Vithoulkas

[John R. Benneth]

In a message dated 12/4/2013 7:44:23 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, skyhomeopathy@gmail.com writes:
No, I don't know what was taught except that whatever it is, he learned it in India, and when he teaches it you could sing the Stars and Stripes Forever during the pauses, while his class sits there, bent over their laptops, trying to find some actual information.
Maybe they're reading my Journal . .
The idea that homoeopathy can be objectified as a science is an anathema to him. It's not that he can't dimension the subject and lay it out objectively, he simply won't, because it doesn't serve his megalomania to do so. As Rozencwaj has pointed out, there's no coherent posology to homoeopathy. An incoherent 19th century posology is the mysticism of homoeopathy and VIthoulkas loves mysticism and he's infused modern homoeopathy with it, leaving posology to be completely iatrocentric, Saturnian, the "do as you will" license for practitioners.
If homoeopathy was to be demystified, it would be mainstream medicine. It woujld put people like Vithoulkas out of a job.
This can be see in his terror of the biochemical proofs for homoeopathy, floated on the notion that in vitro action of ionized materials (high dilutes) doesn't follow his theory of what it should be. The pre-clinicals demystify homoeopathy, and in this he is in bed with the "skeptics" and pseudoscience who he secretly encourages to bash homoeopathy.
Apparently he thinks there should be no in vitro action, and rather than accept it for what it's worth, he actually joined the homoeopathy bashers to deny biochemical proofs, which demolish the placebo hypothesis.
What this means is that he's using the placebo hypothesis to hide behind, to remain the reigning mystagogue of "homeopathy," not homoeopathy, as Hahnemann practiced it, but bullshit "homeopathy", as Vithoulkas defines it.
He's been infected with iatrogenic hubris, and its clouded his judgement.
Let me give you a weird example of this. Fourteen years ago I took up James Randi's million dollar challenge to prove homeopathy. I presented a protocol to Randi stated to identify active samples of ionized materials as used as medicine in homoeopathy from their liquid inert vehicles in an RCT triple blind test. When Randi saw what was coming, he suddenly revoked the offer. Years later Vithoulkas took up the challenge, but Vithoulkas' "protocol" was a CLINICAL test.
This reveals the point. If a man challenges you to a duel with penknives, why would you show up with a toothpick? Anyone with a little perspicuity can see that Randi doesn't think any straighter than VIthoulkas does He has specifically said that there isn't any difference between "homeopathic" water and plain water, the implication being that "homeopathic" solutions are indistinguishable from the solution they were made from.
Randi accepted my protocol for this, using a physical test to identify verum, and then ran away from it.
Then Vithoulkas comes along and foolishly wants to do a clinical test to prove homeopathy. In order to this, his protocol requires the use of a hospital in Athens, human subjects and the mayor's approval. Randi waits him out and the deal falls apart.
My work was to find forensic proofs for homoeopathy. Vithoulkas's has always been to simply glorify Vithoulkas.
The materia medica are (clinically) proof enough for homeopathy for any reasonable soul. But reasonable souls don't run medicine. So the meat we throw to the dogs has to be the pre-clinicals. But Vithoulkas doesn't want this anymore than Randi does, because the pre-clinicals create objective proof for verum, the effective use of homeopathy's biologically active ionized pharmaceuticals, an authority that robs both men of their arbitrary authority on the subject of homoeopathy, their demagoguery
So frankly I haven't seen much use for Vithoulkas. In playing to the boxes he ignores the groundlings. In denying pre-clinical proofs, most notably the biochemicals, he's obstructed the acceptance of homoeopathy by science by at least 25 years.
I suspect there are much better homoeopaths here on this list, better than mangod George Vithoulkas. The beating he gave Jacques Benveniste was a terrible mistake. He helped Randi put Benveniste on the cross and hammer in the nails through the man's hands.
Frankly, I think he's got a lot of explaining to do. But watch. When confronted with this he'll turn his palms up . . and shrug.
Benneth

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

Dear Reza
The general point you have made is the saddest part of the practise of homeopathy. We have all sorts of practises called 'homeopathy' which far away from the instructions of Homeopathy.
As you may know Minutus is very much based on Hahnemannian homeopathy and it is by these standards that we compare issues. I am not denying the experience of GV or his successes - but I note that you have not answered the points I have raised.

However, does he teach much about LM (or Q) potencies?

Some of the articles he has written or interviews given about his early homeopathic days are sadly not factually correct!
Some of his materia medica teaching is also suspect - focussing on a few characteristics.
His choice of some of his remedies after case taking have left me wondering on what basis did he chose that remedy!
Now compare GV with our own Dr Ardavan Shahrdar (Owner of Minutus) and you see a great difference.
Best wishes

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Reza Z
Sent: 05 December 2013 11:50
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] vithoulkas
Dear Soroush
The problem that we have is that we do not have a

unified system in homeopathy like the allopathic medicine.

In allopathic medicine they have some guidelines that everywhere is

the same .In homeopathy anyone who learns it and has some experience comes

with new ideas and new method and thinks he knows better than other homeopaths.

Even Hahnemann changed his ideas about homeopathy during time and

we see it in Organon because during time he had some new experiences .

So experience is very important in homeopathy.

Vithoulkas has a lot of experiences in homeopathy that works and give good results and

compare to other famous homeopaths in our time he actually practices homeopathy

classically and according to basic rules of homeopathy.

His teachings for follow up the patient after first prescription is

also very practical and precious because of that experience that he has.
Dear Reza
Certainly GV has done a lot for homeopathy.

However, does he teach much about LM (or Q) potencies?

Some of the articles he has written or interviews given about his early homeopathic days are sadly not factually correct!
Some of his materia medica teaching is also suspect - focussing on a few characteristics.
His choice of some of his remedies after case taking have left me wondering on what basis did he chose that remedy!
Perhaps as his honoured student you would like to explain.

Rgds

Soroush
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Reza Z
Sent: 04 December 2013 15:26
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] vithoulkas
In my opinion Vithoulkas is the most experienced and the best homeopath in our

time. He is the Hahnemann of our time . He is a master of homeopathy who practices classic

homeopathy according to basics of homeopathy and teachings of Hahnemann.

It is an honer for me that I studied homeopathy in his academy.

The Vithoulkas name is the most creditable name in homeopathy in our time.
Ellen it varies by state.

In WA state homeopathy for humans is legal specifically for licenced Naturopaths for humans as part of their profession. There is no specific homeopathy level of training needed, so long as ND is achieved.

For any health profession not covered by a license already in WA, (and veterinary homeopathy and veterinary naturopathy are not covered) there is a legislative intent statement that ANY Alternative Health Profession may be practised in WA, and if it seems unsafe to dept of health, they may regulate it - but minimally to ensure safety - but may not halt the profession.

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."

[Rochelle Marsden]

I have just come across this:-
Dear Homeopaths, I would like to share with you the answer of Prof. George Vithoulkas regarding the paper "Homeopathy for Coronavirus Covid-19 Infection by Dr Aditya Kasariyans and Dr Rajan Sankaran",
Homeopathy is an individualised system of therapy, therefore there is no possibility that one remedy to cure all cases of a specific pathology.

In the paper that was circulated it appears that all cases are cured by one remedy!!!

What actually has happened ?

It is well known that this coronavirus is self recovering in 97% of the cases, so any remedy or false remedy or a placebo will have the same success as the one described for these cases.

It must be noted also that the correct homeopathic remedy will give an effect much different than the one described in these cases : this effect is instant recovery not a dragging recovery, like the one described in these cases.

If we want to be serious about this matter, we should ask to do an epidemiological research in one of the hospitals in Europe where patients could be assigned at random to two different groups, one for conventional treatment and to the other group will be added the homeopathic treatment, (treating each patient individually) and after treating a sample of at least 200 cases from each group to evaluate the results and to find out if the homeopathic group has a superior outcome in survival, general conditions etc. and to what degree.

All other outcries for the superiority of homeopathy in this influenza epidemic is irresponsible and will accuse us for been opportunists.

The genus epidemicus that is mentioned cannot be spotted in all epidemics, even in cases when is possible to discern it does not mean that all cases will be affected with this specific remedy.

The genus epidemicus may be ascertained only after a practitioner has treated a sufficient number of cases and has evaluated the effect of his treatment, meaning to observe which remedies had acted really well. If he finds that a remedy prevails in successful cases to a great degree, then can say that this may be the genus epidemicus. Such cases today, developing similar symptoms is impossible to be found with the level of health of our contemporary societies.

I can foresee that if everyone was trying to find the genus epidemics, possibly everyone would find a different one !

What may happen for example, after treating let us say 5 cases and finding in two of them he has given the same remedy. He will proclaimed it as the genus epidemicus. One can imagine the total chaos and confusion that will ensue in such a case where everyone will propose a remedy.

The conclusion we must arrive is that a process of serious evaluation is needed before one can give instructions to the public, it is ridiculous for anyone to announce that he has found the genus epidemicus by his imagination.

Further than these remarks about the paper if one analyses the information, will find different remedies indicated, but as we said in the beginning, any remedy you may prescribe will appear to have some kind of effect on the patient.

But when the correct remedy is prescribed in influenza like cases, the positive effect is felt instantly.

But a word of warning is necessary : we cannot claim under these circumstances that it was the effect of the homeopathic remedy that cured the patient until we have the proof in an experiment the I described above.

Prof. George Vithoulkas

[Hennie Duits]

Wise words!
Op 16-3-2020 om 1:56 schreef 'Rochelle Marsden' rochellemarsden@talktalk.net [minutus]:
Virusvrij. www.avast.com

[Ellen Madono]

Thanks Rochelle,
Yes, George Vithoulkas has written an excellent warning. Yes, homeopathy needs to be accurate about what it can and cannot do. However, I do not totally agree with the great teacher, George Vithoulkas. The letter is a response to a case published by a well known and respected homeopath. See that description of treatment of serious symptoms of COVID-19.
Most of us homeopaths need to focus on treating patients one at a time. If some great compiler of case symptoms goes further than that, of course, I cheer. But, as Vithoulkas implies, homeopathy works best one patient at a time. I know because I have seen it happen so many times.

I think that slow recovery and avoidance of severe symptoms expectation described by Paul Herscu in the case of influenza-like symptoms or the COVID-19 is a "good enough outcome." You will never be able to prove that the patient would not have had severe symptoms in the first place. But the symptoms of patients who recover cause severe suffering in many cases. The cases reported by Dr. Aditya Kasariyans and Dr. Rajan Sankaran are not cases that we should leave to nature to cure just because 97% of cases recover. I suspect that 97% is an official excuse for the lack of medical support typical in most countries.
Furthermore, we cannot foresee the Never-been-well-since case that may be developing from severe untreated cases. That is, similar to influenza NBWS cases, some patients never totally recover from severe viral infections. If homeopathic cases do not develop severe symptoms, even if recovery is slow, I still think working with people one at a time is worth the effort. If they develop severe symptoms despite our remedy, then we know that our treatment was ineffective. At that point, we should question our practice. Ineffective homeopathic treatment is not an expected outcome.

Furthermore, Vithoulkas is pushing for hospital provings. That is highly unlikely in a highly regulated hospital environment. I read about an Indian case where only half of the group members were given the curative remedy. That would be unethical in most countries. Giving only homeopathy would be seen in most countries as giving no treatment.
On the other hand, given the lack of medical support relative to the numbers of people affected by COVID-19, now may be a great chance to implement the kind of study that Vithoulkas is recommending. That is, if patients cannot receive treatment in any case, homeopathic treatment is a good option. One patient at a time is also a good option.
Best,
Ellen Madono