Minutus

The group that wish to defend Classical homoeopathy do it for a few good reasons:

Classical Homoeopathy gives us the tools to treat patients in an as scientific a way as possible.

By giving a single remedy and observing the results before the next dose is prescribed, we have the opportunity of un-doing our mistakes if we do make one! It is also easy for someone else to take over the case should we retire or go away.

Those that mix remedies and prescribe them are simply asking for trouble. The case can so easily be suppressed or totally confused. Sheilagh Creasy always remarks that most of the difficult cases she sees are those that have been treated by graduates from a particular college in UK who do not adhere to classical principles. And she should know - she has been at it for more than most of us have lived!

Homoeopathy is only safe in well trained and careful hands. Kent is recorded to have said that he would rather enter a pit full of vipers than be treated by a badly trained homoeopaths.

I agree with Dave that if one takes the case properly, do a proper evaluation of the case and symptom analysis and repertorisation (not forgetting a good and broad knowledge of MM) one should be able to resolve the case down to a few remedies from where selecting the correct remedy from the MM should not be too difficult. Any one who does not believe this should observe some master homoeopaths at work.

Some 100 years ago there was a battle between AMA and the Homoeopaths. That battle is still continuing with the interests of drug companies fuelling it.

One of the easiest way of destroying homoeopathy is by diluting it so that it becomes confused and ineffective - so that as the example was given - a shop keeper will prescribe and if it does not work, it is not the reputation of the shop keeper that is at risk, but that of homoeopathy. "Oh it doesn't work - I tried such and such a remedy and it had no effect!" People soon forget about the INDIVIDUALISATION aspect of homoeopathy which is paramount and want the quick aspirin way of taking remedies. I also blame the pharmacies who will potentise any mixture of stuff requested.

We now have people mixing real remedies and potencies or using machines to it and use pendulums and all sorts of other 'techniques' with little or no justification. My view would be imagine yourself before a court and you have justify your actions to the court being cross examined by an extremely hostile lawyer on the other side. The only way one can succeed is to have a firm footing and not rely of some ideas which cannot be defended by the principles laid down by the 'Masters' of homoeopathy.

If you wish to deviate from this course, please make sure you have a good professional insurance (don't forget that the lawyer on the other side could use a classical homoeopath to tear your technique to shreds) and secondly read the organon and chronic pages a few times before you decide to do something of your own make up or follow someone else that has gone along that route.

What we need in this jungle are torch bearers who know the terrain best, not someone who is trying this route for the first time and is probably lost. Another question would be 'What would Hn say about what I am about to do?'

What I need is undiluted classical homoeopathy - should that fail, then I will consider anything else that may be on offer.

A lot of people make a lot of claims, but do they all stand up to scrutiny??

Long live classical homoeopathy : single remedy/individualisation.

Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

The group that wish to defend Classical homoeopathy do it for a few good reasons:

Classical Homoeopathy gives us the tools to treat patients in an as scientific a way as possible.

By giving a single remedy and observing the results before the next dose is prescribed, we have the opportunity of un-doing our mistakes if we do make one! It is also easy for someone else to take over the case should we retire or go away.

Those that mix remedies and prescribe them are simply asking for trouble. The case can so easily be suppressed or totally confused. Sheilagh Creasy always remarks that most of the difficult cases she sees are those that have been treated by graduates from a particular college in UK who do not adhere to classical principles. And she should know - she has been at it for more than most of us have lived!

Homoeopathy is only safe in well trained and careful hands. Kent is recorded to have said that he would rather enter a pit full of vipers than be treated by a badly trained homoeopaths.

I agree with Dave that if one takes the case properly, do a proper evaluation of the case and symptom analysis and repertorisation (not forgetting a good and broad knowledge of MM) one should be able to resolve the case down to a few remedies from where selecting the correct remedy from the MM should not be too difficult. Any one who does not believe this should observe some master homoeopaths at work.

Some 100 years ago there was a battle between AMA and the Homoeopaths. That battle is still continuing with the interests of drug companies fuelling it.

One of the easiest way of destroying homoeopathy is by diluting it so that it becomes confused and ineffective - so that as the example was given - a shop keeper will prescribe and if it does not work, it is not the reputation of the shop keeper that is at risk, but that of homoeopathy. "Oh it doesn't work - I tried such and such a remedy and it had no effect!" People soon forget about the INDIVIDUALISATION aspect of homoeopathy which is paramount and want the quick aspirin way of taking remedies. I also blame the pharmacies who will potentise any mixture of stuff requested.

We now have people mixing real remedies and potencies or using machines to it and use pendulums and all sorts of other 'techniques' with little or no justification. My view would be imagine yourself before a court and you have justify your actions to the court being cross examined by an extremely hostile lawyer on the other side. The only way one can succeed is to have a firm footing and not rely of some ideas which cannot be defended by the principles laid down by the 'Masters' of homoeopathy.

If you wish to deviate from this course, please make sure you have a good professional insurance (don't forget that the lawyer on the other side could use a classical homoeopath to tear your technique to shreds) and secondly read the organon and chronic pages a few times before you decide to do something of your own make up or follow someone else that has gone along that route.

What we need in this jungle are torch bearers who know the terrain best, not someone who is trying this route for the first time and is probably lost. Another question would be 'What would Hn say about what I am about to do?'

What I need is undiluted classical homoeopathy - should that fail, then I will consider anything else that may be on offer.

A lot of people make a lot of claims, but do they all stand up to scrutiny??

Long live classical homoeopathy : single remedy/individualisation.

Soroush
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Soroush

I like and agree with what you say about the Classical approach to
Homeopathy. I don't think anyone could put it any better.

I, myself, favour the Classical approach. I've been studying Homeopathy for
about 7 years now. When I began my studying I had a very open mind because
I knew absolutely nothing about Homeopathy whatsoever. I didn't even know
what a Materia Medica was or what was meant by repertoriszation. But over
the years I have discovered that it is a skill to be a Homeopath, and that
that skill comes from having a good basic understanding of Classical
Homeopathy.

When I joined Minutus I did so because I wanted to learn more about
Homeopathy from the professionals. I had already visited and used Ardavan's
web site, and was a great admirer of his work, so I was under no illusion as
to the sort of group I was joining.

Now, whilst I'm open minded and am happy to read other's points of views -
within reason - the Minutus Group is a Homeopathic group and should be
respected as such. If I want to study Herbalism I would look for a group
dealing with that and not try and incorporate it into a Homeopathic group
etc. etc.

Ardavan has already said that Minutus is a Homeopathic group but where other
lines of thought can be discussed in a friendly debate. BUT the majority of
those debates cannot be classed as friendly! Wouldn't it be more sensible
for those people who want to talk, debate, experiment with new ways of
thought and call it a branch of Homeopathy do so under their own 'yahoogroup
- they can run their own group - and leave Minutus to the people who are
happy with the Classical approach? Because we are never ever going to
resolve this issue unless the group is split.

Having said that, of course Homeopathy is forever progressing and we cannot
close the door on all new trains of thought but Souroush is right, let's
remember the basics of Classical Homeopathy and progress further
understanding along those lines. It is too easy to believe everything and
anything without there being any basis for that belief - and that really
would bring Homeopathy into disrepute.now wouldn't it?

Christine Wyndham-Thomas
www.dogsonholiday-uk.com
Editor of Homeopathy for Suite101

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

Homeopathy and Pseudohomeopathy
By: Dr Ardavan Shahrdar 2000

http://www.minutus.org/preface.htm

Anthony Gunterman

What Anthony posted the link to deserves to be posted in full at this moment
imho. So:

Homoeopathy & Pseudohomoeopathy
Dr Ardavan Shahrdar
2000

In the previous two decades, the science of homoeopathy has shown increased
applications in our society. After a century of a virtual standstill in the
growth of this field of treatment, we are witnessing not only an
ever-increasing trend towards this method, but also an expansion in the
number of homoeopathic treatment and training centres, pharmacies and all
related organizations. Government bodies are also displaying an inclination
to encourage and develop this science.

This new trend among ordinary people towards homoeopathy and other
alternative medicine, springs from several motives. Firstly, patients are
dissatisfied with unproductive remedies and temporary alleviation of pain in
chronic diseases. And secondly, society today is experiencing a revolution
as far as its outlook on life is concerned and man's conscious or
sub-conscious discontent with the existing philosophies favouring analytical
approaches which in turn aggravate the feeling of self-alienation
experienced by many, have contributed towards creating this resurgence
towards alternative medicine.

In such conditions, homoeopaths must evaluate their efforts with greater
precision without being influenced by the prejudice and the excitement
arising from this recent trend. The success of treatment has to be assessed
by taking into consideration generally accepted standards. Homoeopaths
should not limit themselves merely to the satisfaction expressed by patients
comparing results with other methods of treatment.

The differences in modes of treatment adopted by homoeopaths today are so
numerous that one can hardly encompass them all under one term. Such
diversity has created an unwelcome confusion among the true seekers of this
enlightening science, specially those seekers of knowledge who are not
content with the philosophy which preaches the blending of homoeopathy with
traditional medicine. Treatment standards which will be discussed in detail
later on, are seldom observed. On the other hand, legal problems and even
more important, the inability among the greater part of homoeopaths today in
dealing with emergency and crisis situations, which in itself is the result
of insufficient knowledge of this vast science, results in patients being
referred to the traditional system of medicine. This is the greatest
stumbling block in developing the inherent potentials of this science.

Unfortunately, those who are called homoeopaths, have not received this
title based on a single definition. It can safely be claimed that the only
thing common among homoeopaths is the use of medicine prepared specifically
for homoeopathic purposes. Whilst the only factor which distinguishes
homoeopathy from other types of medicine, should be its special outlook
towards health, disease and treatment.

A group of doctors have chosen an eclectic method which is a curious blend
of allopathic and homoeopathic medicine. Their prescriptions are a mixture
of chemical and homoeopathic drugs which are to be used for allopathic
purposes. For example this group believes that a patient suffering from
digestive trouble should take Nux vomica along with traditional chemical
drugs!! Once again it has to be emphasized that the aims of homoeopathy are
realized through its approach and not through its drugs.

This attitude is not limited to a concurrent use of homoeopathic and
chemical drugs. Many patients, specially those suffering from long term
chronic diseases and those who are dissatisfied with the side-effects of
chemical drugs, welcome any treatment which is non- chemical. Another group
of doctors are staunch supporters of all non-chemical treatments without
taking into consideration the basic principles of each field of treatment.
For example, acupuncture is a system of treatment with an overall approach
to curing patients. But few acupuncturists bear this in mind whilst treating
their patients. Many endeavor to cure specific ills without considering the
totality of symptoms. Unfortunately in the medical society we see many
doctors who without any specific approach in mind use a mixture of so-
called natural therapies concurrent with traditional allopathic medicine ,
whilst any one of these natural remedies, in its evolved form, can be
completely effective.

Unfortunately, a group of homoeopathic doctors ignore the basic principles
of their own philosophy and use complex drugs which are a mixture of
different types of homoeopathic cures. This system is referred to as modern
homoeopathy. Whether the application of the word 'system' is relevant here
and also the homoeopathic view-point as far as the use of mixed drugs are
concerned, will be discussed later. All that can be claimed here is that the
pharmaceutical companies' catalogues are the best source for learning about
the ingredients and the properties of modern homoeopathic drugs!

In homoeopathic circles, what is commonly known as classic homoeopathy has
two meanings. In a general meaning, only those homoeopaths are classified as
classic who consider their patients in their entirety and use one remedy for
each prescription. This group does not necessarily follow a specific pattern
when casetaking and as far as the basic principles of homoeopathic remedies
are concerned, it does not act according to the latest discoveries of the
founder of this science , Samuel Hahnemann. This group is faithful to the
two basic rules; first, consideration of totality of symptoms before
prescribing and second, the use of one remedy in each prescription and
although this creates a relative similarity between the adherents of this
group of homoeopaths, there are also major differences between them which
spring mainly from their method of registering and evaluating symptoms. Some
people within this group believe in using technologies such as scanners and
radionix to compensate for the complications arising in registering and
evaluating symptoms. Others place too much emphasis on using mental symptoms
as opposed to physical ones. This will be discussed later. Some homoeopaths
classify the symptoms haphazardly and prescribe according to this
classification or choose remedies based upon incomplete and simplified
patterns.

We now come to the second group of classical homoeopaths who comprise a
small number. Apart from the two rules mentioned above, these homoeopaths
take many other points into consideration. They follow strict principles in
choosing and evaluating symptoms and operate within specific frameworks to
assess their treatments and in chronic diseases, they consider concepts such
as miasms. The relative success of this group lies in its closer adherence
to the valuable achievements of Samuel Hahnemann, achievements that have not
yet been repeated in the history of homoeopathy. But are we making effective
use of this treasure?

In the second aphorism of Organon we read," The highest ideal of cure is
rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of the health, or removal and
annihilation of the disease in its wole extent, in the shortest, most
reliable, and most harmless way, on easily comprehensible principles." The
ideal which Hahnemann was to obtain through hard work and precision. Are we
witnessing such treatment now? Have we not lost a valuable heritage after
the death of Hahnemann ? Is not the reason for the stagnation of homoeopathy
after the successful practices of Hahnemann and his followers this very
deviation from the founding principles?

My main aim in writing these articles is to invite the reader to explore the
concepts and ideas of this great genius, Samuel Hahnemann. Ideas that have
to be perused thoroughly. I hope to be able to open new vistas into this
beautiful and wondrous world.
http://www.minutus.org/preface.htm
========================
... ideas that have to be perused thoroughly...
Dave Hartley
www.Mr-Notebook.com
www.localcomputermart.com/dave
Seattle, WA 425.820.7443
Asheville, NC 828.285.0240