Dr. Rishimba, Dr Joe, Dr.Sameer, Dr.Murthy, Dr. Rajeev : Child with Food Allergies, Asthma and Eczema _{Page 2 of 18}

In homeopathy , the remedy is based on totality and gives overall benefit .

So, if Phosphorus is indeed the correct remedy, then he will get over all benefit i.e. for asthma , allergies and as well as eczema.

Go for liquid dilution, and put 2 drops in 250 ml mineral water in a bottle. Give him one sip from this 250 ml three times in one day.

After this no more doses and just observe him for 5 days and post back status.

You can get 30c potency at most health food stores like Whole foods , Henry's.

But you will get pellets there, and in that case dissolve 2 pellets in 250 ml mineral water and give him 1 sip thrice for one day only.

There should not be any side effects , but slight aggravations sometimes do happen. However with the very light dosage I have prescribed , that is highly unlikely.

I wrote about the pills.

Dissolve 2 of Phos 30c in 250 ml water, and then give him 1 sip from that 250 ml, 3 times for one day only. No more doses after these 3.

Phosphorus can be very insecure as well especially when they are sick and it has a host of unknown fears. I do not see a case for Arsenic Album here at all.

I do not practice.

Actually it is funny that just if someone uses the initials 'Dr.' , people get re-assured. Let me tell you that in fact the best prescribers on this website are the ones who do not use the initials 'Dr.' .

You should not forget that the dangerous prescription you were following (multiple medicines, and giving a nosode among them and repeating it mechanically) was prescribed by a so called 'Dr.' .

In a science which is totally unregulated, using the prefix 'Dr.' usually does not mean anything :)
On the internet it becomes even more irrelevant.

Anyways, I will wait and see what the other 'Doctors' have to say about this .

Hi Sadhana

I saw your posts on Hpathy too.

In homeopathy every prescriber thinks in his own way and arrives at a medicine. For complex problems it is rare that the starting prescription of any two homeopaths will match.

However both may be capable of helping a patient.Each one uses a series of remedies (one sfter the other, not together) to achieve the result.

One may use A,D,F and E, the other may use C,K,M and P. Both may be able to help the patient.

What a patient should look for mainly is

1) whether a single medicine is being prescribed at a time

2) Does the prescriber sound knowledgable and dependable

3) What is his past track record

And one should have confidence in the homeopath and homeopathy.

Getting a second opinion is common in allopathy, but very difficult in homeopathy, particularly about the remedy choice, for the reasons mentioned above.

Murthy

Sadhna, I agree with Mr. Murthy. Asking for a second opinion will in all probability confuse you even more. For example - I took the advice of my original homeopath in treatment of my child. When I presented his case here, I was pretty much told I am on a ridiculous path and it will not work. Imagine how that made me feel :-) Your daughter's case is similar to my son.

So the way to do it is trust one, and give that one person some time. Do NOT ask for advice again while the course is going on. It can only lead to more frustration.

In my case, I have seen significant improvement of my son over the past few days. So follow just one person.

However, I completely understand that it is hard to trust a person over the internet. That is my predicament too. This is why I prefer to research the folks to give advice to understand their background by reading their oldest posts etc. Can't help it - people here don't openly talk about themselves. As a parent, there is no way I am going to do something till I am comfortable with a person, and you should too.

Personally, that is why I love the fact that people like Murthy or Joe Livera openly say they are not doctors - makes me respect them more -there is transparency.

I will keep a keep eye on your thread, as a reader.

Dear Sadhna,

I completely understand your concerns but as Murthy has already pointed out, you have to put your faith in this therapy, and I can assure you from my side that the dosage and prescriptions I will prescribe will be very gentle and will totally be inline with the principles of homeopathy.

Since I have not met your child, we might need to try a series of 2-3 remedies (one at a time, and in very gentle doses), and I promise you that your son will not be harmed in any way.

That's the best I can say re-assure you.

Percentagee of homeopaths in India who prescribe in the classical way is very very less. You just happened to visit one, whose purpose was just to make money.

But do not leave faith in this science, there are wonderful cures I have seen happening through this, and if used correctly, homeopathy is an extremely safe system of medicine.

Best wishes
Sameer

Sadhna, for what it's worth, I actually sat and had lunch with a homeopath in my area yesterday. He is a classically trained homeopath, has been practicing over 25+ years, is an Certified Homeopath in the US (again degrees matter less, but still, it is some sort of benchmark besides plain trust). I spoke to his references as well and received very good feedback. Anyhow, specific to Eczema, he said, in *his* experience, there are cases that can cure with 1 dose and some cases that take 6-8 months of continuous doses to treat. Interestingly, he also said he has no issue administering 200cs to toddler for relevant cases and believes that all those who feel 30c is high enough are reading it off book and not basing it on experience. Infact, he went on to state more than 60% of eczema cases he addressed have been using 200c to 'start'. Sometimes, if they don't work, he goes down. So while Hahnnemann seems to have standardized on 30c for most of his 'base-line', this gentleman has standardized on 200c. Why? Because it is his experience. Period. IF he cures,he cures.

Specific to this thread, and the postings of Sameer V. - I spent a lot of time reading his old posts. My personal opinion of him is that he is good. He reasons things. He has been open that he does not practice. However, his approach is one way, which is different from other professional homeopaths I know. He may be right. The other people I know may also be right. Sameer may think they are wrong (based on our other thread exchanges), and I am fine with his opinion - he has a right to have it, and I find his arguments logical. But there is a great deal of 'art' that goes beyond science in this field, as I read more of it. Since there is a lot of 'art' in homeopathy, one artist can call the other's rendition bad. But if that rendition works on someone, then what others think is irrelevant. So again, you need to decide on ONE homeopath. Give him/her 6 months. If it doesn't work switch. IF you want to go with Sameer, go with him, question why he prescribed something (it is your right). If he doesn't respond, move on and find someone else. But if you ask Sameer (or anyone else to verify Sameer's prescriptions) you will get a different answer and it will make you worse.

Mr aske123,

Homeopathy is not an 'art', this is a science based on principles which have been laid down in the Organon by Hahnemann very well, and have been time and again verified and confirmed by his best followers. Many a bad prescribers have taken refuge in homeopathy being an 'art'.

Let me clarify, I do not practice an art here. It is a science entirely based on logical principles, and if you believe administering continuous doses of s single potency is the way a homeopath cures, that does not in any way change the 'truth' that his prescriptions are not in line with the Organon and are not going to achieve what Hahnemann terms as cure. I never said, one cannot start with 200C, but continuous dosing with deep acting medicines like Sulphur is not the correct way. You are lucky that your child did not react badly to such a dosage. But once again, a good prescriber does not leave things to luck or chance. Moreover absence of a bad reaction in your child's case does not prove that the dosage was correct. Because we have all seen cases where it produces severe aggravations.

However, if you follow the Hahnemanian way, the chances of severe aggravations happening are minimal because each dose is given after observing the response to the last dose, and the dosage can be tailored according to the sensitivity of the patient when medicines are given in water( mind you, sensitivities can vary from a scale of 1 to 1000 !! ).


The aim of the physician is to cure in a gentle, rapid and permanent way, and which occurs with the anhiliation of the disease in its whole extent, in the shortest, most reliable and the most harmless way on easily comprehensible principles.

Well yes, there are some components like making the miasmatic classification , observation and case taking which are an art and which one acquires with experience .

But as far as the basic guidelines of dosing and repeating medicines, and things like 'when to wait' are concerned, these are totally clear and logical principles specified in the Organon, and that is the tried and tested way for almost 200 years now.

There is no other correct way to prescribe medicines.

Sameer, everything in Homeopathy is a proving and an 'observation'. Please show me one case where there is chemical proof that the medicines work - you cannot, because at these dilutions you go beyond avogardo's # and homeopaths rely on the 'memory' of water/alcohol to carry imprints. If a 'science' is completely based on observations, it cannot be only science. It is an art too - which is that of right observation.

For example, Coffee is supposed to be an antidote. Do you know it has no effect on me ? Medicines work fine irrespective of whether I drink coffee or not. This is an observation specific to me. If you don't have the art to figure it out, you will keep quoting your books.

You are good, but please take a break from idolizing Hahnemann and accept there are other opinions besides yours.

If my previous post was not clear enough, you may not practice homeopathy as an art in addition to science, and may prefer to stick to the letter of the law ad-verbatim, but that does not mean you can afford to be dismissive of those who extend it based on their own observations.

Let me get things straight:

Science from dictionary.com

1)a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws

2.) systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.

If we go by definition 1 , homeopathy is a science.

If we go by definition 2 homeopathy is a science.

Moderate amounts of coffee does not anti-dote medicines as long as it is not taken within 25 mins of the dose.

Every system of medicine is based on provings and observations. The allopaths do their controlled experiments on animals and we do our controlled experiments on humans.

100 years ago, there was no explanations for a lot of things in physics that are understood today. It is always like that, oobservations and experiments come first, explanations for those phenomenon come later. Newton observed gravity first, proved it later. That does not mean that physics is not a science.

You can extend a science as much as you want but the founding laws never change. I am not saying Hahnemann is the end of homeopathy but Hahnemann is certainly the beginning. You can build on his principles but they still remain the foundation. You can never build a theory on a weak foundations. The basic laws of nature never change.

Do you mean to say , that I should respect a prescription which goes..'Tuberculinum 200c along with ant-t 30 in unchanged potency .. and repeat as long as you want'..No Mr.aske such prescriptions deserve contempt, and I have every right to be dismissive of those.

What you are conveniently leaving out is the scope of 'observation'. Homeopathy is scientific, because its observations are systematic and can be proven under similar circumstances.

The concept that a diluted potency of a poison can cure the effect of the poison is the 'fact' part of science that homeopathy prescribes.

The concept of how much and how often to administer that potency is the 'art' part of homeopathy which you are treating as part of the ten commandments just because H. wrote it.

The latter is where experience comes in. You are following general rules, but refuse to acnkowledge that there may be cases where such rules need to be broken.

The fact that 'dilution of a poision may cure the effect of the poison' is a 'LAW OF NATURE'. 'Administering 30c, once in 3 days and waiting' is NOT a law of nature. It is an observation that has been ratified by many practitioners, but not a natural law.

Surely, you can understand that.

It is not just Hahnemann which wrote all this, all the great homeopaths till today have never promoted repeating the same potency mechanically.

Only after the response to the first dose has been judged can you decide about the next dose. This is due to the simple reason, that before a remedy has been administered, you do not know for how long it will keep acting. It all depends on the sensitivity of the patient and the homeopathicity of the remedy.

Go through this thread

blank">http://www.abchomeopathy.com/forum2.php/112097/

and tell me what would have happened if I had repeated mechanically. Now just 3 doses of a low potency continue to improve the patient even after 20 days of giving the remedy.

It is very likely that if I had prescribed 20 doses of the same without knowing her sensitivity level, it would have given her horrendous aggravations. And, ofcourse if you notice the patient did suffer from horrible aggravations in the past precisely due to mechanical repetition of the remedy.

Hence, I judge the response to the previous dose , and in this case since it is still giving benefit, all repetition is forbidden.

Ok, I have nothing more to add, Sameer. You are quoting specific examples, while I am taking about generals. What I am contesting is that for every 10 examples you quote on aggravation of a patient, I bet someone can quote at least 2 examples where what you call aggressive treatment is exactly what is needed for a case. In other words, solving those two is based on the experience of the homeopath knowing when he needs to deviate from a known/advertised path, which you refuse to accept, since you are contained in the presumption that deviation is an impossibility, which I will continue to challenge, since homeopathy is a science of observation and also of knowing the art of adapting it to a case/individualization.

Anyhow, I don't think either of us have much more to add. As time goes by, we both hope to add more wisdom to our thoughts.

No no... Mr aske .. your argument is now breaking since I never said, you cannot be aggresive in treatment.

I was giving one counter example to disprove your point.. to show you that aggravations are indeed possible with contonuous dosage.

Remember just 1 counter example is enough to disprove something. Only if you want to prove that aggravations do not occur, you would need to give me infinite examples.

You can be aggresive in skin treatments but with LM potencies only . You literaly throw doses at the patient in skin ailments, since that is the best way to get the disease out of the system in the fastest way possible.

But you never throw C potencies at a patient in any case except in acute diseases.

I do not hope to add such ideas to my thoughts as it is not wisdom , it is 'lack of knowledge'.

I have plenty to add but I think your arguments growing weaker and weaker.

Just answer this question, why wont you judge the response to the first dose before giving the next ? How do you know the sensitivity of the patient before hand ?

And let me tell you Mr aske.. since this is something which you need to know...

there is a thing called 'homeopathic suppression' which is easy to do in case of skin ailments. Skin ailments are the most difficult to handle in homeopathy.

If a patient's skin ailment is improving , and he is getting very wilful, contrary and obstinate, and is getting mentally worse, this is a sure sign that the disease is being pushed to the deeper levels and that can ONLY happen with such rash continuous dosage. This is because the medicine covers the skin complaint very well but it is not fitting to the totality of the case , and the vital force needs continous doses of the same to result in that suppression.

And, I have seen many a homeopaths jump to certain 'popular' remedies for skin ailments and repeat them indefinitely till they are successfull in causing that suppression.

Good luck to you, since you are going to need it :)

Sameer,

a) Whether I need luck or not is my situation. You are hardly experienced enough to comment on what I need, so please stop making subjective statements. Stop playing God on the internet.

b) Stop acting like a freshman debater where you make comments on my argument getting weaker. Forcibly trying to prove another point of view weak is an inexperienced way to prove yours is stronger by inference.


In specific response to your question: I am very well versed with homeopathic supression. You are making assumptions - those symptoms were aggravation with my son, and not supression. The direction of cure was correct - away from the brain and inside to out. Depending on how 'stuck' a vital force is, it may need more than one nudge to move to equilibrium.

So back to your question: 'why wont you judge the response to the first dose before giving the next ? How do you know the sensitivity of the patient before hand ?'

Who says one knows the sensitivity of a patient before hand ? That is exactly what is done in case-taking. Your approach is not wrong - you start small and gradually increase. That is what a knowledgeable person would do. A person with wisdom, however, would have the confidence to directly go to the dose and potency he feels will work. He will not start from scratch. It is sort of like a computer tech support who makes you run through the full course of tier 1, 2 and 3 debugging to solve a problem (and maybe he does eventually find it) vs. a veteran who knows exactly what the problem is and how fast to address it. Remember that homeopathy also dictates a 'fast cure'. If you take the path of taking a step at a time and eventually arriving at a cure, no one can argue with that. But I also won't argue with those who know how to get there quicker.