I recently posted a message on a Naturopathic Message board on the topic of a Homeopathic Remedy that was prescribed for me. It started quite a lively discussion on the practice of Homeopathy. I decided to come to the source for more discussion.

I was recently prescribed a treatment taking three 12c sulfar pellets once a day. I happened to send out a messae regarding what was happening to me as a result. I was having mood swings of irritability and weepiness. According to the prescriber these were desirable effects that would pass as I continued. Anyway there was much discussion on the way the sulphar was administered (too much) and antitdotes described to rid me of the reaction I was having, again my naturopath told me this was the expected result. One reply said I should seek a new practitioner more versed in Homeopathy. I trust my practitioner and am confused now what to do. We are to continue the sulphar after allergy season at a highter dose.

Any comments, Questions or anything else?

Thanks

Why do you trust your practitioner - because s/he is a "nice person" or because s/he is earning a good living, or why?

You need to change to a homoeopath if it's homoeopathy you want. This is a shambles.

I am beginning to feel like a broken record: principles, principles & principles. 12c a day might be fine and dandy or produce an artificial dis-ease state. Not enough information to be sure which but 3td for indefinate period sounds dodgy IMO.

IMO the taking of one dose ( 3 pillules in your case) of Sulphur 12C a day for hayfever is quite an accepted practice. It is not high enough to do any permanent harm taken long term. How long have you been taking it and are you getting any benefits.

It sounds to me that the way this Homeopath is prescribing is the Eisayaga method which can often be successful. It sounds to me as if the patient is being prescribed acutely for hayfever although I may be wrong. It is notoriously difficult to stop hayfever once it has started. Treatment is more successful when strted earlier.

Anna - if you didn't study this method at college there is succinct reference to it in Ian Watson's little book Methodologies of Homeopathy. It is well worth reading this book to find out other prescribing methods other than the strictly classical one remedy, one dose.

Eisayaga here and Eisayaga there, bull, this is the metod described in the fifth version of organon! Its Hahnemanns old metode!

And its a metode for experienced homeopaths,only!, not for a naturopath to misuse.
Im educated in all these metodes, and this precription is bull!

------------------
Homeopat MNNH Geir E.T. Marcussen
email: getm@eunet.no http://www.homeopati.no


[This message has been edited by GM (edited 01 June 2000).]

There may be a misinterpretation here. I am not being treated for hayfever. I have stopped the sulphar due to my hayfever. I am being treated for fatigue, chronic constipation and liver inflamation.

Then you need one dose of your constitutional remedy or LMs if your practioner knows what they are.

When mentioning liverinflammation, one story comes to mind, a induced liverinflamation, given by high dosages of vit a, after a prescription from a natoropath...
You need a aremedy prescribed after your personal symptomes, not after the diagnose iflamation, or hayfever alone, but from all, tailorfitted to you, and its a experienced that must do this, regardless of potences.
And that is not called constitutional, sutch remedies dont exist, other than in a classsical fantasy!

GM - what do you call the type of prescription that you give then? The similimum?

All these other methods that deviate from the original principles are so hit and miss, they are likely to be suppressive, since they don't follow a coherent plan of treatment for the patient.
They seem to me to have developed largely as a response to inadequate knowledge of homoeoepathy by many qualified homoeopaths. These homoeopaths want to cure their patients but find that their level of knowledge of homoeopathy is inadequate so they branch out into other things which have some efficacy, as does allopathic medicine.
But it's a poor substitute for Hahnemann's cogent method of healing.