As a prelude to this subjective report I think it only fair to mention my background and prejudices. I learned homoeopathy through Dr. Raymond Seidel, a Hahnemann Hospital graduate, and through the National Center School of Instruction at Millersville. For the eight years I was studying and being treated by Dr. Seidel, he rarely went over the 6X potency although at times he went up to a 200. He cleared a chronic urinary infection that I had with a 2X combination tablet. I've used low potencies and I've used combinations. They seem to work. I've been treated on a constitutional level with high potencies, and they seem to work also. My bias runs to a strict Hahnemannian and Kentian way of looking at things: the simillimum, the single remedy, the minimum dose. I've read, re-read, and am still reading the Organon and Kent's Philosophy. They make more and more sense on each reading. So- from that point...
An update to much of this can be found in the final chapters of my book The Faces of Homeopathy.
One of the problems I have encountered is that there are many practices which are thought to be "homoeopathic" but are not-- for various reasons. The use of homoeopathic remedies alone does not constitute homoeopathy. It is homoeopathy only if the remedy is selected on the basis of its similarity to the case.
One group of people who see themselves as homoeopaths are those who have been
trained by Dr. Voll in the use of the "Dermatron" and Electrical Acupuncture/Voll
(EAV). Harris Coulter points out in an article in the AMERICAN HOMOEOPATH that
the correct use of EAV demands a lengthy study of Chinese philosophy, a comprehensive
knowledge of acupuncture points and their interrelations, and a knowledge of
the Homoeopathic Materia Medica. This is not the reality of what I saw. I found
that with few exceptions the practitioners of EAV have little knowledge of homoeopathy
and certainly no interest in the single remedy concept. I was told of a case
of a woman in Tucson, Arizona who consulted an EAV practitioner in Chicago.
She was given one injection a day, for ten days, of well over 50 potencies.
When she complained, after the second treatment, that she was feeling worse,
the reply was, "homoeopathy can't possibly hurt you". She finally
sought out the help of another homoeopath. The prognosis was not good as the
case was quite disrupted by this time.
There has always been talk of getting "science" to a point where we
can measure the energy fields of the body, detect the imbalances in the field,
and select the proper energy (read: remedy) that can restore the body to homoeostasis.
Most classical homoeopaths see this as a possibility in the far future. Most
EAV people think that they have it now. May I suggest that the truth lies somewhere
between?
Let me draw an analogy between homoeopathy and EAV. If homoeopathy was practiced
as I have seen EAV practiced, the doctor would look up the rubrics in the repertory
(let's say there were six guiding symptoms), select the first remedy in each
rubric that was in bold type, and give a dose consisting of those six remedies.
No effort would be made to see if there was one remedy common to all six rubrics.
It is possible to use an EAV machine as a diagnostic tool but homoeopathic principles
must be observed.
There is another problem. The EAV I have seen is inherently a very allopathic
approach to the body. A "spleen meridian" is checked to see if there
is an imbalance of that part. What you arrive at is a diagnosis based on sick
parts. Many diagnoses are made on the basis of isopathic remedies without checking
to see if another remedy can also "normalize" the reading. As an example,
I offer the case of the pharmacist who was diagnosed with an EAV. It was found
that he had tularemia in his background since the reading on the meter was able
to be "normalized" by putting a TULAREMIA NOSODE in the field. Tularemia,
according to Dorland's Medical Dictionary, is a "plague like disease, quite
infectious, characterized by chills, weakness, fever, and lassitude". The
pharmacist, aware of those symptoms and also aware that he had been grinding
GELSEMIUM root earlier that day, asked that GELSEMIUM be tried in the machine.
The operator was surprised when GELSEMIUM was able to "normalize"
the reading. What should that tell us about the symptoms of tularemia and those
of GELSEMIUM poisoning? The operator should have known and understood that relationship.
The problem is that many of the practitioners of EAV are technicians rather
than healers. In my discussions with Tariq Kuraishy, he pointed out that the
practitioner of EAV has to understand homoeopathy to know what the readings
are about. It was like, he said, using a calculator. If you put in 14 x 10 and
come out with 28 instead of 140, you have to know that the answer is wrong and
not believe the calculator. The machine is only as good as the operator. Tariq
is now working on a new machine (called the Accupath) in conjunction with the
Health Research Institute in Nevada.
I did not get a chance to visit the Las Vegas Clinic in my travels. I did hear
that they make use of multiple remedies. Most classical homoeopaths would see
such practice as suppressive therapy-- the patients are feeling better only
because the disease is being driven inward. Only time will tell about their
results. What is needed are some studies which are done with a classical homoeopathic
approach and an EAV diagnosis. A case should be taken and then explored via
the EAV. If the remedy selected by these techniques is identical and the patient
has a curative response, then after a number of successes (Dr. George Guess
suggested that 100 hits would be good evidence) then the use of the EAV might
be justified. The problem with this is that very few of the EAV practitioners
subscribe to a single remedy approach. Any test which makes use of polypharmacy
would not be considered valid by the classical stalwarts.
I trust that Tariq can bring some classical sense to the use of these machines.
It is important to realize, as Tariq pointed out, that the EAV Dermatron is
a very primitive machine. It is a beginning, but only that. The problem I see
is that the users of the EAV are so zealous that they fail to see the shortcomings
of the practice. They have faith in the machine and know little of homoeopathic
materia medica. It is a dangerous combination. Until a time when the machines
get more sophisticated and can measure the subtle energy of the mentals as well
as the physical meridians, I would have to say that the EAV I am acquainted
with is not homoeopathy.
A problem that exists with all the offshoots of homoeopathic practice they
EAV, Radionics, etc. is that all of them are mechanistic approaches to the body.
Going through a standard medical education (and living in our culture) so ingrains
the concept of parts of the body getting sick that it is hard to break away
from that model. As Kent pointed out, when you think NAME you think REMEDY.
There are few out there who can make the break.
There were two people I met who were using "Voll" type machines in
unique ways. Dr. Abram Ber in Phoenix, Arizona is using a Dermatron to select
a single remedy in a single potency. He is giving a single dose and then waiting
a month for a follow up. He has found that the only time the machine will indicate
more than one remedy is when one of them has a miasmatic nosode as a base- Psorinum,
Medorrhinum, Syphillinum, Tuberculinum. He is keeping very close records of
his work. I would be interested to see him correlate the information he has
with a classical homoeopath. There is much to be learned from him.
Dr. Plog in Prescott, Arizona is another practitioner using non-classical modalities
within the framework of homoeopathy. What he is doing is too long to be detailed
here. He is using many isopathic remedies and nosodes-- some which have no homoeopathic
provings--so they are not being used in accordance to strict homoeopathic rule.
He does not believe in oral administration of the dose; everything is injected.
He does much work with auto-therapy using both urine and blood. He is using
a laser acupuncture machine in a most unconventional way. What he is doing is
not homoeopathy by any of the definitions that I accept, yet he seems to be
achieving some results. Who can look at the information he has?
Another doctor who is using non-classical methods is R.L.Welborn, DO in Albuquerque, New Mexico. He has come up with a system he calls "triune homoeopathy" which makes use of a series of remedies each one seen as a group of three. He gives them in a specified time sequence starting with the 30th potency and ascending up to the CM. Although my Kentian conscience cannot abide by this, he has been doing it for a number of years and the patients I met spoke highly of the treatment they have received. Before his methodology is condemned, it should be looked at and evaluated. There might be something to learn.
The problem with all this (and with medicine in general) is that we do not
have the time machine to let us go back and try a different therapy. Once you've
done it there is no ability to say, with certainty, "another therapy would
have worked better". Since we all agree that we are treating individuals
and not diseases, who can say that the therapies used by these doctors do not
work on the individuals who come to them?
Another problem that links into this is that everyone who is having success
is hesitant to talk to someone else who is having success, but in a different
way. If you say that you can cure "mononucleosis" with a triune combination
of HYPERICUM, LEDUM, CALENDULA administered in lM, l0M, 50M doses given seven
minutes apart (as Dr. Welborn does), or you take the case and see which remedy
comes up (be it NUX VOMICA, SULPHUR, or LACHESIS-- all of which I have heard
reports), which approach is valid? How can judgments be made if the therapies
seemed to work on the individuals that use them?
There is also the problem of "practicing what you preach". There are many people who talk well about "classical" homoeopathy and yet do not do it in their practice. At one point, a lay group questioned me about the use of multiple remedies and doses. The questioner had been given two bottles. He was to take one a day from the first bottle for three days, and then take three a day from the second bottle for one month. The second bottle was labeled with the remedy name and the potency. It was 1M. The bottles had been supplied by a doctor whom I visited briefly the week before and had sworn allegiance to the single dose, single remedy concept. What is going on?
First, the professionals. It was pointed out to me that, "with the exception
of a few foreign trained doctors and some older practitioners, most of the homoeopathic
practitioners in this country are Lay people". Having a license to practice
medicine does not necessarily mean a license to practice homoeopathy. The definition
of what constitutes medicine is up to the States to decide. It is possible that
a State could decide that homoeopathy is not medicine and then a medical degree
wouldn't mean anything. This is precisely what happened in Ontario several years
ago. Under such conditions one could be in deeper trouble when using homoeopathy
by being an MD than by not being one. While I was in Texas there was talk of
an MD who had lost his license because he was doing nutritional counselling--
and that was not included in his medical training. So most of the people who
are practicing homoeopathy today are doing it outside of the formal education
of a medical school. Where do they gain their knowledge? In looking through
the response forms which were sent to the NCH for inclusion in the to physicians
directory there were many who replied to the question "education in homoeopathy"
with "self taught".
This brings up the question of competence and territory. Worded another way:
licensing and competence are not necessarily synonymous.
Everybody is jumping on the health wagon. I've seen many diplomas from questionable
institutions. Someone says that they are a naturopath, yet haven't attended
one of the three schools that give a degree in naturopathic medicine. There
are many people who set themselves up as practitioners with no degree at all.
Questionable H.MDs abound in the States of Arizona, Florida, and Missouri. It
is common knowledge that an H.MD degree was able to be purchased from a group
connected with the Universal Life Church in Florida. There are all sorts of
mail order institutions, both here and abroad. On the other hand, I have met
many good lay people who claim no degree yet know more homoeopathy than some
who have medical licenses. Some professionals assume that their degree allows
them to use homoeopathy although they know little of it. In England, anyone
can practice homeopathy as long as they do not mis-represent their qualifications.
In this country, you need the formal qualifications (licenses, degrees, etc.)
to practice. This leads to the gathering of degrees-- not necessarily the gathering
of competence. What constitutes competence? How do we address the problem?
It should be realized that homoeopathy is a complete system and not one to be
used lightly along with a myriad of other therapies. There were some I met who
use "nutrition, polarity, vitamins, and a little homoeopathics". I
met another who said, "You look sloppy, here's a 50M Sulphur". These
were supposedly licensed people. What do they get out of it? Why are they doing
it?
Many people are talking about setting up schools. The first question that springs
to mind is: where does the money come from? Once that insurmountable hurdle
is surmounted, the question becomes: who is going to teach? More important might
be: what are they going to teach? When Hering set up the Allentown Academy in
the 1830's there was no licensing in this country. You went to school until
Hering felt you were good enough, and then you got a diploma. After thirty years
he had enough people to draw on as Hahnemann College became larger. Those people
are not around any more. In an interview, Dr. Allan Sutherland mentioned that
when he went to Hahnemann College in the late 1920s, Hering's Law was never
taught. By that time the teaching was low potency and Hughes-ian. It took only
forty years to get there from the time Hering died. So where are we now? Where
are our Kents, Dunhams, and Farringtons?
Some of the younger MD's I talked to said that if they were to do it over again
(knowing what they know now) they would probably go to Naturopathic School rather
than hassle through the traditional medical education. When we get into this
area we are talking about territory. There are many MDs who bristle at the thought
of homoeopathy being practiced by someone who has not gone through the traditional
medical school education. A quote which is used in support of this position
comes from the writing of Constantine Hering:
"It has been said by the opponents of our doctrine that an acquaintance
with the old system of medicine was unnecessary to a homoeopathic physician:
but this is a great error. No one can be a successful disciple of Hahnemann
who is not well versed as Hahnemann himself was, in the learning of the medical
school..." In the one hundred years since Hering's death, medical education
has changed considerably. There are major differences between the medical education
that Hahnemann and Hering received and the medical education offered today.
Kent, in his essay "The Definition of a Homoeopathic Physician", points
an accusing finger at "modern medicine". He separates out the study
of anatomy, physiology, pathology, biology, and chemistry-- "which are
the domains of the doctor"-- from what he calls "traditional absurdities".
He says: "So long as he holds on to the traditional absurdities, even when
called modern medicine, so long is he incapable of learning the true art of
healing according to the Law of Similars; so long as he believes that these
absurdities are valuable knowledge, so long he feels no need of going into the
real knowledge of Homoeopathic Therapeutics".
It has been suggested that the medical education Hering and Hahnemann received was closer to that being offered by the Naturopathic Colleges today than it is to that offered by the traditional medical schools. Homoeopathy is a system that treats individuals. A system that does this is bound to attract strong individuals as practitioners. When you have strong individuals you have people who differ over small issues. It was mentioned to me that one of the reasons the AMA is so strong is that the members support the organization before they quarrel over their differences in practice. Historically, the homoeopaths have always quarreled over questions of practice and therefore never unified under a strong organization. The quarrel is still going on. Every year at Millersville there are MDs who complain about the NDs in the class (and NDs who complain about the DCs, and DCs who complain about the RNs). The MDs who shut themselves off from communication with the naturopaths (who have the only school teaching homoeopathy in this country) are losing one of the few viable contacts they have with the current profession. Again- competence and territory.
Second: lay education. There are several important issues here. There has to
be a strong push for general lay education. There are health food stores selling
cell salts and combination remedies who have little knowledge of homoeopathic
philosophy and principles. They think of the remedies as "safe allopathics".
I saw a store in Houston, Texas that had a full selection of cell salts. Who,
other than a dispensing physician, would need 1200 tablets of SILICEA 6X? A
lady I knew in St. Louis took some HEPAR to get rid of a boil. It did the job.
Thinking that if it made the boil go away it would act as a preventative against
other boils. she continued to take it. After two tablets four times a day for
a week, she broke out into boils-- a beautiful proving of HEPAR. The health
food store never cautioned her.
I met several doctors who have seen children with full blown "PULSATILLA"
state after the parent continued to give the child the remedy after the ear
ache went away. Most bottles say: "two tablets every four hours."
The only other thing a bottle could say (without listing all the provings) would
be: "Use this remedy as indicated in homoeopathic literature." This
assumes an educated public. If the bottle said: "discontinue when improvement
is shown" would 1) anyone read it or 2) know when they were feeling better?
It is imperative that people who sell the remedies be educated as to their use
and mis-use.
I was told of a case in California involving a young woman who had taken two
bottles of SILICEA 6X ( 1000 tablets ) over a period of two months because the
health food store told her it would help her nails grow. I am concerned about
the table salt which supposedly has all twelve cell salts in it. What kind of
strange cases will be coming out of the use of that stuff?
The next level of education is to get to the people who use the remedies. This
brings up the question of lay prescribing and lay practice. In the April issue
of HOMOEOPATHY TODAY , Richard Moskowitz wrote an article that spoke to these
issues. I will speak to them again from a slightly different vantage point.
A clear distinction should be made between practice and prescribing . As I see
it, practice assumes that you are setting yourself up as a medical practitioner
and will be charging for your services. Prescribing assumes that you understand
the principles of homoeopathy and are capable of selecting the correct remedy
in a given case. The beginning prescriber will start with the first aid basics:
ARNICA, CALENDULA, HYPERICUM. One step up from this is learning some of the
subtleties: ACONITE for certain eye injuries, SYMPHYTUM for others. After this,
simple " drug pictures " begin to emerge: Chills up the back, dim
vision, aching= GELSEMIUM. One step up gets deeper still: Understanding and
identifying the modalities and concomitants of the remedies. Beyond that is
the deepening understanding of the mental symptoms in the over all picture.
There is a big problem with homoeopathy: when you get into it it is hard not
to do it! If you love sailing, you won't be satisfied with reading books about
sailing- you have to sail! I met an English doctor who was trained at the Royal
Homoeopathic Hospital by Dr. Margery Blackie. We had a long talk about the existence
of lay practice in England. As mentioned earlier, a person in England can practice
as long as they don't mis-represent their qualifications. This doctor pointed
out that since there are a good number of trained homoeopathic doctors in England,
the lay practitioners take the simple cases and send the complex ones on to
the doctors.
This clearly illustrates our next point: To be a good prescriber you have to
know your limitations. you have to know when to say, "this looks like more
than I know about," and send it on to someone who can sort it out. To get
to this level you need very good training. You have to be very competent to
understand your limitations. When a lay person reaches a certain level, they
are ready for more information. Only by giving them this information can they
understand their limitations. A nurse who was in Millersville wrote to me: "When
I left Millersville last July I felt like I knew less than when I came, in the
sense that my eyes and mind were opened to new depths and aspects of homoeopathy
I never dreamed existed. I guess I came there hoping to pull the ends together
and polish the whole thing up. Instead, I found myself in the position of having
the blindfold removed only to find not the neat round hose but the whole dammed
elephant!" That statement comes from someone who is beginning to understand
their limitations.
I found that there were large lay groups in areas where there were no homoeopathic
doctors. The lay people were not satisfied with the regular health care services
and, in seeking an alternative for themselves and their families, seek out homoeopathy.
Most of them are working in an informational vacuum. They speak about not getting
the information they need. Many of the groups felt that the "MDs are taking
an elitist position and withholding information". On the other side of
the coin, some of them did not seem to be interested in taking the time to understand
homoeopathic philosophy, but were looking for quick answers- this remedy for
that disease- allopathic homoeopathy. The question must be asked: What kind
of information do they want? There are many books available. The information
contained in HOMOEOPATHIC MEDICINE AT HOME by Panos/Heimlich, THE HOMOEOPATHIC
DOMESTIC PHYSICIAN by Hering, THE MATERIA MEDICA and REPERTORY by Boericke,
and THE SCIENCE OF HOMOEOPATHY by Vithoulkas is more than enough to begin the
study of homoeopathy. Perhaps they are not looking for information but for directional
pointers-- ways to access the information that is already available.
What we are talking about is the free dissemination of information. As long
as books are available to everyone, you will always have people trying to learn
more. Those who are afraid of uninformed people ought to concentrate their efforts
on finding ways to inform them rather than ways of withholding information from
them. This question has been a stumbling block for years.
The July 1963 Issue of THE LAYMAN SPEAKS contains a dialog between Arthur B.
Green and Ralph Packman on this very issue. Mr. Green pointed out that it is
the layman who takes the risks and the consequences of medical treatment and
thus has not only the right but the responsibility to be informed as well as
critical. Communication and education are the only ways out of this problem.
I'm thinking of a case that Dr. Panos talked about. A woman came to her and,
after her case was taken, was given SULPHUR. Dr. Panos' education allowed her
to look at a very large " picture " of the remedy. The woman went
home, looked up SULPHUR in her limited Materia Medica and took offense that
Dr. Panos had thought of her as "dirty and unwashed". The woman's
knowledge was obviously lacking.
Many lay people I met, no matter how deep their understanding of homoeopathy
is in theory, are still impatient with it when they are being treated. Some
strongly question any decision the doctor makes. It has been my experience that
one should seek out someone they trust and then stick with them. Use the information
gained not to say "they are doing it wrong" but to understand how
the case is seen by the doctor. Many of the lay groups in Michigan got their
start by getting together and discussing the "why" of the prescription
that had been given to them by Dr. Rood. One reason you go to a doctor is to
get an unbiased view of yourself from someone who has more information than
you have. The doctor/patient relationship has to be a two way street.
As I visited lay groups, I've asked about the doctors in the area. They can
usually tell which ones are getting curative results and which ones weren't.
I heard statements like: "We went to so and so and we never really felt
better, we kept going back. Then we tried so and so. We are feeling much better
now - although it did take some time." The doctors who seemed to be getting
the favorable reports were usually the ones who were working on a strict Hahnemannian
basis. With few exceptions they have been trained by Bill Gray/George Vithoulkas
(though the IFH programs), or by people who have had that training (the instructional
staff at Millersville). There were a few doctors mentioned to me who had their
training outside of the U.S.A. I was impressed by the level of education of
some of the lay groups I met. When you get knowledgeable lay people, you can
have them - as patients - make sure the doctors are holding the mark. I was
surprised at the number of lay groups looking for "pure" homoeopathy.
There were certainly more lay people on this quest than professionals. A good
number of lay people would prefer to treat themselves rather than go to a doctor
who mixes therapies or remedies.
This brings up an important point about lay people: they have lots of time to
read and learn, since they are not busy with a practice. J.D. Lancaster in Canada
mentioned that the ideal combination might be a licensed practitioner and a
knowledgeable lay person. Pat Stribling mentioned that such an arrangement might
be a good way for a busy doctor to learn homoeopathy - having a lay teacher
in the office all the time. In such arrangements everyone benefits. Karl Robinson
said he learned a lot about NATRUM MURIATICUM from a patient who had diligently
gone through the Kent Repertory in search of NATRUM MURIATICUM rubrics. The
lay people have the time, the dedication, the interest. How may they be used?
Lay practice should be discouraged - it is illegal. Lay prescribing is a different case. Television teaches us how to prescribe: "Excuse me, do you have an aspirin?" "How about one of these? It's much stronger, I use it all the time." Is that any different from having the competence to help a friend's headache with a well selected remedy rather than a begged Tylenol? The question is again one of competence and knowing your limitations. It scares me to see anyone- lay person or professional- throwing around homeopathic potencies indiscriminately without knowledge. It is important to understand that "the little white pills with nothing in them" can be powerful agents of change in the human constitution.
One problem the pharmacies face is that of support by the doctors. Traditionally,
the doctors and the pharmacies have been at odds since Hahnemann railed against
them in the early 1800's. History will often mention potencies prepared by doctors
-- Kent's Fincke's, Swan's, etc. In a letter to Dr. Bradford at Hahnemann Hospital,
Fincke says, "The use of my potencies is a privilege. I am not an apothecary."
With the decline of homoeopathy there was a decline in the number of neighborhood
homoeopathic pharmacies. The doctors themselves became the dispensaries. I was
asked by a pharmacy to list the 10 best homoeopathic doctors I knew. I did.
The looked at the list and agreed that those 10 were probably among the best.
They then said that none of the 10 orders more than $100 of material from them
each year. Another pharmacy told me that they had just gotten an order from
"a famous homoeopath" and it didn't come to the $5.00 minimum. As
one of them expressed it, "The traditionalists are calling the shots and
in return are giving us no support."
Even if the doctor charges for the dose, the profit goes to the doctor and not
the pharmacy. Until a time when this can be resolved it is imperative that the
lay public be educated about homoeopathy because it is the lay public that is
supporting the pharmacies through the sales of low potencies, cell salts, and
combination remedies. Standard Pharmacy does a lot of business selling CALMS.
One of the factors that has always been mentioned as contributing to the decline
of homoeopathy was that it was not profitable for the big drug companies. For
homoeopathy to survive it has to be profitable for our homoeopathic pharmacies.
Another problem is the common misconception that homoeopathic remedies are easy
to make. Most people think that all you need are plants and alcohol. Once you
get the tincture, all you have to do is take one drop of it to 99 drops of alcohol
and succuss yourself up the centesimal scale. A few drops of that on the granules
- and you're done. The reality is not that simple. The operation of a pharmacy
is not confined to dropping dilutions on granules and watching plants macerate
in alcohol. A good portion of the time is spent on paperwork: filling orders,
keeping records of everything for the FDA, keeping records for the BATF (who
controls the alcohol), answering inquires from customers, and getting ready
for the next FDA inspection. In the time between, the remedies are prepared.
Careful records are kept of each step in the process. The medicating of the
granules should be done in a controlled environment. According to Hahnemann,
the granules should be thoroughly soaked and then drained. The granules should
then be dried before being bottled. Although Korsakoff (c.1840) felt that you
could "graft" by putting one medicated pellet in the vial and filling
the vial with blank pellets which would absorb the "energy" of the
original, this is not considered an accepted procedure. Laboratories Boiron
in France sprays the granules three times to assure uniform saturation.
This leads to the problem of making your own kits -- a point that the pharmacists
are sensitive about. If an order comes in for dilutions with droppers, blank
granules, and empty vials, someone is obviously making their own kits. The homoeopathic
pharmacies have a problem that no other pharmacies have. They are dealing with
substances that are beyond the Avogadro number. If they are dealing only with
tinctures, there are many tests that can be made to determine the organic and
inorganic content of the tincture and give a point of departure to begin to
compare it to other tinctures. Once the product gets beyond the 12th potency
there can be no verification, at least at this time, of the content of the product.
The quality of the product rests solely on the reputation of the manufacturing
pharmacy. Each time a pharmacy sends out a vial of granules they are basing
their reputation on the fact that those granules are exactly what they say they
are. The reputation begins when the bottle is sealed and shipped.
If people take it upon themselves to make their own kits, they must recognize
several problems. First, they are putting themselves in the position of being
manufacturing pharmacists and as such must abide by FDA regulations. Since they
usually don't, they are engaged in an illegal activity. Second, although the
dilution which was sold by the pharmacy was of quality, once it is opened and
used the quality might be compromised. Was the dropper bottle contaminated by
the dropper from another vial? Was there a strong odor in the environment during
the procedure which might have neutralized the remedy? Was the GELSEMIUM really
dropped into the bottle labeled "Gelsemium?" If a person takes a remedy
from a self made, mislabeled bottle there can be no recourse to the pharmacy
or the FDA. If the problem is brought to the attention of the FDA, the consumer
who "manufactured" it and the pharmacist who sold it are both on the
line. The final consumer does not get the quality control that a pharmacy can
offer by using such a product. It is a unique problem to homoeopathy. Would
you consider using an allopathic medication that a friend made? Would you make
your own tetracycline? It is the very preciseness of homoeopathic pharmacy that
distinguishes it from the practice of "herbal medicine." Third, making
home kits erodes the economic base of the pharmacies.
When a remedy is purchased from a pharmacy, it should be fully labeled. It should
also have a control number on it, and the invoice-should have the same control
number on it. If the pharmacist is given the control number he should be able
to tell you: Where the pellets came from and when; where the alcohol came from
and when; where the dilution came from; who manufactured it, how long it took,
the conditions involved, who oversaw it; who else bought the same product. As
a case in point: A woman called a pharmacy. She had been given a remedy by her
doctor and was now in a state of total mental confusion. The pharmacist recognized
the problem as a possible "proving" of a remedy. The woman was able
to give the pharmacist the control number on the bottle, and through it the
pharmacist was able to trace the doctor and have him get in touch with the patient.
All this quality and control has to be paid for. It takes about 16 hours to
run up a 1M potency by hand. The time has to be paid for. Although the 2 dram
vial costs only 15" and the sugar granules and alcohol cost another 5",
the ability of the pharmacist to control the quality of the remedy is what you
are paying the extra $3.00 for. These issues should be deeply meditated upon.
The question of quality brings up a small aside. There was a time when a doctor wrote up a case they would mention the source of the remedy. It is common to find references to Kent or Skinner or Fincke potencies in old homoeopathic literature. People have mentioned that a specific remedy works best if it comes from a specific pharmacy. Kent suggested "changing brands" if the action of a specific potency seemed to stop. If a remedy is prescribed and there is no curative result - do you ever think that the remedy itself might be at fault? It would be helpful if doctors once again began to keep records not only of the remedy and potency but of the source and if it was grafted or not.
There are many new pharmacies that are making "homoeopathic" remedies
yet are not preparing them in accordance with the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia.
These companies are becoming increasingly visible. Most of them are making the
remedies as liquid drops. One such company ran an ad - obviously directed at
another company - saying, in effect, that when you purchased the competitor's
product you were buying a bottle of water for $5.00. Then offered their own
brand - a tincture/extract - and suggested that the buyer make their own potencies.
These companies seem to think that the word "homoeopathic" is some
sort of generic term like "holistic." In what ways can the American
Association of Homoeopathic Pharmacists maintain control of the situation before
the FDA steps in with a strong hand?
Another company is offering a combination of cell salts as drops. The base for
the drops is 20% alcohol and water. If you examine the ingredients of the product
you will find that according to the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia, all the ingredients
are listed as being soluble at the 6X trituration yielding an 8X liquid with
the exception of NATRUM MURIATICUM which is soluble at the 4X potency. A careful
look at the label shows FERRUM PHOSPHORICUM listed as 3X yet it is not soluble
in water at that potency. SILICEA is listed as 6X yet it is not soluble until
it has been triturated to a 6X and then diluted in alcohol/water to yield an
8X liquid. Obviously, not only is this preparation not made in accordance with
the Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia, it is not made in accordance with the simple
physical rules of solubility! What is in it? Why is it labeled as it is?
Another pharmacy lists LACHESIS 5X as an ingredient in one of their combinations.
Most Homoeopathic Pharmacies that I know would refuse to sell it lower than
a 12X potency to anyone except an MD - and they can get it only as low as an
8X. It is powerful stuff! Hering's first proving of LACHESIS was done inadvertently
while he was triturating the venom. Who decided to use the 5X potency in that
combination and why?
Then, there is the increasing long list of homoeopathically prepared remedies
that have no recorded provings. Some of these are plant substances, some are
nosodes and sarcodes. How can they be homoeopathic if there are no provings?
Homoeopathic to what?
One thing the pharmacists are not cheered about is the use of the "box" the Malcome Rae Potency Simulator. This device, which has been spoken about by physicist William Tiller, uses a card with a printed pattern to interact with a magnetic field. This interaction transfers the "information" (contained in a code on the card) through the magnetic field and transfers it as "energy" to a neutral medium - usually alcohol. If you listen to the school which proposes that potencies derive their effectiveness from the intent of the person doing the succussion, then the effectiveness of the Rae prepared potencies are also influenced by the intent of the operator. Interestingly, this has been my observation. I met several people who use the Rae Potencies - all higher than the 30th - and derive seemingly excellent results. I know of at least one "classical" homoeopath who uses the Rae machine and has had breathtaking cures. Yet, I have met others who have questions about the machine and have not experienced success using it. One person told me of an experience with a Rae prepared STRAMONIUM 200. Although there was some curative response it was not felt to be permanent. A dose of pharmaceutical prepared STRAMONIUM 200 was then used and it was felt to have a deeper and more lasting result. This opens up some questions: To believe in the Rae potencies you have to accept two givens: 1) Malcome Rae's ability as a dowser (the means he used to obtain the coding on the card) and 2) the assumption that the remedy he dowsed was of good quality. If he was not accurate and/or the sample was not of good quality, the remedies made on the machine would be of poor quality - assuming that the machine does work. These are interesting variables. It would be valuable to do provings of Rae prepares potencies to test their veracity on that level. As an aside, Tariq Kuraishy mentioned that the vehicle that seems to hold the Rae energy the best is not alcohol but liquid vitamin B-12.
Another often overlooked area is the one concerning the making and the efficacy of the LM potencies. During the "golden age" of homoeopathy (1880-1900) the book which was the mediator in all disputes was the 5th edition of the ORGANON. Unknown to all the physicians at that time there was a 6th edition that Hahnemann had been working on. The new information was not made public until 1921 when Boericke issued the revised translation of the 6th edition. At that time, it was made known that Hahnemann had found another way of preparing potencies that he found to be more effective. This news came after 60 years of practitioners thinking that they had been doing it according to Hahnemann. Effort should be put into bettering our understanding of the 50 Millesimal Potencies.
As a final note: In the USA we are so used to thinking of ourselves as a minority that we forget that homoeopathy is alive and will in the rest of the world. It was pointed out by Borneman that the budget for quality control at Boiron Laboratories in France is larger than the gross sales for the year at Borneman.
When the provings were done, years ago, the only physical measurements possible
were pulse and temperature. As the technology developed that could measure deeper
levels, the homoeopathic schools were in their decline. By the time the technical
facility was developed to measure the subtle areas that homoeopathy works in,
everyone had forgotten about homoeopathy. The people who now have the capabilities
to research, measure, and verify what homoeopaths have been claiming all these
years are the very medical facilities that have no interest in even looking
at homoeopathy. How do we get out of this dilemma?
Not helping the situation is an attitude on the part of some homoeopathic doctors
that research is not needed since they know the system works. This is a good
empiric argument, but if you are trying to convince those who believe in the
rational school of thought of the efficacy of homoeopathy, you are going to
need some demonstrable (in their terms) evidence.
Dr. S. A. Williams, MD in West Palm Beach, Florida has been doing work with
the flocculation test developed by Dr. Henshaw in Montclair, New Jersey. He
has also been working with the Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Spectrometer. He found
that different remedies have different resonance curves - he calls them "fingerprints."
He found that a person who is suffering from "rhus-toxicodendron"
will exhibit a curve similar to that of RHUS TOXICODENDRON when the print of
the remedy and the print of their serum is compared. He talked about the future
possibilities of storing the "fingerprints" of all the remedies in
a computer and using the computer to find the one which was closest to the patients
"fingerprints." He showed me an article in a medical journal which
spoke of the many uses for the NMR - none of them using it in the way Williams
is suggesting. As he said, "They are all digging for gold. When they don't
find any they dig deeper. If they only could see that the gold is right below
the surface just a few feet from where they are digging!"
Tariq Kuraishy spoke about a similar concept but using an advanced type of Voll
machine. He also talked about using a computer to store the "fingerprint"
of the remedy. He felt that a corollary to this concept would be the ability
to check an unknown remedy against the stored patterns in the memory and determine
the identity and potency of the unknown remedy.
Several people brought up the subject of the energy pictures of people being
different today than they were in Kent's time-simply because of changes in diet,
medication, and environmental pollution. Stress was placed on removing the outer
layers of pollution before a clear constitutional picture emerges.
One way of doing this was to use the information gained from laboratory tests.
Tariq Kuraishy pointed out that if a blood test shows high levels of Magnesium
and Phosphorus, a single dose of MAGNESIUM PHOSPHORICUM had been known to restore
the blood levels to normal. Although this kind of prescribing is not based on
subjective symptoms, the tests can be seen as objective symptoms along with
complexion, pulse rate, throat color, etc. I was told of another case where
an abnormally high level of Cadmium was found through a hair analysis. A single
dose of CADMIUM 200 restored the level to normal. When the level came down,
other syptomatology the patient had been showing changed as well leaving a clearer
picture for the prescriber.
Tariq also pointed out that in the last 80 years, our level of technology has
improved in many areas. A sample of FERRUM METALLICUM from the turn of the century
was found to contain traces of ARGENTUM METALLICUM, CUPRUM, MOLYBDENUM, NICCOLUM
and several other minerals. Today, we can get it as pure as 95+ percent but
it still has traces of other minerals. Are new provings needed of FERRUM METALLICUM?
Tariq pointed out that all of our single remedies derived from plant and animal
sources are, in reality, combinations. We rarely think of that when we deride
the medical profession for using only the alkaloid derivatives of our remedies.
Do we need new provings of our polychrests like BELLADONNA because they are
now grown in different environmental conditions, or do we follow the thinking
of Dr. Plog who suggests that since the population has suffered the same environmental
changes as the plants that the "new" plants will work on the "new"
people?
Dr. Iberra pointed out that there are many remedies in the Compendium of Homoeotheraputics
that have few recorded provings. He suggested doing fuller provings of the remedies
we already know rather than looking for new remedies. Tariq pointed out that
some of our most toxic chemicals might be the new "polychrests."
What all this information suggests is that we must view homoeopathy as an ongoing
study - not something that ceased development at the turn of the century. Homoeopathy
must remain dynamic if it wishes to continue to treat illness at the dynamic
level.
Many people asked me if there was a possibility of republishing "THE LAYMAN
SPEAKS." This was a 30-40 page monthly journal that was published by the
American Foundation for Homoeopathy and later by the National Center for Homoeopathy.
For reasons discussed below, it ceased publication in the 1970s. Another magazine
that was brought to my attention was "HOMOEOPATHIC ALTERNATIVE" published
by the major lay association in England.
The problems involved with publishing a magazine all centered around the issues
of time and money. Articles have to be read, edited, corrected, set in type,
corrected again, set into final form, and then pasted into the final layout.
It is then sent to the printer. To do a six page newsletter is a time consuming
process. To do a 30 page journal is a massive undertaking. It was reported in
the July 1963 LAYMAN SPEAKS that it was "... regularly running at a deficit,
necessary to keep going the break-even point being a circulation of five times
the present circulation... " The magazine was always funded by the AFH
and it always lost money. Can any of us do this now?
Any magazine is going to need articles. Most newsletters I am familiar with
- no matter who publishes them - suffer from the same lack of participation.
There is always a plea: "this is your newsletter, please submit articles."
There is always a lack of interest in doing so. Many articles which are submitted
are of such poor quality (in style, not content) that they have to be substantially
rewritten to make any sense. To do justice to a journal requires money and a
staff. It was one of the reasons that the LAYMAN SPEAKS folded. Where do we
go from here?
There was an issue of HOMOEOPATHIC HEARTBEAT which spoke to the complaints of
those who said that there was not enough medical information in it. The reply
said that there was a medical journal published by the AIH and that the purpose
of the HEARTBEAT was to inform members of the happenings in the homoeopathic
community - not to advise on medical problems. The purpose of the publication
will color the kinds of material that appear in it. It is important for the
publishers to decide what the publication is about. On one levels the lay public
is looking for information about medical self help. On another, the lay journals
have been hesitant to give this information. The publishers of any journal should
make it clear what the purpose of the journal is so the subscribers can know
what to expect from it.
Another problem that exists with any kind of newsletter is that it goes unread
- no matter what the content. I met many people who were getting the NCH newsletter
and yet were not sure if the NCH was "the group in Washington or the group
in Falls Church." Might I point out that the return address is on the front?
I met others who said that they loved the newsletter, yet when I made reference
to a specific article that Dr. Chase had written two issues earlier, they did
not understand the reference. I can't see an answer to this problem, but it
should at least be recognized.
Historically, it has been the lay person who has kept homoeopathy alive. Richard
Moskowitz, in an article in HOMOEOPATHY TODAY, points out that "the decline
of homoeopathic medical education in this country left us with fewer and fewer
doctors. Under primitive conditions, homoeopathy needs to be kept alive by those
who know it best; independent practice would not be necessary if the physicians
among us were able and willing to provide the leadership that the public has
a right to expect."
The American Foundation for Homoeopathy (AFH) was set up in 1924 as a group
of physicians and laymen. Layman's Leagues were encouraged to form and draw
up their own by-laws, choose their own projects, set their own dues, and elect
their own officers. During the mid 1960's moves were made by the AFH to establish
formal ties with the lay groups. By the time the National Center for Homoeopathy
was chartered in 1974, the Layman's Leagues were seen as chapters of the National
Organization. Although I had no personal experience with the leagues which were
in operation at that time, I have seen the results of the organizational push
that happened. The impression I got from speaking to lay groups was that the
AFH/NCH tried to take such a strong hold in establishing the directions and
by-laws of the individual chapters, that the chapters, in response, drew back
and ceased their affiliation with the National Organization. Very few groups
which are listed in the back of the AIH journal are still extant. Some who were
still functioning spoke of the feeling that the "NCH wanted our money and
not our support." Some groups felt that the NCH had been actively withholding
information about homoeopathy from them, and were not supportive of the local
group efforts to promote homoeopathy in their area. I was told, "our phone
calls went unanswered."
At this time (spring 1982) the lay movement is beginning to get a start again.
They need organizational help. We should learn from our past errors. The organization
that is acting as the liaison should not get involved in running the groups
on the local level. At this point in time, it looks like the National Center
for Homoeopathy is the organization that this burden will fall upon. It is important
for the lay groups to know that the NCH needs their support to survive, but
I do not think that a mandatory charter of association is required or recommended.
At a time when the Federal Government is seeking to decentralize and turn power
back to the states, I think it would be in our best interests to do the same
vis-a-vis the NCH and the local lay organizations. The groups I met need guidance,
not control. They should affiliate with the National Center not out of fear,
but rather in recognition that the NCH is the clearinghouse through which their
activities can be shared with their counterparts around the country.
Each of the lay groups I met had different interests and needs. It is important
for them to establish contact with each other. I have already exchanged all
the names and addresses of the groups I met with.
Although the lay groups are generally drawn together to study homoeopathic principles
and philosophy, they can serve several other functions. One of these functions
is the education of medical practitioners. There was the case of a child in
New Mexico who was brought to the allopathic doctor. The diagnosis was strep
throat. Being a good allopath, he wanted to make sure of the diagnosis before
the indiscriminate use of antibiotics, so a culture was done. The mother took
the child home and consulted her "self-help" book. It looked like
a MERCURIUS case, and some tablets were given. When the doctor called the next
day to confirm that it was strep, the child was well. The doctor did a second
culture and found it negative. In his experience he had never seen a confirmed
case of strep vanish in a day and a half. He is now getting interested in homoeopathy.
These cases occur all the time, but the parent or patient never pursues it.
It is the push from laymen that will get the doctors interested in homoeopathy.
There are few doctors who will seek it out on their own. When the patients start
to demand homoeopathic treatment - the doctors will become interested.
A few of the lay groups were talking about doing supervised provings. Some are
thinking about proving higher potencies of substances that have been proved
only in the lower potencies. Others are thinking about proving local medicinal
plants to understand what their medicinal values really are. They are being
encouraged in this venture by the homoeopathic doctors in the area. To have
a resurgence of homoeopathy you need a resurgence in the basis of it all - the
provings.
My background is in education. I am interested in the process of learning and
the process of teaching. The dissemination of information about homoeopathy
is one of our big problems. How do we get people to look at homoeopathy and
not see cults, quacks, or any number of things that turn them off? Who will
be the spokesmen?
It had been the position of the AFH/NCH that the only people qualified to talk
about medical matters were doctors. Therefore, a lay person could not discuss
medical matters and thus not talk about homoeopathy. The people who could do
it, the doctors, were usually too busy to devote time to teaching. It was (and
still is) quite a bind. I suggest that a distinction might be made between teaching
homoeopathy and teaching about homoeopathy. The first is medical, the second
philosophical.
I have heard many people talk about homoeopathy. Some of them fail to communicate
the essence of the system as I see it. They are constantly bringing in issues
of spirituality and mysticism that confuse the listener. I am not saying that
it is not spiritual, but coming into the subject from that edge does not get
people interested - at least the people I talked to.
Reading PLANET MEDICINE by Richard Grossinger and spending three days with an
allopathic doctor friend in Houston, clarified my thoughts and gave me a new
insight into teaching about homoeopathy. Briefly:
When we are comparing allopathic thought with homoeopathic thought we are comparing
philosophical constructs of the way things work. Warren Metzler, MD sees the
dichotomy as being between those who experience things and then develop theories
based on the experiences, and those who develop theories and experience that
which supports the theory. They are not compatible views. To get people to understand
the dichotomy of thought between the empiric (vitalistic) model and the rational
(mechanistic) model, I ask the audience I am speaking with to examine, through
examples, their belief system.
I ask them to look at the TV ads that stress "twice as much pain killer
as the other leading brand" and what the implications are of that statement.
I ask them to examine the concept behind "kills germs on contact."
I read them the following statements from an article that appeared in the June
1981 issue of "PRIME TIME":
"Donna is a housekeeper in her early sixties. She's active in her church, has run her employer's home for fifteen years, and considers herself well enough to do most of the things she enjoyed as a younger woman. Her various ailments appear to be under control. Each day she takes Digoxin to increase heart output (one a day); Inderal to control abnormal heart rhythms, some associated with Digoxin use (two a day); nitroglycerin ointment for chest pain (applied every six hours); Valium for anxiety (three a day); Lasix, a diuretic for high blood pressure (one a day); Aldomet, also for hypertension (one a day); and PD 269, a new painkiller for arthritis (three a day). From time to time she has also been given amphetamines as an appetite suppressantc she's overweightcand, like most people, sometimes uses aspirin, cold pills, antacids, and laxatives.
"An even more frequent kind of case is that experienced by Serena, an
elderly, fit woman in her late .seventies, still living in her own apartment
and, until recently, in charge of her own life. But she now faces institutionalization
for senility, because her family is convinced she is incompetent. In truth,
she is at times very forgetful, irritable, confused about when to take her medicines,
and "noncompliant" with her treatment schedule.
It turns out, however, that she is seeing seven different doctors, not unusual
for an older woman with myriad complaints, and taking twelve drugs, all individually,
properly prescribed. But none of the seven physicians had spoken with any of
the others. When a drug consultant saw her, he calculated that the number of
doses of medicine she had to take in a typical ten-hour waking day required
her to make a decision about taking a pill three times every hour. 'Hell,' comments
Maryland's Dr. Lamy, 'I couldn't do that and I bet you couldn't either. No wonder
she's noncompliant and confused'."
I try to make it clear to them, through their own experience, how allopathic
medicine looks at a case. A good example is menstrual pain - enough women experience
it and enough commercial ads address the problem. An allopathic doctor would
probably prescribe "pain killer" - after all, it is the pain that
is the problem! I refer to Kent's Repertory and discuss the subtleties of the
pain experienced, the modalities (when is it better, when is it worse) and the
concomitants (what else is going on at the same time). Another example I found
useful was that of "pain upon urination." These are problems that
people can relate to and ones that ask that the person look at the system of
medicine that is being used and its implications. It is easy to see that allopathic
medicine is reductive. "If you give the doctor enough weird symptoms,"
says David Wember, "the prescription is usually VALIUM."
Here is a general outline of the introductory lecture I give;
HISTORY: Hahnemann: When he lived, who he was. The translation of Cullen's Materia Medica and his footnote suggesting why quinine worked. The concept of similars.
PHILOSOPHY: Provings; The concept of "drug sickness." EXAMPLE; TABACUM. Tobacco poisoning vs. sea sickness. BELLADONNA. Poisoning vs. Scarlet Fever. Medical Philosophy: Empiricism vs. Rationalism/Vitalism vs. Mechanism. "dead bodies don't run fevers." Symptoms being a manifestation of the disease vs. symptoms being the disease. Symptoms being positive signs vs. symptoms being negative signs. Parts of the body getting sick vs. whole person being sick. Patient being active in the cure vs. patient being passive in the cure. Concept that when homoeopathy fails it is the prescriber and not the system. The implications of all of the above. Examples of all of the above. How it relates to a case.
CASE: Use a simple case from homoeopathic literature - one that would be seen "allopathically" as separate, unrelated symptoms. Case I use: Woman 35 Knee Pain, surgery suggested (exploratory).
Pain in right knee
Eyes dry
Difficulty sleeping due to activity of mind
Difficulty comprehending conversations
Sensitive to sudden noises
Very tired between 4-8 PM
One foot hot, one foot cold
Discuss the importance of the above symptoms. The concept of levels: mental, emotional, physical (a la Vithoulkas). Discuss the case in terms of the rubrics in the repertory. Show that there is one remedy that covers all the symptoms. Lead into:
PHARMACY: The process of making the remedy which cleared the case (LYCOPODIUM 30th - one dose.) The serial dilution and succussion of the remedies. The concept of non material doses. Rationale in light of recent work with sub-atomic structure.
PRACTICE: Basic first aid remedies: ARNICA, CALENDULA, HYPERICUM, ACONITUM. How their use relates to the provings. Discuss the use of the remedies, their care, problems with over use, etc.
PHILOSOPHY: Hering's Law. Implications. Contrast with allopathic practice.
There had been talk a few years ago about setting up a "teacher's corps." At the present time the NCH and the IFH are setting up a joint speakers bureau. If the word is to get out about homoeopathy, there have to be people who can do it - and do it in an acceptable way. A program should also be established to give some sort of training to those who wish to start lay groups.
With the spread of "holism" and the current interest in health care,
many groups are being formed to promote this interest. Many of them are unaware
of the existence of any of the others. Historically, there have been several
organizations dealing with homoeopathy in this country. The American Institute
of Homoeopathy (AIH) was founded in 1844. It is the organization of the doctors.
The American Foundation for Homoeopathy (AFH) was founded in 1924 as an organization
of physicians and laymen dedicated to the support and furtherance of homoeopathy.
The AIH was tucked under the umbrella of the AFH. In 1974, The National Center
for Homoeopathy (NCH) was formed. It was funded by the AFH. It's function was
to disseminate information about homoeopathy, act as a central clearing house,
and conduct the educational programs.
In 1981, the NCH and the AFH separated. In 1982, the AIH decided to leave the
AFH and affiliate itself with the NCH. At this point in time, it looks like
the NCH is back in its position of being the clearing house for information
concerning homoeopathy, running the education programs (including the instructional
program at Millersville, PA), and being the liaison with the professional health
care practitioners. The AFH retains the offices of the American Association
of Homoeopathic Pharmacists, The Homoeopathic Pharmacopoeia Convention, the
Women's Homoeopathic League, and the American Center for Homoeopathy.
The International Foundation for Homoeopathy (IFH) in Fairfax, California/Athens,
Greece is the only other major organization involved with homoeopathic education
and information.
There are a myriad of other organizations evolving: The American Holistic Medical
Association, The World Health Medical Foundation, the Holistic Dental Association,
the National Health Federation, The Institute for Preventative Medicine, a large
number of Orthomolecular Societies, many institutes teaching holistic approaches
to health (Omega, Kripalu, Himalayan), and a number of groups all using Hahnemann's
name - Hahnemann International Medical Association, Hahnemann Memorial Society
of America, Hahnemann Memorial Institute of Health Sciences, etc.
Many of the people I met with were confused as to which groups were doing what.
Each group wishes to maintain control over its domain, or what it thinks is
its domain. Yet, when it comes to dealing with homoeopathy, there are groups
in existence who have the requisite experience in the field.
I suggest that anyone interested in education - be it on the professional or
lay level - should establish close contact with the people who have been doing
the education all along - the NCH and the IFH. Those interested in establishing
professional qualifications should go through the AIH and the Committee for
Homoeopathic Standards. These are the people who were doing it all along. Why
not use them?
I also suggest that all parties make use of the NCH as the clearing house which
it was set up as - and still is. It is senseless to spend time and energy working
at cross purposes - setting up seminars with conflicting dates, publishing similar
materials, etc. If people are really interested in promoting homoeopathy, a
unified effort is the only way to achieve it.
What is homoeopathy? Where do we draw the limits?
Who will do the research that is needed?
Should the role of the players be defined? What is the exact nature of the interaction between the doctor, the pharmacist, and the lay person?
How do we recruit new practitioners?
How do we convince the "rational" school of the efficacy of homoeopathy?
Who will set the standards for homoeopathic education?
How do we set up the teaching organization?
How do we train our teachers? Where do we draw them from?
What is the role of the lay prescriber?
How do we support our pharmacies?
How do we educate the stores that sell OTC homoeopathic remedies?
How is competence determined?
How do we get the public to support homoeopathy?
What newsletters are needed? How are they supported?
How effective are the Rae potencies? The LM potencies?
What is the status of EAV? Should a stand be taken-either for or against?