Vol. 23 No. 2 April 2003

These comments follow the letter from Dr Rozencwaijg because, coincidentally, the editorial I had planned to continue on from the one in the last issue made pretty much the same points the letter makes:

“Classical” is a near meaningless and misused word (teaching institutions with the word “classical” in their name can be teaching anything, people calling themselves classical homœopaths on their cards and brochures seem to be doing all sorts of stuff).

The “single remedy” and “totality” concepts need investigating – trials and pooled experiences should be able to sort out what really works if the right spirit was evident among contributors.
We should look for what is best for patients (curing them quickly, safely, permanently, cheaply) and use this as the yardstick for deciding what can honestly be put under the heading “homœopathy” without doing violence to the basics set out by Hahnemann.

On pages 15-17 is J. H. Clarke’s study of Antimonium sulphuratum aureum that he had planned to put in a new edition of his Dictionary. It appeared in the Homœopathic World of February 1929. I suggest that it may be photocopied and kept with your Dictionary, if you have one. I have found Ant sulph aur a valuable medicine and prescribe it frequently some winters.

Bruce Barwell