Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

    In a discussion with doctors of different 'pathys, one aspect of homeopathy was reflected by many - that homeopathy is only the teachings of one man, whom the homeopaths hold up as 'God". Homeopathy has made no modern progress with the times, but is steeped in the teachings that are over 200 years old. Any deviation from the teachings of this one old man is considered non homeopathic.

    That, I'm afraid, was the general view. They largely accepted that homeopathy did work, in some instances, but how much better would it have been if it was allowed to evolve.

    Jeff Tikari

  • #2
    Originally posted by j tikari
    They largly accepted that homeopathy did work, in some instances
    That always seemed to me to be a very contradictory view. Either homeopathy works or it doesn't. I think the ones who say it only sometimes work don't really believe that it does. Otherwise, they would be more eager to learn how to use it effectively. Or they are still in a this-for-that mentality.

    Comment


    • #3
      Homoeopathy - the truth can't be destroyed

      Dear Dilweed,

      Those who say Homoeopathy rarely works are actually not skeptics. They just can't accept the plain truth before their eyes. In their innermost corners of mind, they will be brooding to have voted their life for a dangerous non healing system.

      bye

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

        Jeff, To say that homeopathy has made no progress is to miss a great deal of our history...

        Even if we do go with the view that "homeopathy" has a specific meaning which was set by its founder / inventor / discoverer, still that leaves a *huge* amount of room for development, and development has been taking place--newer remedies, progressively broader and deeper understanding of older remedies, additional methods of analysis and case management which can turn "incurable" into "curable", new methods of teaching, learning, information management...

        What are they objecting to, do you know? Do they see a lack of result, or are they piqued at the limits of the definition (which is certainly not universally accepted in any case), or are they simply unfamiliar with the field?

        (As to when "development" becomes "deviation" and thereby "non-homeopathic", that is--as we've seen!--a potentially complicated discussion, which couldn't / shouldn't possibly be of any interest to anyone outside t he field, should it? Why do they care, do you know???)

        Shannon

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

          Originally posted by j tikari
          In a discussion with doctors of different 'pathys,
          Where, exactly, is this "discussion" being held?


          Originally posted by j tikari
          one aspect of homeopathy was reflected by many
          Who, exactly?

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

            Originally posted by Shannon
            To say that homeopathy has made no progress is to miss a great deal of our history
            They are certainly not interested in history!

            Originally posted by Shannon
            Even if we do go with the view that "homeopathy" has a specific meaning which was set by its founder / inventor / discoverer,(?) still that leaves a *huge* amount of room for development,(?) and development has been taking place--newer remedies
            They too have newer remedies all the time

            Originally posted by Shannon
            progressively broader and deeper
            But the same form of application

            Originally posted by Shannon
            understanding of older remedies
            And SH didn't have that understanding?

            Originally posted by Shannon
            additional methods of analysis and case management which can turn "incurable" into "curable"
            What's new here?

            Originally posted by Shannon
            new methods of teaching, learning, information management...
            Still S.H's way- 200+ years old!

            Originally posted by Shannon
            What are they objecting to, do you know? Do they see a lack of result
            They are cynical

            Originally posted by Shannon
            or are they piqued at the limits of the definition (which is certainly not universally accepted in any case)
            It is, Shannon - accepted

            Originally posted by Shannon
            or are they simply unfamiliar with the field?
            Definitely unfamiliar

            Originally posted by Shannon
            (As to when "development" becomes "deviation" and thereby "non-homeopathic"
            What is non-homeopathic?

            Originally posted by Shannon
            that is--as we've seen!--a potentially complicated discussion, which couldn't / shouldn't possibly be of any interest to anyone outside t he field, should it? Why do they care, do you know???)
            Of course they care - their bread is being pulled from their mouths


            Jeff Tikari

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

              Originally posted by Kenneth
              Where, exactly, is this "discussion" being held?
              I just related what took place outside the National Television Centre in Delhi... does it matter, an awful lot, where it took place? Are we losing the point?

              Jeff

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by j tikari
                I just related what took place outside the National Television Centre in Delhi... does it matter, an awful lot, where it took place? Are we losing
                the point?
                I think it does matter (and thanks for passing it on). The statement made in India, in my opinion, has rather different ramifications than if it were made by a group of physicians here in the U.S. It was disappointing to me because I thought homeopathy was better accepted and understood by India's medical community.

                I still think it smacks of the attitude of saying someone is a little pregnant. Either you accept the most basic concept of like-cures-like, or you don't.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

                  Hi Shannon,

                  Originally posted by Shannon
                  To say that homeopathy has made no progress is to miss a great deal of our history...
                  Originally posted by Shannon
                  Even if we do go with the view that "homeopathy" has a specific meaning which was set by its founder / inventor / discoverer, still that leaves a *huge* amount of room for development, and development has been taking place--newer remedies, progressively broader and deeper understanding of older remedies, additional methods of analysis and case management which can turn "incurable" into "curable", new methods of teaching, learning, information management...
                  Does that mean you think that homeopaths have better results now than had Hahnemann, V. Boenninghausen, Hering, Kent, Nash, Burnett et al?

                  Regards

                  Luise

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

                    Hi Jeff,

                    (I'm working on reply to your last...) What was the occasion, tho? I'm interested that there was being such a heated public discussion about it!

                    Shannon

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

                      Originally posted by Luise
                      Does that mean you think that homeopaths have better results now than had Hahnemann, V. Boenninghausen, Hering, Kent, Nash, Burnett et al?
                      That would depend upon "which homeopaths", with "which patients", and "under what circumstances." Some do, some don't. I don't know enough to talk specifics.

                      But my understanding is that there were conditions that Kent called incurable, which some have since learned to cure.

                      One hopes that those with several decades of experience are starting to get a handle on "what works"...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

                        Hi Jeff,

                        Originally posted by j tikari
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        To say that homeopathy has made no progress is to miss a great deal of our history...
                        They are certainly not interested in history!
                        "History" was not the best word to use, but I think my meaning was explained. To make the statement misses the fact that a *great* deal has happened in the field. But if they have pre-judged and are not interested in *hearing* the facts, there's not much one can do...


                        Originally posted by j tikari
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        Even if we do go with the view that "homeopathy" has a specific meaning which was set by its founder / inventor / discoverer,(?) still that leaves a *huge* amount of room for development,(?) and development has been taking place--newer remedies
                        They too have newer remedies all the time
                        Sure, but that's neither here nor there. I would hope that progress is happening on both sides of the "fence". My only point was that, to say that nothing has changed in homeopathy is an extraordinarily misguided statement, and quite untrue.


                        Some practitioners make more use than others of new material, and some are actively opposed to anything that breaks out of what Hahnemann did and said. But that is a matter of personal choices within the broader framework, not something that is true of homeopathy as a whole, even if we define it pretty strictly. At least that is how it looks to me. What do *you* think? From what you know and see of homeopathy, do *you* think that nothing's changed in 200 years?

                        Originally posted by j tikari
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        progressively broader and deeper
                        But the same form of application
                        ?? By mouth / nose, you mean? If it works, why change it? Allopaths still give their meds by mouth too. ??? I don't think I understand...


                        Originally posted by j tikari
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        understanding of older remedies
                        And SH didn't have that understanding?
                        Did he know everything about each the remedies he used, and did he feel he had used and known every possibly useful remedy? No, certainly not, to both.


                        Originally posted by j tikari
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        additional methods of analysis and case management which can turn "incurable" into "curable"
                        What's new here?
                        Some will say that methods such as Eizayaga's, Ramakrishnan's, Sankaran's, Scholten's, etc., are all in that category. And yes I know that some say (some or any of) these are "not homeopathy", and IMO that is really a different discussion.


                        Originally posted by j tikari
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        new methods of teaching, learning, information management...
                        Still S.H's way- 200+ years old!
                        No... We have new materia medicas that present the information in different ways, with different emphasis, placing varying degrees of emphasis on various types of information (locals vs. generals vs. mentals vs. remedy relationships vs. "bigger picture" (for lack of a tidy term)...


                        We have computers, on-line databases, journals, additional provings, additional discussion about pros and cons of various approaches, ways of sharing experiences and insights.

                        Want to describe your understanding of "how Sam did it", and we can compare that with the present? I think we need to make this more concrete...

                        Originally posted by j tikari
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        What are they objecting to, do you know? Do they see a lack of result
                        They are cynical
                        So that cynicism has no basis except their own uninformed conversations, or ??


                        [QUOTE=j tikari]
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        or are they piqued at the limits of the definition (which is certainly not universally accepted in any case)
                        It is, Shannon - accepted]/QUOTE]?? Wow, this *list* can't even agree on a definition, so I'm eager to hear what that "universe" has decided on! :-))


                        Then are they figuring that everything they read about "homeopathy" refers only and precisely to strict Hahnemannian methods? That would evidence a HUGE lack of understanding of the present situation--don't you agree???

                        To some people, "homeopathy" means anything using potentized substances; to others, herbs can fairly be called "homeopathic" (honestly, I've seen it done!). To some people methods such as VOLL and Vegatesting are homeopathy, and to others they are not. Some make a distinction between "homeotherapeutics" and homeopathy, while others class them together. What definition are they using?

                        Originally posted by j tikari
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        or are they simply unfamiliar with the field?
                        Definitely unfamiliar
                        Well... If they are so cynical in absence of any familiarity at all with the subject, there's not a whole lot one can say. If they want to know about it, they will have to look into it. If all they want to is mouth about how backward and useless it is, then the usefulness of conversation might be limited.


                        I suppose the only hope of waking them up, will be to let them see some good results. And depending on where they are, I guess that might be harder, or easier... Or they could read...

                        Originally posted by j tikari
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        (As to when "development" becomes "deviation" and thereby "non-homeopathic"
                        What is non-homeopathic?
                        Well, this turns on what one takes as the definition of "homeopathy". As per discussions on the lists, some people (myself included, tho I am not so extreme as some) feel that the term should mean (at least more or less) what its founder / inventor / discoverer--the person who coined the term--intended it to mean: one remedy at a time, chosen based on "like cures like", given in minimum dose (potentization being an added tool, rather than actually defining; which is interesting, because in popular usage, at least in many places, anything involving potentized substances is called "homeopathy", regardless of how the remedy is chosen or what the goal is or etc.


                        So--"what is non-homeopathic" at this point certainly depends upon whom you ask.

                        Originally posted by j tikari
                        Originally posted by Shannon
                        that is--as we've seen!--a potentially complicated discussion, which couldn't / shouldn't possibly be of any interest to anyone outside t he field, should it? Why do they care, do you know???)
                        Of course they care - their bread is being pulled from their mouths
                        So they care about competing, not about understanding. Someone should explain, they will be better able to "compete", if they take the time to "understand"!


                        one leading light(a surgeon), said homeopathy was like the Masonic cult, steeped in secrecy and like an alchemists depraved belief in the occult - they all clapped. Did I have a chance? I made a surrepticious departure. They had closed ranks, they were secure in their infaliability.
                        Sounds that way. It's probably a discussion better carried on one-to-one, and then only with someone who is actually able to listen to what you're saying.


                        So... Basically what you are wondering is how one might spread *information* in an environment which is basically closed to receiving it. That's a tough one! That "leading light" remarks are so absurd that they would be easily countered--*if* anyone chose to listen, and *if* there were opportunity of speaking. But if neither possibility was there, then leaving does seem the most reasonable response. It's too bad...

                        Maybe there are opportunities to have that conversation one-on-one, or to give them chances to *see* homeopathy working. I don't know what to say on that--good luck!

                        Best,
                        Shannon

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

                          NDTV had a programme where the different forms of treatment was discussed. It was afterwards outside the studio that the discussion took place. There were about 8 doctors.

                          Jeff

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

                            Shannon I just reported what I heard. I am a homeopath and I believe in what I do.

                            Jeff

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: Homeopathy Vs Allopathy

                              Just for curiosity, was their reaction similar to treatment homeopathy got on the program (if any)?

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X