I felt moved to post this after a conversation recently with a local Homoeopath. This classical Homoeopath said that she used techniques that were not classical i.e. Hahnemannian because they worked but that she would never publish a paper on them because the Society (SHom) would throw a wobbly and maybe expel her. For example she uses non-indicates intercurrents along with the indicated remedy to treat cancer, and horror of hoorors has even prescribed a combination remedy!

Isn't it crazy that 2 or 3 hundred years on Homoeopathy feels unable to move beyond the work of its founder? Don't get me wrong, I'm not attacking Hahnemann, his work was inspired and forms a solid basis for the future, but what future is there for homoeopathy if we refuse to acknowledge the great efforts of the past and look to the future. I practice naturopathic nutrition, I have studied, acknowledge and incorporate the work of people like Lindlahr but I would not dismiss a new idea because it went against his ideas; who knows how Lindlahr or indeed Hahnemann would view the problems facing today's would be healers?

I guess what I'm advocating is that the Organon continues to be studied and forms the basis of our philosophy but isn't there room for accepting those who dare to go outside of its boundaries, those who dare to suggest a few amendments to the constitution?

Dave

Even Hahnemann changed his mind! the difference in 5th & 6th Organon showed that.I think that what he was trying to show us was that Homeopathy whilst based on its fundamental law was able to evolve and should still be evolving (within the laws) to cope with the change in our world.
I'm sure that Hahnemann would have considered that some of our modern practices to be quite insane.....adding dangerous chemicals to our food and water(such as fluoride or aspartame) on a daily basis is just one thing to consider. Compare this to the early homeopaths asking patients to consider not eating various foods (which would have been considered "whole foods" by today's standards)when taking a particular remedy.
If the Organon is revisited, it actually makes more sense. When looked at and compared with Kent and Boenninghausen's Lesser writings, with each reading, more is revealed. Also keep in mind that in their day a high potency was 200c and today we have complexes of the metal remedies on the market that have potencies up to 10M (marketed as Homeopathic formulas for correcting imbalances in the body.)
We have so many more people with access to allopathic medicines of a greater variety than in Hahnneman's day and hence more people have their vital force deranged and therefore a greater range of sensitivities to the remedies.
Even though modern masters such as Vithoulkas, Bailey and Sankaran wax and wane in popularity, their works are based upon the Hahnemann's Organon. Who is to know if the modern homeopaths who are prominent at the moment will stand the test of time? Dunham and his Therapeutics were quite popular in his time,(as were others I'm sure) but when I was at college,he was looked down on as a bit dull and boring.
(Ooops.... a bit of a ramble and there's homework to supervise and dinner to cook..)

dave, My feelings on this subject are very strong. If you read about Hahnemann's life you will see that it was one long evolution of experimentation.
He experimented with all the potencies that were available to him. (Actually Ozzie, according to his wife, Melanie, he used up to the 1M)
He also experimented with remedies that he had succussed himself compared to the other succussion methods of the day.
He experimented with the dry dose and the remedy in medicinal solution.
He was also interested in linking other healing modalities into his work. For example, mineral magnetism, massage, mesmerism, pure water baths, galvanism (I'm not sure yet exactly what that entails). One of his closest friends, who was godparent to one of his kids, influenced him greatly in the area of clairvoyance. As well, he gave good common sense naturopathic advice on diet and lifestyle.
On the suggestion of other homoeopaths he also experimented with combining remedies.
At the end of all of this, a lifelong pursuit, the fruit of all his labours is the 6th edition of the Organon. This is the one in which he is personally satisfied that he has accomplished and perfected his methods.

He encouraged his followers to pursue research.

He only got to use LM's in the last 3 years of his life. Modern day homoeopaths have used them for a lot longer! So in this sense we already have moved beyond his experience.
But if you go outside of the fundamental laws which define classical homoeopathic practice, the law of similars, the single remedy, the mimimum dose, Hering's Laws, and also if you fail to recognize that the remedies have been proved to provide individualiation in healing sickness, then I don't see how it can be 'homoeopathy' anymore. It's another branch of allopathy.

So my main concern is if homoeopathy is misrepresented. I believe that everyone who practises the art because of their own life experiences contributes to and moves homoeopathy forward. It's not a static thing, it can't not evolve.

chrisg

Dave, I think your local homoeopath is being a bit melodramatic because a very famous homoeopathic doctor, Dr Ramakrishnan has developed a non-classical protocol for treating cancer, which might be similar to what she is using - and the Soc Hom doesn't mind that.
In my opinion, these remedies can help in a crisis situation such as swiftly developing terminal illness, when the similimum cannot be found. They can buy time.
They are no substitute for finding the similimum though, in due course, and it is essential to keep careful notes of the original symptoms so that that can be discovered.
But if you think about how the "non-indicated" remedies are working, if they are not given on homoeopathic indications then it is a type of suppression or at best, partial cure. It is second best to Hahnemannian homoeopathy which is a coherent and 100% rational way to achieve a genuine cure.
It hinges on "This classical Homoeopath said that she used techniques that were not classical i.e. Hahnemannian because they worked"...which depends on her definition of "worked".

You know, Chris posted something on another thread that made me realize just how right Hahnemann was. Chris said that he wanted to continue to learn how he could cure using Hahnemann's methods, and learn how to do this well...instead of dwell on how Classical or Hahnemannian methods purportedly "don't" work. I want to do the same thing as Chris.

Why? Well, to me it is quite revealing that Hahnemann's system has remained constant in its principles for over 200 years. In contrast, allopathic medicine (which includes naturopathy, in my opinion) is constantly changing its footings. In Hahnemann's time, doctors wanted to eradicate the "materia pecans" from the body by bloodletting--the "bad material" was in the blood, in the humours of the body...therefore it had to be purged in order for the body to be cured. Surgery, too, developed out of this belief. Of course, many people died of this kind of cure....then, the materia pecans became some kind of organism...a germ; so, vaccines were developed, and then anti-biotics; next, they discovered that viruses just don't respond to anti-biotics, so more vaccines have been developed. Now scientists and doctors are convinced the "materia pecans" is no longer a germ or a virus, it exists in the genes...So, every 50 years or so, the whole slate gets cleaned off in allopathic medicine, and everyone has to get the new set of treatments to address the same old illnesses.

The one consistency in allopathy is this focus on the "material" substance believed to cause the disease...but everything else about the medical practice has flip-flopped through the centuries. The result is just the same as it was in Hahnemann's time: many, many people die every year of these "therapies"; and, at the very best, patients can look forward to a burgeoning number of suppressive treatments for their initially rather minor ailments the older they get (don't believe this? Read some of the stockholder newsletters investors get from brokers selling pharmaceutical shares--they are trading on the fact that patients will need lifelong supplies of more and more drugs in order to "manage" their ailments and the side effects caused by the drugs they use for "treatment". These shares are among the most valuable on the market).

All the while, Hahnemann's homeopathy has been elegant in its effectiveness because it is based on a natural law--not some theory. Homeopathic scientific process is inductive, for the most part (okay, Chronic Diseases is deductive...but it has yet to be disproved). There is enough that is being written and discussed and taught right now that is seemingly revolutionary in homeopathy, but it really comes right out of what Hahnemann taught and practiced (I'm talking about Sankaran and Scholten here). To me, the potential for healing in homeopathy far outweighs the potential for healing in any other treatment method. Why not learn to use Hahnemann's method as well as possible? Why resort to the guesswork of allopathy and polypharmacy?

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Anna, I think you have hit on something there when you say "definition of 'worked'". I have seen people come to me from other therapists, including people who call have told their patients they are homoeopaths, who have been given 6-8 remedies at once, to be taken 3 times/day, or a mixture of remedies and herbal preparations, or bach flowers or whatever. The practitioner would tell them that the treatment is working because their rash has moved to a different spot, or they have diarrhoea now, or they sweat heavily instead of having a heavy period, or that their sleeplessness is an improvment over their psoriasis. But here the patient is with me, obviously no better. Now some of these people have been to someone who gives a single remedy prescribed classically too.

The problem is that they have no idea when someone is getting well, or they are not being honest about it. Many therapists seem to spend alot of time convincing their patients that the treatment is working. The patient himself will even say " I am better since I saw them", but by looking at Direction of Cure, you can see the patient is either no better at all or they are worse.

Many times when I am discussing with another practitioner whatever method of dosage or prescribing they prefer, I find that they are not looking for the same result I am. They seem to think the symptoms just going away is fine, the patient is happy so that is enough. If we are to have any meaningful comparison and debate about combinations, complexes, drainage, etc, there would have to be agreement on what is meant to happen when the treatment "works".

That is not to say that single remedy in the minimum dose according to the law of similars is the ONLY way cure can happen. But I would like to see the other methods get the same result - improvement on all levels according to the Direction of Cure - before I was satisfied to practice that way. And I have experimented a little, but with no real success.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.

My credo is: "the best remedy is the one that works" - and after reading this thread, I want to second what David wrote. The definition of "working" has to be in accordance with the "direction of cure", otherwise it could be "anything"...

I don't believe that Hahnemann wanted homeopaths not to be creative, on the contrary, I understand his thriving to have been one of relentless creativity, inspiration and experimentation. That in itself is not wrong. However, he was kind enough to leave through the Organon the foundation, the playground so to speak on which to frolic. Yes, go out and play, find new ways, but stick to the basic laws, for they are not just suggestions, they are natural laws, proven and established. We don't have to reinvent the wheel !

Claudia

I agree with some of what is being put forward. Anna, its nice to hear a Homoeopath say that non-homoeopathic and even suppressive measures can be useful in certain circumstances. I remember your thoughts about the availability of cheaper drugs in SA and I agreed with you then too.

I'm not convinced though that everything that is not classical homoeopathy is perforce suppressive (is that what allopathic means Divina?). I believe it is possible to use therapies to support the vital force and strenghten it, maybe without giving it the direction that homoeopathy can though. For example if an autistic child is taken off of gluten and casein and as a result is able to function and experience life more fully is that suppressive? Alternatively, in extremis, if a child is suffering from severe vitamin deficiency (they still exist even in Western countries) then what homoeopathic remedy is going to enable his metabolism to function correctly? Sorry if I'm going off the subject a bit.

I do agree with what you say David about needing to be certain about what a therapy working really means. But in my experience not only classical homoeopathy works in accordance with Herings Law. I know someone who used the Gerson treatment to rid herself of malignant melanoma and her experiences were in accordance with Herings Law which isn't suprising since the therapy is a massive invigoration and detox enabling the vital force to heal from within.

Sorry if I've lost the thread a bit here.

Dave

Hi Dave,

"Allopathic" is most often a treatment method
which results in suppression. Supportive therapies can help to "do some of the work" to help a homeopathic remedy be more effective, but they do not act as deeply as homeopathy; the effects also tend to be temporary (that is, you'll see improvement as long as you maintain the strict regimen). This is especially true of nutritional changes: I've seen and heard of many cases of cancer which have been treated beneficially with nutritional changes, detox, supplementation, etc--and sadly, once the regimen is stopped amelioration also stopped. I suspect the same thing happens with the casein and gluten restricted diets--one sees great improvement in the state of the autistic child, but only as long as these foods are restricted. With homeopathy, it is very commonplace to see the sensitivities caused by these foods become less of an issue, and eventually disappear entirely. As for dietary insufficiencies such as poor nutrient absorption, that is also easily addressed with homeopathy. Offhand I recall one post written by David Little, who has done a great deal of work with many patients suffering from nutrient deficiencies, in which he detailed how a child given an appropriate remedy began to increase his vigor, weight, and strength with no change to his meagre diet of staple food--rice, a small amount of fish, and some green vegetables, if available. Maybe suppressive is not the right word for these therapies--maybe palliative is. In any case, they are all allopathic because they all approach the treatment of dis-ease the same way, in that medicines or nutrients are used to "counter" the present state in the patient. They do not create a similar "dis-ease", stronger than the one in the patient, which becomes cancelled out by the remedy's greater disease strength, as Hahnemann says. Allopathic medicines just create another disease, which overshadows the original one but never removes it. A much more complex disease results.

Of course, there is a time and place for some allopathic treatments. If I have a patient who happily subsists on coca cola and french fries, then I will gladly put him or her on a diet which expands the variety of foods consumed (often I won't see the patient willingly choose those foods, however, until their remedy begins to effect them on an overall level!). I advise patients to stay away from foods which disturb them...at least until the remedy's curative action becomes clear, and we know the tendency for a sensitivity will be cleared up. Certainly, in the case of an autistic child, I would definitely recommend avoiding the dairy foods and the gluten foods all together, until we see definite improvement in the case as a result of the remedy given.

I even recommend supplements to certain patients for a limited amount of time--supplements such as EFAs, minerals, enzymes, whatever is appropriate. I would rather a patient resort to some herbal remedies they could prepare themselves from the plant source than turn to some chemical-laden concoction to help them get through a recurrent problem, such as occasional heartburn or skin irritation, or a sudden inability to sleep well. Herbs are at least well known, historically, for their effects on certain ailments, and have the benefits of many centuries of use behind them: I can't same the same thing with any certainty about many pharmaceutical preparations.

But my point about allopathic medicine in general focuses more on its history of theoretical foundations...which have, for the most part, been inconsistent. Allopathic medical systems cannot really assess progress to cure because they define cure as a type of successful suppression...worse still, the target of the suppression always changes.

In any case, I do know Hering's Law should apply to all healing modalities--allopathy included. But there, it can't apply. I have seen it work, to some extent, in Chinese medical therapies (Chinese medicine itself have many parallels with homeopathy) and in some comprehensive nutrition therapies such as the Gerson you mention. I know of at least one herbalist who watches for the same results when treating her patients as well.

Divina

__________________
...and deliverance has many faces<br />but grace<br />is an aquaintance of mine

Dear Dave,

I really have to agree with what Anna said.
Dr. Ramakrishnan has indeed written a book about his very unorthodox cancer treatment, co-authored by Catherine Coulter. If your homeopath friend gets consistant results with a protocol that isn't arbitrary, that is based on "clearly comprehensible principles", I don't know of any conference that wouldn't want her or him as a speaker, or any journal that wouldn't want to publish her or him.

The truth is Dave, you see the letters that come into this board. Letters that start with, "Help! My homeopath prescribed Lycopodium 1M once a week, and now my hair is falling out! What should I do?"

You know what I'm saying? When people on this board advise, "You should see a local homeopath", I cringe. I think to myself, "This person is a lot safer right here!"

So, I would have to hear more about your friend's treatment break-through before agreeing or disagreeing that she or he would be run out of town by the establishment if only they knew.

Sincerely,

Snoopy

[ 10 May 2001: Message edited by: Snoopy ]