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.

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

Jeff Tikari

That always seemed to me to be a very contradictory view. Either homeopathy works or it doesn't. I think the ones who say it only sometimes work don't really believe that it does. Otherwise, they would be more eager to learn how to use it effectively. Or they are still in a this-for-that mentality.

Dear Dilweed,

Those who say Homoeopathy rarely works are actually not skeptics. They just can't accept the plain truth before their eyes. In their innermost corners of mind, they will be brooding to have voted their life for a dangerous non healing system.

bye

Jeff, To say that homeopathy has made no progress is to miss a great deal of our history...

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, progressively broader and deeper understanding of older remedies, additional methods of analysis and case management which can turn "incurable" into "curable", new methods of teaching, learning, information management...

What are they objecting to, do you know? Do they see a lack of result, or are they piqued at the limits of the definition (which is certainly not universally accepted in any case), or are they simply unfamiliar with the field?

(As to when "development" becomes "deviation" and thereby "non-homeopathic", 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???)

Shannon

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari In a discussion with doctors of different 'pathys,

Where, exactly, is this "discussion" being held?

Quote:

Originally Posted by j tikari one aspect of homeopathy was reflected by many

Who, exactly?

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!

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon progressively broader and deeper

But the same form of application

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon understanding of older remedies

And SH didn't have that understanding?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon additional methods of analysis and case management which can turn "incurable" into "curable"

What's new here?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon new methods of teaching, learning, information management...

Still S.H's way- 200+ years old!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon What are they objecting to, do you know? Do they see a lack of result

They are cynical

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:

Originally Posted by Shannon or are they simply unfamiliar with the field?

Definitely unfamiliar

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon (As to when "development" becomes "deviation" and thereby "non-homeopathic"

What is non-homeopathic?

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

Jeff Tikari

I just related what took place outside the National Television Centre in Delhi... does it matter, an awful lot, where it took place? Are we losing the point?

Jeff

I think it does matter (and thanks for passing it on). The statement made in India, in my opinion, has rather different ramifications than if it were made by a group of physicians here in the U.S. It was disappointing to me because I thought homeopathy was better accepted and understood by India's medical community.

I still think it smacks of the attitude of saying someone is a little pregnant. Either you accept the most basic concept of like-cures-like, or you don't.

Hi Shannon,

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shannon To say that homeopathy has made no progress is to miss a great deal of our history...

Does that mean you think that homeopaths have better results now than had Hahnemann, V. Boenninghausen, Hering, Kent, Nash, Burnett et al?

Regards

Luise

Hi Jeff,

(I'm working on reply to your last...) What was the occasion, tho? I'm interested that there was being such a heated public discussion about it!

Shannon