i must confess, while the search for a quasi-scientific vindication of homeopathic potentization and the therapeutic value of similia similibus curentur is an alluring and entertaining one, it really barely concerns me. in fact, i rather find the whole venture a sidebar interest best left to a genuine, and more likely future generation of progressive scientists, in other words, a mere sensationalized curiosity to be observed with ironic, wait-and-see patience by the homeopathic community. as wolfgang pauli aptly put it when his speculative but confident assertions for the existence of the neutrino particle were finally vindicated experimentally 26 years later, "everything comes to him who knows how to wait."
one only need look to the current low point of integrity at work in the so-called scientific method and its funding-chasing research cults to find an approach to pure investigation that's about as cowed and ecclesiastic as papist rhetoric, evidenced in no small measure by the easy manner in which vested interests manipulate conventions of double-blind, repeatable assays to suit predetermined outcomes, eliminating and discrediting as 'bad science' any inconvenient results which might unravel the sacred cows of current, and therefore perforce limited models of both organic and quantum realities.
one need only look at 'scientific' studies that validate the soft drink industry (soda pop is just as hydrating as water), the coffee and donut racket (caffeine plus sugar boosts brain functions), vaccination apologia (a chemically compromised immune system is best protection against illness), fast food industries (pizza is complete nutrition that features all food groups in one healthy package), pharmaceutical powers (who use a fingernail's worth of palliation to contextualize an ocean of adverse, often morbific side-effects) to see a high point of con-artistry dressed up in the language and protocols of objective, hellenistically-pure inquiry.
i much prefer empirical proofs and experiential report. in this respect, we have sustained and on-going archives of factual proof for the active effect on the human person of potentized ultramolecular medicines in the extensive collection of homeopathic provings. in a proving, the curative profile of individual remedies are thoroughly investigated by clinically, and safely, 'overdosing' a control group according to strict homeopathic protocols in order to delineate the symptoms provoked and therefore neutralized by treatment with homeopathic similars.
quackbusters who attempt to debunk provings by mass 'overdosing' on remedies are treating apples like rhubarb. in short, they intentionally mislead the public by treating these attenuated remedies as though they possess pharmacological powers, the very antithesis of homeopathic potentization. therefore in their mass ingestions certainly they'll suffer no harmful effects, one of the lovely features of this form of non-material medicine. but note, neither have they 'proved' that homeopathic remedies don't work. they've simply proved the remedies to be exactly what they purport to be... homeopathic.
to reiterate, the only way to duplicate the responsive effect of any given remedy isn't to chew down on whole vials of remedies, proving to the hard of understanding what is already known to be true of these 'insubstantial' vectors. repetition of the microdose is the known, the only, and the well-established methodology that produces repeatable, reliable results. this necessary adherence to homeopathic posology is conveniently never followed by quackbusters, since true investigation or the risk of an inconvenient result is not among their aims.
.
.
.
.
.
how to distinguish valid, classical homeopathy from quack, opportunistic, compound homeopathy
the most important principle in homeopathic treatment is the clinical employment of a single remedy constitutionally prescribed. 'constitutionally' means shifting view, looking at cases not in terms of differential disease manifestations, but as whole, unique individuals in the throes of an entire-person-event which tends towards clearly discernible, adynamic fixities (as opposed to the dynamic homeostasis which characterizes robust, reactive health). these fixities emerge as a set of narrated complaints, typical behaviours and synchronous life factors (i.e. expressions of the unconscious psyche in the actors and circumstances compelled as if by outside and topically-correct forces, into our midst).
the fine art of case-taking requires and presupposes an holistic apprehension of the signature essence detailed by the presenting symptom picture, not an assessment of symptoms to serve disease diagnosis alongside a dismissal of those which fail to fit categories. meaning, in order for the most similar and therefore most efficacious remedy to be discovered, the homeopath must be able to distill from a complete investigation of the person in terms of symptoms, life story, present and past stressors, medical and family histories, a cogent and nuanced picture of what the patient themselves cannot speak to... the source of an essential-for-growth-but-now-fixed conflict, a dramaturgy specific to the person that becomes nested in all hierarchies, from the molecular to the level of thought-forms and actional behaviours, producing metaphoric thematics clearly observable and leading quite specifically to an analogous remedy that bears out the indicated qualitative spirit and localities of symptoms.
this is the essence of the holistic sciences, understanding our experience of health and illness as total body events, not an assemblage of indiscrete, unrelated factors in a jumble form of meaningless correspondence. thusly, treatment plans that purport to make best use of homeopathic method and posology must limit themselves to core analysis until a confident determination of the similimum can be achieved, followed by potency considerations, administration of the dose and any required repetitions, including follow-up observations as to response and assessment of treatment results.
.
.
.
.
.
the unfortunate consequence of the exploding anecdotal reportage of the last two decades as to the often spectacular restorations of health and well-being classical homeopathy can lay claim to, is visible in the quick emergence of profiteers who scan markets for potential trend exploitation and care not for the furtherance of these important clinical procedures.
conventional physicians spend on average 8 minutes with their patients, while classical homeopaths must spend anywhere from an hour to two with new patients in order to take a full case and give the patient a complete hearing. further, treatment by single remedies is only successful to the extent the practitioner has done the personal work of becoming a clear observer of others. the truth for the vast majority of practitioners is a disappointing tendency to gloss over these steps, to project their unconsciousness and personal biases on their patients and thusly to produce very low success rates, since in the absence of the well chosen similimum, cases fail to progress.
in this vacuum, compound remedies and a return to disease categorization as a returning short-cut to causal medicine (which is not homeopathic) have both emerged to fill the need, on the one hand, of the lazy prescriber who wants recourse to broad-spectrum hammers for inscrutable cases, and on the other, manufacturers who want to market trendy modalities to an unknowning public, careless as to the damage such misapplied and misnomered treatments have on the credulity with which homeopathy is received.
.
.
.
.
.
to wrap up, its natural that approaches tending to deeper levels of whole-person integration and self-realization would attract opposition by forces which seek to keep the human fractured into an assemblage of discontinuous parts and specialized, unrelated functions. worst of all is the conformist and almost universal pressure to sport pop-culture psyches taken at face value instead of skeptically explored, challenged and ultimately subordinated to states of higher consciousness and wisdom. still, it would be unfortunate and somewhat naive to assume that the biggest threat to truth and progress is that posed by the most obvious adversaries.
in point of fact, the single most effective threat to the full flowering of homeopathy and all that it represents as a potential vehicle for new and exciting paradigm shifts in the sciences and humanities is its malformed practice by poorly trained, usually adjunctive professionals, and the marketing of compound remedies and single symptom, this-equals-that prescribing. until these misapplications are rooted out and guarded against, we can expect ongoing complicities by friendly fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment