A Sad Editor - Manish Bhatia, Homeopathy 4 Everyone July 2008
Started by: Joe De Livera at August 8 2009
Replies: 1 & Views: 8711
Page 1 of 1
Page 1 of 1
A Sad Editor - Manish Bhatia, Homeopathy 4 Everyone July 2
Joe De Livera
|August 8 2009
I am copying below the Editorial that appeared in the July 2008 edition of Homeopathy 4 Everyone which may be of interest to members. I am also copying the many responses to this article that members of Hpathy sent Manish which will serve to give any interested member a balanced view of Homeopathy today.
A Sad Editor!
Dr. Manish Bhatia
It has been more than a year since we started an open dialogue through this e-journal, to discuss the various controversial questions in homeopathy and different methods of practice, on an open platform. Over the last one year, we have discussed various facets of homeopathy with the likes of Grant Bentley, Luc de Schepper, George Vithoulkas, Ulrich Welte, Rajan Sankaran, Jeremy Sherr, Jan Scholten, David Little, Isaac Golden, Rudi Verspoor, Peter Chappell, A.U. Ramakrishnan, Alize Timmerman, Beth Rotondo, Nancy Herrick, Peter Gregory, Urvi Chauhan, Miranda Castro, Dietmar Payrhuber and many others. Hpathy is thankful to everyone who has participated in this open exchange of information and experiences.
Discussion with all these stalwarts and sharing of information has enriched us all. We have been able to present different, sometimes even contradictory views on one platform. Homeopaths from across the world have shared their thoughts, views and cases, without bothering about the school of thought that they belong to. Something like this has never happened to the homeopathic community before. The effort has been appreciated from every quarter.
Still, the editor in me is sad today! When we started the dialogue, some friends warned that we were planning to walk on slippery grounds. I said - "Never mind! Controversies are bound to happen but we'll manage. There is nothing to lose". We never expected the task to be easy and keeping a neutral balance between all these myriad ideas, thoughts, schools, discoveries, the fight between the old and new - has not been easy either. Time and again, I have been criticized for promoting non-classical homeopathy or for taking sides. People have at times even questioned my integrity, knowledge and capability to do what we had been trying to do - to bring together information about all the schools and thoughts related to homeopathy at one central place and to initiate an open dialogue between opposing thoughts. Month after month, in an effort to heal, in an effort to bring together people from opposing schools - I have not just witnessed, but at times, have been dragged into personal feuds and animosities. But I am an optimist by heart and I have always felt that the positive in this, is much more than the negative. And we have carried on!
People think that as an editor, I am a judge. I have to judge what is right homeopathy and what is wrong and then I have to publish only that which is 'right' homeopathy. But I personally do not see myself as a judge. I see Hpathy as a facilitator of information. The judgment about what is true and what is false, what is right and what is wrong, lies with the community.
The editor in me is sad, not just because I have seen the differences in our community from very close quarters, but also because I see little 'dialogue' or effort to find some uniformity in our methods of practice. While people are now willing to share information through Hpathy, I still see a lot of reservation in engaging in a one-to-one or an open dialogue about specific practices. Homeopathy today is like the conventional medicine of Hahnemann's time. Anyone can come up with any interpretation of our history, any new idea, hypothesis or theory, any method of practice and there is no critical scrutiny by the community. And if you are a big shot, nobody even thinks about questioning your new 'discoveries'. People either follow those ideas or they do not. Everybody is happy in his/her own cocoon. We are a very passive community. There is no central authority to check the validity of numerous claims made by different people. There is no central effort to resolve the timeless questions that haunt homeopathy.
People say that homeopathy is an art. And in the name of art, they become free to do anything. People forget that even art has got specific techniques. You do not become an artist by holding a brush. You have to learn to sketch and learn different standard painting styles before you bring your own individuality. The basics are common for all - even in art. But not in homeopathy! You can take the case the way you like, you can interpret any symptom they way you like, you can prescribe any medicine that suits your whim, fancy or school of thought! Isn't it sad?
As an individual, I am not against the variety. What appalls me is that there is no effort for verification, validation and integration of different thoughts and new ideas.
So the sad editor has vent his woes, now it's time for the sad practitioner in me. As an individual, I am exposed to nearly every thought, every school and every method of practice that is present in homeopathy. I have never followed any specific school of thought and at times I wonder, if I had just chosen to follow someone - Vithoulkas, Sankaran, Scholten, Sherr, Masi, Vijaykar, Dhawle, Ramakrishnan - anyone – would life have been so much easier? You would not need to make your own judgments, you could just follow someone else's ideas.
If I leave it here, I am going to get many emails telling me to just follow Hahnemann. In fact, he is the only one I have tried to follow constantly. But Hahnemann left a science incomplete in many ways, many questions remain unanswered. And in an effort to find answers, I have wandered far and wide - and have reached nowhere! I am still at the crossroads - undecided whether to believe in the miasms of Hahnemann that look like bacteria at one time and predisposition to disease at the other, or to understand them as the three miasms of Vijaykar and his cellular defense hypothesis, or the three fundamental miasms and their understanding with facial analysis, or my own effort to understand them through epigenetics, or Sankarans miasms that he defines as patient's reactions, or just join the camp that does not believe in miasms at all! I am still trying to find the most optimum way to take the case - the totality of Hahnemann, the therapeutic approach, the tripod of Hering, the miasmatic approach, the layers approach, the levels of Sankaran, the kingdom first approach, Jung's analytic approach, or do I just cook my own potpourri. I have not read Hahnemann's German case books and I am still undecided whether to believe Little's version of our history, or that of Verspoor's. I am still tying to find what is the valid place of biochemic medicines, mother tinctures and complexes in homeopathy. I am still trying to understand why some homeopaths claim a success rate of 90% and some are modest enough to claim just a 10% success rate. I am still trying to find out why some people are able to present consistent miraculous cures of specific disease like Psoriasis, Vitiligo and Cancer, while the rest of the community keeps having a difficult time in treating such conditions.
There are many more questions about vital force, drug provings, interpretation of symptoms, relative value of symptoms, our limitations etc. The list of questions seems unending. As an individual I have experienced and used many methods, but I have failed to give it a cohesive structure. If you close your eyes, and keep practicing what works best for you, there is peace and harmony all around. But if you dare to raise the rug, the dirt and dust unsettles you. My journey continues - as an individual with my patients and as an editor with all of you. I am not sure where this journey will take me. There is only one wish that within this life time, I will be able to see the common thread in this chaos, find the answers to all those questions, be able to cure most of my patients - with certainty!
If you have found any answers in your journey, share them with me at email@example.com
Yours in Homeopathy,
Dr Manish Bhatia
-- Chief Editor --
Homeopathy 4 Everyone
Hpathy Ezine - August, 2008
Response to 'A Sad Editor!'
Dearest Doctor Bhatia,
Please accept my deepest thanks for your continuing dedicated work in the cause of global homeopathy. You are an excellent facilitator.
Your editorial for July is profoundly moving. Many will echo your emotions. It is true of course that we lack cohesion, and if indeed there is a homeopathic 'community', we do not verify, validate and integrate in any consistent way. Yet there is critical scrutiny a-plenty! because as everyone can do as they like, so everyone can criticise everyone else! These criticisms are often simple opinion without references, yet sometimes there are excellent examples of well-referenced criticism. This is evident from the pages of my own professional journal, the Journal of the UK Society of Homeopaths, as I am sure it is evident elsewhere.
My own guide has always been the homeopathic principles of Sheilagh Creasy. Of course, I have taken on some new ideas and methods, but her Principles have always been my touchstone. Here they are as given in 1989 - they may have been reworded since:
- Vital force
- Succussion (potentisation)
- Minimum dose
- Law/direction of cure
On a personal note, a dose of Tuberculinum may be beneficial when spirits are low and the 'wandering far and wide' becomes too much!! Otherwise, may I offer this:
Caminante, son tus huellas
el camino, y nada mÃ¡s;
caminante, no hay camino,
se hace camino al andar.
Al andar se hace camino,
y al volver la vista atrÃ¡s
se ve la senda que nunca
se ha de volver a pisar.
Caminante, no hay camino,
sino estelas en la mar.
Wanderer, your footsteps are
the road, and nothing more;
wanderer, there is no road,
the road is made by walking.
By walking one makes the road,
and upon glancing behind
one sees the path
that never will be trod again.
Wanderer, there is no road--
Only shipsâ€™ wakes upon the sea.
(from a poem by Antonio Machado)
Best wishes as ever,
Helen Swan RSHom Totnes, England
You are doing a fantastic job! Just let me say that first.
Next I would like to say that this infighting within the profession is the homeopathic profession's pathology, it needs to recognise that it - AS A WHOLE - is diseased. It's not about who's right and who's wrong, it's about COMMUNICATION, which the opposing sides seem, to date, to be incapable of. In this the profession is at a stage of puberty; petulant, incommunicative, blaming, etc. We need to grow out of this sibling rivalry and respect our fellow practitioners as our peers or examine our unconscious motives for not doing so.
The arguement is in fact between PEOPLE, ideas don't argue on their own. It is the people involved that need to look at themselves. That means all of us, me too. We have all surely been in the situation of trying to get a patient to look at themselves, it's really hard sometimes, they want to see the problem outside of themselves and we have to find ways of helping them understand what all those good therapy books explain, the problem is INSIDE not outside. How can this not also apply to us, the homeopathic profession, are we somehow above that simple truth?
Communication within the profession needs to go beyond superficial jockeying for the high ground. It needs to go deep like a good casetaking, and it needs consistency, detachment and intelligence like good case management. Those that think they have the moral high ground don't. They just have the delusion that they do. I have seen contradictions and hypocrisy from both sides of the 'classical v other' arguement, Neither is perfect yet each can be so entrenched in their addiction to being right that they cannot see outside of their point of view.
There is only one test of homeopathy and that is whether the patient is actually healed or or not. However that happens let us all discuss how it happened and and how to reliably repeat it. So simple.
Far better to TEACH and SHARE than to condemn and deride. EXPLAINING instead of dictating and ridiculing requires immense amounts of patience, but were are HEALERS and if we practice that identity in our lives outside of the consulting room perhaps we will be pleasantly surprised how we generate positive outcomes within the profession instead of intransigence and dismay.
This is not an arguement for abandoning standards (as that can happen in either camp) it is an invitation to recognise the integrity in every practitioner and to understand that the clear and ultimate goal must be to promote homeopathy to the public; nothing else. That goal alone will require that as a profession and irrespective of the differing points of view, we present an united front and provide an effective therapy. We really should agree on that.
But perhaps that's just my delusion;-)
Thank you very much for your July editorial which proves that you are just the man for the job that you have set yourself – that is to promote open discussion among homeopaths.
Your editorial was certainly homeopathic to where I am after 23 years in practice.
It strikes me ( oh my goodness what does that phrase reveal about me to someone practising Sankaranically!) that a crucial issue that needs to be addressed is, “ How do we measure success in our work?” Could a questionnaire be devised which all patients over the world could answer so that we could get a handle on which methods are working and which not? Questions could include the nature of the complaint presented for treatment, whether other complaints also disappeared and whether the patient’s overall well-being improved. It’s a minefield of course as I find now that patients are pursuing more than one modality at the same time which makes assessment difficult. The patient often attributes cure to the most expensive treatment or the one that appears the most intensive or intrusive. This used to be not so much of a problem. I am so grateful for the opportunity to read about the prescribing methods of each practitioner. Some seem unnecessarily complicated. I search for simplicity and dare I say it elegance in my prescribing. A hefty dose of commonsense is often required as Rudi Verspoor points out in his article. I refer to his landscaper who drank too much coffee and not enough water and whose arthritis was cured after this was reversed. I remember a woman who developed terrible pains in her abdomen at 3pm. I could not persuade her to eat lunch but a regular breakfast remedied the problem. Hahnemann called these illnesses indispositions. I try and let the patient dictate the method I use to find the remedy. I routinely take photos to do homeopathic facial analysis and this may be helpful but the palette of available remedies is small. If the patient is using gestures I pursue the gesture as taught by Sankaran. I have always tried to get to the bottom of the presenting symptoms as taught by the late great Martin Miles who used to re-iterate, “ Prescribe on the presenting symptom picture!” Location, sensation, extension, modality, concomitants but most of all sensation…. “ How does it feel? Are there other areas in your life where you have that feeling?” Some patients seem to place themselves by what they say on the periodic table as taught by Scholten and some, bless them, quote unwittingly from Kent’s lectures.
Where would I be without my Macrep? Only those who spent hours ( and I mean hours) repertorising can appreciate the revolution that computer repertorisation has brought to homeopathy. I try and cull the symptoms I repertorise so that the result is not skewed.
Elizabeth Wright Hubbard said, “ Don’t go too deep too soon,” and a softly, softly approach pays off I think.
So thank you Manish for your openness and honesty. It’s great to be part of this community that you are creating.
Yours, Mary (Mary Glaisyer R.C. Hom New Zealand)
My heart goes out to you. As a homeopath that struggles myself to treat my patients, I understand completely why you are so bemused and dejected. The choices in homeopathy are so numerous! But that is the wonder of homeopathy. When something is as wonderful as homeopathy is, there are so many ways to use it, and so many opinions as to the best way. If it were otherwise, homeopathy would be too rigid and limited, and a far lesser discipline. As it is, it is infinitely flexible, and the more we discover about ourselves, the more ways we find to use homeopathy. This is what makes it so unique - so special.
However, when it's a question of what technique to follow yourself with your patients, I think you should look for that calm that you mention, and be true to your inner self - when you hear of yet another method, ask yourself: Do I really need to go into this in great detail? If it calls to you, if it excites you and attracts you, then follow it. You may well find it suits you, or that you can take something of value from it. Otherwise, note it, accept it as being of probable benefit to someone, somewhere, but not you, and move on. Your way is different, but no less valuable.
All artists have some basic techniques, it is true, but very early on they begin to find their own way. Some throw out the brushes and apply the paint with their fingers - some smudge the edges to create a different effect. Some paint as if looking at a photograph - others seek the essence of an object rather than its physical appearance. Some use monochrome shades - others mix all the colours of the rainbow. Some like delicate watercolour, and don't get on with oils or pastels - others prefer pen and ink with all the intricate details that can be represented. When you look at their work, you will like some of it, but not all. And that's fine. You don't have to like everything.
The basics of homeopathy for every practitioner are the energy of the remedies and the effort to match the remedy with the disease as expressed by the patient. Beyond that, the path divides, and each way leads on through different countryside. Move too far away, and you probably won't reach your destination (or you'll reach a different one); stay within the same area and you'll find your destination. But each way will be different, just as each patient and each practitioner is different. And that's fine.
Just follow your heart! And as an editor, just present this rich diversity to your public, then stand back and watch!
Thank you for a very rewarding e-zine. I am always stimulated and intrigued by the variety of articles you offer us. Well done! Take heart!
My best wishes to you.
I read your letter and thought of writing to you. I am not a qualified Homeopath, just a lay person who has read some books on Homeopathy, used Homeopathic medicines, found through hard labour, on myself and others for different symptoms and benefitted immensely from this science. There have been many times when I have not been able to find the true simillium for certain conditions, but I refuse to discredit Homeopathy for my failures. The the fault has been mine and mine alone and not Homeopathy's.
I have successfully cured myself of a bald patch the size of a rupee on my head, chronic nasal catarrh of long standing, pale patches on my skin diagonised as vitiligo by prominent practioners of Allopathic medicine with the help of mainly 2 medicines, namely Arsenic Album and Natrum Mur in different potencies ranging from the 30th to the CM. However, in the process of finding these medicines or for other disease symptoms that I have had from time to time, I have taken many other homeopathic medicines like Gelsimium, Sabadilla, Sulphur, Kali Bichromium, Kali Iod, Nux Vom to name just a few, as I was unable to find the simillium initially.
I have also cured chronic nasal catarrh in a number of other people with Natrum Mur 10M repeated once a month for three months and Arsenic Alb 10M given likewise. A case of chronic pain of the feet was cured by Kali Carb 1M. I was suffering from jaundice recently and was cured by Phosphorus 200 and Nux Vom. These are a few cures that I recollect offhand.
There have been numerous occassions when I have not succeeded in finding the right medicine, notably in cases of fever when the people in my family to whom I had given medicines to had to resort to Allopathic medicines for relief. I have not been able to cure a pain in the right shoulder in my wife even though I gave her Rhus Tox 200, Arnica 30 and other such medicines which seemed to be indicated. I have yet to find the simillium for my daughter's numbness of hands and irregular periods after having tried out a number of remedies like Nux Vom, Pulsatilla, Calcarea Carb,etc.
What I am trying to say is that Homeopathy undoubtedly is truth even though there are times when it apparently does not cure through the wrong choice of remedy. All these divisions like Classical Homeopathy, true Hahnemannian Homeopathy, modern Homeopathy should not create a rift within those who believe in this method of cure. What matters is that Homeopathy works and cures conditions which no other system of medicine can. It cures irrespective of the beliefs of the people on how these medicines are to be priscribed, whether they should be given a single medicine at a time at infrequent intervals or whether 2 or more medicines are to be repeated at short intervals, or whether a number of medicines are to be mixed in the mother tincture and taken. How it cures or how anything in this world of ours happens will always be open questions, to explain which the ever fertile human brain will advance different theories from time to time but may never arrive at the correct answer. Man trusts his senses to unravel the truth, but truth lies beyond the realm of the senses and so cannot be understood through the human senses.
So, dear doctor cheer up and continue to benefit mankind through the propagation of truth. You are doing a great job, a most difficult service to truth and to humanity at large even though people may not realize it as such. Newton, like Hahnemann, was one of the greatest men who lived, but his understanding of truth has undergone several modifications centuries later. How does it matter to Newton who is no more? Each individual believes that he only understands truth or right and wrong and that he is the only wise person and so he vehemently defends his own misunderstanding of truth. Do not get depressed by human foibles. Live and let live.
With warm regards, B.N.Bhaumik.
Dear Dr. Manish Bhatia,
Your above Article has touched me to the core. It is as if you have aptly and beautifully penned my thoughts and frustrations on Homeopathy in print and I am sure there are numerous other like-minded people who'll agree with you. Reading your article has in a way set my confused mind on Homeopathy at rest and given me clarity in the form of realization of the state of Homeopathy today and that one has to either accept it at face-value or go in search of perfect elusive answers in order to understand it better as there is lack of affordable standardized information. It is indeed sad to see that not much has been done to document and impart this art in a systematic way which is one of the major drawbacks facing this system today. It has been allowed to flourish in any which way without standards being followed under the cloak of "Individualistic Treatment". One of the reasons for this is that very few Homeopaths have found the time or need to devote and contribute towards this cause as this is a bread and butter issue. The onslaught of Allopathy which has proven to be stronger right from the days of inception of Homeopathy has not decreased in any way adding to the challenge of Homeopathy rising against it.
I understand that Homeopathy adopts a highly individualised approach to cure and it is well neigh impossible to chart out all possible combinations and permutations that can be taught but I feel with the wonderful progress made in The Medical Field since Hahnneman's time, it is definitely possible to lay out the fundamentals clearly and standardize them to the extent possible inorder to bring in some uniformity upto a certain level. Here I would like to stress on the fact that because Hanneman's Homeopathy was based on Universal Laws and fundamentals are fixed that it has survived all onslaughts for more than a centaury and still remains unchanged. Once the basics are understood well it should be easy to fix the variables due to individuality and manage a case.
The concept of Allopathy with Complimentary Medicines is slowly gaining prominence especially in Pain Management as Pain Clinics offering Complimentary Therapies have become a speciality. This is one area where Homeopathy has scope to prove its efficacy. I share with you the experience of finding solutions (Theoritical as I am only a student without much experience.) to Pain Management while working on my Thesis on "Pain Management ". I basically came up with the following approach Â·Types of Pain based on its nature :
In homeopathy the subjective quality of the pain is very important and extremely useful in finding the appropriate curative remedy as the remedies for various Pain Conditions for different parts of the body are listed in repertories in order of the type of pain according to its nature as given in Todd Rowe's Book "Homeopathic Methodology". Â·Types of Pain as per the Classification of Diseases as laid out by Dr.Hahnneman :
My Treatment approach to the types of Pain as per above classification is according to what has been laid out by Hahnneman in his Chronic Diseases and The Orgenon as also Kent's, Boenninghausens, Boger's methods taking into account The Principles of Homeopathy and The Miasms . The complex Diseases mentioned thereof can be treated according to the Treatment of Similar and Dissimilar Diseases mentioned along with complex Diseases in Aphs.35-46.
I attach herewith part of my Thesis (which is basically a compilation of facts- an application of Homeopathic Principles and Miasms in Pain Management) which shows my above approach to Pain Management as also the conclusion which I am interested in pursuing to bring about uniformity in this area to a certain extent along the lines of IASP Pain Management Guidelines. I do not know how far it's feasible in homeopathy. If it makes any sense to you, and you are interested in running a project along these lines, I would be very much interested in being associated with the project. I remember sometime back, you had asked for volunteers who could contribute towards different areas of Homeopathy. At that time I was very busy pursuing my studies, that's why could not respond to the call . Now that I have finished my studies, I don't mind contributing my time towards bringing about a structured approach to Pain Management in Homeopathy. Don't you think it's time to start something like this and especially when there is need and scope in this area? Instead of debating on the state of affairs Of Homeopathy, Don't you think it's time to set into motion something like this and start defining clearly whatever is possible and see where it leads to? All I am thinking of at the moment is some uniformity and formulation of clear guidelines on Pain Management applying the principles of Homeopathy & Miasms. The reason I am proposing this to you is because of your Goal in seeing some order in chaos in Homeopathy as also your positive outlook towards differing views and approaches to Treatment. Kindly feel free to criticize the subject of my attachment and tell me your opinion outspokenly on this ( If something is not worth pursuing it's not. There are no two opinions about that !)
Another area of my interest that needs to be defined better is the Miasms. There has been a lot of development in this area. Don't you think it's time everything is analysed and the gist of different concepts assimilated into a text for the benefit of the students to pursue further depending on their choice and interest? Likewise there are many areas in Homeopathy â€“ Its Laws and Principles-which can be addressed in a systematic way. These are only a few of my humble suggestions for designing better course materials on Homeopathy.
Thus the need of the day is not to prove whether Allopathy is better or Homeopathy but to integrate both and bring out the Best in terms of Treatment to suit the patients needs keeping in mind certain realities like most patients will vaccilate between the two systems. Hahnneman himself has indicated this integration in Aph 186 of the Organon. We have to remember that he was an Allopath first before becoming a Homeopath.
Finally, I would like to say that I really admire you and your Team for setting the ball rolling and establishing a common platform for discussions and portraying different views hoping that something will click into place bringing about a change towards more standadization and commonly accepted solutions even with varied approaches. As I read more issues of your magazine, I have become more appreciative of your efforts and Goals. In my previous e-mail to you, I did express the fact that you have to kind of act as a judge in filtering the right information to publish or express your opinion about issues or bring up controversies by publishing both sides of an issue. My worry was that I shouldn't end up reading something which adds to more confusion unless it is conclusively evident (which i realise is not always Possible in Homeopathy) and being a student I have been through a lot of that in Homeopathy. Wanted to take the easy way out in understanding everything I guess! But I now realise that only when one is able to judge for oneself does everything become clearer. Also, that it is not possible to take sides in your position. As an Editor, I am sure you are already doing a lot of editing to give us the Best.
GoodLuck to you and your Team! Be Proud of what you are doing not Sad.!
Looking forward to your reply,
Dear Dr. Manish
Thank you for the honesty and sharing of your most recent article, you are not alone in your despair from the lack of any congruence or agreement in the community.
I am a classical homeopath and pride myself in the work that I do, because classical homeopathy can be challenging at times. But according to Dr. Iris Bell, a well know research scientist, according to the research there is no difference in the results between classical v.s. clinical homeopathy. And according to Annie Hall from London, who received a grant that allowed her to visit homeopaths around the world and sit in with their practices to assess who is getting the best results and which styles work the best, there is no difference in the results between the various styles and practices of homeopathy. According to her, she did not see any significant differences in overall health between patients using clinical versus classical homeopathy, or between homeopaths practicing the various styles. I recently saw a patient who was previously seen by a very well known homeopath. Her previous homeopath claims he cured her of her ailment and uses her case as an example in numerous conferences. According to the patient, however, she did not do well at all under his treatment.
So why do we have the right to say one style is better than another? Where is the empirical evidence? Where is the transparency in our practices? Imagine if we could put our egos aside and shared freely, without any distortion or politics or egos. I would advise that instead of homeopaths trying to determine which method is better, to determine instead which method resonates with them and gives them the most amount of joy to practice. I practice classical homeopathy, not because it is necessarily the best way, because it is my passion and gives meaning to my practice.
I believe that different types of patients respond differently to the different methods, but at the same time it is impossible to truly master every method. If we could identify which patients would respond to which method, we could become specialized, and refer the patient to the specialist that would be best for them. But in order to do so, we need to move out of this mentality of scarcity and superiority and into a community where we humbly value each other's differences, continue to strive for truth and support one another.
Thanks for listening
What a nice, caring and forward thinking man you are. I have the utmost respect for you, what you are doing with your newsletter and what you are trying to pull together for the greater community of homeopaths. Keep trying. Even Hahnemann couldn't do it, but look how far we've come. If some, as you say, have a 90% success rate with patients, I would say that is a far cry from what the medical "model" can claim long term.
I am in supervised practice and a member of the last class of the School of Homeopathy New York, graduating in June 2009, taught by Joanna Daly, CCH. I am grateful for the comprehensive, rigorous, grounded training because I am seeing successes with my first clients. I entered this profession late in life - I'm 58 years old - and plan to practice until I die. I hope that I will see you continue with what you are doing with Hpathy.com for a very, very long time because we need it. If you get discouraged, just give me a call!
We need you out there.
I have just received the July edition of Homeopathy 4 Everyone and would like to place on record my admiration of your attitude to Homeopathy today which is so different from the autocratic classical attitude you displayed in your Hpathy Forum a few short years ago when you banned me from it merely because I prescribed Arnica for an ailment I cannot recollect.
I presume that you are aware that I am not a qualified Homeopath as this science is only a Hobby to me and I treat all patients with the remedy, free of charge. I am thankful to God that it has remained that way as the therapy that I give those who consult me is not governed by the strict classical rules which I sometimes use with Radar when the remedy for the ailment eludes me. It is just that feeling of satisfaction that I get in helping anyone who consults me that is the reward that I get that keeps me active in Homeopathy, sometimes to defend my non classical attitude to Homeopathy as I have always found that my direct approach works admirably well in comparison to the classical attitude of the 'single remedy to treat all the symptoms', which usually does not.
You may perhaps be aware that a few classical members on your forum resented my direct "this for that" approach to Homeopathy and often used to criticize it, sometimes in a disparaging manner. They later labelled my attitude to healing as "Joepathy" and this term was later picked up by the Search Engines which today lists about 150 hits under this title. It is possible that the reason for this interest may be due to the fact that the various remedies that I have used which are recorded in the homeopathic forums that I used to visit in the past and the Homeopathy and More Forum that Praveen Wadhwa and I share and visit daily today, have sufficient evidence to prove that the non classical approach to Homeopathy aka Joepathy, works admirably well. Since my conversion to the Wet Dose by Dr Luc de Schepper with whom I was closely associated during his short visit to Sri Lanka in 2003, I have been more successful in helping patients who seek assistance from the 4 corners of the world and I am happy that many have confirmed that they have been cured of chronic ailments like Asthma, Eczema and Arthritis to name just 3 that I have used my default remedies to cure or at least stabilize, thereby enabling the patient to stop dependence on the drugs that they had been using for many years.
I have often wondered what the reason was for the interference that I encountered on the forums that I used to visit in the past and it occurred to me that at least some may have been prompted by the fact that I have invariably indicated that I am not a classically trained homeopath but that I had a background of study of the science and my own experience dating back from 1968 when I was first introduced to Homeopathy as my guide in prescribing for the many ailments that I encountered. It is possible that the responses which grateful patients sometimes recorded on the threads may have irritated the classical types as they did not seem to equate the same rate of success that I had achieved and this lead to their harsh criticism of my therapy merely because it was non classical.
I am copying a paragraph taken from your Editorial below:
"The editor in me is sad, not just because I have seen the differences in our community from very close quarters, but also because I see little 'dialogue' or effort to find some uniformity in our methods of practice. While people are now willing to share information through Hpathy, I still see a lot of reservation in engaging in a one-to-one or an open dialogue about specific practices. Homeopathy today is like the conventional medicine of Hahnemann's time. Anyone can come up with any interpretation of our history, any new idea, hypothesis or theory, any method of practice and there is no critical scrutiny by the community. And if you are a big shot, nobody even thinks about questioning your new 'discoveries'. People either follow those ideas or they do not. Everybody is happy in his/her own cocoon. We are a very passive community. There is no central authority to check the validity of numerous claims made by different people. There is no central effort to resolve the timeless questions that haunt homeopathy."
I am indeed grateful to you for having stated what to me is obvious but which when read from Hahnemann's classical standpoint can be interpreted as heresy. I am in complete agreement with you in your view and it does seem a shame that the big names in the science have their own views on even basic matters and prefer to pontificate on them merely because they are 'great' however far they are from the truth . I can think of George Vithoulkas condemning in his lectures on Arnica that it must never be used as a pain reliever and never before and after surgery. I have proved otherwise. There are numerous examples of these same greats pontificating about remedies but obviously not taking the time to test their pet theories in actual practice.
In the final analysis it is not the method used, classical or non classical that matters in the treatment of disease. It is the remedy that will achieve the fastest cure without causing the patient any discomfort and restores him back to health as per Hahnemann's first Aphorism.
I shall follow your progress in your open attitude to Homeopathy and hope that you will succeed in opening the eyes of the classical fraternity that it is time that they shed aside their classical blinkers and use remedies in the manner that many of us have pioneered and recorded instead of criticizing us for having deviated from the strict classical method of treatment which does not achieve the same results that the direct Joepathy 'this for that' method does.
J T De Livera
Dear Dr. Manish,
Though I never contributed to your eZine, I closely follow your journal. It is simply a fantastic effort.
What prompted me to write to you today is after reading the sad editor. I am sure there are so many of us like you who are caught between purists and experimentalists and at crossroads even after attending to hundreds of cases attemtping to cure them. Attending to hundreds of seminars attempting to gain some wisdom from the stalwarts. At the end of the day one gets more depressed realizing that most of the seminars are reflection of ego satisfaction of of the speakers. Truly we dont understand why some claim 10% success and others 90% and end up blaming ourselves for not being one among the wisest. Yet again, there are some who do wonderful business out of homeopathy utilizing their management and marketing skills. I have nothing against them, for after all while they achieve their objectives, they popularize homeopathy to some extent.
Well, I don't have any answers to offer for what you have been searchingl; this is just to share that you are not alone in this pursuit. Let's hope we realize this and see the light at the end of the tunnel before we hang our boots!
Meanwhile please continue to do what you are best at, treat your patients with care and compassion and continue with the eZine.
Many Best wishes and Warm Regards
What a powerful and sad Editorial. Personally I think you make an excellent Editor; you are honest about your own difficulties in finding a path; you refuse to simply follow a guru; and you identify many of homeopathy's 'faults'. You do not aim as an Editor, to take sides. I have no answers, only praise - for the job you do and the many hours you put into it. You are truly a dedicated homeopath.
Warm wishes from
First of all, thank you so much for sharing such an open-minded and honest forum on homeopathy with all of us. With regards to your editorial on being sad about the diversity and uncohesive state of homeopathy, the only I can say is - don't be sad. We are on the cusp of wonderful things happening with homeopathy. There are always negative events happening in the world and within the profession and that won't change - it's life - but negative events are not dampening the positive homeopathic momentum.
In Toronto, with regulation being finalized in the background, there is a new group starting homeopathic-related experiments, which will be carefully designed and recorded with validation and verification in mind. Our 2008 graduating class at the Toronto School of Homeopathic Medicine has an incredible group of scientific-minded graduates. This batch in particular is very influential, world-wise and publicity friendly. They are integrated, many in traditional science fields, opening those doors towards a new understanding of the science of homeopathy.
As well, homeopaths will end up choosing the treatment method that best suits them. Some may choose purely classical because they "should", or because it works and some because they believe in the science behind it. And others will do what they have found works for them. I found that what works for my patients is treating classically but also prescribing a therapeutic remedy - only if needed - while the classical remedy "kicks in" in the background. I also prescribe lifestyle recommendations as do many of my colleagues, which may include supplements. Our first and foremost goal is to heal the patient and also to bring the patient relief. I, as a homeopathic physician, will not sacrifice my patient for any theory. I'll keep searching for what works best for the patient - gentle and natural amelioration of symptoms, hopefully at first with the classical remedy and / or alongside therapeutic treatment.
Hahnemann was a consummate scientist. He was always experimenting and perfecting his medical art. Is it likely that he would have revised treatments or theory as time went on - if he had lived longer? I think so but who knows? The bottom line is that we have to look for the highest good for our patients. The interpretation of the highest good will vary from practitioner to practitioner as it does from allopath to allopath. Like homeopathy, we as physicians are individual.
May we always learn and question, and search for what will deliver the highest good for our patients and have peace within ourselves that we are doing the right thing - the best thing - at that time, even if our methods differ.
Priya Davies, DSHomMed (Hons) Homeopathic Physician
I, for one, appreciate your efforts to integrate a privileged community of healing minds. It is sad that Homeopathy has had to struggle so long and hard to keep a foothold in this mechanistic, toxic greedy world. It's largest pitfall is its lack of unity and acceptance of methodology. There is no place for ego in healing. We are not what heals; the body heals, but in the quantum world we realize that there are many factors that influence that healing. These effects do not measure well in the double blind placebo scientific method. The practitioner, the remedy and the client all participate in a dance that is immeasurable by anything but clinical presentation and the client's subjective reports. In some cases "healing" is not about curing some manifestations. In some cases it is only for us to palliate and alleviate suffering. That is not a bad thing to do. Homeopathy is a gift to us to use for the highest good of the client. I am appalled when I hear of practitioners who blame the client or another practitioner for the lack of hoped for results.
In Hahnemann's time the world was a much different place and the toxicity and stress that we are experiencing today was not as much a factor in determining the "constitution" of a person. There is so much toxic overlay in the body that it masks the true person. Homeopathy has to humble itself to evolve its methodology (as Hahnemann would certainly have) to adapt to what is needed. It is not anyone's place to judge anyone's techniques or methods over another. We should instead learn from each other and strengthen the gift that Homeopathy brings to the world. A house divided has demonstrated itself many times.
Thank you for your efforts!
Lynn Rose Demartini DSH-P, RN, LMT
Dwelling on individual theories is diluting our mission.
We have these four principles in common: 1. Healing is the only purpose of the physician. 2. Remedies are based on alternating dilution with succussion. 3. Remedies, potencies, and repetition are based on the individual. 4. The remedy stimulates the individual to heal.
Our energies must be spent sharing our gifts through practice and teaching.
The suffering world needs our low cost, safe, effective system.
Thank you for your brave and frank editorial.
Perhaps the common thread we seek is awareness. Knowing and accepting that we all come from a place of self-interest in life; some of us with a smattering of enlightened self-interest on occasions.
It is not your job to cure your patients. That is their job. Your job is to bring them to a place of awareness, so that healing can take place. This can be done using any methodology and any remedy appropriately.
We will always attract patients at our current level of understanding and awareness, just as our success rate will always reflect how we truly feel, i.e. the personal beliefs we have around each encounter and these will change at various stages during our life experience.
When I see Homeopaths fighting and orthodox medical practitioners dismissing Homeopathy through fear, I am not moved. I continue with Pulsatilla here, Staphysagria there. Maybe some Opium or a simple yogic breathing demonstration. No need to doubt.
I also recommend books such as "Awareness" by Anthony De Mello and "Awaken The Giant Within" by Anthony Robbins. Any quality publication which will move the patient to a state of greater self-awareness, acceptance and choice.
I use a voice programmed remedy maker on a daily basis, eliminating the need to guess required potency (the beep will always be bright or dull accordingly). It also assures I prescribe remedies in the correct order of patient need. Do I care what other people think about the remedy maker? Absolutely not. Their issues, not mine.
Yes, I admit I was an unusual child, having x-ray vision and often knowing key details of a person's personal history without being told. This still applies today.
For the record, I trained with Robert Davidson and Susan Josling. Sue has been my Homeopath for some years.
I practice in Faringdon, Oxfordshire and my website is www.heal4real.co.uk
Keep doing what you are doing Manish and let your knowing guide you.
Love and Thanks for Homeopathy 4 Everyone,
Kim Wilson x
Dear Dr. Bhatia,
Don't let those judgmental people make you feel sad. I applaud your efforts to bring all of the approaches to homeopathy together. As a beginning student, I love being exposed to so many different viewpoints. Do all of them resonate as true for me in their totality? No, but I continue to be exposed to new ideas and new ways of thinking about homeopathy and thus, my viewpoint is broadened. This offers a depth that would be difficult to find elsewhere.
I am grateful you are offering a place where no one is judged and all voices are heard. It offers each of us a place to explore a variety of viewpoints, to find our own perspective and our own truth in each moment. I have found that truth is often a matter of perspective and believe that each person's truth should be respected. Thank you for creating a homeopathy e-zine that is free for everyone and has no impact on the environment. Keep up the great work!
In fact there are as many homeophatic theorias and hypothesis as homeopaths in the world. The practice of homeophaty has also its proper deviatóns. Vithulkas based on small changes in anathomy to Hahnemann considering the mental changes as paramount. My succes is evident when I follow the teachings of Hahneman, taking care of the total significant sintomatology My failures are prone to my lack of attentión or may deviation from the eternal natural laws explained by Hahnemann. When a patint does not improve his maladies, is because I give an "over the lap" prescription. I´ve leran than every encounter with a patient should be a profesional meeting in orther to make my best in choosing and prescribing a remedy. Every body in every country is a practical physician, make a try. Said to any one that you feel some symtoms, and they will prescribe you a wide range of remedies, isn´t it? I have read a lot o authors in homeophaty and may conclusion is that besides the apparent lack of a complete science of healing, the Hahnemann aproach is the closest to the true.
Obtenga el máximo provecho del Web.
Dear Dr. Manish Bhatia,
I must say that you have most accurately voiced my own concerns in Homoeopathy and I wanted to let you know that you are not the only one feeling that way. I agree with everything you said in your letter. I have recently qualified and am in private practice in South Africa, with all of these questions before me.
Thanking you for your letter.
Thank you for sharing your thoughts. All that you've written about is the basis for a paper I want to write. I need to write a thesis to get my diploma from school (New York School of Homeopathy, N,Y. USA). The lack of unity is the core. What unites? It was overwhelming, as I studied the last four years. Don't be sad! There is an answer, as certain as is, the Law of Similars. I'll get back to you. May-be you'd review my Paper before I hand it in?
Regarding A Sad editor, July 2008
Your gloominess is understandable, this is because of worldwide imperfect educational system of homoeopathy and those who know a little became pioneer in there individual psyche only; in fact there is deficient of open mindedness. Homoeopathic system has got immense possibilities of serving the sick mass; we are receiving fractional benefits only.
In my view where there is no authority to say who is right and who is wrong, in such a situation neither the number of patients nor the wealth they are getting but the results are only and only authority to come to a decision. The physician or the method of prescription that is showing the results in a real manner, without changing the fundamental principal of our system be required to be considered as supreme approach to practice upon. I don’t want to be a victim of open criticism like you by mentioning here that which approach is most perfect, the day will come in a little while when the whole homeopathic associate and mankind will accept it………….
Regarding you …as an editor don’t be bothered of the comments of our friends, keep on moving, you are on the right move….
Dr Ashok Laduna, MD (Homoeo)
How I dearly loved your intro to this months edition of Hpathy! I can tell you talk with compassion and frustration all at once. I bow my head in shame at the politics and egos that bounce around in the homeopathic world.I personally think its disgusting!
Homeopathy is becoming more and more complicated. Does it really need to be? Thats the question I ask myself every day in my practice. As a recently qualified homeopath I meet in my daily practice cases challanges. I continue to go back to the simplest method - find the characteristic symptoms, repetorize and study the materia medica. Yet what about when I dont get any characteristic symptoms - then I have to choose from an ever enlarging array of choices!
For an example of the homeopathic maddness around today - A student today is utterly confused by the time they begin practice. Our future I feel looks grim when there seems to be no good basic fundanmental training. ALL techniques which are new should be post graduate. It is not correct to learn the newer methods such as Sankaran, Sherr, Vijanker in first year or even fourth year. All around the world we should have the same basic training. How can you build a strong standing house if there is no foundation? Once we have our foundation then we can build the walls, put in the plumbing and decorate the house!! All new methods have their place and are valuable but in their time and place.
However your portal gives those the chance to read, analyze, pick and choose and that is a great gift. As you wisely put it - Hpathy is an INFORMATION site. It gives homeopaths around the world a chance to explore, argue and verify data.
I believe if anyone needs to attack, it comes not from passion but from an egotistical view that THEY are right. Is homeopathy becoming like religion - my way is the right way! Surely as healers we can rise above that??
I applaud you - - dont take sides - continue to sit on the fence and present the data as it comes. Let the egotistic homeopaths dance their little jig.
Dear dr. Manish bhai,
This in context to your article "sad editor". I am highly impressed as your the only person who is concerened. But this not only frustrate the students but practionres that whom to follow. I feel answer is (1) we all should read repetedly ORGANON as our master has laid all the rules in it, & inspite of we are the only yes only science which has definate laws & principles but very sadly we follow lawlessness and so fail. (2)We should be physician first i.e must understand the body. european homoeopaths are lay so they more prone to make hypothesis but Hahnemann was m.d. so very clear in pathology hence understand right miasm.
Please do not be sad.
Every science/art is in a state of continuous evolution.So is homeopathy;whether you call it science or art.Our great allopathy is said to be a science with all its shortcomings,clinical failures and post clinical research disasters.Diagnostics say its pure science,physicians say it is both science and experience in human reactivity and surgeons say it is science and more of art.How do we reconcile? So, continue to listen,aggregate,collate,analyse, intereprate,and submit as editor. Help homeopathy in its pursuit of evolution and thereby help human kind. God Bless You.
J C Gandhi
Answer to a sad editor
Nice to read a honest comment!
When I started with homeopathy I was sure that the fault for not curing the clients was my inadequate knowledge. By time we all learn more and get better. But slowly I found out that the deepest problem in homeopathy is lack of knowledge for our common polycrests. There exist so many beliefs and opinions about remedies that turn out to be false. I can give you one example; the most sympathetic remedy among the polycrests are actually Lachesis. The description of that remedy is so misguiding it possibly can be. This is one part of the problem with homeopathy. The other part is that homeopathy does not work as ordinary medicines. It does not cure the physical problem when you treat according to classiscal rules. It cures the psyche and the secondary effect is that the body recovers. But it demand a different form of knowledge to understand what is happening.
I read your 'sad editor' letter with great interest. I have been a practitioner for 20 years and enjoy modest success using homeopathic medicines. My greatest success has come since I have been identifying the specific cause of the presenting complaint, and understanding the diagnosis of the patient ie, knowing precisely what it is that I am treating.
It seems to me that much of the debate on methodologies, what's right & wrong, are based on the homeopaths themselves, and their ability to argue their case. I do not see much debate about the patients themselves. Of course one method will help some patients in some cases, and another method will help others. While practitioners are looking for a Holy Grail of methodology, many patients are going to miss out on what they need, because of a fixed view of a practitioner.
From what I can see, a massive amount of energy is being used up trying to prop up various arguments, opinions and criticism, with no helpful legacy being left in its wake. While healthy debate should be encouraged, I am struggling to see how, over the decades, this is helping the homeopathic cause. It contains many echoes of the past, which so far, does not appear to have served homeopathy well.
What I would love to see is much of the energy expended harnessed to for positive use at a later date. Something like a database of cases treated by practitioners all over the world, that can be referred to, in the same way as the medical world quotes statistics as to the success or not of particular treatments and medications. If a practitioner is going to spend time and energy criticising, expounding their ideas, why not back it up with half a dozen or so successful cases? This would require practitioners to support their arguments in a most practical way.
Why not harness our successes and have them easily available for the world to see? Of course, this would require rigour, discipline and integrity from practitioners, clear guidelines for clinical audits, etc etc. Personally I think it's high time that the homeopathic community provided this to a doubting world.
Imagine - a huge data base of successfully treated cases, and where possible, comments from the patients themselves. Patient reporting is gaining respect as a valid form of treatment assessment.
Please keep up the wonderful work that you are doing, of encouraging debate and questioning.
Nyema Hermiston RN ND Adv Dip Hom
Thanks for your last edition about exposing your sadness.... and also for having put the effort into the creation of HPATHY. I am a student of Homeopathy, and your magazine is definitely a key part of the "3-leg stool of my education". The College provides me with the tools and environment to thrive, my patients bring me confidence and a chance to experiment by myself (but fully supervised). HPATHY helps me reflect and understand the basics and the history of our Medical Science, and rationalisation and conceptualisation is something that my mind of engineer needs to progress.
This is with interest and some irony that I am learning that someone as experienced and respected as you has the same issues than a newcomer of homeopathy.... that you find dialogue challenging, and a lack of respect or worse, arrogance, for open discussions in the community, has given me some food for thoughts... I am often struggling when I discuss elements with "more experienced homeopaths", and I am now realising that this is probably part of our journey of growing as a person and a practitionner.
In periods of doubt, I now always come back to the first aphorisms of the Organon, that you so brilliantly explain.
So thanks again, and keep up the good work !
I have just read your letter on your e-journal.
You sound like a lovely man who cares deeply about Homeopathy and everyone connected to this wonderful form of medicine.
Personally I think it shows great integrity that you live and practice homeopathy in a state of questioning. When we work in this way it keeps us open. Each patient deserves an individual approach; there is no one style of prescribing which can be applied to all patients. I deeply believe that if we come to our patients with earnestness in our hearts and an intention to do our absolute best then we have gone a long way to serving them and Homeopathy.
I appreciate, enourmously, the immense amount of work you put into creating Homeopathy for Everyone. I always relish the time I spend reading everything you include.
Always stay focussed on the positive feedback you receive and never for a minute take on board criticism about your integrity. It is very clear to me you have yorur heart in the right place and you have an excellent mind.
With warm regard,
Dear Dr. Bhatia,
I read your latest editor commentary with tremendous interest and excitement!
In brief, I am greatly relieved to find another individual that is searching for answers in homeopathy!
I, too, with extraordinary passion, share these questions in my quest to figure out the 'art and science of homeopathy.' What are the limits of the science of homeopathy? What are the limits of the practitioner? Why so much contradictory information being taught? Why so much in-fighting? Why such differences in patient outcomes? Many questions, and few answers.
I do not believe that many homeopaths have thought of these questions or seek the knowledge that lies within the answers....
In brief, I sincerely hope you continue to investigate..........and share the information you have learned.
I believe that the answer to these questions will not only benefit homeopathy in general, but it is imperative to improving the care our patients receive. Please continue your great work. I deeply appreciate it.
Portland, Oregon, USA
Quit interesting to read your frustrations concerning the 'homeopathic world'. It's obvious that there is no concensus, every 'homeopath' seems to do as he please... Everyone invents his own system, promotes his own ideas, practices 'homeopathy' in its own way. This is wrong!
When Mr Ford invented a vehicle which can take people from A to B in a relatively short time, it was called 'an automobile - a car'. If someone else prefers to use another kind of vehicle - a bicycle - to go from A to B, then that's OK but you don't call his vehicle a car!
All those discussions, this wonderfull website etc. are all about 'homeopathy', this mean
His sadness, I mentioned on this wibsite some time ago.
Now he is sad, was sad and will be sad. He or they want and expect and order: a monologue but never a dialogue.
In his sites there is no room for dialogue. Probably this is the same recipe all sad people follow. Of-course some times sadness could be genuine but not his kind of sadness.