why do so many classical homeopaths ridicule the other methods like layers, tautopathy and therapeutics.
surely in this day and age of mass vaccinations allopathic drugs and coutless toxins, methods like organ drainage and therapeutic remedies for deep pathlogies are more important than ever.
some pateints are so damaged by toxins and drugs that they do not have the energy to put out a constitutional picture and these other methods are needed to peel away the layers. if a person has tumours then a totality classical remedy will not be of much use, where a well chosen theraputic with an affinity for the disease process will be far more usefull.
could it be many of these "classical" homeopaths who refuse to learn or use other methods need a dose of veratrum.
we know kent had problems with deep pathologies because of his beliefs while burnett and eizayago could cure remarkable pathologies.
I am not knocking classical homepathy as it has proved its worth and still does today but surely we should be more open minded and use appropriate methods that work for the individual.

Hahnemann said that we should prescribe on the totality of symptoms and that we treat people and NOT 'disease processes'. If you give a remedy on the totality of symptoms, the organs ARE drained. Hahnemann also said that when the symptoms change, you change the remedy. he did not call it 'layers', but the same principle applies. Eyzegaya applies hahnemann's laws and no 'classical homoeopath' will deny its correctness. So the 'classical' homoeopath does not suffer from short-sightedness or narrow-mindedness, but understands that the patient is the focus of attention and not the fancy name of the disease or the treatment. Thus a patient who 'does not have the energy to present a constitutional picture' has a constitution which is very weak. That in itself is one of the symptoms only and not the sole criterion for treatment.
By sticking to Hahnemann's laws and principles, the classical homoeopath does exactly what you describe, while much 'new-fangled' terminology is preoccupied with allopathic terminology and methods, in focusing not on the patient as the center of investigation. That is what the 'classicals' rail against - wrong methods based on wrong focus. Kent, who had no rpoblems with any heavy pathology as I understand from him, used to say:

“Anything that looks away from exactitude is unscientific. The physician must be classical; everything must be methodical. Science ceases to be scientific when disorderly application of the law is made.”
(Lesser Writings pg. 645)

Homoeopathy is a science and not a fashion which changes according to the fancy of the prescriber.

“Therefore disease, considered as a thing separate from the living whole, from the or-ganism and its animating vital force and hidden in the interior, be it of ever so subtle a character, is an absurdity that could only be imagined by minds of the materialistic stamp.”
(Organon # 13)

It is clear that 'drainage' and 'organ therapy' belong in this class as 'disease considered as a thing separate from the whole.' It is not the organ which is sick, but the person and his symptoms MAY BE concentrated in a particular organ. However, Hahnemann says that for the organ to be sick, the whole man must be riddled with disease first, before any local symptom can manifest itself.

And further:

“The natural disease is never to be considered as a noxious material situated somewhere in the exterior or interior.”
(Organon # 148)

Thus it is not ever focused on any particular organ that needs to be drained. It is also not a toxin, either from drugs or so-called disease producers, like viruses, bacteria or microbes.

“Most doctors have gone crazy over the ‘vicious microbe’ as being the cause of disease and think the little fellows exceedingly dangerous,”

says Kent. He continues:

“As a matter of fact, the microbes are scavengers. I wonder if scientists reflect when they make statements about bacteria. Naturally they would say that the more bacteria the more danger, but this is not so. It is well known that shortly after death a prick from the scalpel is a serious matter. This is due to the ptomaines of the corpse; but when the cadaver has become green and filled with bacteria it is comparatively harmless. The microbe is not the cause of disease. We should not be carried away by these idle allopathic dreams and vain imaginations, but should correct the vital force. The bacterium is an innocent feller and if he carries disease, he carries the simple substance, which causes disease, just as an elephant would.”
(Kent. Lesser Writings, pg. 663)

Sufficient adulation of the substitute – i.e. the virus and the bacteria and other microorganisms, the disease or the organ as the focus of attention – has become the aim of the researcher. Ignoring the existence of the real thing and even its possibility, is as effective for practical purposes as if it were not there. The following story is illustrative of this mentality.
In Khartoum there was a statue of General Gordon, mounted on a camel. A little boy used to visit the statue with his nanny almost every day. One day the boy and his family were going to move to Cairo to live. So the nanny took the boy to say goodbye to General Gordon. The boy said: “I’m not going to see you for a long time General. I’m going to move.” Then he turned to the nanny and said: “And what do I say to that guy on General Gordon’s back?” Similarly, 'new-fangled homoeopaths' assume things about knowledge of medicine, without ever considering that their view may be inconsistent with real circumstances. Thus it could be said that the 'new-fangled terminology' is a sign of narrow-mindedness in its focus on the organ, or the toxin as the so-called seat of disease. Therefore:

“… diseases are nothing more than alterations in the state of health of the *individual*, which express themselves by morbid signs.”
(Organon # 19)

The individual is thus at all times the focus of attention and 'drainage', 'detoxification' and other fanciful schemes are not homoeopathy, but 'idle allopathic dreams.'

Please do not understand me wrong - anything that increases my understanding of the treatment of the person I and with me all classical homoeopaths, accept. Anything that leads us astray from the patient as the focus of attention we must condemn as not homoeopathic. As for tautopathy, or isopathy, Hahnemann was the inventor: Plumbum for lead workers, Sepia for artists, Graphites for pencil makers, and so on and so forth. The nosodes, like Psorinum , Tuberculinum, Medorhinum etc., are accepted by all homoeopaths and those that do not accept them, do not deserve to bear the name.


[This message has been edited by Ben Rozendal (edited 06 August 1999).]

Thankyou for your reply . i believe the goal of homeopathy is not to be right or scientific, it is to cure people in the easiest quickest way.Kent placed many rules on homeopathy to try to fit it into his religous beliefs and indeed did pronounce many people incurable because his belief systems did not allow him to cure them.He declared many other homeopaths as "mongrels".
You must be aware of the thousands of cases of "totality" remedies being given and their is no improvement untill that pateints "poison" is discoverd.
For example i know of someone who saw 5 classical homeopaths who all gave fundamental/constitutional remedies and missed the fact that he had a lot of mercury fillings and only after visiting a homeopath who had been trained in the so called "other methods" was he given hepar which totaly cured him.
Do you include this scenario in your evaluation of individual totality?
We have learned so much more about homeopathy since hahnermann and he himself was always updating his own understanding.
in his later writings he writes chronic diseases are seldom cured by a single remedy but may require several.
There is so much more to homeopathy than totality prescribing and we only give names to the different methods for strategic purposes.
My experience that the totality/constitutional or fundamental remedy will "cure" any organ is simply not true and a remedy that has a specific action on the poison or patholgy is needed, why is`nt this homeopathy? as you must know remedies can do specific tasks so why should we hide behind a lot of dogma and self rightousness and say this is not how hahnermann said it was.
if a child has never been well since the DPT
and dosen`t respond to any other remedy but DPT in potency would you class this as classical prescribing?

Totality of symptoms means a great deal and includes of course mercury fillings. I have a patient whose gums started bleeding because he has so many of these fillings, it almost rots his gums. So I prescribed Mercury in potency and he improved considerably. As long as the fillings are not removed, he will relapse. And as for your belief that the goal is cure, rather than being right: HE WHO CURES *IS* RIGHT! The two cannot be separated. It is dangerous to rely on belief, for belief may be suspended at any time, while laws are eternal and the rightness of cure is based on laws.

And a child who needs the nosode to antidote a DTP vaccine is certainly classical homoeopathy. Dogma means to me that a person has a certain way of thinking which does not allow any other ideas to enter. Kent made too many rpovings on himself in too short a time and was a very grumpy man because of it. That may explain his intolerance towards other methods, but he railed against the 'mongrels' as mixopaths and exclusive low potency users. He also thought that you could cure a person completely with a single remedy, which goes against Hahnemann.

Cure is our high and only mission as hahnemann so aptly states. But we cannot leave out the science, at least not in my experience. Your example of the person with the mercury fillings only goes to show that not everyone is thoroughly scientific and may neglect such things. I also take in consideration the environment in which a person lives. Here in Oz, the Aborigenies live mainly in the desert and it is significant that they need Silica a great deal. Many of the sands here contain aluminium, and this manifests itself in the symptoms of these people. In the western part of Oz, Iron is a major constituent of the soil (it is mined for that reason). All the indigenous people living there have issues with work, which Jan Scholten discovered to be a major part of Ferrum metallicum pathology, in the mental sphere.
In the coastal areas you see more Nat.m. and sea-remedies than in the interior, simply because the environment has that type of influence. So to my understanding, the totality includes everything you can possibly discover about a person.

To return again to your example, did the patient tell the other homoeopaths about his fillings, or was the last one so bright to ask and thus remind him? My experience is that even the most thorough anamnesis leaves out certain things, simply because a patient does not remember, or it is forgotten in questioning. Often on the second visit people remember things that they have not mentioned the first time.

My experience is that if I prescribe on the totslity presented before me, the sick organs DO get cured and toxins DO get eliminated - rather the opposite of what you say. The art comes after years of sticking to the science and the laws. If we neglect the laws, we are sick ourselves, for than we go against the laws of the heart, which govern in my understanding all healing. To heal means to me to make whole and holy, the true menaing of healing. To me, to stick with the laws is the antithesis of dogmatism, as dogmatism does not recognise laws but is founded on opinions.

In an analogy we can see what opinions are worth - and I do not mean to offend you, as I do not think this applies to you. Opinions are like the anus - everybody has got one and all are full of excrement. Opinions do not cure people, but remedies prescribed on totality do - and not neessarily one remedy only. If it is a child, you MAY be able to cure with a single remedy, but there is no guarantee you will. Considering the miasms, we will see that most people are riddled with all three from birth, so a single remedy is out of the question as the ultimate cure. So we cannot neglect the laws, as set out by hahnemann, but we can expand homoeopathy within that set of laws. Homoeopathy was not finished with hahnemann, and I think it never will. At the same time, even though he expanded on his own system, he never abandoned the laws he discovered and remained the greatest scientist of his century. It is because of that that he could expand. If he ahd abandoned his discoveries of eternal laws of nature, homoeopathy would have died a quiet death.

[This message has been edited by Ben Rozendal (edited 07 August 1999).]

yeah this is great discussion. I really do have to agree with you too Ben especially the line about homoeopathy being a science and not a fashionable flux of personal egos. Just the other day I was accused of being "TOO KENTIAN"?? SO 5th edition organon I guess??!!!

To me, all the edition have their own intrinsic value, as they display the development of though and science, as conceived by Hahnemann. I understand that each potency has its value in appropriate situations and that we cannot rely on the LM alone. If you read the book "in Search of the Later Hanemann,' you find that even though he had finalised his ideas on LM, although not necessarily fully written out, he kept using the other potencies as well. So we have to keep an open mind, but never neglect the laws. Hahnemann and Kent railed against the mixopaths, because they had found it does not teach you anything and it can be dangerous, especially if repeated oft and over long periods. This is exactly what is happening - look on the labels of the complexes:"5 drops every 3 hours for 1 week." Would make a beautiful proving. That is not homoeopathy, but allopathic quackery. I like being accused of being too Kentian, too Heringian or Hahnemannian. It gives me the confidence I am doing it right! It is a compliment to me. So yes *please*, try to call me that, which in their eyes in an insult. They are followers of Hughes and Dudgeon, who could not believe that anything over 30c could do anything. They misunderstand the aphorism that says: 'the dose can never be small enough.' But it is folly to be wise, where ignorance is bliss. However, if this is so, (the bliss of ignorance) why don't they look happier?

Albert Einstein: " i know only two things that are unlimited, the first is the universe, the other is mans stupidity, and the first i am not certain of".
J.T Kent: "every ignorant man/woman thinks that what he/she knows, is the end of knowledge".
Nietzhe: "every man/woman, creates his/her own world".
Remedy for rigidity, Granite 1M, suitable to use for "cl assicals".

About the latter Hahnemann:http://www.simillimum.com/home.html

Einstein: "If only I would have known, I would have become a watch-maker."

Relevance: I Belive that last Quote of Einstein, was after the A bomb, not after homeopathy.
And that dont excuse a homeopat when doing things that can be similar in zize....