The ABC Homeopathy Forum
Good Homeopath
Dr.Luc's viewsThe good homeopath prescribes ONE remedy only.
He puts your remedy in a bottle of water, quantity to be determined by the homeopath. Those who advise to take your remedy in dry doses have not studied and mastered the most advanced homeopathic methods, and therefore not only slow down your cure, but often prevent it.
The good homeopath tells you to take a test dose that evening and to report within the next two days as to the result. Do not repeat before you hear from him.
He will at this point determine how often you can repeat this therapy, as to make sure your illness is resolved in the fastest and most gentle way.
Avoid those who claim, You must first go through a strong aggravation of your symptoms before you can get better, as well as those who claim, You must stop first your allopathic medication before I can treat you. This is not only untrue, but right-out dangerous as the patient will suffer withdrawal symptoms. A good homeopath recommends changing the amount and dose of the allopathic meds ONLY after improvement on the homeopathic remedy is perceived.
Avoid those who give you the single remedy dry (take 3 pellets on the tongue) and let you repeat this every month for a year without changing the strength (potency) of your remedy. This watch and Wait period is NOT Hahnemanns most advanced method, although practiced by most homeopaths.
The homeopath wants to see you in his office at least every month once but also insists on getting a report (telephone, fax, email) every week. This way he can do changes when he needs to do so.
Avoid those who claim when you bring them informed knowledge of advanced methods, and say, I already know all that, but his actions contradict his words.
Avoid those who never return your phone calls or emails or leave on an extended vacation without having anyone backing them up for emergencies.
Unfortunately in general, names of schools attended, degrees obtained and masters under whom they studied, means little. Even the assurance that he has been in the business of doing homeopathy for twenty years, does not assure success. Some homeopaths remain beginners for the rest of their lives. As in any profession, everything depends on the consciousness and industriousness of the practitioner and their true desire to help people.
Listen to those patients who he has treated: What was the outcome? How much was he available? How did he treat you? How was he as a human being? Could he connect to the suffering of the patient?
Avoid that homeopath who changes your remedy at every visit or who prescribes several remedies in rapid succession within weeks. Most likely he has no idea what your remedy really is.
Avoid the homeopath who claims that there is no need to treat serious acute events and that your chronic remedy will take care of any acute situation. It goes against all principles of good homeopathy. But dont make the mistake neither to treat every physical trifle with a remedy from your remedy kit. While under chronic treatment of a good homeopath, communicate with him as to what acute events need an intervention. Dont start your own treatment.
Avoid the homeopath who tells you that you only need ONE constitutional remedy for the rest of your life, no matter what happens. This goes against all the principles of homeopathy.
Avoid the homeopath who during your consultation is continuously interrupted to take calls. You paid for that visit, you deserve the attention.
Avoid the homeopath who in spite of no progress after one to two years, refuses to retake your case and rather continues with the same remedy in the stubborn belief that he cannot be mistaken.
A good homeopath tells you from the beginning what to expect. He tells you when the next in office visit should take place, and gives you means of communication in between successive visits, in order to assure the best possible follow up. Help him through careful observing any change in your symptoms, pen it down and communicate this once a week.
Avoid that homeopath who spends half of your consultation time with berating his incompetent colleagues in a malicious review.
Avoid the homeopath who gives you two remedies, one to be taken in the morning and one to be taken in the evening. He assures you that even Hahnemann alternated remedies (He did so for a short time to find that it was NOT helpful and abandoned the idea within the year).
Avoid any practitioner, homeopath included that is judgmental.
The excellent homeopath is humble, industrious, and sympathetic to your plight; he is patient and alive during the consultation and not preoccupied with things not pertaining to your suffering. In other words he loves homeopathy and people. He treats the poor just like the rich, and spends some of his time to give to the unfortunate, in his own country or abroad.
http://www.homeopathysnc.org/blog.htm
Murthy
♥ gavinimurthy on 2007-07-16
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
Good advice but i think will not come in the benefit of sufferer or doctors.As regards uses of double medicines are permitted in homeopathy either in bio or homeo form.When a patient of hypertension is come under homeopathic treatment and we suggest him like Barty carb or Bellodona what ever may be but a well known homeopath will not withdraw his bp medicine like ateninol or tenorin,and patient is advised to take both the medicines at a time in divided hours so long benefit of homeopathic medicine is not achieved and it may take some long time,then we advice to withdraw allopathic medicine in a routine way not at bit.The question of uses 2 or more medicines in low potencies are being used so the prescriber of those medicine cant be declared non efficient or bad practioner.In the path of Dr.Samuel hahnemann prescription of single remedy was recommended and later he has advised to use trio or similar nature of medicine as per rubric gradually.So change of drug is approved by the homeopathic system of medicine,potency and dosage is still in confussion only if lower potency failed go ahead with higher is being followed.So it is clear if ateninol can be taken with bel or barty carb why not our two medicines to bring the patient in order.If a disease is not returned treated by the combination or dual medicine after one year then we can think the patient is free from that disease.As regards chronic treatment with a single remedy giving phytum time to time i dont admit.During long term treatment if a patient is attacked with severe type another disease then we palliate it giving syptomic medicine.A patient of cholera or diarrohoea comes and if we go to check his symptom by asking 20to40 question i can say the patient will die.Here we do palliation giving him aloes,phodo,kali mur,merc sol,veratrum etc even 2to3 medicine at a time for survival.Thanks
♡ Dr.Haran ch malaker last decade
The Real Danger to Homeopathy:
Pseudo-Homeopathy
November 1999, Homeopathy Today
by Luc De Schepper, MD, PhD, DIHom
At the dawn of a new millennium, homeopathy is in a unique position, with the power to rescue our current medical system from its morass of high-tech, suppressive, alienating and exorbitantly expensive measures. There is a groundswell of interest and involvement in alternative medicine in general and homeopathy in particular among both patients and allopathic practitioners. The most recent study by Dr. David Eisenberg of Harvard Medical School shows 70% of Americans seeking alternative treatment (and spending billions to pay for it out-of-pocket), while in another recent survey 49% of primary care physicians stated that homeopathy was the alternative modality they most wanted to learn about. Insurance companies are beginning to reimburse for alternative treatments like homeopathy, recognizing the long-term savings involved.
At this point the greatest threat to homeopathy comes not from allopathic practitioners or pharmaceutical companies but from self-professed homeopaths who do not follow the immortal laws and principles laid down by Hahnemann. Whether out of ignorance or laziness, or the desire to impress their patients with their gimmicks so that they can charge more money, these pseudo-homeopaths violate the most basic principle of homeopathy: to give a single remedy which covers the totality of the symptom picture. Some give three or four remedies within a single week; others give mixtures of several or even a dozen remedies at once. In so doing they harm the patient, which is bad enough, but worse still, they harm the profession and the reputation of homeopathy.
We are accustomed to patients treating homeopathy as the last resort; they often come to us after the harmful, suppressive, and invasive measures of allopathic medicine. In my own practice I find myself in the unenviable position of the absolute last resort: patients come to me after being mistreated by other homeopaths. Or other homeopaths refer patients to me when they are honest enough to admit that they can no longer follow a case. I have seen hundreds of such patients over the years who have suffered from bad homeopathy. In addition, I have heard about hundreds more from my patients. Like typical homeopathy patients, they become missionaries who zealously try to convince their families and friends of homeopathy, but too often they come back to me with sad stories of these people who have had bad experiences at the hands of homeopaths who did not know the most basic principles of homeopathy.
Typically these patients suffer aggravations lasting weeks or months while the homeopath offers no succor and even refuses to return phone calls. In other cases the homeopath actually suppresses the symptoms with the remedy and fails to recognize that the case is going in the wrong direction, thus setting the patient up for more suffering later on. In still other cases, superficial physical symptoms disappear, to be replaced by mental/emotional ones. Many of these people have suffered so much that they adamantly refuse to consider consulting another homeopath, and they warn others away from homeopathy. I am just one practitioner; if I have encountered so many of these patients, how many more must there be in this country?
With Hahnemann giving us such clear guidance, I am honestly puzzled at how people practicing in his name can deviate so far from his direction.
I have tried to find out the rationale for these practices of mixing and alternating remedies. Many practitioners delude themselves that there is no danger in these practices because the remedies are harmless. Apparently they think that since the remedies contain not one molecule of the original substance there cannot be any harm in giving several at once, and perhaps they follow the American belief that more is better. I know other such practitioners who are trying to create for themselves the prestige and status of allopathic physicians, imitating the lab coats and stethoscopes as well as the polypharmacy of allopathy.
But polypharmacy (giving many prescriptions at once) is harmful in homeopathy as well as in allopathy. Remember that the remedies bear a powerful force. If they can consistently cure the so-called incurable diseases, they must be highly active agents. Each remedy delivers an energetic punch to the Vital Force, and it is the secondary response of the Vital Force which acts against the illness and heals the patient. Giving too many remedies at once can leave the Vital Force punched down like a boxer staggering to his knees. In fact I have seen patients who have been given so many remedies by previous homeopaths that their Vital Force no longer responds to the single well-chosen remedy, which could have cured their case in the first place before they were rendered incurable by bad homeopathy.
The well-chosen remedy, the simillimum, delivers an energetic impact which exactly matches the symptom picture of the patient. Any other remedy will not be a perfect match, that is, it will have symptoms in its symptom picture which do not match the patients. These aspects of the remedy can stimulate the Vital Force to create new symptoms, called accessory symptoms of the remedy. It is only logical that if more than one remedy is given at once or in close succession, only one can be the simillimum and the others are likely to create accessory symptoms. For example, I have seen a mixture labeled Grief which has every grief remedy under the sun, from Pulsatilla to Nat mur. There is no way that one patient can need both these remedies; they cannot be both the weepy, needy, consolation-seeking Pulsatilla and the stiff-upper-lip, leave-me-alone Nat mur.
The result of these mixtures can be a tangled mess of symptoms which make it impossible for the homeopath to follow the case. I have seen these patients too. It is bad enough that we have to sort out the patients true symptoms from those induced by their allopathic medications. We should not have to sort out symptoms induced by our own colleagues! Speaking of difficulties following the case, mixtures and alternation of remedies bring about another problem which we see in allopathic medicine all the time. I have seen allopathic physicians give my patients several drugs, one of which might cure the case but all of which have serious side effects. The mixture achieves the desired effect (suppressing the symptoms, which they call a cure). Then the physician does not know which medication worked and which ones can be discontinued. As a result the patient is kept on the dangerous drug cocktail indefinitely, with drug interactions compounding the side effects of the single drugs. When remedies are mixed the same problems arise. If the patient aggravates it is difficult to tell which remedy caused the problem; if the patient is improving slightly, which remedy should be re-administered in a higher potency?
And just as in allopathic medicine, the interactions among the remedies can bring about harmful effects which the single remedies would not create. This can even happen when the remedies are alternated. Each remedy has a long duration of action, usually lasting weeks or months. Giving several remedies within a single week creates all the bad results of mixing remedies because their effects will overlap.
To make the problems arising from mixtures more clear, consider remedies made from chemical compounds containing more than one element, like our old friend Nat mur. If it were possible to remove the Natrum (sodium) element from the muriaticum (chloride), the proving results of each one separately would be entirely different from the combination. It stands to reason that adding further elements would change the proving picture again. Another justification for mixing remedies stems from a confusion over existing remedies like China sulphuricum or Calcarea silicata which seem to be mixtures. But these remedies were proven as such. Their indications are not invented by adding the symptom picture of China with that of Sulphur, or that of Calcarea with that of Silica. Provings were done on the compound itself so that it can be prescribed confidently according to Hahnemanns principles. This type of proved compound in no way justifies creating new, unknown and unproven mixtures.
Another reason I hear for mixing and alternating goes like this: The modern era, with its more complicated diseases, requires more than one remedy to cover the case. Again, this answer betrays an ignorance of Hahnemanns principles so beautifully and clearly laid out in Chronic Diseases and the Organon. He has given us powerful tools which enable us to clearly analyze even the most complicated case. True, we see more effects of medical suppression in modern times: allopathic medicine has much more powerful tools at its disposal, including antibiotics, chemotherapy, and radiation. And it is true that the miasms have become increasingly more powerful; sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) have become pandemic because of changes in sexual mores and because of the world wars, among other causes. At the same time STDs have become more effectively suppressed by antibiotics, thereby creating new miasmatic cases, while existing miasms are fueled by factors like mandatory vaccinations.
This does not stop us from a clear analysis of our patients cases, however. If we search the patients past medical history and family medical history to find the active miasm, we can give one of the remedies most strongly active against that miasm, thereby ensuring good results every time. If we have the patient create a timeline, marking different traumatic events as well as surgeries and medically-suppressive interventions and correlating these with the first appearance of different symptoms, we can determine which are the most recently-created symptoms and therefore which ones need to be addressed first.
I might mention an error I see even among my true colleagues, the real classical homeopaths who give a single remedy at a time. Too often they lump all the patients symptoms together, even those created by a long-ago grief or other trauma, and attempt the impossible task of finding a single remedy to cover the patients entire life. This is not what Hahnemann meant by the totality of symptoms. We must address the totality of current symptoms in the current layer, those created by the most recent trauma or suppressive act, before retaking the case and finding a different match for the previous layer (as Hahnemann explains in the Organon).
A final argument I hear is that we do not need to limit ourselves to Hahnemanns principles because he was senile at the end of his life. I only wish that these Hahnemann-bashers could read Hahnemanns Paris case books, as I have. They would see for themselves that far from floundering in the dark, as the Hahnemann-bashers claim, he was constantly experimenting to perfect and refine his system within the framework of the basic principles which he had so brilliantly laid down.
It was in the last years of his life that he experimented with the higher potencies (far beyond the 30C which many people claim was his limit) and he developed the LM potency, the crown jewel of his method. Those who read the Paris case books for themselves will also debunk the myth that alternation of remedies is acceptable because Hahnemann himself did it. Hahnemann had earlier experimented with alternating remedies, but discarded the practice. He did give some of his Paris patients two remedies, but only because they had traveled a great distance and he anticipated that at some point they would need to switch from one to the other.
I look forward to the time when Hahnemanns case books will be available in English for all to read. In the meantime, all those who claim to be homeopaths should read and re-read, study and re-study, Chronic Diseases and the 6th edition of the Organon. I am shocked that whenever I talk to professional colleagues at conferences, I find that the great majority have never read the Organon even once! Each time I study this masterpiece I am astounded at how Hahnemann was able to anticipate the medical concerns of our modern world. On each re-reading I gain new insights which help me in my practice.
I also encourage my colleagues, all those who sincerely aspire to deserve the title of homeopath, to read the old mastersKent, Hering, von Boenninghausen, Lippeand the masters from the earlier part of this centuryFarrington, Wright-Hubbard, Pierre Schmidt, Tyler, Compton-Burnett. Few if any homeopaths in the world today have the stature of our great predecessors. By studying their works, we find that they always adhered to Hahnemanns principles. In everything they did they harked back to the master, never questioning his guidance and never accusing him of being senile. We also find that there is nothing new under the sun: the old masters and Hahnemann himself lamented the pseudo-homeopaths of their day, who were harming patients and ruining the reputation of our profession with their mixtures and alternations.
As practitioners we must remember, as I always tell my students, that we are not repairing refrigerators. We have our patients lives and health in our hands. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves in the laws and principles of homeopathy: we must know how to give a single well-chosen remedy, chosen by the totality of the symptoms, based on the proving picture of the remedy. We must educate our patients and the public that anyone who does not follow these laws does not deserve the title of homeopath. They may call themselves eclectics or anything else they want, but not homeopaths. In the words of Constantine Hering, one of our most revered masters, If our school ever gives up the strict inductive method of Hahnemann, we are lost and deserve only to be mentioned as a caricature in the history of medicine.
****************
Murthy
Pseudo-Homeopathy
November 1999, Homeopathy Today
by Luc De Schepper, MD, PhD, DIHom
At the dawn of a new millennium, homeopathy is in a unique position, with the power to rescue our current medical system from its morass of high-tech, suppressive, alienating and exorbitantly expensive measures. There is a groundswell of interest and involvement in alternative medicine in general and homeopathy in particular among both patients and allopathic practitioners. The most recent study by Dr. David Eisenberg of Harvard Medical School shows 70% of Americans seeking alternative treatment (and spending billions to pay for it out-of-pocket), while in another recent survey 49% of primary care physicians stated that homeopathy was the alternative modality they most wanted to learn about. Insurance companies are beginning to reimburse for alternative treatments like homeopathy, recognizing the long-term savings involved.
At this point the greatest threat to homeopathy comes not from allopathic practitioners or pharmaceutical companies but from self-professed homeopaths who do not follow the immortal laws and principles laid down by Hahnemann. Whether out of ignorance or laziness, or the desire to impress their patients with their gimmicks so that they can charge more money, these pseudo-homeopaths violate the most basic principle of homeopathy: to give a single remedy which covers the totality of the symptom picture. Some give three or four remedies within a single week; others give mixtures of several or even a dozen remedies at once. In so doing they harm the patient, which is bad enough, but worse still, they harm the profession and the reputation of homeopathy.
We are accustomed to patients treating homeopathy as the last resort; they often come to us after the harmful, suppressive, and invasive measures of allopathic medicine. In my own practice I find myself in the unenviable position of the absolute last resort: patients come to me after being mistreated by other homeopaths. Or other homeopaths refer patients to me when they are honest enough to admit that they can no longer follow a case. I have seen hundreds of such patients over the years who have suffered from bad homeopathy. In addition, I have heard about hundreds more from my patients. Like typical homeopathy patients, they become missionaries who zealously try to convince their families and friends of homeopathy, but too often they come back to me with sad stories of these people who have had bad experiences at the hands of homeopaths who did not know the most basic principles of homeopathy.
Typically these patients suffer aggravations lasting weeks or months while the homeopath offers no succor and even refuses to return phone calls. In other cases the homeopath actually suppresses the symptoms with the remedy and fails to recognize that the case is going in the wrong direction, thus setting the patient up for more suffering later on. In still other cases, superficial physical symptoms disappear, to be replaced by mental/emotional ones. Many of these people have suffered so much that they adamantly refuse to consider consulting another homeopath, and they warn others away from homeopathy. I am just one practitioner; if I have encountered so many of these patients, how many more must there be in this country?
With Hahnemann giving us such clear guidance, I am honestly puzzled at how people practicing in his name can deviate so far from his direction.
I have tried to find out the rationale for these practices of mixing and alternating remedies. Many practitioners delude themselves that there is no danger in these practices because the remedies are harmless. Apparently they think that since the remedies contain not one molecule of the original substance there cannot be any harm in giving several at once, and perhaps they follow the American belief that more is better. I know other such practitioners who are trying to create for themselves the prestige and status of allopathic physicians, imitating the lab coats and stethoscopes as well as the polypharmacy of allopathy.
But polypharmacy (giving many prescriptions at once) is harmful in homeopathy as well as in allopathy. Remember that the remedies bear a powerful force. If they can consistently cure the so-called incurable diseases, they must be highly active agents. Each remedy delivers an energetic punch to the Vital Force, and it is the secondary response of the Vital Force which acts against the illness and heals the patient. Giving too many remedies at once can leave the Vital Force punched down like a boxer staggering to his knees. In fact I have seen patients who have been given so many remedies by previous homeopaths that their Vital Force no longer responds to the single well-chosen remedy, which could have cured their case in the first place before they were rendered incurable by bad homeopathy.
The well-chosen remedy, the simillimum, delivers an energetic impact which exactly matches the symptom picture of the patient. Any other remedy will not be a perfect match, that is, it will have symptoms in its symptom picture which do not match the patients. These aspects of the remedy can stimulate the Vital Force to create new symptoms, called accessory symptoms of the remedy. It is only logical that if more than one remedy is given at once or in close succession, only one can be the simillimum and the others are likely to create accessory symptoms. For example, I have seen a mixture labeled Grief which has every grief remedy under the sun, from Pulsatilla to Nat mur. There is no way that one patient can need both these remedies; they cannot be both the weepy, needy, consolation-seeking Pulsatilla and the stiff-upper-lip, leave-me-alone Nat mur.
The result of these mixtures can be a tangled mess of symptoms which make it impossible for the homeopath to follow the case. I have seen these patients too. It is bad enough that we have to sort out the patients true symptoms from those induced by their allopathic medications. We should not have to sort out symptoms induced by our own colleagues! Speaking of difficulties following the case, mixtures and alternation of remedies bring about another problem which we see in allopathic medicine all the time. I have seen allopathic physicians give my patients several drugs, one of which might cure the case but all of which have serious side effects. The mixture achieves the desired effect (suppressing the symptoms, which they call a cure). Then the physician does not know which medication worked and which ones can be discontinued. As a result the patient is kept on the dangerous drug cocktail indefinitely, with drug interactions compounding the side effects of the single drugs. When remedies are mixed the same problems arise. If the patient aggravates it is difficult to tell which remedy caused the problem; if the patient is improving slightly, which remedy should be re-administered in a higher potency?
And just as in allopathic medicine, the interactions among the remedies can bring about harmful effects which the single remedies would not create. This can even happen when the remedies are alternated. Each remedy has a long duration of action, usually lasting weeks or months. Giving several remedies within a single week creates all the bad results of mixing remedies because their effects will overlap.
To make the problems arising from mixtures more clear, consider remedies made from chemical compounds containing more than one element, like our old friend Nat mur. If it were possible to remove the Natrum (sodium) element from the muriaticum (chloride), the proving results of each one separately would be entirely different from the combination. It stands to reason that adding further elements would change the proving picture again. Another justification for mixing remedies stems from a confusion over existing remedies like China sulphuricum or Calcarea silicata which seem to be mixtures. But these remedies were proven as such. Their indications are not invented by adding the symptom picture of China with that of Sulphur, or that of Calcarea with that of Silica. Provings were done on the compound itself so that it can be prescribed confidently according to Hahnemanns principles. This type of proved compound in no way justifies creating new, unknown and unproven mixtures.
Another reason I hear for mixing and alternating goes like this: The modern era, with its more complicated diseases, requires more than one remedy to cover the case. Again, this answer betrays an ignorance of Hahnemanns principles so beautifully and clearly laid out in Chronic Diseases and the Organon. He has given us powerful tools which enable us to clearly analyze even the most complicated case. True, we see more effects of medical suppression in modern times: allopathic medicine has much more powerful tools at its disposal, including antibiotics, chemotherapy, and radiation. And it is true that the miasms have become increasingly more powerful; sexually transmitted diseases (STDs) have become pandemic because of changes in sexual mores and because of the world wars, among other causes. At the same time STDs have become more effectively suppressed by antibiotics, thereby creating new miasmatic cases, while existing miasms are fueled by factors like mandatory vaccinations.
This does not stop us from a clear analysis of our patients cases, however. If we search the patients past medical history and family medical history to find the active miasm, we can give one of the remedies most strongly active against that miasm, thereby ensuring good results every time. If we have the patient create a timeline, marking different traumatic events as well as surgeries and medically-suppressive interventions and correlating these with the first appearance of different symptoms, we can determine which are the most recently-created symptoms and therefore which ones need to be addressed first.
I might mention an error I see even among my true colleagues, the real classical homeopaths who give a single remedy at a time. Too often they lump all the patients symptoms together, even those created by a long-ago grief or other trauma, and attempt the impossible task of finding a single remedy to cover the patients entire life. This is not what Hahnemann meant by the totality of symptoms. We must address the totality of current symptoms in the current layer, those created by the most recent trauma or suppressive act, before retaking the case and finding a different match for the previous layer (as Hahnemann explains in the Organon).
A final argument I hear is that we do not need to limit ourselves to Hahnemanns principles because he was senile at the end of his life. I only wish that these Hahnemann-bashers could read Hahnemanns Paris case books, as I have. They would see for themselves that far from floundering in the dark, as the Hahnemann-bashers claim, he was constantly experimenting to perfect and refine his system within the framework of the basic principles which he had so brilliantly laid down.
It was in the last years of his life that he experimented with the higher potencies (far beyond the 30C which many people claim was his limit) and he developed the LM potency, the crown jewel of his method. Those who read the Paris case books for themselves will also debunk the myth that alternation of remedies is acceptable because Hahnemann himself did it. Hahnemann had earlier experimented with alternating remedies, but discarded the practice. He did give some of his Paris patients two remedies, but only because they had traveled a great distance and he anticipated that at some point they would need to switch from one to the other.
I look forward to the time when Hahnemanns case books will be available in English for all to read. In the meantime, all those who claim to be homeopaths should read and re-read, study and re-study, Chronic Diseases and the 6th edition of the Organon. I am shocked that whenever I talk to professional colleagues at conferences, I find that the great majority have never read the Organon even once! Each time I study this masterpiece I am astounded at how Hahnemann was able to anticipate the medical concerns of our modern world. On each re-reading I gain new insights which help me in my practice.
I also encourage my colleagues, all those who sincerely aspire to deserve the title of homeopath, to read the old mastersKent, Hering, von Boenninghausen, Lippeand the masters from the earlier part of this centuryFarrington, Wright-Hubbard, Pierre Schmidt, Tyler, Compton-Burnett. Few if any homeopaths in the world today have the stature of our great predecessors. By studying their works, we find that they always adhered to Hahnemanns principles. In everything they did they harked back to the master, never questioning his guidance and never accusing him of being senile. We also find that there is nothing new under the sun: the old masters and Hahnemann himself lamented the pseudo-homeopaths of their day, who were harming patients and ruining the reputation of our profession with their mixtures and alternations.
As practitioners we must remember, as I always tell my students, that we are not repairing refrigerators. We have our patients lives and health in our hands. We have a responsibility to educate ourselves in the laws and principles of homeopathy: we must know how to give a single well-chosen remedy, chosen by the totality of the symptoms, based on the proving picture of the remedy. We must educate our patients and the public that anyone who does not follow these laws does not deserve the title of homeopath. They may call themselves eclectics or anything else they want, but not homeopaths. In the words of Constantine Hering, one of our most revered masters, If our school ever gives up the strict inductive method of Hahnemann, we are lost and deserve only to be mentioned as a caricature in the history of medicine.
****************
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
advice of doctor murthy is impressive for homeopth who not have time for .he is here to coach doctors
but in this forum here are certain shortcomings for doctors also
doctor is unable to see patent here he canot guess his structure color etc
forum should arrange cam and chat facilitieis.
so much messenger are in use for irrelevent works so forum should have cams arrangement nad chat room for doctorss andpatient
but in this forum here are certain shortcomings for doctors also
doctor is unable to see patent here he canot guess his structure color etc
forum should arrange cam and chat facilitieis.
so much messenger are in use for irrelevent works so forum should have cams arrangement nad chat room for doctorss andpatient
honey635 last decade
????????????????????????////
Kent says that whole prescribing one remedy always keep the second remedy handy.
WHY???????????????
Kent says that whole prescribing one remedy always keep the second remedy handy.
WHY???????????????
Rajendra last decade
Rajendra last decade
Just in case the first remedy fails to relieve, you should have an idea as to what other medicines may be helpful.
These are called collateral remedies, and one should have good knowledge about them.
But, even these can't be prescribed blindly. You have to retake the case after the first remedy failed, and see whether any of these collaterals match.
The aconite, spongia, hepar series is one good example for coughs.
Another well known trio is Sulphur, calc, lyco.
However, these are not to be prescribed blindly.
Murthy
These are called collateral remedies, and one should have good knowledge about them.
But, even these can't be prescribed blindly. You have to retake the case after the first remedy failed, and see whether any of these collaterals match.
The aconite, spongia, hepar series is one good example for coughs.
Another well known trio is Sulphur, calc, lyco.
However, these are not to be prescribed blindly.
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
A wonderful eye opner article by murthy.Today's homeopathy is being abused by the so called pseudo homeopaths who have put themselves before this great science.by doing mixopathy they are doing the worst damage to this unfailing science.I, as a homeopath, who has listened and attended seminars of modern stalwarts like George Vithoulkas,Rajan shankaran,Jan scholtan,Prafulla vijaykar and M L sehgal,i feel pity on these pseudo homeopaths who are out to malign homeopathy for their selfish gains.we as like minded people should form a consortium of single dose prescribers for the upliftment of Hanemannian Homeopathy in particular and for the welfare of the sick at large.
rssaini18 last decade
Couldn't agree with you more Dr. RSSaini.
Unnecessary repetition of doses and multiple remedies is not homeopathy.
Mr. Murthy, very good article!
Unnecessary repetition of doses and multiple remedies is not homeopathy.
Mr. Murthy, very good article!
sameervermani last decade
Dear friends
The article was written by Dr.Luc.
It is true that the faith in homeopathy among the masses is dwindling because of the wrong handling by these 'pseudo' homeopaths.
I am sure half of the prescribers never understand the difference between suppression and cure.
They think that removal of a single symptom even in chronic cases is the goal and most of the prescriptions are unfortunately aimed at that.
There is no attempt to take a case properly, and unfortunately the seekers too being new to homeopathy can't realise that they are being taken for a ride by these half knowledged 'doctors'.
However there are some good prescriptions occassionally for acute problems.
the unfortunate part is that the forum is a sort of 'testing' ground for the prescribing skills of the prescribers, and most of the prescribers are here for gainig 'experience'
An occassional input from people like you on what is 'proper' homeopathy and what is not, will go a long way in making patients become aware of the dangers of poly pharmacy, mixtures and frequent repetetions of the same unchanged potencies for weeks/months together.
Murthy
The article was written by Dr.Luc.
It is true that the faith in homeopathy among the masses is dwindling because of the wrong handling by these 'pseudo' homeopaths.
I am sure half of the prescribers never understand the difference between suppression and cure.
They think that removal of a single symptom even in chronic cases is the goal and most of the prescriptions are unfortunately aimed at that.
There is no attempt to take a case properly, and unfortunately the seekers too being new to homeopathy can't realise that they are being taken for a ride by these half knowledged 'doctors'.
However there are some good prescriptions occassionally for acute problems.
the unfortunate part is that the forum is a sort of 'testing' ground for the prescribing skills of the prescribers, and most of the prescribers are here for gainig 'experience'
An occassional input from people like you on what is 'proper' homeopathy and what is not, will go a long way in making patients become aware of the dangers of poly pharmacy, mixtures and frequent repetetions of the same unchanged potencies for weeks/months together.
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
Good suggestions for prescribing one remedy.
I have a querry in this respect :-
One is under the treatment for liver problem and suddenly he got hurt and requires Arnica. Tell me how not to give Arnica and continue with liver remedy - say Chelidonium.
I have a querry in this respect :-
One is under the treatment for liver problem and suddenly he got hurt and requires Arnica. Tell me how not to give Arnica and continue with liver remedy - say Chelidonium.
Rajendra last decade
Dear Rajendra
These are very basic questions answered many times by the masters.
In case a really acute problem crops up, the chronic treatment is suspended and the acute remedy is given.
Once the acute problem is resolved, the case is re taken and if the earlier is still indicated, the same is given.
Organon covers all these aspects. Read it atleast now, if you didn't do it so far.
Murthy
These are very basic questions answered many times by the masters.
In case a really acute problem crops up, the chronic treatment is suspended and the acute remedy is given.
Once the acute problem is resolved, the case is re taken and if the earlier is still indicated, the same is given.
Organon covers all these aspects. Read it atleast now, if you didn't do it so far.
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
sameervani seems to have not read my writeup on good homeopath carefully.i am a single dose prescriber myself for the last 33 years and my writeup advocates the same.please read carefully and then comment.
rssaini18 last decade
Dear mr rssaini,
Please look carefully :)
I have written 'Couldn't agree with you more' ! which means
I agree with your single dose prescribing very much :)
'Couldn't agree with you more' is just a phrase to express strong agreement :).
Don't worry, I am on your side too.
Please look carefully :)
I have written 'Couldn't agree with you more' ! which means
I agree with your single dose prescribing very much :)
'Couldn't agree with you more' is just a phrase to express strong agreement :).
Don't worry, I am on your side too.
sameervermani last decade
rssaini18
that is a very good question.
If you get a root canal or get pregnant or get involved in a very bad auto accident, a classical homeopath will give you the same remedy he has been giving you for many years prior. No, you will not get Arnica either. It's the one and only remedy year after year while your health deteriorates more and more. What do you suppose happens when a classical homeopath never figured out what your original health concern was? Then your original concern gets worse too.
There is nothing more annoying then consulting your homeopath time after time only to hear the same name of the same remedy year after year after year for everything and anything.
YEAP, ONE REMEDY CURES ALL IS THEIR MOTO
You better quit wasting your money on a classical homeopath and come here instead.
that is a very good question.
If you get a root canal or get pregnant or get involved in a very bad auto accident, a classical homeopath will give you the same remedy he has been giving you for many years prior. No, you will not get Arnica either. It's the one and only remedy year after year while your health deteriorates more and more. What do you suppose happens when a classical homeopath never figured out what your original health concern was? Then your original concern gets worse too.
There is nothing more annoying then consulting your homeopath time after time only to hear the same name of the same remedy year after year after year for everything and anything.
YEAP, ONE REMEDY CURES ALL IS THEIR MOTO
You better quit wasting your money on a classical homeopath and come here instead.
allergic last decade
Hi Allergic
You have got everything wrong in understanding the word 'classical' homeopathy.
It never means only one medicine throughout your life.
It means one medicine at a time. You may need different remedies at different stages of your life, and no classical homeopath prescribes the same medicine irrespective of the problem.
You better change your teacher who has been telling you these outlandish things.
Better still, read some good books by Doctors like GV,Luc and Vijayakar, if you can't understand classics like Organon and Philosophy.
Murthy
You have got everything wrong in understanding the word 'classical' homeopathy.
It never means only one medicine throughout your life.
It means one medicine at a time. You may need different remedies at different stages of your life, and no classical homeopath prescribes the same medicine irrespective of the problem.
You better change your teacher who has been telling you these outlandish things.
Better still, read some good books by Doctors like GV,Luc and Vijayakar, if you can't understand classics like Organon and Philosophy.
Murthy
♡ gavinimurthy last decade
I agree with Mr. Murthy.
It's like peeling the layers of an onion. Each layer is removed through the remedy that is most similar to that layer. Once you remove a layer , a new set of symptoms may come up ( a new layer) which might call for a new remedy.
And nobody is classical homeopathy says you would need one remedy for all your life.
e.g. I have received great benefit from being on Sulphur once in my life and later in my life I needed Lycopodium. Both treatments have been near miracles, and were done by a CLASSICAL homeopath.
It's like peeling the layers of an onion. Each layer is removed through the remedy that is most similar to that layer. Once you remove a layer , a new set of symptoms may come up ( a new layer) which might call for a new remedy.
And nobody is classical homeopathy says you would need one remedy for all your life.
e.g. I have received great benefit from being on Sulphur once in my life and later in my life I needed Lycopodium. Both treatments have been near miracles, and were done by a CLASSICAL homeopath.
sameervermani last decade
This thread is really interesting. The article by Dr Luc is certainly an EYE OPENER. It should help the patients by giving them a better idea about what a good homeopath is supposed to be and what to expect from a good homeopath.
Avoid those who claim, You must first go through a strong aggravation of your symptoms before you can get better, as well as those who claim, You must stop first your allopathic medication before I can treat you. This is not only untrue, but right-out dangerous as the patient will suffer withdrawal symptoms. A good homeopath recommends changing the amount and dose of the allopathic meds ONLY after improvement on the homeopathic remedy is perceived.
Homeopathy is now known as a system of medicine which ALWAYS first aggravates and then gives relief, thanks to the practising homeopaths. So most people avoid it, as they don't want to suffer more than what they are already suffering. I have been at the receiving end due to severe aggravations (lasting 10 days every month - during which I am totally out of action - have to sit at home and suffer it out) thanks to my classical homeopath who does everything right except the dosing - he still follows the Kentian dry dose method with prolonged wait and watch, and then repeating the dose at same potency. Once the aggravations pass, I enjoy excellent health like never before for around 3 weeks!
When I reported to him about the aggravations, he says 'Yours is a very chronic case - and you have gone through a lot of allopathic treatment - inhalers etc - which are suppressive - therefore you must surely suffer aggravations...' He says the aggravations are a means of cleansing for the body. He even forbade me from using my Asthalin Inhaler which I am badly in need of and using since past several years. My wife and parents are terrified seeing me suffer and want me to stop this treatment.
- Is this the right attitude on the part of a homeopath? I tend to think otherwise - as the grand old man himself said 'rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health'. I think this statement will remain a MYTH unless homeopaths drastically change their outlook and start following the 6th Organon methods.
Looks like a perfect homeopath is a mirage as far as the people of our country are concerned. It is imperative that anyone interested in homeopathy try to imbibe Dr.Luc's teachings in full and put it to practise.
Many thanks to Mr Murthy for raising this topic and all the posters for their valuable opinions. This will be an eye opener for all patients seeking a cure through homeopathy. thanks,
-sriram
Avoid those who claim, You must first go through a strong aggravation of your symptoms before you can get better, as well as those who claim, You must stop first your allopathic medication before I can treat you. This is not only untrue, but right-out dangerous as the patient will suffer withdrawal symptoms. A good homeopath recommends changing the amount and dose of the allopathic meds ONLY after improvement on the homeopathic remedy is perceived.
Homeopathy is now known as a system of medicine which ALWAYS first aggravates and then gives relief, thanks to the practising homeopaths. So most people avoid it, as they don't want to suffer more than what they are already suffering. I have been at the receiving end due to severe aggravations (lasting 10 days every month - during which I am totally out of action - have to sit at home and suffer it out) thanks to my classical homeopath who does everything right except the dosing - he still follows the Kentian dry dose method with prolonged wait and watch, and then repeating the dose at same potency. Once the aggravations pass, I enjoy excellent health like never before for around 3 weeks!
When I reported to him about the aggravations, he says 'Yours is a very chronic case - and you have gone through a lot of allopathic treatment - inhalers etc - which are suppressive - therefore you must surely suffer aggravations...' He says the aggravations are a means of cleansing for the body. He even forbade me from using my Asthalin Inhaler which I am badly in need of and using since past several years. My wife and parents are terrified seeing me suffer and want me to stop this treatment.
- Is this the right attitude on the part of a homeopath? I tend to think otherwise - as the grand old man himself said 'rapid, gentle and permanent restoration of health'. I think this statement will remain a MYTH unless homeopaths drastically change their outlook and start following the 6th Organon methods.
Looks like a perfect homeopath is a mirage as far as the people of our country are concerned. It is imperative that anyone interested in homeopathy try to imbibe Dr.Luc's teachings in full and put it to practise.
Many thanks to Mr Murthy for raising this topic and all the posters for their valuable opinions. This will be an eye opener for all patients seeking a cure through homeopathy. thanks,
-sriram
sriram last decade
rssaini18 last decade
To my mind your case needs to be retaken by your homeopath.may be there is some missing link.we have to concentrate why aggravations each time ?if the chosen remedy is the real similimum it should not bring about aggravation like the one you are suffering.look whether we are suppressing or making overuse of the remedy given to you.we certainly need to go to the why?
rssaini18 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.