Homeopathy

[Innocent]

The Debate Table needs some more esoteric topics. So, here's one:

There are many who claim that Homeopathy works based on anecdotal evidence.

So, what I'm asking is, can a person who considers himself bound by reason and logic support this field?

More importantly, does a Catholic have a moral obligation to dissuade his friends and family from using Homeopathic medicines, since a case could be made that there are connections between Homeopathic Theories and Freemasonry?

[CatherineM]

There are different levels of natural medicines in my mind. I take ginkgo. I've had a brain injury, and that will make me more susceptible to dementia. I find my mind not as clear, or I have trouble concentrating when I miss taking it, but that may just be placebo effect.

Other things are different. I have real issues with on thing in particular. There is a group in Calgary that is marketing a former pig vitamin as a cure for mental illness, including bipolar and schizophrenia. The province shut them down, and they went to court. It got overturned, and they are back in business. My husband would love to be able to pop a pig vitamin, and go off the $1200/month meds with all the nasty side affects. He likes sleeping in his own bed too much to try it though. He's got a friend in the mental hospital right now who went off his meds. He thought the paramedics were aliens and he had been in space.

Natural medicine is good for what it is good for.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='CatherineM' post='1635929' date='Aug 23 2008, 09:28 PM']Natural medicine is good for what it is good for.[/quote]

I totally agree. I have no problems with taking medication that my doctor gives me; just a couple weeks ago I was on percocet and naproxin. On the other hand sometimes the drugs doctors give us just don't work. In the case of my 3 year old, she suffers from eczema, she's been given Elidel, hydrocortisone, and another steroid that I can't recall the name of (tri-something or other). The only one of these three that worked was the strongest steroid. And two days after we stopped using it (you can only use it for two weeks or you risk permanent thinning of the skin, which is a bad thing) she flared right back up again. The only thing that seems to lessen it is to give her homemade creams and some homeopathic supplements. If there as a (safe) drug I could give her that would cure it I sure as certain would, but since there isn't and the drugs we have been given don't work I'm going to use whatever works. And right now that happens to be homemade and homeopathic remedies.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1635971' date='Aug 23 2008, 10:33 PM']I totally agree. I have no problems with taking medication that my doctor gives me; just a couple weeks ago I was on percocet and naproxin. On the other hand sometimes the drugs doctors give us just don't work. In the case of my 3 year old, she suffers from eczema, she's been given Elidel, hydrocortisone, and another steroid that I can't recall the name of (tri-something or other). The only one of these three that worked was the strongest steroid. And two days after we stopped using it (you can only use it for two weeks or you risk permanent thinning of the skin, which is a bad thing) she flared right back up again. The only thing that seems to lessen it is to give her homemade creams and some homeopathic supplements. If there as a (safe) drug I could give her that would cure it I sure as certain would, but since there isn't and the drugs we have been given don't work I'm going to use whatever works. And right now that happens to be homemade and homeopathic remedies.[/quote]

have you tested her for severe food alergies like nut, wheat (ceiliac's disease), corn or dairy? Sometimes these diseases can manifest themselves in strange ways such as exema doing worse damage inside the body.

And back to the main topic. Homeopath as a religion and a belief is wrong. However, aloe plant goo is the best thing on mild to moderate sunburns... and gargling with salt can help pull water out of an ear...

These two needn't be at odds with eachother....however...I am wary of both too many meds and too much homeopathy...both of which can mask symptoms insted of finding out the root problem.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1635973' date='Aug 23 2008, 10:42 PM']have you tested her for severe food alergies like nut, wheat (ceiliac's disease), corn or dairy? Sometimes these diseases can manifest themselves in strange ways such as exema doing worse damage inside the body.

And back to the main topic. Homeopath as a religion and a belief is wrong. However, aloe plant goo is the best thing on mild to moderate sunburns... and gargling with salt can help pull water out of an ear...

These two needn't be at odds with eachother....however...I am wary of both too many meds and too much homeopathy...both of which can mask symptoms insted of finding out the root problem.[/quote]

Not so far. Her doctor didn't seem to think it was a food related issue. She also eats very little wheat and corn (quite a bit of dairy, and she's a big meat eater. If I want her to eat a carb I practically have to force feed her. I make spaghetti and meatballs and she'll only eat the meatball). Nuts are very seldom eaten as well,[i] maybe[/i] once a week she'll have a peanut butter and jelly--a jar of peanut butter lasts us months. I tend to think it's a hereditary thing, several of her cousins and aunts and uncles on my husband's side have eczema as well. We're in a new area now so her next doctor may think otherwise. If it were food related I would think it would have to be dairy, but even when her dairy intake has been limited there hasn't been a difference, so again, I am not inclined to think its a food related issue.

[CatherineM]

My best story about herbal remedies comes from my birthday last March. I had read about the benefits of green tea. I hate the taste of the stuff most of the time. So I decided to try the GNC supplement. I had been taking it several months not knowing that the green tea supplements on the market are the equivalent of 720 cups of tea. My liver objected, got inflamed, caused other things to get inflamed, and tanked my immune system. I felt fine at the time.

For my birthday party, we did a hot dog bar. My mother was a caterer, so I'm a demon for making sure things are the right temperature, and I know that hot dogs can carry listeria on the outside and need to be 160 at least. I washed my hands carefully before reloading the steamer, but only wiped my hands off afterwards. So what normally wouldn't have bothered me, nailed me. I ended up in the ER with intense abdominal pains from food poisoning myself at my own party. I am hardly svelte, and I am a middle aged woman, so stomach pain, to the ER docs meant heart attack. They called in the cath lab people at 2am, and my husband called and woke up every priest he knew but the archbishop. They got in there, and my heart was healthy as an ox's, and everyone felt silly.

They took a week to figure out exactly what was wrong with me. My priest was half scared to death to come in my room because they made him gown and mask. He's from India, and must have thought I had bubonic plague or something. I tried to tell him that it was to protect me and my compromised immune system, and not him, but he didn't buy it.

So the moral of this story is to investigate anything you put in your mouth, and be sure to let your doctors know of anything you are taking. Had I not done so, they might not have figured out what the problem was, and no telling what kind of other test they might have run on me.

[Autumn Dusk]

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1635984' date='Aug 23 2008, 10:50 PM']Not so far. Her doctor didn't seem to think it was a food related issue. She also eats very little wheat and corn (quite a bit of dairy, and she's a big meat eater. If I want her to eat a carb I practically have to force feed her. I make spaghetti and meatballs and she'll only eat the meatball). Nuts are very seldom eaten as well,[i] maybe[/i] once a week she'll have a peanut butter and jelly--a jar of peanut butter lasts us months. I tend to think it's a hereditary thing, several of her cousins and aunts and uncles on my husband's side have eczema as well. We're in a new area now so her next doctor may think otherwise. If it were food related I would think it would have to be dairy, but even when her dairy intake has been limited there hasn't been a difference, so again, I am not inclined to think its a food related issue.[/quote]

I'd have her tested...esp if she is typically very forceful in avoiding carbs. Little kids know more about their bodies and can anticipate what causes them pain better than adults or older kids. I've heard of several nut-allergy children who HATED nuts with a passion years before they were diagnosed.

From my life experiances with friends who've discoverd ceilic or corn allergies I'd look to it first if I ever started to have trouble with my skin, digestion, etc. Its often what is in or around our body that causes a severe reaction.

[IcePrincessKRS]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1636061' date='Aug 23 2008, 11:48 PM']I'd have her tested...esp if she is typically very forceful in avoiding carbs. Little kids know more about their bodies and can anticipate what causes them pain better than adults or older kids. I've heard of several nut-allergy children who HATED nuts with a passion years before they were diagnosed.

From my life experiances with friends who've discoverd ceilic or corn allergies I'd look to it first if I ever started to have trouble with my skin, digestion, etc. Its often what is in or around our body that causes a severe reaction.[/quote]

She wants it when she wants it. Never complains about pain (and believe me she WOULD). She actually loves corn, we just don't eat it very often. Nuts she can take or leave. I'll run it by her doctor, but because I know how she is about pain and such I am still disinclined to think its food related. She eats so little wheat that I would think that when she eats less (or none at all) her skin would get better, and it doesn't.

[mommas_boy]

[quote name='Innocent' post='1635886' date='Aug 23 2008, 07:29 PM']More importantly, does a Catholic have a moral obligation to dissuade his friends and family from using Homeopathic medicines, since a case could be made that there are connections between Homeopathic Theories and Freemasonry?[/quote]



I wasn't aware of such a connection. Mind educating me?

[Madame Vengier]

Why would the Church be against using NATURAL methods of curing or preventing sickness? Why would the Church be against using the very things which God himself has given the earth to make us better and keep us healthy? Think about that. We need to use our God-given logic and not expect the Vatican to explain everything we should do every step of the way.

Think about this, too: What did the Orientals, the Africans and the Middle Easterners do for medicine before the West came along with its western medicine? Some of the most consistently healthy people in the world are the Oriental peoples, such as the Chinese, who have been practicing Chinese medicine and various other methods of natural medicine for close to 4,000 years. And we're going to question that? Do we really need to wonder if the Church is okay with going out into a field and picking herbs or other things which God has made, and using them for medicinal purposes?

What do we think people used in Jesus' time for medicine??

[Innocent]

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1636211' date='Aug 24 2008, 10:36 AM']Why would the Church be against using NATURAL methods of curing or preventing sickness? Why would the Church be against using the very things which God himself has given the earth to make us better and keep us healthy? Think about that. We need to use our God-given logic and not expect the Vatican to explain everything we should do every step of the way.[/quote]

Hi.

I wasn't talking about Vatican approval at all. I too would like to examine Homeopathy purely on rational grounds, and see if I can trust it. As you said, we need to use our God given logic.

Anyway, I started thinking about this topic after a family friend who is a homeopath recently tried to explain to us how exactly it works. It was too confusing for me and I'm afraid I have a lot of difficulty in understanding his theories.

Madame Vengier, you appear to be knowledgeable on this field, and perhaps you'll be able to help me understand it better.

For instance, he talked about the following concepts:

He said that vital forces and miasms explain how diseases occur, that a disease can be cured by artificially inducing the same disease again.

He also showed my father how he prepared those medicines. That was an interesting thing to watch. What I am unable to understand, however, is how such a diluted medicine can ever have an effect on the chemistry inside the body. When I asked him about it, he told me that water and alcohol have "memory" and somehow has the "vibrations" of the original substance.

Now this was more confusing for me. I'd never heard this before, and though I have tried my best to find out more information about this. This concept is the core difficulty for me, and I find it very difficult to understand. Madame V, if you understand this concept, can you explain it to me?

[I studied electronics at college, and when I heard this theory about the memory of water, I was expecting that if this theory were true, they would create this solution in rooms resembling a microchip assembly clean-room, to reduce the chances of any other memories entering the water, from stray impurites, which could easily get in from the very air itself. But then I found out that the mixing is done in an ordinary room, with much chance of all sorts of impurities getting in and creating memories in the water. This is very confusing for me.]

He is a doctor recognised by the government. That would mean that Homeopathy is supposed to be an exact science, wouldn't it? But try as I could, I could never figure out even the basics of how it works.

There's another thing too. A relative of mine once went to a Homeopath for medicines and said he was cured. Later the problem recurred, and at that time that homeopath had moved away, and so he had to visit another, but the new doctor's medicines had no effect.

Our family friend explained this by saying that in homeopathy the skill of the individual doctor mattered more than any standard procedure.

Thus it seems to me (and I'd be very glad to accept correction if I'm wrong, I like to keep an open mind) that homeopathy is, the way these doctors see it, some "mystic" art, some "gift" that some have, and the standard procedure counts for little.

I'm very confused.

As you said, let's have some rational discussion on this topic.

[ I have heard it said that homeopathy is not just an empirical science but has many spiritual principles that cannot be divorced from the practice of homeopathy. If that is true, (which is what I'd like to find out) that would bring it into the sphere of faith and morals, and pronouncements from the Church (if any exist, I haven't heard of any yet) ought to have a rightful place in the discussion. But if its spiritual principles are only appendages that can be discarded, and not at all essential to the practice of Homeopathy, then I suppose one could examine it on purely rational grounds. ]


[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1636211' date='Aug 24 2008, 10:36 AM']Think about this, too: What did the Orientals, the Africans and the Middle Easterners do for medicine before the West came along with its western medicine? Some of the most consistently healthy people in the world are the Oriental peoples, such as the Chinese, who have been practicing Chinese medicine and various other methods of natural medicine for close to 4,000 years. And we're going to question that? Do we really need to wonder if the Church is okay with going out into a field and picking herbs or other things which God has made, and using them for medicinal purposes?[/quote]

I have no knowledge of Chinese medicines at all, and I wouldn't want to take up such a discussion at this time. Even here in India, we have systems of medicine like Ayurveda and Unnani, but right now I'm concerned only with the system developed by Hahnemann. I have no introduction to these other practices and hence I have no grounds at all to start discussions about them. However, many people known to me use homeopathic medicines, and that's why I'm interested in understanding it.

Anyway, my point is not to say, "The Church does not approve so-and-so. Therefore stay away from it!" For me, it's just a (healthy, I hope) curiosity about how things work. And isn't it true that a healthy person or field of study must be open to examination, mainly by themselves, but by outsiders, too? "The unexamined life is not worth living."

And to clarify matters, I'm in no way speaking out against herbal remedies in general. I'm just curious about homeopathy, and I'm confused that what is generally presented as a field that is built on some basic concepts that are easy to understand is turning out to be so contradictory to all the physics and chemistry I learnt at school.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you completely when you say, "And we're going to question that?" Any school of system ought to be open to examination, wouldn't you think? What's wrong with a bit of examination and research, after all?

[quote name='Madame Vengier' post='1636211' date='Aug 24 2008, 10:36 AM']What do we think people used in Jesus' time for medicine??[/quote]

I don't understand the point of this statement. You are obviously not saying that we ought to accept today without question whatever medicine was practised then, I assume.

I don't remember that Jesus ever involved himself with the medical systems of his time. But then, the way I understand it, Jesus didn't want to spoon-feed us with a lot of "dos and don'ts" He was mainly concerned with "bringing God to Man" as Pope Benedict says in his latest book.

Don't you think it could be said, that he left it to us to make these decisions with our faith and our reason, and enlightened by the power of the Holy Spirit, (and in cases where necessary, the magisterial judgement of the Church, too. Whether this is one such case, could of course be, one of the subjects of this discussion.)

Anyway, many aspects of the entire cosmological understanding have changed from the time of Jesus, through the mechanism of scientific research and inquiry, haven't they?

Looking forward to reading your points on this discussion.

Edited August 24, 2008 by Innocent

[Madame Vengier]

[quote name='Innocent' post='1636297' date='Aug 24 2008, 12:43 AM']Hi.

I wasn't talking about Vatican approval at all. I too would like to examine Homeopathy purely on rational grounds, and see if I can trust it. As you said, we need to use our God given logic.

Anyway, I started thinking about this topic after a family friend who is a homeopath recently tried to explain to us how exactly it works. It was too confusing for me and I'm afraid I have a lot of difficulty in understanding his theories.

Madame Vengier, you appear to be knowledgeable on this field, and perhaps you'll be able to help me understand it better.

For instance, he talked about the following concepts:

He said that vital forces and miasms explain how diseases occur, that a disease can be cured by artificially inducing the same disease again.

He also showed my father how he prepared those medicines. That was an interesting thing to watch. What I am unable to understand, however, is how such a diluted medicine can ever have an effect on the chemistry inside the body. When I asked him about it, he told me that water and alcohol have "memory" and somehow has the "vibrations" of the original substance.

Now this was more confusing for me. I'd never heard this before, and though I have tried my best to find out more information about this. This concept is the core difficulty for me, and I find it very difficult to understand. Madame V, if you understand this concept, can you explain it to me?

[I studied electronics at college, and when I heard this theory about the memory of water, I was expecting that if this theory were true, they would create this solution in rooms resembling a microchip assembly clean-room, to reduce the chances of any other memories entering the water, from stray impurites, which could easily get in from the very air itself. But then I found out that the mixing is done in an ordinary room, with much chance of all sorts of impurities getting in and creating memories in the water. This is very confusing for me.]

He is a doctor recognised by the government. That would mean that Homeopathy is supposed to be an exact science, wouldn't it? But try as I could, I could never figure out even the basics of how it works.

There's another thing too. A relative of mine once went to a Homeopath for medicines and said he was cured. Later the problem recurred, and at that time that homeopath had moved away, and so he had to visit another, but the new doctor's medicines had no effect.

Our family friend explained this by saying that in homeopathy the skill of the individual doctor mattered more than any standard procedure.

Thus it seems to me (and I'd be very glad to accept correction if I'm wrong, I like to keep an open mind) that homeopathy is, the way these doctors see it, some "mystic" art, some "gift" that some have, and the standard procedure counts for little.

I'm very confused.

As you said, let's have some rational discussion on this topic.

[ I have heard it said that homeopathy is not just an empirical science but has many spiritual principles that cannot be divorced from the practice of homeopathy. If that is true, (which is what I'd like to find out) that would bring it into the sphere of faith and morals, and pronouncements from the Church (if any exist, I haven't heard of any yet) ought to have a rightful place in the discussion. But if its spiritual principles are only appendages that can be discarded, and not at all essential to the practice of Homeopathy, then I suppose one could examine it on purely rational grounds. ]




I have no knowledge of Chinese medicines at all, and I wouldn't want to take up such a discussion at this time. Even here in India, we have systems of medicine like Ayurveda and Unnani, but right now I'm concerned only with the system developed by Hahnemann. I have no introduction to these other practices and hence I have no grounds at all to start discussions about them. However, many people known to me use homeopathic medicines, and that's why I'm interested in understanding it.

Anyway, my point is not to say, "The Church does not approve so-and-so. Therefore stay away from it!" For me, it's just a (healthy, I hope) curiosity about how things work. And isn't it true that a healthy person or field of study must be open to examination, mainly by themselves, but by outsiders, too? "The unexamined life is not worth living."

And to clarify matters, I'm in no way speaking out against herbal remedies in general. I'm just curious about homeopathy, and I'm confused that what is generally presented as a field that is built on some basic concepts that are easy to understand is turning out to be so contradictory to all the physics and chemistry I learnt at school.

I'm afraid I can't agree with you completely when you say, "And we're going to question that?" Any school of system ought to be open to examination, wouldn't you think? What's wrong with a bit of examination and research, after all?



I don't understand the point of this statement. You are obviously not saying that we ought to accept today without question whatever medicine was practised then, I assume.

I don't remember that Jesus ever involved himself with the medical systems of his time. But then, the way I understand it, Jesus didn't want to spoon-feed us with a lot of "dos and don'ts" He was mainly concerned with "bringing God to Man" as Pope Benedict says in his latest book.

Don't you think it could be said, that he left it to us to make these decisions with our faith and our reason, and enlightened by the power of the Holy Spirit, (and in cases where necessary, the magisterial judgement of the Church, too. Whether this is one such case, could of course be, one of the subjects of this discussion.)

Anyway, many aspects of the entire cosmological understanding have changed from the time of Jesus, through the mechanism of scientific research and inquiry, haven't they?

Looking forward to reading your points on this discussion.[/quote]

Whatever your friend is telling you sounds very bizarre. I'm very suspicious of the vibrations and miasms and such. That sounds weird. And a tad creepy. I know more about Chinese medicine and there's no miasms in that.

[Innocent]

[quote name='mommas_boy' post='1636096' date='Aug 24 2008, 09:42 AM']

I wasn't aware of such a connection. Mind educating me?[/quote]


I'm not sure myself how deep this connection goes, but I came across it in many places when trying to understand this field. I'll give you a few examples:

[quote]It is a clear and peculiar fact that Hahnemann was innately very disinclined to accept purely chemical or physiological factors as root causes of sickness, as most physicians still do, and he always tended to look beyond and behind them to a more rarefied, subtle, spiritual and non-physical realm of disease causation resident not within the tissues but within the vital force and the case totality. This tendency cannot have come from Vienna, Erlangen or Leipzig, but more likely from Brukenthal and Freemasonry. For example, it became encapsulated in Aphorism 9 of Hahnemann’s Organon, where he speaks of the material organism being governed by a "spiritual principle…that rules with unbounded sway." [Organon of Medicine, 1922, Aph. 9][/quote]
[url="http://www.homeoint.org/morrell/articles/relation.htm"]SOURCE[/url]



[quote]Yet, he only once mentions Stahl, "the founder of vitalism," [Veith, 505-6], and van Helmont [Lesser Writings, 1808, 490], who were undoubtedly two of the greatest builders of vitalist medical systems, and both holding views remarkably concordant with his own. How can such a broad confluence of medical ideas reasonably have been coincidental? Their views on such central matters as the life force and miasms come so astonishingly close to those of Hahnemann that it is quite simply impossible for such a well-read and articulate physician like Hahnemann to claim any ignorance of their names or their medical views. Van Helmont's 'Archeus' and Stahl's 'anima' [Temkin, 1946, 22; Haehl, I, 284] are virtually identical to Hahnemann's life-force and perform exactly the same function within the conceptual fabric of these three medical systems.[/quote]
[url="http://homeoint.org/morrell/articles/esoteric.htm"]SOURCE[/url]

[quote]Hahnemann undoubtedly knew of and built upon the work of Paracelsus. But it is the size and extent of his debt that is difficult to quantify. Some [e.g. Danciger, 1987 Gutman, 1978] have suggested that Hahnemann's debt to Paracelsus was great, that he was a member of Western Esoteric traditions [or drew heavily upon them] and that he was very familiar with the metaphysical views of his near-contemporary, Goethe [1749-1832], Western Esoteric traditions like the Freemasons, Knight's Templar and the Rosicrucians. This may be stretching the point somewhat, as Hahnemann himself goes no further than mentioning Hippocrates as using the law of similars. Similar points are made by Neagu [1995] and Bradford [1895].[/quote]
[url="http://homeoint.org/morrell/articles/pm_alchem.htm"]SOURCE[/url]



[quote]Hahnemann himself was a lifelong Freemason. All these many factors can be pieced together into a meaningful framework, as Clarke himself attempts in this small volume.

"Hering's Law of Cure, Kent's Hierarchy of Symptoms and Compton-Burnett's elaboration of Paracelsian Organopathy are all practical employment of the principle of recursion or fractal stages inherent in all life processes....these three major contributors to homoeopathy were powerfully influenced by the philosophy of Swedenborg, and Hering and Burnett were also students of Paracelsian principles as well. It is doubtful that these three would have made such profound contributions without the influence of Paracelsus and Swedenborg...quite simply and profoundly, it is the recursive-fractal structure of the inner and outer nature of the universe and of humanity that both Paracelsus and Swedenborg expounded." [Whitney, 1994, p.22][/quote]
[url="http://homeoint.org/morrell/clarke/prefacemorrell.htm"]SOURCE[/url]



[quote]It is not surprising to know that Hahnemann was a Freemason as early as 1777; he was later granted the title of Obermeister, or Grand Master (Jurj, 2007). In this esoteric fraternal organization and secret society, men shared certain moral and metaphysical ideals.[/quote]
[url="http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/ullman-samuel-hahnemann.asp"]SOURCE[/url]


[quote]Hahnemann's father was a craftsman who worked in the famous Meissen pottery trade. He was not very well off, so that it was with some difficulty that the young Samuel persuaded him to allow him to become a medical student. As a boy he was put briefly to work for a Leipzig grocer. In 1775, however, he entered the University of Leipzig, where he quickly became self-supporting by means of teaching and translation. Growing dissatisfied with the standard of medical education at Leipzig he departed in 1776 for Vienna, but before completing his studies he left to take up a post as librarian and family physician to the Governor of Transylvania, Baron von Brukenthal, at Hermannstadt. It was at this time that he became a Freemason. It has been claimed that the library at Hermannstadt contained esoteric alchemical works, including those of Paracelsus, and that it was dipping into these that planted the seed of homeopathy in Hahnemann's mind. This is certainly possible, but no evidence to support the speculation exists.[/quote]
[url="http://www.homoeotimes.com/april04/html/Hahnemann.htm"]SOURCE[/url]




[quote]Homeopathy was first introduced in the United States by Hans Birch Gram, who was born in Boston, MA of Danish extraction. After Gram’s mother’s death he went to Copenhagen and later began the study of medicine. Following receipt of the degree, Gram fully tested the method of Hahnemann and, upon his return to the United States, he settled in New York City and set up practice.

In 1825, shortly after returning to the United States, Gram published the first work in America on Homeopathy. This was in the form of a letter, and was actually a translation of Hahnemann’s “Spirit of Homoeopathy.” This work, of which only a few copies still exist, was gratuitously distributed. It was, however, difficult to understand because of the translation, and therefore, it was poorly received by Gram’s allopathic colleagues.

However, Gram’s importance would be found in the converts he brought to the new system. This was assisted by the fact that Gram was a “Freemason,” and that several of his first converts were also Masons.[/quote]
[url="http://homeopathyusa.org/home/about-aih/our-heritage---our-future.html"]SOURCE[/url]



[quote]Some time ago I attended a homeopathic seminar given by Anna Schadde. Schadde intertwined her presentation of cases with her own philosophy of life, which, if I remember correctly, incorporated a belief in re-incarnation. I remember during the lunch hour that I reassured a worried student who did not agree with Schadde’s philosophy, “You do not have to be religious to be a homeopath. Homeopathy is secular.”
Not all homeopaths would agree. Hahnemann, a freemason and a Christian, wrote:

“For truth is of the same eternal origin with the all-wise benevolent deity.” [1]

Dr. J.T. Kent was a Swedenborgian Christian who wrote,

“You cannot divorce medicine and theology. Man exists all the way down from his innermost spiritual to his outermost natural.” [2]

Professor E.A. Farrington, also a Swedenborgian, when ill towards the end of his life, was urged by his lay friends to consult an allopath as homeopathy was not helping him. He said, “If I must die, I want to die a Christian.”

Dr. A. Korndoerfer wrote in Dr. Farrington’s obituary, “His faith in the law was unbounded; he believed it divine in origin, and therefore wholly true.”[3]

I think we must make a distinction between a religious philosophy that enables us to deal with the suffering of humanity and our role in it and a philosophy that melds with the philosophy of homeopathy and may actually distort it. For Hahnemann, despite his Christian protestations, his profound religious faith had little actual effect on his account of how to do homeopathy. He gave instructions in the Organon just as a panel beater might give instructions on how to repair a car, or a chef on how to prepare a recipe.

Hahnemann wrote, “In the healthy condition of man……. the indwelling, reason-gifted mind can freely employ this living, healthy instrument for the higher purposes of our existence.” [4]

For Hahnemann the point of homeopathy was to restore the sick to health. He did not specify what the patient should get up to when restored. “The higher purposes of our existence” is suitably vague.

For Kent his Swedenborgian philosophy influenced his homeopathic philosophy to such an extent that even now some hold that his beliefs are fundamental to homeopathic prescribing. Kent’s “hierarchy of symptoms” is based on Swedenborgian thinking. Kent believed that the higher dilutions corresponded to mental and emotional disturbances while the lower dilutions corresponded to the physical. The belief that a mental symptom is usually of more significance than a physical one comes from Kent and he derived this concept from Swedenborg. [5] I was taught at one stage that a low potency could not affect a person’s mental state – a theory that has been demonstrably disproved by my patients on several occasions. Kent introduced a judgmental element to prescribing - talking of “taints” from which patients must be freed.[/quote]
[url="http://www.hpathy.com/papersnew/glaisyer-religion-homeopathy.asp"]SOURCE [/url]

[quote]So one can see that the desire for understanding the collective Unconscious and returning to the roots of our psyche is at the base of the metaphysical views that have been part of Homoeopathy for a long time. Even Hahnemann coded certain Deist and Masonic teachings into the Organon and other writings. The text of aphorism 9 is a perfect example. Some of these words in his writings come directly from the texts of these traditions. His letters are full of philosophical and religious counseling as well as suggestions on diet, exercise and regimen. In one letter he spoke of God as the "Divine Architect", the true Grand Mason! This is because one must use every tool available to heal the body, mind and spirit.[/quote]
[url="http://www.hpathy.com/philosophy/little-vital-force.asp"]SOURCE[/url]


All the above are taken from homeopathic websites.

Of course, the above is just my personal research, (if browsing around the internet over one afternoon can be called research, that is. ) and does not prove the connection conclusively, but it does indicate strongly that many in the field think there are strong similarities between the basic principles of Homeopathy and Freemasonry, doesn't it?

Edited August 24, 2008 by Innocent

[picchick]

[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1635973' date='Aug 23 2008, 09:42 PM']have you tested her for severe food alergies like nut, wheat (ceiliac's disease), corn or dairy? Sometimes these diseases can manifest themselves in strange ways such as exema doing worse damage inside the body.[/quote]
[quote name='Autumn Dusk' post='1636061' date='Aug 23 2008, 10:48 PM']I'd have her tested...esp if she is typically very forceful in avoiding carbs. Little kids know more about their bodies and can anticipate what causes them pain better than adults or older kids. I've heard of several nut-allergy children who HATED nuts with a passion years before they were diagnosed.

From my life experiances with friends who've discoverd ceilic or corn allergies I'd look to it first if I ever started to have trouble with my skin, digestion, etc. Its often what is in or around our body that causes a severe reaction.[/quote]
You are officially awesome!

[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1635984' date='Aug 23 2008, 09:50 PM']Not so far. Her doctor didn't seem to think it was a food related issue. She also eats very little wheat and corn (quite a bit of dairy, and she's a big meat eater. If I want her to eat a carb I practically have to force feed her. I make spaghetti and meatballs and she'll only eat the meatball). Nuts are very seldom eaten as well,[i] maybe[/i] once a week she'll have a peanut butter and jelly--a jar of peanut butter lasts us months. I tend to think it's a hereditary thing, several of her cousins and aunts and uncles on my husband's side have eczema as well. We're in a new area now so her next doctor may think otherwise. If it were food related I would think it would have to be dairy, but even when her dairy intake has been limited there hasn't been a difference, so again, I am not inclined to think its a food related issue.[/quote]




[quote name='IcePrincessKRS' post='1636086' date='Aug 23 2008, 11:07 PM']She wants it when she wants it. Never complains about pain (and believe me she WOULD). She actually loves corn, we just don't eat it very often. Nuts she can take or leave. I'll run it by her doctor, but because I know how she is about pain and such I am still disinclined to think its food related. She eats so little wheat that I would think that when she eats less (or none at all) her skin would get better, and it doesn't.[/quote]

She just might have allergies in general. I would have her tested if you can. I work currently in an allergy clinic. People (especially kids) will come in with horrible eczema. Often it can be the cause of an allergy. The doctor will give the Elidel and hydrocorti...and it will clear the flare and then the eczema will lessen because they are avoiding the stuff they are allergic too. These allergies might also be environmental.

Kids might or might not avoid the foods that they are allergic too. They might love it to death. But then they break out in eczema, hives, whatever else.

Back to the topic:
Homeopathic medicine is great. As long as it is not dangerous, I think that it can be used. Of course doctors need to know what you are doing because some of the homeopathic stuff can interact with diagnosed meds. We use a lot of homeopathic stuff in the allergy clinic to help people tolerate food allergies and environmental allergies. We also use homeopthic techiniques. And we are not a new age clinic. We are like a basic doctor's office.

Meg

[picchick]

Homeopathy is becoming more and more into the health care field. It is not exact science but you do not need to be for it to be used in medical practice. There are two types of doctors, your regular M.D.'s and your D.O. (Doctorate in Osteopathy). The latter is more wholistic in their treatment. They will be more likely to use homeopathy in their medicine.

It is extremely dangerous to do his on your own. Herbs should be treated like prescription medicine. Although it is safe, if you are mixing your own, you might be mixing a lethal something. If you are already taking medication then this can also add to it.

For example, let's say someone has a blood clotting problem. They get a lot of blood clots. The doctor puts them on coumadin or warfarin. Then the guy learns that he can take garlic as well to thin the blood. He might just over thin his blood. This is very very dangerous.

If you are taking herbal supplements you need to discuss with a nurse or doctor what you are taking for your own safety. I also wouldn't trust anyone to mix herbs unless they have some sort of certification or education to show that they know what they ar doing.

Meg