I am treating a person who was diagnosed with Hep C. The problem, as I see it, is that these people are so frightened by the diagnosis that they will do everything and anything to set things right. They are generally scared into submitting to allopathic procedures, not to mention that they *have* to accept allopathic treatment if they have some kind of company health plan that is paying for their health benefits, sick pay etc.

In the treatment, therefore, I have the additional challenges of responding to the symptoms caused by the allopathic treatment.

For me, it was an instance of having to apply homeopathic care alongside allopathic care. It is a good case and has gone well, but not in strict classical homeopathic manner, due to the above.

We have zig-zagged between liver drainage, application of the simillimum, more liver drainage, cardus mar in potency, back to simillimum (which has never changed, only in potency), as well as material support via supplements as well as lifestyle changes.

While you can gauge the effectiveness of the treatment by the person's response, which was good, it is also a good side-benefit that according to his blood tests, there is no trace of the virus. Naturally, his allopathic doctors feel that their therapy was successful.

It might help the person trying to make up their mind as to treatment, to mention that homeopathic care will not affect their allopathic care, and in fact will give them more energy to deal with the big picture. Support in the form of supplements can also help a person make better use of the available treatment. At least that is how i tend to explain these things.

I am not worried that the allopathic treatment was counterproductive to homeopathic treatment, as the case has borne out the opposite. IMHO, the homeopathic care was made even more urgent and necessary due to the allopathic methods employed.

but then, I tend to see things that way :)

cheers