|
|
12th August 2008, 02:37 AM
|
||||
|
||||
Gina
There are many 'self made' homeopaths like me , who made it to the highest levels in terms of curing the patient. Perhaps you are not aware that Clarke started this trend of making ordinary people interested in homeopathy and encouraged them to self prescribe by giving them easy to use tips. It has picked up both in U.K. and in India and now there are many efficient self made homeopaths as a class in itself. My contributions are always welcome in all the forums, and my concepts are hailed many times as not only correct but also thought provoking. I have not reached this stage without effort. I spend half of my waking time in persuing homeopathic matters. I have not been trained 'officially' but I do interact with qualified colleagues in profession covering the whole gamut starting wih the likes of Dr.Luc and ending with the street corner homeopath. Being in India is a huge opportunity as one can interact with many many homeopaths. So rest assured that I have as much knowledge in homeopathic matters as you have, perhaps a litle more. I have treated many patients on the forums as well as at my home and all are grateful to me. As I keep on saying there are many methods in homeopathy and I use all of them depending on the situation. So stop this propaganda that I am a non homeopath. We in India laugh at the diplomas you people get by attending a few hours classes at the weekends. That won't entitle you to call yourself a 'professional'. At the best you are a 'cross' between the true professionals like Sajjad and me. Enough for now. Concentrate on doing something constructive and productive rather than spreading these negative ebbs. Murthy 
|
|
12th August 2008, 05:35 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
DR CLARKE
The next new twist in the story comes with Dr John Henry Clarke [1853-1931], who established himself as a very successful and highly influential London homeopath in the 1870s. But he 'fell out' with figures like Hughes and Dudgeon, who controlled the movement, to such an extent that all offices became closed to him, except the editorship of The Homeopathic World, which he retained to the end. He left the BHS in disgust, c1900, never to 'return to the fold.' He thus became a powerful 'loose cannon' and effectively divided the movement. This was so for two main reasons. Firstly, he was wholly disenchanted with the direction English homeopathy had taken. He disliked the way it eventually failed to continue challenging allopathy or winning many new converts to its dwindling ranks --especially after 1900. And it seemed to lack the will for a good fight. It simply 'gave up' in his view and came to occupy an all-too-cosy niche within Victorian society, conveniently devoting itself to serving solely the rich upper classes. The second point is connected to the first: he started to teach laypersons all about homeopathy [e.g. Upcher, Puddephatt and Barker], towards whom many of his books were directed, and he became increasingly convinced that its future lay with them rather than with servile doctors who had 'sold out' to allopathy. This very radical viewpoint turned out to be an astonishingly accurate premonition, really, as subsequent history has shown. Single-handedly, by the 1920s, Clarke had created a completely divided movement, composed of doctors on the one hand, and lay practitioners on the other. And it was mainly the latter who carried British homeopathy forward throughout the dismal 1930s, 40s and 50s, their light never dimming. Yet the two strands had little contact with, and only contempt for, each other. Even in the 1960s, homeopathy was still very much a ridiculed medical minority and deep in the doldrums. Not until the late-70s did it start taking off again, and that was mainly due to the lay revival, not to any action on the part of the doctors --who, in fact, never lifted a finger to promote homeopathy. And why should they? From their lucrative London practices in Harley Street and Wimpole Street? John Henry Clarke *********** So, stop belittling the 'lay' homeopaths. You must be grateful to them that they are the ones that keep homeopathy alive despite the odds even today. They are the ones who keep more and more people interested by treating on the forums too to the best of their abilities selflessly and give relief to the patients. The aim of the 'cross' types like you is always to guide them towards a practitioner who charges heftily, and you don't like the idea that they get the advice free of cost, as that will hurt the interest of people like you. You talk so much about the likely damage the patient gets if they are treated by people like us. I might have treated more than a hundred people on the forums so far. Can you show a single case where the patients have reported to be worse? You can't. It is because we know the philosophy of homeopathy. We know that even a partial remedy nudges towards cure, provided minimum doses are given and the repetetion is restrained and can't do harm to the patient. We know that it is impossible even for a very senior professional to arrive at the correct similimum, and what they choose too is likely to be a partial remedy only. We too know that a series of remedies will help the patient in case a single remedy fails to cure, and that series can be different from one homeopath to to the other, though both may be capable of curing. So please stop preaching and cutting and pasting the lessons from books. We too are aware of them and perhaps understood them better than you. Murthy
|
|
12th August 2008, 08:44 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
Homeopathist is an obscene title only ever seen in the old literature of the 19th century by low-potency pseudo homeopaths. Those bastard, mongrel sons of bitches wanted to see homeopathy as nothing more than a medical specialty, so they called themselves homeopathists in the same way some allopaths are called gynecologists, optometrists, cardiologists, etc. Mind you, though, that allopaths of the period engaged in bloodletting and calomelization (the black oxide of mercury) in absolutely every case. Wanting to be accepted by quacks means they wanted to also grow horns, so it's absurd to see that title bandied about here. We are homeopaths, not homeopathists. Allopaths can all burn in Hell for all eternity for all I care. Want to belong to them? In a pig's eye! The most-similar remedy is the simillimum. Anything close enough to produce curative reactions but fail to complete cure is called the simile ("sim-ah-lee"). We zig and zag cases to cure with the simile, but the simillimum takes hold of the entire case and produces miraculous effects without exception. You just get used to it but never call them miracles because they're neither rare nor inexplicable. I think that's all important to understand, so how did you fail to learn that? Forget it. I want no truck with you. It was rhetorical. I won't comment on the rest.
__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
|
|
12th August 2008, 08:59 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
The rubrics here are (KENT0835) milk absent and milk disappearing. If there are others, I couldn't now tell you because my books were stolen and thus my annotations in the repertories disappeared. One symptom that's common is not enough to prescribe upon, dear. It's likely you have three or more uncommon symptoms or have had some prior to this. Think about it. What are you symptoms?
__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
|
|
12th August 2008, 09:06 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Gavinmurthy, who are you?
__________________
Albert, also Hahnemannian444B
|
|
12th August 2008, 10:27 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
 Murthy
|
|
13th August 2008, 12:56 AM
|
||||
|
||||
|
Gina.
Make sure personally we do not have any grievances with you; the only difference is in the Application of homeopathy. Time and again we said that there are different ways of selection of homeopathic medicines and are all successful. If you say there is only one fixed method then it is absolutely wrong. Some are short cut and easy and some are complicated and beyond the understanding of every homeopath, but they have attained equal success. I don't understand why only one the “Classical' is stressed by you. The disease may be acute or chronic, minor or major, short or long standing need not 2 hours Consultation. Americans and Europeans may afford $400 consultation fee of a' Classical’ homeopath but here in the subcontinent patient cannot afford more than a dollar, and can you imagine that here homeopath can survive with daily income 2-3 dollars if he gives two hours consultation to every patient. Most of the homeopath use combination remedies (we are against) or keynote prescription and they are successful. In clinics computer software's and bulky materia medicas are of little help though valuable. If you care to study in depth the cases of old homeopath you will realize that by the exclusion of mind symptoms we get the same remedy. In most cases they did added these symptoms and the present homeopath are doing the same, just to impress the public that they are the real follower of Hahnemann and homeopathic philosophy. By profession murthy is an engineer but it does not mean that he cannot practice homeopathy. It is not monopoly of any person qualified in this subject or not.Boenninghausen was not a qualified doctor. He was the degree holder of civil and criminal law. His contribution for homeopathy is unforgettable. There are many others who were not qualified in this field but were and are successful physicians. Murthy is a practical man. Throwing aphorism on the face of every poster does not reflect ability. Some times I am astonished on his skill of remedy selection. He is serving needy people at different forums without any monetary benefit and spending his valuable time to promote this medical science. He is not a greedy person and patient’s hunter and never directed every body to a ‘classical’ homeopath. Please be realistic and stop discussing personalities. Homeopathy is not a property of any particular person. Hope you understand. sajjad. Last edited by sajjadakram635; 13th August 2008 at 01:00 AM. Reason: minor corrections.
|
|
13th August 2008, 05:27 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Hello all
I am a professional homeopath from the Uk with 10 experience in full-time practice. I consider myself a classical homeopath because I prescribe a single remedy, in the minimum dose, based on totality of symptoms (which is always subjective as a true totality of the patients symptoms will usually add up to Sulphur). I am not familiar with the definition of classical homeopathy that seems to prevail on these forums- specifically that unless a remedy is prescribed after taking a full case history, followed by repertorization and full case analysis it is Alopathy! IMO there is no homeopath who ever made a career out of homeopathy that has worked that way- including Hahnemann and Kent! Kent and his students saw 18,000 patients a year-Hahnemann had a queue of patients outside his door several streets long! It simply isn't practical in clinical practice to spend that amount of time on every case and frankly it isn't necessary. I have also been to India and worked with some of the homeopaths there. These guys are the best in world. They have a similiar training to doctors in the UK but study materia medica instead (or as well as) pharmacology and work long hours in outpatient clinics seeing up to 100 patients a day!!! And the hospital I worked in had an 80% success rate in their outpatient clinics. We could all learn a lot from these guys. Clarke talks about different kinds of similiarity in his introduction to his Prescriber- he says pathological similarity is one of them. Therapeutic knowledge is the mainstay of any busy practice and the natural outgrowth of knowledge of a remedy that starts with a proving. Not every case requires deep constitutional or miasmatic treatment. Giving Symphytum to speed healing of a broken bone is not allopathic - would you repertorise? Neither is giving Arsenicum to a patient in the end stages of cancer. These forums have always been dominated by a few homeopaths who preach a kind of 'classical extremism'. and every sincere request for help seems to degenerate into a petty squabble between homeopaths with different views. If you look at how many people lurk on these forums and how many actually post it should tell you something of the effect this has. Like all forms of extremism it stifles diversity and destroys community. We don't need a forum to tell sick people to find a classical homeopath - we could just put up a sticky and all go home. It's nothing personal against you Gina but I think it is a real shame that we can't help more people on these forums because homeopaths are afraid to post suggestions for fear of being vilified as allopaths. GM started it and I believe it is high time it stopped- it isn't helpful.
|
|
13th August 2008, 04:41 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
An Example of your advice from a previous post:
Hi Bette (and everyone else on the thread) Combination remedies do work to some extent (between you and me I use one sometimes for my hayfever). If you feel the Calms are helping there is nothing wrong with continuing to take them. However, they will not get to the root of the problem- for that you need constitutional treatment from a professional homeopath. Similibus -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- quote from Similibus: I consider myself a classical homeopath because I prescribe a single remedy, in the minimum dose, based on totality of symptoms .................................................. .................................................. ...............
__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein
|
|
13th August 2008, 05:04 PM
|
||||
|
||||
|
"Quality" not quantity is what we must focus on.
Anyone on any homeopathic forum can make suggestions regards remedies.Anyone..................... Semen after Urine The questions we need to ask ourself: ********************************************** 1-Do we know enough of the patients symptoms to prescribe 2-do we know the sensitivity of the patient 3-do we know what a "mantaining" causefactor might do to this patient 4-do we know their history of iatrogenic symptoms 5-do we know if they will get aggravations 6-do we know if there is suppression by "our" prescription 7-do we follow up on the patient 8-do we keep track of secondary prescriptions made by others 9-do we fully understand what other medicines they are taking 10- do we explain to them how to handle an aggravation 11-do we tell them how to antidote when all hell brakes loose 12-Do we know if they have taken COMBINATION remedies prior as this may cause a proving/false symptomology picture ********************************************** these are only a few questions We must consider when we suggest homeopathic remedies on a discussion forum without a case.If you feel 100% comfortable with NOT KNOWING THE ANWERS TO THESE QUESTIONS,go ahead and prescribe away......................I will not- sorry its just the way i see it. Homeopathy is for the Best interest of the patient ,not for the best interest of Our personal EGO.
__________________
"Great ideas often recieve violent opposition from mediocre minds"...................Einstein
|
 |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
| Safety of Carcinosin and other remedies when breastfeeding?? | 1magpie | Homeopathy Discussion | 6 | 15th March 2008 08:41 PM |
| Nursing\Breastfeeding\ Lactation | Diana | Homeopathy Discussion | 4 | 24th May 2006 08:17 AM |
| speaking of breastfeeding.... | carolorr | Homeopathy Discussion | 9 | 1st December 2001 03:14 PM |
| Breastfeeding difficulties | Barb | Homeopathy Discussion | 42 | 28th June 2000 11:53 AM |
| Homeopathy and Breastfeeding | mamma3 | Homeopathy Discussion | 9 | 14th August 1999 02:32 PM |
Linear Mode
