ATTENTION all homeopaths - Very Important- DTAB

[Christine Wyndham-Thomas]

Of course it's Mixopathy, and what amazes me is how anybody who's serious
about homeopathy can accept them. Even if we acept the argument that had
Hahnemann lived he may himself have used them, the fact remains he would
have experimented with them on himself and volunteers initially He would
have made meticulous notes that other homeopaths could refer to, and he
would have fully explained in the Organon why their use was important. But,
of course, we've got none of that have we.

Where are the provings done on HEALTHY people to determine their symptoms so
that such combos can be matched to clients exhibiting the same symptoms? Or
are ILL and unsuspecting clients the experimental guinea-pigs? These
combos are based on 'the assumption of what such symptoms may be', not on
actually knowing, and that in itself should make the true and serious
homeopath skeptical about their efficacy.

Christine Wyndham-Thomas
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com

[Phillip Wade]

I believe that there is a reason why mixing is a hot topic. That is that in
the modern era, multiple miasms are common, whereas in the eighteenth and
nineteenth centuries they were rare - especially in Germany.

We know that the new serious syphilis strain was carried back to Europe by
Columbas in 1492-3 and taken right through it - all the way to Russia - by
Napoleon by about 1498.
The other miasms (TB, Gonorrhoea and Scabies) each politely took their turn
decades apart.
Sadly or otherwise, South Pacific ports became the repository of all of the
miasms together in the late eighteenth and nineteenth century in one
cataclysmic melting pot. Basically, Down Under became the land of the
multiple miasms.

Similarly, Jet travel this century has now taken all miasms to all countries
almost without exception.

It's hard to treat multiple miasms as the symptomology is blurred. I suppose
this would drive some praccies to seek multiple formulae.
N one's fault but - I repeat - things just ain't the same as they were in
Hahneman's time and we must adjust as a profession or perish.
Phil Wade
PS
I disagree that talking about nutritional deficiency is "off topic". Haneman
presumed that his patients were eating food and drinking water.
In those days, food was fresh, seasonal and crammed full of vitality (aka
minerals and vitamins). The water supply in Europe is glacier derived and
full of trace elements. So Hahneman's patients were in effect already
supplementing with the "top 50" vitamins, minerals, fatty acids, amino acids
and bioflavonoids. The ONLY reason we neeed to concern ourselves at all with
that issue these days is that our food has lost vitality from
over-refinement, the water supply in Australia, NZ and many parts of the USA
is grossly deficient in trace elements AND the refined foods see us
regularly missing out on one or more of the 11 essential amino acids and
also omega-3 fatty acids.
So - let's all use some common sense about this issue and think what
Hahnemann would say if he arrived in a time machine and saw the profounbd
under nutrition causing a 500% (conservative) rise in the incidence of
auto-immune disease these days. He would immedictely say - increase the
vital force (in the patient) my making up for the nutritional defecit (which
we are all suffering from) and the well chosen Homoeopathic remedy will act
with more efectiveness.
Will someone please tell me where I'm going wrong?
Phil

[Farbod Rahnamai]

Dear Philip

We are not sure that Syphilis is brought to europe by Columbus. There is a
theory that Syphilis is brought to Europe by him and there is also a theory
which beleives that Syphilis existed in europe before 15th century.
By the way Hahnemanns reason to avoid mixtherapy was not because of lack of
vitamins or Chronic misam's incidence or something like that. He talked of
the subject even before talking about chronic miasms theory. Here I dont
want to insist on single remedy method, nor against mix-therapy. But I think
in such a subject we should have a scientific methodology. If you want to
criticise Hahnemanns view on mixtherapy you should critisize his reasons on
the subject. Non of your writings are a part of his reasons.

Regards
Farbod

[Shannon Nelson]

Sure it's not homeopathy. But I accept it for the reasons I've given, and
also because I'm willing to let folks make their own health care decisions.

The list of "not homeopathy" is long -- e.g. herbalism, exercise machines,
water therapy, massage, nutrition, electric saws ...

Since it is "not homeopathy", why don't we just deal with issues about how
it *relates* to homoepathy (beceause we do indeed consider this with the
various *other* therapies that people may come to us with), what particular
information about it ought to be shared with patients (use it for acutes?
don't use it for acutes? can I use this instead of seeing you? why isn't
it appropriate for chronic issues? call me if you have an acute? etc.),
where *education* could be useful for helping people understand how the
various therapies fit together (How is homeopathy different from Mixopathy?
How is it different from herbalism? How do we know that homeopathy is not
just placebo or etc.? How do classical homeopaths feel about Mixopathy and
why?)

if it's "not homeopathy", why not focus on *educating* people about the
difference, rather than trying to make people's health care decisions *for*
them? ("You can't use that teething formula -- it's Not Homeopathy!")

Interesting, there's been a good hue-and-cry over the CODEX attempt to make
our choices for us (remove "unauthorized" choices from the shelves), but now
some of us are wanting to do the same thing for others? Why not just get
back to "education" and let folks make their own decisions?

Shannon
on 8/30/04 1:42 AM, Dogs on Holiday-UK at christine@dogsonholiday-uk.com
wrote:

[Magda Aguila]

Shannon,

Educating our patients/clients is the job of each one of us, as
practitioners. I am all for it and am always educating people, especially
in the area of animal care. HOWEVER, these are not topics to discuss on
THIS LIST because this list is for Classical Homeopathy. If we want a list
where we can discuss the pros and cons of different modalities, how they can
and cannot be mixed with Homeopathy, etc., etc., as you have listed, then we
can start another list in which these topics can be freely discussed.
However, as long as this list is dedicated to Classical Homeopathy, that is
all that should be discussed here.

I think that one of the biggest problems we, as Homeopaths face today is
that "understanding" attitude of letting everyone be "free to choose".
While I don't think that forcing people to use Homeopathy to cure their
diseases, I do think that it is our duty to make sure that when people DO
choose Homeopathy, they are choosing a practitioner that is not playing
around with remedies or using them in an allopathic fashion. It is not only
a matter of choosing which alternative people want to use. That is, of
course, their right. It is a matter of Classical Homeopaths being clear
about what IS and IS NOT Homeopathy, and not getting the two confused on the
ill conceived idea that we are only letting people "choose" what they want,
or we are being "understanding" of other practitioners' choices of how to
practice Homeopathy.

If Homeopaths don't have a clear definition of WHAT is Homeopathy, how it
works and how it should be used, then who will provide that definition???

Personally, I don't see the need to involve other alternative medicines in
the treatment of my patients. Good food, clean water, fresh air, exercise,
good living conditions are a big part of health. I have never seen the need
to suggest people use other alternatives in conjunction with Homeopathy,
except for Chiropractic. So why should we include the discussion of these
alternatives as part of this list's topic when they are not Homeopathy?
Magda Aguila
Aquiline
Animal Nutrition and
Homeopathic Consultations
Ask me about Juice Plus
http://www.juiceplus.com/+ma21937

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Phil,

But the combination remedies presently filling our shelves *weren't*
developed in an effort to treat multiple miasms (Hahnemann gives
instructions for that!); they were simply developed as a "short-cut" way to
get a "remedy" without learning or using the process of individualization.
They simply combine the most commonly needed remedies for the named
condition, and you hope that one of the included remedies is the one that
*you* need. Sometimes it works and sometimes not.

Shannon
on 8/30/04 4:13 AM, Phillip Wade at philwade@zip.com.au wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Of course combos are not homeopathy -- *if* one accepts Hahnemann's
definition as "the definition", which "we" do, but not everyone does.
(However, if we *don't* use Hahnemann's definition, then I can't imagine
what the definition *would* be!)

"Mixopathy" sounds like a fine term to me; I wonder whether there's any
chance of making the change, tho?
on 8/30/04 12:21 AM, Kannan A at drkannan123@yahoo.com wrote:

[Shannon Nelson]

Hi Magda,

I didn't mean those discussion should take place here. I meant that IMO
discussions about them (and their "proper place") will be more useful than
efforts to have them removed from the shelves.

I agree with you that a clear definition of "what is homeopathy" is much
needed!

I was not suggesting that we prescribe massage, power saws, whatever, for
our patients. I am only saying that, to me, the argument about Mixopathy (I
guess I like that term!) being "not homeopathy" is a big "so what" -- so
it's not homeopathy. Let people use it if they want to, not use it if they
don't want to, and address it with patients *if* the need arises, just as we
would with any other method that is "not homeopathy".

Cheers,
Shannon
on 8/30/04 3:25 PM, Magda Aguila at aquiline@myexcel.com wrote:

[Christine Wyndham-Thomas]

Shannon

There are groups for everything any one ever wants to become a member of.
There are many homeopathic groups that people can join where everything and
anything are discussed, including classical homeopathy. HOWEVER, a group
dedicated to classical homeopathy is rare...very rare indeed. MINUTUS was
one of the first I know of that definitely said it was for classical
homeopathy. Then came Classical Homeopathy Pets. I belong to both.

You mention 'educating' people, but you must have a clear structure in order
to do that - and educate people in what? I look back to the days when I
first became interested in homeopathy. I had no idea there were different
branches. I thought homeopathy was homeopathy. Talk about being confused!
And then I came across David Little's site. Wow. Now here was a man that
KNEW what he was talking about. Here was a site that I looked on as being
the most educational in homeopathy I'd ever come across, and from that
moment onwards I knew exactly the direction I wanted to go

Sure from time to time interesting topics do arise that doesn't have any
bearing on homeopathy itself, and I've enjoyed some of those topics myself
from the point of view of just 'bearing it in mind', but to turn them into a
fullscale discussion area where they begin to dominate the group's purpose
is a no-go and if people want to continue with the discussion then it should
be done privately.

The best education we can give people who are serious about studying
homeopathy is to point them to David Little's site and to keep Minutus
devoted to classical homeopathy. When there's a strong foundation, then you
can progress onwards but in "knowledge" not on 'assumption'.

Christine Wyndham-Thomas
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com

[Shannon Nelson]

Sorry I was unclear. I was not suggesting that we should discuss those
things *here*, only that those discussions are better (in the public forum,
not here), IMO, than attempting to ban combo remedies.

Below:

on 8/30/04 11:43 PM, Dogs on Holiday-UK at christine@dogsonholiday-uk.com
wrote:
Specifically, I proposed to educate people as to the difference between
classical (e.g. Hahnemannian) homeopathy and combos. Rather than shrieking,
Oh my God, That's Not Homeopathy, so Let's Make Them Illegal!
Yup, I had that problem too. The first "homeopath" I was used an EAV
machine and prescribed 10-30 "remedies" at a time. It didn't do much for
me, but fortunately I was open to hearing about "real homeopathy".

Again, I am a fan of "getting the word out" about what homeopathy *is*,
according to the person who coined the term and developed the method. I am
a fan of "getting the word out" that not everything called "homeopathy" has
anything to do with (ahem) homeopathy. I see no need whatever to take the
next step and say, "If it's not homeopathy then no truly good or honorable
person would ever use it", which is rather the impression that some folks
give.

Yes there can be problems with misuse of combos, but methinks less likely
than from misuse of many other things, and "use" is even easier than
"misuse" -- *if* the education has been done.
The main point of this discussion as I've understood it has to do with
whether the homeopathic community (if we equate "homeopathic community" with
"classical-ish homeopathic community") should call for combos to be removed
from the market, or support moves in that direction. I feel this would be a
serious mistake for many reasons (already stated, so I won't recap) and
would do harm to our community. I do *not* consider that matter off-topic
for this group, but if there's consensus that we should drop the subject I'm
certainly willing.
Certainly, but that's not relevant to the questions that started the thread
-- what to do about people who *aren't* (yet) "serious about studying
homeopathy"; who in fact know zilch about it but are looking for non-drug
help to specific issues. (Some of whom might *become* "serious about
studying homeopathy", who knows.)

Best,
Shannon