When we give a remedy to a person, we must always watch for the reaction. Hahnemann used to warn that not every reaction is automatically good. If there is a slight aggravation, of the original complaint for which you came,in the beginning, this is a good sign. if you get symptoms that you have never had before - and I mean never - you must immediately inform the homoeopath, who will have to give you the antidote. If you get a return of old symptoms - that is, complaints you have had in the past, this is also good, because this means that the remedy is working like the proverbial charm and the prognosis for speedy recovery is very good. In a chronic case, if you can cure the person in 5 to 7 years, you are doing a very good job.Kent says that those who claim to have cured the person in less time than that, have either had a baby under treatment or are merely bluffing.
In the next instalment, I will tell you something about soem of the few mistakes Hahnemann has made. After all, he was only human and made mistakes too. There are a few topics in the Organon, that have generated considerable controversy among some homoepaths and I will present these as is, with a commentary. I like you to think about thse things, because it will improve your study skills and that is what I still do, even after 20 years of practice.

That depends on what you relate the saying of Kent too.
Kent was not a Dogmatic or static.
What was chronical in his day,need not to be so today, we have remedies he did not have acess to, and therefor couldent use,thats why his timelining was 7 years.
So, today it would sound like this, 7 years is a sign of a bad homeopath!
But, have in mind that all are different, some may ned as mutch as twenty years, others a few months, to recover fully from a chronical disease.
The longest i have worked with a patient, with cøliaki, was three years, then he was recovered fully, you could ask him, and many others, and after this(7 years wiew) wiew, you would tell them that they either was liars or non existing, or that i am a liar, or preferr to wiew me as nonexisting, thats to be dogmatic and static..
Homeopaty, (and homeopaths) are not static or dogmatic, its a living thing, maturing slowly, i would think we would not see a end to it ever.

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

Excuse me if i sounds offending,Dont mean that!
Only want to point out the danger in dogmatics.
See you are into LM, have you read D littles articles?
You find them here, a excelent on Kent.: http://www.simillimum.com

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

Forgive me, if I sound dogmatic, but I think there you are wrong. If we have so much more pollution and other issues, like pesticide residues in food, I would say Kent's 5 to 7 years are rather short! Indeed, some people heal quicker and can be cured in a shorter time, so I am not implying you are a cheater. Maybeyou would want to read some more of the comments I have made about you in my reactions to other issues in these pages. I rather think you are the more sensible among those in the discussion forum. Try not to take everything too literal - it is an approximation. I posted this merely for those who think homoeopathy is something easy - which it is in principles, but not necesarily in practice. Why else this discussion forum?

I cannot agreee with you as I have also much experiece .In every case(chronic)7 years !.I don't agree with you.

It is not so in everycase, if you read my piece well you will see that I have said that this is a general observation. And I do not want agreement, but sensible discussion. My experience is, that the older the patient, the longer it takes. Younger people can be cured faster. Also, here in Autralia, you have a lot of descendants of convicts, who often were infected with venereal diseases, and as Hahnemann says, such cases, when carried into the next generations will be more dificult to cure and consequently take much longer. This does not mean that they do not get any relief, but that the ultimate cure - meaning no symptoms at all and no longer catching any acute diseases will certainly take a long time, regardless of anybody's agreement. Again, do you not think that pollution and pesticide residues have an influence? Nearly everyone has had vaccinations - atleast in the west - and that is another difficulty the homoeopath faces in treatment. Don't think too lightly about what a cure means. I have clients who have been with me for 8 years, wh still see me, albeit maybe once a year. As long as that happens *I do not consider that a cure*
Cure means "the removal and total annihilation of all symptoms, mental emotional and physical." (Hahnemann) can anyone claim to have achieved this? I doubt that, based on experience. Read also Vithoulkas, if you think that Hahnemann and Kent have no relevance in this day and age. he will say the same, and is he therefore less competent? I do not think we should engage in self-conceit and think we can do better than the old masters, but try and learn form them and their observations - they were not superficial, but very deep. Regardless of opinions, the masters were humble enough to see that a true cure does not happen in a few years. By the time of Kent there were plenty of remedies. Infact the proliferation of 'small remedies' in our own time has not done all that much for homoeopathy. One of the complaints of Schrooyens and others is exactly that proliferation of remedies that do not increase our armamentarium all that much. Jeremy Sher is ne of the few that has doen significant work in proving more of the elements and that is the work homeopaths need, for those are the deep acting remedies for the more difficult diseases we see today. I predict that we will see many so-called new diseases. Iatrogenic diseases are among the most difficult to treat and take the longest to cure. So yes, exceptionally we may see the easier cases, who have never been vaccinated, live in reasonably clean environments and have always been treated with innocent herbs or with homoeoapthi remedies. Also, maybe becasuse I have built up a reputattion, I get the more difficult cases, which take longer. Youmay not agree, but my experience cannot be discounted, just as yours cannot be ignored. I do not say I do not agree with you - you have different exoerience than I. so do not be so bloody minded as to deny my experience. Denial ia more than a rive r in Egypt.

You sounds pompous.
What do you relate the word chronic too?
is it life you mean? Well, dictators have found a solution to that.
Or, by chronic, do yo call all diseases a person have or will get in the future, chronic ?
When i talk about chronic, its related to a particular disease the person complaines about, when this is gone, i wiew that as cured, what may come later because of enviromentals,or other circumstances i have no control over, (i am not a god, maybe you are?),and i dont try to treat on belifs as a fanatic would do, i relate to whats at hand, not to secteric hallisunations.
I have no more comment for you, you show all to easy what you are after.
I, on the other hand have no time to waist on worthless discussions.
My time is devoted to those who needs help, and if you seek my help, you will get that as all others do, and no more.
You have to satisfy your urge to quarrel with some others, as i have been through this before, your answers i have read, and they bring nothing new, you are only interessted in the double talk you call debate.
Asking and answers yourself at the same time, a very good debater, i must say.

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

I am sorry to give you the impression that I am a fanatic who suffers from hallucinations. It must have been a long time now, some 20 years, in which I saw 100000 clients, but i think that does not count for you. Chronic disease is everything that can be traced to the underlying miasms and as Hahnemann says so often in the Chronic Diseases, acute manifestations, as long as they occur, are the sign that the chronic miasm has not been cured. Sure I can cure a cold, or any other problem and that phase of the chronic disease has then been cleared. Cure to my inderstanding is nothing but no more sickness at all, which homoeopathy can deliver, but never immediately. So I rather stick to my 'illusion' than to be so conceited that I am God who has 'cured' the person, only to be confronted later with further manifestations of the miasms. At least so far my contributions have been backed up by relevant quotes, instead of just making statements. Discussion means to me trying to understand what the other is saying rahter than cater for what I perceive as the absolute in understanding. Hence I try to learn from the old masters, rather than thinking I know it all already. Lifelong study, next to prctice will bring you to the same sort of insight. Sure I have no control over the environment, but my treatment should at least take it into account. Pompous are those who think that their experience is the onlyvalid one - for themselves correct, but not for everyone. I quote Kent and you act as if it is *my* statement - I merely note that my experience has confirmed this, so that we can all learn that people like Kent did not make empty statements. But of course, modern homoeopaths are so much better, as you seem to think that you can do better than Kent, talk about pompous!

There is in 20 years, 175200 houers, and you had 100 000 patients in that time.
Does this sound sane? When did yo eat, sleep and perform normal human functions?
Sorry, but you sounds like a veratrum album patient to me.
No one can take you seriously.
No further comments should be nesseceary.

You have obviously no idea how a busy clinic in India must operate, with 50 people streaming in and 2and a half hours to treat them, this means that you have about 3-5 minutes for each patients. Hering said that if you have the three-legged stool, mind, likes and dislikes and concomitants, you can make a successful prescription. Although I do not like to work that way, circumstances sometiems forced me. weather in some provinces, such as on the edge of the rajasthani desert, becomes too unconfortaable to be open longer and besides people will leave if you cannot work fast enough. So at 50 people daily, that makes for roughly 15000 a year and over the 5 years that I worked there that was the average. that makes up for 3/4 already. Luckily, in the other 15 years I could work more as i liked and so I saw only 25000 in 15 years. And in epidemics you see upto 200 a day, mainly handing outprophylactics. Sorry for you, but such is entirely feasible - it only requires very rigorous training, which I was lucky enough to have had.Just calculating numbers and calling something impossible does not do. And Veratrum album is by the way an excellent prophylactic for diarrhoeas - I have used it frequently in cholera epidemics. I bet you have never seen what havoc the pest can create, or any case of cholera for that matter. Do never dismiss what you have not experienced yourself on the basis of mathematics.
And speaking of remedies: have you ever tried nux vom on yourself? you have all the symptoms, faultfimnding, criticising, cranky, abiusive language, yake your pick.

[This message has been edited by Ben Rozendal (edited 08 July 1999).]