radiation exposure HELP

You may take a single dose of Uranium Nit 200.

There is no guarantee that homoeopathic uranium will protect you. Our medicines have never been tested in that manner. Considering that the human body does not have many natural defences against high levels of radiation, it is unlikely our medicines will offer protection. Homoeopathy only stimulates natural healing processes, and is only reliable when using a set of symptoms to prescribe on (symptoms displayed by the patient).

There is some debate in homoeopathic circles about how best to handle prophylaxis. The traditional method is to establish a set of symptoms shown by people affected, and then give a remedy or choose from a group of remedies that match those symptoms to those people as yet unaffected. This is in line with homoeopathic philosophy (using the symptoms to prescribe).

The other school of thought is to give a medicine made from the substance that (apparently) caused the symptoms. Since this does not really use the symptoms of the patient to make the choice, it is not something that can be reliably compared with the successes of homoeopathy. This is the basis for homoeopathic vaccination, a contentious issue amongst homoeopaths.

There are a number of medicines that might suit the picture of radiation poisoning - Cadmium Sulph, Radium bromatum, Arsenicum album, Iodum - there are others depending on the way the radiation is affecting people.

David Kempson
Professional Classical Homoeopath
Dip.Hom.Med.1994

Hi- came across a book that I think
will have answers for you.

Biological, Chemical and Nuclear warfare-

It is by Dr. Yurkovsky MD homeopath
his mentor is a famous Stanford Dr.
and it is about how to make remedies
or whatever you need in 5 minutes
for whatever is going on.

These guys are not dumb and the book
looks very interesting. I am going to
buy it. fyi-

I think Dr. Yurkovsky is actually quite clever. What he has done, is take a well-known aspect of homoeopathic prescribing (known as Isopathy) and he has researched it very thoroughly so that it can be used more effectively. This is the kind of 'modern' homoeopathy that has merit - where the basic principles are not being broken, but where it is integrated into traditional philosophy. Much of what he says on his website is well thought out and logical.

I suspect though that with more research, he could offer more symptoms of 'heavy metal or other toxic obstacles' so that machines are not necessary, and homoeopaths could use those symptoms like we do those from our provings. In fact, while I was reading through his various essays, it occurred to me that often when we are examining the remedies that come up during repertorization, there are a number of toxic substances that may appear prominently. Perhaps these are worth a closer look, especially when a case is not responding as you had hoped.

In fact I am impressed enough with his reasoning that I may start doing my own experiments with this idea in my own clinic. Very interesting concept.

Because I have to offer some critical review as well though (and I want to reiterate I don't disagree with much of what he says), there are a few things I noticed while looking over the cases he offers as examples.

Firstly, he is only really offering cases where common 'polycrest' remedies were prescribed. This seems strange considering the number of cases he says he has seen. Polycrest remedies are great when they are needed, but they are overused and will only act as partial similars in many cases due to this. Considering we have over 5000 medicines, another possibility to be considered here is that the simillimum was never found.

The new case-taking methods instigated by the work of Dr. Sankaran were created precisely to deal with this problem - to allow homoeopaths to find their way to those small, poorly proven or unknown medicines. It would be nice to see some of his case examples using 'small', unusual or newly proven remedies.

Another thing I noticed is that there is a case he offers for repertorization by professionals. It is a very poorly taken case, or it is very poorly recorded. There are no modalities, no exploration of symptoms, no overall themes given. It is simply a list of names of conditions. Now obviously he is classically trained so he knows how you SHOULD take or present a case, but this is terrible. Nobody could select a remedy on this basis, and if they tried it would likely fail. I can only assume this is how he does it. He asks at the end (and it is way too short to be a properly taken case either) what would be the correct classical remedy? But he has given nothing that would allow a classical prescription! If he takes cases this way, no wonder he found limitations in classical homoeopathy - he may not even be practicing it!

These are all just observations based on what he presents. More cases, more examples, would be useful.

This does bring me to an observation I often make around those practitioners that make the claim that classical homoeopathy has a poor success rate. They are often not practicing it correctly - whether it is in the case-taking or in the analysis or in their understanding of materia medica (or any of the myriad of other aspects). The use of only the polycrests is a major limitation in curing patients, one that I encountered early on in my career and slowly began to overcome with the great work done by Jan Scholten, Rajan Sankaran, Franz Vermeulen and Roger Morrison (to name but a few).

The chances of the Simillimum being found amongst only .04% of the available remedies (that is a generous figure) is slim. I noticed that once I started using more remedies, my success rate went up noticeably. I observed that some of my long-term problem cases were solved this way, as were problem cases sent to me, or problem cases I sent to others (who practiced this way). This suggested to me the problem was in my knowledge of materia medica, in the materia medicas themselves, or in the specific remedies known to us.

This is not to suggest Classical Homoeopathy *doesn't* have limitations. It does, definitely. And we do need more work to understand better how to overcome them. For this reason I do not at all disagree with his attempts. In fact we all have enough failures that we know we have to keep searching. A difference must always be made between personal failures and failure of the system though.

He also keeps asking the question 'if the case had been managed exclusively with classical homoeopathy, how many end up flourishing?'. I am somewhat mystified by this. I see many of my patients 'flourish' after the simillimum, or even after a series of partial similars for that matter. It happens often enough that I have stayed in practice for 20 years. I have seen many video cases where patients 'flourished' under classical treatment. Obviously there are many written cases too, although it is so hard to judge those - watching the patient change and personally report the changes is much more convinicing. So why is he asking this question? The answer could be yes or no for that particular case, but for others the answer is resoundingly yes!

This is why I found Dr. Sankaran's work particularly inspiring - because it does not attempt to dismantle the basic principles, but attempts to increase our success rate while still observing them. This certainly has produced results, often dramatic even in cases of advanced pathologies. Yet again, we know there is a long way to go to make it even more consistent.

Hi, I am going thru his website.
Website is a bit confusing bc when
I put in dot com/fct, when site comes
up and I click autism adhd I get one
article that has drawing of baby on top.

but I don't get that article when clicking
on autism, just doing a dot com and no
fct.

However, I really like that article and his
take on allopathy and alternative medicine- he does not MINCE words.
And I have always thought what he
is saying on there.

Anyway very stimulating, and was
wondering - exactly how are you
going to experiment with his method
if you don't have the bio resonance
wand or whatever it is?

Know you are super busy!!! just interested in your opinions here-
I think you ought to write what you
said to him or Simon Rees ( see the
FCT world site- and or That Stephen
Ou MD in Atlanta - who set up
all the FCT forums. ( about what you
said about the casetaking)

Take care,
Simone

I was thinking that if I know what is in the water or environment of a patient, and that substance shows up in the repertory analysis, I might give it extra weight for prescribing. Many of those substances are already known in homoeopathy, we know their symptoms, so they should show up during my workings.

You would have them get the
water tested?? Just wondering bc
things like birthcontrol pills being
dumped here etc in USA the water is
not being tested for all those strange things.

And they talk about the EMF fields which
are rampant here with the cell towers-
and one of the web sites to do with
some of the Fct sites sells this Meme
devices which are supposed to last for
20 years and turn the microwave
frequencies being used from going
left into more harmful frequencies
into turning right into a normal
frequency. I am waiting to hear to
see how much those cost. probably
plenty.

But I do believe that the environment problems are
much worse than people think- as where I live
they just had a entire street move out bc the
electric plant has had 'loose voltage for 20 years'
and all the people on that street near the plant are
sick-you can get your house voltage measured. They
just measured the school across from me and said
no problem there. I don't think so.

In Sweden they have classified EMF as a legit
disability. Whoever makes some device to keep
your field earth normal will be a billionaire.

Just came here to enjoy the conversations. Thank u.

Dr. Showrav
Bangladesh

Most areas where I live have the water tested regularly, so it is easy enough to find out what is in it. Other than that, the symptoms really should still be able to guide us, unless homoeopathy is completely wrong about everything (which I do not believe).

I saw a show on TV where they were talking about the high levels of Arsenic in the water in a town in the USA. Those people had much higher incidences of diseases we know are cured by Arsenicum. These people would be candidates for this method of prescribing.

Now Dr. David is having some understandings that y I select the medicines to the patients so quickly and how!! The more u read like that the more u will learn homeopathy but sorry to say that u still did not forgot only the dependence on the symptoms. Symptoms can b vanished by many ways but that never ensures complete or ideal cure. Need more knowledge of outside homeopathic books to understand the totality of homeopathy.

Dr. Showrav
Bangladesh

Well I believe that the term 'symptom' is very broad. Perhaps 'signs' would be better. One needs to be alert for the subtle signs that many older style practitioners (or poorly trained newer ones) miss. Gestures, pace of speech, body language, doodles, dreams - you can see disease in more ways than just via the traditional disease symptoms.

The danger with divorcing yourself from the symptoms the patient expressess (or you can directly observe in them) is that it is easy to slide back towards the allopathic model, where they make up theories from their intellects and misconceptions about why the patient is sick.


Homoeopathy is currently in a renaissance of thought. In many of the seminars I have attended there is discussion about things I never would have imagined would be part of homoeopathy when I initially trained. It is a very exciting time to be a homoeopath. The changes are so rapid and signficant I often find it challenging to try and keep up.

Now we r talking the same way Dr. David.

Dr. Showrav
Bangladesh