Minutus

So we can stick with that term shall we, agreed, mongrel homeopaths? Seems about right, maybe leave out the homeopath bit

Joy

http://www.joylucashomeopathy.com
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/homeopathystudy/

from
an interview with Harris Coulter
http://www.whale.to/vaccines/coulterint.html

Question
Would you have words of encouragement to the young homeopathic students?

H. Coulter:
I'd say a couple of things. One, there will inevitable be conflict in
the homeopathic movement as it develops and grows. Many different people
practicing many different kinds of homeopathy. I view it as a pyramid.
Classical homeopathy at the apex and Mongrel prescribing at the base.
But you must have a base to have an apex so you can't be too upset that
some practice a poor variety of homeopathy. The best thing to do is to
encourage them and above all be tolerant of them. That's my first piece
of advice. My second would be that the present cycle will go on for 40
years or so, they can expect a good career in homeopathy.

Lynn
------------------------------------
Joy Lucas wrote:
--
Imagine Peace

Hi Luise,

You wrote back in December on the homeopathy list to questions posed there:

Afaik he never said so explicitly. However:
1)
He never used them himself - except perhaps! to experiment a small number of times. So it could be inferred that he was against them.
2)
He also definitely stated that the highest potency for the LM's schold be LM 30:
Since Hahnemann had years of opportunity to have made and use high potencies, 200C, 1M, ..., but chose not to, doesn't that imply that those who currently use higher than 30C are not strictly following Hahnemann's methods? Thus, should not be considered classical?

Why would Hahnemann go onto develop LM's but not fully explore the use of higher than 30C potencies? Are there early cases showing he tried higher potencies then stopped?

Since you are uniquely qualifed to read and interpret his cases, please shed some light on this grey area of what Hahnemann may have been thinking.

Regards,

Susan

I wonder how many on this list, included the "classical Hahnemannian
homeopaths" realize how much revolutionary change Hahnemann himself
brought into his own homeopathy when he published the Chronic
Diseases!

Many years before that event there had already been split - most
homeopaths followed the philosophy tied to the names of Moritz Mueller
and Griesselich - those were the people who considered it their right
to include non-homeopathic methods in their therapy. Hahnemann clled
them "mongrel homeopaths". There also were those - also probably the
majority (according to what e. g. v. Boenninghausen wrote in many of
his publications) who did not follow Hahnemann's advice to give high
potencies - they stuck to pots like C 6 and dosed them not by the
principle of "minimum dose", but had them taken frequently and over
long strechtes of time.

There was a minority only who followed Hahnemann up to the publication
of his CD - they were the "Pure Hahnemannians".

The were revolted at the new ideas Hahnemann propageted in his Chronic
Diseases and only very few of them (incluing v. Boen.) followed him.
The others turned away and kept their allegiance only to the previous
Hahnemann.

So the arguments of the pure Hahnemannians date back - in various
context - date back to Hahnemann's times and were in the end directed
at Hahnemann himself!

This is historical fact, by the way.

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 <==========

Hi Susan,

One reason Hahnemann would have limited his use of high potencies is
simply the demands of the process of *making* them!! Remember even a
30c needs 30 steps of dilute-and-succuss--and he preferred to use a
fresh glass container for each step, tho if I remember right he did
also find it acceptable to sterilize and re-use bottles. 30 bottles;
and his opinion changed as to how many successions, but even at only
ten per step, a 30c would get 300 whacks; other times he preferred 100
whacks per step... If one has anything else to do with one's time,
that would be *compelling* reason to stick with low potencies! (And
later, LMs.)

Shannon

I think we can drop the word mongrel as obnoxious.
It insults dogs. They (and we) do not deserve that.

In addition you'd have to call Hahnemann a mongrel, which is also
unacceptable - as he too DEVELOPED new thoughts and ideas and proved
them worthwhile, in homeopathy.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."

No - the mongrel homeopaths were those who used allopathic treatment.
Thus anyone who does not used homeopathy *exclusively* was in the
group of mongrel homeopaths - meaning that all homeopaths who e.g. use
osteopathy, acupuncture, chiropractics, herb medicines and whatever
else there may be is such a mongrel.

But I am very unconcerned about what to call e.g. "homeoprophylaxis".
We might call it tauto-prophylaxis or iso-prophylaxis.

Only: if the latter should be proven to be effective in the near
future or so, I don't think homeopaths would gladly want to be told
that it does not prove the effectiveness of homeopathy:-)
--
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 <==========

Hi Susan
Yes, that is so.
No homeopath (*very few* exception will confirm the rule) is strictly
following Hahnemann's rules!

I have backed this up in many mails concerning this issue - is like
talking to a blank wall. The minds are walled up.
Oribalby because the esoteric teachings of the Free Masons - those
teachings that are only known to the more deeply initiated - forbid
use of higher potencies than 30, because by those teachings they would
interfere with the karma of the patients.

This is the way it was explained by an anthrophosoph homeopath.
Anthrophosophy is based on theosophy (Steiner started out as a
Theosoph), and theosophy and the teachings of the Free Masons (and the
Rosecrucians etc.) are based on esoteric teahings reaching far back -
certainly to the Gnostics and probably even much further into
antiquity.

Maybe.

If you credit Little's and Adler's interpretations of the
notations for LM potencies in the Paris Case Books (and of some
earlier researchers), there can be found high C potencies in there.

If you credit my interpretations, those notations are those of LM
potencies.

If you are interested: There shuold be in the archives mails from
David Little on his interpretations (which he states as facts).
Googlig for Urbatron (or Urbaton) Adler you should find his
interpretations (also stated as facts) My own interpretation (stated
as such) you can find on www.bar-do.net, my own site.

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 <==========

Hi Shannon,
They were available.

It seems Malanie did and I know v. Boenninghausen used the C 200.

PerhapsH. didn't want to use remedies not made by himself - yes, that
is possible.

Regards

Luise

Remember even a 30c needs 30

--
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 <==========

One of the things that drew me to homeopathy was the emphasis on cure, on attaining optimum health, and on knowing that in many situations we can treat effectively and rapidly without antibiotics - so there's less fear of common diseases as we know there is something we can do about it. The purpose of treatment as set out in aphorism 9 of the Organon sets the direction (anyone notice how most of us only quote the first aphorisms of the Organon?!), and it's a positive life-affirming one.

Modern society is governed by fear - the whole vaccination epidemic is IMO an epidemic of fear that has been raging through western society for at least 100 years. Sometimes the fear is easier to understand - e.g. in the time of polio etc. - but when people have become fearful of ordinary flu for fear of losing a week's work it's out of hand.

Golden's schedule, although it seemed "professional-sounding" when I looked at it first, seems to play on those fears in exactly the same way allopathy does. The concept of homeoprophylaxis is always something I understood to apply to when the epidemic is at the gate, taking symptoms and giving appropriate remedies to the community at risk - not as a parallel to the conventional vaccination schedule. But society buys into the "homeopathic" version of the conventional vaccination schedule as the "responsible" way to go alternative, when the schedule isn't given homeopathically at all.

Recently a "friend" suggested that as a homeopath I should cash in on the swine flu scare by offering homeopathic prophylaxis. I gave the suggestion the attention it deserved (i.e. "I'll pretend you didn't suggest that"). But he knew people would be interested and he's probably right. People are addicted to fear and are willing to buy into it more than they are open to buying into health. I just think it would be sad if homeopaths join in the vaccination epidemic, instead of being clear about the homeopathic vision of dis-ease and health.

Rant over,
Vera