Homeopathy Papers

A Cry for Unity in Homeopathy

Homeopathic medicine for addison's disease

Maria Chorianopoulou, Director of the International Academy of Classical Homeopathy, calls for unity in the practice of homeopathy based on Hahnemann’s teachings and avoiding various practices that are labelled homeopathy, yet do not conform to its rules.

There is an extraordinary outcry for unity from different quarters of the international community of homeopathic practitioners. The argument is that unless we are united there is not going to be an effective promotion of homeopathy within the serious therapeutic modalities. Those who shout the most for unity are addressing their appeal to all those who practice classical  homeopathy, according to the principle set out by Hahnemann and followed from Kent and other older and newer masters.

I believe all these serious practitioners have remained silent these last 30-40 years for good reason. These serious practitioners are the most consciencious and well-educated practitioners who have established a successful practice and do not want to be entangled in meaningless fights.

But enough is enough. Somebody has to speak out about this unspeakable situation into which Homeopathy’s name has been dragged and devalued by ignorant people who, in their effort to bring about new ideas to this science, have actually ridiculed it.

Take a look at some of these crazy ideas that prevail today and reflect that these are the very people who cry out for unity. Do these notions have anything to do with the clear scientific principles set out by Hahnemann?

— pendulums to find the correct remedy;

— remedies that are written down on a piece of paper and then become potentised when you place a glass of water over them;

— remedy selection by astrology;

— remedy selection by tarot;

— remedy selection by the colour or design of outfit of the patient;

— asking patient his favorite colour and then select remedy based on this;

— multi-remedy (complex) prescriptions for specific pathologies, where the individual symptoms are ignored;

–have a specific remedy selection for specific pathology (each one makes his own selections)

cease therapy, a form of homeopathy using the causative substances themselves in homeopathic preparation, not the individual symptoms;

detox homeopathy, using high potencies of different remedies without considering the individual symptoms; 

— predictive homeopathy;

— provings of music, so this music will be used to cure the patient;

— PC sound remedies that cure disease by this similimum;

— remedies that are given via cell phone ringtones;

— remedies that are given according to the likes of a bird

— provings of colour

— certain ‘teachers’ claim that there is no need for the remedies to be ‘proved’ on humans, but instead the symptoms of a remedy can simply be imagined – hundreds of ‘imaginative’ homeopaths can ‘imagine’ hundreds of different ‘provings’ for the same remedy;

— provings of remedies that are incomplete, with emphasis on peculiar mind or emotional symptoms and scarce or no physical symptoms;

— remedy given according to sensation and delusion – believing it is not necessary to take the whole case;

–remedies prescribed according to the doctrine of signatures: e.g. dog’s milk for barking cough, nutmeg remedy for brain disorders as nutmeg looks like a brain;

— Berlin Wall remedy for those who want to avoid divorce;

— some ‘homeopaths’ proclaim that the indicated remedy is spoken to them by God;

— discarding the use of repertories altogether (a key reference book listing all physical, mental and emotional symptoms that have appeared from complete and detailed provings);

— remedy selection by the periodic table and the imaginary synthesis of symptoms by the imagination ;

— usage of a special (electro/radionic) device which can reprint information about a remedy from numbers onto plain sugar granules;

— usage of a special (electro/radionic) device which can reprint information from a photograph or personal object of a patient on to plain sugar granules;

— remedy selection only by the leading miasm (psoric, syphilitic, sycotic etc);

— some ‘homeopaths’ claim that they can send the remedy by etheric waves to the patient;

— some others claim that they do not even need to give the remedy, they just have to think about it and the patient is cured;

— others suggest prescribing only according to mental symptoms;

— some others claim that we can give someone a remedy today and it will protect him/her from a prospective epidemic (homeoprophylaxis);

some homeopaths use a bioresonance device and Voll method for ‘finding’ the remedy, not by analysis and repertorisation;

and so on and so forth.

In the face of all this preposterousness, one is compelled to condemn the absurdity and irresponsibility in order to salvage the scientific status of homeopathy.

After aggressively promoting all these nonsensical ideas, these very people come forward with ostensibly calls for unity, love and cohesion.

If there’s to be unity, however, it should be clear to everyone who wants to practice homeopathy and wishes to be called a homeopath that there is only ONE homeopathic healing system, the one founded by Samuel Hahnemann, with its specific laws and principles. According to this science, we give a single homeopathic remedy (the simillimum) to the patient each time and then evaluate the effect in order to continue treatment in the chronic cases. We prescribe judiciously by studying the cases with the Repertory and the Materia Medica. If we are to practice homeopathy per se, we must ALL agree that homeopathy MUST be the real Hahnemannian homeopathy.

Then and only then we can talk about unity.

In such a case we can find:

— Unity in well-founded principles and scientific laws;

— Unity in rejecting nonsense and ludicrous ideas;

— Unity in protecting homeopathy from the disparagement caused by some who are only interested in increasing their own gains;

— Unity in protecting patients from fake “homeopaths” and keeping them well-informed about what homeopathy really is;

— Unity in identifying and banishing from homeopathy the self-proclaimed homeopaths who promote foolish ideas and absurdities;

— Unity in protecting new students from wasting years of study trying to understand nonsense that cannot be credibly applied in practice;

— Unity in disallowing the publication of articles which bring homeopathy into disrepute; and unity in laying down rules whereby articles may be accepted for publication;

— Unity in daring to criticize even our friends and partners if they express unscientific views on homeopathy;

— Unity in universally understanding and recognizing that homeopathy is a burgeoning true science and not a potpourri of irrelevant ideas;

— Unity in disallowing unaccountability and quackery to prevail in the name of so-called open democracy and freedom of ideas.

Only then, and only then, will we gain a resounding voice that will be heard by the medical community, national governments, and European and international organizations.

But until that happens, however, distorters of homeopathy will take delight in continuing with their unscientific ideas, calling for unity and wishing that this situation will go on forever without realizing that in this way, homeopathy will not need to be extinguished  from the outside; it will already have been killed from the inside.

About the author

Maria Chorianopoulou

Maria Chorianopoulou

Maria Chorianopoulou, PhD is the Director of the International Academy of Classical Homeopathy in Alonissos, Greece. She has a Doctorate of Philosophy from the Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences, Department of Psychology, and has university degrees from the National and Kapodistrian University of Athens, School of Philosophy, Department of Philology, with a Specialization in the Classics. She was a Lecturer at the Panteion University of Social and Political Sciences in Greece (2008-2014) in the fields of "Research Methodology", "History of Institutions" and "Philosophy of Law”. Previously she held the office of Director of the Political Office of the Minister of Administrative Reform and e-Governance in Greece; was the Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign Affairs in Greece; and was the Special Assistant to the ex-Prime Minister of Greece.
Maria Chorianopoulou is the main contributor to the realization (2006) of the Master Degree Program on Classical Homeopathy at the Aegean University in Greece which comprises the full teachings of Professor George Vithoulkas.
She considers the E-Learning Program in Classical Homeopathy by Professor George Vithoulkas a significant accomplishment in her life. She is responsible for the promotion of Professor George Vithoulkas’ teachings, and oversees his entire organization including the IACH’s educational programs worldwide.
Maria Chorianopoulou has translated into Greek the book “Science of Homeopathy” by Professor George Vithoulkas, and is the author of two books: Lycurgus’ Politics and Syntax of the Modern Greek Language (two volumes).
https://www.vithoulkas.com , https://www.vithoulkas.edu.gr

46 Comments

  • Thank you for your exquisite clarity in defending classical Hahnemannian Homeopathy.

    I am so grateful and proud to be taught by IACH.

    Thank you for all you do Dear Maria!

  • A significantly illuminating thought and proposal!!
    Congratulations Maria on daring to write the truth so fearlessly!! More power to you and us!!

  • Article très réaliste, percutant et plein de bon sens.
    En effet, l’heure n’est plus à des élucubrations les unes plus fantaisistes que les autres, qui ne font que de nous affaiblir la crédibilité devant les patients et les scientifiques.
    Merci Dr. Chorianopoulou de nous ramener devant cette évidence et surtout de garder cet espoir pour du meilleur.
    Je souscris totalement à votre proposition.
    L’homéopathie est hahnemanienne ou n’est pas du tout.

    • From a place of integrity, a powerful affirmation for a person who is brave enough to share their ideas, even if they might be unpopular at first. It helps when we all encourage each other to be our honest, authentic selves.

      Thank you Maria….

  • The need of the hour is to save homoeopathy from the so called homoeopaths. The Organon of Medicine, Materia Medical Pura and Chronic Diseases, their peculiar nature and their homoepathic cure are the bench marks and Gold Standards in Homoeopathy. Let us teach and practice in Hahnemann’s way, but not the individual’ way. United we stand, divided we fall. Let Hahnemann’s teachings guide us all for practice of homoeopathy in it’s pristine purity. Long live the principles.

  • Well said dear Maria, really appreciate you for writing on right time and in perfect way.
    “Dare to be wise”.
    Bravo !

    • True classical homeopathy ? 99% of true classical homeopathy followers claims they are practicing Great Dr Hahnemann’s way [ Father of Homeopathy]. Dr hahnemann if you go very deep into history, it is found that he was taking case history for more than 3 to 4 hours and was able to treat hardly 2 to 3 patients per day !. his was pain taking diagnosis right from birth , complete family history, Hereditary traits and was observing deeply patients physical, psychological, mental aspects, full lifestyle -subjective, objective. anyone please tell me how many are truly following dr Hahnemann?i have practically seen and observed and got in put from close friends and relatives that they have taken treatment fro very famous, authoritative homeopaths , they have taken hardly 10 to 15 minutes to dispose off and they all waited for hours in que ! many of my people also said they have been taking homeopathy treatments since few years but not got rid-off their chronic illness , only 30 to 40 % feeling better. personally i know some of famous and highly advertising homeopathic clinics making contract for minimum one year and charging 25 to 30000 per patient even for for acute diseases like common cold, fever, sinus gastric problems , constipation etc ! is it true classical? even present generation and fast moving lifestyle people also have no patience to wait for hours and wants instant relief. our daughter also BHMS with experience over 17 years, yet not fully confidence to administer high potency medicine in required cases. patients tendency also , they hide personal private health details, hides other medicines they are taking. Hence there is lot of challenges before homeopaths to treat effectives and to ensure reliability of Homeopathy system of treatments.
      Most important need of the hour is all experts need to highlight the difference of lifestyle, quality of life during Hahnemann’s time and present scenario. cluttering the mind with thousands of minute details cannot solve the chronic cases. Homeopathy knowledge grows through experience over years of practice with complete dedication of honest service mind. upcoming Homeopaths needs lot of seminars, open discussions, exchange of knowledge and dissemination of expertise is most important to popularise Homeopathic system in present era.

  • It is a good opportunity to see how many wrong ideas exist in homeopathy. It is a good moment for us to decide to practice real homeopathy, Hahnemannian Classical Homeopathy. I think democracy like a freedom to practice a real method of healling not like a posibility to develop so many strange atitudes so far away from real principles of homeopathy. I wish to thank International Academy of Classical Homeopathy and expecially prof. George Vithoulkas for their effort and energy in promoting classical homeopathy. Thank you Maria for your dedication to help others.

  • Such a precise explanation about what the True Hahnemannian Homeopathy is…

    and and perfect elaboration about all the turmoil going on presently in the name of Homeopathy.

    Those who have been student of IACH and correctly understood and imbibed true classical Hahnemannian Homeopathy will never ever get side tracked from this true path.

    Thankyou Maria ma’am to put down the word of every true Classical Homeopath in such elegant manner.

  • Dear Maria,

    I do agree that the lack of unity in homeopathy is not in our favour, but at the other hand the way forward that you are proposing is impossible to take. I subscribe big time to classical homeopathic principles as set out by Hahnemann and the old masters but I do understand that times have changed considerably.

    My expertise is the homeopathic and social care for the distressed undergoing psychiatric treatment. The discrepancy between the various homeopathic approaches has been a burden to me for several years too. As a consequence of my vigorous approach to the social well-being of my clients I have discovered that there is a social context to medicine which we do not realise in our daily practise as classical prescribers. As a movement or “discipline” within medicine we and our professional organisations world wide are a social movement too, people with real people needs that need to be addressed in order to overcome our lonely and isolated existence as a consequence of working diligently for the big cause of the blessings that homeopathy brings about.

    l would like to suggest to you and the readers that unity must be sought in the consensus of how to prescribe ethically and that in line with the most marginalised among our patients, the people in distress under the control of the psychiatric services world-wide. Essential in this approach towards creating more unity among homeopaths is that it is a grass roots approach starting in small circles of befriended homeopaths where we listen as careful to one another the way we wish to listen to our most vulnerable clients uninterruptedly. Each of us is given the opportunity to speak from the heart in relation to a case in which a most vulnerable client’s well-being is at stake, an ethical dilemma, so to speak. As we go around the circle of friends, round after round, while listening to one another attentively we will sort out our dilemmas with a view on testing our principles. Homeopathic principles are ethical principle serving the most vulnerable in our care. Through sound listening to each other we do influence one another instead of imposing opinions and we soon will find out which principles remain standing in view of the treatment of the most marginalised patient.

    I would like to keep it short here, but if we organise our national professional organisations in small circles of befriended homeopaths the way I propose here in such a way that also committee members are taking part in such groups then over time we will agree much easier on the way forward for we allow ourselves not to prescribe the way we fancy, but only in line with the most downtrodden, persistently ignored individuals under psychiatric treatment. Let’s start putting the most vulnerable client at the center of our attention and not as much the principles for the sake of maintaining them only. I am sure this will be a celebration of the most celebrated principles ever since its systematic exploration our old masters.

    • Sir,
      Precisely what do you mean by your statement. ..”..only in line with the most downtrodden persistently ignored individuals under psychiatric treatment” ?
      Your entire comment has such sentences unintelligible to English knowing people.
      And why the author’s proposal is impossible to accept?
      In what way “change of times” can justify delinquency and unscientific concepts ?

  • Dearest Maria, I appreciate your timely intervention by writing this bold article against the rubbish, which has been circulated across the globe. I sincerely hope that this article gains momentum through sharing and dissemination. So as to expose people behind this charlatanism….!!!

  • Excellent article!
    Is there a society of Classical Homeopathy with the integrity and courage of Prof. Vithoulkas which can issue a formal statement against the dangers/homeopathic heresies you mentioned in the article?

  • Dear Maria ,totally agreed to your absolutely factual writing with such positively and intensely criticized upon all absurdities, false ideas, unscientific things in the name of Homeopathy.It denotes real emotions, love for such a great holistic science
    “Hahnemannian Homeopathy”

  • Dearest Maria, Thanks you very much for this eye opening article which separates “rubbish things” from Classical Hahnemannian Homeopathy. This article will guide about right ie Classical Hahnemannian Homeopathy to students, younger Homeopaths in right direction.

  • Oh dear Maria, this is the fantastic article at the time of sheer need to show the true teachings of classical homeopathy to the world. Hope to have a global body of classical homeopaths and should regularly be monitored and controlled.
    Wish you all the best! Love to be part of it.

  • Dear Maria,

    Thank you for your heart-felt plea – borne of the evidence which is sadly so abundant around us – that many who claim to be doing Homoeopathy have little idea of its meaning.

    OMOION (similars) does not mean a similarity of colour, sound, chemistry, appearance, or other sensible quality – Hahnemann’s induction of similars as a general therapeutic principle in medicine (even Hippocrates held it to be true only for certain diseases, as with inflammation) refers solely to substance EFFECTS.

    As I wrote many years ago, there is already UNITY amongst homoeopaths – the separation is with those who assume (and are free to assume) the title without knowing the meaning. And it is the teachers most responsible for this, not the eager student who necessarily places their trust in them.

    So I agree there can be unity within Homoeopathy when that title is reserved for those who understand its meaning, and apply its directive – to seek to prescribe for each case of disease a substance known to produce similar effects – and these effects are recorded in a materia medicae (comprising methodical substance trials [provings] as well toxicological reports).

    Substance effects can not be understood from a repertory which is intended to provide pointers to the MM – and it should here be mentioned that it is a great tragedy to see whole cases and entire systems being devised for analysis, with statistical modelling, without ever citing or even mentioning the specific indications from the source materia medica used in the final decision (prescription). It thus appears the source MM’s are not known, and not studied.

    When we study the sources, and compare them to what has been recorded by Hahnemann, and then to the mere copyists who venture to alter, truncate, extend, and re-interpret symptoms based on some idea of the words used, we see Hahnemann was absolutely faithful and accurate in his renderings, and his pharmacographies remain, even to this day, unmatched. I have done such comparisons more pointedly over the past near 20 years, and am therefore speaking not from mere dictionary-driven opinion.

    From this basis comes accuracy in understanding the true effects of substances, and these can then be compared with the true disease effects in an individual patient – only then can we say with certainty that the prescription is homoeopathic – and with this comes a predictability of outcome – as seen with the prescriptions of our past masters.

    So let all homoeopaths, who have thoroughly studied and understood what is means to “do” Homoeopathy, demonstrate their immovability of position, and stand together with similar aims and aspirations. But we must and will remain separate to those who misrepresent Homoeopathy proper.

  • With all due respect, the author is not calling for unity in homeopathy, but advising the whole profession to follow classical homeopathy, and classical homeopathy only; cautioning fellow homeopaths to stay away from the use and development of any newer methods, i.e. advising not to think further. The author presents an impressive list of all the pioneering methods in homeopathy that she would do well to study herself before presenting a biased view against them with no consideration to the many ongoing clinical verification efforts in their safe and effective use. For example, the journal Spectrum of Homeopathy is a good resource for cases solved by colour preference, or kingdom analysis. Not so recent studies in water science confirm that water structure is indeed influenced by thought/information, so ‘paper’ remedies made from water could indeed be plausible outside the current reductionist scientific paradigm (just like homeopathy itself).
    I fully agree with the author that we must ABSOLUTELY have classical homeopathy as our solid common ground. But perhaps a better way forward to unite all homeopaths would be to become discerning, not divisive. To differentiate in our minds – by being up to date with case research on these subjects – which methods have been empirically tested and which not yet (or not appropriately for the case in question). Then, with a background of good education, a homeopath should be able to decide if using a more ‘experimental’ method in a particular case is beneficial to the patient or if it would put the patient or the profession at risk. I would unite on this idea instead.

    • Most very human endeavor is a mix of art and science: the rational/irrational, left brain/right brain, conscious/unconscious. Such as good cooking! Everything has such polarity. Problems occur where there is only a focus on one side, discarding, rejecting and possibly suppressing the other. What homeopath has not experienced that magical light going off (intuitive feeling) as the patient talks and immediately gets the clear picture of the case?

      Everything has its original orthodoxy which forms the solid foundation and basis. Hahnemann’s foundation is one of the greatest achievements of science, albeit it the realm of empirical science. How the remedies must match the case, be taken and repeated are all in accordance of clear, natural laws that are (more or less) irrefutable. But … how the simillimum for a specific case before you (a real person of great complexity and mystery) is arrived at to then see if it matches the case, now that could be a different standard. Any good homeopath has a strong element of depth psychology whether they call it that or not.

      I am not sure the patients of homeopathy really give a hoot how the homeopath arrives at the most fitting remedy that can help them. Personally as a patient myself, I could care less if the homeopath’s method for identifying the best remedy is standing on their head while chanting a late-Beatles song in reverse, as long as the remedy they come up with is the best fitting to the case (remedy rubrics match the symptom complex) according to foundational principles and they manage the case as the homeopathic-science (Organon) dictate.

      An overly rational approach stares at the computer screen, desperately trying to match the case to a remedy choice using only rational faculties, likely missing potential valuable clues from the intuitive faculties. An unbalanced, “out-there” esoteric approach grabs a rabbit out of the hat but does not apply the needed scientific rigor, methodology and irrefutable principles of the organon before giving the remedy. And they likely grossly lack the academic side, grounding and the critical wisdom to properly manage a case after that. What is clear is whatever is arrived at for remedy MUST match the case (rubrics, essence).

      But, homeopaths should take care not to be overly enchanted and thus misled that the colorful repertorization programs will lead to a clear, final answer. This approach (provings, confirmed cases, repertorization, computer modeling) is still highly vulnerable to scientific methodology critique due to the high degree of subjectivity within, but it is what there is. And what practitioner, operating perhaps unknowingly in the irrational realm, has not had that flash of insight to find that ideal remedy, but that remedy was like number 19 way down the repertorization table.

      A possible harmonization for this conflict being discussed might be this: homeopaths and patients are mix of rational and irrational. So it might be good to give some room for the art/intuitive side to come up with the proposed simillimum – yet without falling prey to dogmatic rules fixation and inquisition, but… hold accountable the final remedy selection and case management (and educational standards) to the clear, pure and timeless principle of classical, Hahnemanian homeopathy.

  • Every word is worth, problem lies in education standards leaving loop holes for so called unproven approaches.
    Still classical way stands unquestioned

  • I completely agree with everything you say here Maria. For the last 40 years of my work with homeopathy and training others to do it, I have to constantly advise them to avoid most of the prominent teachers out there, as well as not using their written works. It is completely illogical to think we can unify two or more ideas of how to practice homeopathy when they contradict each other. I hope your message is taken to heart, though may not likely turn things around. There is too much ego involved.

  • With respect to you views, I also respect the views and practices of others, proving they work, of course. I am, myself, a professional homoeopath of thirty years, trained in the classical way. My wife, dutifully receives treatment from another, also classically trained. To cut short the story, her single-remedy treatment saw her spectacularly through the menopause, but did not address the the osteoporosis that came later. After six months of single-remedy treatment, her bone density scan revealed a marked deterioration. Her homoeopath then changed tack. He prescribed a combination remedy of Calc-Phos/Symphytum/Parathyroid Gland, 6x, bd ongoing. After six months, the deterioration had halted and her pain had more or less gone. After one year, her bone density had improved. After two years, she stopped the remedy and now, five years on, she is free from pain and in radiant health. I also later learned that her homoeopath made all his remedies from a radionics machine – something I’ve always been very sceptical about.
    I have decided to make my point using an individual case, as homoeopathy is all about the individual. If my wife had been left on the Hahnemannian Express, she would probably be in a wheelchair by now.
    So please, do not judge the good actions of others just because they fail your criteria. Homoeopathy is a living, evolving force and as times change, so must our practices, otherwise, homoeopathy will surely die.

  • Reaffirming the truthfulness of Hahnemannian homeopathy is necessary, salutary, and welcome.
    But suggesting means of censorship of any deviations from this model represents a grave danger to overall truth.
    In my opinion, this will never result in the acceptance of homeopathy by its powerful enemies. They are not interested in any form of truth.

  • Maria, thank you for your article. I want to make an exception with regard to CEASE therapy, though, if you don’t mind. It’s a therapy for autism using the vaccines they got, in potency. I don’t think this is entirely un-Hahnemannian because they’re prescribing on the etiology. It makes perfect sense, UNLESS, you see a clear remedy picture in the patient. But where there is no clear picture, or a confused picture, and you find out the patient has been never well since the MMR, then the MMR in potency is a really good idea. In fact, now that I think about it, more often than not, you’re going to find that the patients coming to you are suffering from side-effects of drugs. The drug in potency is often the only way they will be cured. I found that out for myself. I had a penicillin rash–but I didn’t know it at the time! I only knew that I itched! I didn’t know why! I suffered for weeks until amazingly, I saw a commercial on TV for Tyson’s Chicken. “We never feed our chickens antibiotics,” the ad said. OMG! Chicken! Antibiotics! Then I knew, I knew what was wrong with me! Luckily I had Penicillin 30C here. I took it and got instant improvement! It was a life-saver!

  • Thanks for taking the time to write. However, as a classically trained homeopath who has gone on to investigate, use where I feel appropriate and respond to cases as individuals sat in front of me, I feel there is much that is missed in this appeal for unity.

    For starters, I love the idea of unity and am very much behind this. I feel that we spend so long attacking each other that so much energy is wasted. The public have no idea whether we are classical, non classical, practical or whatever other label we choose to give. I agree we need to get over our ego and create something worthwhile together.

    Should it follow one and only one approach? I think herein lies an element of danger. For those who consider themselves Hahnemanian – that’s all very well, but I have never seen someone so bold, so adventurous, so creative, so capable of pushing boundaries. Who knows what direction this would have gone in in the years since his death. I certainly don’t, but I feel sure it wouldn’t have stood still, preserved in the 6th edition of the organon.

    I have looked at prescriptions from others and at times been puzzled – but they have had brilliant results and very happy patients. I have sent friends/family to medically qualified homeopaths and been really disappointed, not to say they weren’t great at their jobs with other people, I can’t question that, but prescriptions totally perplexed me, particularly from a classical point of view. Sending them to sensation based practitioners working with even some of the things you mention here, I have seen far and away better results in at least two instances. Happier, healthier people works for me. And them.

    I have seen patients working with CEASE make progress – and indeed Hahnemann talks of obstacles to cure in cases and that these must be removed. I have had instances where there has been no chance of getting a remedy to someone and suggested the water method you mention. And it has helped. Would I want to run my practice with that as the only method? Certainly not. But for someone in hospital with horrendous constipation following a 9 hour operation – was I grateful for it? Were they? Most certainly.

    I’ve had patients text me after I’ve been working on a case and told me they felt a shift and things had started to change significantly and had I just decided their remedy? That they felt the change right then. I had, as it happens. Not everyone, no. But this has been my experience.

    Having purchased a radionics machine due to concerns over potential remedy availability in the future, I’ve seen great results from these remedies where given. Nothing to suggest a difference from a pharmacy produced remedy. Would I wish to only use this? No. But I am glad to have it and unsure where our future lies in terms of access to medicines.

    Then I guess, one of my issues is do I want us to all be the same? I would certainly love everyone to have a solid grounding in the foundations of this amazing medicine. Of course I would want the Organon to be required reading and further study of this to go forwards in a healthy practice. But would I wish to exclude any individuals from practicing and working with things outside of this more narrow model? That’s quite a huge question, and for me it’s a no.

    But unity – yes please. For me that comes in not attacking others within the space. Many work differently from me – can I learn from that or simply dismiss it? I like to investigate, and if it makes sense, find out more, and sometimes it has no bigger part in my life. But to think I know it all? I’m certainly not ready for that just yet.

    With best wishes to all and grateful to walk alongside, Em

  • Sincere thanks to Dr Maria Chorianopropolou.
    Hahnemann was a genius. He hadn’t left unexplored any method consistent with the behaviour of homeopathic interventions or any explanation consistent with contemporary scientific knowledge.
    As such our responsibility is incorporating into its theory any scientific advances made subsequent to Hahnemann’s time and carry the Science of homeopathy forward as Hahnemann himself would have done if all the scientific discoveries made subsequent to his period were at his disposal during his lifetime.
    There is no hope for homeopathy unless teachers & students realise that any method other than a through repertorisation is a mathematical impossibility because according to computational complexity theories, homeo prescribing is a NP problem. The numver of variables involved makes it impossible to solve within Polynomial time. Hence Nondeterministic Polynomial time problem.
    The only method according to maths, is to verify if any probable solution is correct. Hence Elimination of the unsuitable from a probable shortlist is the only method. Exactly what repertorisation is.
    Students may also benefit to understand that, at anytime there are only a handful of homeopaths who can consistently prescribe correct remedies. Most others are role playing these handful. If I tell the name of some such role players, it would be scandalising. I’m gold that the author has boldly hinted at some such names which would go a long way in clearing the confusion & chaos these modern gurus have caused to the poor students of homeopathy.

    Also, the author disapproves hpathy’s own policy of publishing articles likely to bring disrepute to homeopathy. This may be considered as representing the opinion which every classical homeopath is secretly holding.

  • I have been practicing homeopathy for 40 years and has finally arrived at the following conclusion. Most cases can ble solved using the standard procedure of repertorization and Materia medica. There is however about 20 – 25% that cannot be solved because the remedy that is needed has not been proved and therefore cannot be found. In these cases using the Scholten method of series and stages in cases needing both minerals and plants, has proved invaluable! To get get a grip on his method the book by Ulrich Welte: The Periodic Table in Homeopathy. The Silver Series is highly recommended.

  • As far as I can see from your bio you do not have studies in Homeopathy, if I am wrong you can correct me. So I wonder how you have drawn all these conclusions

    • Maria’s credentials make her an expert on evaluating systems. I think critical thinking and analysis is what she has used to evaluate the social atmosphere and its impact on our homœopathic community. Her analysis is sound.

  • This articles shows the same type of prejudice that avoids homeopathy to be on mainstream.
    If you think this list under ‘Take a look at some of these crazy ideas that prevail today ‘ is the same as the ‘scientific’ world has but with “Classical Homeopathy” in it. Remember that for ‘science’ hoemopathy is a scam.
    If practitioners of these ‘crazy ideas’ are using and having some success, that is fine. If they dont have success they will lose their clients. Homeopathy since ages have lost power because of this internal criticism.
    Allopathy has its weirdos too and doesnt get criticized because they have their union, based on their ‘science’.
    The union the text says is just a single minded view of the world: Classical Homeopathy is all that has. That is wrong.
    Better pray for a new god.

    PS: Just to say I agree Classical Homeo is the bestI am totally agains the singleminded view of things. If Hahnemann thought like this, we would be without homeopathy.

    • Dear Saulo,
      The author isn’t wrong. There’s is no other method than reconstructing the totality of symptoms from whatever fragments of the same are available.
      Everyone has the liberty to arrive at the totality by whatever method one chooses bcoz of one’s own expertise in such method.
      But there’s no liberty to select remedies totally overlooking or ignoring the totality itself !
      Here what Dr. Maria Chorianopropolou has rightly condemned are such methods like sensations, Kingdom, signature, periodic table etc which are intended to do away with the necessity of matching the totality, the only legitimate guide in selection of remedies. The proponents of the respective methods may be able to prescribe using their own methods bcoz of their prior knowledge of the traditional methods invariably basing “totality of symptoms” as the ultimate guide. But their poor students & followers need not be so fortunate for obvious reasons. Such methods serving the personal interests of the proponents are only superfluous since we can do well without them.
      Paper potencies, radionics etc are something without disowning which homeopathy is doomed.
      If science considers homeopathy a scam, it’s due to the existence of such nonsense being pushed as homeopathy by overambitious delinquent homeopaths.

      It is good that someone has at last initiated a trend of disowning such dangerous methods & their respective proponents in the broader interest of homeopathy.

      Let us hope this trend gains momentum and one day we can be really proud of being homeopaths.

    • Totally agree. The union the text advocates is not for plurality, but single minded. Plurality is what enriches a system and a science

  • I agree with Maria Chorianopoulou. There are many “systems” that claim to be homœopathic but cannot be since they do not follow the 3 principles laid out by its founder, after much repeated verification. It is not being a “purist” or an exclusionist to say that an approach is not Homœopathic if it doesn’t follow these principles. Rather, it is a correct analysis.

    Also, SH agrees that there are other active approaches to medicine, he simply says that they are not Homœopathic, and I agree:

    § 286 Sixth Edition

    The dynamic force of minerals magnets, electricity and galvanism act no less powerfully upon our life principle and they are not less homoeopathic than the properly so-called medicines which neutralize disease by taking them through the mouth, or by rubbing them on the skin or by olfaction. There may be diseases, especially diseases of sensibility and irritability, abnormal sensations, and involuntary muscular movements which may be cured by those means. But the more certain way of applying the last two as well as that of the so-called electromagnetic lies still very much in the dark to make homoeopathic use of them. So far both electricity and Galvanism have been used only for palliation to the great damage of the sick. The positive, pure action of both upon the healthy human body have until the present time been but little tested.

    The operative word is “tested”. To all those that claim there are other means of applying remedies, let them do the hard work before they present these claims. I have read Tinnitus Schmidt’s book on CEASE therapy. He did not unthinkingly apply vaccine isopathics in his cases, but followed a rigorous and tested method and used them only in cases where there was no clear similimum, but rather a dis-jointed set of symptoms or a one-sided case (following Hahnemann’s principles laid out in the Organon to address these issues). Once again, applied on the UNPREJUDICED OBSERVATION of the patient, according to CLEAR AND OBJECTIVE SYMPTOMS, the TOTALITY of which guides the prescription.

    Colours, sounds, etc. may well be useful homœopathic remedies, but unless they are tested using the principles laid out by our Art and Science (making the remedies and doing a drug-test in the proper manner) they cannot be included in our materia medicas. We have tested and proven energetic remedies, we can add more, but they must follow the principles of homœopathy or they are not homœopathc, they are something else.

    Yes, Hahnamann has called us to continue his work, to do more research, but with the same rigour and attention that he has shown. Homœopathy will evolve with the environment we live in because pathology develops when we cannot redress from excessive stress, but the number of symptoms that we can develop in our bodies is limited by that same organism: we have not evolved so much in 200 years that the symptoms are no longer covered by the remedies that we have tested and the principles of the Healing Art are still relevant because of that.

    There are many healing arts, but if we want to call ourselves Homœopaths we must apply the 3 basic principles tested and re-tested by Samuel Hahnemannn: 1. the similimum (found by testing the substance according to sound and precise principles), 2. individuation (there are no protocols in Homœopathy, ever) and 3. the smallest active dose (which does not mean dilution always, but a sound knowledge of the action of each substance in a multitude of doses).

    All this requires hard and long study. Homœopathy is not a medicine for the lazy!

    Thank you Maria for your article.

  • Thank you maria for such a valiable article. I visited IACH in 1998. And I am very much impressed in the teaching of George Vithoulkas. During a ten days session of his classes it completly changed my way of practice. Since than I try to be his true follower in my country, Pakistan. And from time to time I keep on spreading and advocating his posts by translating them into my language(Urdu) for my countrymen homeopaths. I fully support and share this article/ I shall try to put the same in video form with your permission. All my best wishes for you, George and IACH. Stay blessed.

  • I would like to say that I agree completely with Maria Chorianopoulou’s call for unity within the homoeopathic profession. I would like to but sadly I cannot.

    Every homoeopath knows that wonderful feeling when the patient is able to provide a consistent series of symptoms which the homoeopath is able to elicit in order the create a totality with which to prescribe. Sadly, homoeopaths know too of patients who are closed and where it is impossible to elicit very much at all. Although I was training at the time, I met a lady who clearly had serious emotional problems. I recommended a homoeopath- one who is now retired but who at the time had a national profile. When I next saw the lady she was transformed, and when I asked her how things went, she told me that the homoeopath couldn’t make much of her symptoms but told her that he had used a new system in which he took one fact of the case- the death of her father. In what appeared to be the use of Scholten’s elements theory, he took grief and father and extrapolated these to natrum and carbonicum, and that is the remedy that the patient got to which she responded marvellously.

    I could go on and on, referring to the use by Hahnemann himself of belladonna prophylactically, and that the Cuban Government reports great success in reducing the annual leptospirosis epidemic using homoeopathic prophylaxis, but I feel I am swimming against the current as it is. I will only add that I was trained classically and follow the rules as laid down by Hahnemann, as taught me by a paractitioner I have the highest regard for. I have a high regard for Boenninghausen too and deplore the absence of a modern translation in the English at a price that can be afforded by all. So although I understand fully where Ms Chorianopoulou is coming from, I have to say that I can only give her two cheers. For homoeopathy is part science and part art, and the art bit often involves a whole series of responses on the part of the practitioner that involve the subconscious as well as the rational mind.

    And although rules can be exceptionally useful, so can knowing when to break them.

    • This is a case that could drive a sane person with a bit of logic away from homeopathy. What is the connection of “grief ” and “father” from which the practitioner extrapolated to prescribe..,natrum-carbonicum…?? This is the deification… of irrationality ! If this is a real case the only thing I can imagine is that the practitioner saw one or two keynotes of Natr-c on which he based the prescription. Then presented it in such a way in order to create a mystery of some supernatural perception that you need to have in order to practice homeopathy! It is so sad that a science is treated as the rubbish of crazy imaginations.

  • excellent Dr Maria
    You said right and at right time . All of us must be support Hahnemannian homeopathy

  • Friends: This “manifesto” is retrograde and dictatorial and I explain why. First of all let me present myself: I am Associate Professor at “Universidad Candegabe de Homeopatía” and also an Associate Professor at the “Hahnemannian International Homeopathy Institute” homeopathy school, Argentina and author of 5 medicine books and author of the informatics cybernetic conceptualization of our beloved science.
    So why is this manifesto retrograde and dictatorial? Because it blocks, frustrate all possibilities for research in other science areas limiting the homeopathy “knowledge” to the old Hahnemannian interpretation. And what is new? My research, my work, my informatics cybernetic interpretation of homeopathy is the most advanced in this science and is the only scientific one, the one that will bring our beloved homeopathy out of the pseudo scientific interpretation and out of the stagnation it is in the scientific environment with reason.
    And what is the core of what I say? Information (Information that was send via Internet by Benveniste and Montagnier) is the active element of the homeorremedy and when the nerves get it send a signal to the brain-central nervous system, which in return puts to work healing programs. (Master Hahnemann knew the homeorremedy’s influence in the nervous system. Organon; paragraphs 16, 247 y 272 “The Chronic Diseases”; Pages 45 and 49)
    When I say my homeopathy conceptualization is the one, this is neither my idea nor my saying, but what serious researches, recognized ones say. See here these opinions on my work (Only a fewy of them):

    SYNTHESIS OF OPINIONS ON MY BOOK “HOMEOPATHY AND INFORMATICS”, UP-TO-DATE: 2020

    (In alphabetical order according to the last names)
    Dr. José Alejandro Almaguer González, director of Traditional Medicine and Intercultural Development in the General Direction of Planning and Development of the Ministry of Health ([email protected]), Mexico:
    “Congratulations …I think you hit upon how to figure out the mechanism of cure of Homeopathy, a deeply transcendent situation, since not even Hahnemann, knew how… ”

    Dr. Paolo Bellavite: (“Paolo Bellavite” ) Author of one of the most famous books in the topic, in the world: “The emerging science of homeopathy” North Atlantic Books, Teacher and Investigator a well known homeopath researcher of the University of Verona, Italy:
    I “agree on 90%” (I have professor Bellavite emails in which he says this)
    Alexander Tournier
    Dr. Alexander L. Tournier
    BSc Cantab PhD LCHE RSHom
    Executive Director of the Homeopathy
    Research Institute Dr Tournier studied physics at Imperial College, London, and theoretical physics at the University of Cambridge. He wrote his PhD on the biophysics of water-protein interactions at the University of Heidelberg, Germany. Dr Tournier qualified from the Centre for Homeopathic Education with a licentiate in homeopathy. He is currently conducting interdisciplinary research at the boundaries between mathematics, physics and biology, as an independent researcher for a major international research organization. Dr Tournier is a founding director of the Homeopathy Research Institute, an innovative charity dedicated to facilitating high-quality research in homeopathy.
    “Dear Andres, again, I can only say that the concepts you are using are very useful, powerful, interesting and need to be disseminated”
    Dr. Marcelo Candegabe. He is Director of the Universidad Candegabe de homeopatia, Argentina. (www.universidadcandegabe.org) He is a presenter and exhibitor of hundreds of works and papers in congresses, courses, symposia, forums all over the world and author of 5 books. “… I agree with you in almost all the concepts; however I see…maybe some summations a little forced as that of the “Software of the human body”. In any way I coincide fully in that what homoeopaths denominate “immaterial” is the information implied in the implied order of the universe like David Bohm wanted it. I have the full security that the enlightening road of the homeopathy goes of the hand of these concepts for what I thank you again the effort for the publication of this work that I don’t doubt it will illuminate others in the same sense. As I make it in my school in Buenos Aires Argentina, recently in a course in Spain I mentioned your book. Your book is not the Bible, but there is nothing like it”

    Dr. Carlos U. Häubi Segura: (“Carlos Haubi Segura” [email protected]) Author of the “Stewart’s Acid-basic Theory” book, allopath, researcher in the Universidad de Aguascalientes, México:
    “This book (Homeopathy and Informatics) will help to open the black boxes of the operation of the organism which is no more than an enormous system of cybernetic regulation”

    Dr. Eduardo Ángel Yahbes:
    (“Dr. Eduardo Angel Yahbes” , Eduardo Yahbes ,) President of the Homeopathic Medical Association of Argentina, Founder of the Federation of Argentinean Homeopathic Associations, joint author of two homeopathy books, teacher of the Homeopathic Medical Association Argentina and former director of Post Graduate degree of the same one, awarded-laureate by the University of Buenos Aires: “a new paradigm for Medicine… an indispensable book for homeopathy and medicine in general… ”
    Here you may find my book “Homeopatía e informática” (In Spanish) with a change in the title and some actualizations. This is the 5th edition: https://www.academia.edu/39431730/HOMEOPAT%C3%8DA_CIENCI A_INFORM%C3%81TICA_CIBERN%C3%89TICA_PROGRAM%C3%81TICAhttps://www.academia.edu/people/search?utf8=%E2%9C%93&q=Homeopat%C3%ADa%3A+ciencia+inform%C3%A1tica+cibern%C3%A9tica+program%C3%A1tica

    • Dear Andrés Amado Zuno Arce, may you send us please a link with your work in english language?

Leave a Comment