Dear Members

Modern vs. Classical Homeopathy ---

What is modern homeopathy, what is classical homeopathy??
How can we compare two modes of treatment, if we not even know what exactly hides behind the terms ‘’modern homeopathy’’ or ‘’classical homeopathy’’?

The only thing reasonably clearly defined is the homeopathic method of treatment of diseases by Hahnemann. And even at this point and time it is by far unclear to many what are the exact principles and rules of homeopathy, and how did Hahnemann use them in his clinic, whenever he treated homoeopathically.

Dr. Banerji shows unawareness of what Hahnemann defined as homeopathy when writing:
-Let me point out that with the passage of time after Dr Samuel Hahnemann's assumptions, the medical science as a whole has improved tremendously.—
Hahnemann, as a matter of fact, assumed nothing concerning the rules and principles governing homeopathy.

A quick look into the casebooks left to us would have convinced him that:
---the old method of Like Cures Like in which one has to ask very elaborate questions for hours to the patient to select a medicine.--
Was not advocated, nor practised by Hahnemann.

Anyway – in order to shed some light into this rather confusing matter, I propose to name the different deviations still kept under the heading homeopathy after their inventors or promoters.

Then we would know exactly what we are talking about when talking of therapy according to Kent, Bach, Schuessler, Sankaran, Virtoulkas or Banerji.
When talking of HOMEOPATHY we would refer only to Hahnemann’s defined method of treatment.

We then could compare the effectiveness of the one method against the other on clinical data, which has been already done in a larger clinical study comparing homeopathy using Boenninghausen’s work with the Kent therapy. This study was published in detail in the KHZ and as I can recall of my head, the Boe. results were about 10% better.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

quote (hans w): "...in order to shed some light into this rather confusing matter, I propose to name the different deviations still kept under the heading homeopathy after their inventors or promoters."

my point exactly. further, i, for one, anxiously await publication of your proposed study, to "...name the ... deviations..." advocated as homeopathic by these various leading lights. i am especially interested in your take on the theories of herr prof dr "bach," who, though admittedly brilliant, has yet to venture into formal prescribing, let alone formation of his own school of therapy. but of course you know that already. though it will be interesting to learn what fantasies you have concocted around his thought process, it would be more enlightening if you could actually discuss and critique his errors, rather than merely joining the lengthy queue of partisans proclaiming "mine is best," by 10% no less!

clinical experience is irreplacable, hans. but so are books and discussion. if you are only interested in proclaiming the superiority of your method, and your experience, i personally would offer you the same option i suggested to the other hans habitating here, namely, if you're not interested in exploring an idea, go away. otoh, if you think you have something to teach, by all means teach it. there are those who are interested in learning, even from the egocentric amongst us.


bwv11

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Dear Members, dear BW11
I have repeatedly on differrent occasions pointed out the deviations from homeopathic principles in kent's, sankaran's, Scholten's and others publikations.

For further detail it would be neccessary to read and compare those autors publications in detail. Currently, I have no intention to write a book on the subject, as this would be a time-consuming and costly affair.

I will however, give references occasionally, so that the interested readers can do their own research.

If i refer to Bach in this context, I mean Dr Robert Bach, who found and promoted the Bach flower therapy. He was contemporary of Cooper, Margret taylor and Robert Clarke and based in England.

Other than that, for reasons earlier highlighted, I will leave this topic until it is clear what we are talking about.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

Kayveeh, I tend to agree with Hans on this, although I'm sure if Hahnemann were alive today, he would still be experimenting and revising his methods. I don't think prescribing on the clinical disease, or even looking at the organ where the illness is creating symptoms, will bring about the deep life changing processes that Hahnemannian homeopathy effects. People who want quick fixes will be drawn to those practitioners that provide quick fixes. Those who want to be healed in the sense of becoming whole, will be drawn to a different type of practitioner.

Hahnemannian homeopathy is difficult and so we are drawn to those teachers who try to make it easier. But that's the lack in us, not the lack in Hahnemann's method. And there are some excellent practitioners who are developing different ways of looking at the case and thereby coming to the remedy; and a number of those methods seem to bring success. And a number of them seem to bring a deepening understanding of homeopathy, and a number of them are merely short cuts. We each use the methods that we are most comfortable with and that bring us the greatest success.

I am not interested in prescribing from a clinical point of view and would not be comfortable using the above method. And I don't work in a clinic where I have to see many, many people every day. I have the luxury of taking several hours with each client. If I worked in a clinic where that was not the case, I would probably have a very different view based on a very different experience. If there is a choice of helping three people a day using classical homeopathy or helping 50 people a day using a different, but still within the realms of homeopathy, approach, and I had to make that choice (which, luckily I don't), I would probably choose to use a different approach and help 50.

In the poorer, more densely populated parts of the world, becoming whole and self actualized is not as much of an issue as basic acute and chronic care. And the issues we deal with are very different. I don't see cholera, I see chronic fatique; I don't see tuberculosis, I see depression and anxiety. I live in an affluent area where people's concerns are generally different that those of people in many other parts of the world. It's not better or worse, it's just different. And given the issues that I deal with the more traditional method of prescribing remedies gives the best results long term, even when these people have acute or chronic illnesses.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

quote (hans w): "If i refer to Bach in this context, I mean Dr Robert Bach...."

oh. that bach.

ooops.

aaanyway, in that case, a couple of questions, which if you could answer even briefly would be helpful:

the method used by H in case taking: closer to boenni, or something else?

the case books: are they available in any published source, or only in manuscript?

finally, i would suggest that scheussler and the other bach were not homeopaths at all, or at least their remedies and prescribing are not homeopathic, as compared to Kent, Sankaran, Vitoulkas. to stimulate a little debate, perhaps, i would argue that these three are homeopaths, because their work is based in concepts fundamental to classical treatment: single remedy, single dose, minimum dose, wait and watch, and diagnosis on the base of totality. banerji, even if he follows the three "single" dictates and wait and watch, violates fundamental principle in trying to cure the wrong thing - he is an allopath using homeopathic medicines.

but i confess i screw my nose up when i encounter the work of well-respected, classical analysts, who have moved beyond freud to even a modest degree. so for moi, the jury is still out.

bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

Bach.

"Absolute means:free from imperfection : PERFECT, free or relatively free from mixture : PURE : OUTRIGHT, UNMITIGATED"

I mean whatever is there in any system should be 'absolute'( may not be complete). A person following tissue salts may not need any other system except some modern medicines in case of unstability or emergency--that too, may be due to modern lifestyle & whatever taught/shown to us or made fancy to us.

I don't see any possibility of changing these salts as constitute & similar to about 95% of our similar body substances. So these may remain absolute till our body bio-chemistry is changed-substancially. About its applications: it depend on how much we made or it has become 'fancy' & 'attractive' to a system or to a concept by clothes not by body. All these depend on & is parellel to our entitlements to get true benefits of any true system in consideration of 'nature balance'.

HansW,SR,

Anyway, do we think/accept/find that modernization--as anticipated above, is must & was a defficiency in Dr.Hahn.'s system which was needed to be corrected/amended or added by new researches--as modern homeopaths are projecting? Is it not a commercial picturization/anticipation or lazyness/easy-going? If you agree then, Dr.Sch. was not wrong in principle to made some editing(not correction,amendments or additions)?
I noted that it may take days in really understanding a patient & his problem in complete with full justification even though I just consider 12 salts & least biochemic theory with still some possibilities of mistakes always remains.

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

Dear Members
A few answers to points earlier risen:
>>the method used by H in case taking: closer to boenni, or something else?<<

Boenninghausen stayed strictly within the framework of the Organon and the chronic diseases.
Starting out he found, that finding the remedy for the given case was a very time-consuming effort.
To alleviate that, he started out when studying the MMP to make lists of such symptoms, which were either uncommon, or which run through the remedy, just to give him a quick reminder of what’s essential for this remedy.
A concise version was published in 1835.
From this concise MM combined with his clinical experience, he developed the SRA/SRN repertory.
~As we only have written witness of how Hahnemann worked by his and his wife’s notes in the journals, we cannot but only guess, how he took on the case. At least, from the records we can in many cases follow his path to the prescribed remedy, because he also did his Repertorisation in the journals.

>>the case books: are they available in any published source, or only in manuscript?<<
Yes, there are transcribtions of at least 4 full journals available from the haug publishers.
I only have the DF 5 which concerns the time from 1838 – 1844 and contains more than 200 cases.

>>i would suggest that scheussler and the other bach were not homeopaths at all,<<

We would do injustice to those gentlemen’s work to do so. Both treated in their clinics at times homoeopathically, and at other times they did not. What speaks for their sincerity is, that they clearly distinguished homeopathic and non-homeopathic procedure in their work, whereas others failed to do that.

Dear Shirley –
You wrote:
>>I'm sure if Hahnemann were alive today, he would still be experimenting and revising his methods.<<
I did a bit of research on this general assumption and came up with the following:

From 1805 onwards the principles ruling homeopathy were found defined and published, and did not change throughout the rest of Hahnemann’s live.

All the refinements took place in the method of application of the principles.
One was the discovery of the Chronic diseases, the other was the discovery of the virtues of remedy potentization.
This second development only ended with Hahnemann’s death, and left us with the Q-potencies as the summit of his 40 years experience in experimenting with forms of applications.

Once fully conversant and well experienced in the use and possibilities of those attenuations, we could develop them further, and this is what Hahnemann would have possibly done if he lived longer.

On the other hand—there was never any change throughout the 6 editions of the Organon as to what is disease, what determines the virtues of medicines and forms the indications for the curative remedy. This is nicely summed up in paragraphs 70 / 71 Org.

__________________
Hans Weitbrecht
Consultant Homeopath

kv,

i guess i am unclear as to your meaning. in the terms you now state, as 'absolute' or 'perfect,' homeopathic remedies are absolute and perfect: they have no need of change, though the number of remedies available may obviuosly increase. but this is no substantial change, as, in principle, all substances may be considered as potentially potentisable, and therefore as candidates, in any particular treatment episode, to be found to be the similimum for that patient.

likewise, the system of application of remedies has not changed: it is based on diagnosis of the totality and prescription according to fixed guidelines (single dose, etc). anything different is no longer homeopathy, or classical homeopathy at least, and to assume dr. banerji is a homeopath because he says he is a homeopath, is not necessarily a good idea. dr. banerji may help a lot of people, within the limits of his style of practice, but his practice is not homeopathic: he is mistaken.


hans,

along these same lines, the distinction is basic, as you corrected my statement, that bach and scheussler practiced sometimes homeopathically and sometimes not, but, as you say, "...they clearly distinguished homeopathic and non-homeopathic procedure in their work, whereas others failed to do that." imho, this is the critical piece, in any discussion of what is true homeopathy, as distinguished from revisionism, or from an alternate method of treatment, even though the alternate method may adopt this or that feature of classical procedure.

bach

__________________
"The need to perform adjustments for covariates...weakens the findings." BMJ Clinical Evidence: Mental Health, (No. 11), p. 95.... It's that simple, guys: bad numbers make bad science.

HansW, bach,

Fairly well explained. Thanks. If you say that Dr.Benerji is not going as per homeopathy then it is a differant story. But still he uses homeopathic banner/umbrella which seems to be bit unjustified. I think it is a just similar case as of Peter Chapell's Aid remedy. Moreover, when Dr.Hahn. & his true followers could not much change during his lifetime or thereafter, then we can be doubtful about modern changes. If it would had been a regular & continious episode of changes(as in modern medicines), then we could have understood & accepted the new changes, but most of the theories & remedies are persisting since long(alike absolute).

I think that the true work after Dr.H could had been as under:-

1. To select few most prominent remedies with similarities in symtoms & add just few more(if really needed) of which symptoms at all do not match with the existing remedies. In short to avoid repetition & multiplications of remedies(alike Modern medicines).

2. To cut short/edit the theories.

3. To regularize at some central point-- the new modifications.

4. To justify the effects in line of modern knowledge(if need to satisfy accordingly is there-otherwise not needed.)

5. To improve/polish the most prominent remedies thus recognized by differant potentizations/potencies as per the need of time. Modern time just may be requiring differant potencies--may not be differant remedies.

6. Lastly, to find out working logics or science of remedies(obiously just for commercial/understanding purpose as per modern system & need).

All the above considerations should be made as such that those are with in the capacity on any healer to understand & use those in just complete sense. We may be having limited capacity of our brain or mind.

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