Dr. MAS,

I replied on several of the threads regarding my position. I think that classical homeopathy is the preferred choice of treatment. I have seen examples of classical homeopathy work with AIDs patients. In my own work, I use the Kentian approach and if I am not making progress, I will look at more pathological symptoms, but still base the presciption on the totality of the case as I see it (the art is in analysing the case and determining what is to be cured) and prescribing one remedy that I think comes closest to the case.

I also recognize that there are situations where, from a logistical standpoint, classical homeopathy is not only impracticle, but probably impossible. The situation in Africa for the masses of population suffering from AIDs is one of those situations. There are too many people, not enough homeopaths and no money. So if there is something that will help people, we should use it. You can't do classical homeopathy on a dead person! And 8,000 people are dying each day from AIDs in Africa. There are not enough homeopaths in the entire world to treat all of them, or even most of them, with classical homeopathy.

In the meantime, we should do provings on the new remedy and see if we can then use it in a classical manner. If a remedy is proven, whether a single substance, a combination, regardless of how it's manufactured, we then can consider it a homeopathic remedy because it has a symptom picture on which to prescribe. If it's a combination, as long as it is proven as a combination, it then becomes a single remedy based on the results of the proving.

I hope that clarifies my position.

__________________
Shirley Reischman