms, they would be likely to lead to a medicine that contains ALL of the symptoms of the case, the totality of it.
Did ya get that?
I did not get how it might cure the patient.
Let's take an insulin-dependent diabetic who does not have thurst.
That would be unusual, right?
Not if his insulin is well-regulated. In that case he does not have ANY symptoms.
Hence, thirtlessness would be an uncommon symptom.
Three of them can lead right to the simillimum ("thing most similar").
It is about that simple.
Think you could do that, though?
Doesn't sound too complex. Still don't see how it can cure anything.
I'd like to see you try, and then you can come back and plead forgiveness once you discover that it is about ten to a hundred times more difficult to do Hahnemannian homeotherapeutics than to do anything else.
Getting the picture yet?
No, I don't see what you are getting at. All I want is to find out if the stuff works. And no, I'm not going to take your word for it, or Mr. Hahnemann's.
A causes B.
That is the first step.
Now why haven't you examined the homeopathic evidence?
Because you still refuse to present it.
Are you going to come up with yet another sophistry and excuse for wanting to be lazy and yet instead claim that homeopathy has no evidence when it, in fact, is NOTHING BUT EVIDENCE?
I hope not, but you will again be proven an ignorant fool if you do that yet again.
Can hardly wait for this one.
I can hardly wait for you to present that evidence.
