Pottyopathy, homoeopathy, and why one is not the other[Was: For John Harvey]

[Tanya Marquette]

not to keep the argument going, but it occurs to me
that for any system to survive it needs to adapt to
changing conditions. in this case, i think we are
seeing numerous new health conditions that did not
exist during the time of hahnemann or some of his
disciples. the advent of major toxicity from the
environment, vaccines, depleted foods, drugs and
chemicals, etc has created very deep levels of
dis-ease and resistence to change. so i have to
question whether new applications of the theory
need to be divised. i think that is what we often
see in methods such as that used by irene with fip in cats,
for example. or ramakrishnan's application in treating
cancer. i do not recall seeing this perspective explored
or entertained.
tanya

[John Harvey]

Hi, Tanya --
Actually, this observation has been the catchcry of several who would
like to think that the constant adaptation of homoeopathy's methods is
equivalent to changing its principles at will.

The observation, though, is a good one (though homoeopathy clearly is
not a living system and cannot adapt): that changing circumstances
call for changing responses. This may even, one day, mean the
replacement of homoeopathy by something better-adapted to the modern
world. My constant point is that it cannot mean the replacement of
homoeopathy by something else in its name without disintegration of
its meaning. Homoeopathy has very broad boundaries -- so broad that
it can seem unbounded -- but it does have boundaries.

Kind regards,

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands
science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We
might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this
combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our
faces."

-- Carl Sagan

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Tanya,
Hm, usually I've been loathe to go for the "new situations require new
solutions" approach--because it's seemed to me that *most* of the
situations are not really new (pollution, bad food, etc.), but IMO you
might be right on target for Irene's situation. She's said it is
specifically prednisone which has been a death sentence for these cats,
and that certainly goes beyond the realm of "natural disease" that
Hahnemann primarily addressed.

"Changing conditions" would also (I'd think) include factors such as
natural "background radiation" being in much of the world shadowed by
cell phone towers and etc.; and other previously mentioned ones such as
changes in the food supply. I agree that it bears thinking about.
Shannon

[Fran Sheffield]

I am on my way to bed or my brain will not be able to think in the morning, but...

Here is the error in thinking this way - diseases are confused with symptoms. New "diseases" are always appearing because of environmental changes but symptoms, especially the "generals" that we depend on so much for the prescription are unchanging. We may see different symptom patterns but never new symptoms. Similia still works but it has to be prescribed according to symptoms and not diseases, no matter how many new ones come along - after all, they are just new combinations of the same old symptoms.

Also, there is nothing new in Ramakrishnan's approach - his is a limited version of what Hahnemann has already left us in the Organon. Similarly, Irene is using a variety of approaches in her methodology - hard to tell what is doing what there - may be suppression (which is better than immediate death) or cure by rapid repetition with similia (as Hahnemann advised) with a few added bells and whistles for the wow effect - we will never know.

Tanya Marquette wrote:
--

Kind regards,

Fran Sheffield
Homeopathy Plus! (Information - Education - Treatment)
http://www.homeopathyplus.com.au
Do No Harm Initiative (Homeopathic Immunisation)
http://www.d-n-h.org

[muthu kumar]

think we are
Yes, new applications of the theory will definitely be needed, also
new theories -but when?

Once we have tried the old ones properly and correctly and seen them
fail....

Most of the time that is NOT the case- sub-par case taking, sub-par
understanding of the disease or at least what is curable in disease
leads to sub-par success-

I am not pointing out anyone - at one point a particular FIP experts
selection of rubrics for repertorization came into a lot of question
a few months back...I am just writing this to say that all of us have
a lot to learn in homeopathy and the right way of applying it before
crying how inadequate it is....and bring in our revolutionary approaches

No one would claim Homoeopathy is a panacea- so it probably needs to
grow organically learning from its mistakes and evolving- but not
genetically modified so that it does not even know whether it is
homeopathy or not...

personally I think the need for new theories has mostly nothing to do
with newer conditions but newer kinds of practitioners - who consider
homeopathy as "one of the many types of alternative medicines" - " or
as something that is not allopathy must be good" and get into it...or
may be something that is a good stepping stone in their spiritual
quest to realize their kundalini potential while spinning their pendulums-
Also if the new theories that are brought in are so radical then it is
sometimes better to call it by another name and keep it separate -

remember how homeopathy was founded by an allopath named Hahnemann but
he did not claim that this was allopathy changing to suit the times....