ABC Homeopathy Forum



Similar posts:

The Banerji Protocols.3


The ABC Homeopathy Forum

The Banerji Protocol - Is it Homeopathy?

I recently came across a lot of articles praising the Banerji Protocol, an alleged new frontier in homeopathy that has originated in Kolkata, India by the P. Banerji family of 4th generation homeopaths. They claim to have cured thousands of cases of ca**er (Sorry that word isn't allowed to be posted) and tumors by using homeopathic remedies. However, they openly deny using classical homeopathy and call their method a more progressive form of the system. They talk of treating the disease using modern diagnostic tools, and endorse the use of homeopathic remedies for palliation during treatment. If my understanding of Homeopathy is correct, doesn't this go totally against all that Homeopathy stands for? Isn't this similar to allopathy except that they use homeopathic remedies. I would like to know the views of some of the better informed people in this forum since I found nothing on the internet that opposes this form of practice in any way.
  hmk2005 on 2012-01-02
This is just a forum. Assume posts are not from medical professionals.
Yes that is right. It is a non-homoeopathic use of our potentized medicines. It is generally criticized by classical homoeopaths, and in fact the genuine modern advances in homoeopathy have actually reinforced the basic principles rather than discarding them. Unfortunately the method is greatly praised by the allopathic sympathizers and the pseudo-homoeopaths.

However, the current system is not actually the same as the system originally designed by Dr. Banerji (the father of the two current doctors bearing that name). It was more complex and still (to some degree) respected the basic principles of homoeopathic prescribing, although it was greatly simplified over traditional homoeopathy. The current system is simplified again to remedies matched to disease names.

I have no idea what the truth is of their successes over in India. I too have seen the reports. I know that the homoeopaths who use these protocols here get very poor results. On top of that the multiple remedy prescribing creates a variety of new problems, which I have on occasion had to personally clean up (when those patients came to me).

I can only say that it is not homoeopathy, but like any healing modality it could still have merit. Acupuncture is not homoeopathy but it still can heal. However, I would oppose them calling themselves homoeopaths, since they have discarded all those things that define homoeopathy.

I always find it disturbing to hear something that swings so far back towards Allopathy, the great enemy of homoeopathy, as 'Progressive or Modern' Homoeopathy. Hahnemann would be truly appalled.

Once you remove the Law of Similars, the Single remedy, the Minimum dose, the process of individualisation - what are you left with?

Multiple medicines, overdosing, palliation, putting all patients with one disease into the same box - yep, that is Allopathic medicine.

So is that how it is, were the Allopaths right all along? Was homoeopathy a failure and a mistake?

Obviously many homoeopaths do not think so. It is a shame however that many do.

David Kempson
Professional Classical Homoeopath
brisbanehomoeopath 7 years ago
Its our proud that P.Banerji and Dr.R.U.Ramakrishnan both are using different protocols to treat the patient of different diseases those are not possible to palliate or cure by the modern drugs.P.Banjerji and Dr.R.U.Ramakrishnan both are taking help to detect disease with the help of modern technology of investigations,i think is it not better rather than depending on wild gauge?They are using homeopathic remedy on the name of disease and that remedy is doing well as appears from their websites.Our target is to treat a patient and if the patient gets well after taking those non classical treatment where is our pain to appreciate those gladly rather to abuse as the main remedy is homeopathic.Whole world is now busy to use combinations of homeopathic remedy in the name of disease,and those are being prescribed by the doctors glady.Respected joe has been using Arnica montana,Nat phos and many others among them Arnica montana and nat phos are doing well as per his discovery and sufferer are geting benefit more and more than last.So its also a homeopathy.The way of treatment is being changed by the every doctors gradually.Thanks,malaker,Bangladesh
Dr.Haran ch malaker 7 years ago
Unfortunately such comments only prove what I saying.

Using the remedy on the name of the disease = Allopathy.

Whole world is too busy = typical allopathic excuse

Use of Arnica and Nat-phos by Joe = well most people here are aware of my opposition to that and its lack of general success

It is not homoeopathy. No law of similars means no homoeopathy. Really, just give it a new name and stop riding on the successes of our system. If such medical practice is so wonderful it can make its own name, rather than hijacking ours.

Acupuncture, Chinese Medicine, Aryurvedic medicine - they all have merit, but they are not homoeopathy.

This use of potentized medicines is not homoeopathy - I haven't seen it work successfully amongst the practitioners here in Australia (despite extensive hype) but perhaps they do something differently in other countries. Whatever its validity as a medical therapy, it is NOT homoeopathy because it violates all the principles and definitions of homoeopathy.

When you look at the reports, you see a success rate of about 20% with these protocols. Now that is significant, but one can only wonder at an 80% fail rate. Why is that I wonder? Is this truly the right direction? On top of that, are the patients cured or palliated? Is the same benchmark used for cure that is used for traditional homoeopathy?

I can only imagine the main reason they want to still call it homoeopathy is to lend it some of the credibility we have established over the last 200 years by practicing it correctly. Why is that even necessary, if it is strong enough to make its own mark?
[message edited by brisbanehomoeopath on Tue, 03 Jan 2012 00:10:27 GMT]
brisbanehomoeopath 7 years ago
I have had many of these same arguments with Joe here, who uses the Bannerji protocols as justification for what he does.

In the end, I think that homoeopathy is an art and there are many ways to utilise our medicines to get outcomes for patients.

I have often tried to understand what this specific method means to the essential truth of the homoeopathic method (assuming that the reports are honest enough that is).

We have different situations in which patient present with disease. We have the true Acute, the Chronic, the end stage Pathology.

What we notice is that in Acutes, where the reaction is defined more by the common reactions of our human bodies, there are typical remedies to help with definied complaints (like Arnica).

What we also notice is that once a complaint becomes Chronic, the common reactions no longer help us to determine the remedy, but we must rely on the peculiar individual's characteristics.

However, something else happens as tissue changes advance. In fact, we begin to move back towards the situation we see in Acutes. The body begins to have common reactions according to the physical nature of our human bodies.

I have postulated before that these protocols are much like those used in Acute prescribing - we are only responding to the common expected responses of the human body, which we all share. When seen as such, they continue to fit within our philosophy, and if used within those guidelines can be valuable.

However, just as with Acute prescribing, you cannot extend such protocols to cover all types of disease, all situations of all patients. But, to our great shame, this is exactly what is happening. You see 'hayfever' remedies, 'wart' remedies, 'migraine' remedies - all based on this idea that we are all the same and the only thing that matters is the common features of our physical bodies.

I often hear the same justifications for this 'I don't have time to do full cases' 'Patients don't want to wait' 'Too many people are suffering for me to take that much time'. Time is often used as a reason for simplifying homoeopathy to this basic (unrecognizable) level.

This is despite the fact that many of these patients have spent years looking for a cure - perhaps a few hours might have spared them such pain?

Underlying this I suspect you will find more worrying reasons 'I don't really understand how to find the simillimum' 'I don't really believe in homoeopathy' 'Homoepathy doesn't get he same respect as Allopathy so I need to be more like them''Patients are the ones that run the show I need their money so their impatience decides what I do'.
brisbanehomoeopath 7 years ago
I noticed that my name has been referred to by 2 homeopaths on this thread and it is with some reservations that I decided to comment especially after David Kempson referred to my therapy in some disparaging terms which I do resent and hope that it will catch the eye of the owner of the ABC, Simon Broadley.

This is unfortunately David's style where he feels that he and he alone is the sole arbiter of this science of Homeopathy of which he is the self appointed judge and jury, entitled to cast aspersions on me and my 'Joepathy' which has been amply proved to work in help those in distress, as will be seen in the reference to Robert Ray's account of his CURE from the after effects of multiple strokes the link to which I have given below. I find it very strange that in his usual style he persists in criticizing me and warning Robert that he was never cured but that he was only given a stay of his condition which would flare up shortly into something monstrous. I must admit that I am in awe of how a practicing homeopath can harbour such thoughts which I presume are motivated by his insane jealousy at my success in doing something that he could never have done in his lifetime and which prompted him to succeed in blocking my patient Robert Ray from posting on the ABC as stated by Robert himself.

'hmk2005' sought clarification on the relative merits of using Classical Homeopathy when compared to the therapy that the Drs Banerji (Father and Son) are using today which is identical to my own 'This for That' therapy aka 'Joepathy', which they use exclusively in their Dr Prasanta Banerji Homeopathic Foundation in Kolkata. They have clearly stated that they use this protocol which was originally forbidden by Hahnemann et al at the risk of the user being labelled a 'mongrel' which even in his day and age was a term of utter disdain or contempt which the classical homeopaths used to describe anyone who broke their rules.

I cannot help thinking that David seems to have inherited at least some of their venom dating back to about 200 years in the past as his pontifications smack of his utter disdain to the fact that there are other Homeopaths in this world who like me are not qualified but who have had an unbroken record of success in curing human suffering with our own therapy which David simply abhors.

At that time and even today, if a student or a practitioner uses the Banerji Protocol to treat the ailment or disease that the patient presents, the student will never be given a pass mark while the practitioner who dares to do so, runs the risk of having his/her name struck from the register. In the case of the many Homeopaths who use this same protocol today, albeit secretly and without any publicity, they do so as they lack the courage to openly confirm this fact for fear that they will be questioned by the 'authorities'. I have often done so in the Homeopathic Forums that I have visited daily for the last 10 years, and also in the many talks that I have been invited to deliver in public lectures, that I do practice what is now popularly referred to as 'Joepathy' which epitomises the 'This for That' therapy which is precisely the same protocol that the Drs Banerji have used with outstanding success for many years.Many are the times when I was compelled to spend more time in my defense which was at the cost of the time that I was able to spend on treating patients.

I have done so simply because I have found in over 30 years of actively prescribing for ailments that patients present, that my Joepathy has delivered the goods in terms of helping the patient towards a cure, faster and more effectively than the classical homeopathy that I used originally, shortly after I decided to use my knowledge which I had studied from the same textbooks that a student uses in any Homeopathic college and is awarded a degree certificate at the end of 5 years of study which enables him/her to practice in the country awarding this certificate.

The large majority of students who study Homeopathy, do so to obtain their degree as they have chased Homeopathy as is their profession. In my case however, Homeopathy is only a Hobby to which I am passionately dedicated as I am even today the CEO of a very old business organization which is Family owned and was founded in 1924 by my last father. I am 83 years of age and I believe that it my allegiance to Homeopathy and to the complete exclusion of all Drugs that have resulted in the wellness that I enjoy today which many who are half my age often envy. I would like to place on record that I do not have the standard aches and pains that are the bane of most others of my advanced years. My BP is
Joe De Livera 7 years ago
Thanks joe de livera,i have no knowledge or words to convey you again.The man who is claiming as a classical homeopath only knows to treat cold and catrrah and nothing.They will lay in a bed when they face a patient of recent stroke or old one.But our homeopathic remedy Barty mur or Arnica can treat that disease we dont want or to use any long case history and we only want the name of disease or affected and position of patient.Our homeopathic medicines are so potential and cnt be ignored Respected joe is searching medicine which is necessary for human being at his present age of 83 and i cnt go to his stage after applying my classical method.I will give its clarification as some doc of this forum is in a habit to tease dr.Deoshluk sharma,dr.Girilal and others.I like to appeal to simon of this this forum pls invite all doctors of Abc forum to keep their specific knowledge here as we all to gain faith in the mind of homeopathic believer.Thanks to joe de livera,colombo,for this clarification.Regards sir,malaker from Bangladesh
[message edited by Dr.Haran ch malaker on Wed, 04 Jan 2012 03:16:24 GMT]
Dr.Haran ch malaker 7 years ago
Well you might only want the name of the disease when treating your patient, but then you don't want to be a homoeopath obviously. That is allopathy. Choose your side. If you wish to practice like the allopaths that is up to you.

Wishing that homoeopathy was like allopathy seems crazy to me. Just go practice allopathy. Homoeopathy was developed for doctors and patients who are not happy with that method of treatment.

Homoeopathy takes time, requires care and work, and demands of the prescriber intelligence, attention to detail, and compassionate objectivity. It is a hard road. Trying to simplify it to the same level as allopathic prescribing goes against the very reason homoeopathy exists.
brisbanehomoeopath 7 years ago
I totally endorse david's view.Homeopathy cannot be practised by mediocre people going for shortcuts.See homeopathy is not an easy science and in fact is quite dangerous if practised ignorantly.A incorrect homeopathic can cause a lot of suffering.Do not underestimate the power of sweet pills,if given correctly they can cause wonders otherwise it can also cause havoc.Hence do not try it foolishly.About india i can say most of the homeopaths are bogus who are just after money.
hpathyisgr8 7 years ago

Usually unsubstantiated and unverified claims have to be taken with a pinch of salt.

Any 'this for that' protocol is a boon to those who are beginners, semi-skilled and at times it does have it's place when done by those who know what they are doing or during those accidental 'miracles', but usually frowned upon by the purists, theorists, and classical homeopaths. These protocols can be a bane when these are followed as a norm rather than exception and when practiced by people who don't know what they are doing.
[message edited by maheeru on Sun, 15 Jan 2012 14:14:51 GMT]
maheeru 7 years ago
Dear All

I'd like to thank all of you for the active interest you have shown in responding to my query. I have been closely following the arguments on both sides, and at the same time I've been trying to keep an open mind,since, all said and done, we are all searching for the truth and I'm sure that the intentions of every person, irrespective of the system of medicine s/he chooses to follow, is obviously to cure the patient and provide relief.

Now, if I may post my personal experience pertaining to homeopathy, it will be clear as to why I chose to ask this question in the first place. Since my childhood, I have suffered several diseases, mostly acute,but some of a very serious nature, for which I had to be hospitalized as a child, and take help of conventional treatment. My father was a great believer in Homeopathy, and it was part of the general medication for everyday illnesses that he gave me. He, of course, was a lifelong student of homeopathy, and never claimed to be an expert. Consequently, I have also visited many homeopaths over the years for general ailments. I was fortunate to have met a certain doctor in Calcutta, practicing in one of the slum areas for many years. From personal experience, I have seen almost a 100% success rate for his treatment on myself as well as on the several patients that visited him in his small chamber. Let me remind you, that his patients are fickle minded skeptics, who only resort to homeopathy as it costs less. And of course, they simply don't have the patience to allow a case to be taken. This doctor, administered only a SINGLE remedy, everytime, from only the few symptoms that the patient complained of, which were mainly acute in nature (And it was open for everyone to see which medicines he was giving, as they were all laid out in his chamber). I cannot say how successfully he has treated chronic cases (as most of the complaints came for acute cases), but I myself have experienced long-lasting relief from his single medicines, which I later came to realize was the system of Classical Homeopaths.

A few years later, I met another doctor, who diligently took cases, and administered medicines in water, as opposed to the globules generally administered by homeopaths. He was not very good with acute cases, as I didn't find instant relief from my problems as I had experienced from the earlier doctor. However, this person was able to cure my mother of an often recurring malarial problem, and an allergic cold and catarrh which was triggered by an exposure to dust. While these may not be diseases of a very grave nature, what surprised me was the permanence of the cure and the accuracy with which the doctor predicted the different stages of the cure that will occur. I remember him telling mom that she was not to suppress any eruptions that were to occur in her body and only apply coconut oil for it to dry out quickly. The eruption did occur, as he had said, and it was extremely painful for my mom to bear (as it was big, and had arisen in her back, where she couldn't wear clothes easily, and she was a working woman). But she did allow the eruption to dry out on its own, after almost 10 days. But I have never seen her suffer from those problems again. I guess that was when I was intrigued to learn more about this system of medicine. However, I must add, that the same doctor did not have the same success rate in some other diseases that I recommended some of my relatives to visit him for. I guess he knew my mom for quite some time (being a long time family friend) and was able to 'read into her symptoms' more accurately.

From the above two encounters with Homeopaths, I came to believe that this system of medicine did work. At the same time, I also realized that even the good doctors were in a state of evolution. Perhaps, their competency levels hadn't reached every sphere yet. But, we cannot blame the system for their inadequacies. Since, there are so many confirmed reports of successes by various doctors using the same medicines, each as per his his/her own individual capacity. But what was most striking to me was that at least these doctors knew what they were doing --- they knew exactly how the medicine would act, forewarned of any aggravations that might occur, and would also explain to us patients why a certain disease was happening and how it took its hold. For a curious scientific mind, this was the holy grail. Unlike allopathic doctors (and trust me, I have seen many, and some of the best), who could never answer these queries of mine (for instance, why were they recommending antibiotics if they said it was viral fever or why was I feeling worse overall even though my external symptoms had subsided) nor had the time for it. In fact, I had visited them so many times, and received the same typical medicines for my problems each time, even though I could understand that the type of suffering was different each time, that I was scared of mentioning too many symptoms (as they would add more drugs to the laundry list and recommend more tests)and almost knew beforehand what medicines they would recommend. This is how I became disillusioned with allopathy in the first place (although I realize how important the advances in this system are in some extreme and life-saving cases).

Why I asked about the Banerji Protocol was because having seen replicable success in the classical system of treatment personally, I was intrigued to know if their system truly had any merit. I also know some ground realities which many people in the outside world may not be aware of. The doctors Banerji have many successes to their credit, but I personally know of people who became disillusioned with Homeopathy after receiving their treatment. Some cases were damaged beyond repair. I don't want to take anything away from them, but for sake of objectivity, I mention these as these don't get reported in the media. I happen to know since I've lived in that city for a long time. Sometimes, what these doctors consider a cure, since the patient didn't return again, need not be so. Often the patient goes back to allopathic treatment. But let these comments not lead you to believe that I'm in any way against their form of treatment. I'm sure many such cases have occurred with typical Homeopaths as well and is just part of the process of evolution for these doctors.

From the arguments made above and my personal experiences, my take on the system of medicines practiced by Joe and the doctors Banerji, as an interested learner and a person looking for the truth, is as follows:

1. These systems may be the result of years of practice and observation by their practitioners, with many successes I'm sure. If we believed Hahnemann for introducing an entirely new system in his days, we can't shut our eyes completely, as people of scientific temper, to these forms of treatment. It may so eventually turn out that these may be the next stage in the evolution of the science of medicine.

2. Having said that, I do agree with David when he says that these forms of treatment do not fit the notion of Homeopathy, as laid down by its founder. I'm sure they deserve a special place of their own among the systems of medicine that exist, if they are truly as efficacious. But to call it Homeopathy would only create confusion in the minds of laymen as to which is what.

3. While I can trust Homeopathy completely, because of the vast amount of literature made available by so many doctors who have successfully practiced it, and of course the presence of a logical, structured theory of disease propounded by its founder in the Organon, I can't yet fully trust the other systems. The reason is that Homeopathy is well proven over the years, and as I mentioned before, they can accurately predict how cure takes place. In brief, we know the system works in accordance with the principles laid down by Hahnemann. Now if Joe and Dr. Banerji claim that they have treated patients in a different way, possibly in a way opposed to the principles that have worked for over two centuries, I'd like them to give a rational basis for their system. I agree with Homeopaths on this count when they say -- Without a law or theory of disease, and an accurate understanding of the various stages and forms of disease, it is similar to a 'trial and error' experiment and shooting in the dark. That is how conventional clinical trials in allopathy happen. I believe human life is too precious a thing to be experimented with blindly.

4. Having acquired a bit more knowledge on Homeopathy, I have come to understand how difficult it is to practice. It is no easy job distinguishing subtle variances among the symptoms and anticipating the causes of the diseases, the miasms at work, the right potency to select. And in today's age, with lack of time, it is a real test for practitioners.But as the saying goes -- 'There are no shortcuts to success'. I am amazed at the miraculous cures that Homeopathy has given us. It is the only proven system of medicine that I know works on the emotional plane (and as fate would have it, I have suffered a great deal on this count as well and seen the effects of this wonderful system) and doesn't consider the mind as just a physical thing comprising of the brain and its constituent parts.I know of many doctors who have failed miserably in their attempt to decipher the right medicine, and have resorted to allopathy to cure their patients. And by personal observation, I also know that these people are not very intellectually capable of thinking in depth about their patient's cause (Since we have known some of them since the time they were not doctors). I have come to understand that it takes time to develop the acumen required to master this art, and I'm sure not many have the patience to see it through.

I believe that more research needs to be done on the newer systems of medicine. It may turn out that they may have unlocked some hidden secrets about potentized medicines and the way they work. It may also happen that the same medicines work differently when administered in different ways (as is already known about crude and potentized medicines). We are yet to discover all that there is to know about medicine and disease, and there is always potential for new discovery. But honestly, I would not like to risk my life on an unproven system of medicine. And without any accurate principles to go by, it is difficult to ascertain if the successes resulting from these forms of treatment were truly a cure, or palliation, or suppression, or if the disease has been rendered more complex and pushed deeper within. It is not the patient's job to know this --- some of them just consider a removal of symptoms as a cure (thanks to the deeply ingrained allopathic form of treatment). The onus lies with the doctor to prove beyond any doubt that cure has indeed occurred. I can't say how this shall be achieved. I guess it's all a bit of experimentation in the end. I'm in Delhi now, and I'm yet to find a Classical Homeopath true to his art. I don't know how these doctors are taught these days in degree college, but their medicines aren't really working. Moreover, they give a number of remedies together. If I were to be a layman, I would shun Homeopathy altogether (as I almost did a few years back as well, disillusioned with some doctors). I agree it is a difficult science, but unless there is some better way of teaching it whereby even average doctors can attain a cure easily, the disillusionment of patients as well as newby doctors with this system will continue.

In the end, I'd just like to reiterate that healthy discussion is always helpful as it helps one see both sides of the coin and I thank everyone for their posts. With all due respect to Joe and the doctors Banerji for their vast knowledge and expertise and the great work they are doing with their patients, I hope that some day we get a definitive breakthrough that will truly replace the conventional form of medicine, and maybe their systems will come to be known for what they truly are (something like Schussler's Tissue Remedies) and not just a variant of/ sub-standard form of Homeopathy.

Thanks a lot.
hmk2005 7 years ago
To HMK2005

I do wish that I can spare more time to clarify my position on Classical Homeopathy versus The Banerji Protocol which is parallel to my own 'Joepathy' but I shall attempt briefly again to establish my position on the 'This for That' therapy I use exclusively today.

I have dealt with my position in my last post on this thread and have given an example of the CURE that I have had the pleasure of conducting where the patient has confirmed out of his own volition that I was indeed responsible for his cure and his present condition. It is indeed a surprise to me to be informed by Robert Ray that he was banned and I would like to know the reason why the classical homeopaths should go out of their way to ensure that Robert Ray was effectively silenced by being banned from the ABC by Simon the owner of the ABC. This fact alone will indicate the animosity of the classical coterie of Homeopaths against my using the same protocol that is anathema to those who are qualified and insist that it is only through the practice of the classical protocol that a CURE can be established.

I have often proved that these same classical proponents of Homeopathy are completely wrong as my sole intention in spending my time here again to type out this post in defense of my Joepathy which is another of my many essays to do so in the past 10 years, is to give you and anyone else who is not prejudiced against my Joepathy, the chance to follow in my footsteps and experiment with using my This for That therapy and observe whether or not my methodology does not work with their patients.

You are free to investigate the many records of CURES that have resulted in my therapy on this ABC Forum and you would be doing a service to yourself and others if you will do so and record a few salient case results for the edification of the classical antagonist who is only intent in belittling my therapy with the avowed intention of disproving the obvious fact that a CURE has resulted and this CURE was confirmed by the patient himself.

I have often repeated that I prescribe a remedy and this includes the Potency and the dosage which is exclusively in the Wet dose, based on my own personal experience in using it. If this is not possible due to various reasons like using a remedy meant for a female on myself, I have observed the effect of the remedy on a patient whom I can trust to give me a record of the response.

I have always maintained that I practice Homeopathy completely free of any monetary compensation and do so with my own version of Homeopathy aka Joepathy using the standard remedies available throughout the world in the 'This for That' protocol that the Banerjis' themselves who are obviously qualified in Homeopathy, use to treat their over 1500 patients on a daily basis. It will be noted that they do so free of charge like me.

I have often wondered whether the true reason for this strict classical stance being adopted by the prescriber is just another ruse to enable him to prolong the agony of the suffering patient who consults him to seek a cure of his ailment. The homeopath is guaranteed a source of revenue from the suffering patient who is compelled to return time and time again when another remedy is given usually without any ID of the remedy given to the patient. The classical type justifies his action as he is following the Diktat of Hahnemann in following his rules blindly even though he is well aware that the patient will benefit by prescribing the remedy that the homeopath has used in previous cases which he knows has cured his patients and will most likely also cure the consulting patient.

I can quote as examples the many case of Dengue that I have CURED with Eupat Perf 200 in the Wet dose as proof of my Joepathy where the average time lag is around 6 hours after the first dose before that patient is resuscitated. For those interested I can state that I have CURED 2 patients who were both in a Coma and dying and would have passed away within 12 hours if this remedy did not reach them in time when it did, a few hours before they passed away. These 2 patients were in hospital in 2 separate hospitals, one private and the other government, in Sri Lanka and their respective doctors had given up hope and had advised the relatives that they were unable to do anything further for the patients.

One patient informed me later after he was cured, that the doctors had removed the IV drip tube as his blood was defying the gravity feed of the Dextrose and going up the tube. I understand that this phenomenon is not unusual when the Platelet count is low when the Heart goes into a Tachycardia in a last ditch attempt to keep the body alive. In this case the wife of the patient had been requested to do a 'Bodhi Puja' which is a prayer to the gods to help him survive. It gave me some satisfaction that in spite of his life being consigned to the gods by the wife who had followed the advice of the doctor and had done this Puja, the remedy I had sent him by special messenger had resuscitated the patient back to life at the 11th hour. It is likely that the Bodhi Puja may also have helped as it was by sheer coincidence that I discovered that the patient whom I had known for over 25 years was in hospital when I phoned him for some information.

His doctors were absolutely flabbergasted to see the patient not only alive but to see him seated on a chair next to his bed. He was was however unable to walk as his Platelet count was 18000 but he recovered with a higher count within 24 hours and was discharged. I also prescribed Papaya Leaf Juice to be given in teaspoonfuls thrice daily.

I do not think that a classical homeopath would dare to emulate my example as he will only commence on a similar case with the painful case taking procedure which the patient may not be able to respond as he may be by that time in a coma, from which he may never reawaken if he suffers from Dengue.

It is this type of stubborn folly based upon following the Diktat blindly that I seek to overturn and if possible destroy in the interest of suffering humanity and it is my hope that my efforts will not be in vain.
Joe De Livera 7 years ago
From my sense and pur homeopathy Davids opinion is correct. For Joe and Haran ,You should first understand what is cure.If you can realize what is cure, then all your confusion will be gone.Multiple remedy cannot cure a disease if used simultaneously.Sometimes we see,one or two or more medicines are used on a patient and they get benefits but that is all, and they cannot taste the cure.That patients suffers from that disease with complicated forms afterwords.
If you see in the world, the successful homeopath are those who see cure and use only one medicine in one time.
kamrul 7 years ago

Post ReplyTo post a reply, you must first LOG ON or Register


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.