In the ideal world this would be preferable. I do think however that if
this was this only means to healing the supply of able Practitioners would
be sorely deficient., Jean
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Strictly classical
-
Julian Winston
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Strictly classical
At 8:43 PM +1100 2/10/04, JeanW Doherty wrote:
There was a time when there were more Hahnemannian practitioners per
number of population. Unfortunately, the pure system takes more time
and energy to learn than most people decide they can give. So they
look for shortcuts, which results in specifics, and combinations, and
other non-homeopathic application.
This is all OK-- I just wish that those who do bastardized homeopathy
would not try to call it "Homeopathy" .
In MY ideal world, they would ALL be Hahnemannians, but at different
levels of expertise. It's not too difficult to be purely Hahnemannian
in most acute ailments. Then... once a practitioner KNOWS they can
handle a certain range of illness and complaints they can a). learn
more and b). know who to pass a case too who is one level of
experience up from them.
All one has to do is to commit to doing it correctly and work on
increasing their depth.
One of the best things I ever heard was the suggestion that you learn
ONE remedy well. see a bunch of patients and all those who fit Calc.
carb, you treat. The others? Just say, I can't help you now. At the
end of a year you will really know Calc-- and probably have a very
good sucess rate! Then learn another remedy or two...
It doesn't take much to practice by the rules. It just takes a
commitment to do so.
JW
There was a time when there were more Hahnemannian practitioners per
number of population. Unfortunately, the pure system takes more time
and energy to learn than most people decide they can give. So they
look for shortcuts, which results in specifics, and combinations, and
other non-homeopathic application.
This is all OK-- I just wish that those who do bastardized homeopathy
would not try to call it "Homeopathy" .
In MY ideal world, they would ALL be Hahnemannians, but at different
levels of expertise. It's not too difficult to be purely Hahnemannian
in most acute ailments. Then... once a practitioner KNOWS they can
handle a certain range of illness and complaints they can a). learn
more and b). know who to pass a case too who is one level of
experience up from them.
All one has to do is to commit to doing it correctly and work on
increasing their depth.
One of the best things I ever heard was the suggestion that you learn
ONE remedy well. see a bunch of patients and all those who fit Calc.
carb, you treat. The others? Just say, I can't help you now. At the
end of a year you will really know Calc-- and probably have a very
good sucess rate! Then learn another remedy or two...
It doesn't take much to practice by the rules. It just takes a
commitment to do so.
JW
-
Gaby Rottler
- Posts: 191
- Joined: Thu May 30, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Strictly classical
Hi JW, all,
Exactly.
That's what I recommend to veterinary colleagues who want to learn
homoeopathy, too: start with one remedy, and apply it only to those
patients, who seem to fit.
Unfortunately this seems to take too much time, so I doubt many will
follow this route...
Best,
Gaby
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de
http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Exactly.
That's what I recommend to veterinary colleagues who want to learn
homoeopathy, too: start with one remedy, and apply it only to those
patients, who seem to fit.
Unfortunately this seems to take too much time, so I doubt many will
follow this route...
Best,
Gaby
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de
http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: Strictly classical
But this is the whole point really - learning homeopathy well does take a
lot of time. A lot of time, studying and hard work.
Having just left a group who were discussing the issues of self treating and
seemingly promoting this emphatically (it got heated, personal, and the
discussion was gagged - which was even worse in my opinion), my own brief
contribution to this very important subject is this - that prescribing any
homeopathic remedy has to be done under supervision of a fully qualified
homeopath and preferably one who has a lot of experience and success to
their name.
As I have said before Homeopathy is only as good as the practitioner and it
concerns me that people think they can prescribe on acutes, even first aid
states and get the simillimum which will cure as opposed to routine
prescribing which can do a lot of damage. Only last week I had 2 cases which
were damaged by homeopathy - parent giving Sulphur to the point of proving
and someone who had been taking a Pulsatilla 30c daily for months!!! And we
complain about the damage of allopathy, well, I know which I would rather
deal with.
Virtually anyone can buy remedies in any potencies, even OTC (in Britain you
can buy 6c, 12, 30c) and how can anyone, without a great deal of training,
now how to distinguish between all the remedies which might come into play
for a bee sting for example - giving Apis is routineopathy.
I feel I have said this so many times before but quality teaching and
training is essential, then comes supervision and experience, then comes
success and confidence and this will maintain the good name of homeopathy
which we need in our struggle against our corporate enemies.
I suppose I join the ranters
)
Best, Joy
www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 2/9/04 10:36 AM, Gaby Rottler at rottler@curantur.de wrote:
Hi JW, all,
Exactly.
That's what I recommend to veterinary colleagues who want to learn
homoeopathy, too: start with one remedy, and apply it only to those
patients, who seem to fit.
Unfortunately this seems to take too much time, so I doubt many will
follow this route...
Best,
Gaby
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de
http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
lot of time. A lot of time, studying and hard work.
Having just left a group who were discussing the issues of self treating and
seemingly promoting this emphatically (it got heated, personal, and the
discussion was gagged - which was even worse in my opinion), my own brief
contribution to this very important subject is this - that prescribing any
homeopathic remedy has to be done under supervision of a fully qualified
homeopath and preferably one who has a lot of experience and success to
their name.
As I have said before Homeopathy is only as good as the practitioner and it
concerns me that people think they can prescribe on acutes, even first aid
states and get the simillimum which will cure as opposed to routine
prescribing which can do a lot of damage. Only last week I had 2 cases which
were damaged by homeopathy - parent giving Sulphur to the point of proving
and someone who had been taking a Pulsatilla 30c daily for months!!! And we
complain about the damage of allopathy, well, I know which I would rather
deal with.
Virtually anyone can buy remedies in any potencies, even OTC (in Britain you
can buy 6c, 12, 30c) and how can anyone, without a great deal of training,
now how to distinguish between all the remedies which might come into play
for a bee sting for example - giving Apis is routineopathy.
I feel I have said this so many times before but quality teaching and
training is essential, then comes supervision and experience, then comes
success and confidence and this will maintain the good name of homeopathy
which we need in our struggle against our corporate enemies.
I suppose I join the ranters
)Best, Joy
www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 2/9/04 10:36 AM, Gaby Rottler at rottler@curantur.de wrote:
Hi JW, all,
Exactly.
That's what I recommend to veterinary colleagues who want to learn
homoeopathy, too: start with one remedy, and apply it only to those
patients, who seem to fit.
Unfortunately this seems to take too much time, so I doubt many will
follow this route...
Best,
Gaby
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de
http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Re: Strictly classical
At 8:43 PM +1100 2/10/04, JeanW Doherty wrote:
There was a time when there were more Hahnemannian practitioners per
number of population. Unfortunately, the pure system takes more time
and energy to learn than most people decide they can give. So they
look for shortcuts, which results in specifics, and combinations, and
other non-homeopathic application.
Snip......
***I had a chuckle when i read this. It seems that the problem has been and
will likely be an ongoing one, no matter where in the strata one lies!!!!:
In a book called Green Pharmacy by B. Griggs p.55, it seems that at the
time of Henry V111, it took about 14 years to become a Physician if
studying a full degree at Oxford or Cambridge. - as distinct from a
surgeon. They had a thorough grounding in the Classics.
Griggs says "to men like these - a well bred and exclusively educated elite
- it was unthinkable that anyone less well trained than themselves should
dare to describe himself as a doctor (referring to the herbalists of the
time). It was even more unthinkable that the homegrown herbs used by
amateurs and by vast numbers of illiterate quacks might possibly be more
effective than the grand compounds taken from Avicenna or Mesue which they
prescribed for their wealthy patients. ........... these quacks and
amatuers represented real competition to the physicians. It was bad enough
that, as a result of the flood of herbals, doctoring with simples had
become a fashionable amateur pastime:
'for now [say they] every man without any study of necessary artes
unto the knowledge of Phisick will become a Phisician..... every man nay
every old wyfe will presume, not without the mordre of many to practyse
Phisick' (I don't know who said this as I only have an extract not the
full text.)
and below the Physicians there were the surgeons, then the Barber-surgeons,
then the Apothecaries, all thought of as semi skilled and Lineacre said
insight into phusic, nor in any other kind of learning: some could not even
read the letter on the book, so far forth, that common artificers, smiths,
weavers and women, boldly and accustomably took upon them great cures, to
the high displeasure of God, great infay of the faculty, and the grievous
hurt, damage and destruction of many of the King's liege people.'
RF
T
There was a time when there were more Hahnemannian practitioners per
number of population. Unfortunately, the pure system takes more time
and energy to learn than most people decide they can give. So they
look for shortcuts, which results in specifics, and combinations, and
other non-homeopathic application.
Snip......
***I had a chuckle when i read this. It seems that the problem has been and
will likely be an ongoing one, no matter where in the strata one lies!!!!:
In a book called Green Pharmacy by B. Griggs p.55, it seems that at the
time of Henry V111, it took about 14 years to become a Physician if
studying a full degree at Oxford or Cambridge. - as distinct from a
surgeon. They had a thorough grounding in the Classics.
Griggs says "to men like these - a well bred and exclusively educated elite
- it was unthinkable that anyone less well trained than themselves should
dare to describe himself as a doctor (referring to the herbalists of the
time). It was even more unthinkable that the homegrown herbs used by
amateurs and by vast numbers of illiterate quacks might possibly be more
effective than the grand compounds taken from Avicenna or Mesue which they
prescribed for their wealthy patients. ........... these quacks and
amatuers represented real competition to the physicians. It was bad enough
that, as a result of the flood of herbals, doctoring with simples had
become a fashionable amateur pastime:
'for now [say they] every man without any study of necessary artes
unto the knowledge of Phisick will become a Phisician..... every man nay
every old wyfe will presume, not without the mordre of many to practyse
Phisick' (I don't know who said this as I only have an extract not the
full text.)
and below the Physicians there were the surgeons, then the Barber-surgeons,
then the Apothecaries, all thought of as semi skilled and Lineacre said
insight into phusic, nor in any other kind of learning: some could not even
read the letter on the book, so far forth, that common artificers, smiths,
weavers and women, boldly and accustomably took upon them great cures, to
the high displeasure of God, great infay of the faculty, and the grievous
hurt, damage and destruction of many of the King's liege people.'
RF
T