Minutus

Dear Minutus,

There are those who are liberal and those who are conservative in
their approach to homoeopathy. When keep in balance such traits form
complementary opposite that are constructive in nature. At the same time,
there are two extremes views involved in this equation. One the one hand,
there are those who say that only that which is in the Organon is truly
homoeopathy or one should only use the Therapeutic Pocket book of
Boenninghausen, etc. Anything introduced after the 1840s is considered
suspect or inferior. On the other hand, there are those who say that
"anything" that may help the patient is legitimate even if they mean
unproven combination remedies or using unproven potentized herbal mixtures,
etc. In my view there must be a balance between new research and
non-conventual methods of using homoeopathic remedies and the traditional
approach based on the Hahnemann's Organon, the Lesser Writings, and the
Chronic Diseases.

There are "new age" persons with very little training or
understanding of homoeopathy, and the inherent dangers of using potentized
remedies, who have taken to using homoeopathic remedies as part of their
"mixed bag of tricks." They have a tendency to do so many things at once
that they have no idea what the combined effect of their medicines are and
what might be helping or hurting the patient. They says that they use
"everything" that might help the patient but in reality a good percentage
of their cases do not really go that well in the long run. They suffer from
a type of "nearsightedness" that does not allow them to really take a long
term view of the patients conditions. They throw as many things a possible
without thinking much about the consequences of their actions. They think
more is always better than less so and want to be seen as if they are doing
everything possible for their patients.

Persons of this persuasion often accept the suppression of some
superficial symptoms as cure while the patient's overall mental state and
vitality decline. They do not see any connection between the disease they
supposedly "cured" and the new states that have appeared due to these
suppressions. They also tend to call every increase in symptoms that
appears a "cleansing crisis" because they don't really understand the
difference between a true similar aggravation, a natural elimination and
the production of new, troublesome symptoms due to the wrong remedies,
wrong potencies, wrong repetitions, and using medicines that work in a
conflicting manner. etc. This type of "liberal attitude" is really another
word for "ignorance" I have witnessed this of type of mixopathy cause
trouble in a number of persons and I have had to straighten out many such
cases.

At the same time, there are those experimenters who are conscientious,
have a good understanding of homoeopathic principles, and are aware that
there are dangers inherent in potentized remedies. One could include
Hering's introduction of the nosodes and Burnett's use of organ remedies in
extreme pathology in this category. They expanded the use of similars into
areas that Hahnemann had not without going against the checks and balances
that make homoeopathy a safe and effective system. Today there are some who
are also expanding the application of similar into areas that are not
strictly traditional homeopathy, but at the same time, are certainly not
new age therapies or "mixopathy". Also there are practitioners who
sometimes uses an herb or bowel cleanser as an adjunctive method but they
don't just throw the entire "kitchen sink" at every patient right off the
bat. It is not fair to mix all these persons together under the grand title
of pseudo-homeopaths.

There are "classical" homoeopaths who have introduced many new methods
and remedies into homoeopathy. This includes the exotic remedies used by
the doctrine of signatures, dream provings, meditation provings, alchemy
and the periodic table, the grand constitutional remedy for all situations,
etc.. None of this is in the Organon. It is even stranger that among the
one-sided constitutionalists there are persons who refuse to treat acute
diseases or crises up to the point that they would rather have the patient
use antibiotics and drugs rather then take an acute remedy! Some even
suggest using drugs to repress a serious aggravation caused by a remedy
rather than a dynamic antidote. They seem to think the toxic drugs,
antibiotics and suppression are somehow safer than using a homoeopathic
remedy by the cause and symptoms. How can toxic drugs and suppression are
be safer than acute remedies and proper antidotes if necessary??? This is
"classical homoeopathy"? One can only imagine what Hahnemann would say
about these ideas (?,$, #, Z, !!!). This type of allopathic intervention is
fine with them but they shake their finger at anyone using a acute remedy,
herb or cell salt under the same situation.

Many practitioners are into essences, themes, the doctrine of
signatures as well as the latest new strange remedy and the constitutional
remedy but some don't even really know the fundamentals of Hahnemannian
Homoeopathy. They want to give the one remedy for all situations but then
fall back on drugs when it does work out. Hahnemann taught there was acute
disease and acute miasms as well as chronic diseases and chronic miasms. He
taught the use of acute intercurrents, chronic intercurrents,
anti-miasmatic remedies, the chief remedy and the prophylactic remedy. He
taught that the size of the dose and its delivery system had a great effect
on how safe and well a homoeopathic potency acted. He taught the use of the
medicinal solution for the C and LM potency in the oral dose and by
olfaction. He taught the use of the single dose where their is a strikingly
progressive amelioration and the repetition of the remedy to speed the cure
in slow moving cases. He taught about layers of dissimilar diseases and
complex disorders. He taught about acute and chronic complementary
remedies. He taught many things that many so-called classical homoeopaths
do not even use and even speak out against! How can they be truly classic
homoeopaths if they only use a very small part of what Hahnemann introduced?

I really feel it is VERY important to study traditional homoeopathy
very seriously for a long time before speaking about doing anything that is
"best for the patient". Is giving 10 bottles of latest naturopathic cum new
age mutli-marketing medicines, unproven mixtures of potentized remedies,
unproven herbs in potency and very high doses of multi-vitamins best for
every patient? People leave the office with shopping bags full of medicines
and an empty wallet or purse! To call unproven mixtures of potentized
remedies or mixtures of potentized herbs "Homoeopathy" is a grand misnomer.
Homeopathy is very serious business not to be fooled around with by chance
or guessing. Potentized remedies go very deep into the very vital force of
the person and can cause serious trouble if used wrongly. It takes at least
five years of traditional training to learn the basics but I see people
mixing potentized remedies with every other new age method in a few months.
This is a serious mistake.

I don't think it is right to say that combination potentized remedies
are really homoeopathy in the true sense of the word. If you want a real
definition of Homoeopathy read the Organon. One should not confuse
combination remedies given by disease names with single homoeopathic
remedies selected by the cause and symptoms prescribed by someone who has
studied for a 5, 10, 15 or more years. These mixtures have not been tested
properly by provings and are all so different there is no standard. The
person giving them often has not really trained in traditional homoeopathy
in a serious manner. To use the title *Homoeopathician* one should be
trained in Homoeopathy as introduced by Hahnemann and practiced by
generations of traditional homoeopaths. We are not telling anyone what to
do but asking them not to take our name unless they are in harmony with the
basic principles of our school. I don't think this is too much to ask.

Combination remedies do something, but just exactly what they do, and
what their long term use leads to is still unknown. The unknown, however,
is not always synonymous with something bad. Right now it is still mostly
guess work. Much more serious research needs to be done including provings
and more long term follow ups. A few personal testimonies and anecdotes is
not enough. As of yet, I have not seen this done although there may be a
few doing such work. Traditional homoeopathy, however, has been proven to
be safe and effective for almost 200 years, WHEN DONE PROPERLY. In my mind
to do what is "best for the patient" is to be as careful as possible with
their health. No medicine is better than using the potentized medicines in
the wrong manner. Remember the first Hippocratic teaching is "Healer do no
harm!"

As to the homoeopathic discussion forums like Minutus and Homeolist
list? These are some of the few places on the WWW where homoeopaths discuss
their art as well as subjects related to their art. Should these lists be
opened to discussing of every healing art like TCM, Aryurveda, Naturopathy,
herbalolgy, vitamin therapy, CST, etc? I think not. Why? Because there are
list where all these methods are discussed and that it quite right and
good. I am trained in TCM, CST and OMT. I have done acupuncture
anesthesiology in major surgeries with no drugs in a WHO hospital. You
cannot do that with homoeopathic remedies! There is a place for most
everything. Nevertheless, I think it is good that we have a place where the
subject IS homoeopathy. Again, is that too much to ask? I think not.

I feel I am somewhere in the middle of the debate between the so-called
liberals and conservatives. I feel at the foundation one should be
conservative, well trained and really understand the principles Hahnemann
introduced that make homoeopathy a safe and effective system. At the same
time, I feel one should be liberal enough to be open to new well tested
methods that may expand the effectiveness of the healing art. I have quoted
the following many times but (oh, no) - here it comes again! As Hering
said...We should all go further in the theory and practice of Homoeopathy
than Hahnemann and correct the errors of the past yet let us not defame
Hahnemann for he was a great genius and the true Founder. The easiest and
most serious way to defame the Founder is to ignore the principles he
introduced that make homoeopathy a safe and effective method.

The best way for one to follow Hering's advice is to understand
Hahnemann's original paradigm very well before they go about changing
anything! Too many people are busy changing a system that they did not
really understand in the first place! My advice is to learn everything
introduced by Hahnemann, Boenninghausen, Hering and Jahr and then add to
that the work of Lippe, Dunham, T. F. Allen, H.C. Allen, J. H. Allen,
Knerr, Clarke, Burnett, Cooper, Kent, Boger, Roberts, etc. Once you
understand this solid foundation then expand into the works of
contemporaries like Whitmont, Vithoulkas, Sheer, Sankaran, Scholten,
Mangalavori, Timmerman, Shah, etc. At the same time, one must realize that
all the above individuals have the strong points and the weak points (like
David Little). Learn the best of what a person has to offer while leaving
behind that which is not complementary to the principles introduced by
Hahnemann or ignores his methodologies. Don't buy into anyone's blind spots
while being respectful to others and their contribution. Then, after
gaining some experience, see what YOU have to offer our science! In this
way, we can keep our feet on the ground and our heads in the sky without
falling.

Similia Minimus,
Sincerely, David Little