Sub molecular remedy imprints in homeopathy

[healthinfo6]

The author has many interesting, less techie, thought provoking articles on that site, one trashes Sankaran and basically is saying LEARN the basics and stop looking for a new guru to follow:
Some friends have expressed their apprehension that criticizing wrong theories and practices happening in homeopathy in public will harm the good will and reputation of our community and our therapeutic system.
I do not subscribe to that view. All these ‘wrong things’ in homeopathy are done and promoted by their propagators in public, with out any concern about the harm they are doing, through articles, books, interviews and seminars all over the world, making homeopathy a topic of unending mockery before the scientific community. All these things are already known to general public better than homeopaths themselves.
These people have already done enough damage to homeopathy through their unscientific theories and nonsense practices. They supply arms and ammunition to skeptics to attack homeopathy. There is no meaning in covering up this dirt. Public dirt should be washed in public, to get the lost reputation and credibility of homeopathy back.
If homeopathic community continue let these people go like this, we cannot even dream about making homeopathy a scientific medical system, and get it recognized as such even in a far distant future.
In his Homeopathic Links interview, Vithoulkas says: “Sankaran alone has done more harm to homeopathy than all the enemies of homeopathy together.”
Andre Saine writes on his website: “Sankaran demonstrated several basic errors of methodology and reasoning in his example of how he ‘discovers’ a remedy”
How would the followers of Sankaran respond to these statements?
Collect all mentals, physical generals and particular symptoms of your patient, with all qualifications such as causations, sensations, locations, modalities and concomitants. Then grade the symptoms into uncommon, common, mental, physical general and particulars. Then repertorize. Compare the materia medica of drugs coming top in repertorization, and decide a similimum. That is the simple way of homeopathic practice- and the most successful way.
If a drug is similimum according to totality of symptoms, it does not matter whether that drug belongs to animal, mineral or plant kingdoms. It does not matter to which ‘sub kingdom’ or ‘family’ the drug belongs. Such a knowledge does not make any difference in your similimum.
Selecting similimum is most important in homeopathy. Similarity of symptoms is our guide in selecting similimum. All these talk about ‘kingdoms’, sub kingdoms, families and such things only contribute in making homeopathy complex, and confuse the young homeopaths. It may help in creating an aura around the teacher, which would attract people to seminars. That is not a silly thing, where money matters above homeopathy!
http://dialecticalohmeopathy.wordpress. ... an-method/
Susan

[jtikari]

Your point taken, Soroush. If i don't know how many angels can dance on a pin-head, I'd better
leave 'how many molecules in a 12c remedy' to Avogadro who knew.
Those who wish to, can look for the answers themselves.
Those who wish to can live blissfully in the innocent past.
Jeff

[jtikari]

Read it in parts -geo-. That is what I did.
Jeff

[Soroush Ebrahimi]

§ 1
The physician's high and only mission is to restore the sick to health, to cure, as it is termed. 1
1 His mission is not, however, to construct so-called systems, by interweaving empty speculations and hypotheses concerning the internal essential nature of the vital processes and the mode in which diseases originate in the interior of the organism, (whereon so many physicians have hitherto ambitiously wasted their talents and their time); nor is it to attempt to give countless explanations regarding the phenomena in diseases and their proximate cause (which must ever remain concealed), wrapped in unintelligible words and an inflated abstract mode of expression, which should sound very learned in order to astonish the ignorant - whilst sick humanity sighs in vain for aid. Of such learned reveries (to which the name of theoretic medicine is given, and for which special professorships are instituted) we have had quite enough, and it is now high time that all who call themselves physicians should at length cease to deceive suffering mankind with mere talk, and begin now, instead, for once to act, that is, really to help and to cure.
From: minutus@yahoogroups.com [mailto:minutus@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of jtikari
Sent: 02 June 2012 03:09
To: minutus@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [Minutus] Sub molecular remedy imprints in homeopathy
Your point taken, Soroush. If i don't know how many angels can dance on a pin-head, I'd better

leave 'how many molecules in a 12c remedy' to Avogadro who knew.
Those who wish to, can look for the answers themselves.

Those who wish to can live blissfully in the innocent past.
Jeff

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

That was written when there was only speculations and hypotheses without any means to verify anything. Schools and professors were fighting upon theories based on philosophical discussions and concepts without any validation.
It is that type of time-wasting emptiness that H was opposed to. His own work demonstrates the opposite position: experimentation, rigorous repetition, changes and adaptations according to the results.....and some speculations about the vital force and other means of action of remedies.
Today's understanding of the world and means of study are quite different.
As clinicians, our main role is to treat patients. The system of history taking, repertorisation and remedy matching according to provings is well established, with variations.
I do not understand the problems or the oppositions to the attempts at knowing HOW the whole system works?
I do not know how my computer works...I am not a computer technician
I do not understand how my car works....I am not mechanic
I do not understand how a plane works....I am not an engineer
When those machines do not work, I refer to people who DO understand and know how they work, who can find the problems and correct them.
As a professional health practitioner, I want to understand how and why my remedies do work, not blindly apply a system, as good as it may be, and get stuck when the results are not those I expected. What went wrong? Certainly I can review my history taking, my choice of rubrics, etc,.....and that will more than often answer my question, still I will not KNOW what worked and how it worked, or not. It is called basic sciences and I continuously refer to them in my daily practice.
A correct homeopathic practice and a scientific understanding of its mechanism of action are not mutually exclusive at all.
On the contrary, if we can definitely show how a remedy acts, and this can be constantly reproduced, we could design ways to create and apply remedies that would be simpler than what is done today and probably more reliable. Peter Chappel's method is based on that assumption as far as I know, even though I have never used his system.
How many of us still use a horse and a buggy? It is still a very good and pretty comfortable way to travel.....
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com