well wow. um firstly i wasn't talking about homeo rx's but essences. eg bach's method of using flower essences. so hopefully that clarifies a bit the topic at hand.

secondly... of course there are many theories about homeopathy and its mechanism of action and i am not purporting to be an expert of any kind, but rather a practitioner who likes to stick to the known facts. i'm not sure what you mean when you quote:

"practitioners willingness to sacrifice for the whole..."

can you explain this?

what frustrates me about homeopathy, is not the lack of information on the mechanism of action as it is a fast growing field (see the link below), but rather people who speak definitively about the mechanism of action.

homeopathy does not act on the spiritual level as far as i am aware. didn't hahnemann write in the organon itself that the purpose of healing is to remove disease so as the individual may pursue a higher purpose? this implies to me that remove the physical/mental and the spirit will advance. not the other way around.

you can claim to have knowledge of the spiritual realm but where is your evidence? is it not in the physical? vast volumes of mm have been recorded centred around the physical symptoms of various preparations. granted that the mental/psyche picture tends to dominate across some schools since kent, the mind is still not the spirit in my understanding.

your explanation of homeopathy sounds lovely but it's not exactly in line with current thinking which tends toward the rational. imagine if aspirin were advertised as such... only the spiritually lost would buy the stuff whilst seeking out their higher aspirations!

please then explain how it is that "Homeopathy acts only on the spiritual level".

finally...when you say they are world class homeopaths who are fully aware of what they are doing. i have also seen evidence to the contrary. many current schools use students who don't fully grasp their subject to prove their substances. is that really informed consent? and most of them are blind tests also. so again do they really understand what they are doing? even many of the older texts show documentation of accidental poisonings rather than the sterile example of controlled provings. i would assert that most of our provings evidence is based on adverse reactions reportings rather than controlled trials.

actually the proving field is quite another interesting area for discussion. i know of a few provers who work outside of currently accepted ethics. why is this acceptable practice?

for reading on nanopharmacology (yes it is actually a recognised science rather than regarded as mysticism) i refer many practitioners of homeopathic medicine to this group. it's worth reading up on their latest papers as it is a diverse group who are attempting to approach the mechanism of action in a rational manner.

www.entretiens-internationaux.mc