Minutus

Begin forwarded message:

Hi Shannon,

Very good article - but Dr. Bhatia should state whom he means by the
"homeopaths that should work together".

Does that include the people the classicals (including
Dr. Bhatia himself it seems - see
http://www.hpathy.com/ezine/editorial/2007July.asp)
consider "non-homeopaths"?

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 <==========

Hah, very good question!!! ) As you know, I would say "yes", but
it is (I have gathered) a difficult question... But even the
*classicals* can't seem to work together! I wonder what it would take
to change that... Probably a specific effort by and within the
classwork would be a big help; perhaps we could in that way have some
"community building" structures and mentality built in, to counteract
(at least a little) some of the "fierce idealist" mentality that seems
to attracted to the works (and mentality!) of Papa Hahnemann?
Shannon

Actually, if either of you has read Dr Bhatia's editorial (to which
Luise included a hyperlink), you'll have noticed that what he proposes
is not blind adherence to all of Hahnemann's methods. He suggests
getting a solid grounding in the basics as the old masters have taught
them before taking the short flights of revolutionary fancy that
students are easily attracted to when their lack of basic knowledge
results in failure.

Successful homoeopathic practice does not require desperate new
theories and corner-cutting; it requires that we pay attention.

The message coming from the modern masters is the same as that coming
from the old masters: have the patience to take the case fully and
carefully; take the time to study the materia medica fully and
carefully; apply the basic principles; watch the results and
understand them; reevaluate intelligently.

That so few modern practitioners are capable of following these basic
directions does not reflect poorly on Dr Bhatia but on those incapable
of paying attention.

Kind regards,

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

As I work on the Hpathy Ezine as one of the Editorial team I have to tell you that Hpathy is Inclusive of all types of Homeopathy. They have had articles by Peter Chappell recently!! This was the whole idea of Hpathy - that everyone could have their say. You should see the discussions and arguments we (The Hpathy team) have on our personal forums that are not open to the public!!!!!
Rochelle
Registered Homeopath
EFT(Advanced) Practitioner
www.southporthomeopathy.co.uk

But the question was something different; not "how should we practice
homeopathy". Luise asked, "whom he means by the "homeopaths that
should work together." It's an increasingly important question--will
we / should we "work together" with people we disagree with, or shall
we work together only with those of like mind? And just how "like" do
the minds need to be, before we will consider them worth "working
together" with?
Shannon

Thanks Rochelle, that's good information.
So John, evidently Dr. Bhatia is willing "work together" with people
that he might not agree with in every particular. Sounds good to me!

Shannon

A friend is someone who has the same enemies you have.
(Abraham Lincoln)

There are 2 things here Shannon -

1) One is cleaning up our act so that we know what is homeopathy
better
2) Another is surviving as a profession against allopathic onslaught-

1) needs to occur all the time- our definitions might change based
on our growth as a profession and by newer approaches and newer
editions of the Organon. ( yeah, right). If we can answer to the
simple questions like "what is homeopathy?", "What do you mean by
homeopathy?" " What do you do" satisfactorily that is all there is.
It is the definition of a science, of a method of practice.

2) This crisis for homeopathy is for any one who
practises "homeopathy" however loosely defined it is - even if you
are an MD with homeopathic practice... so here we are not talking
about our definition of homeopathy -
even if you are doing 50% herbal, 25% acupuncture and 25%
homeopathy - still you are affected...
So we need to join forces with everyone - not only homeopaths but
other CAM groups as well, today it might be homeopathy and tomorrow
it will be them-

This current situation is a fire-fighting situation..normal rules do
not apply...we need whoever that can bring a bucket of water-

We hang around the CAM camp, so we might as well HANG with them in
this...
As has been repeatedly pointed out - when we had the discussion of
definitions - no one says that a homeopathic doctor cannot practice
whatever works for his / her patient. Most of us practice a mish-
mash of things... but still we need to have a clear understanding of
what is good homeopathy ( best practice) and what is experimental...
Some of the complementary and alternative medicines which came into
being in olden times and probably in other countries, had a chance
to define themselves before they had to meet the allopathic
challenge. Some of them survived even by aligning themselves with
allopathic approaches - in the west at least - for example
acupuncture...

Homeopathy came out of allopathy. So we had to define ourselves how
different we are from allopathy and so right from the start the
emphasis was to show how different we are from allopathy ( and
remember not to become "mongrels")- Unfortunately this lead us
straight into the altenative medcicine camp- and

War makes strange bed mates...

If some one can talk about astrology and homeopathy in the same vein
then we know how far we have gone into the other camp...the upshot
of this is we have homeopathy of so many stripes -

if this is where we belong and we want to continue - then so be
it... but I personally believe that we should be in the fore-front
fighting MRSA, newer viral diseases, infections of all sorts...not
just clearing up blocked chakras-

Alternative medicine does not mean - if allopathy does not work, go
for this thing called homeopathy- it means if you have a disease go
for allopathy or go for homeopathy which is equally good or better
in doing everything that allopathy can do...

Unfortunately our getting into the other camp- deprived us of a
solid background and gave us a different attitude -

Managing a crisis is different but it does not mean that we do not
need self-analysis...and boundaries.

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Robert & Shannon Nelson
wrote:
practice
will
shall
how "like" do
which
proposes
suggests
taught
knowledge
coming
and
basic
incapable
wrote:
say "yes", but
would
have
that
Hahnemann?
means by
article.
in our

Hi, Shannon --

The enemies of homoeopathy misrepresent it as being based on
sympathetic magic or other nonsense rather than the Law of Similars,
and those "friends" of homoeopathy who similarly misrepresent it are
playing right into their hands. Unfortunately, all the ridicule they
thereby earn is also, and principally, directed at the practice based
on the Law of Similars, the practice accurately called homoeopathy.
The fringedwellers and gurus are not singled out for attack;
homoeopathy is.

It's vital that we don't all sit back and quietly roll our eyes every
time somebody misrepresents what homoeopathy is, even somebody
supposedly sympathetic to homoeopathy -- somebody who contends that it
is homoeopathy's failures, rather than his or her own, that have led
to trying a different kind of practice and wrongly naming that
homoeopathy.

The attacks on homoeopathy receive their justification from those
"friends" of homoeopathy who paint it as voodoo and guesswork based on
castles in the air. Once we remove that justification by affirming
that homoeopathic practice is the relatively well-defined practice of
prescription based on the Law of Similars, we find that we have
science and reason working for us rather than against us.

Yes, Luise asked about which people Dr Bhatia would exclude. But
clearly the matter has never been about individual identities or their
exclusion, but about the identity of homoeopathy.

We must finally get our selfish egos out of the way and let go of
whatever it is that, in order to suit ourselves, we'd like homoeopathy
to be. If we can do that, then we can promote scientific acceptance
of homoeopathy without misrepresenting it as sympathetic magic or
shotgun combinations or any of the hundred other inventions of the
past two decades.

We can at the same time -- if we're foolish enough to do so -- promote
whatever brands of magic we subscribe to. Homoeopathy's enemies
should have the wisdom not to attack homoeopathy on the basis of the
ignorance of those promoting it, but if they lack that wisdom, they'll
soon acquire it. What matters is that they understand what it is that
they're attacking: homeopathy or magic; homoeopathy or confusion;
homoeopathy or anything else.

In light of the discussions we've had to date, we would be wilfully
ignorant to persist in misunderstanding homoeopathic practice to be
based on anything but the Law of Similars. Its definition is not up
to us!

Similarly, we'd be bloodyminded to persist in treating personalities
as relevant to its identity.

If nobody had practised homoeopathy for a hundred years, its nature
would not disappear; it would be no different. Who practises it and
who does not have no bearing on what it is. Any reasonably
intelligent ten-year-old can confirm that this is true; surely all of
us can. And in doing so, we can conclude that the necessity is not to
sell snake oil or the Emerald City; it is merely to sell the Law of
Similars.

Kind regards,

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

I think one of the problems is that the people who are attacking Homoeopathy have thought long and hard about how to go about their campaign.

Homoeopaths defending often have to think on their feet.

When BBC Radio 4 was discussing the issue of is Homoeopathy Science?, in my view Prof David Peters of Westminster University did an extremely poor job (I wrote and made suggestions to him). When he is not a homoeopath, why was he defending the process when Homoeopaths in his department like Julie Smith or Sue Sternberg were denied the opportunity. They would have washed the floor with Prof David Colquhoun. (If you want a copy of what I wrote, please let me know finrod@webstar.co.uk)

I think what we need is to analyse how and on what points they are attacking us - prepare answers and also have an attacking scheme of ourselves.
More importantly, we need to get the media on our side.

One way would be to offer to treat journalist!

Regards

Soroush