Hi FF,
1) If the same symptoms come back after an initial amelioration -- no, the homeopath shouldn't be scratching his head. (Maybe some will, lol - but that's lack of experience or laziness or poor training).
He would assess what happened by the nature of which symptoms came back - how intensely they returned - how long the amelioration lasted, etc.
-It might be a repeat of remedy is needed, depending on the amount of time amelioration lasted.
-It might be that the remedy that wasn't similar enough, but close enough to cause some reaction - leaving some troubling symptoms behind (this is really tricky). Then one has to decide was this suppressive or did it move the case forward?
-It might be the wrong remedy.
-Or, it might have suppressed the symptoms temporarily (and thankfully the vital force was able to rally full enough to throw the symptoms back out again in the same way).
HOW to actually tell which of these is the answer to any given (individual!) case takes training. There is no way around needing the training
.
2) Suppression certainly does happen. And one can only tell by carefully analysing the case - Hering's direction of cure is a very helpful tool but it's not the only tool used in case management!
How to analyse a case and manage a case is quite complex and I'm not prepared or in a position to explain it. Study homoepathy in depth and you will learn it. Or, you might get lucky and someone might take the time to explain it to you. Kudos to anyone who can explain it succinctly!
As for documented cases - there are lots in the old literature.
I don't agree allopathy has any proof that people remain healthy after they render a patient some treatment protocol. Based on THEIR paradigm, they can make it look good - but we look at health/disease/healing in an entirely different way -- which is also how we assess cases. This is my opinion and I won't argue about because I feel it is pointless.
3) If by 'the majority of acutes' you mean accidents and injuries - sure it's probably okay if someone understands the basics and has a good knowledge of remedies.
But, uhm, other acutes are very tricky. Why?
First, you need to define 'acute' per the Organon - and then define the different types of acutes discussed therein.
Read §72, 73 in particular, 75 & 76, (along with all footnotes of all §'s mentioned here), for more information on the various types of acutes.
And be sure there are some very important distinctions that are very necessary to fully understand before one starts prescribing for acutes.
That's good homework for you. Should keep you busy for a little while.
But, of course, I anticipate this will further lead to many questions about miasms (and chronic disease) -- which you can read further on in §78-81. The miasms will definitely come up during your study of acutes...so be aware of that.
Let us know once you've delved into these §'s. I'm sure you'll be posting more questions.
[pssst. Don't only address questions to me personally -- I don't always have the time required to answer them
.]
Now if you don't go study - I will have to tease you and say Mafi Moukh
. And I know that's not right because you've already shown promise.
Dr Khan,
I agree with what you wrote -- that some are not properly analysing cases fully. Rather often relying on keynote prescribing and/or homeopathic software which has made it seem easy. Homeopathic software is very beguiling and not for beginners. And no one should treat themselves (not just lay people) - don't you agree?
One big thing is knowing what is and isn't a disease symptom...and this is often confusing at first - especially with the way homeopathy is taught by some today.
Best wishes,
Lisa