classical homeopathy / Hahnemann and magnets

[Shannon Nelson]

Hm, some interesting ideas! I've gotta ask...

on 4/25/04 6:24 AM, Anna de Burgo at annadeburgo@hotmail.com wrote:
Are there really schools that give "homeopathy PhDs"? What countries? I
ask only for curiosity...

Just BTW, the question of "studies cost money" applies not so much to
provings (tho even there, sometimes *someone* needs payment), but applies
very much to the "controlled studies" that you've been asking for -- some of
those have been done, as I'm sure you know, but yes, those do cost money.
Yup, I imagine Hahnemann would be ranting, and since I haven't seen the site
I can't say much except -- homeopaths are people too... With personal
interests, personalities, proclivities, etc., etc. It's the nature of
life... Einstein was more than a bit of a nut in certain ways, but we
haven't written off his Theory of Relativity and whatnot. So,
y'know, sometimes you need to evaluate "personalities" separately from
"products". (And yeah, some "personalities" may find some "products" odd
too... Personally I share your uneasiness over homeopathy's image, but
suspect we'll just have to live with that...)
The problem is, I've yet to see a quackbuster going after only certain
*types* of homeopathy. To a "quackbuster", we are all quacks.

The issue of professional self-censureship will I suppose always be a sticky
ones. The MDs certainly haven't got it figured out, and I'd say neither do
we. How do you think this should be done?
Again I agree with you, tho I don't share your discomfort with that.
"Pseudoscience" is rife in the world at large, always has been and no doubt
always will be, because most of us just *aren't* scientists, either by
temperament or by training. Is a "scientific" approach necessary in order
to practice homeopathy well? In certain ways yes: to be careful, thorough,
observant, learn from your mistakes; one can never become a really good
homeopath without being extremely honest and accurate in one's observation.

But in other ways, no. To become a very good prescriber and clinician one
doesn't need to know *anything* about studies, mean squares, control groups,
study design, or any of that, ahem, "stuff". Some people get into studies,
and fortunately some have been done and more will be done. Others of us
really don't care about them, and don't want to spent out time that way.
I'm not saying there's anything *wrong* with studies -- actually I know
they're useful become some folks *do* want to see them. I'm only saying
that it really has nothing to do with the *practice* of homeopathy, and one
just can't be, do and learn everything. So Anna, while I *don't* want to
denigrate your interest in the studies and all -- maybe you'll be one of the
bright lights to illuminate some of the haziness! -- I think you'll find
more information and less aggravation if you can draw from what *is* here,
rather than railing at what is not. (And I wish everyone else would try to
keep more civil tongues too...)
I haven't seen *any* hatred for science here, tho I've seen a good deal of
ignorance of it, and an even gooder deal of boredom with it. Mostly,
tho, the folks that want to talk science, talk science; and the folks that
don't want to, don't. Usually we don't castigate each other about it. (So
c'mon guys, let's quit castigating Anna, too.)

But see, this is exactly where the problems come in. Most of your above is
reasonable discussion, but the name-calling, well, it just doesn't help to
move things forward. (And the group has been indulging in plenty of it, so
I'm not addressing only you!)

Cheers,
Shannon

[Julian Winston]

At 9:37 PM +1000 4/25/04, Robyn wrote:
[snip]

Some of the questions Anna asks are the same asked by my first-year
students. And they deserve answers, wether the answers are hear or
not (which also happens with first year students).
That is the issue. Read the books. Learn the subject. Otherwise it is
like my student of many years ago who wanted to know why a triangle
has three sides. How do you explain something as basic as that?
Those who have studied it and use it are convinced. Again, Read the
literature, study the subject, and use it as per the instructions of
Hahnemann.

JW

[Julian Winston]

At 8:40 PM +0000 4/25/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:

[snip]
What is needed to understand is the history of homeopathy.
There are several intersections here...

1. Hahnemann was a deist, and spoke clearly about the ultimate
aspirations of man in Para. 9. I doubt you will find a paragraph like
that in any other medical text.
So we (homeopathy) has a footing of healing man to help him "reach
the higher purposes of existence" and that opens up a lot of "non
medical" thinking.

2. Homeopathy is set up as a vitalistic system.

3. In the west, after Hahnemann (so homeopathy was already formed)
there was a move by Christians (the prevalent sect) to find a way
within their beliefs to account for the interaction of man with the
modern world. A number of those "Christian thinkers" found the works
of the Swedish mystic, Emmanuel Swedenborg, and slowly put together a
formal church (The Church of the New Jerusalem, or New Church). A
number of "free-thinking Christians" associated themselves with this
church. Many were writers. Many were doctors. Among the New Church
followers we find Gram (1st homeopathy in the USA), Hering,
Farrington, Guernsey, Boericke, Tafel, and Kent. In the UK we have
James Garth Wilkinson who was instrumental in the homeopathic
movement there.

Swedenborg's work talks about his revelations after visiting heaven
and hell. Mysticism runs deep.

4. With the rise of the Spirtualists at the end of the 19th century
(Blavatsky, Golden Dawn) we have the growth of Anthroposophy by
Rudolph Steiner. Steiner used many of the concepts of homeopathic
pharmacy within the medical system associated with Anthroposophy. A
number of people who were involved in anthroposophy became interested
in homeopathy-- so we have a second crossing of mysticism with
homeopathy. One of the Anthroposophs who became influential in the
USA was Elizabeth Wright Hubbard. Another (who studied with her) was
Whitmont, who also studied with Jung-- and brought THAT edge into
homeopathy. As we got into the 1950's another leader in the USA was
Williams (an anthroposoph) and Grimmer (a Swedenborg).

5. As homeopathy was going down the gurgler in the UK, Clarke took it
upon himself to educate a number of lay people in homeopathy. Some of
these folks knew John Damonte and Thomas Maughan-- who were both very
involved with the Druidic Order in the UK. These two learneds
homeopathy from a diverse number of folks and then trained many of
the people who set up the first homeopathic schools in the UK-- so it
should be of no surprise that there is a mystical underlay to much of
it.

6. With the rise of the change of consciousness in the USA in the mid
1960s, many of those looking for "better ways" were college students,
and SOME of them were medical students and SOME of them found their
personal enlightenment with the parade of Indian Gurus who were
"doing the circuit." Many of these gurus were conversant with and
used homeopathy, and the med-students became interested. So THAT
bunch came to homeopathy with an underlay of eastern thought.

So... it is no wonder that many who are involved in homeopathy also
treat a "spiritual path" on which homeopathy can fit hand in glove.

But... there are many who took the same paths, and still use
conventional medicine. One does not follow the other.

The above is a brief outline of what I've covered in my book-- which
I wrote as a way of showing folks the complex entwinings of our
homeopathic history.
It is not as simple as it may appear.

JW

[Julian Winston]

At 11:24 AM +0000 4/25/04, Anna de Burgo wrote:
There are several things which have to be answered here. I'll try
doing them in the order they come up.
First: The above. If you have read my book "Faces of Homeopathy"
(which you obviously haven't) you will find a whole chapter outlining
the question of questionable education.
For a long time the BIH (in the UK) offered "Doctorates" in
Homeopathy that were, to my thinking a joke. They were told to cease
and desist by (I think) the ministry of education in the UK, and they
no longer do that. However there have been MANY mail-order schools
offering degrees is many subjects, including homeopathy. They have no
standing whatsoever.
When I speak of needing a "university" to do good conventional
studies, I am speaking ofworking with such schools as The UNiversity
of Pennsyylvania, Oxford and Cambridge University, Stanford
University, etc. and NOT of the Croydon University for homeopathic
studies.
Absolutely. Shame on them. But to see one (or two, or three) such
examples and then paint the whole field with that brush is a grand
error.
When you first came on this list you said you were looking for a
school-- ideally one for "distance learning." I think it was
mentioned that there weren't many of them that were of quality, and
two of those which are regularly referenced are the Devon School and
the BIH.
The "shamanic school" (and all like it) DO pose a great problem
because they (in my opinion) pervert the true tenets of homeopathy
into some kind of new-age magic.
It is up to YOU to read the primary literature, understand what
homeopathy is, and then try to find a school that fits that picture.
Just because you are finding the "woo-woo" edge, does not mean that
the real heart of homeopathy does not exist.
If you are aware of my writing (and I've been doing this battle on
the side of Hahnemann for over 20 years) I am one of those who fight
the very same things you are objecting to.
But I have held to the true homeopathic vision and not gotten
distracted or disenchanted (as you seem have become), because I know
the history and I know the primary literature.
I've just finished teaching the first three meetings of our first
year at our school in Wellington, and I have covered, in that
introduction, many of the topics you keep addressing. If you read the
books, and had some education, you would not have the questions you
do. You (as most students) want it ALL NOW. And it must be gained in
sequence-- like any other skill. When a first year student asks about
"miasms" all I can say is that it is a complex subject and will be
discussed in year three. Take it one step at a time.
Absolutely. The question is who says this person is "respected" or
reputable"? And... can you make a judgement about their "competence"
and separate that from their "woo-woo- ness." I certainly don't hold
John Henry Clarke's fascist rantings against his quality as a
homeopath. Being human brings with it many foibles. Learn to separate
the wheat from the chaff.
Yes. Some ARE regulated.
But the quackbusters have to come from WITHIN the field, and not from
without. It is senseless to ask the opinion of homeopathy of a
conventional medical person who has never studied it. And THAT is
where those who accuse homeopathy as being "pseudoscience" come from.

On ANOTHER note... your comments on the "vital force" as being an
antiquated concept, and the need for homeopathy to divest itself of
such language....

If you look at the Chinese and Indian culture-- those which brought
forth Acupuncture and Ayurveda-- they have, deep within the culture,
an understanding of the vitalistic model. It permeates the Chinese
culture. It is the basis for not only acupuncture, but of Chinese
herbal medicine, and the practices of Tai chi and chi gong, and Feng
Shui.
It is only the Western cultures that have abandoned the understanding
of vitalism and have replaced it with a mechanistic model. (Read
Harris Coulter's Divided Legacy, volume 1 and 2)

It was the genius of Hahnemann to rescue vitalism from the
discard-heap of medicine, and to understand that health and disease
is a vitalistic process, and to NOT see it that way perpetuates a
model that is pernicious and destructive to human health.
He outlines this ALL in the first 30 or so paragraphs of the Organon.
He places the science of (what he termed) homeopathy smack into the
concepts of vitalism.
Now Dudgeon translated the word "Lebenskraft" as "vital-force" but
others have used the term "life-force" or "dynamis" as well-- it is
the force/power/energy that enlivens the material organism. It is the
concept (rather than the word) that is of importance, because it is
the understanding that when we treat "disease" we are not treating
"entities" (like measles, or mumps) but, rather, treating it at the
deeper level at which the initial susceptibility occurs. And THAT is
what makes Homeopathy different than allopathic medicine-- not the
small doses-- but the concept of how to use them.
Without the structure of vitalism, there can be no homeopathy.

Read the books. If you want to understand this, read the Organon. If
you want more of an explanation, read Close's "The Genius of
Homeopathy." Avoid reading Kent's "Lectures on Homeopathic
Philosophy" because it incorporates too many mystical concepts from
Swedenborg.
It you can get a copy, read "Lectures on Homeopathy" by Dudgeon--
these lectures were delivered in 1850-53, close upon Hahnemann's
death, and un-tainted by mystical concepts that came later.

JW

[Allen Coniglio]

Once again, JW demonstrates his value to this list. Thanks for your efforts and input.

Allen

[Sheri Nakken]

At 12:31 AM 04/26/2004 -0400, you wrote:
efforts and input.

And his value to the planet.
Thank you so much Julian. I have learned so much from you over the many
many many years I've been on these lists
Sheri
PS - and from Faces of Homeopathy
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL
OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[Sheri Nakken]

Thanks Allen
Beautifully written
Sheri

At 10:37 PM 04/25/2004 -0400, you wrote:
I would also like to say
and, the list's reactions
enough to write this. (My
thing and goof off).
whole affair with one
that those who know and
themselves against the charges
particularly, that homeopathy is
understanding) and that it is
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Sheri Nakken, R.N., MA, Classical Homeopath
Well Within & Earth Mysteries & Sacred Site Tours (worldwide)
Vaccination Information & Choice Network
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/vaccine.htm
http://www.nccn.net/~wwithin/homeo.htm
homeopathycures@tesco.net
ONLINE Introduction to Homeopathy Classes
ONLINE Introduction to Vaccine Dangers Classes
ANY INFO OBTAINED HERE NOT TO BE CONSTRUED AS MEDICAL
OR LEGAL ADVICE. THE DECISION TO VACCINATE IS YOURS AND YOURS ALONE
Voicemail US 530-740-0561 UK phone from US 011-44-1874-624-936

[Steve Scrutton]

I have only just seen this mail (attached below). Nor am I sure who sent the
first part - I can only assume it was Anna as I tend to delete 'her' mail as
soon as I see the name. Given the concerns expressed here, and my own
personal lack of direct knowledge about the Shammaic school, I will forward
this mail to the school to obtain their reaction to this criticism. The few
dealings that I have had with the school would suggest that they are a
reputable school that use the techniques outlined in Anna's letter as aids
to understanding the patient for people who look at and interpret life,
illness, vital force, constitution, et el, in that particular way - perhaps
as part of the case taking and assessment techniques. It would appear that
neither Anna, Julian or I do so - but I would suggest that this is our
choice.

As far as their training in homeopathy is concerned, I have had one lengthy
lengthy telephone conversation with a graduate from the school, who has been
doing excellent work in Africa, and two recent applicants have sent in
excellent portfolios, and during interview successfully convinced our
assessors that their understanding of homeopathy, their plans for future
practice and continuing professional development were sound. They have
agreed to practice according to our code of ethics, and are fully insured.

So I am not too sure what 'shame' we (the ARH) have attracted to ourselves!
Homeopathic

Absolutely. Shame on them. But to see one (or two, or three) such
examples and then paint the whole field with that brush is a grand
error.
When you first came on this list you said you were looking for a
school-- ideally one for "distance learning." I think it was
mentioned that there weren't many of them that were of quality, and
two of those which are regularly referenced are the Devon School and
the BIH.
The "shamanic school" (and all like it) DO pose a great problem
because they (in my opinion) pervert the true tenets of homeopathy
into some kind of new-age magic.
Steve Scrutton
Registrar, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths
Homeopathy: a safe, gentle and effective medical therapy

[Shannon Nelson]

Yeah....
))
Shannon

on 4/26/04 2:12 AM, Sheri Nakken at homeopathycures@tesco.net wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Julian's wonderful response here is a *perfect* illustration of sincere
questions (and I think Anna's are sincere) are worth serious response --
altho perhaps this:
is maybe the most directly relevant of all... I agree, Anna -- find
yourself the most rigorous school you can, and work with it. I applaud you
for taking the time to research schools deeply and hope it eventually leads
to a good fit for you. (Again, see if Sheilagh Creasey's school is a
possibility?) But if you aren't able to find a *good* fit, I encourage you
to settle for the "best available fit" and then hit the books -- especially
the "old" books -- hard, and work your papers and essays over until your
answers meet *your* satisfaction, even (or especially) if your standard is
higher than your teachers'. (But with luck you'll find teachers whose
standards are as rigorous as your own -- it is possible!) If you learn
things that you think others need to know -- publish! Share your thoughts
here; write articles for the homeopathy journals (I know Julian is always
eager for contributors), and maybe in other areas too. I look forward to
hearing what you are able to work out.

And back to Julian's -- what a delicious defense of "vitalism", and reminder
that, "It is only the Western cultures that have abandoned the understanding
of vitalism and have replaced it with a mechanistic model." Mm, it does me
'eart good.


Shannon
on 4/26/04 10:26 AM, Julian Winston at jwinston@actrix.gen.nz wrote:
(snip)