Are they right?

I took a quick look around the Internet today and there is no doubt in my mind that a concerted effort is being made to discredit all alternative therapies and especially homoeopathic medicine.

This is nothing new to practitioners of homeopathy, and it started within a couple of years of its conception. Any therapy that does not fit in with the current mold of “approved”practice, and does not make a healthy financial return for the pharmaceutical industry and the medical profession, is usually sidelined and denigrated to the general public.

There does not seem to be much that can be done about it. With the exception of a few countries most of the medical authorities favour the heavily drug-based allopathic approach.

More upsetting than this is the emergence and acceptance of a wrong practice in the therapy of homeopathic medicine today. A wonderful therapeutic practice has been diminished in the teaching, utilising quasi-psychological evaluation, the doctrine of signatures, and a complete lack of application of the literal symptoms elicited from provings, and replaced by interpretive assumptions on the meaning of symptoms.

It is getting harder and harder to recommend a homeopathic practitioner that will apply the Hahnemannian principles in their case taking and prescriptions. In fact it would be fair to say that the common practices of the therapy are now no longer in keeping with the principles of practice as itemised by Hahnemann.

For the proponents of the modern system, there is no saving grace in using the materia Medica out of context with its original intent and clinical provings. To attribute a personality to a medicine is just plain foolishness on a number of levels. Firstly a prescription is made on altered symptoms. This means that a medicine that has been imbued with characteristics of the personality, cannot represent the characteristics of a person in daily life, as it should only represent the disease state in altered disposition.

Unfortunately the false Kentian/Swedenborgian overlay on Hahnemann’s words and intentions, have distorted the reality of just matching essential prescribing symptoms which represent both the disease and the medicine with the characteristics of the disease symptoms which can be produced by the substance in a proving.

The Sensation method is the most common form of case analysis of the practice today in the West. Sadly it distorts and goes against the Hahnemannian principles of proven practice on so many levels that it defies the scientific basis for homoeopathy. It has attracted the wrong sort of practitioner to the profession in as much as they have not been taught proper homoeopathy or are looking for an outlet for their wrongly taught and misapplied spiritual longings as amplified by Kent via Swedenborg and the modern gurus. A tiny bit of PERSONAL research on the part of each student would have stopped the false teachings in its tracks.

Until schools and colleges return to teaching the REAL homoeopathy, and the scientific basis for prescribing and case management, Many of us have no case to argue against the governments that want to close the therapy down. If homoeopathy proper will not be practiced, then it is exactly as the detractors proclaim, a useless therapy.




2 responses to “Are they right?

  1. Sad, but true.

  2. somenath Mukherjee

    I agree with you

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.