otherhealth.com - View Single Post

bwv11 · #**109** (**permalink**) 19th May 2002, 08:04 PM

Hello, ChrisG and Snoopy.

Thanks for your responses to my post, though I was unclear at times if you were responding to what I said or what you thought I meant.

I think I should start by responding to the (apparent) implication that I was “…dismissing the fundamental truths of homoeopathy as inadequate or incomplete…” and furthermore that I was doing so without having “…taken the trouble to investigate them and apply them thoroughly.” First, I don’t think that anything in the tone or language of my post could be interpreted as either disrespectful or dismissive of homeopathic principles. Quite the contrary, my experience with homeopathy to date leads me to believe that it may well be the single most important weapon in our armamentarium against ‘disease.’

My discussion was couched within the framework of the range of disorders we all commonly encounter, from the simple, to the “…complicated, chronic, intractable, or severe cases, [in which] the layering of pathology and the complexity and variety of etiological factors often, to my thinking, actually demand a complex response.” In fortunate situations, homeopathy may successfully endorse the ‘complex response’ in serial fashion, one remedy, then another, then another, or even with a single remedy. But in other cases, things may not go so well, and in those situations concurrent or modified interventions may be advisable.

In short, in describing classical homeopathy—as I would my own discipline, or any other—as inadequate and incomplete, I was pitting a powerful treatment methodology against a formidable range of real world disorders. I doubt that in challenging this description you are attempting to present homeopathy as both adequate and complete in the treatment of all conditions under all circumstances, or that you are stating your satisfaction with all of the outcomes of all of your treatments. If so, why would you bother at all with any of the other naturopathic interventions to which you refer? The question is not whether you or I treat people who are chemically sensitive, but the level of significance we attach to that sensitivity: does it demand to be on a more equal footing with our primary modality in this or that particular case, and if so how do we address it responsibly, effectively, and with minimal damage to cardinal procedures?

By way of comparison, Freud’s psychology is unsurpassed for its scope and subtlety. Yet Freud never addressed issues of marital discord, parenting styles, conflict resolution or mediation, industrial psychology, or victim or perpetrator profiling. His therapeutic methodologies were designed primarily to address neuroses, so modifications in his technique when treating modern Borderline conditions is not an affront to his stature—though not all of us, even at that, endorse those modifications.

To dismiss out of hand the potential value of modifications to the Founder’s work is irresponsible, insofar as such a dismissal has as its goal the suppression (sic) of new methods that have the potential to benefit patients who prove unresponsive to current technology, and whose conditions may reflect profoundly different circumstances than those for which homeopathy was originally designed. I think a due regard for the prudence, professionalism, and intelligence of colleagues should temper the criticism of innovators—you point to abuses of innovation, but, I have to say, you sound like you have a principled opposition to change.

I find it humbling, but useful, to sometimes observe the practices of colleagues whose methods I dislike: many of them have successful practices and have earned the praise of many patients whose lives they have touched in positive ways. I suspect that even those homeopaths who mix remedies and potencies can point to patients who have benefited from their work; I am somewhat suspicious of their work, but I am not comfortable stating that their popularity is based on mass stupidity. It may not properly be called homeopathy, but we needn’t lump them in with the allopaths either.

To pick up another thread from your post: strengthening the constitution is not the same as eliminating pathogens, such as mercury. But I can’t find in my words any suggestion that one should pursue the removal of mercury fillings by coming “… down on … [the patient] like a ton of bricks with our ‘list of demands.’” Perhaps you can clarify this, but I really don’t remember advocating either insensitivity or tactlessness, nor the abandonment of patience and respect. Furthermore, failing to address such issues is comparable to doing psychotherapy with a child, then sending him back to an abusive household. The therapeutic gains of your hour, if any, would not hold. Something more is needed, and it is lame to avoid doing more on account of the fact that in our lifetime, we will not likely see the elimination of abuse.

Similarly, my reference to scientific method had nothing to do with the asses of rats, but rather with the single remedy principle of homeopathic practice, which is a practical embodiment of the abstract principle of scientific method: to control variables so we may gain a clear idea whether our hypothesis (or remedy) is working. This is not a bad thing, and does not imply that we cavil to the research fashions of the day. But if we take years to treat a patient, which you might easily do in homeopathy as I do in psychotherapy, we should nevertheless resist elevating our conservative procedures above urgent needs that may demand our attention, at least temporarily interrupting the usual course of treatment—when necessary in the eyes of the conscientious professional. And who among us can say authoritatively that some as yet untried method won’t prove valuable in treating this or that class of patient?

You state, “With homeopathy…you know the right remedy is going to have a profound effect regardless of the drugs and the diet and the food he's eating.” And yet the patient on a red meat diet will still be at greater risk for heart disease, even though he is more comfortable in his daily routine. This is why I wrote that “…if you ‘cure’ without removing obvious pathogens, including dairy, mercury, pesticides, etc., and your patient feels good, you have provided a false sense of security, and placed the future at risk." It is not a question whether we will ever live in a pollution free world, or a world without abuse, but whether we can reduce the presence of such forces in our immediate vicinity. The individual clinical judgment that I advocate asks but a few things, namely that the practitioner be aware of these risks, and handle them judiciously, meaning: that alternative interventions be considered when cases prove more or less unresponsive to standard practice; and that the patient be educated at appropriate moments regarding the variety of threats to his well-being, and advised of useful resources.

Thanks for providing quite a stimulating forum. May the (vital) force be with you.