Certification

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Joe,

Thanks again.
This was the nub of my question.

Even if the person does not want to work using repertorization, has no
truck with the Organon etc. s/he would still have to spend the time,
money, energy to take a full course in what he does not want to use in
order to be certified.

So "classical homeopathy" has in NZ managed to monopolize what we may
call "potency medicine".

To understand what I am saying:

Before the 1950s or so probably hardly any homeopath in Germany had
ever used a repertory. Kent was translated into German 1946 and v.
Boenninghausen's was probably not even known. The people who did not
use it included e. g. Dr. Haehl of 6th Organon and "Life of Hahnemann"
fame and Prof Ritter, head of the big homeopathic Bosch Hospital in
Stuttgart.

Most of the homeopaths has probably never read the Organon - just knew
bits and pieces if at all, never mind the CD, which was not even
accepted at the time of Hahnemann.

Even now it is only the minority of homeopaths who work with the
repertory or according to the Organon or the CD.

In view of the fact that Germany may be the country where homeopathy
has been widest spread of any country in the world and still is you
may understand my surprise - which is liberally sprinkled with
scepticism as to the wisdom of doing it this way.

Regards

Luise
--
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 <==========

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

I would not say "monopolized"......the early local homeopaths and their successors came from the UK, therefore imported the knowledge they had and taught it.
v.B is well known and used here, as is Knerr's repertory and all the others.
The "classical" homeopathy you refer to is the baseline for the rest too. A psychiatrist does not really need to know anatomy and the surgical pathologies, yet he has to go through the whole medical school education before going into psychiatry.
Joe.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for articles and information.

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

So...............?????????????
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit www.drjoesnaturalmedicine.blogspot.com for articles and information.

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Joe,
.

There I disagree.

To illustrate this I gave the examples of 150 years of homeopathy in
Germany, where all through that time as well as now only a very small
percentage have had and have this training.

A
+ the training as neurologist.

Which makes sense, since he approaches his work to a great degree on
the basis of irregularities in the brain, so he has to know neurology
and for that he needs the medical training. He also in the great
majority of cases prescribes very potent drugs - there also he needs
the knowledge of what they can do, what this means etc.

APsychologist on the other hand does not have to have - and rarely
does have - the full medical training.

Obviously there the differences have been recognized and the rules are
accordingly.

Regards

Luise
--
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 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Luise,
If I understood correctly, I think Joe was describing only the
situation in New Zealand, which he explained came about simply because
of who the first homeopaths and homeopathy teachers in New Zealand
*were*. So i don't think he intended to say anything about what the
worldwide process *ought* to be.

But i'd be interested to hear your thoughts--considering those
homeopaths who do not use repertorization and are not familiar with the
Organon--what's the nature of the prescribing they do? i mean, what
sorts of conditions are they treating, and have you seen or understood
their results to be curative, or temporary palliation, or ?

Shannon

[Luise Kunkle]

As always - I leave that to whoever has read what I said - if anyone
did:-)
--
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 <==========

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Luise,

As you know I'm similarly queasy about the idea of trying to "define
away" this part of our practice and history! But I do wonder whether
there wouldn't be merit in having that basic educational and testing
requirement (a genuine, working familiarity with Organon, repertory
work, and the broader materia medicas) be prerequisite for
"registration" or "certification" or whatever--while still (please,
God) permitting people to practice more loosely if they are doing well
with, and happy with that?

Shannon

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon,
I understand that. He gave an example of a mode that he considers
good. I do not consider it all that good and gave my reasons why. So
whoever reads it have two differing opinions and can come to their own
conclusions. That's all.
They are treating the same sort of conditions that the classicals do.
I have seen full cures and permanent improvements. I have also seen
failures - of course. Also what you may call temporary palliation in
that people have to keep taking the remedy and are ok or better while
they are taking it, which they sometimes do over years, regularly -
without detriment to their overall health.

In my part of the countra iris-diagnosis has been strong or used to be
strong; mostly because there have been some homeopaths which were
quite famous for their results.

Historically it has been the lay-people and later, since about the
1930ies those people who have the license to "practice medicine
without approbation", i. e. without being an MD who work that way or
using other alternative methods of diagnoses as e. g.
electro-acupuncture (and probably other methods I do not know about)
or just experience of what works for certain
conditions. Some schools of thinking call homeopathy "The Medicine of
Experience. Historically those were the "grassroots people" that kept
homeopathy alive, since they charged much less - if at all - than the
MD's and the non-wealthy people went to them - to the effect that
homeopathy has been known to just about everyone at least as a
concept, whether they ever used it or not. It also has been so
entrenched in the coolective minds as being a valuable alternative
that, in spite of many attempts, "the others" have not been able to
get it reduced to MD's or damage the practice. Politicians did not
dare to do anything about it, because it would have hurt their careers
- or in many cases even want to, since they - and many other
influential people - wanted to have it available for themselves.

The homeopathic MD's traditionally have practiced "clinical
homeopathy", which is more or less been prescribing on "allopathic"
diagnoses. During the last 50 years, after classical hom. came into
Germany,, after the Kent rep. and many English language books were
translated, a minority of MD's and those licensed without being MD
have turned to classical. Also many of the latter practice clinical
homeopathy.

As I said: most of all those have perhaps never seen a repertory, have
never read the Organon or the CD, have MMs based on clinical features
etc.

Yet the "Heilpraktiker", i.e. the licensed non MD therapiest have
professional status, our patients are "patients" officially, wen can
send people for Xrays, lab. diagnoses (although many labs will not
co-operate) etc., "homeopathic" remedies are exclusively sold in
pharmacies (OTC, but only in pharmacies) - i. e. homeopathy is not
something operating in grey areas.

Whether or not the concept of getting acceptance "from the top
downward", i. e. by pushing classical homeopathy or classical
homeopathy training as pre-requisite for homeopaths, no matter what
they will practice afterwards is a better method for establishing the
craft in a certain country or whether the way it happened to come
about in Germany, i. e. from the bottom upwards - well the question
should at least be considered. Just blithely assuming that the former
way will work better or will work at all is to me a very shaky
premise.
Regards

Luise
--
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 <==========

[Luise Kunkle]

Hi Shannon,
Pre-supposing that those people would have enough time, money, energy
after spending so much previously on the schools, courses etc. for the
registration left, to spend another equal amount of time, energy.
money on the method they would actually be doing - it would at least
be ok.

Since this is hardly the case in most instances, I should say: no.

Important is that they master as well as possible the method they are
using and get the best-possible training for that.

Regards

Luise
--
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 <==========

[Luise Kunkle]

In addition to my previous answer another aspect:

If therapists in order to practice their method of homeopathy have to
first spend all that energy, time and money it is obvious that they
must charge pretty high fees.

This will prevent homeopathy being known and establish "from the
grassroots
upwards".

So I repeat my qualms about whether establishment from "top down" will
be as effective as the other way has been in Germany.

If you ever have time:-) you might read my article on Banerji on my
site. There is a paragraph about how homeopathy got established in
India.

Regards

Luise
--
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 <==========