Minutus

If I remember correctly, that is exactly what Julian Winston said. That homeopathy declined because of training not because of the infighting.

Sue

Sling away sister, sling away!!
The history of some smaller stories within Homeopathic history are good, informative and relevant reads. I might add that some of the minutes recorded at several conferences tested the metal of many who would go on to eventually become much better prescribers due to their expanded understanding of many of Homeopathys core principles/laws etc. Whether everyone is onboard with what qualifies as peer review here, there is a tremendous amount of it occurring.
There is plenty to debate/argue about in the community at large and so with that said might we continue to engage each other as best as we can and seek to isolate what is sound Homeopathically and what is not? Some of it is easy, some of it is terribly complex but we "need" to do this sometimes exhausting, never ending back and forth to find what is pure and what is fodder. And sometimes accountability is not comfortable.
I remember a few yrs ago when Irene convinced me, the stubborn stodge that I am, to return to disclosing the remedy that I would be prescribing should, the client wish to know. And yes that was uncomfortable but alas she was right. IMHO. She did it through some moderately harsh but well articulated precise thoughts and I was aware enough to let go of some of the ego that was in the way just for the sake of convenience and I am a better practitioner for it.
Now who wants to talk about Samarium Carbonicum?!?!?!?!

Best regards, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Vera Resnick wrote:

)

What do you want to know??? I am studying the Lanthanides. I have prescribed Samarium for a patient and she is doing very well!!!
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

i dont think being respectful is being politically correct.
i guess it depends on your core values.
and if you read the history of the ama and homeopathy, at
least in the usa, it is clear that efficacy had nothing to with
survival of the profession. it was all playing politics on
the national stage instead in small private meetings. and politics
has everything to do with organizing and money.
so passion is not the problem--trying to beat your adversary up with
insults in order to disarm him/her is not much of a winning stategy
toward building a profession.
tanya

Hi Vera, Sue,
He did say so - what I say is from different sources.

Eah group accused the other of inferior training and resulting lack of
success.

One group thought it necessary to have "allopathic"
training, argued that Hahnemann and the old homeopaths had had it,
even tried to show that H. in Paris used the stethoscope and that it
was of utmost importance that homeopaths use in their choice of
remedies the newest scientific discoveries. They, in their colleges,
emphasized such training at the cost of purist homeopathic philosophy
etc. (I believe this is what JW described as being the downfall of
homeopathy). They accused the other group of lacking responsibility,
sticking to the old ways instead of adjusting to fresh knowledge etc.

The others accused the above-mentioned group of watering down
homeopathy, and therefore being irresponsible because they did not do
what Hahnemann did...

ince they accused each other of faults and measly cures they thereby
furnished ammunition to the AMA.

In a way that is one of the things that is happening to-day,
internationally. In Europe the mainstream homeopathic thinking is that
of course homeopaths have to have a good knowledge of University
Medicine, to be able to do their kind of diagnoses. So the tendency is
to restrict homeopathy to MD's. I have heard that in India's
homeopathic colleges the stress is also on re. med training. In the
USA it has not yet come to this. About the other parts of the world I
do not know.

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 <==========

Oooh, talk about it!
If I were a better person I'd grab my little book and read up, but
instead I'll just say, "Talk about it!" (I'm in "leech" mode,
sorry!)

Hi Tanya,
Well, let me state once again my point of view:

Squibbling on the list may not do much harm by itself.

But if one group tells the others that they are inferior, that their
methods do not work, that they.... it will tend to build up resentment
in that other group. They will not be all that eager to join forces
with those who consider themselves so superior to them. This weakens
the impact of both groups.

If, on top of it, group 1) is a small minority as compared to group 2)
- group 1) may be left out in the cold when it comes to a show-down.
Group 2) will do nothing to fight for their interests.

As an example: it is not impossible that the powers that be decide
that low potncies and/or mixes are ok, high potencies are not. Why
should the relatively strong group 2) include the availability of high
potencies in their fight, when group 1) has done all it can to
antagonize them?

Regards

Luise

Hello Rochelle,
Other than Scholtens guess about the rx's characteristics what did you utilize to arrive at this rx? Since it was not the proving I am curious.

Best regards, Rik
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "rochelle" wrote:

Maybe that was answered in what I wrote in reply to Shannon?
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk