N.S. Vijayaganesh
32, Thiruvengadam Street,
R.A. Puram, Chennai 600 028

June 6, 2003

Dear Sir/Madam,

Kindly excuse me for encroaching upon your valuable time. For, I need your considered advice.

I am a Myotonic Dystrophy patient and I give below the full details in this regard.

· Present age – 35 years
· Quite active with above average performance in studies till 18 years of age.
Symptoms noticed are:
Difficulty in getting up from sitting and lying postures
Need to steady before walking
Inability to climb and descend steps and slopes without support
Grip not as strong as that of a normal person
Lethargy and tendency to sleep for longer hours
· Tests and muscular biopsy confirm the diagnosis
· Presently on phenytoin and co-enzyme Q-10
· Gradual, but slow deterioration in the muscular strength especially of the legs.

I shall be thankful if you can suggest an appropriate line of treatment for my affliction, if available in your system of medicine.
You reply may be sent to deepu_bala@yahoo.com.

Thanking you,

Yours truly,
N.S. Vijayaganesh

Dear VJG,

I have an idea of what your remedy is, but for me to be really sure, I would ask that you fill out our Questionnaire, which is at the top of Page-one
here on the discussion forum. Are you familiar with homeopathy?

Snoopy

HEllo,

Homeopathy can help you out, but you'll need to be consisitent with treatent over a long period of time.
ITs possible you would need 2-3 remedies given one after another over time, depending on the picture presented by your detailed homeopathic history.

Homeopathy is one of the few systems of medicine that could offer you hope, so I'd encourage you to take that route.

Warm regards,
doctorleela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

A great many impressive Indian homeopaths have appeared in the last decade, but the only Hahnemannian I know of for sure there is Ramanlal P. Patel, in Kottayam, Kerala.

I don't know that disease and am unwilling to read on it without greater cause than this, for all allopathic texts annoy me to no end due to their totally useless information and inane posturing about disease diagnoses while being therapeutically incompetent in over 99% of cases. However, those sound like symptoms common to what I would surmise from its linguistics interpretation. They therefore don't tell me anything with which I could be helpful to you.

The suggestion I would offer is to go see Dr. Patel. Failing that, I suggest avoiding anybody who would prescribe for you on the basis of what you've so far given, for there are a LOT of very bad homeopaths in India given that you all seem to be repeating our tragic experience of the 19th century.

Good Luck!

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Hello Albert,
Dr. Ramanlal Patel is in Kotayyam, Kerala? Interesting to note, as he isn't Keralite. Can you confirm that? Thanks.

I agree there are a great many "bad" homeopaths in India, as there are anywhere else.

BUT there are a GREAT MANY good homeopaths too. Though I don't hear them being named "Hahnemanian", neither do I recall Ramanlal Patel calling himself "Hahnemannian". They are just extremely good, based on their knowledge of the Organon, Materia Medica, as well as their clinical results and cure rate.

I have no doubt that all these follow the Principles of the Organon.

Regards,
doctorleela

[ 11. June 2003, 19:54: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

That's what his return address has always said, and it's stamped inside his books. It's some college that might as well be on the Moon as far as me knowing exactly where it’s at. What I like about his address is that it's on Hahnemann Rd. They must like him too, wouldn’t you also say?

I certainly hope that the few Indian high-potency pseudo-homeopaths (HPHs) I've noticed calling themselves Hahnemannians do not increase in numbers. It's bad enough that they’ve corrupted the very language by ridiculously calling themselves "classical" homeopaths while proving with virtually everything they say and do that it's untrue. Then there’s the fact that Hahnemann summarily dismissed them as ”beginners," "bunglers" and "aggravators of disease" on pp. 121-22 of THE CHRONIC DISEASES and identified two of their seven mistakes that are readily seen here and elsewhere in supposedly homeopathic literature. Argh... So, yeah, I don’t want such pseudo-homeopaths to directly stain Hahnemann’s name the way they have his contributions called homeopathy.

On the other hand, as a hopefully very positive note for the future, it's very significant that India and other countries have produced so many HPHs, for those mistakes are not so difficult to overcome and that is a common staging point for transition to being a Hahnemannian homeopath, meaning "of or belonging to" the tradition of Hahnemann, which also translates as "in or after the manner of" him. I call them pseudo-homeopaths because they are, but they at least are not the allopaths all others are (Art. 52). I personally think that’s why we see Hahnemann soundly rebuking them only once, whereas he had endless diatribes to offer against allopaths and LPHs. Is this not true, and what does it tell you?

You said, "I have no doubt that all these follow the Principles of the Organon." Well, goodie! Seems we have a different calculus, though, huh? Let us hope they do adhere to Hahnemannian laws, principles, rules, precepts and other thingamajigs but not be surprised when they constantly don’t given how thoroughly they’ve been and are constantly mislead by mislead teachers everywhere today, huh? Argh...

I quote you again for fun effect: "From what I can see of your criticisms being made all over the threads, your GREAT 'Hahnemannians' seem to have an enormous homeopathic burden to carry! Only two in the US (including you), one in India (for 15 billion people, where homeopathy thrives) none in Britain, .... Amazing!" Fifteen billion people in India, huh? Must be a lot of them living in caves. Sorry, I couldn’t resist, and point well taken because I’m painfully aware of it and have been for about the 15 years since I figured out I’d been being mislead by contemporary HPHs but not from 19th- and 20th-Century Hahnemannians. I also think that the historically low number of Hahnemannians does and always has sucked for air, but it’s not my fault. Whose fault is it, though, if not LPHs and HPHs, who constantly reinforce each others mistakes? A form of homeopathy also thrived in 19th-Century Usa, but so what since they were wretches who destroyed and abandoned American homeopathy? I also think it’s amazing that the British disheartened Quin and still haven’t rectified it. Doesn’t, however, say they won’t, and the large numbers of HPHs today give hope they will, right? I, in my turn, have noticed that one of the most defining characteristics of HPHs is an extreme propensity to engage in presumptions, psychobabble and sophistries akin to their general worldview easily identified as gullible hyper-mysticism. I did. Argh... Still, it’s far better than hyper-materialism, for LPHs proved in 19th- and 20th-Century Usa that the jump is too far for them, yes?

Have you seen me name all of the living and dead Hahnemannians I've discovered in 25 years? No! But I can at least readily identify LPHs and HPHs, because they make particular mistakes in most everything they say and do, and Hahnemannians mostly because they don't make them, which is clearly a perception sadly, totally lacking in 99.99% of professed homeopaths, who should therefore obviously SHUT UP till they can and stop making like they can to those who're homeopathically ignorant since they just confuse such people, usually in need of our help, and misrepresent Hahnemann, Hahnemannians and homeopathy. I did. Hering et al. (about 35 people at the start, and never over 150) founded the International Hahnemannian Association (IHA) in 1880 for the expressed purpose of distancing and even removing themselves from the American Institute of Homeopathy (AIH) they earlier founded (i.e., in 1844, three years before the total quack-organization called the American Medical Association) but had to abandon it because LPHs and low-level HPHs had taken it over. Still, it's very difficult to think homeopathically, and all HPHs are also certainly 99.99% better off than LPHs and the self-admitted "therapeutic incompetents" or (by definition) quacks we call allopaths, who constantly prove it with nothing but incurable diseases with the minor fractional exception of bacteriological diseases we can also handle as well if not far better without side effects, iatrogenic ("physician-induced") deaths and diseases and premature-death-precipitating sequel standard for all allopathic therapies classed among the very chronic diseases they admit to being totally incompetent to cure. Argh...

Besides, this has nothing whatsoever to do with the man’s question, does it? And he’s one of the very people I referred to above who are looking for help from us, isn’t he? Likewise, did I not say in the very first sentence to this response that a “great many impressive Indian homeopaths have appeared in the last decade?” Moreover, you are one of them I referred to; so chill out, okay?

Finally, it is indeed pitiful and pathetic that the number of Hahnemannians are still few and always have been. Hahnemann himself said in late life that he could count true homeopaths on his fingers. It doesn’t, however, say anything about me that others find homeopathy so easy to corrupt and so difficult to get right. Okey-dokey?

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Hello Albert,
I'm one of them? Thank you.
From the books we studied by Ramanlal Patel, he did not make any claim to be "Hahnemannian" as a separate entity, is what I meant.

Sorry you got to my edited portion before I re-edited it, and I'm glad you thought it fun. SO I'm chilling out.

Sad that we create so many divisions between ourselves (homeopaths)! LPH, HPH, Classical, Hahnemannian,...whatever.

Still the number of people benefiting from homeopathic treatment in India is a decent percentage of the 15 billion - so we're doing something right, we poor misguided mortals...
Okey-dokey?

Thanks for your reponse.
Regards,
doctorleela

[ 12. June 2003, 09:54: Message edited by: doctorleela ]

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

N.S. Vijayaganesh,

Have you come up with any more detailed complaints for us to consider?
The questionaire at the top of the list of topics could help.
We can always ask questions of you, but I am positive you have not yet exhausted an account of your problems.

Think of it as follows, for it is one of the central ways, if not the central way, we think about the reports of people’s health issues. Allopaths want to come to a disease diagnosis essentially because the pharmaceutical companies tell them which drugs with which they can choose to treat. Hence, when they determine an accurate disease diagnosis, job done for those bozo-quacks. We, on the other hand, need to come to a remedy diagnosis or curative prescription. Diagnosis means to “thoroughly know” something, so a remedy diagnosis is the actual means for the arrival at a therapeutic decision. This contrasts with a disease diagnosis, which is just a name of a pathological category that tells a lot of information (therapeutically useless, though) in one or two words about the pathological condition and prognosis but nothing leading to a drug that will cure all of that person’s symptoms. Pathology actually has little or nothing to do with therapeutics. They have artificially made it so by assuming that the one determines the other, which is actually totally impossible. They get around this falsehood by not prescribing for the patient, which by literal definition (I believe) would be a therapy, but against the disease. That is why we call it allopathy (“other or contrary suffering”). They are all opposition therapies, high-interference therapies, quasi-militaristic therapies doing battle with diseases. This obviously won’t work in the vast majority of cases because the chronic diseases are actually all auto-immune diseases where the organism destroys itself by going haywire. But a disease diagnosis does not point to only one medicine for a person; it points to a name for an abstraction that appears nowhere in the world because nobody has only those common symptoms and all curable people have the few highly individualizing uncommon symptoms of the person rather than of the disease that are outside of disease diagnositic cagetories composed of mere common symptoms. Yak, yak, yak. Very difficult to explain this sometimes. You told us only common symptoms, at least from what I can tell from it so far, composed of the symptoms common to large numbers of people and thus ignores everything else, which everyone nonetheless has as part of their disease picture. Symptoms when considered complete have four elements viewed in this way:

1. Location or locality of pain or sensation or problem. This will have two initial options of location, for things can affect us either in parts of our body or they can affect us as a whole or generally. Those are "my" (leg, my eyebrows hurts) and "I" (I feel dizzy, I get nervous in planes, etc.) symptoms. A symptom has to have a location to exist, so it is first located there. Please be specific when you think in these terms and all should be well.

2. Kind of pain or sensation. Descriptive words here can be very important so long as they are for real. Sensations “as if” are often helpful so long as one can interpret them.

3. Conditions under which this symptom is better or worse (times, weather, temperatures, motions, positions, food, sleep, anything).

4. Combinations of symptoms exist and are thus added here as concomitants.

We have a Questionaire at the top of the topics list of the Discussion page. Hahnemann asks a set of important questions at Article 89 here:

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/refere...n/organon.html

Just tell us more details please.

[ 24. June 2003, 22:21: Message edited by: Hahnemannian444 ]

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

N.S. Vijayaganesh,

I have a similar neuro-degenerative condition called Cerebellar Ataxia. While searching on the internet, I have come across a Homeopathic Doctor in Chennai, who claims to have treated successfully patients with Myotonic Dystrophy and other neurological diseases. His name is Dr. Gnanasambandam. You can get more details from the website www.homeomiracles.com.

I am taking Homeopathy treatment for the past 2 years (I have changed 2 Homeopaths so far) but have not had any luck. I am still pursuing this simply because :

a) no side effects
b) easy to take
c) have heard of quite positive results from several people.

If anyone has worked with this Doctor or taken treatment from him, you may please share your experience on this forum. I did consider going to him for treatment, but currently I live in USA.

Regards
Manjunath

Dr Patel is the former principal of homoeopathic college in Kottayam.Actually he is from Gujarat.He has written so many books especially about repertory(corrected version of Kent's repertory)Miasms.)millisimal ,case taking etc,etc.

He has patients from all part of the world and he is famous especially in cancer cases.He is now near about eighty but very active.

So your suggestion is good ,Albert.

__________________
<a href="http://www.pannakkal.com" target="_blank">www.pannakkal.com</a>