This book review is reprinted from the British Homoeopathic Journal Vol 88, January 1999, with permission from Peter Fisher, Editor.
For Editorial communications, Advertising and Subscriptions contact:
British Homoeopathic Journal,
2 Powis Place,
London WC1N 3HT, U.K.
Tel: 0171-837 9469. Fax: 0171-278 7900

Homoeopathy: Principles and Practicee
by: Ernest Roberts
Reviewed by: Ernest Roberts
23 Wilbraham Road, Fallowfield
Manchester M14 6FB, UK
E-mail: info@nwch.co.uk

With reference to Dr Jeremy Swayne's review of my book 'Homoeopathy: Principles and Practice." Dr Swayne has not in fact reviewed my book. The main theme and argument of the book is not discussed. The book argues for a common consensus of classical homoeopathy in order to end divisions between different schools and factions. The book defines a single complete homoeopathy which is taken from Hahnemann through the teaching of the masters to the best teachers and practitioners of today.

Many misconceptions have been addressed and some common confusions resolved, for example the proper definition and use of intercurrents, the correct idea and usage of the 'constitutional' remedy, the use of a single classical approach to one-sided cases, complex-layered cases, also the treatment of incurable cases where palliation is called for. Also the book clearly shows the failings of other main non-classical methods of using homoeopathic medicines. I would like a serious review of these issues which are presented in my book to be seen in your Journal.

I feel Dr Swayne has overreacted to the admittedly inadequate presentation and printing of the book and neglected to read properly the contents: as an example he complains that there is a conflict between the quotation from Dr Whitmont about the error of blaming the sick person for his/her predicament and my view that we cause our diseases ourselves. Dr Swayne misses the point that for a trained homoeopath to know the causes of disease is one thing; it is quite another for the practitioner to use this knowledge to burden patients unfairly and unnecessarily.

I would like to encourage your readers to give serious consideration to my book. I would like some discussion about my attempt to present the case for a consensus in homoeopathy and whether it is likely to succeed in furthering a process towards this end.