Arnica Acc/esotericism - long

[Robyn]

says
to
as
needed

I'm feeling a little reactive this morning, and have not said much on the
list for quite awhile, but feel the need to say something - so here it is!

Even though what Dave describes above is how I was trained, I will never be
so closed minded, that I will ignore the astounding amount of clinical
evidence that some Homoeopaths offer for their not so "classically oriented
approach". For example if a practitioner has observed over 50 years of
practice that Arn. 3c works for recent injuries of this kind without
needing to take into consideration the sensitivity or susceptibility of the
patient, then what kind of scholar would I be to stick to what i have been
taught, without trying this approach, and assessing the outcome (as Dave
did mention)?

Wouldn't it be nice, if the overwhelming clinical evidence of some
practitioners led to the easy selection of a remedy and potency without
having to worry about sensitivity and susceptibility?

Homoeopathy, if methodolgy is too esoteric, in the long run, will never
become mainstream as a form of treatment. I would think that bringing
homoeopathy to the people should be our aim, not keeping it tied up in
squabbles over methodology and confusing hypothetical proposals as to drug
action, primary or secondary, potency selection (so many choices lead to so
much confusion), susceptibility and sensitivity etc., etc., etc.

I think Hahnemann would have loved to see his form of medicine succeed in
society rather than be relegated to "quackery" and other deleterious terms.
How long is it going to take before anyone studying to be a homoeopath can
just learn it and practice it? Why does it have to be so complicated? It
should be easy to practice, not hard.

Its easy, to sit on a list and spout out the way it should be, and there
are many who practice differently who are on this list but do not declare
their method of practice (and shouldn't have to). There is no 1 way to
practice Homoeopathy - that is the problem. So, no-one can claim their
method to be the best, or the right one! Hahnemann had not perfected his
method, and if we cling to where he left off, then we are guilty of
narrow/closed-mindedness which is unscientific, stagnating, and cultish.

I want to successfully treat patients, not guess and try different things
if i don't have to. If someone with loads of experience says that in most
cases a particular remedy and potency worked better than others then i want
to know that, and use that too. Why should I ignore this kind of
information? Will that benefit my patients?

I study Homoeopathy every day of my life, and think about it often, and
feel that I never seem to even touch the sides so to speak with the
knowledge that I have attained so far. Why should it be like this?

In 1991 (before studying Hom) I read a book by Doris Rapp MD, on her
treatment for allergies using Provocation/neutralization treatment. This
involved sublingual or subcutaneous allergy extracts being presented in
weaker and weaker dilutions until a skin response did not occur.
Apparently, the studies showing the efficacy of this treatment were
published from 1978 onwards. If anyone is interested, the book I have is
called Now, if this lady was successfully treating
allergies with this method, why can't we look at her success and learn
treatment from it? She mentions in Ch 1 that "Some different variations of
traditional allergy testing and treatment have been used since the 1940s.
One method is refferred to ad Intradermal Serial Dilution Titration,
End-Point Titration or the Rinkel technique and is used by over two
thousand ear, nose and throat specialists. Another is called
provocation/neutralization treatment or the Miller method."

This method may not be Homoeopathy but uses serial dilutions until the
correct one for the patient is found (in the office at the time of
testing), and the lady and other doctors have helped lots of people with
allergies and it is probably continuing today. This is what is important -
that the treatment helps the patient! This method uses dilutions and works
on alot of those treated. No mystery there! Whats more, if anyone wanted to
administer this treatment method and the consequent treatment, all one
needs to do is read the book and a few articles and you can! It is
available for anyone to use not clouded in mysterious language or
methodolgy that only some may interpret!
We should leave the "How does the diluted remedy work" questions to the
physicists and chemists and get on with treating people in a direct and
successful manner.

If the European homoeopaths can be successful with potencies up to 30c then
why is it necessary to develop potencies ad infinitum, when no-one really
knows what they will do? Its not important whether one potency is stronger,
more dynamic or whatever than another, it is important that the potency
that is given is more powerful than the symptoms presented, and if this
takes a 3c or a 200c then so be it. This really can only be assessed by
noting the potency that produces the groups of symptoms in the provings,
then treating with a potency that is more powerful than that, not the same
as the proving potency. Doesn't this make sense?

I would appreciate some input from others on this topic.

Whew!!!!

Regards

Robyn