Tag Archives: False homeopathy

This is a repost of an article from last year. If you search on the internet or youtube for homeopathy…. all you get is the sensation method referenced. Wake up people! Our practice is becoming extinct.

There is a great need for humility in the practice of Homoeopathy. So many of our colleagues who are medical Doctors, display an unmerited high estimation of their homoeopathic prowess with very little REAL understanding of the therapy they espouse to believe in. At the same time, many non medical practitioners show disdain for medical knowledge and rely on a faulty school taught methodology that is fraught with inaccuracy and dangerous practices.

This Institute and its entire faculty, would like to offer the following advice to any student or practitioner who practices under the title “homoeopath” today.

• Do NOT rely on a thematic concept of Materia Medica. This also applies to Essences. Apply all your reasoned intellect to a real study of the symptoms of the Materia Medica as extracted under proper proving conditions by the Masters of Old. If you do this, it will be made clear to you that the essences and themes you so heavily rely on in practice, do not exist as taught to you, and are responsible for a lot of the failures in practice that have been experienced.
• Keynote prescribing will NOT replace accurate comparison of the patients exhibited Symptoms and the matching of symptoms produced by a medicine.

Many who have been taught and practice Essence prescribing, have little or NO knowledge of the reality of proved Symptoms as recorded in the Materia Medica. In our experience, Essence prescribing is based on very poor psychology which denigrate both Mental Medicine and Homeopathic principles.

• Ignoring physical symptoms of necessity, and relying on the latest new fad of mentalising the patients problems, is dangerous and borders on criminal behavior when dealing with health issues. A homoeopath cannot ignore the basics of the therapy as outlined in the writings of Hahnemann.
• If a practitioner uses the title “Homoeopath” and has not studied his medicines, or relies solely a one sided understanding of homoeopathy, it becomes difficult to accept them into the ranks of being a homoeopathic Physician.

To place a person that lays claim to the title homoeopath (who does not have a basic understanding of Hahnemanninan homeopathy) and put them into a local medical clinic, you will witness the actions of an individual who cannot differentiate between Chronic and Acute illness, between a state of pathology and a functional disorder, between a miasmatic (infectious) problem and a non infectious problem. To compound this, a lack of knowledge of similar and dissimilar disease states, miasmatic merged diseases or one sided disease, a good similar remedy, or a partially indicated remedy, and a total inability to comprehend a medicinal aggravation versus a worsening of the case.

And the most frightening thing of all is that the individual involved will tell you with all sincerity that the fragmented form of bastardized homoeopathy that he or she practices, is of the highest calibre.

I have witnessed individuals looking for a deeply hidden psychological central delusion state to match with a medicine. After noting the type of medicines that are chosen for these core delusion interpretive forms of treatment, it has to be concluded that they are nothing more than an inverted form of the doctrine of signatures, something which Hahnemann exposed as being less that useful or scientifically plausible over 200 years ago!  The main problem with this method, is that it totally overlooks the “full picture of the disease state” by ignoring obvious signs and symptoms on a physical level which are right in front of the physician eyes and do not require anything else but careful observance to see.

Whatever.

This is one of the reasons why the medical practice of homoeopathy is dismissed as total drivel and nonsense……… For the genuine medical practitioner of homoeopathy, your practice is judged in the public eye as a spiritual healing by mystical means. This is NOT what the medical therapy. based on sound medical principles and regulated properly conducted provings is about.. You will also notice more and more of the modern ‘leaders of homeopathy’, have a great leaning towards these unethical practices within the framework of the therapy.

The I.H.M. and its members, when discussing the lack of validity of these provings with some practitioners, have been accused of being “Classical Luddites”, Lacking in “spirituality”, having “no comprehension of the intermingling of the material and spiritual world”, We were told “homeopathy is not a scientific practice, rather it is a getting in touch with the universe through fixing the central core of delusion that manifests itself in disorder and unwellness on the physical/emotional plane”.

“……….The first volume of Meditative Provings (now affectionately known as ‘The Purple Book’ from the colour of its cover) contains in note form a summary of 52 new remedies proved through meditation by several groups of homeopaths in the late 1990s. The remedy pictures and symptoms were intuited, channelled or experienced physically, emotionally and spiritually. They include the usual mental and physical symptoms of a remedy but also its spiritual aspects and the way in which it can be used to clear psychic or spiritual blocks and to further spiritual development. Each remedy is also linked with the chakras.

These are remedies which will be increasingly needed as we move into the 21st century and the Aquarian Age, especially by children but they are already found to work well in the treatment of physical and emotional dis-ease in anyone. The provings bring to the forefront the spiritual potential of Homeopathy and give to practitioners and patients who are ready and willing to work at this level the possibility of using homeopathy as a tool for spiritual advancement. Many of the old remedies do not have this aspect as they were needed at a time when the level of humanity’s development was different. However many of the old remedies also work at this higher level when needed, especially when given in combination with the new remedies.

The remedies in the book are: Amethyst, Ayahuasca, Bay Leaf, Berlin Wall, Blue, Caesium, Chalcancite, Chalice Well, Chestnut Tree Red Flower, Chestnut Tree White Flower, Clay, Conium Maculatum, Copper Beech, Earthworm, Emerald, Ether, Goldfish, Green, Holly, Hornbeam, Jade, Jet, Lac Humanum, Lotus, Medorrhinum Americana, Mimosa, Moldavite, Moonstone, Oak, Obsidian, Okoubaka, Peridot, Plutonium, Purple, Rainbow, Red, Rhodocrosite, Rose Quartz, Ruby, Sea Holly, Sea Salt, Sequoia, Silverfish, Stonehenge, Strawberry, Strontium, Sycamore Seed, Tiger’s Eye, Viscum Album, Willow, Yellow.”

We also found this published report in the pages of a journal supposedely representing and promoting the practice of homoeopathy and indeed taken seriously as a proper proving…….

**********************************************************

This review was reprinted from the October 2002 edition of Homeopathy in Practice with permission from the Alliance of Registered Homeopaths.
26 Sunningdale Avenue
Leigh on Sea, Essex SS9 1JZ
Tel/Fax 08700 736339 [REMEDY]
E-mail: info@a-r-h.org
Website: www.a-r-h.org

The Homeopathic and Meditative Proving of Emerald
By: Moya Ross and Sarah Campbell

Helios Homoeopathy, Tunbridge Wells, 2002
219 pp., p/b, ISBN 0-9530144-5-2

Reviewed by: Lynda Kenyon RSHom

‘It’s a proving Spock, but not as we know it’

Moya Ross and Sarah Campbell’s proving of the remedy Emerald is a tour de force by any standard, more thorough and detailed than many. The book has 12 chapters, which include material on the background inspiration for the remedy, as well as careful details of the manner in which the meditative provings were conducted. The authors are scrupulously transparent about their procedures, but sadly the meditations followed no rigorous protocols and are, therefore, of dubious value – as the authors concede.

There is much of merit in the book, including a number of different approaches to pulling out the themes of Emerald, but the mixture of the esoteric and the pragmatic can leave you reeling. Chapter 3 attempts a Scholtenian analysis of Emerald. This is juxtaposed against traditional methods of healing with emeralds and channelled information on Emerald from Gurudas’s Gem elixirs and vibrational healing. There is also an astrological reading for Emerald, based on its date and time of preparation, plus transcriptions of the meditative provings and a comparative materia medica.

It remains unclear from the proving methodologies how many provers actually took part in either the Hahnemannian or the meditative provings. The gender division is similarly vague. I’m sure this is an oversight, but we do really need this information to be included. By deduction I arrived at 15 provers for the Hahnemannian proving, one of whom was given placebo. Working out the proportions of male to female was more taxing than I cared to contemplate! Details of the prover’s response to the placebo are also included.

I was disappointed by the inconsistency of the protocols for the meditative proving. Of the six meditations, one was excluded from the proving because the team felt that the meditators had been unduly influenced by the music played. This was the music of Hildegard von Bingen, the eleventh-century nun whose healing work inspired the proving. Of the remaining five meditations, only two were entirely made up of individuals who did not know the remedy. However, the authors give clear outlines of the circumstances under which the meditative provings took place and the information from them is only included in a separate section, and in italics in the chapter on the themes of Emerald. We can still make up our own minds.

I especially liked the fact that the ‘Symptoms’ chapter was organised under rubric headings. This allowed me to take issue with the collators’ classification of symptoms, an opportunity not always provided. Classifying a proving diary is like case analysis – it is highly subjective. Yet most of us just take our materia medica for granted. Showing the rubric with its provenance allows us to be a bit less passive in our acceptance of the remedies we are using.

The book also contains a summative chapter on the themes of Emerald, which I found a bit disappointing. In Chapter 12 the authors remind us that ‘homeopathy is a holistic therapy treating people rather than disease’, but we still get the ‘Emerald is good for …’ approach. It is ironic that the movement towards a type of practice in which intuition is so important should lead to an allopathic approach, listing diseases and pathologies rather than characteristics of the remedy that apply across a range of diseases. As homeopaths it behoves us to remember our precepts. Let me draw your attention to Chapter 12 again:

‘Having so clearly felt the effects of Emerald spiritually I was somewhat bewildered to find that none of the remaining five in the group had a similar experience. ‘

‘I have tried to come to an understanding as to why for some people Emerald gives enhanced spiritual awareness and not others. ‘

Simillimum, susceptibility, resonance – this is still homeopathy we are talking about, isn’t it?

This book contains a good Hahnemannian proving and shows clearly the dedication and hard work of the authors and their proving team. Nevertheless, I think some of the material contained in it might more properly belong in the pages of our professional journals, where new ideas and concepts can be discussed in an atmosphere of constructive criticism.