homeopathy -- dilution?

[ForumGal]

In a message dated 4/7/08 4:03:17 PM, minutus@yahoogroups.com writes:
Dear all -- should the composition of the rem be in there somewhere, as in "doses of a remedy, made by extreme dilution of the original remedy substance, that has been shown . . ." ?
Best,
Margaret in Boston
**************
Planning your summer road trip? Check out AOL Travel Guides.
(http://travel.aol.com/travel-guide/unit ... 0000000016)

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Margaret
If you had read the other threads, you would have realised that dilution and succussion is not necessary for Homoeopathy.

Regards

Soroush

[Irene de Villiers]

On Apr 8, 2008, at 9:09 AM,
wrote:

And yet, it is part of 99.9% of the cases in my practice, (and likely
most of yours?) and is an integral part of every homeopath's usual
activity, so is obviously relevant.

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."

[Farbod RAHNAMAI CHITSAZ]

Dear Irene
Hahnemann talked about potentized remedy in 1825 for first time. It means that he worked with non-potentized remedy for 29 years and only 18 years of his practice he used potentized remedy. It means that founder of Homeopathy only in 38% of his practicing years used potentized remedies and in the remain 62% of years he used non-potentized remedies.
Regards
Farbod

[Irene de Villiers]

Even if that is so (and I question your dates/years) , it is not how
we work today - nor is it what Hahnemann developed as the way to use
homeopathy in the 6th ed Organon - but MOST importantly, it is still
the *energy* of the remedy that is active as the "homeopathic" aspect
- not the chemical action. Thus the energy aspect needs to be
emphasized in the definition.
I do not see that as relevant. I also hope MY work will be
remembered for the final level of development I may achieve and not
what inferior approach I may have had before that:-)
Indeed Hahnemann did keep writing new Organon editions - do you
really think he did not want THOSE to be his legacy rather than what
he did before he got that far?

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."

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Irene
The point is that the practise of homoeopathy is not dependant on potentisation.
Potentisation simply opens up avenues that are closed to unpotentised substances.
I accept that a lot of our remedies in unpotentised form would have little if any action. Nat-m and Lyc are good examples of this.
But if we are defining Homoeopathy, then the corner stone is Similia Similibus Curantur - then as Ardavan has clearly shown in his article posted yesterday, does not require potentisation.

Regards

Soroush

[Christine Wyndham-Thomas]

AND to add to this, and the reason why Hahnemann was so keen on potentised remedies, was the fact it lessened aggravations, because each dose could be increased in strength gradually. Healing was also established a lot quicker. We all live and learn and finally progress to getting it right, which is what Hahnemann did.
Christine
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com
www.homoeopathyclassical.com

Homeopathy in the UK is at risk, right now.
If you want freedom to choose, do something here:
www.homeopathyworkedforme.org

[Shannon Nelson]

While I'd hate to have to practice homeopathy without any potentized
remedies, one *can* use e.g. herbal remedies (and, as Hahnemann points
out, even energies) homeopathically, to much greater effect than if the
herbs are prescribed only on broader "herbal" indications and in
combinations. That would be "homeopathy without potentization"--not
ideal, but still within Hahnemann's definition.

One can also use potentized remedies in ways that are non-homeopathic,
according to Hahnemann's guidelines. As a snack, for instance.

So IMO one advantage to leaving potentization out of the definition --
at least, out of the layperson's definition -- is that it may help to
distinguish "like cures like"--homeopathy--from the "anything using
potentized anything" approach that so many now like to *call*
homeopathy--apparently for the *single* reason that it employs
potentized substances!

In the eyes of many today, potentization "defines" homeopathy; people
see those funny-looking numbers, x's and c's, and think "ah,
homeopathic!" And that is not in our best interests. So--IMO there's
some advantage to leaving it out of the definition, but more to the
point, you *can* practice homeopathy without potentization, tho in a
severely limited way.

No, it's not how we practice today, and it's not ideal by any
stretch--but it would still be homeopathy!

Shannon

[Irene de Villiers]

On Apr 9, 2008, at 1:40 AM,
wrote:

Really?
How far would you get without it?
It's an essential aspect of the *average* case.
The definition needs to include the average if nothing else:-)
Which is the great majority of the cases we handle.
Sorry but pretending otherwise makes no sense to me. You want to
invent a definition that covers only rare exceptions to the rule.
That's the opposite of a good definition however theoretically
applicable it might be. And that approach also will lead to ridicule
from outside homeopathy for failing to cover the great majority of
cases. They will want to know why you are sweeping the majority under
the carpet.
If I was a client looking for a homeopath, I'd surely feel that way,
if the definition of the system covered less than a small minority of
cases.
Corner stone yes - not only stone:-)
You are defining homeopathy to a prospective client. It needs to be a
realistic view of what *they* will find when seeing a homeopath.

Talking only about non-potentized remedies is not defining
homeopathy. Homeopathy is MORE than that.
To do less than a decent coverage of what constitutes its practice
per 6th Organon is like defining a river as drops of water.
Technically you can argue it, but it bears no relationship to reality
when one arrives at the Amazon. Likewise leaving out potentized
remedies in the definition of homeopathy, is inappropriate and
implies there are no potentized remedies.
Homeopathy has Amazonian power compared with allopathy - the
definition needs to cover that as well as the fact that the energy is
LIKE that of the individual. Lets not have a "River is drops of
water" type definition - it's WAY to wishy-washy and unrealistic to
depict our very far-reaching profession.

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."

[Fran Sheffield]

I think your point narrows rather than captures the breadth of homeopathy, Irene.

Homeopathy and the homeopathic effect is MUCH more than potentised remedies.

Any "like treats like" approach is homeopathic, which is why self help groups are so helpful. Send a bereaved person to a laughter therapy group and you may have short-term improvement and then relapse, often worse than before as the inadequacy of the "treatment" hits home. Send them to a group about grief and loss and they often describe the experience as cathartic, healing and beneficial, in spite of an intense aggravation that may take place at the time of exposure to the group. Allopathy and homeopathy survive even amongst self help groups.

If we were to say, aah, but self help groups are not homeopathy because potentised remedies are not used, what then will we call their therapeutic effect? Is it not like curing like - the law of similars - still being used (prehaps unknowingly) to achieve an effect? There is nothing else you can call it. Both groups would employ listening approaches, supportive behaviour, group interaction, etc.

There are many other instances where like treating like is used, perhaps without recognition. Just because it is not recognised does not mean that the homeopathic effect is invalidated. I recall an account of Hahnemann's son asking a blind man to look into the sun to restore his sight. I think it was Close who recounts a case of cardiac failure that was improved by the indicated remedy, digitalis, in the crude form when the digitalis in potencies did not help - obviously, potencies were not an improvement on homeopathic treatment in this case.

--

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


Irene de Villiers wrote: