I have recently seen a couple of clients who are seeing other homeopaths and have been prescribed remedies in what I feel to be a non classical manner. i haven't dicussed my feelings about the prescription with them.

For instance 3 days of Thuju 200c 2x a day followed by 3 days of Rhus tox 200c 2x a day and followed by 3 days of Petroleum 200 3x a day and then wait. this was for a skin condition worse for using petrochemically based solvents and cleaners at work.

Can anyone explain (simply - coz I'm tired )what/whose methodology this is?

I'm just curious about other practitioners ways of getting to a cure.

Another has been prescribed Thuja followed by Lyc, then Morgan Bach, then Silica, then Staph for a learning disorder.

Sounds like the kind of prescribing that is "geared" to "clearing miasms"....it might be what is known as Sequential Therapy.

It's not homeopathy.

I'm curious about one thing, however: are these patients coming to see you after unsuccessful treatment using these methods? Are they aggravating or just not feeling any changes at all?

How do they come to hire you if they've got others already working on their cases?

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

Dear Cha Cha,
I am seeing more clients for other modalities now than Homeopathy, but I still take a comprehensive client info and make sure they include all remedies and vitamins etc. This is where my curiosity comes from.

I am also seeing a number of people who are self prescribing tissue salts, now they are readily available from the chemist.

I had one woman who had been taking KaliPhos for 6 months 3x daily because she thought it would help her "but it made her schitzophrenia (? spelling - sorry!) worse"

Sheesh.

I'm not sure I want these things to be readily accessible to the public, since knowing how to use them properly is such a huge part of the deal. That schizophrenia story is a tragedy, in my opinion.

Sounds like you've got your work cut out for you.

[ 26. November 2003, 11:35: Message edited by: ChaChaHeels ]

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

Ozzie asked:

Jackasses!

__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B

Dear Ozzie

Homoeopathic remedies work on the level of the vital force. The benefits can be tremendous and can free the patient and possible off-spring from certain dispositions for good. The dangers are equally tremendous and wrongful prescribing and applying can harm the patient for good and possible off-spring. It is advisable once you start treating homoeopathically to have a deep understanding of what you are involved with. Only your wisdom will protect your patient from harm and introduce an increase in freedom in your patient's life. The way you decribed your patient's homoeopathic remedy application could well be indicated in some extreme life threatening situation, where the remedies are exhausted quickly and the state of the patient changes. Otherwise this way of prescribing is simply due to dangerous ignorance and has a high possibility of messing up your patient's life for good.In homoeopathy you never treat a skin condition or any other condition, but you always deal with the patient. In other words you administer your remedy according to the totality of symptoms pesent in your patient, paying tribute to the gravity, intensity and hierarchical order of symptoms. No other way of prescribing will render you an improvement of overall well being.It is better to suppress with orthodox medications and recreational drugs than to administer high homoeopathic potencies without knowledge. The stakes are high once you start interfering with someone else's life force. Better be sure of what you are doing.
Greetings from Perth

It is better to suppress with orthodox medications and recreational drugs than to administer high homoeopathic potencies without knowledge. The stakes are high once you start interfering with someone else's life force. Better be sure of what you are doing.

Are you sure that an Iatrogenic disease state is better than imprinting with a homeopathic remedy?Surely that or recreational drugs can be more lethal than an imprint of a remedy?

The first prescription was by a practitioner that I used to go to & inspired me to study further, because I bled excessively during an operation. I would say that ALL of my prescriptions would be conservative to say the least. I would rather prescribe Sac Lac than a remedy/potency I wasn't sure of.


I would NEVER prescribe in this manner and wanted to find out why someone would.

[ 28. November 2003, 11:22: Message edited by: ozzie ]

I'm sure the reasons vary.

I went to a seminar a few years ago where I had an opportunity to meet homeopaths from all over the province. Some were just setting up practice and had just arrived from India, some were just graduating and were interested in learning and working all along the way, others travelled up from the States for the seminar in order to take part and had worked all over the world.

There was, at the time, a school in Ontario which was operated by someone whose views on the Organon could be a bit unorthodox--and at his school, he taught, as an adjuct to classical homeopathy, the concept of sequential therapy. I met one of the students from this school who decided to take up the use of ST in her practice.
I asked her what she found to be useful about ST, and she replied that she had had little success using the classical method in her practice, but started to get results when she began addressing the miasms with ST and prescribing according to that line of thought. She told me she felt that her patients were getting better and it was something she would continue to do because it seemed to help them.

I didn't stay on the topic long because I 1)didn't know much about ST beyond what I had heard was involved, and 2) I really thought that it was assinine, and I didn't want to come out and let my childish self expose that thought as the dominant one in our conversation, since I had a couple more days to go in the seminar and didn't want to spend that time thinking about ST and people who practice it. I simply told her I can't handle anything as complicated as ST and had to stick to the good ole one-remedy-at-a- time-preferably-one-that-fits-the-case thing.
I did wonder what she hoped to glean from the seminar, as it was clearly not about ST, and the person delivering the seminar would never use ST.

So that could be one scenario.

During my own training, the owner of the school where I studied considered aligning himself with a Naturopathic College in order to capitalize on the many tax advantages such an alliance could produce...also, such an alliance would allow students in financial need to have access to student loans should they choose to study homeopathy in Ontario...but there were huge trade-offs in this deal, as we all had the great misfortune to find out.

We all had to complete anatomy and physiology courses as well as pathophysiology courses throughout our training, and our school assured us they would provide us with excellent resources and skilled teachers in these fields. This was great at the beginning of my training, where we did have access and very good schooling...however, in the midst of my training our school lost the services of one of the best instructors, and tried to seek out a replacement for us from those who were alligned with the Naturopathic college.

They could not find a teacher in that school who knew anything about homeopathy, or much about pathology that they were interested in teaching. So they allowed the director of the school to select a graduate who had excelled, so they said, in his studies in pathology. As a Naturopath, we were assured that he had been trained in homeopathy, and he had been pressed into teaching as part of his requirements before graduation.

Trouble was, in order to be qualified as a Naturopath, he "got away with" a 3 month, a couple of weekends a month introductory training course on homeopathy--and with this pittance of information, he was allowed to "practice" homeopathy on the unsuspecting public. In our class, he knew how to classify "organ drainage" as distinct from "tissue salts"...but not much more. He would repeatedly confuse Isopathy with homeopathy, and would just shake his head and repeat, "Okay, let's not go there" whenever one of our students pointed this out to him. As for pathology knowledge, let's just say thank goodness I worked at a college with the largest nursing school in the province at the time, because as staff I was allowed to enroll in their pathophysiology courses and complete them on my own. One or two other students in my class were also working at different colleges where they could take advantage of the same rare deal--others just dropped the course or enrolled in the correspondence course in pathology taught by the Devon school. Others still just left our school, believing that that experience was enough warning about the decline in education to come, if the school officially alligned with the Naturopathic college.

So, we got a glimpse of what it is that most naturopaths are taught in homeopathy--and the truth is, next to nothing, unless they opt to specialize their training in it for the four year program. Not many do. But they know that the more "modalities" they can tell people they are trained in, the more attractive they become as practitioners. This is how we get a lot of people who prescribe as in your example, above.
Don't get all huffy about homeopathy--I also worked for one of these Naturopaths, trained at the same college I mentioned above, before I started my training: when she wanted to see more and more patients during her day, she would ask me to "take the needles out" of her acupuncture patients so she could go on to the next patient and I could "finish up" their treatments. It was bad enough she would do this after taking a 6 month course on acupuncture before practicing it--but here she was asking someone with absolutely no knowledge about acupuncture to "finish up" her patients--something I would not do! So some of these people have a strange confidence about doing these kinds of things which keeps them from feeling that they should possibly learn more about how to use these powerful treatment modalities before dabbling.

They think they are helping people. And they can convey the confidence of that to people, who willingly submit to their prescribing.

It just makes me aware that we do enter into a real trust with our patients, and they are vulnerable to us. That's something I can't take very lightly. We do have to educate people about homeopathy to the extent that they know enough to avoid someone who would prescribe in these questionable ways. Perhaps the best way to do this is to demonstrate to them how sufficiently effective one remedy at a time can be--once they know that, they'll never submit to the idea of multiple doses and multiple remedies again.

__________________
Who looks outside, dreams; who looks inside, awakes.<br />C.G.Jung

Hi Ozzie

Yes it is indeed less detrimental for an individual and for all off spring of that individual to be suppressed by orthodox means and/or recreational drugs than to suffer injuries to the life force induced by high homoeopathic potencies. Obviously when you use lethal amounts of suppressive substances this will be even more detrimental.
The point to understand here is that homoeopathic remedies primarily work on the level of the vital force. Any injury especially from high potencies will stay for the rest of the patient's life interfering with the life quality on every tissue level and on all other levels of existence, i.e. mind and emotions. This damage can and will be passed on to future generations.
Damages from orthodox suppressive measures target primarily material substance, i.e. tissues and biochemistry and affect the vital force only secondarily. The damages to the vital force can and will still occur but are buffered by the primary impact on the level of material existence.
Hence any damage induced by the ignorant homoeopathic precriber using high potencies is by far much worse than the orthodox suppressor's deeds.
I hope this helps to put it into perspective for you.

And yet I would say, in my experience using high potencies (1M, 10M, 50M), that you need an enormous deal of precision for the remedies to work. The higher the potency the more exact the fit must be. Except in very sensitive patients, I see very little effect from the high potency of the wrong remedy.The lower potencies are the ones that most people react to in a more broad and general way. So I think you will get more bad reactions at the level of 6c, 12c and even 30c across the bulk of the population.

In fact, it seems to me that it is not really the potency that is the problem, but the frequency with which the remedy is repeated. This results in suppression, just as the orthodox practitioners do, but it can be more effective with homoeopathy. Which probably means that ignorant prescribers won't do the most harm, but the half-ignorant ones who can give a remedy that is close but are ignorant of the philosophy.

__________________
David Kempson.<br />Dip.Homoeopathic Medicine.<br />Lecturer Australian College of Natural Therapies (Brisbane Campus)<br />Member AHA, AROH, HMA<br />Member Australian Homoeopathic Association. Member#0442.