To Zepoz

I can't recall what this is in reference to, Anil. Cured what?

Also, what potency was this remedy, and how much and how often did you take it?

Zep, those questions are not of interest to you, because anecdotal evidence is never of interest to a 'skeptic'.

Daisy, WHAT questions are you referring to? I do not know what Anil is talking about. Really. If he is referring to another thread somewhere, kindly point me to it so I can read it.

Really, I feel I have been pushed into the middle of a conversation about me, and no-one has the manners to tell me what they are talking about.

Also, Daisy, please don't try to tell me what I will or won't accept. Just as I won't tell you the same.

Hi Zep

Perhaps Anil was responding to this post of yours.

Quote

Re: Homeopathy is Fake? From ZepOz on 2007-01-08

Anil,

...........

I would also be very interested to know the details of your personal experience of your homeopathic cure that convinced you of its efficacy. I much prefer to get first-hand facts, rather than to make up mistruths about other people and make childish and tired jokes about them.

Unquote

It took me only two minutes to dig this out. : )

Murthy

murthy,

you can wake a man up if he is actually sleeping.

its no use trying to wake a man up if he is just posing to be in sleep..

Thank you Murthy. Now I understand what he was talking about. It seems people here just like to skip from one thread to another, or start a new one, and expect that everyone else can follow the thread of the conversation.

So it may have taken you two minutes to dig it out, but I would have been searching for days.

Rishimba, I have no idea what YOU are talking about with your comment. But to keep this thread on track, I won't ask you to explain it either.

OK, Anil.

I asked for your evidence of how you became convinced that homeopathy was efficacious - how it worked for you. I also asked 'Cured what? What potency was this remedy, and how much and how often did you take it?'

You said you took Merc. Sol.

So is that your full answer to my questions? Because really it doesn't answer anything at all, and certainly seems to offer no explanation for your belief.

So would you be so kind as to provide some actual details?

Many thanks

zepoz-

you appear to have missed my question about allopathic cures for eczema... as I mentioned, after 30 years of band-aid treatment for my atopic dermatitis, I gave up allopathic doctors. I want to know if perhaps I missed some treatment that can compare to the amazing results that just a few months of homeopathy have brought me? Am I mistaken?

John

Thank you, Anil. Some more questions, if I may.

Please describe your gum problems you were having. Did they fluctuate at all?

What medication, if any, were you using before homeopathy?

What else did you change when you started homeopathy? And did you STOP doing anything at the same time as homeopathy started?


John, please don't derail this thread. I will be happy to discuss any issue you raise, but in another thread specifically about it. Would you be so kind?

strange your comment about derailing the thread. This is a homeopathy forum afterall, yet you appear bent on offering non-homeopathic advice. are you not derailing the main subject of the forum? there are countless numbers of mindless forums where those seeking non-homeopathic advice can go.

john

Thank you again for the details, Anil.


John, please start another thread if you wish to discuss another subject.

no offense zepoz, but i don't feel the need to waste forum space debating with you in a new thread.

people come to learn about homeopathy, not allopathy. if allopathy were of interest to visitors, they would not be here at all. your refrain of 'have you seen your doctor' is really a bit silly, since, if most are like me, they have seen countless allpathic doctors before they come here. and, if it were not for the predictable failure of allopathy to offer any real cure for chronic diseases, homeopathy probably would have died off long ago. to the contrary though, it is making a quite a come back? the reason so is obvious.

good luck,
John

John,

I ask 'Have you seen a doctor' so that we can have the benefit of seeing a proper diagnosis of a case here, if there is one available. That way, everyone gains more detailed knowledge when it comes to learning about homeopathy.

So surely any available accurate facts on a case from a reliable source are always welcome here, aren't they? That's what this forum is about, isn't it?

Unless you are suggesting you would prefer everyone just prescribe remedies without any consideration for the above benefits...? Most confusing...

zepoz-

it seems rather basic knowlege to understand that an allopathic 'diagnosis' is largely irrelevant to the determination of the proper homeopathic remedy. as such,if you are suggesting that someone should obtain an allopathic diagnosis before seeking homeopathic treatment, it would appear to be a waste to time and money. Instead, your advice might be more helpful if you suggested that a forum poster seek the advice of a classically trained homeopath. Even I would agree that you couldn't go wrong with such advice.

by the way, my homeopath, is also an allopathic MD, trained and practicing in the US. somehow despite his scientific training and education, he still prefers to practice homeopathy. a wise man indeed.

good luck,
John

'I ask 'Have you seen a doctor' so that we can have the benefit of seeing a proper diagnosis of a case here, if there is one available. That way, everyone gains more detailed knowledge when it comes to learning about homeopathy.'

Zep, maybe you should take a look at Nisha's 'This For That' thread. Relying too much on a diagnosis could lead to a tendency to use homeopathy allopathically. The diagnosis is invariably irrelevant.

For instance, an allopath might need to know whether the person has true influenza or a Norwalk virus type 'stomach flu'. The homeopath does not need to know, only what symptoms have emerged. It gives the homeopath a jump on treating the illness without waiting for a culture to come back or perhaps prescribing antibiotics where antibiotics have no role.

So, the homeopathic patient recovers more quickly and without unnecessary, suppressive drugs. No waiting for a culture. No inappropriately prescribed antibiotics. No false negatives.

OK, I have two posters here who have informed me that an accurate medical diagnosis of any illness is, at a minimum, useless to a homeopath. And I get the strong impression that they go further - that an accurate diagnosis is actually detrimental to a homeopath, in that it may be misused by the homeopath and lead them to the wrong remedy.

Is that correct, please?

Daisy, I was under the strong impression, and correct me if I am wrong, that homeopaths should NOT base their diagnosis on specific symptoms but on a holistic of the patient.

So, taking your example provided, how does a homeopath differentiate between, say, internal bleeding, severe food allergy, and influenza, all of which have very similar symptoms?

In fact, there are many illnesses that have almost identical symptoms but vastly different causes (and also vastly different outcomes for the patient of untreated or wrongly treated). How does the trained homeopath approach this situation?

zepoz,

etiology of the disease is important to a homoeopath to finally select the remedy.

individual symptoms are based on actual sensations, exact location and the modalities.

the causes of the individual symptoms may be different but as long as the sensations, location and modalities match, he can locate a remedy which will work.

finally, he looks at the etiology and picks up one which should also match the mentals.

the beauty of homoeopathy is that, if you can match the mentals, sensation, location and modalities along with the etiology of the originating illness, the remedy will cure. also, some other unimportant symptoms also fall into place.

however, in the repertory, the causes are also stated in some of the symptoms wherever its required.

in the example you have stated, internal bleeding, severe food allergy and influenza will not have exactly the same symptoms with locations and modalities. if in case they are exactly the same, one remedy will cure if the etiology of the original disease is the same.

Whatever may be the causation, if the location, sensation and modality are matched, the remdy will cure.

We all know cantharis is the head remedy for blisters caused by burns.

I had a watery blister, not caused by burning. The cause is unknown. The peculiarity is, it burns if you just touch it.

Cantharis didn't cross my mind initially. I tried Rhustox ,but it didn't help. Then I repertorised and found Cantharis to have the sensation and modality, burning by touch. It promptly cured the blisters within three doses.

This gave me a very good idea of what is really meant by a 'similar' medicine.

Murthy

Rishimba,

Thanks for your explanation. It has clarified what I thought was the case previously about homeopathic diagnosis and remedy selection.

Let me ask: Why do you think some homeopaths get good cure rates using only a select very few remedies, whereas others need to use a big range?

Murthy,

How long did you have the blister for before you started treating? And how much time did you allow to take those three doses?

thanks

Am I to take it by the lack of response that homeopaths here agree with John and Daisy's conviction that proper medical diagnoses are basically detrimental to good homeopathic practice?

Zepoz-

my comment was that an allopathic diagnosis is 'largely irrlevant'.... this is not the same thing as 'detrimental', please don't put words in my mouth.

John