≡ ▼
ABC Homeopathy Forum

 

The ABC Homeopathy Forum

deleted

delete
[message edited by girl2010 on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:37:34 GMT]
 
  girl2010 on 2012-03-31
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
???
 
girl2010 last decade
is there any significant change from the staphysgaria for you even? In the problems that are/ or where the worst for you namely?

Only than I think it would matter thinking about such things as complimentaries etc.

In my experience from my own experience only the correct remedy (simillimum) ever changes something for the problems that are most troubling to you. Other remedies dont touch it, not that deep. Thats just my experience.
[message edited by starface on Sun, 01 Apr 2012 03:23:50 BST]
 
starface last decade
deleted
[message edited by girl2010 on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:38:14 GMT]
 
girl2010 last decade
Ah ok ok
 
starface last decade
Now here we have one of those 'other' questions.

There are NO potency rules in homoeopathy like that. I answered that question for you just 2 days ago. Whatever you read was rubbish. There is lots of rubbish on the internet about homoeopathy. It is actually a terrible place to be trying to learn about it.

Some people do indeed need complementaries, as it is extremely rare for someone to need one remedy for the whole of their life. Complementary relationships are simply observations by past homoeopaths as to what remedies naturally follow one another.

Most people will change the remedy they need, after being given the correct remedy. It may happen in a few weeks, a few months or a few years, but it almost always happens. Most people need several remedies over their life time, and they may need a particular group that complements each other. The search for healing does not end with one remedy for anyone I have ever seen, or heard about. There is always more work to be done.

The Simillimum is only a momentary thing. Once it does its work it is no longer the Simillimum and is useless to the patient. After that new remedies must be found to continue the work.
 
brisbanehomoeopath last decade
I agree with you David on this. I read
a case of positronium where it was
an incarnation problem and the patient
had very good results and was finally
here-in his body- and the homeopath said well of course there is more to come
now in the future.

But What do you think of Massimo Mangiolavari, who uses the sensation
method but feels that the chosen remedy
must hold for like 3 years before he says
it is the real simillimum? It seems like
the patient could come back with
another problem and then need a
different remedy in a year or so??
 
simone717 last decade
delteedo
[message edited by girl2010 on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:39:57 GMT]
 
girl2010 last decade
Cite your source.
 
simone717 last decade
it was online by someone named varun

it is his thought but im not sure if this is standard in homoepathy or just his viewpoint of this combination
 
girl2010 last decade
Just Varun?? is it a website?
does Varun have a last name??

You have to know WHO you are reading.
and what their credentials are before
you can decide if they are off the wall
or respected homeopaths and drs.
 
simone717 last decade
Wait, is that the guy who is constantly pushing his book here, and on other websites?

While I have not read the entire book, I have read enough to disagree with most of what he says. A whole book written to justify breaking all the rules and principles of homoeopathy, written by someone who doesn't even have clincial experience as a homoeopath. There is a lot of theoretical justifcation in that book for use of multiple remedies, and much of it seems based on other (unproven) theories about what our medicines are actually made of. You can imagine what my opinion is of that!

You really need to be careful about what information you take in. Like I said, there are many non-homoeopaths who aspire to be like us, but such aspiration does not in itself make it true.

Theorizing without practical application is a terrible way to be teaching anything. All theories must be put to the test before being touted as fact. And we already know that the use of multiple remedies is a very poor way for homoeopathy to be practiced, because of the centuries of attempted applications.
 
brisbanehomoeopath last decade
So lets look at the quote you used. This is according to my clinical experience. I do have to admit that reading this book was quite difficult, with a lot of information being used to justify these theories would probably be better understood by a physicist than a homoeopath. Still I can understand the propositions put forward. What follows may be considered a rant (lol).

Just for the record I am all for exploration of homoeopathy, since we do not have a perfect system and it clearly can be improved upon. I have found all the work being done by modern homoeopaths quite interesting, and unless I feel it would harm the patient I am willing to test it out in a clinical situation (with the patient's permission).

Ok, so he is proposing that a single patient actually needs 3 remedies all at once. These remedies all have some similarity, and of course my opinion is that he cannot tell the difference between them which is why he wants to give all of them. Lack of skill with prescribing should NEVER justify any method of treatment.

The work done by Dr. Rajan Sankaran and the large number of dedicated classical homoeopaths around Kingdoms, Groups and Subgroups shows how flawed such a treatment plan would be. Each remedy has particular qualities based on the Kingdom and Group it belongs to, and these must be prescisely matched to the patient as well. Causticum is a mineral, Staph and Coloc plants, the same patient could not need them at the same time, because the basic problem is completely different. Of course when you don't understand the fine difference between remedies, you can make this kind of mistake, the sort of mistake a first year student makes (and hopefully is corrected on so their patients don't suffer because of it).

Staph and Coloc belong to completely different plant groups, and completely different miasms. The issue of miasm has been conveniently ignored here too. Causticum is tubercular, Staph is c-ancer, Coloc is malarial. Nobody will be all of those things together. The only person would think so is someone looking superficially at the expressions of the remedies, not deeply at the state those remedies produce.

Experience with clients bears this out as well. Patients do not express conflicting multiple basic problems, but I understand that without exprience in clinic it can appear this way.

If the 'desired outcome' is not being acheived with either Staph or Causticum then they are the WRONG REMEDIES - the jump he makes to say the patient needs both is illogical, and has been proven to be wrong. This kind of prescribing came about almost as soon as Hahnemann developed homoeopathy, mostly by the allopathic pretenders who could not let go of their own ideas about prescribing. This is the kind of simple rationalisation that pseudohomoeopaths use because they just don't understand how to differentiate remedies, or choose the true simillimum. 'I can't make up my mind between the remedies, so lets give them all!'. It is an unintelligent approach and lazy.

Each of those remedies has a single basic conflict, and no patient is going to have all three. At best each one will superficially deal with certain symptoms, but unless the basic state is also matched by one of them there will be NO CURE.

He actually suggests giving Coloc even when there are no perecptible symptoms to justify it. This is ALLOPATHY not homoeopathy, and has no place in homoeopathic practice. Giving a remedy on the basis of a theory without any perceivable signs for it, is exactly what the allopaths do. This is a clearly violation of the Law of Similars, and immediately removes such a prescription from homoeopathy altogether.

Then the use of multiple potencies at once, which is also called Potency Chords by other practitioners, is quite contraversial. A few of my colleages and I actually tried this out a few years ago with TERRIBLE results. The aggravations were beyond anything we had seen before, when the patient didn't prove the remedies. One of my ex-students persisted for awhile with it, but eventually she said her results were not very good so she found it disapointing.

There have been some genuine experiments done with potency (potency provings) which found that each potency actually has its own way of expressing symptoms, just as each remedy does. The wrong potency can cause as many problems as the wrong remedy, and the more you use at once the greater the risk of causing a problem (just as with multiple remedies).

Again, because many practitioners do not understand potency selection very well, if at all, it seems easy to just give the whole lot. This makes no sense, when you realise that each potency is like a different remedy.

We know this is true not just from the potency provings, but from experience in clinic, where patients will overreact to one potency, but cure on another. Giving them together is a recipe for disaster.

Potency selection needs to be indiviualised, and again selected intelligently, to get the safest and best result for the patient. Throwing the whole lot at the person - well that not only breaks the Law of the Minimum Dose but in effect is breaking the Law of the Single remedy too (which clearly is no problem for the author).

The rest of those potency rules are nonsensical and based on various air castles built by earlier incorrect theorizing. I suspect if the author actually looked at all the work being done on potency selection he would see the error of his ways (or perhaps not, as is often the case with academics, and this mean is clearly a deep thinker).

By his reasoning, if you see a whole lot of symptoms that are not covered by one remedy, just give them all. The end result of such a theory is that you could create one super remedy, every remedy we have all put together, which would cure everyone. Yes, the unified field theory of homoeopathy! One universal remedy to cover everything, and no more skill ever needed to prescribe again.

Such a naive and poorly informed assertion. I can understand how those who find homoeopathy difficult would want this, but it has already been shown that this does not work. To work from a practical application that does not work, has been proven to not work, and create a theory to show why it should work? It is the opposite of science, the opposite of logic.

Once I struggled through the first part of the book I lost interest in it, I do not know what other theories he put forward to discredit classical homoeopathy. I just couldn't justify using up anymore time on it.
[message edited by brisbanehomoeopath on Mon, 02 Apr 2012 03:20:11 BST]
 
brisbanehomoeopath last decade
delted
[message edited by girl2010 on Tue, 22 Jan 2013 00:40:57 GMT]
 
girl2010 last decade

Post ReplyTo 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.