We need to bring homeopathy into the 21st century.

[Chris_Gillen]

I'm curious about this statement "We need to bring homeopathy into the 21st
century" which seems to be appearing more and more in conversations and
posts.
Of course, it is not a sentiment with which anyone would be in disagreeance
at large.

However, some months ago, during a telephone conversation a local
practitioner suggested to me...."We need to burn all those 200 year old
books and bring this science of ours into the 21st century". Needless to
say, I was a little alarmed.

Is there a particular speaker on the seminar circuit at the moment who is
urging the "bring homoeopathy into the 21st century" ethos, and in what
context exactly???

Chris
[snip]
definitive answer - we have to use other skills and aids too. Certainly
Kent is not perfect and presumably none of the other repertories. Where did
Kent's rubrics come from?
easier but without detracting from the quality of the service we give.
Murphy's rep helps to do just that for me.

[Shannon Nelson]

Mm, isn't that the "battle cry" of every "homeopathy method" that departs
from Hahnemann -- and the farther they depart, the more loudly they cry
about the "21st century" schtick...
on 5/11/04 5:44 AM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:

[Nancy Siciliana]

I think this is one of those "insecurity" mechanisms that go through our
community like a hiccough once in a while. Seems some people in the
"scientific" communities seem to think that Homeopathy is a throw-back in
medical science...something outdated, like spats under cuffed trouser hems
and horses with carriages.

It is what it is, and in my opinion, that's pretty magnificent as a
scientific medical system. Some people just take the criticism of others
too much to heart. Since the criticism usually comes from sources which
aren't well versed in Homeopathy, its probably just better to ingore it an
go on.

Nancy
_________________________________________________________________
http://join.msn.com/?pgmarket=en-ca&pag ... S_Taglines

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Chris,
I am curious about it too. Shouldn't homeopathy be brought into the 20th
century first?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Sign-up for a FREE BT Broadband connection today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband

[Shannon Nelson]

on 5/11/04 5:18 PM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:

[VBLUES]

In einer eMail vom 11.05.04 12:50:54 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au:

>
11.5.4.
Dear Mr Gillen, I' d suggest You better call the practitioner mentioned and
tell him, at least in MY name, to burn HIS old books, but leave mine in peace.
Thank you. Dr. medic Viorel V. Bucur (www.dr-bucur.com).

[VBLUES]

In einer eMail vom 11.05.04 14:10:18 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
shannonnelson@tds.net:

<< Mm, isn't that the "battle cry" of every "homeopathy method" that departs
from Hahnemann -- and the farther they depart, the more loudly they cry
about the "21st century" schtick...
on 5/11/04 5:44 AM, Chris Gillen at chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au wrote:
did
and
the
punitive
11.5.4.
Well, there are definitely BETTER repertories than Kent and Murphy and
whatever, definitely better. Thank you, Dr. medic Viorel V. Bucur.

[VBLUES]

In einer eMail vom 12.05.04 09:00:47 (MEZ) - Mitteleurop. Sommerzeit schreibt
chrisgillen@optusnet.com.au:

Chris >>
and
peace.
It's Ms, not Mr.
Yes, I pretty much did that already, with several well-placed expletives for
emphasis, before hanging up.
That's how we do it here.

Oooh. >>
12.5.4.
I apologize for the faux-pas, otherwise fully agree as told. Kind regards, Dr
medic Viorel V. Bucur (www.dr-bucur.com).

[stewart_homoeopath]

Hi There,

I would suggest that anyone who would do away with our 200 year old
books has a very limited understanding of where the materia medica
comes from.

A lot of our true and tried remedies hae been in use since the days
of Hahnemann and the provings of course where performed then. The
materia Medica and repertories that we use today are still based on
this information, however, the law of "Chinese Whispers" is in
escapable.

Symptoms, like it or not, are not recorded acurately from author to
author, and this is largely in the absence of new provings. It is
very useful on occasion to go back to the primary source material to
really understand what the rubrics that were written nearly 200
years later actually represent. To truly individualise each remedy
in a group of remedies found within the one rubric, this kind of
information is indispensable.

By all means use newer texts and evolve this noble art of ours, but
always be aware that primary source material is still the most
accurate way to understand the results of provings. Every thing else
is subjective information which has not always been tested in the
clinic.

Stewart Ward

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Gillen"
wrote:
the 21st
conversations and
disagreeance
year old
Needless to
who is
what
not the
Certainly
Where did
Murphy.
make life
give.
Medica -
moves
you
into
Not
although