Minutus

>

.

Dear Hahnemannian 2002;

As a lay practitioner I had to answer your previous post and comments. I,
like you, become quite upset when I see many Homeopaths not using the basics
to prescribe remedies!

I read a few of Vithoulkas and Schoen and Sankaran's writings. I have also
read all the Masters and I have a full animal practice based on the
teachings of the Fifth and Sixth editions of the Organon. When I compared
the "modern Homeopaths" and their writings to those of Hering,
Boeninghausen, Nash, Farrington, Hahnemann, and the TRUE Masters, I realized
that there was no room in my busy schedule to waste my time with "the modern
approach".

I too get very upset with comments that Hahnemann lived hundreds of years
ago and Homeopathy needs to be brought up to the 21st Century!

IMO, the reason these "new thoughts and modern writings" are being taken
seriously, with no argument and without criticism, is not because there are
a lot of "lay practitioners" out there who do not know about Biology,
pathology, chemistry, etc., etc.

The reason they are so successful and have such a great following is because
they are teaching SHORT CUTS!

There is demand that symptoms be studied and analyzed, or that patients'
temperaments be looked at. There is no discussion or even understanding of
Miasms, the totality of the symptoms/case or anything that entails
understanding of the foundation of Homeopathy!

They do not consider that a symptom that is not "three legged" is not a
reliable symptom, nor do they expect a case to be properly repertorized! It
is a LOT easier to say that all Sulphurs have greasy faces and hair, all
Sepias hate their husbands and families; than to sit down and verify that
indeed the greasy hair and face of that particular PATIENT fits Sulphur
totality of symptoms.

We live in a society where we all want instant gratification, and sitting
down and spending a couple or three hours working up a case properly, does
not "instant" spell!

So, perhaps you will reconsider your assessment of "lay homeopaths" because
I, for one, do not use short cuts, "themes", "dreams" or any of the other
"new and improved methods". I like the "old fashioned way" and have done
very well with it for me and my patients (most of which are animals, which
makes things even a little harder!).

Magda Aguila
Aquiline
Animal Nutrition and
Homeopathic Consultations

Hi Magda, Hahnemannian, Others,

I did not get H's original post, so I am replying to this answer.

As far as the allopaths worldwide (perhaps! with the exception of
India) are concerned, the homeopaths have always been, are now and
probably will be *quacks*, no matter how much scientific varnish they
have tried, try now and will try to apply, in order to be accepted by
the allopathic community.

People who cannot take being outsiders should not be homeopaths. This
is hard, and is probably the main reason that homeopathy has not
thrived in the countries where it did not become one of the
grass-roots methods to be used by lay people for self-treatment or
treatment of others. As far as MD's are concerned, too few of them
chose to become homeopaths for the reason that they did not want to be
one of those outsiders, without the status of the allopaths.

This is not my opinion or rather I got to this opinion by studying the
history of homeopathy in the German-speaking countries, and this is
the opinion of the historians, which is well backed-up by the facts.

And this although the homeopath MD's went a lot futher in their
deference to the allopathic/scientific dogmas in vogue at a specific
time than Hahnemannian would ever be prepared to go. Starting well
within the lifetime of Hahnemann, an ever increasing number of MD
homeopaths rejected the (at the specific time) "unscientific"
teachings of Hahnemann, including high potencies (especially after
Loschmidt's number became known), the Psora theories etc. in favour of
the "Scientific-Critical School of Homeopathy", officially known as
such. Up to about 19!70 in Germany practically all MD Homeopaths
worked that way.

Did they get accepted by the allopaths? NO!!!! Did homeopathy get
accepted by the allopaths? NO!!!

The reason why homeopathy still thrived was because people used the
remedies OTC for self-treatment and lay-prescribers (there were many
of them) prescribed them by accoring own various methods - and because
that was being called homeopathy. There was therefore too much public
support for "homeopathy" - the allopaths could not suppress it. When
the more "classical" "Hahnemannian" "Kentian" "Anglosaxon homeopathy
approaches - the ones "H 2000 referred to" - started getting more and
more followers in Germany etc (somewhere in 1960ies), there was a very
fertile soil for them to thrive on.

What is scientific now may not be so to-morrow. To disregard
experience/evidence is as stupid when it comes from the scientists and
scientifically inclined as it is when it comes from the Anti
Vaccination Movement.

Succes with a method is such evidence.

The Anthroposophic Medicine has had much success with widely using
signature and planetic consideration in their treatments. (They do NOT
call it homeopathy btw), so it seems has the Sehgal approach (Sehgal
afair also did not call it homeopathy although some Sehgal
practitioners do). I know too little about the Sankaran and Scholten
methods, except the claims they themselves make, to evaluate whether
this is true for them also. To insist on a standardized homeopathy
that excludes those (and other) approaches in their standard may just
turn homeopathy into a dino, left behind as those dinos tend to be.

e.g.
While not in the least being a follower of Hamer, his findings of
changes in certain brain regions for certain kinds of cancer seem to
be well testified to. This may be true for all kinds of sickness - a
symptom of the "disturbance of the life force" if one so will.

Since the brain is also very specifically the hardware upon which mind
sx are are dependent, it is very well possible that mind symptoms are
the best for comparison with the symptoms from the provings, as the
Sehgalists assert.

Science may find out about the marks of disease in the brain and the
brain symptoms these may cause in the patients. So that all at once
the Sehgal approach may turn out to be the more scientific to-morrow. Too
bad if the homeopaths who are in favour of science (I am one of
them:-) all at once by their own standards find themselves outside the
advanced findings of science or have - once again - to run after it.

This is only one example of possibilities, which even now is on the
horizon. There may be and probably will be, others confirming
signature, planetary influences etc.

For every kind of evidence there is some explanation. Some may be
found to-morrow, some in the near or far future, some perhaps never.

For the longest time of history there was no scientific explanation as
to why one should not jump from a high wall - there was plenty of
evidence to the effect that it was unwise to do so;-)

Another consideratiion.

It has been very rare that homeopaths turn to Sehgal, Sankaran,
Scholten etc. when the success in their practices was satifactory to
them. Different for combo-homeopathy, which starts out from a
different perception right from the start, also different for
clinical homeopathy, where the same applies, most of those homeopaths
had worked according to the Anglo-Saxon classical methods of
homeopathy.

Whether those who turned renegades were not so successful with this
latter method because of their own shortcomings or whether they
measured themselves against the success stories of those "grand old
homeopaths" and found themselves wanting cannot be known.

As long as we do not have any casebooks of those" goh's" (and we
probably never will have those) - as long as we do not have access to
any casebooks of to-day's "grand homeopaths" we have no idea of their
*rate* of success. " 100 Clinical Cases of Kent" - even if he was
completely honest in his reporting - mean nothing compared to the
thousands of patients he probably had. The same goes for all other
case reports, of past and present.

One day homeopaths will acknowledge that it is for their own good to
be able truly to evaluate their own results against those of v.
Boenninghausen, of Hahnemann, of Pierre Schmidt, of one of the doctors
working the "Scientific-Critical" way, instead of relying on
publications of what may be very little representative:-)

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 <==========

they
by

Probably that is the reason my reasoning is different- I was trained
in homeopathy by such "quacks" and am proud to have been partners
with them.

In India there are lots of quackery - so homeopaths did not stand
out. Mostly allopaths gave up because they cannot control things...
India has a totally chaotic and liberating democracy....where
anything goes- at least 30% of who call themselves homeopaths are
doing allopathy surreptitiously...
Depends on the reason for being branded outsider...if it just for
practising homeopathy - yes that is a cross we need to bear-
the problem had been in defining what goes as homeopathy- and should
we take the blame for all crystal- gazing....

This
to be
When did this become an allopaths vs homeopaths discussion?
and

True- so - does not mean that you give up- I am typing on a computer
with the help of the same science-

NOT
(Sehgal
Sehgal calls it revolutionized homeopathy

I know too little about the Sankaran and Scholten
whether
just

Sure - till 15 years back most of homeopathy was done that way. Just
15 years cannot make the standard homeopathy "dino" homeopathy...
homeopathy did not die out because periodic table prescribing was
not discovered...
to
a
mind
are
the

Not all the mind symptoms we have are fully developed. The provings
by their very nature are only acute. We do not have good chronic
provings. The 3legged stool that is referred to - mainly 1 local, 1
general and 1 mental are designed to make sure that even though we
have only partial symptoms still we can find the correct remedy.

Too
the
it.

That does not mean that you accept any thing that comes by-
In any situation there is a minimum of 30% at least placebo
effect... so whether you follow standard or delusional or planetary
homeopathy whether you like it or not - there are 30% of your
patients rooting for you...
So we cannot say - oh , I know that it works-

Moreover we do not know what we call cure - ( looks like I do not
know what I call homeopathy either)- so there is no way we can
evaluate any of these except word of the "teachers of our teachers
of our teachers"- how are we going to compare all these methods and
say this is effective and acceptable and this is not- how are we
going to find out this patient got cured in 6 months- the same would
have got cured in 6 weeks using delusions approach-

Or the time taken to find out the medicine using delusional approach
is 6 minutes whereas the traditional approach takes 60 minutes?

This is individualistic and so never proven...
Where we cannot assess these things - the only way you can make sure
that we are not corrupting ourselves is by not introducing things
without at least rationally attempting to make sense of it

the

Science cannot explain homeopathy - we are not giving it up just
because of that.
this
old

Sure - also they are not the renegades - they are doing the "in"
thing- it is people like me who feel like "old stick in the mud"

to
their

But I know what I did and what success I had - I do not have to just
look at the old masters for being convinced-

Also we know the kind of environment that they had to work with-
with none of the modern diagnostic help and with lots of acute life
threatening diseases- and that is the reason their opinions count
more..

Hi H 2002,
Of course that is the same here also. Many of our homeopaths are and
have been MD's, and thus by definition at least started out as
"allopaths". They may have turned to homeopathy right after they had
become MD's or after they had been in practice as allopaths for a
longer or shorter period - and often then be trained by homeopath
MD's. But once they have turned homeopaths they have been considered
quacks by the establishment (allopath) community. I do not see where
that contradicts what I said before.

snip
You snipped the part that was my point: Practically all homeopaths in
Germany and Austria (possibly also in the other European countries)
until about the nineteensixties practiced by the "Scientific/Critical"
method - and still were not accepted.
Where was allopaths vs. homeopaths part of my post?

I referred to what you said in an previous discussion, e.g. in your
post of Sept. 24

quote H 2002

We are throwing away lots of valuable research by this attitude;*** we
are throwing away any possibility of reconciliation with allopaths by
moving away from a medical model ( such reconciliation is vital for us
to survive; we cannot eradicate allopathy- better learn how to live
with them and cooperate and on what terms).*** And it is certainly
frustrating to see that the gurus, who have so much persuasive power,
squandering this in just some distracting discoveries based on pet
theories instead of focusing on getting a good working medical model
for our system so that we can enjoy the benefits of modern research...

unquote H 2002

My statement was that such reconciliation did not happen, no
matter what we did - it did not happen before to-day's "wool-gathering
homeopathy". it did not happen where homeopaths tried to adjust as
much as *at all* possible in Germany etc., it did not happen during
the time and in the regions of the homeopaths you see as our only
acceptable models. It is very improbable that it will happen in the
future, no matter what we do.

We do not need it either. We need the acceptance of the patients and
of the authorities - not of the allopaths. In order to get it we have
to improve the rates of cures and/or find our own methods to get a
firm base, using everything, including the results of scientifc
research.

I personally do not think that the modern provings you refer to will
help in getting that firm base. I do not think that other kinds modern
provings will add to it neither.

But I also do not think that the old provings and our MMs are such a
firm base. In order to improve the effectiveness of homeopathy,
homeopaths have to wake up and realize the shortcomings of all the
provings and MMs and of the repertories.

This is where homeopaths are putting their heads into the sand.

snip
No, but if this kind of homeopathy also works, the question will come
up: "why does it work"? The people who take this question into account
will advance, the others who deny this evidence will be the dinos:-)

snip
All the symptoms from provings are only acute, not just the mind sx.
Only clinical evidence of cures of chronic illness (whether the remedy
that achieved such cure had been selected by provings or any other
method) can show that this remedy can cure chronic disease.
Sure - as long as you include (as you did) the standard approach!

Which is exactly what scientifically-minded people and the allopaths
have been saying all along. Rationally homeopathy is *out* - at the
present stand of scientific knowledge.

In Germany at least, most or very many MD's have come to homeopathy
not by accepting any rationality of the standard methods, but by being
open enough to experiment, in order to see whether the stories of
cures may, against all rationality, be correct. They tried it and
found it worked.

Exactly. This goes for all its different methods.
.
This obviously also applies to the people who use the woolly
homeopathy .

homeopaths] had to work with-
As to the latter: Not as far as chronic disease is concerned.

As to the former: If you take modern diagnostics as a base, you no
longer tread the path of most of the old masters. You no longer base
your tx on provings etc.

Yes, I definitely agree that provings should
include lab values etc., all that can to-day be done diagnostically
should be done and the results considered symptoms. I think that all
our remedies should be re-proved, doing a status: before and after
(which was never done). The old provings were considered sloppy by
those old allopaths who made the effort to fairly evaluate homeopathy.
Most homeopaths never reacted to those charges, and those who did,
e.g. Hughes, was and still is being vilified for it)

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 <==========

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Luise Kunkle wrote:
Many of our homeopaths are and
had
considered
where

I was interested in homeopathy BEFORE I joined medical school. In
fact I was able to treat my physiology professor with Plumbum when I
was in the 3 rd year( for a post- hysterectomy urinary difficulty (of
2 weeks, became normal the next day with Plumbum 10M 1 dose). I also
treated my Dermatology professor for Kidney stones ( Carbo veg 200
within a month flushed out the lot). They became converts. But
generally I agree that there was always a condescending attitude. But
I think this is more because of lack of understanding and the company
we keep.( Not only I am practising homeopathy but I also explain that
by saying Butterfly remedy works thru spleen chakra and I selected
that medicine because the woman who needed that flapped her eyelids
and looked at me like butter would not melt in her mouth?)

If even within homeopathy people using non-classical methods are
looked down upon, then why wonder about allopaths. But still I think
this attitude can be overcome.

How did acupuncture manage to gain some respect? What lessons do we
have to learn?
Practically all homeopaths in
the "Scientific/Critical"

That is not reason enough to abandon the scientific/critical method.
I am not saying that base your prescription just on disease symptoms.
Just that those are also part of your prescription and training in
all these is much more important than given now.
and

We will not get this if we do not mend our ways and settle in some
way with allopaths. We will NEVER get our due if we cannot excel in
acute prescriptions. We need to know how to prescribe for acutes in
the middle of chronic prescribing. Right now there are many
situations where we need to send people packing away to allopathy for
acute management even when they are with us for chronic. Why?

How can you manage the acutes without a thorough knowledge of the
prognosis ( acutes can kill even according to homeopathy right ?
How do you get it if you just live by delusional prescriptions? How
would you get the respect then?

If we lose sight of the fact that Homeopathy first and foremost is a
system of medicine and at least abide by some rules that look like
what a successful system like allopathy does - we will never get the
respect of patients and authorities.

In order to get it we have

Kind of reinvent the wheel?

How can you do this if we all we end up teaching people is how to
read people like a book - by looking at their sarees or goggles? Or
by using meditative practices?

How would the patient / authorities know the difference between
Trancendental meditation and Homeopathy?

will
modern

I believe that a firm base can be achieved. We had at least a good
base to start with. Hahnemann wisely based this method not on
diagnosis or any other "smarty pants" theories but on the actual
symptoms that are produced in the prover. This methodology has the
advantage of transcending time because of the very nature of the
procedure and the symptoms that are produced. That is why we should
not meddle with the way these symptoms are produced and gathered
without giving serious thought to the process.

A materia medica is a growing body of literature. Each remedy gets
symptoms added to it by experience and more proving. It behoves us to
do this proving in a standardized manner and put in some controls to
ensure that there is no corruption of the fount of knowledge that we
have.

We have to expand the reach of the materia medica and repertory. It
needs to be defined what method we use to do that.I am just saying
that building it by conjectures is not the way to do it. If Hahnemann
can do such good provings 2 centuries ago, with limited resources -
we with our computers and global reach should be able to do GOOD
provings- this periodic table conjectures can be excused 2 centuries
ago - not now. Meditative provings belong in the middle ages - not
now. Why do we need them?

a

Everyone knows that- each one of these new methods is a result of
that realization.

I do not think so. They realized the inadequacy. It is the way(s)
that are used to rectify smacks of amateurism. Have you heard of the
saying "solution is part of the problem?" This is exactly that.
come
account
The why will always be difficult to answer. ( My opinion is- given a
reasonable amount of similarity ( that is some decent help) body (
vital force) heals. That is why so many schools of homeopathy claim
success). That is also why so many alternative medicines are also
there.

sx.

I did not say just the mind symptoms

remedy

Yes that is why you need a methodology and control. If I find a
medicine by meditation, proved it by meditation and can claim that my
meditation told me that the disease has been cured internally....I
can say that the chakras are spinning like nobody's business after
the medicine-
I never excluded this- and that is why acute prescribing becomes
important - faith healing is easier to achieve in chronic - since the
chronic disease always has a natural up and down configuration...

allopaths

Agreed.
being

Agreed-
The need of the hour is not increasing all your methods - but to
consolidate what we have. We have enough medicines now - what we need
are more provings of the existing ones to gain more complete pictures
and more modern languaging...
Sure as it does to other non-homeopathy methods including allopathy.
We are not saying allopathy is homeopathy now - are we? That is
exactly why I say we need some boundaries, guidelines and sign posts.
Why not?

base

I am not using modern diagnostics as a base for prescription. It
cannot be successfully done all the time. The treatment is based on
symptoms ( even if you prescribe on miasms). But diagnosis gives you
1) confidence to treat since you know about prognosis reasonably 2)
say what is the symptom of disease and what is rare and peculiar in
analyzing 3) say if the disease is progressing or is the remedy
working etc. etc.
all
homeopathy.

This is what I have been saying-

Hughes denied even high potency provings - think what he would have
had to say of these periodic table business and meditative provings.
Exactly why I was saying we regressed to the middle ages...

Chris-
I never said that there is anything *wrong* in the old provings,
please show me where I said that -If I had I withdraw that -

what I said was that there are inadequate provings -which is true...
even polycrests can be reproven globally and all flavors of symptoms
can be brought out-

for example food aversions- there are so many varieties that can be
brought out by proving them globally once again...right now even in
India ( which has a large contigent of homeopaths) we cannot find
direct symptoms for aversions.... pickles in the repertories means
something other than what we Indians know as pickles...

Instead of doing this and enhancing the tools we have- there is much
more new provings in more questionable ways...

Also many earlier provings were largely focused on physical sxs, not
necessarily the most useful for all patients, and not necessarily
spanning the bredth of the remedy's possibility!
Shannon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

MM's do not
there must be
why I asked
Chris-
Thanks for asking for clarification, hope that had helped.
The data from a proving that supposedly goes on
reliably
effects
own
see how a "good chronic proving" can play any

!!!! ( equals your question mark count)

This is exactly what I meant by when I said

"Provings by their nature are only acute. There are no good chronic
provings"-

By their very nature we cannot have chronic ( in time) provings- we
cannot track leanings and aptitudes and constitutional changes - I
do not think it an impossibility to get chronic provings. But one
will not get volunteers ( may be if we have a dictatorial state and
you have people who can be used as guinea pigs ( - another country
another time about 65 years back) this is possible...

so we are left with acute provings with which we want to conquer
chronic diseases ( analogies, observations etc. are the ones that
are helping out) but still there is that fundamental inadequacy in
our provings... we are dealing with provings associated with no or
minimal pathological changes to treat all kinds of pathological
changes as well...

So there is nothing wrong in accepting that- moreover if everything
were so sure and concrete we will not be having so many new theories
to match up the provings with the patient's symptoms-
psora
fine in a

Whether it is outburst or not- I have always advised prescribing on
presenting symptoms and complaints.
Vermuelen lectures us that Nenning
Allen's
replicated their

I think even Hahnemann had questions about Nenning and I think
Dudgeon it was who remarked later that even provings organized by
Nenning with paid provers were good provings.

I'm left with the conclusion that gee,

I agree with this and this is what I have been saying thru this
discussion...