Hello all,

There is an interview in newspaper :Hardselling Homeopathy: with Dr. Prasanta Banerji (Homeopath Research Foundation) a vetran homeopath from Kolkata(India) with several years research esp. to fight cancerous tumors whose 10 completely cured cases are said to be varified by National Cancer Institue of the US government. He replied to one question as under:-

Q: Are there recent modifications in the treatments through homeopathy?

A: " 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. We do not undertake 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. After so many years of experiance, we deviated from the old method of treatment and formulated specific treatment for specific diseases--which is not in accordance with the origional homeopathic theories. We are treating patients with homeopathic medicines but with a new approach of diagnostic treatment, by taking help of available scientific detection methods while utilising the benefits of all pathological tests and reports. Thus, whether I treat various cancer cases, or many other types of cases, I undertake dignostic treatment. The treatments of many surgical cases also are well within the scope of homeopathic treatment and medicine alone."

I have questions in this respect:-

1. Is it correct & worth to practice alike it?

2. Is it legal to practice alike it??

3. Are regular studies in homeopathy "Classical or Modern or Both based" and if homeopths are allowed to do any changes/modifications without any control of any regulatory body in consideration of its least side/adverse effects?

Best wishes.

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

No response?? Is it impractical/contradictory to take up this article under discussions? Does it not put question mark on homeopathic theory/system as a whole & at its basic level/teacings? I think homeopathy is now a regulated system not alike OTC medicines. So how anyone can make practice in his own way--differantly? How diagnostic treatment can match proving or MMs symptoms?

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

revisionism, kv, is an unavoidable element of intellectual history, in any domain. if your expectation is for complete uniformity in clinical practice, as in art, or literature, or physics, it will be disappointed. variation speaks to perception, not efficacy.

in any case, the question is irrelevant. you might as well ask how one can continue to practice homeopathy, when skirts are shorter this year. what difference does it make?

__________________
"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.

You are correct, K, it is quite usual to see modern homeopaths prescribe on a diagnosis basis, and calling it revisionism, as Bach does, is quite appropriate. Viewed from the outside, as I do, it seems quite strange to see parts of the logical whole that is Hahnemannian homeopathy paired with modern diagnosis methods. One has to assume it is more a matter of convinience than logic that drives this change.

Whereas Hahnemann's system is logically consistent, diagnosis-based homeoathy lacks internal logic: By working with scientific diagnoses, they acknowledge cause-based disease theory, thereby abandoning the vital force principle, but then proceed to attempt to treat with remedies that are supposed to work through the vital force.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>

Mr Hans, bach,

There is no harm in doing new research/style as per the change & need of time in any system unless it is alike 'ABSOLUTE'. But every thing should be approved/accepted & released by the regulating authorities & then should be allowed to practice it, accordingly (as common in CMS). Do we have provings & symptoms which are "diagnostic" based? How one can decide/practice it without any approved "diagnostic" based proving details? Is it not a direct adverse remark or insult on Dr.Hahnemann's teachings? What are the legally approved theories, to be practiced in homeopathy?

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

We have clinical repertories. These are repertories of cured symptoms rather than repertories of provings. Even Kent's repertory, which is a repertory of proving symptoms has grades of remedies based on whether or not the remedy cured clinically the symptom that was elicited during the proving. If a remedy consistently cured a proving symtom in practice, the remedy was given a grade three.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

SR, I just re-quote part of the awnser which I mentioned in first posting. Do your reply justify it?

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

i am not suggesting that innovation can or should be regulated. i am not even suggesting that revisionists should be scorned. indeed, efforts to apply homeopathic remedies to the treatment of allopathic disease states is not necessarily a bad thing. it is a mistake, of course, to consider such practices as a "modern" or "improved" variety of homeopathy, as, indeed, these practices are entirely allopathic in method, even though they utilize homeopathic preparations. the advantage of such methods, rather, lies in utilizing medicines that are more effective and more gentle and even more cost effective than the usual chemical concoctions: imagine running out of your $45 per pill antibiotic, and instead of refilling the prescription, you fill the pill bottle with water, shake a couple of times, and keep on dosing! the pharmaceutical companies would hate it, but everyone else would love it.

so i would consider these revisionists as making traditional medicine cheaper and more convenient and more pain free (and, no more yukky cough syrup!) ... but it is not, to repeat, homeopathy. so, from that point of view, it has no bearing on the subject of homeopathic practice.

__________________
"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.

It may be worth to present a concept as modern/good-looking for vested interests but it may shake the base/basis of any system. As far as I understand potencies changes should be sufficient as per the change & need of time nothing else. Any concept should be taken towards 'absoluteness' not towords 'attractive looking'. You can't compensate/compare clothes made from synthetic fibers with made from cotton/wool natural fibers. These are 'just absolute'. I just repeat what can be the ultimate aim ( sorry, pls don't mind):-


"Therapies which have such undefined boundaries,
that they may at any time accept new remedies,
and may like wise retain or reject old remedies,
cannot offer the security necessary in service
of a patient,and in the intrest of science.
To create a therapy with sharply defined
boundaries,has been for a long time,my endeavour"
.....By Dr.William.H.Schuessler,1874

Btw, can we change tissue remedies by any other similar substitute? Are these not alike 'absolute'?

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

you open up quite an apparent can of worms, with the idea of an absolute system. i think dr schuessler in those terms failed in his attempt, as his salts are hardly absolute, if at least by absolute you mean to include encyclopedic. else, everyone would be cured by now.

regardless, it boils down to a difference of opinion, whether introduction of new remedies etc is a disservice to the patient. obviously, adherents of one school will differ in their response, compared to adherents of another school of thought.

the question, i repeat for the third time, is irrelevant to a consideration of the merits of classical homeopathic prescribing. comparing classical homeopathy to "modern" homeopathy, as you phrase it, or to tissue salts, or to massage therapy or colonics or short skirts, is nothing more than an evaluation of pros and cons, strengths and limitations, of methods.

the thing is, adherents of the different methods habitually elevate their own method to the catbird seat: "mine is best." even within a discipline, you have some who say "i'm better because i've been doing this for 20 years," and others who say, "i'm better because i've been doing this for 2 years and am more in touch with the latest thinking and research." it's like choosing a remedy because you like its profile in the MM, instead of matching it to the needs of the patient. all the experience in the world doesn't help the fool practice wisely, and the latest research can be devastating in its impact, if the research is wrong and/or if the practitioner is an idiot.

if you think tissue salts are the cat's ass, by all means say so, and present your opinion. to pretend the benefits of the cat's hindquarter ipso facto displaces homeopathic preparations ... somehow ... tells us nothing except that you like scheussler more than you like hahnemann. soooo?

to discuss homeopathy, you still need to demonstrate that you understand it on its own terms; you can not elevate some other theory to the top position in the pecking order just because you or anybody else feels like it.

__________________
"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.