Minutus

Nancy, your posts on this subject are informative and very clear. Thanks! Rosemary
________________________________
________________________________

Hi Louise,

I'll just respond to your message piece by piece, below:
________________________________
________________________________

luise,
i think i got the point very well and feel what
i had to say was germaine to the whole discussion.
some people felt dana's 'challenge' was out of place.
i think that he had the right to question the need
for another or different qualifying insignia. i
think we all have the right to question why someone
or some organization does what they do or what they
stand for. i do think, though, that we need to not
question or accuse in a way that disallows difference.
it seems to me that we need to figure out how to work
with the different threads that do exist. for example,
are the needs of licensed practitioners that different
from unlicensed practitioners that they need to have
their own organization? and if so what are those needs.
that kind of inquiry might/hopefully lead to better
cooperation and mutual support as a profession.a
tanya
.

On Apr 29, 2007, at 4:14 PM, Nancy Siciliana wrote:
Maybe one approach would be for the "classically oriented" community to
stop fighting over the term "homeopathy", and begin getting the word
out about "types" of homeopathy, their respective strengths, and how to
determine "which type" of homeopathy is being offered, and what the
relevant training is. Definitely a tougher go, but perhaps more
feasible than trying to *remove* the title of "homeopath/homeopathy"
from practices with which the public *already* associates it (combos
etc.).

Maybe part of homeopaths' training should include short bits on the
value (importance) and method of (a) giving public presentations, and
(b) building community (how to respond respectfully yet effectively to
various sorts of challenges and questions). In other words, find ways
to *build* on the present situation?
Shannon

Hi Nancy,
Nancy:>
Luise

I'll do the same.

Luise before:
Nancy:

This is really your opinion, Louise.

Luise now:

I have never understood why people, and homeopaths on the list more
than others, cannot or do not choose to differentiate between what I
state as being fact and what I would consider right.

I agree with all you say in the paragraph below, and I have argued
that way many times e.g. on the German list.

But the fact is that anywhere in the world - as far as I know at least
- practitioners licensed by the governments (or whose license is
recognized as valid by the governments) are licensed on the basis of a
lot of conventional medicine being included in their training/their
final exams. This is so in India, in Germany -- which is the only
countries I know of that have such kinds of license. (I do not know
what things are like in the UK, that may be an exeption) In all
other countries I know of homeopaths either have to be MDs, where
in some/ most of the countries the non-MD homeopaths are left alone in
some kinds of "grey zone", in some countries the "grey" being lighter,
in some approaching illegality.

I just do not think that homeopaths have a chance to get
licensed/(recognized as a bona-fide profession) on a diffferent base
in the near future, whether we like it or not.

This should answer your paragraph below.

Nancy:

I think a set up such as this
one should be considered unacceptable, to both practitioners and the
general public alike. While it is nice to have some training in
anatomy and physiology, and pathophysiology--and maybe even some extra
in biochemistry to give us some familiarity with "the medical
sciences", we're restricted, legally, from communicating a diagnosis
or requisitioning tests, and even, in many places, from conducting
limited physical exams. In Canada, we have a single payer health care
system which everyone funds via taxes: homeopathic physicians should
be able to direct their patients to go to their MDs and have their MDs
do what they are richly paid to do--examine, test, and diagnose our
patients so that "extra" information gives us a bit more to go on.
There is NO REASON for homeopaths to do what others are already quite
well paid to do. Nor is there any reason for us to adopt and practice
the biochemical model of medical philosophy. It would be far more
useful for us to know about the full harmful effects of pharmaceutical
drugs and how to decipher test results. And all that information is
very, very nice; however, if you can't understand how to apply the law
of similars or take a full case or gauge the reaction to a
remedy--don't bother doing homeopathy.

********************************************************
Luise before:
Nancy:

Again, I do not think this is the case (though, for NDs, I admit, it
is). But Chiropractors are trained to do manipulations, and other
modalities have also set a standard for education and practice which
requires full instruction in the modality.

Luise:

That is very likely so, but: I do know that their training covers a
whole lot of conventional medicine. Just as in India hom. training
covers a lot of the latter also.

How many CLASSROOM hours does a license for chiropractor demand? How
much of it is conventional medicine? I do not know,but someone on the
list may - although there has been such an emphasis of this list being
kept "classical" that knowledge beyond may not exist to a great
degree;-)

Nancy:
I do not disagree that the
standard is much higher in each modality than what is in place for
NDs, simply because the standards vary dramatically for NDs depending
on where they study and practice.
***********************************************************

Luise before:
Nancy:

He was using Hahnemannian

Luise:

Not really. Hahnemann did teach to prescribe one remedy at a time and
to change only after re-evaluating the case. So what I have been
reading in v. B's case records isefinitely not "according to
Hahnemann"

Nancy:

And was he not using remedies in lower

Luise:

No. He was using the same high potencies (C 30, C 200) for all the
remedies. While do I think that probably all the remedies prescribed
had some similarity to the case he prescribed for, he definitely did
not pick out the most similar of those.

Nancy:
Luise:

Are you an expert on the way the sequentialists prescribe? Have you
ever listened to them explaining their rationale for selecting the
remedies?

I have not, I do not know - so I cannot judge.

Nancy:
Luise:

Many polypharmacists prescribe exactly as v. Boenninghausen did -
alternating several remedies on a pre-set schedule.

Nancy:
Luise:

What do you mean by "rote" prescribing? This for that?

If you do I recommend reading Herings "Family Physician:-)

Actually, I think you cannot unless you can read German. AFAIK only
the first edition(s) of this book were ever published in English; so
English language homeopaths may think that this book was only meant
for missionaries and perhaps for families that could not get to a
homeopath.

However, this is not so at all. There were in Germany several further
editions, each of them revised be Hering and added to - the latest of
them was shortly before his death. He kept saying that he stood firmly
behind this book. He also recommended it for homeopathic physicians to
use.

In order to come to grips with the question of "what is classical"
perhaps someone should translate a number of v. Boenninghausen's
patients' records into English (using the ones I am providing or
from the manuscripts, doesn't matter) and also translate the latest
edition of Hering's Family Physician.

If that were done AND if homeopaths would bother to read and discuss
this instead of clinging to unfounded ideas, perhaps a rational
discussion would be possible of what is (classical) homeopathy.

Nancy:

prescribing with the use of a pendulum and not by

Luise:

This is quite a mix;-) Would you exclude all the people who use
pendulums, kinesiology, EFT, vitamin supplements, herbs (a big NO-NO
to Hahnemann),hypno-therapy, massage etc. in their treatments? Well,
there would not be many homeopaths left in the thus- purified
Homeopathic Associations:-))

Nancy:

stuff that gets confused with Homeopathic

Luise:

There would go the rest of the homeopaths, since a great part of the
symptoms in our MMs and thus also in the reps are not derived from
provings but are symptoms that were cured - in other words just based
on experience of cures.

That would mean that only those homeopaths remain who check their
symptoms against the provings and sort out those that did not occur
there. I have not met or heard of any homeopath who worked that way;-)

Nany:

It is really not that hard to do, and it would make
Luise:

Doing research or taking into account research, it appears - as
pointed out above - that it is indeed quite difficult.

Luise before:

Nancy:

Well, you're pretty much proposing we have to curry acceptance from
conventional medicine and become as much like them as possible before
we'll be taken seriously (something I don't believe we have to do, and
neither do our patients);

Luise:

The future will tell what you have to do to get licensed:-)

Nancy:

and then you're saying we have to go without
any kind of standard of practice, when Hahnemann laid out an exact
science, and then expanded on it. We've got a vast body of literature
with documentation of the efficacy of this method.

Luise:

No, we do not. The English speaking homeopaths have no literature at
all to show the RATE of cure by whichever method - they just have
claims that cannot be verified and only of selected cases. Even if we
put full trust in all authors and people on seminars etc., to the
effect that they have never "given wrong evidence" and are not doing
so now - the cases presented are just those where they have been
successful. We do not know how often their methods have failed.

The Germans and French language people COULD have such objective
evidence if they bothered to read the Hahnemann's case books so far
published and bothered discuss them. But they have hardly ever done
so-

Probably because his results were not as fabulous as they would wish.

Nancy:

We can draw from
that.

Luise:

But we cannot expect "outsiders" - and politicians/regulating boards
etc are such - to agree that this should be the basis for licensing.

If this came up as a bill or whatever, "the other side" would VERY
LIKELY come up with the arguments I have presented above and then
some.

Heel Co. as an example is Germany based, and they have the staff and
opportunity to evaluate Hahnemann's casebooks as to rate of cure, they
also have trials showing the effectiveness of some of their combo
remedies - more significantly positive results than any other trials -
and can run more trials probably getting the same results. It is not
for nothing that Heel products have been some of the best-known in
Germany, in spite of their high prices. Other "combo-companies" would
follow suit. They need not resort to shady methods, all they need is
to do straight-forward research and presenting it in the same
straightforward manner.

The combo-people, whether companies or practitioners, have never tried
to discriminate the pure Hahnemannians or Kentians etc., they have
never argued that their method cannot be effective nor even denied
that often they are (much) more effective. They have only argued - in
effect - that their RATE of succes is too low - for whaatever reasons,
and that the effect is too uncertain. And so far they can back it up
by the only evidence that is available.

If the pure Hahnemannians etc. want to change this state of affairs
they have to let non-partial commissions or individuals have access to
their records to evaluate their rates of cures!

Nancy

But to compare what Boenninghausen did with the popular
prescribing method of dosing people with numerous polypharmacy
remedies given on the advice of a marketing pamphlet--that's not
exactly accurate now, is it?

Luise

Where is your proof that they do prescribe on that basis - except for
maybe some black sheep among them?

Speaking as the devil's advocate:

if that came up before a commission decides on a bill or regulation
I would fish from the net the posts where diffferent "classical"
homeopaths come up with widely divergent remedies for the same case
and argue whether any person in his/her right mind could believe that
all of them would be the one right remedy;-)

Then I would fish out the posts where the dangers of giving the wrong
remedy are being described by the same "classicals" - i.e. by those
who ought to know. I would contrast it with the statements of the
combo community that their remedies cannot do harm, that any
"evidence" to the contrary is presented by the "classicals" and thus
only due to their so often and clearly and strongly demonstrated
animosity.

Whom would an outsider believe on the base of the evidence
presented???

Nancy:

Surely we can find some way to stop this
kind of detail fixated bickering and work towards making a workable
definition of what we do so that the public will know too?

Luise:

Well, I think I have answered this above.

In a nutshell: The pure Hahnemannians are a minority. In order to pull
any weight the others will have to join. They will not join an effort
by which they are excluded from the group they are fighting with:-)

Nancy:

As for
missing the point about the argument...I don't think so. The CHC
would easily certify any and all of the NBHE members (it's not for
"licensed" practitioners only...there are no "licenses" for
homeopaths; I will sit for this exam and I do not have a medical
background--my background is in the humanities, languages, and
education...but my profession is homeopathy).

Luise:

Ok - I stand corrected.

But it still does not impinge on their right to set up their own set
of rules and no-one has a right to demand that they self-immolate and
merge with other groups.

Nancy:

So, in fact, there does
seem to be some duplicated effort. Also, we have been writing in
response to someone's request that all political advocacy posts from
one participant be silenced--which we all agree is
unacceptable.

Luise:

Yes, I agree with that part. There should be controverse discussions
and all parties to the controvery should have a right to post their
opinions.

Regards

Luise
y to dismiss--and from what I understand, these ND graduates will sit on the same regulating board as homeopaths, in a College which values the naturopathic school's greater focus on conventional medical sciences over Hahnemann's scientific method, philosophy, and application of the materia medica. Since Naturopaths are more numerous in Ontario, much more established and subsidized (private insurance will cover their patients, but rarely covers ours!) and since they can say they're more like conventional medical doctors ("more scientific") than homeopaths are, I don't foresee things ending well for many well trained homeopaths in Ontario. Put that together with recent developments on who is making homeopathic remedies and selling them (3 labs with different names, but all one company!) and pay attention to the amount of money and energy this company is placing on selling polypharmacy remedies to MDs, dietitians, chiropractors, NDs who want to list another modality on their
brochures, and just about anyone who'll buy their combos (but trying getting an account with this company if all you want to do is order single remedies for your patients!!!) and it's clear: the situation and this political process looks like a transparently divisive "regulation" that's being implemented--and that "board" is almost right out of our past in terms of textbook divide and conquer. The potential for disunity and ignorance exists on a grand scale. These are physicians using dissimilar methods of care, where one group has a lot to lose in terms of market share and credibility if well educated homeopaths are granted self regulation in this way. I wish it were not so, and I sincerely hope Ontario homeopaths can work hard to see things turn around to actually benefit homeopathy and the public in Ontario. But it will take lots of effort from lots of dedicated homeopaths who need to become politically active so that we are able to create regulation of our professi
on on terms which will not create division and hardship for practitioners.As for "personal attacks", I do not think this is what transpired in the discussion on this list. A good question was posed, an answer was posted, and another response was posted, from Dana; and I happen to agree, I hate to see duplication of institutions and efforts--it causes division and creates a waste of resources, as I said (and as I've seen happen, first hand, right here in Ontario). I saw no personal insults or name calling or derision being tossed around by either party, and I don't think the discussion has to "end" even on this list--in fact, I think some kind of unity can come out of this particular argument which would actually help us all as physicians in the end. Regards,Nancy To: minutus@yahoogroups.comFrom: kdenoble@sympatico.caDate: Sun, 29 Apr 2007 12:25:43 -0400Subject: [Minutus] Re: NBHE Homeopathic Board? Is it really necesssary?

--
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 <==========

Hi Louise,

I may not have made this clear before, but there IS a standard in place for homeopaths which focuses on anatomy and physiology and pathophysiology. No, we don't have homeopathic hospitals in Canada as they do in India, where our clinics can treat both acute and chronic cases of all kinds of patients who utilize their free access to homeopathy, or have some kind of knowledge about it which would allow them to know exactly what's involved. So we don't have the same training as Indian homeopaths do--which is a variation of conventional medical training that is taught with much greater respect for homeopathy. You know: it's taught in a way which would be relevant to someone who is trying to look for a totality of symptoms, and apply the law of similars. It's never taught that way here.

And I state again: we should never, ever, accept "training" for homeopathy that places greater importance on learning the conventional medical sciences and paradigm. Much more emphasis has to be placed on learning the modality we choose to practice, and if the other is taught along with it it should be taught with this emphasis in mind. So, to say we'll have to buckle down and accept that we'll have to learn more allopathic medicine and sacrifice our attention to homeopathy (or chiropractic or TCM or Shiatsu or whatever else you may wish to include) doesn't make sense, and in the end it is self destructive to our profession.

In any case, "restrictions" such as these are POLITICAL, not scientific--and we can change the political situation if we want to. We just have to remember that.

Louise, I have a VERY hard time believing that polypharmacists practice as Boenninghausen did. He may have alternated remedies in particular cases (and I'm sure he did to suit the case he was treating and t he patient he was treating, and to you it may not look like he was choosing "similar" remedies but I'd challenge you on that) but he did not use polypharmacy. There is a collossal difference between alternating or using intercurrents and "medicines" used to treat "migraines" that contain about 20 or so of our most popular headache remedies, all mixed into one concoction, and given repeatedly every day, along with another "medicine" comprised of another mysteriously selected group of potentized substances which are mixed together to treat something else...say, diarrhea, and yet another mish mash for "allergies", and yet another for "obsessive compulsive disorder". And in each bottle, they are mixed together even if they are inimical or antidotes.

As for sequential therapy, there is a great deal of rote prescribing (specific ailments are treated with routinely prescribed sequences of medicines). I'm not an expert in it, as I didn't enroll in a course to study it (don't need to use it, thanks) but I did learn what's involved. Still, I'm all for it--as long as it doesn't call itself homeopathy, so the general public will know how to tell the difference and never confuse them.

Now, the initial conversation about "self-regulation" was about how the process Ontario homeopaths are now experiencing--which includes the creation of a nonsensical College with a regulatory board made up of Homeopaths and Naturopaths, based on a grossly erroneous belief that both groups practice the same kind of alternative medicine. There are a lot of big problems with this setup, its basis in this kind of ignorance being just one. No one's averse to an opportunity to learn more, and, as another MD noted on this list, the GPs and MDs are largely "dropping the ball" in providing any kind of competent care for their patients, so we should be ready to "take over"...but we should all be opposed to any kind of lowered standard in homeopathy.
And we should also be opposed to any kind of "regulation" of homeopathy which makes homeopaths restricted in all they do, and others free to abuse homeopathy without restriction, as long as the initials after their names are the favoured ones.

And that's about all I want to say on the subject, because now I'm really repeating myself--but I'm certainly glad politics and advocacy has a place on this list.

Best regards to you Louise,
Nancy
________________________________
________________________________