Minutus

I just wonder what is happening to us- are some of us becoming
intolerant to advancement by sticking to the old and narrow and some
trying to be the torch bearers and lead the way to a revolutionary
practice of homeopathy? Why should there be so much bitterness and
quarrelling and grandstanding for a simple quest to define a practice
of homeopathy? When nobody ever said anything like a homeopath
should not practice anything else in his/her clinic? But only to know
the difference between what is homeopathy and what is not- I have
used combinations but have never called it homeopathy-

If my child picks up a bunch of homeopathic bottles, empties them
into her mouth and gets rid of a skin problem- temporarily or for
good- I would not say that she practiced homeopathy ; so just using
homeopathic medicines in any which way cannot be homeopathy- for me
there must be a CONSCIOUS process of analyzing the patient and
symptoms, CONSCIOUS method of selecting the medicine, careful
comparing of the two and judicious administration of the same based
on some clear, well-defined and methodical approach that aligns with
the law of similars that stands to common reason at least, if not
strict scrutiny- before it can be called homeopathic practice…if
Edgar Cayce suggests a homeopathic remedy based on his sleeping
prophecies – though it is homeopathic remedy and who knows when it
gets administered it might even cure – does not make this homeopathic
practice of medicine.

We have half proved medicines, never-proved medicines which we are
using based on what tribals did, ancients did etc. In the search for
therapeutic substances they were inducted into homeopathy and used –
but still the intent is to prove them in the future; well proven
remedies with clinical use supporting their pathogenesy is the way to
METHODICALLY grow the practice of ANY system of medicine.

What would one call advancement in homeopathic practice? Is it adding
more remedies to the homeopathic materia medica without a thorough
review process? Is it selecting a remedy without detailed case taking
and providing ways and means to do this without understanding the
patient? Is it expanding the scope of homeopathy by combining it not
only with allopathy but also with astrology, numerology, phrenology,
iridology and other practices that abound in the land? What is the
yard stick we should use when we assess the new fangled methods that
we come across?

Does this make my practice more PRECISE? People who do not know much
about homeopathy start off with combos- there is no precise
targeting… Allopathy starts everyone with a named disease almost on
the same medicine or medicines based on protocols – once again there
is no precision. A while back I posed a question asking which therapy
in the world calls so much for a single medicine as homeopathy does-
no other therapeutic method I know of does this…so the one difference
from other therapeutic methods that we have is PRECISION –
INDIVIDUALIZATION…Remember that is what Hahnemann was aiming at – to
achieve a mathematical precision in drug selection-

So any method that increases the PRECISION of my treatment is a good
method and is a true advancement if it also uses a true homeopathic
agent to treat…if the method asks me to treat a bunch of people with
similar complaints the same way it is not an advancement – we all do
this kind of practice – Dr.Cotter wrote about Phos and Arn for
bleeding – this is not an advancement – this is expedient but not
necessarily an advancement- when homeopathy does not work or cannot
work due to low vital force resorting to allopathy or surgery is not
an advancement – it is prudent at that time , expedient – that is
all – good case management – not necessarily good homeopathy-

Treating kittens with FIP with a combination of remedies is prudent,
expedient given the limited time window the practitioner has and what
is at stake- once again not necessarily good homeopathy and cannot be
advised as standard fare-

These are exceptions and so should be used to prove the rule – not
used as escape points… because they fundamentally make me lose the
PRECISION of selection-

Usually precision comes with using more unique symptoms ( so mostly
non-pathological) and also by increasing the number of such unique
symptoms that the remedy covers in its range… remember Hering's 3
legged stool- not by decreasing -

This is pure data analysis, folks – I have lots of experience with
computers and databases – this is how a record of a particular person
will be found – does his last name make his record unique? – No,
there are lots of Smiths, adding the first name? – still there are
lots of John Smiths, how about his phone number – yes that is good
but liable to change in a while if he moves, how about social
security number – this is good but there could be duplicates- but
combine all of these and these point to the one and only record-

It is this precision we need- not just looking at a person's
spectacles and saree and prescribing Naja and calling this as an
advancement-
Thinking about what we are, what we do, why we do and what we should
do to become better is good for heart, mind, soul and spirit of
homeopathy- not living in delusions….

Bravo, H2002! You manage to keep returning the discussion to the
topic, which isn't always easy, and your paragraph (fourth) of
particularly perspicacious questions and your insights arising from
the desirability of individualisation and precision are great
additions to the discussion -- which is not fundamentally about good
medical practice and even less about who is and isn't a practitioner
of homoeopathy but about what defines the nature of homoeopathy.
Thank you.

John
--
------------------------------------------------------------------

"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands
science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We
might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this
combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our
faces."

-- Carl Sagan