That would depend upon "which homeopaths", with "which patients", and "under what circumstances." Some do, some don't. I don't know enough to talk specifics.

But my understanding is that there were conditions that Kent called incurable, which some have since learned to cure.

One hopes that those with several decades of experience are starting to get a handle on "what works"...

Hi Jeff,

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon To say that homeopathy has made no progress is to miss a great deal of our history... They are certainly not interested in history!

"History" was not the best word to use, but I think my meaning was explained. To make the statement misses the fact that a *great* deal has happened in the field. But if they have pre-judged and are not interested in *hearing* the facts, there's not much one can do...

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon Even if we do go with the view that "homeopathy" has a specific meaning which was set by its founder / inventor / discoverer,(?) still that leaves a *huge* amount of room for development,(?) and development has been taking place--newer remedies They too have newer remedies all the time

Sure, but that's neither here nor there. I would hope that progress is happening on both sides of the "fence". My only point was that, to say that nothing has changed in homeopathy is an extraordinarily misguided statement, and quite untrue.

Some practitioners make more use than others of new material, and some are actively opposed to anything that breaks out of what Hahnemann did and said. But that is a matter of personal choices within the broader framework, not something that is true of homeopathy as a whole, even if we define it pretty strictly. At least that is how it looks to me. What do *you* think? From what you know and see of homeopathy, do *you* think that nothing's changed in 200 years?

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon progressively broader and deeper But the same form of application

?? By mouth / nose, you mean? If it works, why change it? Allopaths still give their meds by mouth too. ??? I don't think I understand...

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon understanding of older remedies And SH didn't have that understanding?

Did he know everything about each the remedies he used, and did he feel he had used and known every possibly useful remedy? No, certainly not, to both.

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon additional methods of analysis and case management which can turn "incurable" into "curable" What's new here?

Some will say that methods such as Eizayaga's, Ramakrishnan's, Sankaran's, Scholten's, etc., are all in that category. And yes I know that some say (some or any of) these are "not homeopathy", and IMO that is really a different discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon new methods of teaching, learning, information management... Still S.H's way- 200+ years old!

No... We have new materia medicas that present the information in different ways, with different emphasis, placing varying degrees of emphasis on various types of information (locals vs. generals vs. mentals vs. remedy relationships vs. "bigger picture" (for lack of a tidy term)...

We have computers, on-line databases, journals, additional provings, additional discussion about pros and cons of various approaches, ways of sharing experiences and insights.

Want to describe your understanding of "how Sam did it", and we can compare that with the present? I think we need to make this more concrete...

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon What are they objecting to, do you know? Do they see a lack of result They are cynical

So that cynicism has no basis except their own uninformed conversations, or ??

[QUOTE=j tikari]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon or are they piqued at the limits of the definition (which is certainly not universally accepted in any case)

It is, Shannon - accepted]/QUOTE]?? Wow, this *list* can't even agree on a definition, so I'm eager to hear what that "universe" has decided on! :-))

Then are they figuring that everything they read about "homeopathy" refers only and precisely to strict Hahnemannian methods? That would evidence a HUGE lack of understanding of the present situation--don't you agree???

To some people, "homeopathy" means anything using potentized substances; to others, herbs can fairly be called "homeopathic" (honestly, I've seen it done!). To some people methods such as VOLL and Vegatesting are homeopathy, and to others they are not. Some make a distinction between "homeotherapeutics" and homeopathy, while others class them together. What definition are they using?

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon or are they simply unfamiliar with the field? Definitely unfamiliar

Well... If they are so cynical in absence of any familiarity at all with the subject, there's not a whole lot one can say. If they want to know about it, they will have to look into it. If all they want to is mouth about how backward and useless it is, then the usefulness of conversation might be limited.

I suppose the only hope of waking them up, will be to let them see some good results. And depending on where they are, I guess that might be harder, or easier... Or they could read...

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon (As to when "development" becomes "deviation" and thereby "non-homeopathic" What is non-homeopathic?

Well, this turns on what one takes as the definition of "homeopathy". As per discussions on the lists, some people (myself included, tho I am not so extreme as some) feel that the term should mean (at least more or less) what its founder / inventor / discoverer--the person who coined the term--intended it to mean: one remedy at a time, chosen based on "like cures like", given in minimum dose (potentization being an added tool, rather than actually defining; which is interesting, because in popular usage, at least in many places, anything involving potentized substances is called "homeopathy", regardless of how the remedy is chosen or what the goal is or etc.

So--"what is non-homeopathic" at this point certainly depends upon whom you ask.

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari Quote: Originally Posted by Shannon that is--as we've seen!--a potentially complicated discussion, which couldn't / shouldn't possibly be of any interest to anyone outside t he field, should it? Why do they care, do you know???) Of course they care - their bread is being pulled from their mouths

So they care about competing, not about understanding. Someone should explain, they will be better able to "compete", if they take the time to "understand"!

Quote:

one leading light(a surgeon), said homeopathy was like the Masonic cult, steeped in secrecy and like an alchemists depraved belief in the occult - they all clapped. Did I have a chance? I made a surrepticious departure. They had closed ranks, they were secure in their infaliability.

Sounds that way. It's probably a discussion better carried on one-to-one, and then only with someone who is actually able to listen to what you're saying.

So... Basically what you are wondering is how one might spread *information* in an environment which is basically closed to receiving it. That's a tough one! That "leading light" remarks are so absurd that they would be easily countered--*if* anyone chose to listen, and *if* there were opportunity of speaking. But if neither possibility was there, then leaving does seem the most reasonable response. It's too bad...

Maybe there are opportunities to have that conversation one-on-one, or to give them chances to *see* homeopathy working. I don't know what to say on that--good luck!

Best,
Shannon

NDTV had a programme where the different forms of treatment was discussed. It was afterwards outside the studio that the discussion took place. There were about 8 doctors.

Jeff

Shannon I just reported what I heard. I am a homeopath and I believe in what I do.

Jeff

Just for curiosity, was their reaction similar to treatment homeopathy got on the program (if any)?

I understand...
I guess I just figure we might as well have rebuttals ready in our minds, even tho the situation won't necessarily lend itself to making them.
Thanks for sharing what you saw!

Best,
Shannon

No, Homeopathy was very shortly discussed.

Jeff

What do you think about it?
http://www.homeo.kuban.net/rs2.htm

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff In a discussion with doctors of different 'pathys, one aspect of homeopathy was reflected by many - that homeopathy is only the teachings of one man, whom the homeopaths hold up as 'God". Homeopathy has made no modern progress with the times, but is steeped in the teachings that are over 200 years old. Any deviation from the teachings of this one old man is considered non homeopathic.

Chiropractic is based on the methods of adjustment introduced by Palmer. Osteopathy is based on methods introduced by Stills. Craniosacral is based on the methods of Sutherland. Acupuncture is based on the work introduced by the Haung Ti, etc. Having a Founder is common in the healing arts. On the basis of what the various Founders introduced the methods are been evolved by generations of practitioners. The same is true of homeopathy.

All of these schools they have a tradition and standards of practice. One cannot just twist the neck anyway they want in any manner they want! One cannot move the cranial bone in any direction they wish! One cannot place a needle anywhere for whatever reason they imagine! One must follow certain principles as well as heed certain precautions and warnings. The same is true in Homoeopathy. I have studied with masters in all these schools. Only a few misinformed persons hold the opinions you suggest not a majority of people. What you saying sounds more the opinion of those who use combination homeopathy, etc., who like to bash what they see as classical homeopathy!

I really must say that the above ideas have little bearing on the truth. Great progress has been made in homeopathy over the last few centuries. Our repertories, materia medicas and potencies have greatly expanded as have our clinical methods. Our understanding of disease has been brought up to date in accordance with modern science without losing our vital paradigm which is still more advanced than orthodox medicine. A massive amount of clinical experience has been gathered and our knowledge of healing has grown tremendously. Even in my life time the introduction of modern computers and compilation reference works with search abilities has greatly increase our access to information and improved treatment quality. We are using the most modern technology everyday!

Now as to your second point. Einstein is the Founder of modern physics. The principles that this "one man" introduced still form the basis of our understanding of the universe. Although there have been many advancements like the string and M theories, these are still in harmony with the works of this "one old man". Humans have gone into space and penetrated far into the universe with probes but the principles that allow this is still the same as they were in 1914. Without Einstein modern physics would not be what it is today.

Hahnemann is the Einstein of the Homoeopathy. He is the Founder that discovered a set of core principles that are as valid today as they were in 1843. Just as the core principles of physics have not changed neither have the essential principles of Homeopathy changed because they are as much part of universe as E=MC2. All true physicists respect Einstein because his principles work in practice and all true homoeopaths respect Hahnemann because his principles work in the clinic. This does not mean that modern physics has not expanded any more than homeopathy has not expanded. Homeopathy is growing every day!!!

As to the charges that Hahnemann is being treated like "God". Hahnemann is no more God to homoeopaths than Einstein is God to physicists. We respect not worship the Founder of Homeopathy just like we respect the Founder of modern physics. Why? Because they have introduced a paradigm that has passed all the tests of experimentation and predictability. So yes, these two old men have done what you have not done. They have opened the door to understanding the universe on a deeper level. When you are their true equal then you will have the right to judge them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeff That, I'm afraid, was the general view. They largly accepted that homeopathy did work, in some instances, but how much better would it have been if it was allowed to evolve.

General view? These do not sound like what I have heard over the last 30 years! Most that are not familiar with homeopathy don't come up with the exact words of those who like to bash classical homoeopaths! Only those who are more familiar with homeopathy seem to know these issues and use such terms. It is true that some "naturo-mixopaths" who like to use homeopathy their own way sometimes say things like this but most of these opinions are based on lack of knowledge of what is really happening in homeopathy today. To really understand homeopathy one must study it seriously.

Just because a person's idea of "evolving" involves combination medicines does mean that such methods are a sign of medicine evolving! In fact, returning to the polypharmacy of the old school and the mixtures of ages gone by is moving backwards not forward! There are many very sound reasons for the core principles likes cure likes, the single remedy, the minimum dose and the potentized remedy. These are the cardinal principles that make Homoeopathy a safe and effective system. That someone may not understand how to fully utilize this system in the modern paradigm is not our problem.

Now, anyone may use whatever methods he likes within reason but we traditional Homoeopaths will keep our high standards based on the principles Hahnemann introduced just like modern physics will keep its high standards based on Einstein's teachings. This does not mean that Homoeopathy or physics is not evolving with the times and looking to the brighter future. I think Hering, who introduced several new methods in line with true principles, was right when he said Homoeopathy is "de Medicina Futura". We homeopaths are not stuck in the pass or present as we are already moving into the Future!

Sincerely, David Little

Thanks, David. I shall print that out and keep it handy.

Jeff Tikari