Homeopaths have divided homeopathy into too many classes e.g classical homeopathy, Hahnemannian Homeopathy, Kentinian Homeopathy, Advanced Homeopathy, Combination Homeopathy and Applied Homeopathy etc. Who divided this system into many branches? I have experience of sitting with allopath, they have no problem with homeopathy. They accept and acknowledge homeopathic status. Then who is the enemy of homeopathy?

Homeopaths
or
Allopaths

__________________
Homeo Dr. Rasheed Khan,
M.A (Pol Sci), M.A (Islamiat), M.A (History), DHMS (4 years)
Registered Homeopath in NCH, Pakistan
Member of P.H.S, PHDA, HPCA & PHMA.

Apathy, laziness, ignorance, to name a few. These can apply to anyone.

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

To know the awnser, we may have to first find out the reasons of dividing this system into many branches. Are those reasons valid or not?

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

I may be attributing this to the wrong person, but I think it was either Julian Winston or Dana Ullman. Someone mentioned the Flexnor Report in the early 1900s as being the downfall of homeopathy in the US. He countered that it was actually the infighting amoung the homeopaths that brought them down.


If you think about it, it takes someone who is rather individualistic and independent to become a homeopath in the first place and buck the allopathic trend. And then we turn around and expect these highly individualistic, independent people to then become team players when it comes to homeopathy. Maybe we should accept the fact that most homeopaths are iconoclastic and not get on each other's case about how we practice.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

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

Lisa, I agree. I wasn't even considering the eclectics to be homeopath! I think we are in agreement that homeopathy has to be a single remedy, based on the totality, using provings, and potentised. But within that limit, there is a lot of infighting. I also thing that independent individualists can also be team players, but it's much easier psychologically for an independent person to not care about what others think and do their own thing. Even within the famous and successful, there seems to be constant bickering about who is Hahnamannian enough to be called Hahnemannian; who is not, i.e., Kent, Sankaran, Vithoulkas, etc.; low potency vs. high potency; 5th edition vs 6th edition; and on and on.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Hi Shirley,
What is eclectic? Especially nowadays?
Sigh.
Everyone goes in circles and I personally wish there was some governing body (although it would have to have sound, experienced homeopaths at the helm) who could come to a consensus on definitions (for a start!).

What gets me is that there IS this attitude of loose interpretation - with the Organon itself. And some of the 'popular approaches' to homeopathy are really not within the principles. But, speak out against them - and you get verbally lynched and labelled as some kinda rigid crack. Notice; I'm not naming any names. Wait til I'm 80-something and vewy vewy experienced.

Anyway, it's an interesting topic, for sure. Much to ponder.

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

For starters, I consider the eclectics to be all the people who use combos and mix remedies with herbs and other stuff - same as the early 1900's. Then there are the isopaths who call themselves homeopaths. On the other hand, people like Sankaran and Ramakrishnan are not what I would call Hahnemannian, but I would certainly consider them homeopaths. Then there are the low potency and high potency, 5th edition and 6th edition, all of whom I would consider homeopaths. I would probably not consider sequential therapists homeopaths - more in the line with isopaths, but there are a lot of new ideas, such as Hescu's cycles and segmants that I would consider within the realm of homeopathy. Just because it wasn't in the Organon doesn't mean much to me. If H had lived 250 years, who knows what else he would have come up with. I think there is a lot of leeway in case analysis (what is to be cured in a particular case) and in understanding remedies; and we have hardly touched the surface of all there is to know.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

This is something which is important to note relating to future research/additions after him.

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

Shirley words counts here and I appreciate her feelings and thoughts. I also think, there is no problem with allopath. They have appreciated our cured cases. Only one point from them is valid i.e they demand concrete evidence in support our claim. She also said "On the other hand, people like Sankaran and Ramakrishnan are not what I would call Hahnemannian, but I would certainly consider them homeopaths. " My opinion is only Hahnemannian is actually homeopathy.

__________________
Homeo Dr. Rasheed Khan,
M.A (Pol Sci), M.A (Islamiat), M.A (History), DHMS (4 years)
Registered Homeopath in NCH, Pakistan
Member of P.H.S, PHDA, HPCA & PHMA.