be sought for in all situations where possible ( and should be
possible most of the time) but that does not mean people who use
combos etc. should be looked down upon or asked to wear a chastity
belt by people who support equally questionable practices in
homeopathy that parade as neo homeopathy or revolutionized homeopathy etc.
Like it or not - in the real world out there- all kinds of practices
prevail- homeopathy+ biochemistry, homeopathy + flower medicines(bach
flower, california flower etc), homeopathy + EFT, homeopathy +
Naturopathy, homeopathy + mega vitamins, single medicine homeopathy
selected in all dubious ways possible, combo homeopathy in all
flavors,homeopathy + herbalism,homeopathy + magnetotherapy, homeopathy
+ hypnosis, NLP and variants, homeopathy + electro homeopathy etc.
etc. 80% of the posters here follow all of these in one way or other
concurrently whether they admit it or not. It is laughable when
someone condones any of the other combinations but does not accept a
combination of homeopathic medicines themselves.
Even the rest of the 20% ( pure homeo with single medicine) vary
largely in their approach, case taking, dosage, form of dose ( dry,
water etc). There is no one universally adopted approach.
And I have seen all of these work.
Schism has been always part of homeopathy. Followers of Kent and Kent
himself felt top-dogs enough to jump on Boenninghausenian underdogs.
Kent went on the rampage against Richard Hughes as well across the
Atlantic.
Are there not splinters now -even among the Classical Gurus-
Vithoulkas ( the science of homeopathy!!!) criticizing Rajan et al.
for carrying things to an extreme? There are authorities who interpret
Hering's rules of cure - mesoderm, endo derm etc. Andre Saine for one
does not admire a lot of such neo classical masquerades. So who has
the truth and who do you follow? Are these not confusing to the poor
general public and the students of homeopathy?
After all homeopathy is not just giving single medicine- it is
important on what basis, pretext you give it and what are you
addressing here-
The constitution (what is constitution?), miasms (what are miasms-
even this is viewed differently by different authorities ( Even David
Little and Ardavan had different interpretations of what this is)) ,
current symptoms, how the woman wears a saree, chakras, or the animal
or plant or metal that pokes thru the personality to reveal itself to
the discerning? All of these seem to be acceptable to the
chastity-belters.
My suggestion is - keep the list classical or single medicine - but do
not jump on someone who in general is classical - but wants to give
her/his experience of a different variant. Do not look down on his/her
practice. Even if you do not agree to someone's approach there are
civilized ways of saying that instead of using intimidatory comments.
( If we go by methods of Rajan Sankaran et al even Hahnemann's
practice will not be classical enough
Remember this is what is being done to Homeopaths by allopaths. If you
want to be respected, first learn to respect your brothers and
sisters. What we first need is an inclusive mentality, swelling of the
numbers - not infighting, name calling and excluding people based on
Organon ( different editions
and in the name of Hahnemann.Not just charity, even tolerance starts at home.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "prestonfoell" wrote: