ARTICLE: Discussion of Homeopathic Methods: Part One
Dear all,
This is response to the excellent questions of Angelique Aliman. Thanks also for the balanced answer of Dr. Tim Shannon. But in my opinion we need to scrutinize this debate a little more.
First of all: of course the result is the proof in the pudding! I am with Tim. And I am not so preposterous to say that the dry method of the 4th edition cannot bring forwards results. Every homeopath indeed wants only one thing: the cure of his patient, I never doubt even the motivation of every homeopath I met, since they chose a difficult profession. But I am also of the opinion that my allopathic medical colleagues mainly are practicing out of love for mankind. But does that mean an approval of all they are doing?
First of all: of course the result is the proof in the pudding! I am with Tim. And I am not so preposterous to say that the dry method of the 4th edition cannot bring forwards results. Every homeopath indeed wants only one thing: the cure of his patient, I never doubt even the motivation of every homeopath I met, since they chose a difficult profession. But I am also of the opinion that my allopathic medical colleagues mainly are practicing out of love for mankind. But does that mean an approval of all they are doing?
Do different methods have the same result is the first question. They ALL can have results (even good ones) but certainly the way the homeopath came to the desired result is NOT the same. Let me explain for the readers of this article (and to those homeopaths that want a fair dialogue) what these differences will be. Keep in mind that 90% of the world still practices according to the 4th dry dose method. Indeed Tim you can get a result with the 4th edition but what happens in comparison with the 5th and 6th edition?
1. The 4th edition prescriber WANTS a similar aggravation (for the reader, an aggravation of the patient's symptoms) since it tells him, he has the right remedy (which does not mean our wanted simillimum which is the right remedy, right dose and right potency). The 5th and 6th edition prescriber wants to minimize and even totally avoid this similar aggravation. You can only imagine what that does for the patient. Let's say you have an eczema case responding to Mezereum: the picture of such eczema is an extreme violent itching at night, "as if thousands ants crawl under the skin." The child is usually in a restraint as not to scratch himself but usually the patient presents with a face that is one bloody mess, infecting easily...Imagine you aggravate such child (4th edition): imagine the agony of such child and the parents alike! Does the homeopath think he can keep such patient after the first aggravating dose? Too many patients have been lost forever to homeopathy. Imagine as I had also the violent ADHD (a name!) child that wants to kill his father and sister so he can marry his mother. You aggravate him and he will kill them!
2. The 4th edition prescriber MUST wait after his first dry dose till he is sure that no more improvement of the remedy can be expected as is dictated in the 4th edition Organon. The 5th and 6th edition prescriber can redose the patient WHILE having improvement (A246), speeding therefore the cure to half or less of the time. This dosing is more in line with allopathy except for one difference: we always will do a TEST dose (first dose) and check with the patient one day later to determine the interval in which the remedy will be given. As you can see, this is very different from individual to individual which is a must! Some practitioners boast that they use the watery methods but let the patient take a dose every day till the bottle is empty without checking on their patient. This mechanical repetition has NO place in a good homeopathic practice. So the 4th edition loses much time trying to achieve a cure leading again to a loss of patients which he could have kept had he followed Hahnemann's last methods.
3. The 4th edition prescriber is deadly afraid of many events/substances canceling his one time given remedy (first dose) while waiting till the effect has ceased. Therefore he put many restrictions on his patient regarding diet and allopathic medications, even other modalities like TCM (Acupuncture). Even in the case of cancellation of the remedy during the treatment, the 5th and 6th practitioner repeats the remedy at determined intervals therefore suffers little from these cancellations as each next dose will pick up the action on the Vital Force again.
4. In case of similar aggravation, the advanced prescriber easily adjusts the second dose which can already be given on the third day, not three weeks later as the 4th edition prescriber does. He has many possibilities adjusting the dose (the amount, succussions or potency, 2nd cup, giving drops from the bottle and cup while the only remedy the 4th edition prescriber has is either canceling the remedy or trying to give a lower potency to slow down the aggravation. Either way is losing time again which is a concern for the patient and possibility to lose him.
5. The management of homeopathy which is difficult is made much more difficult for the 4th edition prescriber since he has less options available for correction.
6. The watery methods are more sufficient for longtime suppressed cases (through allopathic meds and even homeopathy) and for cases on the border of curability.
4. In case of similar aggravation, the advanced prescriber easily adjusts the second dose which can already be given on the third day, not three weeks later as the 4th edition prescriber does. He has many possibilities adjusting the dose (the amount, succussions or potency, 2nd cup, giving drops from the bottle and cup while the only remedy the 4th edition prescriber has is either canceling the remedy or trying to give a lower potency to slow down the aggravation. Either way is losing time again which is a concern for the patient and possibility to lose him.
5. The management of homeopathy which is difficult is made much more difficult for the 4th edition prescriber since he has less options available for correction.
6. The watery methods are more sufficient for longtime suppressed cases (through allopathic meds and even homeopathy) and for cases on the border of curability.
The bottom line: the 5th and 6th edition prescriber is much more equipped to give the patient what Hahnemann promised in A2: A speedy, permanent and mild cure.
Maybe some of the other homeopaths can tell me why then they still practice according to the 4th edition? Who is stubborn and dogmatic here? There is not one reason except that there is less work for the homeopath but that is a rather selfish reason.
Now I don't agree with Dr. Shannon that these discussions make not real contributions. What is written in our Organon is important. More important is why most don't practice with these advanced methods? I am not just quoting from a book like Dr. Shannon might suggest. I started as a 4th edition prescriber and saw quickly the difficulties. Besides having tested what Hahnemann did for us, on thousands of patients, I have hundreds of letters from allover the world from practitioners who tell me that even when they had success before, switching to these methods changed their practice overnight: better results, easier on the patients, more cooperation with the patients and more permanent cures. It remains a mystery to me then that so many homeopaths don't even try. What are they afraid of? I don't call this a wast of time like Dr. Shannon does.
I agree with Dr. Shannon regarding results and bias unless we can see the outcomes. I would say to all teachers: indeed do a new live case you don't know in front of your students, and see that patient back every month to see how he is doing! Not only is that fair and imitates the real practice, but it is a must for the student to learn management. And when you quote Dr. Shannon A1 footnote, Hahnemann does not talk about homeopaths, he does talk about the allopaths of his time, quite a difference! I invite you to read the old journals and all the old masters were quite good at what you call "squabbling" over theories and not afraid to get into a dialogue. No doubt we must transcend the Organon. And what method have you found that transcend the 6th edition of the Organon and what aphorism is wrong? I am waiting for your answer. I also pose to you the question: send me one well taken case that you needed the "new" methods for as you could not resolve that case with what you call the "old" methods, referring to the basic laws of homeopathy in Chronic Diseases and the Organon. The algorithms and aphorisms you refer to ARE the guidelines. .I agree with the compassion and empathy a homeopath must have and much more than that (especially some humility). Precisely this aspect should interest the homeopath in methods that are better (at least one should try to see for himself).
I teach to my students five different methods but they are all based on our ground principles set forth in the Organon (not one I call "Dr Luc's" method as I also besides miasms, Periodic Table based on provings I use Jung's phenomenal work to understand my patient better). I also wonder why not more homeopaths learn the wonderful von Boeninghausen method. It is so much more practical in the clinic than applying some of these new methods.
The other questions are fairly easy to answer. Every homeopath administering one remedy with the smallest dose, and a remedy that is potentized and proven practices "classical" homeopathy.but as you can see there is quite a difference if you practice according to 4th, 5th or 6th edition. When I teach 5 different methods I have quite enough possibilities to see what method might have more success on the presenting symptoms of the patient and sometimes more than one method fits. For instance, if the chief complaint is a physical one (say chronic migraines) and there are many modalities (means migraine worse with and better with, and causality and time) then a von Boeninghausen method (VB) has never disappointed me. If however we deal with an autistic child, this method has little to offer except for acute illnesses that such child might suffer from.
The greatest danger to Homeopathy is not so much these new methods of Sankaran or Scholten: they will fall away as time goes if they are not based on solid grounds. Time will tell. But I don't need these methods in my practice. What the facts already show lately is that many practitioners quit their practice after one or two years out of school. Why? Because they did not have results obviously and yet often the only methods they learned are the new ones! . . I think it is also wise to listen to people like Sheri Nakken (I just read her comments) who through her passionate work regarding vaccinations hears back from many patients she referred dissatisfied with their practitioners. And the comments as she states, are not always about bedside manners.
I welcome any further dialogue because I DO think this is not a wast of time.Patients deserve the right info, we are not in the ages where the doctor's word is law. And to those homeopaths who still practice the 4th edition, I ask you to use common sense, flexibility and kindness and to follow Hering's dictum: never reject anything without trying. You have only to gain in your practice! Contrary to what you might think, discussions like we have now here would not be necessary if we all start on the same page and have respect for Hahnemann who truly finished all the principles of a science in his life time.
The other questions are fairly easy to answer. Every homeopath administering one remedy with the smallest dose, and a remedy that is potentized and proven practices "classical" homeopathy.but as you can see there is quite a difference if you practice according to 4th, 5th or 6th edition. When I teach 5 different methods I have quite enough possibilities to see what method might have more success on the presenting symptoms of the patient and sometimes more than one method fits. For instance, if the chief complaint is a physical one (say chronic migraines) and there are many modalities (means migraine worse with and better with, and causality and time) then a von Boeninghausen method (VB) has never disappointed me. If however we deal with an autistic child, this method has little to offer except for acute illnesses that such child might suffer from.
The greatest danger to Homeopathy is not so much these new methods of Sankaran or Scholten: they will fall away as time goes if they are not based on solid grounds. Time will tell. But I don't need these methods in my practice. What the facts already show lately is that many practitioners quit their practice after one or two years out of school. Why? Because they did not have results obviously and yet often the only methods they learned are the new ones! . . I think it is also wise to listen to people like Sheri Nakken (I just read her comments) who through her passionate work regarding vaccinations hears back from many patients she referred dissatisfied with their practitioners. And the comments as she states, are not always about bedside manners.
I welcome any further dialogue because I DO think this is not a wast of time.Patients deserve the right info, we are not in the ages where the doctor's word is law. And to those homeopaths who still practice the 4th edition, I ask you to use common sense, flexibility and kindness and to follow Hering's dictum: never reject anything without trying. You have only to gain in your practice! Contrary to what you might think, discussions like we have now here would not be necessary if we all start on the same page and have respect for Hahnemann who truly finished all the principles of a science in his life time.
The truth always survives!
Dr Luc
