Referencing §104, I can't see how having an allopathic diagnosis would be needed in order of homeopathic treatment to be successful!
One may argue that one needs to know if a patient has stones in their gall bladder or not. But I argue that if the signs and symptoms are taken down carefully, as laid out in the Organon - then one will STILL find the remedy [most homeopathic to the case] and it will still work despite whether someone had a scan or not.
Quote:
§104 from Kunzli, Naudé & Pendleton translation of the 6th Edition of the Organon of Medicine:
When the picture of any case of disease, i.e., the totality of symptoms particularly defining and distingusing it, is precisely written down (a), then the most difficult part of the task is accomplished.
In his treatment, especially of chronic disease, the physician can always refer to it. He can peruse it in all its parts and pick out the characteristic symptoms so as to counter them, i.e., counter the complaint itself, with the appropriately similar artificial disease agent, the homeopathic remedy chosen from the symptom lists of all the medicines whose pure effects have been ascertained.
And when during treatment he inquires about the effect of the medicine and the changes in the patient's health and records his findings in his casebook, all he needs to do is omit from the original set of symptoms written down at the beginning those that are cured, note those that are still present, and add any new ones that may have arisen.
(a) ......
|
And of course, ref §153 to understand Characteristic Signs and Symptoms.
Following the method that Hn lays out, works.
I have come to realise it is this simple.
My thoughts on this are centered around a friend who has cancer... If she had left he lump alone - and had simply gotten treatment for her signs and symptoms, I'm firmly convinced she would have had a helluva better chance at recovery than at present (post chemo and surgery - with impending radiation and more chemo) - after going in for an initial diagnosis. Of course, having been given a poor prognosis (based on WHAT?!! certainly not scientific principles!) has played a HUGE roll in her case.
In my own case, I found a lump (lymph) recently - and I can tell you, there is NO WAY IN HELL I'm going into any allopath for 'a diagnosis'. Certainly not interested in hearing their 'prognosis'. No thanks. Once they start taking mammograms (pressing the hell outta of one's breast until it is painfully flat!!! not to mention disturbing the area itself - even injuring it!) and biopsies (which is dangerous if one has an inflammatory cyst/tumour, etc!!!!!!!) - then the 'fun' begins.
No thanks! I'll stick with my homeopath. I'll make changes to diet or whatever recommendations are made.....
Give me an experienced homeopath who knows what the hell they are doing, any day.
A diagnosis might help with an allopathically thought-out diagnosis to 'predict a prognosis (which is really a HUGE guess!), but it is certainly not needed to find a suitably hoemopathic medicine. Personally, I think it is a waste of money, time, effort and wears unnecessarily on the nerves.
Answer the questions Anna asks....those are sensibly homeopathic, imo. And, as Dr Leela said in her post (latter part) please have a full case properly taken (that is half the battle!) so you can get proper care.
Good luck and best wishes,
Lisa