It was Julian who mentioned the Flexner Report, Shirley.

I hear what you're saying. Sure, it takes some independent thinking to stretch outside the box. But, I don't agree that being individualistic and independent excludes one from being a 'team player' (getting along with others).

I don't think that in-fighting is the only reason that homeopathy 'fell apart'l, either.
We need to think about what led to the 'in'-fighting.

The in-fighting took place between two camps; ecletic 'homeopaths' and homeopaths.
Unfortunately, eclectic 'homeopaths' were in the majority.
(That's why the IHA and AIH split into two groups.)
Why were the eclectics the majority?
Because a lot of people genuinely struggle to make the shift that it takes to really grasp how to use homeopathy. It's hard work!!

By the very nature of this, it is no surprise that most ended up prescribing eclectically.

It's then no further surprise when there came a split/division between those who grasped and adhered to the principles and those who didn't. (the reasons are many for those who chose the eclectic path -- apathy, laziness, poor knowledge, stuck in allopathic/materialistic thinking, etc etc etc)

Eventually patients were affected.
Why?
Because this meant the majority of patients were treated by eclectic 'homeopaths'.

And, this meant that they weren't getting effective, reliable and consistent treatment.

Eclectic treatment doesn't work.
So patients' stopped seeking homeopathic treatment "because homeopathy doesn't work". [The blame lies with the eclectic or ill trained prescriber; not homeopathy.]

Then along come the allopaths who are better organised than they ever were before --- and wa la - a huge shift. Baaaaaaad timing for homeopathy.

The eclectic way of prescribing isn't consistent or effective.
If something doesn't work; people stop using it.
If something works; people keep using it.

This is what I think brought about the decline of homeopathy circa 1900.
The division between true homeopaths and eclectic practitioners led to the infighting for sure. But the growing lack of quality-treatment was the real reason for the decline! (this was perpetuated by the way the medical schools were taken over and churned out eclectic practitioners - then eventually that faded and most of them closed or became allopathic hospitals...it's all in the Flexner Report)

I definitely agree we could be more supportive of each other - respecting that each person is learning like the next.
However, that does not mean we compromise where the guiding principles are concerned.

In fact, I think it is incumbent on each of us to strive for excellence and demand the same of our peers, while being supportive of each other. Otherwise what is the point?

Or, we can always repeat history like we read about in the Flexner Report.

There HAS to be a BALANCE somewhere without compromising the fixed guiding principles!

If someone uses different methods, but it falls within the principles - no problem.

If someone is calling themselves a homeopath who clearly is stretching the boundaries - then they should call that treatment something else (i.e. flower remedies, etc).
Otherwise, attaching the name 'homeopath' to it, implies they are operating within the guiding principles when they are not.
If they fail miserably on their patients, what happens?
Homeopathy is blamed!!!

Research is good. I think it's important.
But when practising on patients, we really need to stick together on strictly adhering to the well defined principles that are proven to work for the last 200+years. Not only because we want to give effective, reliable and consistent treatment but because it's our highest aim (to cure the sick - not experiment on him!).

When a lot of homeopaths are doing this AND teaching others so that the knowledge is passed on -- then maybe homeopathy has a real chance at staying power.

Who's going to make sure homeopathy survives?
People who get real, consistent and effective results. And it takes homeopaths who don't play around with the fundamental principles.

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham