Do Doctors make better homoeopaths part 2.

A lot of response to to this article. As expected, many comments from the medical fraternity who lay claim to being homoeopaths deriding both the content and me personally.  I can live with that. Historically speaking, NOTHING has changed since Hahnemanns day in the attitudes and opinions of allopathically trained persons who ’embraced’ the practice of homoeopathic medicine and did  not learn the therapy properly or understand its principles.

I note that a few who sneered at the comments and lay claim to practice homoeopathy, are also acupuncturists, practitioners of Chinese medicine and naturopaths. This alone is indicative of the lack of understanding of the principles of homoeopathic Medicine and needs no further response from the IHM.

If truth be told, most people learning homoeopathy in Europe, have been influenced by well known individuals and practice according to that individuals method and teaching. This can leave huge gaps in knowledge of the proper methodology as  taught by Samuel Hahnemann, and consequently will prohibit the practitioner from ever achieving a better success rate or comprehension of the scientific application of the therapeutics properly.

Hahnemann during his lifetime, as founder and researcher of the practice, was actually banned from membership and entry to two homoeopathic associations because the doctors members felt they knew better than him.

There are moves in every country, by the homoeopathic medical fraternity, to limit practice to Doctors only. In theory, a well trained person in medical knowledge of systems and disease, sounds like the ideal candidate for the job. However there is the other side of the coin where years of training in allopathic therapeutics and application of antipathic methods, cloud the issue of treatment and understanding of the effectiveness of homoeopathic applications. This is indicative of the arrogance of the medical profession per se, that they know better in every respect. This attitude even extends to our homoeopathic brethren who are inadequately cognizant of the real practice of homoeopathy, but still reach for the exclusivity of total dominance of the homoeopathic arena.

In writing articles critical of the practices endemic in homoeopathy, we at the IHM often get accusations leveled at us  as being elitist, fundamentalist or as claiming to be the only ones with proper knowledge. The only claim we make is that we can read and have spent more that 30 years in research of Hahnemanns writings and applying them in practice, and have never seen a reason to discard either the methodology or the results of his experimentation and conclusions. We do not have access to special books, everything we have is in the public domain. ANYONE can read it.

All people who lay claim to the title ‘homoeopath’ need to take a long hard look at their practice and compare it to the works of Hahnemann as opposed to the guru that they learned their understanding from. If you compare everyone from Kent to the modern day teachers to Hahnemann, you will conclude that a diametric opposition to Hahnemanns writings exist, and it should move the honest hearted practitioner to fix the problem.

Will you?

Below is a quote by Hahnemann found in the theoretic part of the Chronic Diseases as a footnote.

(* The importance of avoiding the above-described two errors will hardly be realized by physicians. These great, pure truths will be questioned yet for years even by most of the homoeopathic physicians, and will not, therefore, be practiced, on account of the theoretical reflection and the reigning thought: It requires quite an effort to believe that so little a thing, so prodigiously small a dose of medicine, could effect the least thing in the human body, especially in coping with such enormously great, tedious diseases; but that the physician must cease to reason, if he should believe that these prodigiously small doses can act not only two or three days, but even twenty, thirty and forty days and longer yet, and cause, even to the last day of their operation, important, beneficent effects otherwise unattainable. Nevertheless this true theorem is not to be reckoned among those which should be comprehended, nor among those for which I ask a blind faith. I demand no faith at all, and do not demand that anybody should comprehend it. Neither do I comprehend it; it is enough, that it is a fact and nothing else. Experience alone declares it, and I believe more in experience than in my own intelligence.
But who will arrogate to himself the power of weighing the invisible forces that have hitherto been concealed in the inner bosom of nature, when they are brought out of the crude state of apparently dead matter through a new, hitherto undiscovered agency, such as is potentizing by long continued trituration and succussion. But he who will not allow himself to be convinced of this and who will not, therefore, imitate what I now teach after many years of trial and experience (and what does the physician risk, if he imitates it exactly?), he who is not willing to imitate it exactly, can leave this greatest problem of our art unsolved, he can also leave the most important chronic diseases uncured, as they have remained unhealed; indeed, up to the time of my teaching. I have no more to say about this. It seemed to me my duty to publish the great truths to the world that needs them, untroubled as to whether people can compel themselves to follow them exactly or not. If it is not done with exactness, let no one boast to have imitated me, nor expect a good result.
Do we refuse to imitate any operation until the wonderful forces of nature on which the result is based are clearly brought before our eyes and made comprehensible even to a child? Would it not be silly to refuse to strike sparks from the stone and flint, because we cannot comprehend how so much combined caloric can be in these bodies, or how this can be drawn out by rubbing or striking, so that the particles of steel which are rubbed off by the stroke of the hard stone are melted, and, as glowing little balls, cause the tinder to catch fire? And yet we strike fire with it, without understanding or comprehending this miracle of the inexhaustible caloric hidden in the cold steel, or the possibility of calling it out with a frictional stroke. Again, it would be just as silly as if we should refuse to learn to write, because we cannot comprehend how one man can communicate his thought to another through pen, ink, and paper – and yet we communicate our thoughts to a friend in a letter without either being able or desirous of comprehending this psychico-physical miracle! Why, then, should we hesitate to conquer and heal the bitterest foes of the life of our fellowman, the Chronic diseases, in the stated way, which, punctually followed, is the best possible method, because we do not see how these cures are effected?)

2 responses to “Do Doctors make better homoeopaths part 2.

  1. Reblogged this on sparkmiraclesparkmiracle and commented:
    Homeopathy can be learned without being a doctor as nature intended. No need to understand the miracle, only take the facts and apply it. Learn the art of fact from the state of art from Hahnemann.

  2. Pingback: sparkmiraclesparkmiracle

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.