How many on this board say there is need of changes or ammendments in homeopathic rules or principles. We should accept new changes made in homeopathy?

YES or NO

__________________
<b>With warmest regards<br />Q.T</b>

Excuses, nonhandling still well the forum, I answered in another place, under the title "slowly". Greetings

I find Jumma's statement more attractive and realistic.

__________________
Dr. Inam Ullah Mirza, DHMS, MD, Ph.D
Member National Council for Homoeopathy *NCH*
& Chairman Research Committee
Ministry of Heatlh, Govt of Pakistan

After agreeing with organon. You can make changes. Remember after agreeing with organon. If you will agree then there will be no changes needed. :razz:

__________________
KN

Yo pienso que cuando Hahnemann decía: "imitadme, pero imitadme bien", se refería justamente a esto, que hay que avanzar, revisarse constantemente como él lo hizo y podemos comprobar por sus seis ediciones del Organón.
Sin embargo, muchos dentro de la homeopatía, tienen avidez de ser considerados "maestros" y desde mi punto de vista "inventan" homeopatía. Las leyes, son las leyes y en el caso de la homeopatía, son leyes naturales que no cambian, como no cambia la ley de la gravedad, y hablo de la ley de la semejanza, la ley de curación de Hering, etc. Lo demás, prescripción, dosificación, materia médica, etc.,etc.... bienvenida sea toda investigación, aunque eso suponga poner boca abajo lo conocido. Investigar, revisar, cuestionar, dudar.... Si, inventar homeopatía, reglas y leyes, no.
Saludos.
....
Sorry por escribir en mi idioma. En inglés solo sale esto:
..
I feel to write in my language, but in English single it leaves this:

I think that when Hahnemann said: "imitadme, but imitadme", talked about exactly this well, that there is to advance, to review constantly as he did it and we can verify by his six editings of the Organón. Nevertheless, many within the homeopatía, have avidity of being considered "masterful" and from my point of view "they invent" homeopatía. The laws, are the laws and in the case of the homeopatía, they are natural laws that they do not change, as it does not change the law of the gravity, and I speak of the law of the similarity, the law of treatment of Hering, etc. The others, prescription, metering, medical matter, etc., etc.... welcome is all investigation, although that supposes to put mouth down the well-known. To investigate, to review, to question, to doubt.... If, to invent homeopatía, rules and laws, no. Greetings

Well said Opium, exactly what I was thinking. We must stay true to the natural laws or else disprove them.

Don't campare lllllaaaww of similia with the law of gravity.

Funny law of similia similibus has been disapproved by the whole world community. it is not a law. Only homeopaths are calling them as a law. No body else (Scientist) is interested in this so called law. READ MY MAILS IN AGGREGATES and see the disapproval reasons.

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

Gallileo Gallilei knew, through observation, that the world was in fact not the centre of the universe. He knew, through observation, that in fact, the earth and many other planetary bodies revolved around the sun, and that the sun was just one of many heavenly bodies which created similar systems throughout the universe.

He knew this hundreds and hundreds and hundreds of years ago. He knew it because he was a scientist who observed and recorded his own observations and could prove his observations to be true just by showing everyone his recorded facts.

So, he showed his peers, other scientists. Those who could understand what he was saying agreed with him. Those who aligned themselves with the powers of the Roman Catholic Church, and the powers of the Pope at the time (who, you must remember, owned all the teaching/science/social institutions of the time) did as they were told and did not believe Gallileo Gallilei. The Church needed to have everyone believe that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that the entire universe functioned around it alone.

Because the Church was threatened by Gallileo's clear observation of the truth, they tortured him, denounced him and his work as stupidity, and told the world that Gallileo was no scientist, just a mad fool. The world, or those people in it who needed to continue their acceptance by the church agreed with the Pope, and denounced Gallileo too. So for hundreds of years after Gallileo's work, the western world continued to believe that the earth was the centre of the universe, and that the Catholic Church and the science they owned was exactly the way the universe existed. Despite evidence. Despite the fact that things didn't seem to make sense, then, according to their own observations. People just did as they were told, kept their eyes down, and denounced Gallileo as a charlatan. Because the Church, and Science, told them to.

Don't you think this story is interesting? I think it makes a hell of a metaphor for what the "whole world", the "real" scientists, think about homeopathy's Law of Similars. Which, by the way, is just like the Law of Gravity.

Do you know that the Catholic Church, no longer anywhere near as controlling of science as it used to be (but still quite involved with it), is still deciding whether, 600 years later, they ought to apologize for Gallileo's treatment at the hands of the Church and the scientific community it owned back then...and possibly consider admitting he was right about the earth revolving around the sun? They still can't concede the fact...and are probably hoping for the return of the "good old days" when they could force everyone into compliance with the idea that the earth is the moral centre of the universe, and the Church on earth is the moral centre of the world...and therefore the church should have all the power.

I guess the long and the short of it is, who cares what the ignorant believe, especially when there are such heavily vested interests profitting from maintaining their ignorance?

[ 30. October 2002, 15:48: Message edited by: Divina ]

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

No estoy de acuerdo con usted Dr. Mas, quizá en la homeopatía que usted conoce no hay reglas, en la que yo conozco sí las hay.
Que la comunidad científica “oficial” no reconozca esas leyes no me dice absolutamente nada, los científicos “oficiales” deciden qué es ciencia y qué no es ciencia, y lo hacen según criterios muchas veces que nada tienen que ver con la ciencia, se trata de un consenso que entremezcla muchas motivaciones, políticas e incluso de moda. Que la ciencia “oficial”no pueda demostrar que hay nada en nuestros remedios no significa que no haya nada en nuestros remedios, que la ciencia “oficial” no reconozca la ley de la semejanza no significa que no sea una ley natural y científica. No confundamos ciencia “oficial” con ciencia, ni científico “oficial” con científico, por favor.
La homeopatía se sustenta en la Ley de la semejanza, y si bien, estoy de acuerdo en que cada uno la interpreta como bien le viene, esa interpretación no puede llegar a la negación de su principio. Ni siquiera Hahnemann pudo inventar esta ley que siempre estuvo ahí, en todo caso, la descubrió (destapó), pero la ley, estuvo ahí, antes, durante y después de Hahnemann, como estará antes, durante y después de nosotros.
Yo tengo dificultad para comprender su idioma, así que le ruego que si desea que le comprenda, no utilice conmigo giros irónicos o con segundas intenciones. Por los iconos que usted utiliza deduzco su ánimo al contestarme, pero no puedo captar sutilezas del lenguaje (a pesar de eso, existo).
Opino que Hahnemann como Kent y sus colaboradores fueron lo bastante escrupulosos como para legarnos una homeopatía que sin apenas cambios en más de dos siglos, ha curado a muchas personas. Las patogenesias han seguido y siguen un protocolo, usted puede leer los trabajos del Dr. Jeremy Sherr y podrá estar de acuerdo o no, creer que están bien hechos o no, pero hablamos de una investigación en toda regla, siguiendo unas normas determinadas, no vale que yo tome un remedio y diga que lo estoy experimentando y por ello haga agregados al repertorio, no se si me sigue, estoy hablando de seriedad, de responsabilidad, ya que la materia con que trabajamos es el ser humano, al fin y al cabo lo que importa. No comprendo bien sus preguntas, si se o no se la importancia de nuestras materias cuando habla de tóxicos, cada uno de los que usted Nombra ha seguido una experiencia diferente, Arsénico fue experimentado por Hahnemann, Lachesis es producto de la intoxicación de Hering...., etc. Entiendo que hay que especular en homeopatía para avanzar, y hacer muchas hipótesis, unas para tirarlas luego a la papelera y algunas otras para dejarlas ahí, a ver si es posible confirmarlas, pero siempre pensaré que no hay que inventar la homeopatía. Saludos.
..............
I am not in agreement with you Dr But, perhaps in the homeopatía that you know are no rules, in that I know yes are them. That "official" the scientific community does not recognize those laws does not say absolutely anything to me, "the official" scientists decide what is science and what it is not science, and they often do it according to criteria that nothing they have to do with science, is a consensus that intermingles many motivations, policies and even fashionable. That science "oficial"no can demonstrate that there is nothing in our remedies it does not mean that there is not anything in our remedies, that "official" science does not recognize the law of the similarity does not mean that it is not a natural law and scientist. We do not confuse "official" science with science, nor "official" scientist with scientist, by favor.
The homeopatía is sustained in the Law of the similarity, and although, I agree in which each one interprets it as well it comes to him, that interpretation cannot arrive at the negation of its principle. Not even Hahnemann could invent this law that always was there, in any case, discovered it (opened), but the law, was there, before, during and after Hahnemann, as it is before, during and after us. I have difficulty to include/understand his language, so him request that if she wishes that she includes/understands to him, does not use with me ironic turns or second intentions. By the icons that you use I deduce your spirit when answering to me, but I cannot catch subtilities of the language (in spite of that, I exist).
I think that Hahnemann like Kent and its collaborators was the quite scrupulous thing like bequeathing a homeopatía to us that without hardly changes in more than two centuries, has cured to many people. Patogenesias has followed and follows a protocol, you you can read the works of the Dr Jeremy Sherr and will be able to agree or no, to think that or they are done or no, but we spoke of an investigation in all rule, following determined norms, nonbond that I take I remedy and says that I am experiencing it and for that reason makes aggregates to the repertoire, if she follows to me, I am not being spoken of seriousness, of responsibility, since the matter whereupon we worked is the human being, after all what matters. I do not include/understand or its questions, if or not the importance of our matters when toxic speech, each one of which you Name you have followed a experience different, Arsenic was experimented by Hahnemann, Lachesis is product of the poisoning of Hering...., etc. I understand that there is to speculate in homeopatía to advance, and to make many hypotheses, to throw them soon to the wastebasket and some others to leave them there, to see if it is possible to confirm them, but always will think that it is not necessary to invent the homeopatía. Greetings.

Divina.....

[ 30. October 2002, 16:35: Message edited by: gpm ]

__________________
Sometimes on Earth, you can find something that resembles a little piece of Heaven. And sometimes on Earth, a little piece of Heaven can find you.