How could we justify the use of magnet or electromagnetism with homeopathy?

__________________
Muhammad Raza Hussain<br />Z.C Post Graudate College

Mag-ambr. Magnetis poli ambo. The Magnet. Trituration of Sugar of Milk after exposure of the influence of the both poles of the magnet. Dilution of distilled water similarly exposed.

Mag-arct. Magnetis polus arcticus. North Pole of the Magnet. Potencies of saccharum lactis or water charged with the influence of this pole.

Mag-aust. Magnetis polus australis. South Pole of the Magnet. Potencies of alcohol saturated with emanations of the south pole.

X-rays. Dilutions made from vial containing alcohol exposed to electromagnetic X-Rays

[ 25. January 2003, 05:02: Message edited by: David A. Johnson ]

My opinion:

What I think is less important than remembering "the essence of humility is we have something to learn from everyone."

Let me give chance to introduce Prof Raza Hussain . He is not a homeopathic doctor. Recently he has been upgraded to the rank of prof.

Welcome Muhammad Raza Hussain.

Nice to see you on the board. First read all post available on this board and then send your replies.

__________________
KN

Welcome Prof Hussain--congratulations on your recent appointment. I hope you enjoy partipating on the bulletin board.

Homeoman,

I don't feel I can speak for Peter Chappell's 'real motive' any more clearly than he's already stated it. My previous answer was not intended to reflect on you. The idea that we have something to learn from everyone is what I try to remember, even if I sometimes forget. And although I practice with single, potentized remedies matched to the entire constellation of a person's symptoms (whatever that practice is called!) and have only rarely used Schuessler's salts, I don't dismiss what those preparations might be capable of doing.

It is fairly easy to see the general reception Peter Chappell has had on this BB, so I don't think there's a question about why he hasn't had more broad-based support up to this point in time. I'm sure there will be many dissenting letters to the editor in the next issue of Homeopathic Links.

If you want to predict what a person is doing or will do in the future, you can look at what they've done in the past. In my opinion, Peter Chappell doesn't need to justify himself to anyone. His record of service with classical homeopathy is one that most can only dream about. Even a cursory glance shows he's used the principles of classical homeopathy throughout his career. He states that given the dire circumstances of HIV/AIDS, he had think 'outside the box' and consider all options, including God forbid, not following a strictly classical approach in order to find a potential solution.

The way people have challenged him reminds me of when I go back to talk to medical students about homeopathy. Two years ago they were learning how to hold an ophthalmoscope; now they know all about why homeopathy can't possibly work. If a conventional physician is familiar with the potential of allopathic methods, does that give him/her any advanced understanding of homeopathy? No. But still they'll go ahead and tell patients remedies are placebos.

These opinions are based on the prejudice of previous experience, not on an openness to learning or trying something new. And yet is this type of prejudice any different for a person who knows the potential of classical homeopathy, but who dismisses the possibility that some aspects of homeopathy might be successfully applied in a different way?

What would happen to homeopathy if the remedy failed to work? Certainly nothing would change in the eyes of most conventional practitioners--for them, homeopathy is a scam anyway. A person with HIV who doesn't have access to a good classical homeopath and who doesn't want to be on a cocktail of antiretrovirals and protease inhibitors doesn't have a lot to lose either. But what if there was a 1% possibility the remedy could work--wouldn't that chance be worth considering?

My hope with first posting about Peter Chappell's remedy was that people would become aware of it, and there's nothing more I have to say. Thoughtful readers of his website and recent posts will decide on their own what to do with the information. But regardless of what route one chooses, strictly classical, etc., the footnote to the first aphorism also said: "It is high time for all those who call themselves physicians, once and for all, to stop idle talk and begin now to act." I feel this also applies to endless debates within homeopathic circles. There's more than enough work to go around.

sir David,

Thankyou so much!

Kusar! You are well informed man.

[ 26. January 2003, 10:02: Message edited by: Prof. Raza Hussain ]

__________________
Muhammad Raza Hussain<br />Z.C Post Graudate College

Well about magnetisim. Everything is electromagnetic energy as I understand it. That is what every remedy we use is made off. So there is no choice. All I did was cut out the "middle man", the substance and start with the electromagnetic energy and shape it intelligently according to a homepathic principle in reverse. And I realise that I have discovered a new aspect of homeopathy wqhich I have posted elsewhere.

Peter thanks for your reply. i got this news from your replies when I first opened up new discussion. sir thank you for your response.

__________________
Muhammad Raza Hussain<br />Z.C Post Graudate College