The ABC Homeopathy Forum
lump in throat Page 2 of 2
Page 1 2
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
To Lyco
I would like to reassure you that I do not categorically rule out the use of the classical approach to cure with Homeopathic remedies. You may like to know that I use Radar software which I have on my computer to solve a case that is not responding to my Joepathy. The point I wish to make is that the classical approach is sometimes abused by the classical homeopath who feels that it is the only approach towards healing with Homeopathic remedies.
It is just that I resent the continued intrusions of the classical homeopaths into the cases that I am trying to heal on this and other Forums, especially when they adopt that holier than thou attitude born out of their arrogance which they feel gives them the license to belittle the therapy I prescribe to the patient who in a case I was treating a few days ago had already confirmed that his condition had improved vastly after a few weeks on my therapy.
I have never been an arrogant type throughout my long life and I expect others who wish to comment on the cases that I am treating not to criticize my therapy with that supercilious arrogance that they feel they are entitled to, merely because they possess that piece of paper from their colleges that qualifies them to be addressed as 'doctor'.
As I stated in my last post, it is the Joy of Healing that motivates me to be present on this ABC of which I was one of the first members shortly after it was established by Simon Broadley in the early years of this Century and it now is the most visited Homeopathic Forum with about 10000 hits daily. It is the first hit you get on any Search engine when you type in the word 'Homeopathy'. It is my hope that I will be around here for as long as I live and all I ask these classical types is to leave me in peace and only criticize my Joepathy if they discover that the therapy I have prescribed has harmed the patient.
They are free to comment but not to criticize which some of them do, unfairly.
I would like to reassure you that I do not categorically rule out the use of the classical approach to cure with Homeopathic remedies. You may like to know that I use Radar software which I have on my computer to solve a case that is not responding to my Joepathy. The point I wish to make is that the classical approach is sometimes abused by the classical homeopath who feels that it is the only approach towards healing with Homeopathic remedies.
It is just that I resent the continued intrusions of the classical homeopaths into the cases that I am trying to heal on this and other Forums, especially when they adopt that holier than thou attitude born out of their arrogance which they feel gives them the license to belittle the therapy I prescribe to the patient who in a case I was treating a few days ago had already confirmed that his condition had improved vastly after a few weeks on my therapy.
I have never been an arrogant type throughout my long life and I expect others who wish to comment on the cases that I am treating not to criticize my therapy with that supercilious arrogance that they feel they are entitled to, merely because they possess that piece of paper from their colleges that qualifies them to be addressed as 'doctor'.
As I stated in my last post, it is the Joy of Healing that motivates me to be present on this ABC of which I was one of the first members shortly after it was established by Simon Broadley in the early years of this Century and it now is the most visited Homeopathic Forum with about 10000 hits daily. It is the first hit you get on any Search engine when you type in the word 'Homeopathy'. It is my hope that I will be around here for as long as I live and all I ask these classical types is to leave me in peace and only criticize my Joepathy if they discover that the therapy I have prescribed has harmed the patient.
They are free to comment but not to criticize which some of them do, unfairly.
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
To Lyco
Your analogy comparing my Joepathy with Chiropractic does not seem to be valid as in the latter case it is essential that the Chiropractor must be qualified since he is actively involved in Musculoskeletal manipulation which can result in damage to the patient if he is not. In the case of my Joepathy I note that you seem to be labouring under some misapprehension that since I am not qualified I do not therefore have the right to prescribe. I would like to reassure you that my knowledge of Homeoapthy dates back to 1968 when I was first interested in this science as a skeptic as like many other rational people I could not believe that any substance when diluted to infinitesimal levels cannot possibly work. I was cured of some ailment at that time and decided in my usual manner to investigate it in depth and today after over 40 years of studying this Science, I believe that I have the ability to help many with my knowledge of Homeopathy which some classical scholars termed Joepathy as I did not conform to the archaic rules that all qualified homeopaths abide by, which I was fortunately not exposed to as I did not qualify in a college and all my studies of this science were done in my free time away from my business organization of which I am the Chairman, even today at my advanced age of 82 years. I discovered very early that those rules which were promulgated in the early years of this science could be more effectively replaced by the direct 'this for that' method which to me seemed to give more positive results in comparison to the classical.
Joepathy as practiced by me for the last 25 years comprises the most gentle form of Homeopathic therapy which is more relevant today after I changed over to the Wet dose method of prescribing remedies. It is interesting to note that I am not the only Homeopath to use this direct 'this for that' therapy as other world renowned and qualified Homeopaths also use this same system and if you wish to investigate this in detail you can visit:
PRASANTA BANERJI HOMEOPATHIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
http://www.pbhrfindia.org/
http://www.interhomeopathy.org/dogmatism_in_homeopathy
You have stated:
' you can attack someone who attacks you 'in kind' but not by saying someone who has training is an imposter.'
You must understand that there is an intrinsic difference in the terminology I used to describe David's promoting the use of Arsenic 6c, when I branded him a HYPOCRITE. The word you used was IMPOSTER and I would be the first to state that he is by no means one. The fact that he condoned the use of Arsenic 6c by a child is to my mind Hypocrisy.
You must understand that as a qualified Homeopath he did not have any right to override my warning to the mother who had used this dangerous chemical which I discovered was also a cumulative poison on her son merely to promote sleep. It is true that it was a potentized 6c remedy but I would not dream of prescribing it on a daily basis. The fact that he did fall asleep promptly can give you an idea of its power.
I do not bear any malice in my life towards anyone and I have no animosity against David or any other person in my life. It is just that I am a stickler for what I consider is right and I go out of my way to defend it.
Your analogy comparing my Joepathy with Chiropractic does not seem to be valid as in the latter case it is essential that the Chiropractor must be qualified since he is actively involved in Musculoskeletal manipulation which can result in damage to the patient if he is not. In the case of my Joepathy I note that you seem to be labouring under some misapprehension that since I am not qualified I do not therefore have the right to prescribe. I would like to reassure you that my knowledge of Homeoapthy dates back to 1968 when I was first interested in this science as a skeptic as like many other rational people I could not believe that any substance when diluted to infinitesimal levels cannot possibly work. I was cured of some ailment at that time and decided in my usual manner to investigate it in depth and today after over 40 years of studying this Science, I believe that I have the ability to help many with my knowledge of Homeopathy which some classical scholars termed Joepathy as I did not conform to the archaic rules that all qualified homeopaths abide by, which I was fortunately not exposed to as I did not qualify in a college and all my studies of this science were done in my free time away from my business organization of which I am the Chairman, even today at my advanced age of 82 years. I discovered very early that those rules which were promulgated in the early years of this science could be more effectively replaced by the direct 'this for that' method which to me seemed to give more positive results in comparison to the classical.
Joepathy as practiced by me for the last 25 years comprises the most gentle form of Homeopathic therapy which is more relevant today after I changed over to the Wet dose method of prescribing remedies. It is interesting to note that I am not the only Homeopath to use this direct 'this for that' therapy as other world renowned and qualified Homeopaths also use this same system and if you wish to investigate this in detail you can visit:
PRASANTA BANERJI HOMEOPATHIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
http://www.pbhrfindia.org/
http://www.interhomeopathy.org/dogmatism_in_homeopathy
You have stated:
' you can attack someone who attacks you 'in kind' but not by saying someone who has training is an imposter.'
You must understand that there is an intrinsic difference in the terminology I used to describe David's promoting the use of Arsenic 6c, when I branded him a HYPOCRITE. The word you used was IMPOSTER and I would be the first to state that he is by no means one. The fact that he condoned the use of Arsenic 6c by a child is to my mind Hypocrisy.
You must understand that as a qualified Homeopath he did not have any right to override my warning to the mother who had used this dangerous chemical which I discovered was also a cumulative poison on her son merely to promote sleep. It is true that it was a potentized 6c remedy but I would not dream of prescribing it on a daily basis. The fact that he did fall asleep promptly can give you an idea of its power.
I do not bear any malice in my life towards anyone and I have no animosity against David or any other person in my life. It is just that I am a stickler for what I consider is right and I go out of my way to defend it.
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
To Lyco
I believe that it is time that the classical homeopaths who at first condemned my 'this for that' therapy which one of them derisively classified as 'Joepathy', opened up their collective minds to the sheer impossibility of adhering to the classical diktat of 'prescribing a single remedy for the totality of the symptoms presented by the patient'. My frank opinion is that those who pretend to identify that elusive single remedy are just kidding themselves and the irony is that it is the poor suffering patient who pays the price both in hard money he coughs up as consultation fees on a weekly basis and in the time he suffers from his ailment so very unnecessarily.
If he is fortunate enough to post his ailment on this ABC Forum, the chances are that I may take his case and prescribe my Joepathy which can cure him within a very short time and which I only do if I feel that my therapy can cure the patient.
I have not seen your reference to the ABC Forum as being the exclusive preserve of 'classical homeopaths' which in any case is not relevant to my response to your comments. The fact is that I practice Joepathy and you must understand that my 'This for That' form of therapy is not exclusively my therapy alone as it is also practiced by the majority of practicing homeopaths who do not have the courage to state so openly as they otherwise risk the danger of losing their license to practice unless they conform to the classical Diktat.
I gave you reference to the Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation in a previous post on this thread and shall copy it below again:
PRASANTA BANERJI HOMEOPATHIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
http://www.pbhrfindia.org/
http://www.interhomeopathy.org/dogmatism_in_homeopathy
In my case I have nothing to lose as I practice this science purely on an altruistic basis and I believe that I have made my impact on the Homeopathic world as this word 'Joepathy' now attracts over 1280 Hits on Google today. Mine is a labour of love which at my advanced age of 82
I have great satisfaction in helping anyone whom I feel I can cure and there is ample evidence on the ABC and the other Forums that I visit that my Joepathy has indeed helped my patients in a manner that other classical homeopaths had not succeed in doing.
You might like to visit my own website:
www.joedelivera.com
I believe that it is time that the classical homeopaths who at first condemned my 'this for that' therapy which one of them derisively classified as 'Joepathy', opened up their collective minds to the sheer impossibility of adhering to the classical diktat of 'prescribing a single remedy for the totality of the symptoms presented by the patient'. My frank opinion is that those who pretend to identify that elusive single remedy are just kidding themselves and the irony is that it is the poor suffering patient who pays the price both in hard money he coughs up as consultation fees on a weekly basis and in the time he suffers from his ailment so very unnecessarily.
If he is fortunate enough to post his ailment on this ABC Forum, the chances are that I may take his case and prescribe my Joepathy which can cure him within a very short time and which I only do if I feel that my therapy can cure the patient.
I have not seen your reference to the ABC Forum as being the exclusive preserve of 'classical homeopaths' which in any case is not relevant to my response to your comments. The fact is that I practice Joepathy and you must understand that my 'This for That' form of therapy is not exclusively my therapy alone as it is also practiced by the majority of practicing homeopaths who do not have the courage to state so openly as they otherwise risk the danger of losing their license to practice unless they conform to the classical Diktat.
I gave you reference to the Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Research Foundation in a previous post on this thread and shall copy it below again:
PRASANTA BANERJI HOMEOPATHIC RESEARCH FOUNDATION
http://www.pbhrfindia.org/
http://www.interhomeopathy.org/dogmatism_in_homeopathy
In my case I have nothing to lose as I practice this science purely on an altruistic basis and I believe that I have made my impact on the Homeopathic world as this word 'Joepathy' now attracts over 1280 Hits on Google today. Mine is a labour of love which at my advanced age of 82
I have great satisfaction in helping anyone whom I feel I can cure and there is ample evidence on the ABC and the other Forums that I visit that my Joepathy has indeed helped my patients in a manner that other classical homeopaths had not succeed in doing.
You might like to visit my own website:
www.joedelivera.com
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
The patient can try a remedy based on the symptoms (homoeopathy), or they can pursue Joe's approach (assumed theorized cause of their problem = allopathy). It is their choice. However the patient has clearly stated that overall, they are not better, and has asked for more treatment. I have simply offered the patient an alternative to a prescription that is not taking care of the majority of their problems.
I don't believe you understand Banerji's theories, in using them as a justification for your method of using Arnica (and a very few other medicines) without paying attention to the symptoms.
Banerji used symptoms of the affected part primarily over the general state - this is where he differed with Hahnemann's method. He did not simply give one remedy for everyone with the same disease, but focussed his attention on the disordered location, and if there was more than one location he looked to the most important one. He used symptoms displayed by the individual patient, and the advanced methods used by his 'followers' uses medicines that are specific for the disease the patient has (rather than trying to fit all symptoms in to one big picture).
So selection of a remedy using Banerji's method is as follows:
1. One takes the case
2. One identifies the symptoms of the illness.
3. One identifies from them the primary disturbance (or the physico-mental dynamic plane or PMDP on which the symptoms are occurring)
4. From this knowledge one identifies the symptoms that are relevent for this disturbance and on the basis of these symptoms one selects the remedy.
As you can see, it is not an easy or simple method. It is not a justification for giving a remedy on the basis of a disease name. Such prescribing techniques are a gross distortion and simplification of his method. He did not promote lazy prescribing or avoidance of case taking.
Over many years of clinical research and observation, he found that within each disease of an organ there were specific patterns, and those patterns were limited in number. Likewise there was a specific and limited number of medicines that suited these patterns. After the case was taken, a remedy was selected from this group, rather than from the entire materia medica. He considered this a constitutional remedy for that disease/organ.
So a case still needed to be taken, the PMDP had to be identified, the particular nature of the PMDP matched to one of a group of remedies.
And in terms of how 'classical' homoeopathy itself has progressed in the last few decades, homoeopaths like Dr. Sankaran and Dr. Buhdir amongst many others now focus on the presenting complaint as the main window into understanding the totality. If you watch these esteemed homoeopaths taking cases (which I have had the honor of doing) they remain attentive to the presenting symptoms, only attempting to perceive the whole case through this. The patient is allowed to globalize the sensations and problems in the main complaint, but is encouraged to stay with focussed on it as well.
The other approach, one that I have seen students and poorly trained homoeopaths struggle with, is a wandering or rambling journey through the whole person's life without regard to the disease at all. This is not Hahnemannian homoeopathy, and should not be used as an example of how 'classical' homoeopaths are mismanaging their cases. It is just one of many examples of poor case taking.
I don't believe you understand Banerji's theories, in using them as a justification for your method of using Arnica (and a very few other medicines) without paying attention to the symptoms.
Banerji used symptoms of the affected part primarily over the general state - this is where he differed with Hahnemann's method. He did not simply give one remedy for everyone with the same disease, but focussed his attention on the disordered location, and if there was more than one location he looked to the most important one. He used symptoms displayed by the individual patient, and the advanced methods used by his 'followers' uses medicines that are specific for the disease the patient has (rather than trying to fit all symptoms in to one big picture).
So selection of a remedy using Banerji's method is as follows:
1. One takes the case
2. One identifies the symptoms of the illness.
3. One identifies from them the primary disturbance (or the physico-mental dynamic plane or PMDP on which the symptoms are occurring)
4. From this knowledge one identifies the symptoms that are relevent for this disturbance and on the basis of these symptoms one selects the remedy.
As you can see, it is not an easy or simple method. It is not a justification for giving a remedy on the basis of a disease name. Such prescribing techniques are a gross distortion and simplification of his method. He did not promote lazy prescribing or avoidance of case taking.
Over many years of clinical research and observation, he found that within each disease of an organ there were specific patterns, and those patterns were limited in number. Likewise there was a specific and limited number of medicines that suited these patterns. After the case was taken, a remedy was selected from this group, rather than from the entire materia medica. He considered this a constitutional remedy for that disease/organ.
So a case still needed to be taken, the PMDP had to be identified, the particular nature of the PMDP matched to one of a group of remedies.
And in terms of how 'classical' homoeopathy itself has progressed in the last few decades, homoeopaths like Dr. Sankaran and Dr. Buhdir amongst many others now focus on the presenting complaint as the main window into understanding the totality. If you watch these esteemed homoeopaths taking cases (which I have had the honor of doing) they remain attentive to the presenting symptoms, only attempting to perceive the whole case through this. The patient is allowed to globalize the sensations and problems in the main complaint, but is encouraged to stay with focussed on it as well.
The other approach, one that I have seen students and poorly trained homoeopaths struggle with, is a wandering or rambling journey through the whole person's life without regard to the disease at all. This is not Hahnemannian homoeopathy, and should not be used as an example of how 'classical' homoeopaths are mismanaging their cases. It is just one of many examples of poor case taking.
♡ brisbanehomoeopath last decade
To David
I do admire your tenacity to defend classical homeopathy which even extends to speaking up for Dr Banerji to imply that he too uses the standard classical protocol with a minor difference, in a manner that seems to imply that you were closely associated with him.
My question to you is, on what grounds do you do so ?
Dr Banerji has laid down his own philosophy in using Homeopathic remedies which differs from the classical homeopathy that you have studied and prescribe today.
I have developed my own which today proudly bears the term 'Joepathy' thanks to Gavini who coined it. I do not have any compunction in using remedies in a manner that I feel will help the patient and thousands have been helped and many cured. In many cases the patients had first run the gauntlet of doctors and classical homeopaths who did not seem to be able to help them. When I took their case many of them were helped and the majority cured. I prescribed standard Homeopathic Remedies which are freely available worldwide, but with the difference that I prescribed them in a manner that may have seemed strange to you but which helped the patient towards a cure. And all this therapy was free of charge. In many cases I have sent the remedies (in pellets) to the patient by airmail at my expense. All I wished to do was to cure the ailment and in the large majority of cases I succeeded in doing so.
Quite frankly I do not see any reason why I should deviate from my therapy, merely because you and a few other 'classical' homeopaths demand that I do.
I do admire your tenacity to defend classical homeopathy which even extends to speaking up for Dr Banerji to imply that he too uses the standard classical protocol with a minor difference, in a manner that seems to imply that you were closely associated with him.
My question to you is, on what grounds do you do so ?
Dr Banerji has laid down his own philosophy in using Homeopathic remedies which differs from the classical homeopathy that you have studied and prescribe today.
I have developed my own which today proudly bears the term 'Joepathy' thanks to Gavini who coined it. I do not have any compunction in using remedies in a manner that I feel will help the patient and thousands have been helped and many cured. In many cases the patients had first run the gauntlet of doctors and classical homeopaths who did not seem to be able to help them. When I took their case many of them were helped and the majority cured. I prescribed standard Homeopathic Remedies which are freely available worldwide, but with the difference that I prescribed them in a manner that may have seemed strange to you but which helped the patient towards a cure. And all this therapy was free of charge. In many cases I have sent the remedies (in pellets) to the patient by airmail at my expense. All I wished to do was to cure the ailment and in the large majority of cases I succeeded in doing so.
Quite frankly I do not see any reason why I should deviate from my therapy, merely because you and a few other 'classical' homeopaths demand that I do.
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
I am not demanding that you deviate from your therapy. You can do whatever you want, obviously.
However, running down traditional homoeopathy, making unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims of success, and expressing viewpoints that you cannot explain or justify - these are the things that I am challenging.
I am not defending Bannerji, in fact I disagree with the basic premise that the general state is always of lower importance than the local one. However, it does not, strictly speaking conflict with the basic principles of homoeopathy. using Bannerji's method as justification for breaking those principles is not appropriate in my opinion.
I attempted to explain to you how Bannerji's method works, so that you can see how it is not similar to what you do at all. I have lectured in homoeopathy for many years, and I have taught advanced homoeopathic philosophy. It is clear to me that in using this method as a defence of yours, you had no inkling of how it really works. It is also clear to me that when you use the word classical (mostly as an insult or in a way that is denigrating) you actually do not understand traditional homoeopathy at all. This is not unusual amongst the many opponents of homoeopathy.
I have indeed studied this method, and on occasion I use it when the pathology of the patient has overtaken the general state. I am well versed in many forms of actual homoeopathic case-taking and prescribing methods and can use any of them as the situation warrants it. Sankaran's Sensation homoeopathy, Tinus Smit's Isopathic approach and Inspirational homoeopathy, Kent's mental states, Vithoulkas' Essences, Keynote prescribing, Acute prescribing and others - the *true* free thinker in Homoeopathy does not restrict him or herself to one method and bash away at every patient expecting them to all react the same way.
The true art of homoeopathy is to be able to use it in a way that suits the patient. Respect for the individuality of the patient in all aspects, is the true strength of homoeopathy and the genuine homoeopathic healer.
However, running down traditional homoeopathy, making unsubstantiated and unreasonable claims of success, and expressing viewpoints that you cannot explain or justify - these are the things that I am challenging.
I am not defending Bannerji, in fact I disagree with the basic premise that the general state is always of lower importance than the local one. However, it does not, strictly speaking conflict with the basic principles of homoeopathy. using Bannerji's method as justification for breaking those principles is not appropriate in my opinion.
I attempted to explain to you how Bannerji's method works, so that you can see how it is not similar to what you do at all. I have lectured in homoeopathy for many years, and I have taught advanced homoeopathic philosophy. It is clear to me that in using this method as a defence of yours, you had no inkling of how it really works. It is also clear to me that when you use the word classical (mostly as an insult or in a way that is denigrating) you actually do not understand traditional homoeopathy at all. This is not unusual amongst the many opponents of homoeopathy.
I have indeed studied this method, and on occasion I use it when the pathology of the patient has overtaken the general state. I am well versed in many forms of actual homoeopathic case-taking and prescribing methods and can use any of them as the situation warrants it. Sankaran's Sensation homoeopathy, Tinus Smit's Isopathic approach and Inspirational homoeopathy, Kent's mental states, Vithoulkas' Essences, Keynote prescribing, Acute prescribing and others - the *true* free thinker in Homoeopathy does not restrict him or herself to one method and bash away at every patient expecting them to all react the same way.
The true art of homoeopathy is to be able to use it in a way that suits the patient. Respect for the individuality of the patient in all aspects, is the true strength of homoeopathy and the genuine homoeopathic healer.
♡ brisbanehomoeopath last decade
Ultimately Joe, I do not believe you are a 'bad' person, or that you do not have good intentions. My opinion is that you are not trained well enough to recognize the flaws in your method. Again, this does not make you a bad person, simply one who needs to learn more.
Your belief that classical homoeopathy does not, nor has ever worked, that Hahnemannian homoeopaths are greedy and only trying to extort money from poor patients, or that most homoeopaths for 200 years have been deluded into thinking they were healing people - this makes it impossible for YOU to see from another viewpoint. With such a distorted attitude, no wonder we can do nothing but argue and bicker.
Stop denigrating this beautiful and profound healing art that I have chosen to practice. Show traditional homoeopaths respect and perhaps you will get some back, even if we never agree with what you are doing. Be honest and truthful about your results, and then perhaps we can all see whatever kernal of truth lies inside of your experiences with our medicines.
Your belief that classical homoeopathy does not, nor has ever worked, that Hahnemannian homoeopaths are greedy and only trying to extort money from poor patients, or that most homoeopaths for 200 years have been deluded into thinking they were healing people - this makes it impossible for YOU to see from another viewpoint. With such a distorted attitude, no wonder we can do nothing but argue and bicker.
Stop denigrating this beautiful and profound healing art that I have chosen to practice. Show traditional homoeopaths respect and perhaps you will get some back, even if we never agree with what you are doing. Be honest and truthful about your results, and then perhaps we can all see whatever kernal of truth lies inside of your experiences with our medicines.
♡ brisbanehomoeopath last decade
Respected Joe,
I request you to save your time from typing this long justifications which will have zero returns.
If any one does not see the benefit you are offering, just ignore them. Spend your time on helping the patients.
I met with Dr. Banerjii and he is very clear: Disease -> Medicine Protocol. No symptoms are looked. I know his success rate and is of no use to publish here. Nor does it of any use to share the benefit of his approach here.
I never want to read another post of yours wasting your time like this. PLEASE....
Learn to save your time through ignoring. You loose nothing.
Reva V
[message edited by Reva V on Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:35:06 CST]
I request you to save your time from typing this long justifications which will have zero returns.
If any one does not see the benefit you are offering, just ignore them. Spend your time on helping the patients.
I met with Dr. Banerjii and he is very clear: Disease -> Medicine Protocol. No symptoms are looked. I know his success rate and is of no use to publish here. Nor does it of any use to share the benefit of his approach here.
I never want to read another post of yours wasting your time like this. PLEASE....
Learn to save your time through ignoring. You loose nothing.
Reva V
[message edited by Reva V on Tue, 01 Mar 2011 22:35:06 CST]
♡ Reva V last decade
To Reva
I agree that it is best that I just ignore David's comments which I shall do from now on as I find that I am spending more time in defense of my Joepathy that I am expending on patients.
I am glad to note that you have also been following this debate and I believe that with your personal contact with Dr Banerji you may be in a better position than I am to verify David's record of his therapy of which I have only read about on his Website.
You may like to know that I spent the whole morning today which is a Public Holiday due to Maha Siva Rathri at the Mahatma Gandhi Center in the company of about 10 qualified Homeopaths some of whom are working in the Government Homeopathic Hospital while others are in private practice. I was able to address them on the efficacy of the Wet dose method which some of them use today on an exclusive basis after I first introduced them to it 2 years ago at the same venue when I gave them a lecture which I entitled:
'Joepathy a viable alternative to Classical Homeopathy'.
I was surprised to discover later that there is reference to this talk on Google.
At that time Homeopathy was just another term to them as there were only a handful of Homeopaths who were actively interested in its curative aspect who were present among the members. After my talk, I gave the audience a bottle of spring water each into which I introduced 4 pellets of Arnica 30c which I had talked about in my lecture. Many of those who used my therapy are regulars today and call on me to reactivate the spring water which they now bring. Those who use it have confirmed that it has helped them in a manner that no drug or tonic has done in their lives.
It is interesting to record that they now have a weekly Homeopathic camp at this Centre when one or more practicing Homeopaths voluntarily give their time to treat patients. Today is a special day which was widely publicized on TV and other means and I was pleasantly surprised to find over 250 patients who had turned up from remote towns and villages in Sri Lanka to consult the Homeopaths. It seems to me after talking to the crowd that the Homeopathic message is gaining ground as it is being passed on from mouth to mouth and with the added TV publicity it is very likely that this Homeopathic camp idea will spread and more people can be expected in the future as the consultations and medicines are all free.
Kind Regards
Joe
I agree that it is best that I just ignore David's comments which I shall do from now on as I find that I am spending more time in defense of my Joepathy that I am expending on patients.
I am glad to note that you have also been following this debate and I believe that with your personal contact with Dr Banerji you may be in a better position than I am to verify David's record of his therapy of which I have only read about on his Website.
You may like to know that I spent the whole morning today which is a Public Holiday due to Maha Siva Rathri at the Mahatma Gandhi Center in the company of about 10 qualified Homeopaths some of whom are working in the Government Homeopathic Hospital while others are in private practice. I was able to address them on the efficacy of the Wet dose method which some of them use today on an exclusive basis after I first introduced them to it 2 years ago at the same venue when I gave them a lecture which I entitled:
'Joepathy a viable alternative to Classical Homeopathy'.
I was surprised to discover later that there is reference to this talk on Google.
At that time Homeopathy was just another term to them as there were only a handful of Homeopaths who were actively interested in its curative aspect who were present among the members. After my talk, I gave the audience a bottle of spring water each into which I introduced 4 pellets of Arnica 30c which I had talked about in my lecture. Many of those who used my therapy are regulars today and call on me to reactivate the spring water which they now bring. Those who use it have confirmed that it has helped them in a manner that no drug or tonic has done in their lives.
It is interesting to record that they now have a weekly Homeopathic camp at this Centre when one or more practicing Homeopaths voluntarily give their time to treat patients. Today is a special day which was widely publicized on TV and other means and I was pleasantly surprised to find over 250 patients who had turned up from remote towns and villages in Sri Lanka to consult the Homeopaths. It seems to me after talking to the crowd that the Homeopathic message is gaining ground as it is being passed on from mouth to mouth and with the added TV publicity it is very likely that this Homeopathic camp idea will spread and more people can be expected in the future as the consultations and medicines are all free.
Kind Regards
Joe
♡ Joe De Livera last decade
To post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register
Important
Information given in this forum is given by way of exchange of views only, and those views are not necessarily those of ABC Homeopathy. It is not to be treated as a medical diagnosis or prescription, and should not be used as a substitute for a consultation with a qualified homeopath or physician. It is possible that advice given here may be dangerous, and you should make your own checks that it is safe. If symptoms persist, seek professional medical attention. Bear in mind that even minor symptoms can be a sign of a more serious underlying condition, and a timely diagnosis by your doctor could save your life.