I had posted these in another thread, but they seem more belonging here for any comments and feedback. Do you think that an expert homeopath is needed to tell when the remedy is right and cure has begun. Keeping that in mind, here are the questions:

1. What do you say about the general feeling of well being or starting to feel good, does it require interpretation This is one of the simplest of tests in your direction towards cure while being treated with homeopathy.

2. I have known chronic cases (20 years or so) of constipation, catarrah, sleep problems, fungal infections, chronic depression respond overnight (literally) to a single dose of correct remedy. You can see the direction of cure with the right remedy, right away. Should we give a margin of 3 months so that the homeopath can experiment with different remedies (hit & miss, if you will). How is this happening.

3. If little knowledge is a dangerous thing in homeopathy, what do you say about the books of Panos, Castro, Jahr which are for the beginners and equip them about the homeopathic prescribing at least for acutes.

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.

For homeopaths patient is the target and not the disease. Homeopaths play and deal with symptoms. you suggest a medicine and if symptoms are not there after the administration of medicine, then obviously cure is progressing. if symptoms appear again, then again repertorize the case as a new case and select remedy again for the same patient. what is the problem in not understanding this point. We treat patients, if patients are feeling better, then to us, cure is progressing. whether pathological reports show you high cratinine value. But this normally does not happen. If the patient is feeling better then ultimately the value of cratinine would also go down. otherwise the patient will not give positive response.

__________________
Homeo Dr. Rasheed Khan,
M.A (Pol Sci), M.A (Islamiat), M.A (History), DHMS (4 years)
Registered Homeopath in NCH, Pakistan
Member of P.H.S, PHDA, HPCA & PHMA.

No intrepretation needed to tell if someone feels good. If they feel good, they feel good. However....

Well, let me ask you a question. If someone feels good after a remedy and the improvement lasts only a week or so - then they get worse again - how would you interpret that?

Or, if the improvement is subtle and gradual -- so gradual that the patient doesn't seem to think they are any better. YET, when a homeopath goes over a list of symptoms and the patient say - 'well, yes - that is gone, and that is also gone, but but but'.. How do you interpret that? The patient still insists they don't feel good - but symptoms are going --- so how do you tell what's happened here?

Or, if seeming improvement lasts a long time (like a whole year or so) and then all of a sudden the patient ends up with a more serious condition than before they felt that improvement ---- then can you tell what might have happened? Can you see how telling a patient if they simply feel better that it must be working - might be wrong? Suppression can be subtle and very deceiving.

There are many scenarios that can happen. How will you be able to tell?

How do you know those cases weren't suppressed?
I'm not saying they were - because we are only talking theoretically and do not have a given case to examine.

What if one of them ends up with something very serious later on? Will you be able to make the connection and assessed what possibly happened?

Each case is individual and unique and must be assessed according to what's happening in-that-case. So, it's really important not to limit oneself to predictions that cure takes 2-3 years time. Some cases are resolved very quickly and some take years. It depends on many factors.

Tricky, imo.
It depends if the person prescribing understands the difference between a true acute and a chronic case -- or a psoric flare up that looks like an acute but is a flare up of the chronic (known as an acute exacerbation of the chronic). §72 onwards explains this bit in the Organon.

Accidents and injuries are probably okay for lay people, although other homeopaths may not agree with me on this point. If in doubt - ask a homeopath if you can contact one.

However, I would tread very carefully with colds, flu's and other things which might seem harmless enough to treat. The thing is - if you have an aged grandmother, for example who's had her thyroid removed - and she's now having some heart arrythmias occasionally -- and she comes down with flu. Would you consider the flu an acute and treat her? Would you really be prepared for that?

I hope this is helpful.
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

In response to Question 3,

Homeopathy is the only system which are in rapid use by the layman!

__________________
KN

I think the cause is, we do not diagnose the patient, we rely entirely on symptoms that is why a person having slight good academic background start practicing homeopathy. Moreover, these software made the symtem more easy. Although, layman should not pratice self medication. It could be dangerous.

__________________
Homeo Dr. Rasheed Khan,
M.A (Pol Sci), M.A (Islamiat), M.A (History), DHMS (4 years)
Registered Homeopath in NCH, Pakistan
Member of P.H.S, PHDA, HPCA & PHMA.

Lisa,

Regarding the answers, I have the following comments:

1. If the symptoms return after sometime although the patient felt better in the beginning will send the homeopath back scratching his head as it would confuse him too. But thats not what happens usually. Does it?
2. If the remedy was chosen homeopathically then supression is out of question. All of us can raise such questions to raise doubt but the fact is does this happen? This line of questioning puts the entire homeopathic practice in question. Has this been ever established through follow up documented study that the patients treated with homeopathy stay well later in life Allopathy has such proof of health or otherwise
3. Regarding the grandmother I agree that there would always be a very small percentage of cases which might require expert intervention but majority of acute cases would be easily treatable with such books as they too rely on case taking, repertorization & remedy finalization in line with homeopathic principles.

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.

Hi FF,
1) If the same symptoms come back after an initial amelioration -- no, the homeopath shouldn't be scratching his head. (Maybe some will, lol - but that's lack of experience or laziness or poor training).

He would assess what happened by the nature of which symptoms came back - how intensely they returned - how long the amelioration lasted, etc.
-It might be a repeat of remedy is needed, depending on the amount of time amelioration lasted.
-It might be that the remedy that wasn't similar enough, but close enough to cause some reaction - leaving some troubling symptoms behind (this is really tricky). Then one has to decide was this suppressive or did it move the case forward?
-It might be the wrong remedy.
-Or, it might have suppressed the symptoms temporarily (and thankfully the vital force was able to rally full enough to throw the symptoms back out again in the same way).

HOW to actually tell which of these is the answer to any given (individual!) case takes training. There is no way around needing the training.

2) Suppression certainly does happen. And one can only tell by carefully analysing the case - Hering's direction of cure is a very helpful tool but it's not the only tool used in case management!

How to analyse a case and manage a case is quite complex and I'm not prepared or in a position to explain it. Study homoepathy in depth and you will learn it. Or, you might get lucky and someone might take the time to explain it to you. Kudos to anyone who can explain it succinctly!

As for documented cases - there are lots in the old literature.

I don't agree allopathy has any proof that people remain healthy after they render a patient some treatment protocol. Based on THEIR paradigm, they can make it look good - but we look at health/disease/healing in an entirely different way -- which is also how we assess cases. This is my opinion and I won't argue about because I feel it is pointless.

3) If by 'the majority of acutes' you mean accidents and injuries - sure it's probably okay if someone understands the basics and has a good knowledge of remedies.

But, uhm, other acutes are very tricky. Why?
First, you need to define 'acute' per the Organon - and then define the different types of acutes discussed therein.

Read §72, 73 in particular, 75 & 76, (along with all footnotes of all §'s mentioned here), for more information on the various types of acutes.

And be sure there are some very important distinctions that are very necessary to fully understand before one starts prescribing for acutes.

That's good homework for you. Should keep you busy for a little while.

But, of course, I anticipate this will further lead to many questions about miasms (and chronic disease) -- which you can read further on in §78-81. The miasms will definitely come up during your study of acutes...so be aware of that.

Let us know once you've delved into these §'s. I'm sure you'll be posting more questions.
[pssst. Don't only address questions to me personally -- I don't always have the time required to answer them.]

Now if you don't go study - I will have to tease you and say Mafi Moukh. And I know that's not right because you've already shown promise.


Dr Khan,
I agree with what you wrote -- that some are not properly analysing cases fully. Rather often relying on keynote prescribing and/or homeopathic software which has made it seem easy. Homeopathic software is very beguiling and not for beginners. And no one should treat themselves (not just lay people) - don't you agree?
One big thing is knowing what is and isn't a disease symptom...and this is often confusing at first - especially with the way homeopathy is taught by some today.

Best wishes,
Lisa

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Thanks Lisa.

I have read Organon but re-reading it makes things clearer.

Regarding Miasms, simply put, if a well indicated remedy doesn't act in a chronic case then the most probable reason is a miasmatic block. Correct. That miasm can be removed using miasmatic remedies. (There are 3 basic miasms.) If I recall correctly, Albert doesn't agree to the prevailing opinion and maintains that all it means is contageous.

Anyway, I will be delving into Chronic Diseases a little later for a better understanding though.

One clarification, I didn't mean that allopathic documentation or record keeping proves that their method is superior and patients are cured in long term follow up. I was only pointing out that this type of follow up proves both points, cure or otherwise as it is systemetic way of record keeping and long term follow up.

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.

And, you will get to a point, I suspect where it will all be thrown back into confusion. There is SO MUCH to learn, it seems daunting at times.

As for miasms, that is a whole other big ball of wax, FF.
There are different views/theories about the miasms.
I'm neither an expert on the subject, nor am I in a position to explain it easily.

I'm not in agreement with your statement about 'miasmatic blocks'. When assessing a chronic case (very different to acutes) one needs to be able to discern what are the *active* miasmatic symptoms that are present...along with some very important other things. Big topic.

Aside from that, I think it's really important to have a structured course for studying homeopathy because it will help make sense out of everything - so one can synthesis the data and make practical use of it. Otherwise most people end up bouncing all over the place trying to understand what is a very complex subject - and a lot end up with complete misunderstanding of some of the fundemental basics.

Happy learning.

__________________
"The significance of a fact is measured by the capacity of the observer."
Carroll Dunham

Regarding Organon, and for that matter any other book or subject, here is a word of advise: Read it like it was written, not with an emphasis on each and every word, otherwise you will end up in confusion. Read it as a whole to get the message. The message will be clear within first couple of tries, even with average intelligence. More than that and then confusion will start as then you loose track of the whole and start to go in depth for the way each and every word is interlaced.

Regarding a structured course of homeopathy, you will recall my previous thread which initiated the suspension

I had asked specifically the question "How to become a homeopath". Its again open to discussion and would like to hear views. I can make it a new thread too. I had targeted it to Divina as she has been very much on the forefront of suggesting to read more. Anyway.

I have never read anything other than Saine on this thing. Most others have been able to say is to "read". Read what ?

Is there a list of books to be followed, if yes, what is the logic in developing that list. I developed a list of books based on my own logic & understanding on how to approach a subject in depth.

I have seen the curriculum of a couple of homeopathic colleges as they are all diverse in nature. Who is right, if anyone is.

If the curriculum is right, why don't we have highly successful homeopaths in spades. Why is it still a struggling field. If I go the same existing route, will I will be another one of the also-ran.

__________________
Don't take life too seriously, it aint permanent.