Modern homeopathy question

Hi- Pixie,

using names when no one is sure what
those names mean? is a fruitless discussion. Brisbane can give definitions
for modern, classical etc and you can
talk to people who say they are doing
modern,classical or as Robin Murphy says he does
'clinical' homeopathy - but you have to ask each
person or homeopath , what does what they say
they are practicing- classical, etc really mean?

They can say they are doing modern or whatever
and be actually doing something totally different.
So you cannot discuss on this basis bc no one
is talking the same language or agrees with
these definitions.

You are not going to understand either unless
you educate yourself a bit- and for that go
to Minimum books.com and click on Andre Saine
head of Canada homeopaths, Go to his MS
papers and click on violet line and read two
interviews for free. He calls himself a Hahnemanian- and he works in layers. Robin
Murphy ( look him up) he works in Layers.

Andre Saine works with how many diseases you
have to present with, and works thru those.
Read up and then you will be able to have a
discussion and ask the right questions.

Dear Simone,

Your usual kind help is needed on the following thread. Please help this patient.

http://www.abchomeopathy.com/forum2.php/345295

Please keep up the good work.

Regards
Nawaz

Pixie you are not going to start a war. It has been raging for hundreds of years independently of people asking questions about it.

This idea of 'modern' homoeopathy is false. Breaking the principles of homoeopathy was being done while Hahnmenann was still alive - using multiple remedies, using too large doses, using mechanical prescriptions and mechancial dosing for disease names. This is Allopathy, but substituting our medicines for theirs. It was such a problem for Hahnemann that he writes a vehement tirade against it in the later editions of the Organon of Medicine. It is not 'modern'. It is, and always has been, the problem of allopaths wanting to borrow the reputation of homoeopaths. It has been around from the beginning. Every homoeopathic master has railed against such prescribers.

Real 'modern' homoeopathy is the work being done by Dr. Rajan Sankaran and the Mumbai group, Dr. Roger Morrison, Dr. Jan Scholten and a multitude of others. They are examining new ways to take cases, to classify remedies, to find the way to the simillimum, to choose and apply potencies. None of them are trying to recreate homoeopathy from the ground up, because this is not necessary and does not help homoeopathy as a whole.

So I find it annoying to hear them calling it modern, as if somehow it is an 'advance' in homoeopathic practice. It is the same old stuff being done that was being done before. It is not new, it is not modern. It is just breaking the principles of homoeopathy at their most basic level. They can spin that however they like, but that is what is happening. Modern is one of those buzz words like 'organic' or 'natural' used to sell a product you might otherwise not buy.

The real question for any patient is 'does that matter to me?'. For alot of people they cannot judge it. Does it matter that homoeopathy is not being practiced the way it was intended to be? In a world where Allopathy is king, it is easy for people to believe in a 'safer side effect free' medicine that works just the same as their painkillers and antibiotics. It is a fantasy that is alluring, no doubt. But homoeopathy represents an entirely different way of looking at health and disease, one that impacts on the way we live and interact with each other and the rest of the living world. It is not just a simple game where the rules can be changed to make things easier, it instead reflects the laws of nature and encourages us to live in harmony with them. Clearly this is not a popular philosophy in our 'modern' era.

In the end patients will most likely only ever be interested in the results, which to some degree is what you would expect. But the definition of cure is always going to be the sticking point. Real homoeopaths take the long term view. They want you to be better in 5 years, 10 years, 20 years, not just better for the next few weeks or months. In a hasty, rapidly-moving 'modern' world that doesn't have time to parent it's children properly or connect as communities or sacrifice immediate gratification for the health of the environment, homoeopathy can seem slow and overly complicated.

In the short-term, it is hard for patients to see what benefits traditional homoeopathy has for them. Suppressing, palliating, moving symptoms around can look appealing in the short-term. It is when you look at how patients are in 2,3,4,5 years that you get a real good look at the difference between homoeopathy and the other stuff.
[message edited by brisbanehomoeopath on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 01:37:31 BST]

I think the other question that needs to be asked, is the only problem with Allopathy their toxic drugs? In all other ways is their medical philosophy effective and appropriate? Because if homoeopaths want to emulate the allopaths, then you must assume that their philosophy is the best, and that ours is less effective or flawed in some way.

Allopathy has ruled our world for centuries. We can see the fruits of their belief system by looking around at our families, our communities, our societies. What has their philosophy of health and disease given us?

More chronic childhood illness than ever before.
New diseases.
More chronic disease than ever before.
Chronic diseases appearing in sections of the population you would never have seen it before.
More c-ancer.
More mental illness.
Mental illness appearing in children and young people.
More visits to the doctor than ever before as a regular part of most people's lives.
More doctors needed. There is a shortage of doctors because we have so much illness.
More money being spent on disease treatments.
More money being made from the suffering of others

So has a philosophy that espouses palliation and suppression, that promotes the idea that the body is composed of separate pieces, that ignores the connection between mind and body, that sees immediate results as preferable to long term improvement, that pigeon holes people into classification boxes and treats them with standard treatments....has it worked for them, for us?

Is this the system that we wish to be a part of?
[message edited by brisbanehomoeopath on Fri, 29 Jun 2012 02:06:02 BST]