Thanks for your amusing and very British posts about the Dyson stuff.
I notice Roger Dyson is speaking at the Irish Conference in June as is
Peter Chappell. They should thank me for potentially filling the
place with Minutus members by announcing that here!
When it first surfaced I found it interesting and slightly amusing
that Roger Dyson considers his approach to be true Classical
homeopathy and bases his methods on the Organon! Its not actually his
method, he learned it fom an Indian homeopath Pritam Singh Ghattaoraya
who died a few years ago. I have tried to be open minded about this
approach since I first came across it about 14 years ago, but without
success. I find it hard to understand ho anyone who has really 'got'
homeopathy can believe in such a way of doing things. But then I feeel
the same about Ellmiger (?) and the sequentialists (Nat mur a specific
for grief - pah!) but they have many seemingly intellingent adherents too.
Dyson claims to cure many more serious cases than a normal classicist
would be able to. My investigations have not supported that view.
Classicists believe he is harming people with his recipes. I have seen
no evidence of that either. Neither of these things surprise me
because I feel old fashioned classicists are the least qualified
people to talk about the effects of giving anything other than single
doses and peole who were never any good at classical homeopathy are
similarly unqualified to talk about its shortcomings. I think Roger
would himself admit that he never made what we recognze braodly as the
Kentian way work very well for him.
For what its worth I think these methods are simply a blunderbuss
approach and that most of the remedies patients are given go straight
over their heads. Specifics dont work. Once individualisation goes
out the window the essence of homeopathy goes with it imo.
One example I vageuely remember from the book or a lecture was a PMT
case given a sequence/cocktail of all sorts of remedies, each with
their reason. To me it was a simple Sepia case and the reason she
improved was that Sepia was in the programme. I could see no good
reason for given any of the other remedies.
I have been in many arguments about all this over the years and prefer
to keep out of it now. However it still interests and slightly
disturbs me that hoemopathy is practised in SO many different ways and
each school of thought claims excellent results. Especially as the
philosophy of each of those schools in most cases proclaims that their
way is the only one that can possibly work effectively/safely etc. My
beef with people like Chris here is that homeopaths rarely want to
discuss the important issues around what is real and what is belief in
homeopathy - to step out of their safety zone and try different things
or at very least try and understand what other perfectly rational and
intelligent homeopaths are doing. Especially methods that either
'shouldnt' work but seem to or 'should' be harming people but dont
seem to. It will take generations to properly understand our science
if the thinkers amongst us remain so entrenched in their own little
worlds. Im still totally entrenched in mine but Im trying....

)