WHO IS OUR ENEMY?

Homoeopathy emerging as a science of 21st century, ever since its advent in the 17th century to the present day is still not free from several treats, some from its own, intrinsic and some from external source.
The fundamentals of Homoeopathy, which have been evolved over a period of time lasting from first experimentation with Cinchona by Hahnemann in 17th century to the so called semi scientific and semi philosophical theories of 18th century like, theory of vital force, dynamization and theory of chronic diseases etc. were under great criticism from the days of invention by Hahnemann himself; the scientificity of Homoeopathy is still a great challenge to its practitioners; treatment results and statistical inference were sought to support its theories which were more based on individualization and this concept of individualization itself is a great limitation to the system.
In spite of all these limitations/ criticisms, Homeopathy has been in the world since two centuries and it stood test of time because it is true. These concepts whether the present medical science in that mater the science itself is able to accept or prove or not or even by applying the logic that these are concept based observations or hypotheses but it is a fact that these are demonstrable facts.
It is also a fact that we should accept some of the mistakes of our own professionals giving a chance for the criticism, with due apologies to the professionals colleagues.

On Philosophy:
1. Failure of the present medical system or the practitioners of homoeopathy to explain some of its theories like, theory of dynamisation, theory of Vital force, theory of Chronic diseases etc so called semi philosophical and semi scientific theories.

Lack of institutional support:
1. Inability to establish Homoeopathy as complete health care system based on the need of the hour.
2. Lack of support form industry, research, education institutions and the profession.
3. Inability to asses the Quality of Homoeopathic medicines.

On education:
1. Mushroom growth of educational institutions with young doctors in the teaching institutions.
2. Improper planning of academics, in spite four or five decades of establishment.
3. Difference of curriculum among institutions though there is one monitoring institutions.
4. Lack of exchange of information from the agencies, and only very few are Aware that what that the many organizations like central research units are doing? What for the research work is meant if they are not sharing with the profession? Or the state controlled units?

On Materia Medica:
1. Subjective observation orientated Drug proving on the basis of which the Materia Medica is developed, at the cost of human error which is likely in spite of best care.
2. Failure of the system or its practitioners to explain the mode of action of Homoeopathic medicine.
3. The shelf life of homoeopathic medicines remains question of great point of discussion.
On practitioners:
• Different schools of thought among Homoeopaths only due to poor direction. There are
Puritan Homoeopaths, classical Homoeopaths, complex Homoeopaths, Polyphramacy Homoeopaths, Hahnemanian Homoeopaths, Kentian, and Boenninghausen etc.
• Single dose practitioners’ vs multiple dose practitioners.
• Different schools of homeopathy Classical homeopathy, predictive homoeopathy, revolutionized homeopathy etc.
• High potency prescriber and low potency prescribers.
• Keynote prescriber to intuitive prescriber and people go with the repertorial approaches
• Adjuvant therapies like, tautopathy, Biochemical, mother tincture prescribers and as well critics of all these.

This list goes on. Many times with all these varied approach in homoeopathy we are leading confusion among the student community itself and forget about the person interested in homoeopathy and the learner. It is right for the practitioners of the system to sit on a common platform to discuss and not to leave that does all these differ in homoeopathy and does all these advocate something different in homoeopathy?

__________________
Murthy

So, um, that's all well and good, but what are you selling?

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

Mr Murthy,

All that you mentioned is correct, but how & who will tie the bell in cat's neck,is to be considered first.

I, sometimes, feel that the basic logic of all social, environmental, medical & other problems is just only one and i.e ' Mighty Over-Population '. How to deal with it is a root cause of all problems. If we feel that there is any Over-Population of anything in Homeopathy, we should first solve that problem. I think, Dr.Schuessler was very intellegent to understand this future problem in advance.

I may be wrong in some sense but not in absolute sense,which I only think like so.

[ 16. October 2003, 05:41: Message edited by: kayveeh ]

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Yes you are wrong.

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

Yes! I am wrong in saying that I may be wrong.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Do you think all of those different KINDS of homeopathy are valid, that Hahnemann validated them or would, that we should unite, that...

What does the list mean?

What are your conclusions?

And Hering said in his last paper that the enemy was pseudo-homeopaths, so are you defending them?

[ 25. October 2003, 20:41: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B