MISC: Homeopathy prescribing 5th/6th edition of the Organon

EXCELLENT

http://www.wholehealthnow.com/books/simillimum.html
click on From the Book

The Introduction

by Dr. Luc De Schepper

>From the Book
What other practitioners have said about some of Luc De Schepper's previous
works


"Your book, Homeopathy and the Periodic Table, is marvelous. I think it is
the most valuable book for a homeopathic analysis of the periodic table and
one of the most educational books in homeopathy. I enjoyed very much your
chapter on dreams. Go on writing!"

Spiros Kivellos, MD,
General Director of Research of the Medical Homeopathic Greek Society


"In its sheer scope and detail, I recommend Hahnemann Revisited as one of
the best modern textbooks on the subject that is currently available. It is
written with great clarity and might be seen to comprise a modern version
of Kent's Lectures, Close's Lectures and Vithoulkas' Science of Homeopathy
all rolled in one ...

"Indeed, if a student only purchased this book, a materia medica and a good
repertory, it is hard to see how they could not soon become an excellent
practitioner. It seems destined to become a classic text in the field for
many years to come."

Peter Morell, UK, in Simillimum


"I have just read your Hahnemann Revisited. It is a marvelous book. It is
the only book that I read that could explain Hahnemaniann homeopathy simple
and true to Hahnemann's own content."

Orjan Repaal, Norway


"Some time ago, I bought your book Hahnemann Revisited and I must say, this
is the best book about homeopathy I've bought in many years. Although I
studied homeopathy for many years, there were several things in your book
that suddenly became clear to me."

Marc Van Wyk, MD, Belgium


"I have finished Hahnemann Revisited and still marvel at this work. It is
my favorite book. The writing style is so effective and easy to comprehend,
the principles are deep, insightful and ring true."

Alan Lekan, CO, USA

The Introduction

by Dr. Luc De Schepper

"We homeopaths better hang together, or most assuredly, we will hang
separately." - Modified version of Benjamin Franklin

Although I wrote this book in a spirit of dispassionate inquiry, I cannot
expect my critics to always respond in kind. Practicing homeopathy is a
challenge and criticizing each other seems to be a national sport.

Truth never needs to fear, and I welcome intelligent well-founded
criticism. I have always attributed my writings to Hahnemann, and yet I
hear criticism such as, "you think Dr. Luc's way is the only way?"

Never have I mentioned that it is my way. Hahnemann deserves all due
credit. But then again he was constantly criticized by pseudo-homeopaths as
well, who found it too difficult to adhere to the Laws and Principles of
homeopathy. They pretend they have cures too. But what kind of cures?

Do they hold up to what we need to witness in Hering's Set of Observations?
Do they keep in account miasmatic blocks, obstructions to the cure, the
nature of the disease, the patient, and the remedy? Why do they stick to
what Hahnemann called his "barbaric methods, the 4th edition Organon?

It is as if homeopathy froze in time around 1828 as most of the techniques
used in modern practice are from this period.

Although Hahnemann's personal practice grew immensely beyond the stage of
the 4th edition Organon, homeopathy as a whole did not. Most practitioners
are still practicing by the rules laid down in 1828-1829.

This is more than strange as the next 14 years of Hahnemann's career were
the most productive of his life. Different reasons exist for this behavior.

Laziness of the practitioner is a universal syndrome in most professions.
Statements like "I am doing well enough; I am satisfied; why make more
effort; why study more" are all arguments that do not hold up under
scrutiny. Why bother to check facts when you can quote a new
guru-homeopath's opinion who charmed your shoes off yesterday?

Then there is arrogance: "I am a great practitioner. I do better than most."

Indifference is another prevalent emotion: "I can't spend my time
investigating what Hahnemann did in his later 'senile' years."

Maybe, the practitioner is guided by misplaced egotism: "I want to do my
own version of homeopathy. Homeopathy did not stop with Hahnemann. He would
have been proud with my experiments."

Yes, it is the duty of every generation to go beyond the last one. Hering
once said: "It is the duty of all of us to go further in the theory and
practice of homeopathy than Hahnemann has done. We ought to seek the truth,
which is before us and forsake the errors of the past."

Homeopathy has evolved considerably in the last 150 years. Nevertheless,
homeopaths still have much to learn from what Hahnemann taught in his
works. I doubt he would be proud if we are sinning against and omitting
basic laws and rules.

I do agree that too much dogma is always counterproductive and that an open
mind is an important part of growth. I can hope that we all can progress
beyond Hahnemann's knowledge, but we are not going to arrive there by
denying that the Organon had anything to do with it.

The Organon is the text on which homeopathic healing is based. I never
thought it was a religious document to be followed blindly, but I do treat
it with the utmost respect, because without it there would be no homeopathy.

Insults from "well-known" homeopaths such as "religious dogma," "stuck in
the past," and "that old, dusty bible," are used to undermine the careful
observations of several generations of experienced homeopaths.

To "modernize" homeopathy by ignoring its legacy is like throwing the baby
out with the bath water. It is like building the proverbial house on a base
of sand instead of upon rock. As soon as the winds of difficulty blow, and
the rains of hard times fall, the house will come crashing down. Kent, in
his Lesser Writings (1994, p. 210), states:

'Eclectics building upon the uncertain sands of theory need to be
continually rebuilding, as each new theory causes a shifting of their
foundation. Homeopaths, building upon the unchangeable rock of law, need
never rebuild.'

I am reminded of the present state in which "progressive" homeopaths use
the words "dogma and old books" to belittle Hahnemann's true teachings,
when I read an article by Adolph Lippe, a famous homeopath of the 19th
century:

'The progressive, anti-dogma wing of the homeopathic school, yearning
for recognition, have distinguished themselves once more, and have given
rise to a new phase of the history of medicine.

As it cannot be long before the recognition craze will evaporate, it
may be as well to put on record the events of a few years, if for no other
purpose than to complete history, and exhibit the folly of the recognition
seekers, showing them how they are not only successful in their attempts to
patch up a peace, but how in fact, they receive a severe rebuke from the
other side of the house' (Lippe, 1887).

It would be more fruitful for us to study what really is in the Organon.
The foundation is based upon the hard works of countless men and women who
came before us and dedicated their entire lives to the enrichment of
homeopathy.

The speed of light has not changed over the centuries, and neither have the
homeopathic laws of healing.

Maybe the practitioner is guided by ignorance, but we should remember that
ignorance is a crime when you deal with people's health. What fits on the
solid foundation, confirmed through experience in the field, we will use
and develop further. What does not work in harmony with these well-proven
methods, we must leave behind.

The history of homeopathy is just like all other discoveries in the world.
Christopher Columbus in 1492 discovered a small island; his successors
found a vast continent. As Columbus forever will be the discoverer of the
Americas, Hahnemann always will be the founder of homeopathy.

Patients want "promises" from the profession but Hahnemann calls one
"ignorant" who can lightly promise the cure of a difficult disease. We may
have to wait for centuries for a "Hahnemann" to come again and lead us to
completion of the work he left us. So far, no one has been able to pick up
where he left.

The advanced methods of the Organon are artistic ones that must be
individualized to the patient. No preconceived schedules or protocols can
guide the practitioner. You need to remain flexible and alert as the daily
dose might be correct for one case, while one dose a week or even once a
month is sufficient for other cases.

In very acute cases, one single dose may suffice, or it may be necessary to
repeat the dose at very short intervals. In chronic diseases, one dose
might act for days, weeks, even months, or it may become necessary to
repeat the dose daily or more often for a day, a week or even for months.
In all this the practitioner must be guided by his individual judgment
based on the advanced methods that Hahnemann taught.

As a classical homeopath, I have learned great respect for these
principles, because over the years I also have given wrong remedies and
caused negative effects, suppressed symptoms with partial simillimums,
disrupted the Vital Force with untimely repetition, and aggravated to the
point that antidoting was necessary.

Some say they have never seen any problems, suppressions or aggravations
caused by giving homeopathic remedies. Bunkum!

Such claims sound very, very hollow as this would mean that all the great
masters who preceded us were incompetent souls including Hahnemann, Kent
and Hering! The wisdom of the rules of homeopathy are the result of two
centuries of clinical experience, not religious dogma, fundamentalism or
fanaticism.

It is not always easy to be diplomatic when one is being called derogatory
names and the blood, sweat and hard work of one's experience is being
called dogma.

Some practitioners ask, "Why go through all the trouble and work to use the
watery solutions of the 5th and 6th edition, when I have satisfactory
results using the dry dose of the 4th edition?" For some using bottles,
spoons, brandy, etc., is just too "expensive" and too great a bother. It is
just so "easy" to throw an undetermined amount of pills in someone's mouth.

The answer is simple.

* Do you want to treat the most chronically ill with their strong
miasmatic background?

* Do you want to prevent unneeded similar aggravation?

* Do you want to treat the most sensitive patients, a group which seems
to increase daily in numbers?

* Do you want to speed up the time to cure by half, a quarter or less
the time that it takes with a dry dose?

* Do you want to be successful with heavily suppressed cases and with
illnesses deemed "incurable"?

* Do you want to use Hahnemann's most advanced methods and walk in his
footsteps?

If you do, then this book is for you. What do you have to lose? That your
patient is cured more rapidly? That you seem to be able to help people more
than other homeopaths? That your patient suffers less and often has no
similar aggravation? It is a win-win situation for homeopath and patient
alike.

So far, few have responded to Hahnemann's promises of 1833 (5th edition),
and 1842 (6th edition). A little more effort and dedication from the
homeopath will be well worth the efforts to relieve the suffering of mankind.

Let's remember Hahnemann's warning:

'I must warn the reader that indolence, love of ease and obstinacy
preclude effective service at the altar of truth, and truly freedom from
prejudice and untiring zeal qualify for the most sacred of all human
occupations, the practice of the true system of medicine.'
(1810, Preface to First Edition of the Organon)

Let's also remember Mark Twain's immortal words: "Get your facts first, and
then you can distort them as much as you want."

It is in the spirit of studiousness and accuracy that I offer this work.
May it unite all homeopaths. If some challengers can overcome their
repugnance to what they deem as "mere blind faith and fanaticism," they
will find much to learn.

The door is open!