Originally Posted by Shannon

To say that homeopathy has made no progress is to miss a great deal of our history

Originally Posted by Shannon

Even if we do go with the view that "homeopathy" has a specific meaning which was set by its founder / inventor / discoverer,(?) still that leaves a *huge* amount of room for development,(?) and development has been taking place--newer remedies

Originally Posted by Shannon

progressively broader and deeper

Originally Posted by Shannon

understanding of older remedies

Originally Posted by Shannon

additional methods of analysis and case management which can turn "incurable" into "curable"

Originally Posted by Shannon

new methods of teaching, learning, information management...

Originally Posted by Shannon

What are they objecting to, do you know? Do they see a lack of result

Originally Posted by Shannon

or are they piqued at the limits of the definition (which is certainly not universally accepted in any case)

Originally Posted by Shannon

or are they simply unfamiliar with the field?

Originally Posted by Shannon

(As to when "development" becomes "deviation" and thereby "non-homeopathic"

Originally Posted by Shannon

that is--as we've seen!--a potentially complicated discussion, which couldn't / shouldn't possibly be of any interest to anyone outside t he field, should it? Why do they care, do you know???)