drug or nutrient therapy) or thru energetic effects of the remedy upon
the body's homeostatic "sensibility" (if that makes sense...)?
If that chemical change has been caused by chemical action, then
shouldn't the same remedy affect all people in largely the same way?
The actions of chemical agents (drugs, toxins, nutrients) are fairly
uniform among different people (not absolutely, I realize), but this
turns out to be not at all the case for remedies; and the explanation
as "we" give it, is that it depends not on the nature of the remedy
itself, but on the interaction of subtle (non-chemical and perhaps
non-physical?) aspects of the remedy, with non-chemical (or not
primarily chemical?) aspects of the patient.
I hugely appreciated Dr. Shaddel's adding in the concept of similars
versus opposites, and I'm abashed that none of us had brought it in
before, because he's absolutely right that it's one of the cornerstones
of homeopathy, and a defining difference between homeopathy and
allopathy.
I think one can safely say that treatment by similars is both more
delicate (needs to be "similar enough", and to have similarity with an
area of adequate "leverage", not just a symptom or characteristic or
two) and also more powerful (can bring about deeper and more lasting
balance than can treatment by opposites).
And there's another difference--with successful treatment by opposites
you can right the imbalance, but only temporarily; you have to *keep*
taking that drug or vitamin or whatever. (This is a generalization,
won't be true in every case, but generally.) But with successful
treatment by similars, we have the chance to "re-educate" the vital
force (a term I'm not enthusiastic about for this discussion, but I
don't have a better one at hand), so that the healing may be
*permanent*. Sort of a "legislation versus education" issue.
Sure, but he also says that cure happens only through treatment by
*similars*.
There are some allopathic medicines that *are* also homeopathic to some
of the diseases they are used to treat--e.g. digitalis will be a good
similar for some percentage of heart cases, and for some of those it
may be truly curative (tho may be more efficient if given in potency;
may, or may not, I gather). Some cases of ovarian cancer may be truly
cured either / both by Platina in potency, and/or by the platinum-based
drug that is commonly used to treat it. In cases such as those, the
cure is being achieved from *both* chemical and energetic levels, and
is effective because of the symptom similarity between substance and
drug/remedy.
I quite agree!
Yes, one of my examples above! Are you familiar with the homeopathic
picture of digitalis?
Well, I have often had that feeling... One of my first "revelations" about homeopathy was that "The more I learn, the weirder
it seems!" By now, tho, I guess it's become part of my "world view."
However, I also think that Dr. Shaddel's post added another important
missing piece.
Well, re-state your question if you feel to--I've kind of lost track of
where we started from!
Best wishes,
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
