Minutus

Dear Didi, Chris, Shannon and all,

Shannon said

Chris said:

The footnote of the Minutus list says:
My comment:
Every once in a while there is a discussion about:

*******What is homoeopathy?*****

This discussion had its early beginnings in the 1820s+, and will
probably continue through the next decades or centuries.

Hahnemannian homoeopathy, as clearly defined by:

- ..."selecting every time the simple/singular remedy for the carefully
investigated condition of the disease according to the principle similia
similibus"
- ..."avoid the palliatives"
- everything invigorating or debilitating has to be avoided
- external pain-killers have to be avoided

(My translation; Hahnemannian quote from September 21, 1833 in the Allg.
Deut. Anzeiger).

Homoeopaths and patients should be aware, the Hahnemann voted for the
SINGLE remedy (not for double remedies or mixtures). Historical
information about that can be got for David Little's site, I'm sure.
There has also been much discussion about this topic of the double
remedies, 5th Organon, Aegidi and so on this list and on the Lyghtforce
list, so I recommend the newcomers to check the Archives.

I'm definitely and absolutely a subscriber to the first point:

- ..."selecting every time the simple/singular remedy for the carefully
investigated condition of the disease according to the principle similia
similibus"

Why?

Because only the principle of single remedies will allow
- to check the effects of the remedy
- to add further symptoms to an existing remedy picture
- to apply the rules for other cases

Only the single remedy allows us to establish rules, and according to
these homoeopathic rules others may benefit from a homoeopathic
selection of remedies.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Doe that mean, that other methods don't work?
That the complex preparation Didi told us about, doesn't work?
The Schuessler salts don't work?

Of course they can work. Many things work. And are helpful. I really
appreciate Didi's reports also about HIV-patients and the treatment she
has experiences with, Peter Chappel's remedies and herbal supports.

But such sort of information isn't saved in my internal 'Homoeopathy
folder', but rather in 'Others'.

Yet not everyone on this list has studied homoeopathy intensely for
years (or decades). And to somebody new to this topic, it is REALLY
difficult to see, what is homoeopathy (and what isn't).

So:
As a not moderated group which is still focussing on homoeopathy, the
members can only voluntarily consent to certain rules.

****Suggestion****:

1. The entire group decides (by voting), that only Hahnemanian methods
should be discussed. Then other topics should be transferred to other
lists.

2.Why not clearly differentiating posts, which are 'beyond homoeopathy'
as:

OFF TOPIC:arnica case - chronic/acute - &dentist
or
OFF TOPIC: vaccination and asthma info
(I should have done that myself last time - so, sorry about that!)

That will enable every homoeopathic youngster (regardless of his/her
age) to see: Oh, that isn't homoeopathy? I really didn't know that.

And it will encourage everyone who posts to the list to reflect:
'If I post that: IS it really homoeopathy? Or rather an OFF TOPIC?'

All the best,

Gaby

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler,
Germany
rottler@curantur.de

http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Good suggestions-
Caveats-

1)What about discussing Sankaran's, Jurgen Becker's, Scholten's
methods? I would not consider them Hahnemannian Homeopathy. Last time
I saw, Hahnemann did not suggest making "designer' remedies out of
periodic table without proper proving. Or diagnosing medicines based
on Kingdoms - (even last week we saw someone suggesting Aconite
because plants have water or whatever....) Yet we see a lot of people
in this forum gung-ho about the periodic table process - laziness?
creativity?

He did not suggest giving Naja because a woman's saree looked like a
snake skin. He never asked one to theorize about Core Delusion... He
did not advice to do meditative proving... he did not ask people to
use Free Association ( in Divya's style) or talk about the mask or the
wall....

If these things can also be removed from discussion postings we can
start calling this Hahnemannian Classical homeopathy...( and still
would run into dry dose, water dose, 4th edition, 6th edition problems)

Would we consider discussing Burnett and Clarke proper for this forum?

How about Boericke- in some instances he talks about giving injections
by the grains-

Many great homeopaths from India have also used alternating remedy
practice...along with single medicine practice...

Once again I am not saying combos are good or should be suggested /
taught to every aspirant...I am just pointing out the inconsistencies
in these arguments... In this whole wide spectrum of practices there
is a corner available for combos as well... as long as we understand
that this is not a generally advised practice -

any new student who cannot see that this so - must have come from
Mars- without any kind of background... it is upto the educators,
trainers to point out the various ways of practice available and point
out the commonly accepted one( which is not delusional practice)...

Do you have to believe in miasms to be a "Classical" homeopathy
practitioner?

one of the things about working on e-mail lists is that we, the reader, have
the choice of reading or not. there are discussions that i dont tune into
for
various reasons but wouldn't criticise those who do. i think the full range
of discussion is valid and rich. hahnemanian raises some good ideas for
discussion; ie the differences in practice that have developed over time
such
as sankaran's or scholten's processes.

tanya
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

Hi Hahnemannian

You said:

But who teaches the general public? Yes the students will eventually
understand if they are of an inquiring mind and not just following one
persons teaching, but general Joe Bloggs who goes into a health food
shop or sees a practitioner won't understand. Are the practitioners who
give out the combo remedies explaining to their patients that this isn't
the best option? If people have the choice, and understand the choices,
then it is their own informed decision, but many people don't understand
the different choices and put their faith in a practitioner that might
not be doing the best for them. The practitioner could give a fact
sheet explaining the difference between combo's and Classical and give
people the opportunity to decide if they want to take the risk of using
a combo. From my experience, once most people fully understand the
differences, combos are not for them and they seek out Classical
Homeopathy whether it be for chronics or acutes. It isn't only the
practitioners who need to be educated.

Kerry

--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date:
21/09/2006

Kerry -
depends on where you practice or what is your clientele made up of-
No body is suggesting that you are try combos the first shot, nobody
is suggesting that you try combos if you and the patient have time to
work out the second medicine, we are talking about poorly educated
patients who cannot read a family guide to self-prescribe single
medicines or who do not have access to good quality care and who
cannot visit you the second time if your first prescription does not work,

Of course you could be one of the majority in this forum who gets it
right each time you prescribe. I am not one of such. I get it wrong at
least in a quarter of my first prescriptions if not more. Of course
there are many patients who come back and get the second one- but here
we are talking about what happens with pain and other emergencies when
you cannot be there for doing the second one...

which do you think is better - allopathy over the counter or
homeopathy combination over the counter?

Practitioners do not need this kind of education. If they still need
it they should not be practising.

Give all of us some credit to know what we are doing...to the best of
our ability and that we give a lot of consideration to what we are
giving -
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "kerry" wrote:

Hi Hahnemannian

Unfortunately it isn't only in poor countries with poorly educated
patients; this practice of giving combos is widespread and not just for
acutes. When you have a round picture of a healing modality you can
understand, but most people don't understand and that applies whether
they come from poor countries or rich countries. The people in health
food shops selling the combos don't understand; they assume that if a
respected homeopathic supplier is selling them then they must be good.
I don't believe that it has to be a choice of allopathic or combo in a
lot of the situations where combos are given. Unfortunately in some
circumstances it boils down to the practitioner just not wanting to go
the bit extra in finding the single remedy or the health food shop owner
having no understanding of a product that they are selling. I don't wish
to knock any individual such as Didi who works in very difficult
situations but many homeopaths aren't in such frontline work and they
still give out the combos.

Kerry

work,

I am not defending such people or such practice- at the same time I do
not decry them as well... if they are not successful they will be
wilted out by general patient attrition, if successful why should we
complain?
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "kerry" wrote:

Unfortunately as more and more people look for alternative medicine
there are always going to be more clients, clients who don't understand
homeopathy but who do understand that allopathic is dangerous.
Especially with the rise of the internet, more and more people are
looking for practitioners who use homeopathy as it is mentioned on many
lists but in a 'give this for that manner' or give this combo. Those
people might try homeopathy but then give up on it as not working, but
there is always the next few dozen who read a message advocating combos
on a list. The internet is great in many respects but people often have
to struggle to find the good info and to understand which direction in
healing to take. If a message advocating combos doesn't explain that
this isn't homeopathy then how are the general public to understand?

Kerry
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.12.7/454 - Release Date:
21/09/2006

presumably this was said tongue in cheek?

Combo alone is not the problem if a patient is not getting relief
from a treatment. Do you think Joy or other purists get 100% cure? No
one does- I have had emails coming to me about some of these purists
practices and their effectiveness or lack thereof-

Success in practice is not just knowledge of materia medica; it is not
even selection of the similimum- it is a combination of different
things and MM / repertories are only part of it... ( I would not call
even myself a successful practitioner despite for the most part being
purist in my homeopathy practice).

I have said this before and will say it now- what we need is quanity
first and quality next- we need more people practising homeopathy and
having a say in things so that our voice gets heard- we shoud be more
inclusive than exclusive...

If we are talking about quality and practice of homeopathy as a medica
l science instead of fancy wool gathering- how many of this forum do
you think would survive the requirements? So should we ask all of them
to desist from practice? Currently homeopaths are practising within a
limited field compared to allopaths and why cannot we say people with
less purist knowledge practice within a limit within homeopathy itself?

And without combos how many pharmacies are going to survive?

Still the question is can combos be occasionally allowed in a strict
Hahnemannian homeopathic discussion? I would say if you can have
pendulums, dream provings and periodic tables discussed, why not
combinations?

It is not because of combinations - but because of the
holier-than-thous that homeopathy will suffer...
-- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "kerry" wrote: