Is Homeopathy Bleeding To Death??

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Irene and John

Can I sum up some aspects of this discussion?

For many years after the discovery of Homeopathy, Hahnemann did not dilute nor potentise. Yet the principles of homoeopathy worked. So, as such, dilution and potentisation are NOT essential to the practise of Homeopathy.

This fact should be used against those that say homoeopathy does not work because of its high dilutions - The principle was proved using material substance or mother tincture.

However, the beauty of dilution and potentisation are many fold. Here are a few:
1- Reduces side effects
2- Increases depth of action in to mental and emotional and higher realms.
3- Makes medicinal substances that ordinarily have no 'medicinal' property as such, or are strong poisons. These greatly expands the range of substances that can be use in this form of medicine - so if we were to take away dilution and potentisation, we would lose the use of a great many of our medicines.
In effect a relatively high amount of a substance would kill, a small amount may have some nutritional value, and when potentised and diluted, it will have medicinal properties.

In fact when you see the results of using C4 potencies, you can see the increased effect of potentisation / tritration on the remedy producing results in the spiritual realms of beings.

Regards

Soroush

[John Harvey]

Hi, Soroush --

That seems like a good summary, and takes account of Luise's good
point about otherwise unavailable medicines.

I'm not sure that spiritual results of C4s are susceptible to
research, but nevertheless, if our patients are happy to sing about
this too, then let's hear them sing.

Without curing anyone's spiritual ills, however, and even with some of
our medicines unavailable (whether Nat. mur. or Lyc. through lack of
potentisation, or Op. and Cann. ind. through inappropriately
restrictive legislation despite potentisation), what we do is still to
make the best match we can, amongst the available medicines, on the
principle of symptom similarity. Without Nat. mur., without Cann.
ind., without Plutonium, it would still be homoeopathy (and was).

Cheers!

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

"Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for
leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long
term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be
a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use
of vigorous criticism."

-- Carl Sagan

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi John,
Would it be and was it?

Withouth potentisation the innocuous substances would be out.

Without very small doses the posons would be out.

With the intermediates like China, in a non-minute dosage, it would be
allopathy.

Not much left of our like CURES like if we restrict our definition to
the homeopathicity, is there?

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

It occurs to me that there are two separate issues:
What is integral to best homeopathy *practice* (potencies certainly
are), versus what is integral to the *definition* of homeopathy (and in
that one I agree with John, that they are not).

Practice versus definition...

Many other things are essential to the *practice*, tho not to the
definition: E.g. certain amounts of people skills (can't get a case if
can't communicate sufficiently with the patient); etc. Many things are
essential for the *practice*, but not part of the definition. Or so it
seems to me...

(Where does one get C4 remedies?)
Shannon

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

C4 remedies so far have been made by hand by colleagues.
I think Helios may have produced some as well. Why don't you drop them an email.

Regards

Soroush

[John Harvey]

Hello, Luise --

You're perfectly right, of course, in suggesting that prescribing with
a more limited materia medica would not have the same result. But the
process is unaltered in its essence by the number of homoeopathic
medicines available to us.

Let's consider that 1% would be a very optimistic estimate of the
proportion of potential homoeopathic remedies that have received an
adequate proving.

On that basis, how many patients for whom present homoeopathic
practitioners prescribe on the basis of symptom similarity at maximum
possible accuracy are not receiving their MOST homoeopathic remedy?

Obviously, 99%.

But although, in the RESULT, only 1% can be receiving the most
homoeopathic treatment, in the PROCESS, all 100% are receiving
treatment in perfect accordance with the homoeopathic method.

Looked at from that perspective, the previous unavailability of
"medicinally inert" substances such as Nat. mur.; the present
unavailability of "medicinally inert" xenon; the previous
unavailaibility of uranium; and the same element's unusability without
potentisation can be seen to be insignificant to the process.

The process of homoeopathic practice does not depend upon the
availability or usability of any particular substance; only on the
availability (and pathogenetic knowledge) of some substances. Before
Nat. mur. was potentised, the same process was still homoeopathy.

A large dose of China prescribed in accordance with the Law of
Similars will of course be hazardous. So will a moderate dose of Ars.
alb., a small dose of Plumbum, or a minute dose of Plutonium be
hazardous. Small quantities are not necessarily particularly helpful
here: no amount of plutonium is a safe amount to ingest.

But dangerous dosages are not what take prescriptions into the realm
of allopathy. If a substance is prescribed in accordance with the Law
of Similars, then its prescription is homoeopathic, if dangerous.
(Nobody said that homoeopathy can't be dangerous!) What will take the
RESULT into the realm of allopathy is the lack of such a relation of
symptom similarity. What will take the PROCESS into the realm of
allopathic practice is the lack of a method seeking such symptom
similarity.

Please don't mistake me to be arguing that prescribing a large dose of
China or a minute dose of Plutonium could be GOOD HOMOEOPATHIC
PRACTICE. Obviously, it's not -- and Shannon has given good
communications skills as an example of something else necessary to
good homoeopathic practice that's not necessary to be practising
homoeopathy at all. Fran and others have previously mentioned good
follow-up. And so on.

But neither a substance's homoeopathicity to the patient nor the
methodical process of arriving at a conclusion of its homoeopathicity
and so prescribing it (i.e. the process of homoeopathic prescription,
the bare bones of homoeopathy) are dependent on dosage or on potency.

Of course, Hahnemann decreased his doses well before discovering
potentisation. And before that, he began with moderate doses. Most
substances obviously acted adequately to replace the patient's natural
illness with their own artificial one even at moderate or small
unpotentised doses. And, yes, even back then, when Hahnemann
practised in accordance with symptom similarity, he practised
homoeopathy.

Somebody who routinely did the same today, though we'd probably look
askance, would also be practising homoeopathy. Not the best
homoeopathy, to be sure. But it would be homoeopathy.

Kind regards,

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

"Widespread intellectual and moral docility may be convenient for
leaders in the short term, but it is suicidal for nations in the long
term. One of the criteria for national leadership should therefore be
a talent for understanding, encouraging, and making constructive use
of vigorous criticism."

-- Carl Sagan

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon,

so the difinition of allopathic medicine would be that of "allopacy" -
a remedy has to be allopathic i. e. different to the disease? That
would be sufficient? The sufficient definition of acupuncture would be
"puncturing wwith needles"? Etc.

Isn't that reducing a definition to the necessary and forgetting about
the sufficient part?

Regards

Luise
--
One thought to all who, free of doubt,
So definitely know what's true:
2 and 2 is 22 -
and 2 times 2 is 2:-)
==========> ICQ yinyang 96391801 <==========

[Irene de Villiers]

John Harvey wrote:
I don't think so - you are eloquent in your writing - I just don't agree
with your views on the subject.
What you mean by it does not have relevance for me as I do not accept
the concept of Homeopathy without potency.
The principle of like cures like was not one devised or invented or by
Hahnemann and is really not why homeopathy exists at all. The Like cures
Like principle can be observed by anyone and had beenobserved and
recorded - and was around for more than two THOUSAND years before
Hahnemann was even a glint in his father's eye. So that principle,
though it inspired Hahnemann, is not homeopathy's core principle.

That "Like cures like" was also recorded after observation by several
others before Hahnemann, starting with Hippocrates (also considered the
father of allopathic medicine) about 4 or 5 hundred years BC! (I don't
remember exactly when, it was a little before my time.)

So the like cures like issue is not to do with Hahnemann's work.
Hahnemann used it - but what he did was to show that it is energy and
not substance that is the curative force involved in that principle.
Even mother tinctures that are usable in the like cures like context
(nontoxic but effective ones) cure due to energy and not due to substance.

To present these mother tincture cures to allopaths as being the core of
homeopathy helps nothing - as they will not see that the true homeopathy
discovery is that of ENERGY causing cure as opposed to substance causing
cure. It is only after you dilute out any substance (and many remedies
don't have any to start with - cell phone waves for example) and
potentize the energy of it, that you get to the homeopathy that
Hahnemann developed and thus beyond the common observation that like
cures like, and the mistaken assumption that substance is involved in
that principle rather than energy.
It is WHY like cures like that matters - the fact that it is an energy
issue and not a substance issue is what matters.

Even Einstein had difficulty teaching the world that energy is what's
relevant in our universe - but that does not change the fact that energy
indeed is what makes the whole place tick.

So I disagree entirely with your approach of playing around with mother
tinctures, it completely misses the energy point to be made.
Far better if you want to teach allopathy something - is to start where
there is common ground - Hippocrates - not Hahnemann - and point out
that Hippocrates was smart enough to spot the like cures like principle
which is nobody's invention but an integral part of our world - and to
progress from there to the discovery that it is energy and not
substance, that is medicinal in that principle, and is what Hahnamann
developed and studied and documented - very scientifically and
meticulously. You ALSO need the similar-not-identical energy principle.

You can then use some examples in allopathy that apply. For example, the
energy in a TB vaccination is too identical to TB to help prevent TB but
is similar to Leprosy and helps prevent it. And there are other
examples, where the allopathic "principles" fail but the homeopathy ones
hold every time. Any scientific mind will want to know why this is so.
The only plausible explanation is tha gt it is the energy signature at
work on the vaccine, NOT the antibody titer, contrary to popular
allopathic belief.
Add in the study on smallpox vaccine when supplies ran low - in which
they tested whether a dilute vaccine would still be effective. Of the
five dilutions tested they found the MOST dilute most effective. Again -
the homeopathy principle held up and the allopathic one fell apart -
showing there is energy signature at work rather than substabnce.

There is no short-cut to explaining homeopathy. It's what it is - an in
depth investigation by Hahnemann that took a brilliant man a lifetime to
prove - and which work was continued by others. Allopaths wanting a
short-cut are not going to get it - short of a demonstration for
something wrong with them personally. Or perhaps if their imaginations
are sufficiently triggered by examples where the homeopathic energy
holds true and allopathic principle fails.

As with Einstein's work or that of any deep thinker and scientist - it
takes some study to understand it fully. Lazy ridicule will not get any
homeopathy critic to the truth. And prevarication about the truth by
homeopaths using mother tinctures for examples will only muddy the
waters of that energy-based truth.

That's my view. I cannot see Hahnemann's work as anything less than the
development AFTER the "like cures like" principle had been known for a
couple millennia - of a way to use ANY FORM OF ENERGY SIGNATURE as a
medicine, by using its energy signature at various strengths in
accordance with the strength of that which is to be cured. To me THAT
is homeopathy. It is "energy medicine using like cures like" - not
limited to the like cures like principle itself, which came before
Hahnemann's work. Definitely, omitting the energy aspect leads the
observer astray by suggesting that mother tincture - namely substance -
has anything to do with homeopathy. That substance is present is
coincidental in that case. It is the energy of the substance which acts
- not the substance in a mother tincture - and it is also the energy
which acts in a high potency medicine.

So you cannot define the core of homeopathy wihthout its energy
signature principle. "Like cures like" was merely a starting place - the
foundation on which homeopathy was grown - it is not homeopathy.
Homeopathy is the use of energy signatures at various strengths to
overcome disease of similar (not identical) energy signature.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Irene de Villiers]

Finrod wrote:
dilute nor potentise. Yet the principles of homoeopathy worked.

Unstated principles - those of energy rather than substance as the
curative aspect.

Namaste,
Irene

--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

[Shannon Nelson]

Irene,
How would you phrase a definition of homeopathy?
Shannon