An Appeal

[Guest guest]

> Sadly my interaction with various groups makes it amply clear that

> alternate medicine is not yet prepared to become mainstream because of

> utter neglect over the years. Therefore it becomes imperative that

> these magnificient systems should stay in the shadow of allopathy (a

> term devised by Hahnemann, I admit)

 

actually, Hahnemann tarred not just "modern" medicine but all systems

of medicine with the same brush that uses a medicament to counter the

effects of another - that is the very meaning of "allopathy" - and most

herbal medicine including ayurveda uses an allopathic model, i.e. the

warming properties of ginger to counteract cold - the difference is

"holism"

 

>

> I am also sad at the talk of integrated medicine. As a patient who has

> experienced the ravages of disease in full flow, unlike the doctors, I

> fully realise that such attempts will lead to anything but cure. The

> resultant mellee will be very similiar to the concept of "disease

> management" as is being practiced today in the name of medicine, or

> even worse because disease is not a static entity, it is dynamic.

 

to my mind integrated medicine doesn't mean one doctor who knows

everything, or uses a stain with garlic - it means drawing upon a

community of practitioners that are each highly trained in their

respective methods and practices, who can intelligently refer to other

practitioners when required - there are several models like this all

over the world - in China they are perhaps the most successful at this,

since both TCM and modern medicine have state sponsorship - it means

communication, enlightened interdependence, and if we have a future as

a species it is this

 

>

> While all this is very good, we must not forget that we are

> progressively declining as far as humanity is concerned. Today we have

> juvenile diabetes, juveline heart disorders, juvenile mental illness

> and other infantile genetic disorders spreading like the cholera and

> small pox epidemics of yore. Only those diseases killed instantly but

> the present disorder forces one to lead an incomplete life like a

> polio struck child. On the otherhand we have warnings of cancers,

> dementia, parkinsons, alzheimers spreading alarmingly at the other end

> of the spectrum. We also face a steep decline in morality and values

> and also emerging perversions which cannot be viewed as separate from

> these disorders. The scene doesn't look too good. I think we may have

> been better off if there would have been no medical system at all.

 

unfortunately your comments are presumptive and could easily be

trounced by an good medical researcher who could come up with any

number of arguments, such as that an increased incidence of some of

these diseases is directly proportional to advances in diagnostic

techniques, i.e. we are seeing these diseases now simply because we

have a better capacity to acknowledge - not that I necessarily agree,

but problems with these arguments need to be communicated with such

authority and knowledge that "they" cannot help but listen

 

for e.g., look at the work of Richard Bernstein, a type 1 diabetic that

injects very little insulin and does not suffer from any complication

of diabetes

he went to med school as an adult well after he learned how to control

his diabetes - he became a medical doctor to share this knowledge with

the world

 

similarly, we can all be an avatar of knowledge, if we choose - but if

we wish to choose the path of the sword by attacking others then we

should expect to be attacked in the same way - but a good warrior knows

his weaknesses before he does battle

 

 

> What I appeal to you is that use allopathic diagnostic tools if

> required, there is no harm in that, but please PLEASE do not allow the

> basic principles of your own system to be diluted in the name of

> integrated medicine. If you do that you may lead a comfortable life on

> earth (as long as the present civillisation exists, that is) but both

> providence and posterity will not forgive your mistake. I find it very

> difficult to understand that if foreigners like Svoboda, Attreya, and

> Frawley (I suppose he is Vamadeva too) can have such a wonderful

> conceptual hold on the principles then why can't the Indian doctors

> master them ? Is it so difficult ? The physicians of India were mostly

> farmers but they could master the nuances of the science. Why can't

> we?

 

i too have complained about this before - i think college-trained

vaidyas do this because ayurveda has been damaged, such as in diagnosis

 

both Svoboda and Frawley have had to come up with alternative knowledge

to work around the damage, creating a system that in some respects is

quite different to "classical" ayurveda

 

> There is talk of the benefits of synthetic drugs derived from the

> plant species. Of the benefits of radiation, of chemotherapy, of

> genetic tinkering, of vaccinations, of antibiotics, of blood/serum

> transfusions. Let me tell you that all these methods are frought with

> grave dangers and can make even acute diseases hereditory. As

> alternate medicine practitioners can you really permit future

> generations to suffer just for temporary palliation?

 

yes i too am very, very wary of these developments, and resent the

arrogance of the thinking that allows humanity and the earth to be a

guinea pig for new technologies, but how do we counter this? with

effective criticism - we need more people to become a geneticists like

David Suzuki, standing up for our beliefs to present an overwhelming

argument that nobody can ignore - if none of us join people like

Suzuki, to get "into" the science, we will be left behind in a cloud of

genetically engineered dust...

 

> Suppressive treatment has never done anybody any good and it never

> will.

 

i will try not to remember this if i ever see somebody dying of acute

blood loss! ;-)

Caldecott

todd

www.toddcaldecott.com

[Guest guest]

Dear

 

Namaskar. I admit you have put forward very valid points here. Before

differing with you on some minor points, I would like to point out

that in none of my mails I have even pretended to be an expert. I

have always maintained that I am a patient who had to read up

medicine on his own to save his life. I think that thought itself

should sober up the professional medical community who have become

very complacent over the years. It will also serve as an eye opener

to those who depend entirely on the physician to cure his ills and

forgets his own responsibility towards good health.

 

> actually, Hahnemann tarred not just "modern" medicine but all

systems

> of medicine with the same brush that uses a medicament to counter

the

> effects of

 

No Hahnemann has clearly stated in his works that he considers

homeopathy to be only "one particular mode" of treatment. He

acknowledged that there existed others methods of treatment that were

very useful and that other more efficient methods would come up

later. He predicted that spiritual healing would be the medicine of

the future. In case of chronic ailments he did say that allopathic or

suppressive systems would hinder a thorough cure.

 

> to my mind integrated medicine doesn't mean one doctor who knows

> everything, or uses a stain with garlic - it means drawing upon a

> community of practitioners that are each highly trained in their

> respective methods and practices, who can intelligently refer to

other

> practitioners when required

 

You did not get my real message here Todd. I didn't say anything

about one doctor referring patients to a doctor of another system. Or

of the patients freedom to choose/switch over from one system to

another. What I meant was the practice of doctors trying to gain over

their patients at any cost, even trying other systems on them of

which he does not have full and correct knowledge of. Like an

allopathic doctor using an ayurvedic or homeopathic formulations.

Even ayurveds and homeopaths are guilty of this. I have personally

been prescribed paracetamol tablets from alternate physicians to

control my fever. This sort of an integration is bad for both the

profession as well as the patient.

 

Chronic patients are best advised to stick to a single "pathy" if

they hope to resolve their illness and achieve a cure. They are also

advised to read up on the now freely available literature on

different alternate methods to decide for themselves which "pathy"

they wish to adopt. I know of patients who have been cured by

ayurveda, naturopathy, accupressure and homeopathy etc. Even in the

case of offering relief also I have found people who have been

greatly relieved by alternative medicine without taking recourse to

pain killers.

 

Near my residence a hospital of alternative medicine has come up (set

up by the RSS) where ayurveda, naturopathy, accupressure, homeopathy,

yoga, meditation techniques, physiotherapy, all are practiced under a

single roof. Patients are given the option to choose their own system

and no effort is made to make a hodge podge of the various systems.

There is also no quarrel amongst the doctors. This method of

integration is most welcome.

 

>

> unfortunately your comments are presumptive and could easily be

> trounced by an good medical researcher who could come up with any

> number of arguments, such as that an increased incidence of some of

> these diseases is directly proportional to advances in diagnostic

> techniques, i.e. we are seeing these diseases now simply because we

> have a better capacity to acknowledge - not that I necessarily

agree,

> but problems with these arguments need to be communicated with such

> authority and knowledge that "they" cannot help but listen

 

I am least bothered of mainstream medicine and its propagators.

I am not on any allopathy or related groups. They deserve their own

medicine (pun intended). There have been times when I have talked at

various forums and have been heckled by the specialists. But none of

these doctors could refute the theory that the methods adopted by

modern medicine are without moderate to severe side effects. What

they preferred to say is that all this is "for the greater good."

Frankly I do not observe that "good" anywhere. Just keeping people

alive on medicines or life support devices is not what medicine

should be all about. The current spate of requests for euthanasia (it

has assumed a mass movement in the USA where modern medicine is at

its gory best) should shame the medical profession. But like ethics

and morality the medical profession has thrown all finer emotions out

of their antiseptically clean chambers.

 

>

> for e.g., look at the work of Richard Bernstein, a type 1 diabetic

that

> injects very little insulin and does not suffer from any

complication

> of diabetes

> he went to med school as an adult well after he learned how to

control

> his diabetes - he became a medical doctor to share this knowledge

with

> the world

 

Yes Todd. I am aware of many such cases. I know of many allopaths too

who have started speaking out against the system. I have said earlier

the physicians are not to blame, the system is rotten. I have a

whole horde of allopathic physicians in my own family. The Head of

the premier Neel Ratan Sarkar Medical College and Hospital at

Kolkata, India, Dr. Purnima Soumandal happens to be my own aunt. She

is herself a patient who has benefitted from alternate treatment. A

wonderful soul she too is deeply troubled at the state of affairs

where compassion and cure have been divorced from medicine. These

humane doctors are feeling suffocated now just as Swami

Bramheshananda of the Ramakrishna Mission who is now out in the open

fiercely opposing certain "achievements" of modern medicine. He is a

doctor and still practises heading the Ramakrishna Mission Seva

Pratisthan at Kolkata, India.

 

>

> similarly, we can all be an avatar of knowledge, if we choose - but

if

> we wish to choose the path of the sword by attacking others then we

> should expect to be attacked in the same way - but a good warrior

knows

> his weaknesses before he does battle

 

one does not have to be either an "avtar" or an "expert" to

point out the fallacies of modern medicine. One needs common sense,

proximity to the patients and keen observational skills.

 

> > Suppressive treatment has never done anybody any good and it

never

> > will.

>

> i will try not to remember this if i ever see somebody dying of

acute

> blood loss! ;-)

 

Jokes apart one must acknowledge that modern medicine has no

parallel as far as accidents, injuries and emergencies are concerned.

But here we are talking about disease, a dynamic entity, which is

today being battled on a wrong footing.

 

In conclusion we are not enemies here but brothers/sisters

united in a common cause. By the infinite grace of God I have become

aware of certain things and I'm trying, as I said like the squirrel

in the Ramayana, to do my own bit however small or even inconsistent.

I'm on every group to learn and not to preach. I just place issues

for discussion and am happy that they are today being discussed. This

is my labour of love. I have no personal agenda.

 

Love & Regards,

Jagannath.

[Guest guest]

you miss my point

allopathy simply means "opposite cures opposite"

 

hahnemann was distinguishing his system not just from medicine but also

other forms of traditional medicine

using herbs with qualities opposite to the condition is the basis of

most forms of herbal medicine

hahnemann knew this, and if he believed it to be legitimate wouldn't

have stated the inflexibility of his "like cures like" dogma

he wouldn't have needed to look to the future, but to the past, to find

effective allopathic approaches

 

you need to understand the politics of the time, with so many different

kinds of practices evolving at the time, with each vying for the

public's attention - "like cures like" was hahnemann's niche, and like

like all niches, he milked it for all it was worth - in reality, the

principle of homeopathy or the "doctrine of similars" has existed since

time immemorial, e.g. the ancient chinese used an ash of a bow string

rubber on a woman's pregnant belly to enhance a stalled labor

 

 

> No Hahnemann has clearly stated in his works that he considers

> homeopathy to be only "one particular mode" of treatment. He

> acknowledged that there existed others methods of treatment that were

> very useful and that other more efficient methods would come up

> later. He predicted that spiritual healing would be the medicine of

> the future. In case of chronic ailments he did say that allopathic or

> suppressive systems would hinder a thorough cure.

 

as for the your other comments, you are preaching to the choir

its not effective criticism of the practices, only a statement of your

opinion regarding the state of affairs - but apart from rallying the

troops (with pitchforks running into a hillside of cannons), what does

it achieve?

 

having been on this list for awhile now, not to dismiss modern medicine

outright, but to educate people as to specific alternatives - this is

what we need - education - not polemic -

 

Caldecott

todd

www.toddcaldecott.com

 

"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public

relations, for Nature cannot be fooled."

-Richard P. Feynman

[Guest guest]

Dear

 

Namaste. Have you gone through the life story of Hahnemann? He lost

his life and his loving child purely due to persecution at the hands

of allopaths for his unorthodox views. I don't think anyone would go

that extent to create a "niche" for himself. Would you? He was a

totally shattered man when he breathed his last. His last words on

his death bed were, "I was not born in vain."

 

Even ayurveda had faced extreme opposition as the ancients were very

wary of any system that concentrated on the physical body. The soul

and moksha was their sole quest. Yoga too was ridiculed in India by

the purists. These systems flourish today only after they have been

rediscovered by the West. It is only for the efforts of Dr. Deepak

Chopra, David Frawley, Robert Svoboda, Vasant Lad, Dr. Ranade and

many other selfless souls who refused to give up that ayurveda has

become a global phenomenon. Now that it has been taken up by the

Westerners we can expect excellent progress in the future. They have

both the dedication and the resources. As an Indian I am very proud

of ayurveda though I'm sad that the Indian Govt is still not

effectively supporting the science.

 

Every system contains within itself some form of "exclusiveness", a

holier than thou attitude. This helps one in concentrating on his/her

own system. It is only ayurveda that has an "embrace all" philosophy.

This is because of the mental purity and broadmindedness of its

propagators. I see very little of this attitude today.

 

I do not indulge in mere polemics. I too am trying to educate people.

It is only because I have first hand experience of modern medicine

that I'm sometimes so bitter. What do I have to gain out of all this?

I am not even a doctor that I should advertise myself or can benefit

out of debates. My only wish is the Vedic prayer, "Sarve bhabantu

sukhina...".

 

I feel I am not the only person in this world speaking out against

modern medicine. I read an article only yesterday that there has been

a jump of 47% in the number of people switching over to alternative

systems in the US. This is the progress from 2001 to 2004.

 

A pitch fork is enough to deflate the hot air baloon that modern

medicine is. It would take more than a cannon to deride any other

form of medicine.

 

Let us not fight amongst ourselves Todd. I may be new to the net,

hardly four years, but I've been fighting the system actively for a

pretty long time.

 

Love & Regards,

Jagannath.