The Double minded Homoeopaths in our midst.

Are you a homoeopath? Do you make prescriptions for people’s health using the dilutions? Do you advise people on their health using only this method?

A few years ago I was a member of a discussion group  that included very well known medical and lay  members of the homeopathic community who professed a commitment to forwarding the practice using classical methodologies.

During one discussion the question of what to do when a patient was thought to perhaps have a cancer.  One of the practitioners stated emphatically that it was essential to have the full investigations regarding a cancer. I asked him why he thought it essential. His reply was “of course it is essential! Only then could the patient be directed toward the proper treatment for his or her cancer!”

I asked him “so what is the proper treatment of the cancer?” There was a deafening silence.

This person is the president of an American homeopathic medical Association. I quit the group very shortly after because I realised our aims, knowledge and understanding of the therapy were very different.

One of the problems within our therapy today is the lack of knowledge, understanding or comprehension regarding the law of similars and how it is different from the allopathic treatment that is the current medical status quo. To add to this problem, most people taught homeopathy in the last 80 years, have the disadvantage of being taught Kentian philosophy instead of the Hahnemannian tried and tested protocols for the application of the law of similars within his therapeutic model. The therapy is in the sad position of being based upon the Swedenborgian religious and philosophical writings of the supposedly Hahnemannian practitioner called James Tyler Kent. This man was the epitome of the wrong thinking of the  late 19th-century American school of thought as headed by Hering.

If you read the writings of Richard Haehl a biographer of the life and works of Samuel Hahnemann, you will see that Hahnemann complained bitterly that while many embraced the tenets of homeopathy, they were not prepared to practice it properly or redress the faults introduced by an allopathic application of the medicines. So from the beginning of the introduction of homeopathy, very few people took the time to learn the application correctly.

Of late, I have seen many of my colleagues rush for allopathic treatment when an incident occurs. I do believe there is a time and place for pain relief or occasional use of an Antibiotic when an infection is overwhelming, however, Im surprised that people of many years in the therapy still think of it as a second rate medical practice.

It is my belief that the REALITY of low success in the clinic, plus faulty understanding of the methodology is to blame. Kents insistence on mental prescribing based on personality has destroyed many a good prescription. No where in his writings do we see Hahnemann deviate from his rule of prescribing for altered and changed symptoms ONLY.

A practitioner needs to be convinced of the efficacy of the therapy and needs to know how to practice it according to Hahnemann. If not, there is no place for a person who always resorts to allopathy when his or her prescription fails.

2 responses to “The Double minded Homoeopaths in our midst.

  1. yes, i agree. i suspect that kent’s success was due to his own sensitivity and difficult to create an objective methodology which would replicate his results. likewise sankaran. they give us an angle that is useful in that it encourages us to feel that healing is possible by me with my particular angle on things., but if i try to create a doctrine out of what others have done i am bound to fail.having said that, my recent epiphany after reading jean elmiger and hahneman;s casebook[i think it was called] and reading how closely the master questioned the client my realization was that the simplest form of treatment is isopathy and this seemed to be what hahneman was doing once i free myself from the training of so called classical homoeopathy. mat

    • Hi Matt.
      I think some research regarding Kent will show he deliberately inserted Swedenborgian philosophy into his teachings, and distorted the very clear and precise methodology of Hahnemann. Sankarans teachings are diametrically opposed to Hahnemann.

      Hahnemanns analysis of a case is demonstrated clearly in the usage of the Therapeutic Pocket Book of Boenninghausen. The synthetic evaluation will point accurately to one or more medicines which fulfil the matching of disease symptoms and substance induced provings, and by careful reading of the Materia Medica will elicit the correct medicine for the patient.

      Its a medical practice. There are rules and management details to work with. It is necessary to be aware of them and be able to follow the principles precisely.

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.