Minutus

Hippocrates was the one who turned the medicine of his time into scientific medicine through logic, observation and rejected the beliefs that only sinister people get sick.
Hippocrates said that "illnesses appear when the balance of the 4 juices of the body is lost" .
He also spoke about the significance or prevention( He said:"it is better to prevent that it is to heal")
He also spoke about the significance of hygiene.
Hippocrates would use all real medical methods existed, from allopathy, detoxination, spiritual healing and cleansiness of the soul (because he could see that the spirit/psychology can cause illnesses), warm or cold baths, even homeopathy.
These are not allopathic, they belong to every part of medicine.
And i say, every part of medicine only because medicine has one scope: To heal/relieve the patient. Medicine is one: the methods are many...
By giving Hippocrates to Allopathy you do two mistakes: You degrade Hippocrates and also, you upgrade allopathy.
Hippocrates was not the father of allopathy, he was the father of scientific medicine. It is not the same.
For example: Some centuries ago, they would stick Leeches on the patients body, so they can remove the bad blood of the patient!! This was killing the patients, BUT the "doctors" of those times, without using a major schientific tool-observation- they would continue their outrageous methods, sometimes in the name of medicine and sciense ,which they were thinking that they were using, but actually they were not using them!!!
You should not acuse sciense and medicine for that, you should acuse human stupidity, hemimathy(semiknowledge), greed, narrow minded thinking, misanthropy etc

P.S.
Funny enough, there are historians that have serious doubts whether Hippocrates Oath is original. They say that this oath was altered by the christians (who they ruined ancient greek civillization) and contains moral issues that Hippocrated didnt believe at all. They(some of them) say that Hippocrates Oath was a bit different.

hahnemannian2002 wrote:
________________________________

Don't pick lemons.
See all the new 2007 cars at Yahoo! Autos.

I never said he belonged to Allopathy. You got your notions of
Hippocrates right - my posting wrong. I said all medical systems
have borrowed from him. He can definitely be considered father of
allopathy as he can be considered the father of thousand other
things including your scientific medicine.

Allopathy went all over the place at times-blood letting, leeching
etc. were part of that ( but these are not just part of allopathy
alone at that time, there were other alternative medicines that
used to that as well). The teachings of Hippocrates were forgotten
soon after he died ( and there are many myths about him anyway
including the oath).
Sure they are not the same; but what is scientific medicine of this
day then? Homeopathy? Or something else? If allopathy is not
scientific medicine homeopathy definitely is not - as it is preached
and practised by some.
patients body, so they can remove the bad blood of the patient!!
This was killing the patients, BUT the "doctors" of those times,
without using a major schientific tool-observation- they would
continue their outrageous methods, sometimes in the name of medicine
and sciense ,which they were thinking that they were using, but
actually they were not using them!!!
acuse human stupidity, hemimathy(semiknowledge), greed, narrow
minded thinking, misanthropy etc
whether Hippocrates Oath is original. They say that this oath was
altered by the christians (who they ruined ancient greek
civillization) and contains moral issues that Hippocrated didnt
believe at all. They(some of them) say that Hippocrates Oath was a
bit different.
wrote: Most of the ancients would
come down on Holistic side- Hippocrates was
course
else)
and
allopathy -
new
infectious
based
so
current
Hahnemann-
allopathy
that if
acute
good
things
important too-
wrote:
this or
the
the
said
similar"?
oath
the
the
times,
was
to
allopathy.
with
knowledge ,
today's
of
we
wrote:
with
the
of
representations
contained
appears on
risk
the
consequential,
simply

It is not my scientific medicine, i wish it was mine
Homeopathy seems like black magic in the hands of some people, but it is scientific! Hahnemann was not a magician, he was a scientist. The fact that science of our time cannot seriously explain and convince humanity about the truth of homeopathy is because of science' s deficiency and the great control of pharmaceutical companies.

Do you know why allopathy is more scientific than homeopathy?
Because allopathy has a more scientifc way of killing the patients!
))

hahnemannian2002 wrote:
________________________________

Want to start your own business? Learn how on Yahoo! Small Business.

my understanding is the difference in core philosophical approaches. hahneman, for example,
validated clinical experience and observation in the field. this, of course, included the provings.
he saw the need to view health with a holisitc paradigm. allopathy is symptom oriented and
has at its core a control and conquer approach as opposed to a working with the vital force.
and i do believe that hippocrates came down on the holistic approach to understandings.
tanya
________________________________

We have gone on the same path so many times Dimitri-

I have reiterated that medical science is different from these
therapeutics like allopathy or homeopathy or ayurveda so many times.
These are applications of the medical science. Based on philopsophies
the approaches would vary. But mumps is mumps is mumps. Allopathy
considers only the mumps and its virus. Homeopathy considers mumps
along with the person with mumps. This is the main difference. We do
not have to wage holy wars because of this.

Hippocrates contributed to such scientific study and so truthfully any
medical therapeutic system can inherit from his contributions.

You do not have to preach to the choir about homeopathy. If I ( and
we) were not convinced about homeopathy and its logic and scientific
credentials I (we) will not be here at all in the first place.

Out of curiosity what would you consider "scientific medicine"? It is
not yours - but I said so because I did not know what it was and what
you meant by it. Please clarify if possible.

I am not going to deride any medical system esp.allopathy.We are
shooting ourselves in our collective feet the more we antagonize the
established medicine; by not making use of advancements in medical
science we are doing a lot of discredit to the cause of homeopathy. We
should in the forefront with them - instead we got sidelined because
of bickering and snickering and clinging to Victorian era ideas.

It is not homeopathy that is saving a lot of lives in Iraq- it is
allopathy. Whatever the political and social reasons for this, this
happens to be the fact. We need to admit that both allopathy and
homeopathy came out of the same basic need to address the suffering of
humans. The same trunk but branches that have grown in different
directions. Allopathy does not recognize this - we should not make the
same mistake. Hippocrates did not use just homeopathic principles.
Moreover the allopathy of today is not the same as that of yester
years. We need to admit that homeopathy taught allopathy something and
allopathy in some ways became better for that. If we do not admit even
that then we are admitting that homeopathy did not cause any change
even in medical thinking let alone amongst the masses.

Both of them are made of bad as well as good people. Take the good
from these and leave the rest. There are so many things we need to do
to clean up in our own back yard. This whole discussion started
because of the mistrust of people in homeopathic acute care. We need
to find out why it is so and correct this impression. Hippocrates or
Hahnemann are not going to do this for us- quoting their greatness or
saying that Hahnemann was the father of immunology or epidemiology is
not going to do this - we are the ones in the trenches and we need to
do it. I submit that we are not going to do this by spending our
energy deriding allopathy - for starters.
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, dimitri rolf wrote:
it is scientific! Hahnemann was not a magician, he was a scientist.
The fact that science of our time cannot seriously explain and
convince humanity about the truth of homeopathy is because of science'
s deficiency and the great control of pharmaceutical companies.