Yes! without a doubt it is a language problem. What I have the information is, Dr. R set of rules is to treat cancer the patients both with the help of allopathy and homeopathic medicine. This is not a classical loom. You said at so many junctures that you are a classical homeopath, after getting training of that protocol how can you implement that protocol by adopting classical approach? I think you have followed my point?

You said on this board that you don’t use allopathy and homeopathic treatment all together on your patients, in other words you said “ You don’t recommend allopathic medicine with homeopathy”, but at the same time you said if your patients are getting treatment (allopathy) from any other practitioner and if they seek advice from you then you don’t advice them to stop taking that allopathic medicine with homeopathy in particular for those women who are on contraceptive pills.

Now this point is beyond my comprehension that if somebody else is prescribing allopathic medicine for your patients then it is O.K. You are also putting your patients on homeopathic medicine at the same time. How can you say this is a pure classical approach and secondly how can you praise homeopathy alone?

When I think classical or non-classical approach is does not matter, the patients health is important if in your opinion that stopping allopathic medicine could harm your patients condition then you are doing very right thing. I don’t understand why are you so confused about classical or non-classical approach. You must admit on this board that you adopted the non-classical approach for the time being and when you felt that the patient is now come out danger then you again started treating the patient by adopting classical approach. I fully support your protocol.

Why do you want to give the impression that you are doing absolute classical homeopathy, when you yourself admitting something else on this board. [img]redface.gif[/img]

P.S, You gave the impression on this board that Coryza and Catarrh are the same words, While these words have been used in different context in homeopathic repertory. Can you deny? A simple repertory (not complete) tells us that the Coryza has 48 natures of symptoms and catarrh 39.


Nose - Catarrh 177 medicine
Nose – Coryza 197 medicine


If these words are same then

Will you add [Nose – Coryza] instead of adding [Nose – Catarrh. ]

Will you add [Nose - Discharge; Watery; Without Coryza] instead of adding [ Nose - Acute, catarrh in ordinary cold]

I was watching this thread coming up and up again and again. The reason being that you are emphasizing on a wrong point so every member those read this thread unable to stop themselves for putting a query for you. I also could not stop my self to force you to stop putting spat on wrong obsession. Coryza and Catarrh have been used in different circumstance and framework and have different meanings and implementation. These words are not same. I think you should come boldly and admit this simple point, as greatness lays in acceptance. We are student and no body is authority on any subject.