AMERICAN HOMEOPATH - Guest editorial

 This issue of The American Homeopath is the first of the new century and millennium. It has been said that homeopathy is the medicine of the twenty-first century. Allopathic thought spread its tentacles over the last thousand years, providing reductionist and violent answers to the problems of health, economics, society and ecology. As the millennium drew to its conclusion a new consciousness evolved. Holistic concepts in science, art and medicine have changed our perceptions and actions.

 Time magazine voted Albert Einstein as "Man of the Century". I think that most of us would choose Samuel Hahnemann as 'Man of the Millennium'. Hahnemann was a genius, far ahead of his time. His discoveries were so radical that the world has only recently become ready to accept them. Like Einstein, Hahnemann perceived the bigger picture, transformed matter into energy, curved space and time. Like Einstein, Hahnemann hoped that his discoveries would be used to make the world a better place. Like Einstein, Hahnemann called for just social reform. Like Hahnemann, Einstein was disappointed with the allopathic use of his discoveries. But Hahnemann's discoveries alone have relieved millions from their sufferings, in a radical and truly curative manner.
 The last two hundred years were a period of gestation for homeopathy. Homeopathy is the medicine for the third millennium, its time has come. The world is ready to let go of old concepts, to open its mind and heart to a new way of healing.
 It is for this reason that we should re-examine the term 'Classical Homeopathy'. 'Classical' conjures up images of a conservative minority who cling to the old for the sake of tradition and dusty books. We use the term 'Classical' defensively, to differentiate ourselves from the many other systems that claim the title of homeopathy.
 There are Homeopaths, and then there are those who use potentised remedies. There are homeopaths, and then there are those who prescribe hundreds of remedies per patient on passing whims. There are homeopaths, and then there are those who prescribe for single organs, fail to take the case, deny provings, combine remedies. There are homeopaths, and then there are those who hold Nux vomica in one hand and steroids in the other. There are homeopaths, and there are those who use only a small and convenient portion of the principles which define our science. It is these dabblers who should define themselves with another name. The title of homeopath needs no adjective and belongs to those who practice the totality of its principles.
 The Organon is not the Bible or a holy relic to be worshipped for its antiquity. It should not be followed simply because it was written two hundred years ago. It should be followed only when it makes complete common sense, as a medical manual for the third millennium. All those who study it find its living knowledge a source of truth and reverence.
 Like a living tree, Homeopathy is dynamic, constantly renewing itself from the same root and trunk. At the beginning of the last century the tree of Homeopathy was cut down by the forces of fear. In the last twenty-five years it has resumed its growth, sprouted twigs and branches, flowered and blossomed. The twenty first century will enjoy the fruits of our labour. As we have ripened into maturity, many questions have arisen. As we dig deeper, more questions will surface.
 Is there really only one constitutional remedy for life? Is the remedy that helped a case for a period of time 'the simillimum'? Can we truly understand remedies without provings? Are old provings better than new ones simply because they are old? Can Homeopathy suppress? Can remedies rob us of learning experiences? Are high potencies more dangerous than low ones? Should we always begin with the LM1? Is coffee an antidote? Is there a set hierarchy of symptoms? Should we always prescribe on mental indications first? Will a remedy that covers only the central psychological theme cure unrelated physicals? Are there deep and superficial remedies or are they all equal? Should we prescribe the 'constitutional remedy' for acute disease? Does a case that looks like a certain animal need that animal as a remedy? What exactly is isopathy? Is similarity defined by kingdom? Which part of Kali carbonicum is derived from 'kali' and which from 'carb', and can we use all of its symptoms to understand the other 'kalis'? Must we repertorise every case? What techniques should we use with computerised reference libraries? Should we press for legal recognition or stay safely hidden? Can a machine find the simillimum? How should we use the parents as part of the child's symptom picture? Does the wife need her husband's remedy? Are miasms a gimmick for finding remedies, and if not, how do we use them? Are nosodes different from other remedies? Should anorexia be treated as an epidemic?
 Can psora be cured? Should it be cured? What is the 'higher purpose of our existence'?
 Some of these questions have many answers, others have none. Some questions are answered by the asking, others need collective research. With time, many more questions will arise. The path of Homeopathy is long and complicated, yet its essence is simplicity. For the homeopath, it provides nourishment of soul, challenge of mind, harmony of body. We are truly blessed.
 Jeremy Sherr, Guest Editor