Practice of Homeopathy vs Polypharmacy & Marketing of Combination Rx

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Dr. Robert Bruck on August 6, 2009 at 5:37pm

Very interesting observations David. Hahnemann certainly was clear about what he said!!

Permalink Reply by david hartley on August 7, 2009 at 7:15pm

Hi Robert,

Yes, Dr. Hahnemann was nothing if not clear and emphatic in the area of SINGLE remedy as sole means of homeopathic practice.
When studied in depth, the whole system of homeopathy arises from Hahnemann's writings in similarly CLEAR manner .. I have yet to hear of someone who has deeply studied Hahnemann and other "classical" homeopathic literature, and then successfully put this into practice..
-who has then gone on to refute any part of the extremely coherent & consistent system of homeopathy per se.

Permalink Reply by Debby Bruck on August 6, 2009 at 11:22pm

Dear David ~ I will take your lead and read this aphorism in the next 30-Day audio file. However, for some reason I take a more lenient stand of some points.

1) I had written in an earlier post at the onset of this problem that it was the pharmacy at fault for not divulging the ingredients. Truth in Labeling.

2) Classical Homeopathy abides by the laws and principles as set out in the Organon. That is definitely the 'orthodox' way to practice and the only way that should be called "homeopathic" when the similimum is found. In fact, Dr. Robin Murphy taught many years ago, that giving a remedy that is not the similimum is not 'homeopathic' - meaning that it is not THE REMEDY that is homeopathic, but the dynamic relationship between individual living body and the selected remedy.

3) Hahnemann, himself a great investigator of all things, continually perfected and developed his methods as he gained knowledge in his era. I truly wonder what he would do, think, teach and preach now that we live in this highly polluted environment in all things? Would he experiment with combinations? Would he test all methods possible to attract new believers? We are dealing with a population of people thinking that 'popping a pill' is the cure to all ills. That they can eat whatever they want of fats, sweets, salts, drugs, smoking, etc. because they have a little pill to lower or raise a number on a page. How would Hahnemann deal with this problem?

4) So perhaps it is not exactly cutting off the roots, but just a little pruning, to slowly enable more people to try homeopathy, even if it is the 'reform' method. In a way, I call this "forgiveness." Being a little softer in approach and making adjustments as necessary.

5) Just to note that I practice using the one remedy approach because I feel it is most scientific and makes it easier to determine if the remedy is actually working or when to change to a new one.

Permalink Reply by david hartley on August 7, 2009 at 5:06am

Dear Debby,

In your item #2
I don't have any text in front of me in which Robin Murphy may be quoted as you have done, and so am responding only to what you posted;
With rare exception, homeopathic practice, as per Hahnemann's Organon AND
the overwhelming bulk of homeopathic literature.. Materia Medica, Repertory, books of clinical experience, ad infinitum..
include the philosophy (with Organon as primary/essential foundation) which, when studied and then put into practice, becomes "the search for the Simillimum" in any particular case, at any given time in which we are seeing the client.

In the 'homeopathic anamnesis' we discover "who" is the sufferer, "what" s/he is suffering, "where" s/he is so afflicted, "with what" concomitant symptoms does the suffering arise, "why" s/he is suffering (chronic miasm exacerbated by xyz? .. newly acquired acute miasm? .. 'first aid' related?), "how" the suffering expresses as modified in modalities, and "when" (how the suffering exhibits temporally related patterning)

Prepared with this body of facts, interpretations, and impressions about the individual and his/her suffering (state of dis-ease; lack of easy expression of health as normally mediated by "in-tune" / "balanced" vital force)
we set about to discover a dynamic medicine which is homeopathic to what we have observed as "the state of dis-ease."

Whether we perfectly hit upon "the simillimum" (and one would debate forever on the degree of 'perfection' of 'simillimum' in any give instance, but it is better to remember similia simillibus currentur "like cures like" -and so the debate about "exact" simillimum is not only completely theoretical, it is a moot point.)

What Samuel Hahnemann teaches us in the Organon (aphorisms 16 -18) is that "dis-ease" is caused by "mis-tunement" of the "vital force.. the indwelling spirit-like dynamis" which appears to act in a quasi mechanical fashion, keeping the various systems of the body within a relative homeostasis: "health" .. if the VF is "so tuned."
"CURE" is brought about by evoking a "re-attunement" of the VF by exposing it to dynamic "medicinal disease" (dynamic similia.. "homeopathic remedy") ...whereby the "stronger" dynamic dis-tunement .. replaces the weaker "natural" dis-tunement (which the VF had for whatever reason been unable to properly mitigate toward homeostatic health) ... this "primary impetus" of the dynamic medicinal substance upon the VF then evokes the curative "secondary response" .. where the re-attuned VF reasserts; homeopathic homeostasis is restored.

Lesser degrees of similitude .. so-called "partial simillimum"
(a bit of a contradiction in terms !) acts ONLY in "homeopathic manner" .. as this is, according to Samuel Hahnemann, the very nature of the dynamism in the VF by which we are able to effect faster or slower "cure" ... the famous "zig zag" toward cure created by a series of "near misses" in degree of homeopathicity does not modify this (only) actual mode of dynamic re-attunement (homeopathic..) -but only speaks to the combination of skillfulness in the practitioner during anamnesis, remedy selection, and case management (including posology [dose related])
-----
Re: your item #3
Many people have laid claim to Hahnemann's level of investigative / inventive brilliance.
There are None that I am aware of .. who have had considerable success with the methods of Hahnemann and nearly all of the authors of literature prior to the past decade or two .. and then gone on to make any alteration in the basic philosophy as set out by Hahnemann in Organon, Chronic Diseases, etc.
ALL of those who I am aware of who made great literary contributions to homeopathy were VERY CLEAR in giving homage to Hahnemann, and expressing their contributions as DERIVATIVE works rather than major INNOVATION.

Many people have made the claim that we have now many toxic inputs which did not exist in Hahnemann's time. Sure, fine. I cannot see how that changes the FUNDAMENTAL manner in which the VF mediates homeopathic cure.
How many of the people making claims about all the toxic inputs have done common-sense correlation of those claims with undeniable facts that in Hahnemann's time, the city streets had open sewers running along them, and there were none of the ubiquitous systems of public clean water such as we enjoy today ?

I have heard these arguments ONLY from people who in my humble opinion had NEVER achieved any depth of understanding nor successful practice of Hahnemann's brainchild: Homeopathy, as it has been handed down to us prior to the arrogation of the name "homeopathy" by these by-and-large FAILED homeopaths, who then wish to run off with the name homeopathy, and practice in some routinist fashion which suits there mentality and skillset !


4) I believe many more people have said "oh, I tried that homeopathy and it doesn't work"
-as a result of encounter with a combination remedy or some other NOT-homeopathy .. than people who have been swayed toward homeopathy by such.
I am willing to be informed that this is not the case .. but my own experiences with "the public" have yielded the viewpoint that:
If we sacrifice our principles in hopes of greater marketshare, we become architects of our own doom.

5) Yes, it is not hard to voice some simple expression as to why it is painfully stupid to practice polypharmacy. Hahnemann has laid the theory out so that it very elegantly starts with basics and builds to a complete edifice known as HOMEOPATHY .. I hope that Hahnemann's condemnation of "mongrelism" and "half-homeopaths" as well as his crystal clear definition of homeopathy as a method SOLELY applied by using SINGLE remedies .. is not carelessly excised from his message !
IMHO, if homeopathy is to take its place as "the medicine of the 21st century" it will be by applying rather than sacrificing our principles.

warm wishes,
david hartley

Permalink Reply by tihana buterin on August 7, 2009 at 11:55am

I don't know about this event, but about the reality which is full of combination remedies promoted as homeopathy..... 1 remedy is logic and simple, it covers so many symptoms. More remedies at once is unlogic and unnecessary and it can lead to disturbance and chaos, or? So the existance of combination remedies is opposite to real homeopathy and it can lead many people to wrong direction about homeopathy.

Permalink Reply by DR. SUBHAS SINGH on September 24, 2009 at 4:35am

Dear Dr. David and Debby,
It is so heart warming that there still people (though in a glorius minority-as per Kent) who still read, understand and practice homoeopathyas it is instructed by Hahnemann. People may call us (allow me to include myself) 'fanatic', 'orthodox' and what not. But friends, if this is fanaticism or orthodox, then we are proud to be so.
But, again, why be disheartened? When such people were not there who in name of Homoeopathy wre doing manythings which can be anything but Homoeopathy. Even, hahnemann was aware that there are and always will be such people. Probably that is why he made further addition to the footnote of aphorism 67.
My salute to you and all who think similarly.

Permalink Reply by DR RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH on September 24, 2009 at 10:02am

Dr Subhash Singh,
If this is orthodox or Fanaticism ,then everybody should be like that.Patent medicines or mixture of medicines are Blots on the name of Homeopathy, as they violet basic Tenets of homeopathy. These preparations are Driven By Personal /company's business goals and has nothing to do with Homeopathy.

Permalink Reply by DR RAVINDRA KUMAR SINGH on September 24, 2009 at 10:04am

Dear Dr. David, kudos to you for bringing such a important topic for discussion .

Permalink Reply by PANDARINATHAN K Dr on October 30, 2009 at 11:33am

I uphold your opinion

Permalink Reply by Furqan Syed on December 2, 2009 at 8:24am

Hi Everyone,

I was expecting some real discussion with facts than reading opinions as to who agrees to the Classical Homeopathy and who doesn't.

The issue is "If Homeopathy is only the homeopathy of Singulars ? What is the concept of Miasm ? where does that come from then ? why was it needed ?" How could you define miasms with set of particular symptoms ?

Ofcourse due to the reason that Singulars were not effective at many places though indicated. So to give a NON-INDICATED REMEDY (anti-miasmatic or what ever you choose to call it as I still don't follow nomencalture concept)at rare intervals would CLARIFY the symptoms or LET the indicated remedy work better. (Is it the right concept ?).

Founders of homeopathy were doing research and recording things to be used till end of this world and they had to be precise and singular, non-confusing. At application level the debate persists. (So do the results). Forget about single rubrics.

How about sending me an email of a condition of patient that I describe to you all. Do you think all of us would give the same answer ? Can we name a single remedy together ?

Who is in for this test ?
F.

Permalink Reply by Debby Bruck on December 2, 2009 at 10:39am

Dear Fuquan ~ If you would like to present a case, please go to CASES GROUP or else Start a new FORUM DISCUSSION with the Main Idea in the title. Put the discussion under the appropriate category that you see fits. Sounds like fun.

Permalink Reply by Dr Shashi Mohan Sharma on December 13, 2009 at 3:26am

Dear David,

Thank you for your honest and bold opinion. I always advocate all homeopaths to follow the Master Hahnemann. If someone call himself/herself a homeopath, then they should follow the teachings of the master.

I never failed following his instructions, but we may fail, if we are not selecting a proper similimum, potency or dosage (posology). I see many homeopaths are just keep repeating the same remedy, without the knowledge of primary and secondary actions, where primary action is caused by the administration of selected homeopathic similimum, and once it is in effect, (sometimes noticed by the aggravated symptoms and in some cases reduction in the intensity of symptoms as a quick secondary action follows, especially in acute cases) then no further dosage must be administered. The primary action is seen in association with the vital forece (our internal living energy), which in response to medicinally produced symptoms in higher intensity will slowly subsides or the cure ensues. People some time ask me, how come more severe or intensified and aggravated symptomd are controlled and annihilated by the same vital force, which could not overcome the disease earlier. It is worth to explain, that the actual diseases are caused by the enimical and morbid agents, which are hostile to the vital force, which controls and disturbs the normal functioning of the vital force, and certain symptoms are noticed ( these symtoms are the cry of the vital force for the help, and a perfect arrangement made by the almighty God and nature signalling us to manage or response) and after the employment of Homeopathic remedy in the some what higher potency (power), similar artificial symptoms are produced for the time being , depending on the potency of the remedy. Thee artificially intensified symptoms contrls the real morbid disease and by the time these intensified symptoms subsides itself.

Master Hahnemann clearly mentioned in the "Organon of Medicine" Aphorism No. 33. When two similar diseases meet in the living organism and the later one is in more intensity, then it will overpower or annihilate the weaker one. All true Homeopathic cures are based on this scientific procedure. So we must understand and follow this truth.

I am impressed with your last line "A tree cut off from it's roots cannot survive, let alone thrive!"

With best wishes to all true followers of the master.