Recently, I heard that people want to leave, because the Hahnemannians among us seem to be fed up. I have had heated discussions myself with those whom I consider have deviated from the classical path as the Great Master Hahnemann has set out for us.
I am well aware
that homoeopathy was not finished with Hahnemann, but that does not mean that suddenly he has become obsolete or that we should abandon the principles as so painstakingly set out by him.
He was a flawless experimenter and he has shown everyone of us the way forward in homoeopathy. That does not mean we shall follow our own egos and create a so-called system that purports to be simpler than that of Hahnemann, but that strictly within the parameters as set out by him, we find ways to refine the classical way.
If we claim that homoeopathy is a science,
then we must be scientific about its development and stick closely to the rules of the science, lest we become not only the laughing stock, but be destroyed by internal division. If history is any lesson, then we should look back to the experience of the homoeopathic community in the USA, about 120 years back. There the division was small, compared to the present day - it was the users of high potency versus the users of low potencies and that internal division made then unaware of the concerted attack on homoeopathy instigated by the AMA. They were utterly destroyed.
we face a similar challenge and the livelihood of all homoeopaths is at stake - not just in the USA, but worldwide. Not just the classical types or those that deviate from the scientific principles, but also the MD's that use homoeopathy. So to all the system builders out there, you are doing homoeopathy - AND YOURSELF MORE THAN ANYONE ELSE - A DISSERVICE WITH YOUR SYSTEM BUILDING, because you increase the internal division, under the guise of progress. Instead of simplifying homoeopathy, you make it more complicated, because you confuse the students, who are now faced with several systems, that all claim to be better than the original and have abysmal records of cure. If today a case is taken, almost all homoeopaths and those who claim the name, will come up with a different remedy. THAT IS AN INDICATION THAT WE HAVE STRAYED FROM THE SCIENTIFIC INTO THE SPECULATIVE. IT IS THE SYMPTOM THAT INDICATES THE DISEASE THAT HAS ATTACKED HOMOEOPATHY FROM WITHIN.
If we work
according to Hahnemann's Organon and Chronic Diseases, the majority will come up with the same remedy - in Dr Jahr's experience this was still the case in 1840. Today, that scientific uniformity has been lost, due to the system builders.
When I came to HWC, there were but a few hundred members, while today we have well over 2000. The other day I explained to someone who thought we need to redefine homoeopathy along medical scientific principles. This was my answer:
Totality of symptoms cannot be put aside for so-called 'scientific' theory. Nor for systems theory. Totality of symptoms is rooted in practise. Vital force as explained by Hahnemann denotes the animating soul in one instance and the defense mechanism in another. It is easy to distinguish between the two. All we need to do is explain Organon in more modern language, but it does not make the concepts less true, nor does it mean witchcraft.
People using the term witchcraft are the ones living in the 13th century, not us who practise homoeopathy. We need not at all cater to the rigid orthodox desire for classification - that is simply a bookkeeper's exercise. We are healers, not bookkeepers. We need to get away from the idea that we
shall have to cater to the orthodox wishes and we need to move in the direction where WE determine the parameters of the debate on OUR TERMS.
There is no need to cower to the demands of so-called scientific rigidity of the orthodox, which is simply a system of classification, enumeration and ordering. That is all there is to it. We are standing on the shoulders of giants and therefore can see further than orthodox rigidity. So we should not fearfully try to live up to their quasi-standard, but establish our own as fearlessly as Hahnemann did in his day.
Hahnemann already proved the scientific basis of homoeopathy with his rigid tests. He did so from 220 years back. Why do we always succumb to the demands of orthodoxy? We can turn it easily around - test allopathic drugs on healthy people and use them on the sick on basis of totality and they will all miserably fail. So who has the better science?
The question was whether we need to prove once and
for all the superiority of homoeopathy through RCTs.
better models than that. I just gave an example how our remedies cannot easily be proved by a non-system that uses the RCT. We individualise and they generalise.
What the RCT teaches is the
If modern medicine wants to try out a certain homoeopathic remedy, it
is for the purpose of deriding homoeopathy and the attempt to put another nail in its coffin. Invariably the headline in the paper
screams: ARNICA STILL USELESS, CHAMOMILLA NOT A PAINKILLER, EVENING PRIMROSE NOT HRT REPLACEMENT and so on. Then triumphantly, the article goes on to tell us that at 15% the remedy appeared not to be better than placebo. That is as far as any RCT is ever investigated and understood.
are we to believe that is the only thing we can learn from this RCT? If this were so, it would be a pisspoor type of test, which we do better without and replace with its real implications.
If 15% has benefited
from this remedy, then the statistics command they should investigate that
15% to discover what common charactersistics they had that made Arnica work. Once these characteristics are collated, they would know that anyone presenting with those characteristics will immediately be helped by Arnica. Thus they can have a 100% sucess rate with that same remedy that in a RCT will not score more than 15% Thus the RCT teaches INDIVIDUALISATION.
is what the so-called medical scientific community simply overlooks - THE REAL IMPLICATIONS OF THE RCT.
I ask you, how scientific is that?
Does everybody understand the implications
about what is scientific and what isnot? Therefore WE have to FRAME THE PARAMETERS OF THE DEBATE ON OUR TERMS. And these terms have to be
uniform. We cannot confront the enemy without a united front. THIS MEANS WE HAVE TO ABANDON THE SYSTEMS AND COME BACK TO OUR ROOTS, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE WILL ALL BE DESTROYED.
terms are simply nothing but bookkeeper's exercises, which have no other value than what can be ascribed to them - classification, quantification and enumeration. Bugs and pus and chemical messes; they are only quasi real. Their attempt is to include everything into this classification.
could be a real science if there was anything to be scientific about. Science is supposed to be
inclusive, but they have turned it into an exclusive club. Not to add knowledge, but to enumerate, classify and quantify. Anything that falls outside of those parameters is deemed not scientific!! What a joke!
they have adopted Avogadro's limit, which tells you nothing more than the amount of molecules in a dilution. They want something they can see with the eye and be felt with the fingers. Anything outside their sensory realm is deemed non-existent. They call us empiricists, but they are the greatest empiricists themselves.
When we present our
homoeopathy according to their scientific evidence - NMR, RLS, dielectric constant, materials science, nanophase particles in the remedies, quantum mechanics at work in the
remedies, and so on, they will "repeat" the experiment and then calibrate every measuring device slightly different and come back and say the experiment could not be reproduced.
There are 400 quality
RCT's that prove homoeopathy to be much better than placebo, but they
always fall back on Shang's meta-analysis, which has been debunked by the scientific community as completely flawed and inaccurate. Even when we present evidence from their own peer-reviewed magazines and publications, they deny them.
There is a saying - none so blind
as those that do not want to see. THAT IS ALSO THE CASE WITH THOSE THAT FOLLOW THE MODERN SYSTEMS. Our opponents, whom I call conventionalists and homoeophobes, simply refuse to accept they could be wrong. AND AMONG THE HOMOEOPATHIC COMMUNITY WE DISCOVER THE SAME ATTITUDE. Therefore, we have to frame the debate on HAHNEMANN'S terms, and for the rest simply beat them at their own game - overwhelm them with irrefutable results. 400 tests have been meta-analysed and found to have a success rate of 63%. Their own drugs have been meta-analysed and found to have a success rate of 13%.
I ask again, who has the
better science? CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY!
To conclude, I am
staying here at HWC and take the stand, and I ask my fellow Hahnemannians to stay also, if only to educate those that have gone astray and lead them back to the flock. UNITED WE STAND. DIVIDED WE FALL!