Online Schools ?

[Irene de Villiers]

AH - but this definition is a matter of interpretation of what Hahnemann wrote, and what he practiced.
And it is important to remember that Hahnemann was NEVER satisfied that he had a complete system.
He rewrote the system 6 times - there are SIX editions of his "Organon of Medicine" - and they do NOT agree in what they recommend. He'd have done so again - written yet another new and improved version (based on his Paris case documents for example, made after the 6th ed and using DIFFERENT techniques to those in the 6 organons) except.... he finally died after a long life of amazing achievement.

What is incontrovertible is the PRINCIPLES of homeopathy which he developed.
HOW they are implemented - is what HE kept changing.
He did not change the basic principles. THOSE are what I suggest any homeopath comit to their soul of learning, and use in full.
Implementing them is another matter:
For example - he kept changing the potency he used, X series, C series, LM series, A MIXTURE OF THESE, etc.
SO he never did find the best potency options.
NOW we have Fibonacci potencies - and like all the best aspects of Hahnemann's works that are based on PRINCIPLES (of nature) as opposed to experiment - Fibonacci series IS based on principles found in nature and which CANNOT be incorrect.

I'm sure it can be debated whether F potency use is "classical" or Hahnemannian" - I'm 100% sure Hahnemann would have thrown a party to celebrate finding the PRINCIPLE on which potency needs to be based! But it was developed and discovered AFTER his time - (By Dr Joe Rozencwajg - THANKS for sharing it!).
So the definition of "Classical" is either in need of interpretation if you want to be a GOOD homeopath - and able to handle the MUCH worse illnesses of today, complicated by drug effects and suppression....
or else you must accept the narrow definition that some people use, to never improve after 200 years ago despite the fact that the developer of homeopathy was at pains to improve daily.
In this case you will be "classical but stuck in the early 1800s as to what can be achieved by homeopathy."
You will then be able to achieve whatever could be done then with what was seen and known then - but you will be dead in the water to handle any situation which has evolved since then (as all disease organisms and drug severities do evolve and get worse and more diabolical over time).

I urge you to study the Organons WELL and to take to heart the PRINCIPLES - but not to be blind to progress, and to ensure that ALL the progress does build on the principles of homeopathy.

Again - it depends what you want - If yo want to be a healer - you will use whatever is in the patient's interests AND you will recognize that THE PRINCIPLES of homeopathy will be the most effective core principles to work by.

But there is more to healing than homeopathy.
No remedy provides nutrients. No remedy will tell you what's wrong with the individual. And a host of other factors are relevant.
Some modern diseases are SO complex that if you stick to the idea of ONE remedy for the duration of disease - you can totally forget even trying to help any intricated disease (such as one where the immune system is smashed by drugs AND there is a chronic one-sided disease in effect AT THE SAME TIME - each preventing the other from being able to make progress on ONE remedy.

Hahnemann defined these as incurable.
Is that good enough for you?
Would you rather stick to the notion of ONE remedy at a time and call some diseases - the ones MODERN people will come to you for help with - incurable?
Or would you rather UNDERSTAND what's happening - and use one remedy PER SIMULTANEOUS OPPOSING DISEASE (One for the drug preventing immune system thymus response - a prerequisite for healing - and one to actually move to heal the disease (eg cancer, FIP, steroid suppressed pemphigus, etc) in place - KNOWING that NEITHER can come right without the other also coming right - AT THE SAME TIME..

I use at least two remedies at a time in my intricated cases (individually matched in each case). Yell if you wish but I get results and nobody using ONE remedy can do so as they are trying to toss a disease against a wall, (whichever they try to handle first) by a single remedy. Such a situation NEEDS two remedies at the same time (not in the same bottle but each dosed as needed - one to open the thymus to the POSSIBILITY of responding to the other MAIN healing remedy.)

This is what I consider advancing homeopathy BEYOND what Hahnemann did in his lifetime.
Knowing what Hahnemann did is absolutely essential to any study to be a homeopath - all else can only follow after thorough understanding of what he did and WHY - the principles.
Only then can one build more ability to heal.

SO opinions on this "classical homeopath" idea are not rigid and not all in agreement:
in MY opinion - Hahnemann would turn in his grave if he thought people would stop where he stopped two centuries ago after his clear example of always working to improve and BUILD on the PRINCIPLES. That includes adding new principles within the system (not conflicting ones - -which means you MUST understand the ones already known thanks to Hahnemann) - and to make progress where Hahnemann failed to find principles or approaches to meet his number one aphorism - and called those diseases incurable instead.
I think it is more important to define what it means to be a healer using homeopathy as the core system of healing.
Whether it is as Hahnemann did it - or improved based on what Hahnemann developed PLUS new findings - is the difference.
Do you want to heal only what he could heal?
Or do you want to be able to heal faster, with less aggravations and heal worse diseases than he could, etc while still using his basic system?
It seems such an obvious choice to me: Do not live in the past. USE the past and add to it.
It is difficult for one person to decide what would make another turn in their grave:-)
Hahnemann was an experimenter - he TESTED his work and proved it.
If he saw the experiments since his time that SHOW and prove improvements to his use of his principles, who is to say he would not approve?

I hasten to add I am NOT in favor of using any pre-mixture of remedies, as it is not individually matched.
But I am not against using one remedy as the "main" one against a disease - and others as needed to maintain the individual while the main healing takes time - or to do as in the example above to unblock the drug suppression of the thymus which was not steroid-blocked in Hahnemann's time hence not an issue then.
The PRINCIPLE is that every disease - or aspect of disease - needs a properly MATCHED remedy - not some guess as to what to use - or some mixture with unknown action.
WHOSE golden rules?
Hahnemann never made a golden rule to make no progress by his FIRST aphorism - "to heal the sick":-)
He showed by his entire life's actions that he believed the exact opposite!
SO if it heals the sick - there is no other golden rule FROM HIM to supercede this!
We have no business to invent rules against Hahnemann's aphorism one, and then pretend they are Hahnemann's "rules"!

My rule is his rule - Heal the sick.
ANd if I have to do tribal dancing holding a candle between each toe in order to heal, then that is what I will do:-)
But as it happens, I use Hahnemann's wonderful body of work ENHANCED by later brilliant minds to keep up with the awful rate at which nastier diseases are developed (both by man and by nature). Why" Because it DOES heal.
At my school, a set of aphorisms is studied, discussed and questioned for each unit.
AND then I add what things are available now that enhance that - what we have handy in 2013 as tools to heal.
That too needs an update, IMO
But I leave that for the Christians to decide.

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: only
--
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

I am not saying that everything should stop with Hn's death! Of course one
should be familiar with how Hn practised in his last days in Paris and we
are indebted to many colleagues who have worked on the Paris notebooks and
explained them. Indeed as an example, had you paid attention to what I had
written on Classical homeopathy you would have seen the mention of Hering's
Laws which were much after than Hn's death. The excellent work done by Dr
Ardavan Shahrdar (The owner of Minutus) on the correct definition of miasms
and the role of micro organisms in causing chronic disease and how to tackle
them using Repertorium Virosum is worthy of great note.

Nor would I object to the F series being used to the greater benefit of
patients - like C or Q (LM) potencies one needs to learn how to use them
correctly - see aph 3 of Organon 6.

What I object to is poor teaching and poor learning. I dare say one never
learns all there is to homeopathy and you would be the first to testify that
it would take years to master some aspects. It is a bit like learning to
drive a big juggernaut. One starts with a small car and gradually proceeds
up the size of vehicle.

There is no objection to using different remedies at different times or
close to each other - especially in acute cases when symptoms may change
rapidly. But we need to take the totality of the case in our prescribing
and not such as a case I have seen where the main remedy is given in the
morning and say Nux-v in the evening to take care of the constipation and
repeated for many days.

There is no point in repeating experiments that Hn had already carried out
and advised against them (multiple premixed remedies) for these break the
golden rule of using proved remedies and basing the prescription on the
relevant totality and Symptom Similarity.

Rgds
Soroush

[Lynn Cremona]

Hello Lu Ann,

The British Institute of Homeopathy does teach "Hahnemannian" or "Classical" Homeopathy
In addition to Homeopathy other classes in Nutrition, Anatomy and Physiology, Pathology, Bach Flower (which are needed to be a good homeopath) and
Herbology, and Flower Essencewhich are not required but offered for those who are interested.
BIH does not teach or support the use of combination remedies, or other non Homeopathy based studies.

Best,
Lynn Cremona
-------------------------
--
Imagine Peace
http://www.homeopathicsolutions.blogspot.com/

[Irene de Villiers]

Good. Some people do think that should be so, and I am in agreement with some of your interpretation of what is Classical Homeopathy, (per your email on 17 Dec here) but not all.
I mainly wanted to point out that I see the most relevant issue not as "Is it classical?" but "Does it cure the patient?"

The use of premixes of remedies does not cure - and a lot of other mistakes also will not cure - not even a mismatched remedy will do so...but I like working by principles not rules, and the principle is to cure. (A rule is to "be classical" - it's not a principle.)
Another principle is that the symptoms of the patient can only be helped by a remedy that is similar in its effects - in other words gather the patient's symptoms and find the remedy which best includes them.
But it is not a principle to use one remedy at a time. That is a "rule", and rules are open to argument, where principles are not. We can not argue that healing occurs when a similar remedy is used - a law of nature causes the effect - not man - it is a principle of nature (as is Hering's law and as is Fibonacci's golden ratio.).
I regret I have not read this work.
I DO see that miasms are now seen and recognized in allopathy (it took them 200 yrs to see it?) and they have different terms for them - based on the physical epigenetic DNA involved. So, at last the *science* of miasms is now also known. ALthough allopathy has yet to find many ways to adjust a miasm switch to the healthier position - at least they recognize the existence of these gene switches and the FACT that they can be affected (switched on/off by methylation or acetylation) during an individual's lifetime so that what is passed to offspring is healthier genes, and so that the individual affected can be cured of that inherited miasm (inherited epigene) in his lifetime.
Hahnemann was so ahead of his time in devising a way to methylate/acetylate gene switches - using remedies - without even knowing there was such a ting as a gene switch! and which allopathy only HOPES to know how to switch one day in the future (with a few minor rare exceptions, almost accidentally discovered.)
Hahnemann discovered the principles of epigenes..... it's a matter of principle too, not a mater of a rule.
I certainly agree with that and unfortunately there is way too much of that going on. Partly it is because tutors are hired without proper training. I know for example in the Veterinary homeopathy field, some schools hire "tutors" who have a DVM (licensed veterinarian in conventional medicine) degree - and no degree in homeopathy.
That results in the blind leading the blind. A DVM is NOT a homeopathy degree - and nor is a veterinary certificate in homeopathy. However well meant those vets are, they are NOT properly trained in homeopathy, and IMO have no business teaching whatever they do not know properly as if it is correct.
....or any other subject - but we need a minimum level of competence just as surely as a veterinarian needs a minimum level of competence to be allowed to do that job. Vets are not allowed to practice as vets after the kind of training some people have that they feel is enough to practice homeopathy. It's not a plumbing or woodworking job after all - this one affects lives in every aspect of the work.
I agree - but the totality is not *always* covered by a single remedy.
One could say that I specialize in the nasty, intricated cases that are really "exceptions to the rule", and which ordinary approaches cannot help. However this kind of work is exactly what leads to new findings and new approaches - as the prior ones do not cure -ad which result in new principles as well.

I have seen cure using two remedies alternating, one in the morning and one in the evening for an illness which has no remedy to cover ALL its vast array of symptoms, and where some periodicity occurs.
Indeed I have seen cure alternating say Sulph and Lyc for many days - one in the am and one in the evening - in an otherwise incurable situation. So it is not okay to make "rule" to use one, as there is no principle for it.
Where I used the two alternating remedies, the principle of covering what symptoms were there in the disease, was followed - and thus the approach led to cure. (It was an unusual disease - perhaps the most complex and variable that exists.) My point is that the principles never fail - they fit *every* case - but that rules are a mistake if used as anything more than a general guideline, as they *will* have exceptions - and those exceptions must be recognized and not treated as being within the rule.
Again - I see no rule as golden; only principles are golden. Any rule has exceptions.
Using proven remedies is a rule - and has exceptions.
After five thousand or so remedies have been proved, it is possible to predict some uses of remedies without first proving them.
For example I need to do a lot of work in the areas where drugs have destroyed the immune system organs - especially the thymus. After knowing from experience that the homeopathic version of a drug like prednisone can reverse the damage of the material drug, it is not necessary to prove the remedy for another drug of the same class such as dexamethasone or methyl prednisolone or triamcinolone etc - to know that the homeopathic version of THAT drug will ALSO help undo thymus damage from the material drug...with no proving needed.
[A proving MAY elicit even more value to the remedy - but my point is that many remedies can save lives without first being proved - or also when used as prophylactics for an issue - so an exception to the usual "rule" of using proven remedies. Here - a PRINCIPLE is at work - that of undoing drug damage, by using a homeopathic version of the drug - and that works every time, as it is a principle, not a rule.]

In your list of "Classical Homeoapthy" actions you include
Prescription of a SINGLE remedy and waiting for reaction.

This also is a rule not a principle, and so to me is not a valid part of the definition of classical homeopathy.
My first paper in Hpathy describes the necessary exception I used to obtain the first ever cures in a specific illness.
If one uses your rule in this illness yo g et 100% death.
Only when the remedy is "pushed" and pre-empted, can one provide healing instructions FAST enough for this specific chronic illness. One actually has to go looking for what's happening internally (using blood tests for example) and NOT waiting for symptoms to be obvious to the naked eye - much less waiting for a response to remedy to be visible to the eye.... as once THESE symptoms show, it is just notification of being too late to cure!

Example:
The bloodwork shows high bilirubin, and the homeopath knows the pathology of the illness (diagnosed by blood test values) well enough to know there is no liver involvement, but that red blood cells are breaking due to toxin levels.
There is no jaundice showing at this point - no symptoms - but I will begin dosing a matched remedy (matched to what I know WILL happen, that has not yet happened - from the pathology of the illness).
If you wait for symptoms in this kind of case, you will see lack of appetite and jaundice, and then death ensues in 2 days. What has gone wrong is that ALL the red cells are smashed (called fulminant autoimmune hemolytic anemia) , and even though a remedy will induce fast making of more red cells during those two days, it takes two *weeks* to mature new ones. Where is the two weeks going to come from if you dose per the rule?
The individual is dead because there is no red blood to carry oxygen - all due to a (bad) rule to wait for a reaction!
My PRINCIPLE used here - is to understand the pathology, and make sure that the remedy is in place and in use in time to pre-empt the smashed red cells - so that there is no "wait for a reaction" phase - because even if that "reaction" is new red cells, the lateness of dosing (waiting for symptoms instead of pre-empting) will not allow for the 2 weeks needed to *mature* the red cells so that they can actually function to carry oxygen. Thus IMO:
EVERY situation must be seen in context - NOT using rules - but using PRINCIPLES - and with a view to cure.

Bottom line as I see it:
Do NOT have any rules - as people/students tend to consider them fixed in stone - and failure to cure will result.
But DO have principles - as they ARE fixed in stone - and will lead to cures every time.
And know the difference!

Namaste,
Irene

REPLY TO: > only
--
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."

[Sheri Nakken]

I meant to say "I wouldn't say BIH teaches classical homeopathy - it teaches all sorts of things that are called homeopathy - why do you say it teaches classical (I guess it does as part of teaching all the others)
Sheri

At 08:36 PM 1/11/2013, you wrote:

[Lynn Cremona]

Would you please give an example of what BIH teaches that is not, what is considered "Classical" or "Hahnemannian"

Best,
Lynn
________________________________
--
Imagine Peace
http://www.homeopathicsolutions.blogspot.com/

[Sheri Nakken]

Exactly Soroush - I have no school I highly recommend anymore, sorry to say. You almost have to have enough knowledge ahead of time to know what is good and what isn't, finish that school and go on to study on your own. Many say they teach 5th and 6th edition of the organon, but they don't (water potencies discussed in them). There are a few token lessons on a few paragraphs of the organon and that's it. And I find the same as Soroush - homeopaths who haven't even read the organon and feel the same as him.

At this point I teach Intro to Homeopathy Parts 1 & 2 (much of what is in a first year of school) and then people have a better idea what the laws and principles of homeopathy are, introducing them to the organon and case taking and repertorizing.

After Part 2, they can choose a school better to take what they need and leave the rest. And then they can go on and study on their own at the end - in my case with Dr. Luc de Schepper and David Little - both of whom teach 5th and 6th edition of the organon and how to use remedies in water (it isn't just about putting them in water, but it is potency and dosing in a different way). Kind of piecing your education together. That takes someone who is able to do that, self-starter basically.

One person was able to waive her whole first year in a school in Ireland after taking my Part 1 & Part 2. The key is to get a good grounding in classical homeopathy (and beyond - what I call Hahnemannian Homeopathy) and then can judge what they are taught after and take what they need and leave the rest. I am of the opinion that many schools are just money-makers for the school owner and not about teaching or preparing good homeopaths.

In the US, in most states Homeopathy is neither legal or is it illegal
Some states have Health Freedom laws so that covers whatever you want to do as long as patient is informed
Certification is not required anywhere
A few states, you need to be an MD
Certification is not required to become a homeopath in US or UK

And I also don't see certification as that important or a guarantee of a quality homeopath. Kind of like licensing doesn't guarantee a quality doctor. I refer to people that are homeopaths that I know that understand the laws and principles and practice as I would and would want in a homeopath myself and also practice using 5th & 6th editions of Organon in all aspects including water potencies. The challenge, really, is to find a good mentor and often people have to mentor with someone (usually using remedies dry) and then figure out through Dr. Luc's writings and David Little's writings, how to choose remedies, potency, dosing and frequency and case management. Not easy but not impossible.

Hope that helps some
Sheri

[Lu Ann Weis]

Didn't Dr. Luc graduate from BIH?

[Sheri Nakken]

Excellent post from Irene and I agree with most
of it, other than more than 1 remedy at a time, but she said this:
'And it is important to remember that Hahnemann
was NEVER satisfied that he had a complete system.
He rewrote the system 6 times - there are SIX
editions of his "Organon of Medicine" - and they
do NOT agree in what they recommend. He'd have
done so again - written yet another new and
improved version (based on his Paris case
documents for example, made after the 6th ed and
using DIFFERENT techniques to those in the 6
organons) except.... he finally died after a long life of amazing achievement.
"

Yes, he went on to write 6 editions, but he never
said, "never-mind", going back to the 4th edition
or the 2nd edition. That is what has happened in
homeopathy - most are stuck at 4th edition and
never even tried 5th and 6th edition dosing. And
there are reasons for what they happened (I will
share about that in a minute), but there aren't
excuses that are valid for not going on, at this
point and discovering what is in the 5th and 6th
edition (and supposedly most schools teach 6th
edition - they say they do, but it is a token statement - they do not).

He would applaud going beyond 6th edition if
quality work done to prove that there were better
ways of dosing and new principles found. But he
would NOT applaud going backwards or not even
progressing to what he developed in 5th & 6th
edition - go beyond yes, but go backwards, no.

Why dry remedies for most homeopaths? (this is 4th edition)
Of course dry potencies work sometimes - depends
on choosing the exact right potency and the
person not being over sensitive. Hahnemann used
remedies dry at first. But later he changed his
mind after working with them.

Hahnemann then recommended not repeating the same
potency twice and basically the only way to do
that with dry is start with 30c, go to 200c, go
to 1M and go to 10M and then what do you do and
that potency may be way too high for some. By
using remedies in water you can fine tune more
and also aggravations will be way less or of shorter duration.

Classical has nothing to do with how remedies are
given. It was a term made up by George
Vithoulkas and indicated following principles of
like cures like, one remedy at a time and lowest
potency (but I guess people wouldn't meet that
criteria when they don't use water potencies)

So many homeopaths were only taught dry dosing
and this has to do with many factors.
1. The 6th edition of Organon didn't get into
hands of homeopaths after Hahnemann died in 1800s
2. All the homeopaths at that time were
following primarily the 4th edition in late 1800s
3. All the teachers of the early 20th century were taught by those homeopaths
4. Homeopathy pretty much died out in the US and
when revived still taught by homeopaths who only learned 4th edition.
5. Homeopaths kind of set in their ways as most
people are think dry is fine (but they aren't
acknowledging the aggravations people have; or no
results and they don't come back because remedy
was right but potency was wrong). It isn't best
for the patient as too much time has to go by
before remedy is changed if not right. Too many
aggravations. Too many non-results. Dr. Luc de
Schepper and David Little (also Robin Murphy
taught this) are the main homeopaths teaching
this method (and of course their students such as
myself). They are trying desperately to get
homeopaths to listen. Some homeopaths have
started using LM potencies which are in water,
which helps, but most aren't using them according
to Hahnemann's instructions in his 6th edition of
Organon. And very few homeopaths ever use C or X
potencies in water which Hahnemann did toward the end of his life.

We went a gentle cure and a faster cure and water
potencies can do that. If an aggravation with
water potencies it only lasts a few days. With
dry potencies can last a long time or forever.

I saw problems with all the above and I kept
studying and found water potencies and rarely use
dry potencies at all (unless nothing else is possible).

Of course people have been cured with dry
potencies but is it a gentle cure? Is it as fast
as it can be? How many have not been helped -
have given up because of how long it takes or severe aggravations?

Also homeopaths don't pay attention to the dose
(the look at potency but not dose). Many think,
because Kent said it, that 1 pillule = 10
pillules = 100 pillules and this is not true. 1
pillule or tablet in an amount of water is a dose.

To adjust for person's individual sensitivity
with water potencies can adjust by:
1. selection of potency
2. number of tablets
3. amount of water diluted in in dilution bottle
4. amount of water dose from that bottle is further diluted in
5. number of succussions given to that dilution bottle before #4

With a dry pill you can only give the pill and
hope and most homeopaths say it takes 3-6 weeks
to know if it is working. That is not acceptable to me for my patients.

Hope that helps
Sheri

At 02:21 AM 1/12/2013, you wrote:

[Sheri Nakken]

But Lynn, when I investigated they don't teach Hahnemannian Homeopathy which is different from Classical.
Hahnemannian, in my understanding and use of the term, is homeopathy as developed by Hahnemann through the 6th edition which includes giving Cs and LMs in water and changing the potency of the remedy with each subsequent dose (via succussion) and his teaching that you should never give the same potency twice in a row, that the VF doesn't do well with the same potency in subsequent doses. If BIH teaches that, it isn't followed through on in clinicals. No? I know of no BIH graduate homeopath that uses remedies in water as Hahnemann taught...................and I have referred to many in previous times and constantly asked for people to tell me how they practice, when thinking of referring to someone and finding it is dry, dry, dry, see-me-in-a-month kind of dosing
Sheri

At 05:41 AM 1/12/2013, you wrote: