remedies are supposed to cure people with Diabetes (etc) - all it has is 2
initials and a number, they are ridiculously expensive because the money is
needed to fund the 'author's' lifestyle, I don't know what is in this rx
that I am giving this person but as I haven't had any success so far,
perhaps haven't even really tried, I can skip all the hard work by trying
out these pills and I feel OK about it all because the client just loves the
carrot dangling in front of them and they are willing to try it out."
That's the scenario because what I am reading over and again is that so many
people think that homeopathy has failed.
That is the outright shame.
I can only speak for myself but I know, thankfully, that there are plenty
others out there who work extremely hard at finding the simillimum and would
never even dream of prescribing a remedy if it didn't fit the case through
thorough and careful case taking, and studying after the case taking.
Anything else isn't good homeopathy. Prescribing rx on a whim is
experimenting and how has that come to denote present day homeopathy is what
I would like to know. Prescribing unknown and debateable rx on a whim is
even worse.
There's plenty more about all this I object to but to be honest my mind and
work and thoughts are elsewhere.
Best, Joy
http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
Shannon wrote
Well, I wouldn't push the part about "experimenting" too awfully far...
The only folks who can say they never "experiment on their clients"
are those who are certain that they choose the right remedy every time.
If you know anyone like that, please send me their number!, because I
(and I imagine Julian too) have been looking for that person for a very
long time. Meanwhile, I continue to periodically re-offer myself up
to yet another "experiment".
(And yeah, some of them have beenuseful. As have Peter's "experiments", or so I gather.)
What else about it do you object to so passionately--besides calling it
"homeopathy", which I agree seems premature at this point?
Pax,
Shannon