After recent experience with colleges purporting to teach homoeopathy, and in observing a few patient prescriptions by followers of the various cults within the therapy, a couple of comments are below. These are not aimed at the individuals, for I am sure they are very nice people, but at the prevailing mindset. Anyway, here are the comments.
August 3, 2012 at 3:19 pm
The people who are not following the masters, old or new, are those at the Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation, whose work on curing cancer is well documented now in a very large series of cases. Search for Banerji protocol to see more. We don’t need to argue about whose way is best if we can show some results!
Karin Mont, Chair, Alliance of Registered Homeopaths, UK — response to – XXII Indian National Homoeopathic Science Congress in New Delhi – Decision to call the combination remedy prescribing ‘un-homoeopathic’
Although it may seem somewhat alarming to consider ‘standardised homeopathy’, various states in India have been talking about banning combination remedies for years now, but the production of them flourishes in Europe, a situation which is unlikely to change. Although India is without question one of the leaders in homeopathic development today, it follows a very traditionalist approach to prescribing (and education!), which may well still meet the needs of its citizens. However, in other parts of the world, especially where allopathic drug suppression has been prevalent for decades, ‘pure’ Hahnemannian homeopathy is proving less and less effective, hence the increasing use of combination remedies, nosodes, sarcodes, high potencies etc. I’m sure that were he alive today, Hahnemann would be evolving his prescribing methodologies to reflect the changes to the vital force which our current lifestyles have imposed upon us. So, rather than being concerned by India’s apparent attempt to hold back development in our understanding of homeopathy, let’s see how successful this proposed policy will be in the long run. Time will tell, and since homeopathy is both multi faceted and generous, I personally believe there’s room for more than one approach!”
It would seem that the two comments above are representative of the viewpoint of Homoeopathic medical doctors and appointed spokespersons for modern homoeopathic therapists..
It is disappointing to see this viewpoint take hold in the West mainly because it demonstrates an alarming resurgence of a non medical and non scientific approach to the application of medicines using the establish protocol of Homoeopathic prescribing.
There is no question in my mind that the modern viewpoint comes from a total lack of knowledge regarding the therapy of homoeopathy or the practice thereof by Hahnemannian methods. On what basis can a person state “homoeopathy is proving less and less effective” unless they know how to practice according to Hahnemanns directives? Why is it that for those utilising Hahnemannian methodology, that the patients respond well to treatment and do not need nosodes, sarcodes and high potencies as standard? On what basis can a comment be made for the efficacy of a high potency over a low one as a preference? How can a person be sure that Hahnemann would be “evolving his prescribing methodologies” for modern lifestyles?
This statement really frightens me. “We don’t need to argue about whose way is best if we can show some results!”
Results compared to what? Allopathy? Drug suppression? Naturopathy? On what basis can any therapy be given without a protocol and scientific proof and long term results documented? Oncologists, in treating certain cancers show amazing results with proven results. The long term effects of drug treatments, dependencies and affinity to getting another disease state or immune weakness are some of the areas of concern with certain treatments. Most certainly, this statement cannot be aimed toward REAL homoeopathy with a protocol and a systematic approach to treatment simply because modern homoeopathic therapists do not know Hahnemannian homoeopathy. At what stage can a therapy ignore a natural law and eventually cause its own problems?
One thing that needs to be said is that the use use of a potentized medicine in a treatment, does NOT make it a homoeopathic treatment, and does not make the person giving it a homoeopath.
No medical intervention or treatment should be given without a long period of trialing and testing. Hahnemann took EIGHT years before he began treating with Homoeopathy. There were many books and papers and experiments written and researched on medicines, reactions, similarities, and results before he cautiously stepped into treating with his therapy.
Hahnemann made the majority of his cures with 30c and under. He made the majority of his treatments with less than 150 medicines. He treated the same diseases as we have today, some of them worse. He treated suppressed disease states and mixed diseases. Homoeopathy, the therapy, is based on a natural law. The law never fails, but the ability to respond to it sometimes does if the human economy is weak or unable to respond. That is when other protocols that artificially stimulate or suppress or maintain are required. With these will come dependence on medication or ultimately death through an inharmonious balance to sustain life.
We are not opposed to people using the therapy of their choice. We are not opposed to personal opinion. We just do not want Homoeopathy decried, devalued and dismissed by people who use the label homoeopath who will not utilise the proper protocols, and worse still have no clue what homoeopathy is. The current state of ignorance regarding the origins, the principles and most shockingly, the lack of researched knowledge about the power and scope of the original provings and how to apply them to the patient, does not bode well for the continuance of the therapy, or the wellbeing of the patients seeking help.
In general Homoeopathy never fails. Only the homoeopath. As long as we remember that, it should spur us on to examining the protocols and research to see where we can do better.