Caer Abred

I do sympathize, too.

At the moment I really and truly do have some understanding of how you must have felt examining the evidence against the gods - because I'm doing exactly the same with my stuff. I'm examining the evidence against homeopathy ..... Not, I must say, from the angle of clever physics and balls of water 300 times the diameter of Earth, or whatever it was - but from an angle of something I know a bit about (probability and systems analysis).

Put it this way, if anyone ever wanted to cause a real debate about homeopathy advised by someone who knows it inside out (which very few scientists and antis actually do) ....... then I'd be a damn fine poacher turned gamekeeper. It's nothing Woodsage said, either, it's been slowly bubbling away for a long time but now it's finally come to the boil.

In ever so many ways I look at the waste of money and all the scrimping and saving that went on for my course, and all the hours and hours of work I put in ........... and it feels as though I've just slung 10 years of my life into the nearest wheelie bin (except we actually don't have those, here).

At the moment I'm just hanging on to ideas that somewhere in that process were stepping stones towards my Druidry, my creativity, and my connection with shamanism. And a few inexplicable (but nevertheless wonderful) cures.

And what I can't understand is why I'm almost feeling as if I'm grieving for the loss of something - and actually quite close to tears.

I do understand the notion of grieving in this regard. What I cannot agree with is the notion of wasted time. Can you honestly say you have never had therapeutic value for anyone you have treated? If you can then yes it was wasted.

But having met you I severely doubt that

On a tangent, at what potency does homeopathy become herbalism?

cursuswalker wrote:I do understand the notion of grieving in this regard. What I cannot agree with is the notion of wasted time. Can you honestly say you have never had therapeutic value for anyone you have treated? If you can then yes it was wasted.

But having met you I severely doubt that

No, in actual fact I can honestly say that quite a number of children, adults and animals did seem to benefit greatly from the treatment. That's what kept me going .....

A lot of people who further their homeopathic education often come to it in the first instance as patients - often for whom conventional medicine had no answers. I did. In my early 40s I was so severely asthmatic that I couldn't walk 100 yards and couldn't stand and talk at the same time. I was given massive doses of steroids which did virtually nothing so, in desperation, I went to see a homeopath. I knew nothing about homeopathy, but she lived just down the road.

The results astonished me, simple as.

But I don't know if that's to do with homeopathy, the placebo effect, or being able to talk freely to another human being within the safe space of the consultation. A lot of people talk about things they then go on to say they have never been able to ....... and unburdening can be therapeutic in itself. I talked a lot about the trauma of my father's death and my mother's subsequent blaming of me for it - so, I suppose, I (literally) got a lot off my chest.

For me, it's not been a cure. I have my doubts about whether outright cures - as in the total removal of symptoms of illness - are even possible in many instances where factors like genetic inheritance are a potent aspect of the equation. But I got a lot better, for sure.

cursuswalker wrote:On a tangent, at what potency does homeopathy become herbalism?

At zero, mother tincture.

Which is actually used in some systems of homeopathy, especially in France. It's a system I used to love myself, kind of my system of choice ...... crategus (hawthorn) for regulating blood pressure, fraxinus for uterine stuff, lycopus for balancing thyroid dysfunction etc., etc. The idea was to "tone" up the struggling lungs, liver, part of the endocrine system, whatever, before going on to using conventional homeopathic remedies in potency to avoid what are called "aggravations" where symptoms can actually get worse. Obviously aggravations can be unpleasant, but they can actually be dangerous too - perhaps in someone with severe heart problems, for example.

I have no idea why the administration of a sugar pill with theoretically "nothing" in it can cause a potential worsening of symptoms ........ but believe me it can. And does. But, obviously, if you use that system of "homeopathy" the herbalism part obviously contributes a lot towards patient improvement.

Sometimes more toxic substances are taken up to 3c or 6c and used in the same way as mother tinctures. In homeopathy it might be more appropriate to do that with digitalis, henbane, aconite etc, as well as with substances that are Class A controlled such as opium. It differs from medical herbalism there, because medical herbalists give those kinds of things in tincture form, but are trained to know where therapeutic value ends and poisoning begins.

But, really, anything potentized to 6c isn't herbalism any more, it really and truly is homeopathy because 6c does, actually, exceed Avagadro's Number.

chris wrote: But in the past I've argued the case for homeopathy (even here, let alone TDN and other places) and now I'm hardly being cross forum consistent because I'm being very challenged about what of it I believe in at the moment.

Does it require your belief's for the results? I would respectfully suggest that you may benefit if you put to one side any predetermined belief system and allow yourself to judge the outcomes. This may lead to surer base from which to base any future belief's regarding the effectiveness of said process. If you believe that the process has been shown to you from, say, a non-ordinary sphere of existence, then allow the author's of said process to demonstrate to you it's effectiveness by it's results. If it fails, then there is a message there for you to observe.

RR

Red Raven wrote:

chris wrote: But in the past I've argued the case for homeopathy (even here, let alone TDN and other places) and now I'm hardly being cross forum consistent because I'm being very challenged about what of it I believe in at the moment.

Does it require your belief's for the results? I would respectfully suggest that you may benefit if you put to one side any predetermined belief system and allow yourself to judge the outcomes. This may lead to surer base from which to base any future belief's regarding the effectiveness of said process. If you believe that the process has been shown to you from, say, a non-ordinary sphere of existence, then allow the author's of said process to demonstrate to you it's effectiveness by it's results. If it fails, then there is a message there for you to observe.

RR

Does what require my beliefs for the results? I think the true answer to that is yes and no.

If we take the "no" first .....

I don't, personally, believe in Reiki. I don't like the way the training is marketed, I don't like the fact that just about every other person is a Reiki Master. I do believe that some people have certain abilities with hands-on healing - but I also think that a lot of people who really and truly can do it don't go putting themselves about like the typical New Ager with investments in egocentric abilities. I certainly don't think such an ability can be gained by turning up to a one or two day workshop. My grounded, rational nature hates the hierarchy of Reiki attunements - ie being "opened" on level seven to the energies of the angels, which can, of course, only be done by someone who has already been attuned to that level and for a fee. I also don't like the prevalence of Reiki offshoots such as Celtic Reiki, which seems, quite frankly, ridiculous. I have issues, basically.

However, I have massage therapy. My massage therapist is a lovely lady, who seems to be qualified in lots of things - Reiki among them. So, me being me and always curious, I asked her to do some Reiki on me so I could see if I could feel anything or if it really was a load of twaddle. I was far more inclined towards the latter ...... but I could feel the energies of what she was doing quite clearly, the areas of my body she was sending it to, and the colour and quality of it. Of course, during the treatment everything was wordless - but we compared notes afterwards and what I felt was spot on. As for end results ..... I felt a lot better. I had had a dose of flu which had gone on my chest and stayed there for weeks, and I was able to leave the consultation room breathing and feeling, quite frankly, bloody fab.

So, no, I don't need to believe in something for it to work. In fact, I still have most of my issues with Reiki intact. Neither do I have a closed mind, or investments in outcomes matching my expectations or desires. You may respectfully suggest that I put my preconceptions to one side .... but, in actual fact, I have very few. I don't even have preconceived ideas about how a bag or drum I am crafting is likely to turn out because I always allow it to be what it wants to be and not force a particular design onto anything - life included.

However, if I actually state that I am a homeopathic practitioner, and treat members of the general public on that basis, then it seems an honourable requirement that I belive in what I am selling them. That's the "yes". And, yes, it is a sale because most alternative therapies are not available "free" on the NHS. To sell anything you don't believe in - whether it's a treatment, an object, a double glazed window or central heating boiler is cynical and disrespectful towards the person whose money you are taking.

I am actually coming from a point here, RR, that my previous belief in homeopathy was absolute for several years. Now it isn't - although there still remains a few percentage points of mysterious areas where things do appear to work inexplicably well. However, this is probably about 5% of what is actually claimed by the industry.

Furthermore, I would be extremely cautious about anything that had been shown to me from (as you put it) a non-ordinary sphere of existence.

I don't even know exactly what a non-ordinary sphere of existence is, to be honest. Is it my imagination? Certainly, that is partly where such realms reside ....... and my imagination did once, in the form of a journey to Ceridwen, "tell" me that I should be carving leather and making bags when I hadn't hitherto dreamed of such a possibility or even ability. I argued with the goddess in my imagination, but I did actually try it for real ..... and it obviously worked and worked well.

I would, however, be incredibly wary of so-called channelled guidance. I've met a lot of very unpleasant people who claim to have privileged knowledge channelled from non-ordinary spheres of existence in the form of angels and fairies. Most of these people seem to want to bolster their rather nasty little egos by having power OVER other people to the extent where some of them do some very real harm. I had a patient once who was devastated because one of these channellers told her that her angel guardians and spirit guides hated her, were frowning and shaking their fists at her, and that she would soon die as they were getting ready to desert her.

For the record, I still heal people. Or try to help them, at any rate. But these days I do it shamanically as opposed to homeopathically, exploring the realms of their imaginations with them but also making sure that they are grounded sufficiently to benefit. Techniques, I suppose, for living life more proactively and being more enjoyably human.

chris wrote:I am actually coming from a point here, RR, that my previous belief in homeopathy was absolute for several years. Now it isn't - although there still remains a few percentage points of mysterious areas where things do appear to work inexplicably well. However, this is probably about 5% of what is actually claimed by the industry.

No different to a lot of PR then? I have never held an absolute belief, apart from the fact we are born and, at some stage will die, as they seem to be the only proven absolutes.

chris wrote:Furthermore, I would be extremely cautious about anything that had been shown to me from (as you put it) a non-ordinary sphere of existence.

I don't even know exactly what a non-ordinary sphere of existence is, to be honest. Is it my imagination? Certainly, that is partly where such realms reside ....... and my imagination did once, in the form of a journey to Ceridwen, "tell" me that I should be carving leather and making bags when I hadn't hitherto dreamed of such a possibility or even ability. I argued with the goddess in my imagination, but I did actually try it for real ..... and it obviously worked and worked well.

I would, however, be incredibly wary of so-called channelled guidance. I've met a lot of very unpleasant people who claim to have privileged knowledge channelled from non-ordinary spheres of existence in the form of angels and fairies. Most of these people seem to want to bolster their rather nasty little egos by having power OVER other people to the extent where some of them do some very real harm. I had a patient once who was devastated because one of these channellers told her that her angel guardians and spirit guides hated her, were frowning and shaking their fists at her, and that she would soon die as they were getting ready to desert her.

I tend to be fairly pragmatic about such things myself. IMO. there is too much attention paid to whom or what is "supposidly" delivering the message on pagan sites that the crux of the matter, i.e. the actual message is lost in the egoic clammerings about the God (insert name here) that has chosen ME to deliver their message, ME ME , now what was the message again?
So are these messages from another sphere of existence or our imagination or from our unconscious? Or, are we missing the point? Personally, I tend to concentrate on what is being communicated and have made a conscious choice to ignore any reference to a name, which, lets face it, IMO, is only there as a method to gain your attention.
Hmmm..... I seem to be diverting this thread again! Or maybe not, as this could be viewed as how we try to deal consistently with lifes little foibles.

RR

Well, like a lot of people I did once hold a few absolute beliefs.

Suffice to say I'm a lot more flexible in my outlook now.

And nowadays, with just about everything, I prefer to work it out for myself.

What exactly is supposed to be going on 'supernaturally' when homeopathy works? Could one not perhaps practice it without having an explanation of how it works?

The proof of the pudding is surely in results. Which would require some double blind tests with placebo's and then having these test repeated again and again. Controversially I think such tests should be required of all healing practitioners who sell their services: at best we might discover something new about our universe or bodies and new cures to help people, at worst we root out a lot of silliness and rogues. If these experiments were carefully controlled and proved homeopathy 'worked' and were not simply placebo, I would start looking for an explanation that involved existing ordinary knowledge about the forces that govern nature. If usual scientific notions still don't explain some actual phenomenon then until we have more data we may have genuine mystery. Even then, at the end of the day there is no 'supernatural' only the 'natural' we have not discovered or understood yet or something that is just a product of our imagination.

I had some musing on one aspect of homeopathy (the vague bit I have heard about, how it in someway involves diluting certain active agents - tell me if I have got it all wrong here Chris). I used to think that if there was an extreme dilution of a substance so that it cannot possibly contain even one molecule of an active agent then this can't possibly 'work' ....but that was before I read about quantum entanglement in a popular science book, about how sub-atomic particles once separated can continue to be influence each other even if they are separated by a universe of space. I would be first to admit that I have no coherent understanding of quantum physics and I know it is always referred to by rogues who don't understand it to support all kinds of quackery, but what seems true is that some of the things scientists are saying about the strangeness of universe and how one field energy or particle can influence another other than by normal cause and effect are at least as counter-intuitive as homeopathy.

White Horse wrote:
I had some musing on one aspect of homeopathy (the vague bit I have heard about, how it in someway involves diluting certain active agents - tell me if I have got it all wrong here Chris). I used to think that if there was an extreme dilution of a substance so that it cannot possibly contain even one molecule of an active agent then this can't possibly 'work' ....but that was before I read about quantum entanglement in a popular science book, about how sub-atomic particles once separated can continue to be influence each other even if they are separated by a universe of space. I would be first to admit that I have no coherent understanding of quantum physics and I know it is always referred to by rogues who don't understand it to support all kinds of quackery, but what seems true is that some of the things scientists are saying about the strangeness of universe and how one field energy or particle can influence another other than by normal cause and effect are at least as counter-intuitive as homeopathy.

I agree, I think that's probably how it does work ....... but I've always refrained from using "quantum" anything 'cos I know sweet FA about it and you always get some clever clogs who comes along who does.

It's not even that I disbelieve in all of homeopathy, just 95% of it. 5% is fab, wonderful, amazing, interesting and highly and bizarrely therapeutic. If homeopaths could only stick to that .....

But you know how it is. Someone comes up with a theory, such as the dilution and succussion of minute doses of substances and finds it's all lovely if you use the results in accordance with ancient herbal lore (arnica, calendula, urtica urens etc) or similarities in symptom/poisoning picture (belladonna, phosphorus, arsenic).

These strange little things work fabulously well in first aid acute situations, such as burns, head injuries, fearful accidents, childbirth, etc., etc. That's where the magic and efficacy is ....

But then they find they don't work so well in other types of illness - chronic long term stuff, deep seated mental disturbance such as schizophrenia etc. Instead of saying, "Fair enough, this method has boundaries" - they invent implausible theories such as remote ancestors having suffered from syphilis or gonorrhoea and tainted the family line for generations. That one's called a "miasmic block" and is one of the many obstacles to cure. The theory goes that if you then prescribe a dilute concoction of the disease itself that will remove the adverse genetic inheritance and everything will be rosy. Yeah, right.

And there are a lot of those daft theories in homeopathy. One theory says that if someone inhales mothballs (that's a Victorian one, of course), the medicines will be antidoted and the patient won't get better. The more modern version says patients mustn't use normal toothpaste 'cos the mint will do it.

That's the sort of stuff I can't believe. It's an insult to logical intelligence.

The bottom line is indeed 'does it verifiably work?'

If something does work then explaining HOW it works is actually a secondary issue, until, of course, one wishes to improve upon how well it works, at which point you have to get into mechanism.

The problem with homeopathy has always been that it has never passed the scientific criteria fir effectiveness. This doesn't mean it can't work, just as my not seeing spirits is no proof they do not exist, but it does excuse the assumption that they are not in fact, there.