In stanza/aphorism 103 Hahnemann is talking about finding more remedies for
the chronic maladies. The chronic maladies have to be studied in detail
because each individual will exhibit only a portion of the totality of the
sx.
He is not saying that the chronic maladies should be treated like the acute
epidemics, i.e. with only one rx.
I would like to know what constitutes an epidemic regarding PC151e.
Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
Stanza 103
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Stanza 103
Hi all,
This is exacly how it is, genus epidemicus is a group of remedies
representing the complete picture of the epidemic disease. Which remedy is
needed for a patient is decided on by the individual symtoms.
Disease and individual meet and create an energenic pattern which is analog
to the pattern of the indicated remedy (simillimum).
This is why we practice homoeopathy, which means similar, analogue
suffering.
Antidoting the disease with an equal energetic pattern (ignoring
individualization) is ISOpathy, something Hahnemann disapproved. This is why
I referred to APH. 82, Is this so hard to understand?
Kind regards, Piet
This is exacly how it is, genus epidemicus is a group of remedies
representing the complete picture of the epidemic disease. Which remedy is
needed for a patient is decided on by the individual symtoms.
Disease and individual meet and create an energenic pattern which is analog
to the pattern of the indicated remedy (simillimum).
This is why we practice homoeopathy, which means similar, analogue
suffering.
Antidoting the disease with an equal energetic pattern (ignoring
individualization) is ISOpathy, something Hahnemann disapproved. This is why
I referred to APH. 82, Is this so hard to understand?
Kind regards, Piet
Re: Stanza 103
on 2/19/05 9:42 AM, J Lucas at j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( Which is the rationale for a group totality which will describe a
chronic disease from a miasmatic standpoint. A miasm is too broad to allow
a group totality of an overwhelming chronic organic disease to be as
specific as is a group epidemicus of an overwhelming acute organic disease.
Hahnemann only got as far as classifying antimiasmatic remedies that could
apply to each chronic malady most closely (and this was a mammoth step of
course).
Chappell takes the next step of further precision in match of disease and
remedy, aided by being able to synthesize a remedy from a list of the
peculiar group symptoms, instead of try to make an imperfect fit from a
substance. The process of finding a substance analogue is laborious. The
closest analogue might be a nosode, but probably not--and Hahnemann
emphatically found the facsimile (homeopathic) remedy to be far superior to
the idem (isopathic) remedy). So the whole process of finding specific
remedies for group totalities was laborious and antimiasmatics (notably
antipsorics) provided the nearest approximation Hahnemann could make to what
Chappell has perfected.
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( He stops short of saying this explicitly, although making a group
totality for a chronic disease is in fact WHAT PARAGRAPH 103 IS ABOUT--and
which Chappell perfected for the named disease entity. It is important to
realize that the Chappell remedy for group totality for named disease in
classical practice is best adapted to when the chronic organic disease is
beginning to overwhelm the VF characteristic functional pattern and the
disease response/susceptibility contribution to symptoms is overriding the
individuality contribution to symptoms. Kent (1912) states this situation
as:
====
"The difficulty in prescribing for patients with such altered tissue -
cataract, hepatization (in pneumonia), induration of glands,
aterio-sclerosis, fibroids, cancer, etc. - rests in the fact
that when these tissue-changes occur, the symptoms on which a prescription
should be based - the symptoms of the patient - have disappeared. The
symptoms present at the time are symptoms of the pathology. "
====
Kent goes on to say:
====
"If the symptoms that preceded this condition can be learned, and considered
together with the later results of disorder - the pathological tissue - it
may be possible to select a remedy that is sufficiently related to both the
patient and his pathology, to effect a cure of both, provided always that
the reaction and vitality of the patient are sufficient to permit the
resolution. "
=====
In other words, if a remedy that matches the totality of symptoms of both
the "Patient" (psychosomatic totality) AND the organic disease (lesional
totality) can be found; and especially if it is on record clinically for the
tissue change symptoms, then the organic disease can be affected. Kent does
not mention treating the lesional totality alone, but Eizayaga and others
do-but not without first striving to do what Kent suggests. Chappell
precision lesional rx allows treating the individual with the ultimate
remedy of para 103 that Hahnemann would have made if he had the technology
of Chappell.
The difficulty in prescribing for patients with such altered tissue -
cataract, hepatization (in pneumonia), induration of glands,
aterio-sclerosis, fibroids, cancer, etc. - rests in the fact
that when these tissue-changes occur, the symptoms on which a prescription
should be based - the symptoms of the patient - have disappeared. The
symptoms present at the time
are symptoms of the pathology. If the symptoms that preceded this condition
can be learned, and considered together with the later results of disorder -
the pathological tissue - it
may be possible to select a remedy that is sufficiently related to both the
patient and his pathology, to effect a cure of both, provided always that
the reaction and vitality of the
patient are sufficient to permit the resolution.
The whole paragraph 103 EXACTLY describes what Chappell does in a chronic
disease (except Chappell MAKES HIS RX TO ORDER of the group totality
peculiars and Hahnemann uses the match of proved remedy to group
totality--but still only in terms of the antipsorics). Hahnemann mentions
the miasmatic remedy totalities but does not explicitly focus his group
totality on the named chronic disease entity. Hahnemann could not
synthesize a remedy according to the symptoms. This made optimal precision
match with the "malady" group totality very difficult and time consuming,
relying on choosing and proving of a substance. impossible. The antipsoric
was the closest analogue to the remedy for the shared "malady" for which
Hahnemann attempted to find a group totality remedy. Addition of the
ability to synthesize the named disease totality rx makes the process
precise and efficient, without having to find the perfect analogue in
existence in form of a proved or unproved substance. Hahnemann could not
take that next step, and Chappell did. If one understands this, then one
is beginning to understand what these remedies represent.
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( Down's is of course a result of miasmatic inheritance and
characteristics which develop during gestation because of the involved
miasms, which are "contagious" by certain contacts and by inheritance. It
is "epidemic" or not according to its prevalence. Treatment of at risk
parents who wish to conceive or after amniocentesis would seem to be one
approach; as well as after birth as a main remedy followed later by the
individualized simillimum.
((( Which is the rationale for a group totality which will describe a
chronic disease from a miasmatic standpoint. A miasm is too broad to allow
a group totality of an overwhelming chronic organic disease to be as
specific as is a group epidemicus of an overwhelming acute organic disease.
Hahnemann only got as far as classifying antimiasmatic remedies that could
apply to each chronic malady most closely (and this was a mammoth step of
course).
Chappell takes the next step of further precision in match of disease and
remedy, aided by being able to synthesize a remedy from a list of the
peculiar group symptoms, instead of try to make an imperfect fit from a
substance. The process of finding a substance analogue is laborious. The
closest analogue might be a nosode, but probably not--and Hahnemann
emphatically found the facsimile (homeopathic) remedy to be far superior to
the idem (isopathic) remedy). So the whole process of finding specific
remedies for group totalities was laborious and antimiasmatics (notably
antipsorics) provided the nearest approximation Hahnemann could make to what
Chappell has perfected.
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( He stops short of saying this explicitly, although making a group
totality for a chronic disease is in fact WHAT PARAGRAPH 103 IS ABOUT--and
which Chappell perfected for the named disease entity. It is important to
realize that the Chappell remedy for group totality for named disease in
classical practice is best adapted to when the chronic organic disease is
beginning to overwhelm the VF characteristic functional pattern and the
disease response/susceptibility contribution to symptoms is overriding the
individuality contribution to symptoms. Kent (1912) states this situation
as:
====
"The difficulty in prescribing for patients with such altered tissue -
cataract, hepatization (in pneumonia), induration of glands,
aterio-sclerosis, fibroids, cancer, etc. - rests in the fact
that when these tissue-changes occur, the symptoms on which a prescription
should be based - the symptoms of the patient - have disappeared. The
symptoms present at the time are symptoms of the pathology. "
====
Kent goes on to say:
====
"If the symptoms that preceded this condition can be learned, and considered
together with the later results of disorder - the pathological tissue - it
may be possible to select a remedy that is sufficiently related to both the
patient and his pathology, to effect a cure of both, provided always that
the reaction and vitality of the patient are sufficient to permit the
resolution. "
=====
In other words, if a remedy that matches the totality of symptoms of both
the "Patient" (psychosomatic totality) AND the organic disease (lesional
totality) can be found; and especially if it is on record clinically for the
tissue change symptoms, then the organic disease can be affected. Kent does
not mention treating the lesional totality alone, but Eizayaga and others
do-but not without first striving to do what Kent suggests. Chappell
precision lesional rx allows treating the individual with the ultimate
remedy of para 103 that Hahnemann would have made if he had the technology
of Chappell.
The difficulty in prescribing for patients with such altered tissue -
cataract, hepatization (in pneumonia), induration of glands,
aterio-sclerosis, fibroids, cancer, etc. - rests in the fact
that when these tissue-changes occur, the symptoms on which a prescription
should be based - the symptoms of the patient - have disappeared. The
symptoms present at the time
are symptoms of the pathology. If the symptoms that preceded this condition
can be learned, and considered together with the later results of disorder -
the pathological tissue - it
may be possible to select a remedy that is sufficiently related to both the
patient and his pathology, to effect a cure of both, provided always that
the reaction and vitality of the
patient are sufficient to permit the resolution.
The whole paragraph 103 EXACTLY describes what Chappell does in a chronic
disease (except Chappell MAKES HIS RX TO ORDER of the group totality
peculiars and Hahnemann uses the match of proved remedy to group
totality--but still only in terms of the antipsorics). Hahnemann mentions
the miasmatic remedy totalities but does not explicitly focus his group
totality on the named chronic disease entity. Hahnemann could not
synthesize a remedy according to the symptoms. This made optimal precision
match with the "malady" group totality very difficult and time consuming,
relying on choosing and proving of a substance. impossible. The antipsoric
was the closest analogue to the remedy for the shared "malady" for which
Hahnemann attempted to find a group totality remedy. Addition of the
ability to synthesize the named disease totality rx makes the process
precise and efficient, without having to find the perfect analogue in
existence in form of a proved or unproved substance. Hahnemann could not
take that next step, and Chappell did. If one understands this, then one
is beginning to understand what these remedies represent.
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
((( Down's is of course a result of miasmatic inheritance and
characteristics which develop during gestation because of the involved
miasms, which are "contagious" by certain contacts and by inheritance. It
is "epidemic" or not according to its prevalence. Treatment of at risk
parents who wish to conceive or after amniocentesis would seem to be one
approach; as well as after birth as a main remedy followed later by the
individualized simillimum.
Re: Stanza 103
on 2/19/05 10:25 AM, Piet Guijt at pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
((( And it should be mentioned that the special case of an overwhelmingly
virulent acute or chronic epidemic, endemic, or pandemic disease, the
totality converges on one remedy only, as the contribution of individuality
is drowned out.
pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
((( Agreed.
pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
This is why we practice homoeopathy, which means similar, analogue
pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
((( Isopathy is a remedy made from disease products of the named disease.
It IS NOT the equal energy pattern of the named disease, or Chappell rx
would be redundant. Chappell rx are the closest Hahnemannian semiologicial
approx. available to the symptoms of the named organic disease.
This is why
((( In a chronic disease of progressive nature (MS, ALS, Parkinsons, etc
etc) eventually it starts to be analogous to an acute disease... This is
the case where the sx of the tissue changes start to predominate.
((( And it should be mentioned that the special case of an overwhelmingly
virulent acute or chronic epidemic, endemic, or pandemic disease, the
totality converges on one remedy only, as the contribution of individuality
is drowned out.
pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
((( Agreed.
pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
This is why we practice homoeopathy, which means similar, analogue
pguijt@casema.nl wrote:
((( Isopathy is a remedy made from disease products of the named disease.
It IS NOT the equal energy pattern of the named disease, or Chappell rx
would be redundant. Chappell rx are the closest Hahnemannian semiologicial
approx. available to the symptoms of the named organic disease.
This is why
((( In a chronic disease of progressive nature (MS, ALS, Parkinsons, etc
etc) eventually it starts to be analogous to an acute disease... This is
the case where the sx of the tissue changes start to predominate.
Re: Stanza 103
All disease is a result of miasmatic inheritance. It would have to be asked
what then constitutes an epidemic.
What is it that needs to be cured in people who have Down syndrome? Who are
the at risk parents?
And my gosh I have just realised the magnitude of this new age hot air
homeopathy politics. We can eradicate the unwanted, now where will that
leads us I wonder. Is that what the beliefs rx are all about?
Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
Andy wrote
((( Down's is of course a result of miasmatic inheritance and
characteristics which develop during gestation because of the involved
miasms, which are "contagious" by certain contacts and by inheritance. It
is "epidemic" or not according to its prevalence. Treatment of at risk
parents who wish to conceive or after amniocentesis would seem to be one
approach; as well as after birth as a main remedy followed later by the
individualized simillimum.
what then constitutes an epidemic.
What is it that needs to be cured in people who have Down syndrome? Who are
the at risk parents?
And my gosh I have just realised the magnitude of this new age hot air
homeopathy politics. We can eradicate the unwanted, now where will that
leads us I wonder. Is that what the beliefs rx are all about?
Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
Andy wrote
((( Down's is of course a result of miasmatic inheritance and
characteristics which develop during gestation because of the involved
miasms, which are "contagious" by certain contacts and by inheritance. It
is "epidemic" or not according to its prevalence. Treatment of at risk
parents who wish to conceive or after amniocentesis would seem to be one
approach; as well as after birth as a main remedy followed later by the
individualized simillimum.
-
Piet Guijt
- Posts: 271
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 10:00 pm
Re: Stanza 103
Andy wrote,
((( In a chronic disease of progressive nature (MS, ALS, Parkinsons, etc
etc) eventually it starts to be analogous to an acute disease... This is
the case where the sx of the tissue changes start to predominate.
Andy, all,
This is something were we agree of course, I explained you clear enough how
I see this.
You say 'eventually it starts to be analogous to an acute disease'.
Lets assume in this case we need PC2 (this is questionable, because even in
a case where pathological changes start to predominate, the constitutional
concomitments will point to the simillimum).
But OK in a case with this acute picture, where will you start?
Normal procedure is to treat the acute state first, don't you agree? I makes
no sense to prescribe on something else, because the state of the person has
changed.
Aph 213:
"We shall, therefore, never be able to cure conformably to nature - that is
to say, homoopathically - if we do not, in every case of disease, even in
such as are acute, observe, along with the other symptoms, those relating to
the changes in the state of the mind and disposition, and if we do not
select, for the patient's relief, from among the medicines a disease-force
which, in addition to the similarity of its other symptoms to those of the
disease, is also capable of producing a similar state of the disposition and
mind."
What was presented in Harry's MS case? The PC2 remedy was prescribed
afterwards! So there is no relation at all with PC2 and the present state/
simillimum.
Why was this?
This is because in this case Causticum was prescribed on the individual
symptom picture, in fact this is the psoric picture.
The mistake many homeopaths make is that they prescribe on the individual
symptoms/person, not on the full multi-miasmatic change (state).
This is exactly my point of concern: The practicing of poor Homeopathy with
partial remedies (and not realizing what went wrong)and because of that come
up with 'new theories' and claiming to proceed where Hahnemann stopped.
I rest my case,
Kind regards, Piet
((( In a chronic disease of progressive nature (MS, ALS, Parkinsons, etc
etc) eventually it starts to be analogous to an acute disease... This is
the case where the sx of the tissue changes start to predominate.
Andy, all,
This is something were we agree of course, I explained you clear enough how
I see this.
You say 'eventually it starts to be analogous to an acute disease'.
Lets assume in this case we need PC2 (this is questionable, because even in
a case where pathological changes start to predominate, the constitutional
concomitments will point to the simillimum).
But OK in a case with this acute picture, where will you start?
Normal procedure is to treat the acute state first, don't you agree? I makes
no sense to prescribe on something else, because the state of the person has
changed.
Aph 213:
"We shall, therefore, never be able to cure conformably to nature - that is
to say, homoopathically - if we do not, in every case of disease, even in
such as are acute, observe, along with the other symptoms, those relating to
the changes in the state of the mind and disposition, and if we do not
select, for the patient's relief, from among the medicines a disease-force
which, in addition to the similarity of its other symptoms to those of the
disease, is also capable of producing a similar state of the disposition and
mind."
What was presented in Harry's MS case? The PC2 remedy was prescribed
afterwards! So there is no relation at all with PC2 and the present state/
simillimum.
Why was this?
This is because in this case Causticum was prescribed on the individual
symptom picture, in fact this is the psoric picture.
The mistake many homeopaths make is that they prescribe on the individual
symptoms/person, not on the full multi-miasmatic change (state).
This is exactly my point of concern: The practicing of poor Homeopathy with
partial remedies (and not realizing what went wrong)and because of that come
up with 'new theories' and claiming to proceed where Hahnemann stopped.
I rest my case,
Kind regards, Piet
Re: Stanza 103
I've been following the debate about Peter Chappell's remedies, but something is unclear to me. It's always been my understanding that originally homeopathy (or homeopaths) were very effective, far more so than conventional medicine, which is why homeopathy took root in the first place. Nowadays, as I understand it, homeopaths (or homeopathy?) is much less effective, which is why everyone seems to be looking for new ways to do things. Were the "old homeopaths" just better at the job? If so, why? Is the purpose of homeopaths today to look for a new and better way to apply homeopathic doctrine and remedies, or to achieve the successes that the "old masters" managed to do?
If something works for AIDS patients, I can't negate it that simply. I don't as yet have any AIDS patients, if I did, I couldn't ignore the existence of a remedy if it has been proven to make a difference.
All I do know is that I've been trained to be a homeopath, and it is unclear to me whether that means moving further and further away from sources where there was also a clear track record for cure, in the belief that "life's different now and the old homeopathy doesn't work with the new diseases", or trying to tap into the original genius that motivated homeopathy in the first place.
Everyone seems so single-minded on this issue. Is anyone else out there confused?
Vera
J Lucas wrote:
All disease is a result of miasmatic inheritance. It would have to be asked
what then constitutes an epidemic.
What is it that needs to be cured in people who have Down syndrome? Who are
the at risk parents?
And my gosh I have just realised the magnitude of this new age hot air
homeopathy politics. We can eradicate the unwanted, now where will that
leads us I wonder. Is that what the beliefs rx are all about?
Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
Andy wrote
((( Down's is of course a result of miasmatic inheritance and
characteristics which develop during gestation because of the involved
miasms, which are "contagious" by certain contacts and by inheritance. It
is "epidemic" or not according to its prevalence. Treatment of at risk
parents who wish to conceive or after amniocentesis would seem to be one
approach; as well as after birth as a main remedy followed later by the
individualized simillimum.
Clinical Guidance for Homeopaths and Students of Homeopathy!
http://www.shahrdarhost.net/Clinical%20Guidance.htm
ATTENTION PLEASE:
The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Get unlimited calls to
U.S./Canada
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If something works for AIDS patients, I can't negate it that simply. I don't as yet have any AIDS patients, if I did, I couldn't ignore the existence of a remedy if it has been proven to make a difference.
All I do know is that I've been trained to be a homeopath, and it is unclear to me whether that means moving further and further away from sources where there was also a clear track record for cure, in the belief that "life's different now and the old homeopathy doesn't work with the new diseases", or trying to tap into the original genius that motivated homeopathy in the first place.
Everyone seems so single-minded on this issue. Is anyone else out there confused?
Vera
J Lucas wrote:
All disease is a result of miasmatic inheritance. It would have to be asked
what then constitutes an epidemic.
What is it that needs to be cured in people who have Down syndrome? Who are
the at risk parents?
And my gosh I have just realised the magnitude of this new age hot air
homeopathy politics. We can eradicate the unwanted, now where will that
leads us I wonder. Is that what the beliefs rx are all about?
Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
j.lucas@ntlworld.com wrote:
Andy wrote
((( Down's is of course a result of miasmatic inheritance and
characteristics which develop during gestation because of the involved
miasms, which are "contagious" by certain contacts and by inheritance. It
is "epidemic" or not according to its prevalence. Treatment of at risk
parents who wish to conceive or after amniocentesis would seem to be one
approach; as well as after birth as a main remedy followed later by the
individualized simillimum.
Clinical Guidance for Homeopaths and Students of Homeopathy!
http://www.shahrdarhost.net/Clinical%20Guidance.htm
ATTENTION PLEASE:
The Minutus Group is established purely for the promotion of Homoeopathy and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential, incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever caused.
****
ATTENTION PLEASE!!
If you do not wish to receive individual emails, send a message with the subject of 'Digest' to minutusgroup@yahoo.com to receive a single daily digest.
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
Get unlimited calls to
U.S./Canada
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/minutus/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
minutus-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
-
Julian Winston
- Posts: 622
- Joined: Wed Apr 01, 2020 10:00 pm
Re: Stanza 103
At 4:58 AM -0800 2/20/05, VR VR wrote:
I do believe we have drifted too far afield. The old guys were better
because they knew their basics.
Wow! What a great idea!
Count me in.
JW
I do believe we have drifted too far afield. The old guys were better
because they knew their basics.
Wow! What a great idea!
Count me in.
JW
Re: Stanza 103
Vera wrote: "It's always been my understanding that originally homeopathy
(or homeopaths) were very effective, far more so than conventional medicine,
which is why homeopathy took root in the first place. Nowadays, as I
understand it, homeopaths (or homeopathy?) is much less effective, which is
why everyone seems to be looking for new ways to do things. Were the "old
homeopaths" just better at the job?"
Vera, we believe homeopathy is STILL more effective than conventional
medicine. The problem today is not that homeopathy is less effective, but
that it's more difficult by far to find the correct remedy, the simillimum.
There are many reasons for that, including that homeopaths two hundred years
ago were working with far fewer remedies as well as seeing people whose
vital force was much less encumbered by vaccinations, antibiotics, pain
meds, junk food, etc.
The search for "new ways to do things" is largely a quest to find a more
reliable means of matching the patient to the remedy he or she needs.
Peace,
Cinnabar
(or homeopaths) were very effective, far more so than conventional medicine,
which is why homeopathy took root in the first place. Nowadays, as I
understand it, homeopaths (or homeopathy?) is much less effective, which is
why everyone seems to be looking for new ways to do things. Were the "old
homeopaths" just better at the job?"
Vera, we believe homeopathy is STILL more effective than conventional
medicine. The problem today is not that homeopathy is less effective, but
that it's more difficult by far to find the correct remedy, the simillimum.
There are many reasons for that, including that homeopaths two hundred years
ago were working with far fewer remedies as well as seeing people whose
vital force was much less encumbered by vaccinations, antibiotics, pain
meds, junk food, etc.
The search for "new ways to do things" is largely a quest to find a more
reliable means of matching the patient to the remedy he or she needs.
Peace,
Cinnabar
-
Christine Wyndham-Thomas
- Posts: 354
- Joined: Thu Apr 11, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: Stanza 103
Cinnabar, I understand what you're saying but would have to disagree. The vital force of animals, too, these days has been rendered weaker by vaccinations, antibiotics, pain meds and junk food - yet are treated successfully with homeopathy. It's a damn site lot harder, in my opinion, treating animals than human beings and if they can be treated successfully, so can human beings.
Christine
Christine