Spare a thought for the medical profession and the drug industry, they feel under threat and so they should…
there is a new healing method that doesn’t involve cutting and removing people’s internal organs, nor palliating their diseases with aggressive drugs which sooner or later cause side effects that in most cases are even worse than the original ailment they were meant to treat!
The new healing system is gentle but effective, it is also inexpensive. It doesn’t palliate - it heals.
These were the claims of Dr Samuel Hahnemann, a young Victorian physician who was shocked at the high percentage of deaths that conventional medicine caused due to the radical methods it used: a combination of highly toxic drugs, blood letting, and risky and often fatal surgery. He decided that he didn’t want to practice medicine in such a sadistic way, and that it should be a better way. Being also a linguist he had worked as a translator to supplement his income while a medical student. His translations included the works of Hippocrates, the father of medicine. Through these he knew there was a better way. To his new method he called Homeopathy, meaning “like cures like”: it was soon a great success first in Germany and then in France.
So what went wrong?
The Victorian drug industry might had been deadly but they were also powerful, there was a lot of money to be made, and they could not have risked financial ruin by allowing a medical system that didn’t bring them any revenue, on the contrary, posed a threat to their existence, to thrive…
The difference between palliating and treating:
And what is the story now? Well, some things have changed, or perhaps not so much changed but evolved. Medicine managed to remove themselves out of the Quack reputation it used to carry, reduced greatly the number of casualties it causes - although the annual figures for medical prescriptions related deaths are still quite shocking… and gained respectability with the aid of the drug industry. But has it become curative? That depends…if we look just at isolated results - yes, it is able to treat isolated diseases, eliminating whatever complaints the patient had before treatment, not always but in a good percentage of cases. But for how long? Years, months, weeks, before the patient returns with other complaints directly related to the treatment they were originally given? They might not suffer from the same disease, but due to the high toxic levels of chemicals they’d been taking in order to suppress malfunction of one organ, a greater strain is put into the other organs.
The evolution of Homeopathy:
What about Homeopathy, what has changed? For some nothing: it is still the same gentle and effective healing system as before…still practiced by the so called “Classic Homeopaths” in exactly the same terms Dr Hahnemann first defined in the Organon.
For others, homeopathy has changed a great deal! I am among the latest. Progressive homeopaths, although still respecting the Organon as the set basic principles of Homeopathy, also understand the need for change and adaptability in order to heal their patients.
Homeopathy aims at the re-establishing of the natural equilibrium of the individual, boosting their immune system in order to heal illness.
It has to address not only the disease the patient has but also to detox their system from all the pollutants they are subjected to.
These include pesticides in the food, air and water supplies; drugs taken: both medical and recreational, as well over consumption of stimulants, also radioactivity, and stress: that's right I consider stress an emotional pollutant.
Most of these factors apart from the toxic medicines, and the stimulants, were not around in the 1800s when Homeopathy first started. In order to treat the patient we have to address the cause of the disease, and as you can see, as far as causes go, the scope of possible pollutants has widened a great deal since. That is why some of us, have also widen the we range of remedies we use.
The way we use homeopathic or vibrational remedies is very different from the way you would use the material substance without dilution, as for instance in medical drugs and in herbalist therapy.
Whether you using chemical drugs or herbs you are dealing with a fairly large amount of substance that are supposed to combat the symptoms of a disease. In simple terms you would be fighting fire with water - this is common sense approach. So for instance in medicine if someone had a temperature you would prescribe an anti-pyretic, pyretic from the Greek: fire, and anti: against.
The same with herbs, you would prescribe a herb that has a cooling effect, for instance Borage.
When we’re talking about vibrational remedies, I prefer to call them this way instead of Homeopathic, I’ll explain why later; the rules of common sense no longer apply. This is why it is so easy for the scientific community to manipulate the opinion of the less informed masses and to ridicule Homeopathy.
The difference between chemical drugs and homeopathic remedies in the way they address disease is the equivalent to the difference between Wrestling and Judo in fighting:
Medical drugs combat illness by matching strength with strength. Vibrational remedies treat illness by manipulating its weakest point.
Once a substance has been diluted, and it is no longer matter, just a vibration or archetype of it, it starts to affect matter in a different way. It is no longer strong enough to cause suppression to a particular ailment, therefore it would be pointless to try to apply the same principles as in fighting matter with matter - we can no longer use a substance that can neutralise an imbalance, for example fighting fire with water. It happens is that we now have to work though the principles of harmony not opposition. Therefore if we want to lower a persons temperature we would give them “temperature” in potencised, non-material dose.
There is however no such thing as “temperature” as remedy, so what we would do in homeopathic treatment is to try to categorise that temperature the patient is suffering from. This would include taking all the symptoms they are having, finding out what caused the temperature to start, and what physical, and even mental and emotional aspects ameliorate the patient. For example if a patient is having a fever after being out on cold, rainy day, and feels better by being in bed all rugged up and drinking a warm drink, we would not use the same remedy as for a patient who is having a temperature as a result of heatstroke, wants the windows open, and feels better from a wet flannel on their forehead.
Once we have established all of these, we look at which remedy better matches the symptoms.
Cause | Temperature | Desires | Drink | Better for for | Body Fluids |
Wet exposure | Cold shivers | To be covered | Hot | Being alone | Sweat excessive |
Cold exposure | Lay down | Not very thirsty | Sleep | Urine reduced |
There will be several remedies that match some of these symptoms, the best remedy, however is the one matching all or nearly all the symptoms. This is only simple, acute, case. The more complicated and prolonged the illness is the more symptoms we will have to consider.
But what does matching the symptoms mean?
It means finding the remedy that proved to produced these type of symptoms when taken by someone who was previously well. The proving of a remedy, according to original Hahnemann’s method involves taking the remedy repeatedly over a period of time - take note Ten23! Not like you are doing : in your hysterical display of ignorance - gobbling a whole bottle of pills at once! Watch out for that weight gain - some of you seem to be suffering already from the excess sugar this hobby of yours is providing …take the note of Dr Goldacre - he doesn’t look like he swallows any of his experiments, and yet is still able to provide a fairly reasonable argument and to keep himself in shape! Meet you next week, same time, same place!
