how many remedies can i take? new member here.

Hi Terranova,

1. Lyme is a tricky thing to treat, as
once it gets going it can be some layers
of remedies. You need not only an experienced
homeopath but one who
understands lyme and has treated lyme.

Here is a link to a homeopath in Maine
who is very familiar with Lyme-I would
contact her and work with her by phone
or skype.ledum-lyme-prevention-in-your-pocket/ " rel="nofollow noopener" target="_blank">http://www.camdenwholehealth.com/2013/05/ledum-lyme-preventi...

2. In general on chronic issues homeopaths go to other homeopaths
bc a person is not neutral and objective enough to choose the
remedy for them -besides picking out the potency, dose amounts,
when to stop taking and wait etc.

Hi-

Stop gap measures would just confuse the case and make it harder.

Make sure the ND has had extensive training in homeopathy- bc
many of them take some courses when getting their ND and
they don't really adhere to homeopathic principles and use
remedies like they do herbs. They should have at least 6 years
of practice, and 60 or more percent of the practice should be
homeopathy bc the more you do homeopathy the better you
get at it.

I have sent people to classical homeopaths before who had Lyme-
The classical homeopaths were not able to help the people bc
they were choosing the basic constitutional remedy for the people,
tried a couple remedies for each person, but the Lyme was too
advanced and needed other remedies first, the homeopaths
then told the patients they were sorry they could not help them-
( these patients were steadily getting worse)

You should find out how many cases of Lyme has this person
cured. The person in Maine can probably work by phone or
skype with you so distance is not the issue-experience is what
you want and will save you time and money.

Good Luck to you.

A homoeopath doesn't need to have experience with the disease to be able to cure it. They just need to be good at homoeopathy. I have cured many diseases that I have never seen before in a patient, by choosing the single medicine that covered the important aspects of the case.

In fact, except in terms of understanding what is common in the disease (so we can exclude it from our analysis, since we only prescribe on what is peculiar) the name of the disease is pretty much irrelevant.

Find a homoeopath who has a good reputation for curing patients generally. They will be your best bet for getting a cure regardless of your medical diagnosis.

Advanced pathological conditions require a certain amount of cleverness as well - it is hard to know who to choose on that basis, but a smart homoeopath on top of an experienced one, who additionally follows the principles in the Organon of Medicine, will certainly have a good chance at modifying and even curing your disease.

Actually , two people on here, who I had sent to good homeopaths,
one very sick child, one a middle aged man ( who was in terrible shape) Were cured
after a few months by Dr. Showrav/Bangladesh- who took them on private.
He used a series of remedies to do this and was involved on an
almost day to day basis at the start.He had no prior experience with Lyme.

This was not going to work with a 'single' medicine the homeopaths
were choosing and people had no more 'time' to keep trying.

Therefore, it is just common sense to find someone who has done
these cases and had a lot of success, rather than searching out
homeopaths who are 'clever' enough - Apparently Dr. Showrav was 'clever' enough,
When 4 other homeopaths with decades of experience each, were not
'clever enough' and dismissed the patients bc they were not having results.

Some homeopaths have a particular focus on an area, have seen
a lot of cases of a particular disease in their area, and are good at it.
The odds are much, much better to see one of these people than
pick a well known, good reputation homeopath, who has never
had a case of this or very few, or not cured.

The same goes for a lot of Autism usa cases as Amy Lansky ( a homeopath)
has a list on her site, that is from the parents - only homeopaths
who have had real results are on that list.
[message edited by simone717 on Sat, 21 Jun 2014 16:21:07 BST]

Yes I hear stories like this all the time - people who break the rules of homoeopathy cure serious cases. Obeying the rules results in people not being cured. It's not been my experience at all - quite the opposite. Perhaps the definition of cure is the point of contention. I don't know - it's hard to argue such things.

I still disagree that experience with the disease makes you better at curing it - it is not necessary or even true. I get lots of clients who have seen so-called experts with a particular area and have been unable to get help from that homoeopath. In fact, my opinion is that such people can actually become quite narrow in their focus, relying on a particular group of remedies based on their experience, rather than keeping their view wide enough to include any remedy.

We have a few of these 'experts' in my own city. That has been my observation anyway. They seem a bit 'stuck' on the way they perceive the disease (within the limited scope of specific remedies or treatment styles). It always makes me suspicious of homoeopaths who call themselves experts with a named condition, considering our basic philosophy around the name being mostly irrelevant for prescribing purposes *shrug*.

If I can sure those diseases with no experience of them, others can too. I know my colleagues have. We have our principles and guidelines and laws precisely to help us do that.

Experience with a disease gives you a better feel for what is common, and this allows you to more quickly sort out what is peculiar. But an experienced, well-trained, perceptive homoeopath can do the same thing with a little bit of research into the disease. A good homoeopath can cure any disease regardless of their previous experience with it.

Having said all that, there are times when working with people in various diseases can be useful. I work with a lot of depression, patients with HIV, children with ADD/ADHD, sexual dysfunction, and menstrual disorders. I can work more quickly and efficiently through those cases because I know what to expect, and what is peculiar stands out more for me.

Dear Siomone and Evocationer,
I tell you my experience,in early time of my practice a man of middle age came to me I asked him what is the problem,he rang to his Modern school Doc and he told me that the patient had Trigeminal neuralgia,I got afraid with that name which I had never heard because the patient himself couldnt remember or pronounce it so he called his doc. As Dr.Evocationer has already said ,I again turned to symptoms what exactly were the symptoms.The patient was distinctly comfortable within less than a week and continued getting comfortable,he left taking Allopathic medicines monthly course which consumed 50% of his monthly salary this is now 10 yrs he doesnt have that problem,he is an ordinary driver in the Municiple corporation,there are many examples to give.
But the main thing is CONSISTENCY of the alertness while choosing the remedy and as Dr.Evocationer said 'to be free from Prejudice'a difficult task indeed .
[message edited by bapu4 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 07:37:17 BST]
[message edited by bapu4 on Mon, 23 Jun 2014 07:38:53 BST]

Dear Bapu, I agree with what you are saying.

I don't think any 'rules' were broken here- I would compare it to homeopaths
insisting on giving what they think is the 'constitutional' remedy when
there are other intense acute things going on that have to be 'matched'
and treated first.

Dr. Luc,says about this- he hopes those people go to India and get
diarrhea and see how well their constitutional remedy is going to work.
Dr. Andre Saine , head of Canada homeopaths says the same-he talks
about a patient who he knows their constitutional remedy but finds
she has pneumonia at a stage where she would have to be hospitalized.
He does not give her the constitutional remedy , he matches where
she is with her pneumonia symptoms.

These patients, had progressed to many other levels, of breathing problems,
nausea, etc, the other homeopaths were prescribing their 'constitutional'
remedy and at least had the integrity to tell them they could not help
them with homeopathy( which proved not to be true)

So here is where this argument always becomes strange. I often find that in these kind of debates certain definitions become problematic, and people end up arguing about different things.

Firstly, there is chronic prescribing and acute prescribing, and then there is this odd thing called 'constitutional' prescribing. What many homoeopaths call constitutional is actually a kind of allopathy, and it is frustrating to see it offered up as proof that either single remedy or prescribing on the totality does not always work.

Constitutional prescribers seem to believe that there is some underlying cause of a person's disease that is independent of the symptoms the patient is showing. This is also the definition of Allopathy. We know that allopathy does not work, so we know that this sort of prescribing also will not work.

Anyone who prescribes this way is not practicing homoeopathy, and they tend to fail their patients quite frequently. This is not the kind of prescribing I do, nor the kind I was espousing in my earlier posts.

It is quite correct to say such prescribing will not help patients. I don't know where this came from, or how homoeopaths end up practicing this way. It is in violation of our most basic principle, yet often such practitioners will even attach the label of 'classical' to their practice as if it somehow gives it more credibility.

In fact I would go as far as to say it is extremely unethical for practitioners to be seeing a client who is suffering an acute and trying to give them a remedy that does not address the most important and pressing problems they have.

However, there is a difference between prescribing for an acute, and prescribing for a reoccurring acute flare-up of the chronic disease. The first does require a new remedy (in most instances) but the second situation is better served by finding a chronic remedy. In fact, Hahnemann clearly states in the Organon that prescribing for the second situation by using 'acute' medicines will not cure the underlying disease and that each flare-up needs to be seen as part of a larger picture, if you want to get permanent cure.

So in the example, if the patient is presenting with acute pneumonia, or pneumonia that is endangering them, you would prescribe entirely on the pneumonia. I am not sure when you would NOT do this as pneumonia is pretty serious, but if the patient suffers pneumonia regularly and you are in a position to be able to look at the whole case, a remedy that includes this presenting state and the overall pattern would likely produce a better cure.

Most patients presenting with an acute flare-up of their chronic state, will be clearly displaying symptoms that fit perfectly into the remedy that suits the symptoms in-between these situations. I see it all the time.

The majority patients presenting with chronic disease, even serious ones, will give you the time to look at the whole history of the complaint, the pattern of it. Not doing this creates a risk of suppressing the disease. At best you end up chasing symptoms around and the patient becomes disappointed with the inability of homoeopathy to permanently cure their problem.

It really concerns me that there are people out there who seem to understand homoeopathy so poorly, that they continue to try to treat some 'hidden underlying constitutional' state. How do people understand the Law of Similars so poorly? It is very disappointing, and it gives us all a bad name.
[message edited by Evocationer on Tue, 24 Jun 2014 01:03:42 BST]