It contains further important criticisms of that document and represents a further attempt to address some of the many misconceptions and inaccuracies in the original statement. My initial response to the Faculty Statement, which was printed in SH 36, seemed to cause a great stir throughout the movement. However, though it may have contained some passion it was not based upon passion as has been suggested, nor upon ignorance or prejudice as has been claimed, but upon my own apparently unique historical investigations of homoeopathy and thus upon sound scholarship. I am generally pleased with the amount of attention, comment and discussion that it has generated and received. Homoeopaths certainly need to continue discussing these issues openly and without fear of intimidation.
Sound scholarship seems to be foreign to too many homoeopaths, both medical and professional.
Ignorance of one's own history is no excuse, in my view. Where we are now is entirely a product of our past - a past that is both rich and interesting, but which most seem too content to ignore. And where we are tomorrow will be entirely a product of what we do today. For 18 years now I have been studying the history and philosophy of homoeopathy and natural medicine. I appear to be almost the only historian of homoeopathy in Britain and the only authority on the lay movement in Europe.