classical homeopathy / Hahnemann and magnets

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Julian,
I think there have been some problems recently with some messages not
arriving. Nothing mysterious or sinister about it, and someone else has
already mentioned it with regard to other messages. I missed a few myself,
judging by replies. Of course, a person with a suspicious mind or a
persecution complex may well choose to interpret these things differently.
How about the one that purports to give out homeopathic "doctorates"? That
has to be done through a university, too, to be worth anything. I believe
there are one or two "homeopathy PhDs" on this group? Maybe we could ask
them.
OK. Here is some substance. In the UK there is the "Shamanic School of
Homeopathy". I have its "prospectus", which looks like a children's cartoon
book. It teaches zodiacal astrology, "animal medicine" and "power animals",
"the new-age changes in the genetic code" (whatever they are), distance
healing, channelling spirits, etc. The course is approved by the Homeopathic
Medical Association (UK) and the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, two
organisations which purport to be regulating homeopathy and turning it into
a "proper profession". Shame on them.

One website I visited recently, which is the site of a "respected" and
"reputable" homeopath, features a whole long poem, rather a silly one, about
the retrograde action of the planet Mercury and its influence on earthlings.
Again, absolute nonsense and bringing down the name of homeopathy. Hahnemann
would be ranting furiously at this.
Well, there are quacks and charlatans in every profession, including the
legal profession, the building trade, the publishing trade, and the medical
profession. These are all regulated with the goal of taking charlatans out
of circulation. So why should homeopathy be any different? I think there is
a need for quackbusters in homeopathy, as well as any other field. And
"pseudoscience" is indeed rife in homeopathy. Many of you seem to have a
hatred for science, which I can only assume is a deep-seated psychological
problem. I worry about this, as people with serious neuroses should not
really be taking cases and working with patients.

I am frankly amazed at the reactions to these discussions - what an
infantile bunch.

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Tired of 56k? Get a FREE BT Broadband connection
http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/btbroadband

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Christine,
I didn't invent the word, so my definition is no different from anyone
else's. If you really want to understand, I recommend you the book "The
Demon-Haunted World" by Carl Sagan. He does tend to be very dismissive of
homeopathy, which is a shame, but it is not surprising considering how
homeopathy tends to be presented.
And the relevance of this issue to homeopathy is.......?

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself with cool new emoticons http://www.msn.co.uk/specials/myemo

[Rob]

My first reaction to what has been happening over the past few weeks
s ----- What possible benefit can any of you on this list find in talking
to Anna? Isn't it clear how any discussion will inveitably descend to?
However, I do find it interesting to watch the interchanges, but I want to
learn about how to be a more successful homoeopath, and that is why I have
joined this list not to watch accomplished clinicians argue with someone who
is blatently inexperienced or concealing experience by presenting as a
novice, but appearing to be anti the present mode and state of homoeopathic
practice in the world today - I know there are problems with homoeopathic
practice, but there are problems with all forms of medicine, no matter
whether they are traditional, alternative, allopathic or whatever.......
Anna, whoever you may be.... quackbuster or genuine quierant, and whatever
your motivations, why don't you just be a lurker, and start studying if that
is what your intention is, and join in the discussions when you have some
more experience as a student and then possibly a clinician --- only then,
should those who have devoted many years of their lives to the healing art
of homoeopathy, those who have much experience and those who with less
experience but genuine natural ability to utilise such a fascinating
modality as homoeopathy..... only then should these learned and widely
apprecitaed people in our community find the precious time to interact with
you and your concerns.

I have never liked the idea of squashing investigative queries, however it
appears that your queries often degenerate into berating of our profession -
and i hold this profession dear to me - and even though you seem to think
many of us don't have a scientific education, many of us do. There are many
highly educated people and scientists who have chosen to practice
homoeopahty, and many many doctors, and we all condsider them to be rather
intelligent people don't we? Then why would these people choose to practice
something if there was not soemthing very alluring about it ---- that is,
that is has the ability to heal people, without the exact knowledge of how?
Research is definitely needed, and I am all for it, and have a research
degree, but I hope that others, will attempt to do this whilst I am doing
what I prefer and that is working with those who are suffering and offering
them my skills, and as they develop, hopefully be more successful at this
task.
I just would appreciate it if you would either desist, or lurk or whatever,
but quit bothering genuine practitioners who's goal is to heal or teach how
to heal --- if you really want to be of service, then instead of attacking
members of this list who are highly regarded, work with them or any of us
and find answers, study, do your time, and then ask the questions again,
after you have experienced something.

I hope that I have not bothered any by my post, however my intent was to not
be just a lurker, as I can be at times, but to just say that even though I
may not say things all the time, I am still here and watching and listening
and hopefully learning by the interchanges ---- I want this to continue, so
Anna and everyone, if you feel it is important to interact on the level you
have been, then so be it, but I at least have conveyed how I feel about it.

the desire of integrity to all
Robyn - a practicing homoeopath and believer in homeoaopthy as a healing
art/scientist/ among other things..............

---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.661 / Virus Database: 424 - Release Date: 19/04/2004

[Christine Wyndham-Thomas]

I understand the meaning of 'pseudoscience', Anna, just don't understand
why you use it to describe homeopathy. I know homeopathy has many branches;
it did in Samuel Hahnemann's day, and he wasn't happy about it either, but
he certainly didn't class his system of medicine as 'pseudo' because of it.
'SH' was a genius and far more advanced intellectually than anyone today,
including those in the field of science.

The one factor we can agree is that homeopathy works. In time, no doubt,
science will 'prove' much of what 'SH' has said because it can now prove -
or will be able to - the 'survival of consciousness' after death, and
although not relevant to homeopathy is, nonetheless, an 'intangible'
concept - although to those who believe in communication with the dead, they
will already know what science is now only learning. It's just a matter of
time before homeopathy, too, is proved by science.

http://www.newsnet5.com/news/2893543/detail.html
Christine Wyndham-Thomas
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com

[Eleana Needham]

In the times when people believed the earth was flat.....
did it mean the earth flattened for their sake???
Just a thought

Eleana

_________________________________________________________________
Stay in touch with absent friends - get MSN Messenger
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Anna de Burgo]

Dear Christine,
Not much time. In fact it is basically proved already, except that most
homeopaths seem to have no idea about this, and little interest in it. As
for this "survival of consciousness" stuff - well, I think it is a little
easier to prove the existence of bioelectromagnetic forces (which is already
well established) than the survival of consciousness after death. I'm afraid
I cannot see the connection. You might as well compare it with proving the
existence of little green men from Mars. Is homeopathy a spiritualist
concept for you?

Warmly,
Anna

_________________________________________________________________
It's fast, it's easy and it's free. Get MSN Messenger today!
http://www.msn.co.uk/messenger

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Yes you have touched a nerve, definitely.
ALL the people on this and other lists, despites sometimes ferocious arguments and rude comments, have one thing in common: we are passionate about homeopathy.
We learn it, we teach it, we breathe it, we live it.

Then you come, like so many others before you, and instead of intelligent discussion, try to implant discord. That will not be tolerated.

You claim you have read the books.
It did not appear so as you just wrote "I have seen them" then went on commenting about money. If you had read the books, there is there enough material to keep discussing things for years to come, but apparently even if you realy read them, you did not understand them, as otherwise you would have tried to discuss their contents, and that is not an easy task.
It is a lot easier to belittle people.

And it is true that I did not remember that you were a "jounalist" and not an architect.
For that I must apologise.
I hereby sincerely and humbly present my apologies to all the members of that beautiful profession architecture is for having had the audacity and the rudeness to believe for a moment that you could be one of them.

And if correcting a typo of mine is the best you can do...................
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Hatred for science.............

Well let's see about YOUR science.

Would you care to read and discuss Chapter 4 of Signori and Bellavite's book, which deals with animal and human research.
Question to you: what in this chapter demonstrates that homeopathy is or is not properly reserached? what, if any, are the flaws in the experiments? characterise the conclusions.

Now let's see an intelligent answer............

Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[Allen Coniglio]

First, I would like to apologize to Anna for what I am about to say and, I would also like to say
that this is not intended to be aimed entirely at her. She, her writings and, the list's reactions
to both have simply catalyzed my thoughts and, forced me to be organized enough to write this. (My
Sagittarius and Leo stelliums would rather just drive away from the whole thing and goof off).

I am, perhaps, not so amazed that so much time is being wasted on this whole affair with one
personality on the list. As has happened so many times before, it seems that those who know and
study homeopathy are once again being put in a position of defending themselves against the charges
that have been leveled by the quackbusters from the beginning, particularly, that homeopathy is
"unscientific" (as though those quacks have a monopoly on scientific understanding) and that it is
fraught with "superstition" and "New Age" nonsense. You know, it is impossible to argue/discuss
issues of this sort with the quackbusters, as those who would devote so much energy to attacking a
system which they obviously have not studied or had any experience with are not likely to ever get
it, so, why make a futile effort? I studied under a world "renowned" quackbuster in undergraduate
school and, thus, I have firsthand experience of the ignorance, underhandedness and foolishness of
such twits. I have learned to despise the type and, generally, try to ignore them, although, that is
not always possible.

I do not want to get into attacking personalities, as once things begin to degenerate into an ad
hominem display, we might as well all head for the exits. It is, however, worth noting that several
of the list members, including myself, have had our buttons pushed and, have reacted with anger and
frustration at what we have perceived as the folly and unfairness of some of the things that have
been said. Even though it is obvious that Anna does not understand as much homeopathy as she thinks
she does and, that she often seems to go on the offensive (and becomes offensive, probably to defend
herself), I think that everyone might want to consider just no longer responding to personal attacks
and inflammatory statements and get back to a real discussion of homeopathy. I do not want to
pretend to be the voice of reason because my true nature is to be outrageous and inflammatory and, I
will confess to having done my best to tweak the mighty and to inflame things on this and other
lists but, I usually (not always) know when to quit. This might be a good place.

I would also like to say that no one can ever know what another person knows and what they are
really thinking and what it is that has brought them to the place that they are at, intellectually,
or otherwise. As much has been made of so-called "New Age" superstition in recent days, I would say
that one should not always paint with a broad brush. To pillory the profession and TRUE SCIENCE of
homeopathy because some people have determined to use astrology or other metaphysical variants in
their practice of homeopathy is unwise and illogical. Homeopathy has fought for its existence for
the past 200 years because the ignorant members of the "scientific" establishment could not find
room for it within their limited paradigm (and just could not understand it) and the loss has been
to the Earth and her inhabitants. Pity the world had these know nothings been successful in their
efforts to destroy homeopathy.

I have studied almost every aspect of "New Age" culture over the past 25 years or so. After such
study, I have rejected most of it as unprovable, illogical and flawed in its methodology although I
continue to keep an open mind about all of it. The important thing to notice is that I have STUDIED
these subjects and, am, thus, in a position to decide what is usable and true and what is not. This,
sadly, has not been the approach of the so-called "scientist" of our day. Those pretenders are not
worthy to be called scientists, as they have nothing of science about them. Neither do they have a
true understanding of what it means to be a scientist and to practice the SCIENTIFIC METHOD which
would require them to first OBSERVE that which they would know and, ultimately, to GATHER
INFORMATION to either PROVE it or DISPROVE it. One DOES NOT make up one's mind without FIRST having
STUDIED the subject. One who would do such a thing is a QUACK, according to the discipline of TRUE
SCIENCE.

Though I have rejected most of the New Age culture, there are several very IMPORTANT and TRUE (in my
world view) things that I have gathered from my studies. I have mentioned several times on this list
that I believe strongly in astrology and have found it to be absolutely, unerringly accurate when
PRECISELY and INTELLIGENTLY applied. I have, as I have mentioned before, used it to help me select
remedies for clients and, to gain understanding of them beyond what they have been willing to
reveal. I did not say, "specific information" about them but, rather, "understanding". Notice also,
that I have studied the subject for more than 25 years and, am, thus, in a position to decide
whether it works or not. One who has NOT studied it has no business making any kind of judgment -
positive or negative - about the efficacy of this or any other discipline. To do so would be
UNSCIENTIFIC and would expose one to charges of ignorance, bigotry and foolishness.

It is very easy to make facile, childish and, oversimplified criticisms and judgments about subjects
of which one knows nothing and to seem important and elevated, particularly, if one's opinions are
in line with the prevailing opinion of the ossified, established class of know nothings and twits
whose only purpose is to glorify and exalt themselves and who, by chance and the workings of an oft
times unfathomable Universe, have gained the ideological ascendancy. It is a much more difficult and
noble thing to go against the grain of established non-thinking and to demonstrate the courage and
character to express belief in something that most would know nothing about and/or would reject out
of hand as pseudoscience or nonsense. I, however, am a natural revolutionary (see retrograde Uranus
in its natural 11th house) who can think for himself and see through a phony and a fool a mile away
(see retrograde Mercury in Scorpio in its natural 3rd house) and, is not afraid to tell ANYONE what
I am thinking (see Mars conjunct ascendant in Leo squaring the Sun in Scorpio in the 4th house). In
fact, I sometimes feel that I have an obligation to do the things I do and to tell what I know (see
Saturn in Leo conjunct Mars squaring the Sun) so that I can help transorm the world and its
inhabitants - to include the people on this list (see Pluto in the 12th house conjunct ascendant,
Mars and Saturn all squaring the Sun). We all just do what we gotta do.

See how it works?

Allen Coniglio
Scientist

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Anna,

One big obstacle for the schools teaching about the latest research etc., is
simply that there is a *lot* to learn, just in studying the "how-to's" of
homeopathy. Which is what most students are there for... But they *do*
include "proper science studies" in Anatomy and Physiology -- because those
are necessary and pertinent to practice.

You know, there *are* folks out there -- including some on this list -- who
*like* the studies and the scientific minutiae and the what-iffing and the
how-do-we-prov-ing. It's definitely alive and well in and around the field,
but folks who are practicing and/or working hard at *learning* to practice
have to decide where their time is best spent.

For curiosity, have you read any of the books Julian suggested to you --
Buenaviste's, and, er, well, the several others? I think you ought to read
what *is* written on those topics before you start yelling at those of us
who aren't 'specially interested in it...

Shannon
on 4/23/04 12:44 PM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote: