Dear List members,

I was going thru Organon , ahp 3. and was thinking over what Hahnemann wanted in a physician.
1. Knowledge of disease and its indications
2. Knowledge of medicines and indications
3. The knowledge to connect the case of disease to the medicine. i.e to find what is curable in disease and what is curative in medicine.

As a medical layman,I was so overwhelmed (but not given up) by the medical jargon. But, as I am getting my organon right, this is what is dawning in me.

1. That, knowledge of disease is not mere names of disease. Hahnemann's description is the totality of "externally perceptible morbid symptoms". To know what is morbid,does one need to know the daunting details of pathology? Still further, need one know what is the name of the affection, which, according to Hahnemann, is an "absurdity" and which "nature knows nothing about" ?

2.There is an argument that 'knowledge of common disease symptoms is necessary to help locate the uncommon symptom that characterises the patient and the remedy'. This may partially hold for acute diseases but never for chronic diseases. Even in acutes, the physician who knows point 1 and 2 will know enough that a fever is too common symptom and will start grouping all the symptoms of fever - weakness, generalised pains, loss of appetite, hot skin etc and will isolate the uncommon symptoms in other areas like thirst, mentals, sleep, nature of pains etc.

My question is this: what is the necessity of a training of four plus years in a medical school of which two and more years are consumed for anatomy, pathology etc. ?

3. The use of diagnostic aids such as blood and urine routines:
Is there any real use for them ? What will a true homeopath do in a chronic case ? gather symptoms and prescribe or wait for lab tests ? What inference will he get in a lab test ? The argument "that this reduced after that drug" can not hold since we have better and much much more reliable indicators of cure - even a law for direction of cure.

4. The Indian Government has stipulated that a student complete all the allopathic routines to get a homeopathic bachelor's degree.(obviously on the advice of some half cock homeopaths sitting in administrative positions who never comprehended Hahnemann's requirements for a physicians.

5. For all of us who swear by Hahnemann, who said that
a. diseases are produced by the Vital force
b. they are known by their totality of the affections of the vital force
c. all diseases are dynamic
d. each individual case of sickness is unique
I pose this question. Is the medical curriculum of present right ? Do we not see the overwhelming impact of allopathy in all this ? Is the anxiousness to pose as a reasonable therapeutic method at the root of all this ?

Some points to ponder.
Regards
Venkat

Ah yes, I do feel like a half cock homeopath with a medical degree - so I don't really envy those in administrative positions. ;)

Seriously - yes if we're all that over qualitified we should actually be treating and managing cardiac failure, heart attacks, renal failure and pancreatitis with homeopathic remedies. I mean seriously, all that learning should allow us to handle every single case in the emmergency with homeopathic remedies - and they would work faster than ANY other type of medication.
Then it would make all that studying worthwhile wouldn't it?

But half cock, over qualified (?) homeopaths that we are - we're still stuck at the coughs, colds and acne! We're a pretty miserable lot what?!

Venkat - I totally agree with you.
dr. leela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Hello Dr Leela,
SO why dis you choose to drag yourself into "that"
list ? From what I read from you , you're too good to
be there.

My lamentation is that those four years of precious
youth is being wasted in needless information-at that
stage.
Regards
venkat
--- homeolist@otherhealth.com wrote:
>
> > (obviously on the advice of some half cock
> homeopaths sitting in
> > administrative positions who never comprehended
> Hahnemann's
> > requirements for a physicians.
>
> Ah yes, I do feel like a half cock homeopath with a
> medical degree - so
> I don't really envy those in administrative
> positions. ;)
>
> Seriously - yes if we're all that over qualitified
> we should actually
> be treating and managing cardiac failure, heart
> attacks, renal failure
> and pancreatitis with homeopathic remedies. I mean
> seriously, all that
> learning should allow us to handle every single case
> in the emmergency
> with homeopathic remedies - and they would work
> faster than ANY other
> type of medication.
> _-Then-_ it would make all that studying worthwhile
> wouldn't it?
>
> But half cock, over qualified (?) homeopaths that we
> are - we're still
> stuck at the coughs, colds and acne! We're a pretty
> miserable lot
> what?!
>
> Venkat - I totally agree with you.
> dr. leela
>
>
> --
> doctorleela
>
> India
>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
> doctorleela's Profile:
> http://www.otherhealth.com/members/doctorleela.html
> View this thread:
> Qualifications of a Physician ?
>
>

Hello Venkat,
My reason for the reply is to bring out WHY that type of education is actually necessary if the clinical application of homeopathy has to reach the heights of advancement, and how unfortunate it is that we are part of that list. IT was said with a bit of sarcasm not only for your observations but for the reality of the situation as it is.
Great Homeoapths like Hahnemann, Kent, Stuart Close, Clarke, Lippe, Boericke, etc were ALL QUALIFIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS! What is the quality of the work and Materia Medica they were able to produce speaks for itself. IS it any co-incidence to the basis of their knowledge and perception?

It goes without saying though that the reason why homeopathy is widely accepted today and the tradition of homeoapthy continues in countries like India and the US is mainly becasue of what the lay or non-medically qualified homeopaths have been able to do to cure and help people with remedies.

First we need to be careful of what aspect of modern medicine we want to criticise. We owe it to modern medicine to have discovered the intricacies of the working of the human body as we know it today. What is made of that information and how one goes about treating and managing is quite a different story and is based on what one wants to adopt as one's idea of cure (Allopathy, homeopathy, symptomatic, etc) and concept of health.

Knowledge is never bad, knowing how to use that knowledge is what is important.
I DO NOT mean at all, that I have "wasted " 5.5 years of learning and clinical experience or even that an addition of 3 years working (hard) in general hospitals reduced my capacity to be a good homeopath. Every moment and experience of that learning has been very, very valuable and will show even more in the future. As it would for any homeopath with a medical background.

It allows me presently to make diagnosis of clinical conditions of patients now on the internet, to also confidently prescribe for some serious conditions, and an ability to accurately understand the clincial improvement or detrioration in patients without having to actually see or examine them - this just on the basis of understanding their pathological symptoms they give me. IF I can do this, HOW can that knowledge and learning be a waste?


So, lets get a perspective here - would YOU with your good knowledge of the ORganon and MAteria MEdica be able to handle medical emmergencies with homeopathy? WIll you be ready to treat a serious cancer patient? Will you be ready to prescribe for and manage the case of someone having a heart attack or acute respiratory failure or cardiac failure or acute pancreatitis? Can YOU manage these cases? On what knowledge will you be able to do this? the Organon?
What would it take for a homeopath to be willing to do this?

On the other side of the coin - am I doing what I expected of me as a Medically qualified homeopath? Am I managing these serious patients using my knowledge of medical management? OF couse I have my excuses - I'm a housewife, a mother of 3 little kids, with limited energies/capabilities/confidence presently - so I'll just have to sit with the half cock, over qualified homeopaths while the lable applies.

Criticism is always good when it is positive - and, when each person understands the situation from both perspectives.
Hope this gives you one!
dr. leela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

For years I studied the faults and failures of allopathy and posted on my website the following .. rather harsh conclusions I came to.


After years of injuring and killing people with blood transfusions [ factor 8 AIDS/HIV ] we are now told by consultant J. Thompson that " You can't get away from the fact that a blood transfusion is a liquid transplant. It's putting into your body someone else's cells that contain foreign proteins which you may react to. That's bound to lower your immunity. " Pretty well what I said in a lecture to Hematologists 20 years ago. When they set up the cost efficiency procedure of centrifuging blood from up to 3,000 people in batches. .........The illness death and injury from operating by the wrong medical model is inestimable and the expenditure horrendous. We needed the crisis of BSE before we consider making changes. Even then the work is on papering over the cracks in a crumbling system.

In 1986 I published an article pointing out the faults and problems with vaccination. It's connection to S.I.D.'s [ cot deaths] and the way it degrades the immune system. Leading to many conditions such as asthma. Now the Japanese accept that no child under the age of two years should be vaccinated. The immune system is still taking shape and most cannot cope with vaccines. These contribute to many stomach problems as well as asthma /hay fever and can cause fits in babies 12/15 months , also Crohn's disease in later life. What we now know of the way in which virus & bacteria exchange bits of DNA, shows that life [and the human body ] , is a dynamic and to treat it as an unchanging , set in concrete , phenomena is absurd. Given the rate at which organisms exchange DNA ,the vaccine bears little semblance to the diseases we have to live with - and combat, so that we may continue our daily existence. Again the existing medical model flounders and disappears under the surface of credibility.

So what needs to be done ?. In the '40's & '50's with naive optimism it was thought that science had the answer to everything. With the huge success of antibiotics it was assumed that we could control Nature and push it to one side. That we knew better and could intervene in the body's workings to achieve the desired ends. Now it is realized that our interventions have done more harm than good. We set out to cure gonorrhea and end up with monstrous viral infections as the virus fight back. We also assist in the debasement of the immune system - leading to all types of immuno deficiency problems from asthma to AIDS.

The bedrock of 'science' is repeatability. If X does procedure Y in New York , then when Z follows that procedure in Melbourne or Rio , the results will be exactly the same . If this is not so then it is not 'science' !!. For the benefit of scientists lets say that , where human beings are concerned, this paradigm is useless. Extreme reaction to food/pollens/vaccines show that the spectrum of human variation is widening rapidly. What is really happening ?. It is now established that bacteria, virus , organisms of all kinds - THAT ARE GENETICALLY BASED are swapping bits of DNA in order to change shape and be better able to meet the challenge of antibiotic or vaccine. The implication of this is that our external environment is an ever changing area that operates by the laws of chaos. It has no truck with fixed parameters [ without which science cannot operate ] the result being that the medical sciences have no answers to the problems confronting them - their paradigm is bankrupt!!.

It is also known that cells communicate, That statement implies that DNA communicates - as it is the only item in a cell complex enough to fill that function. So the DNA that inhabits our body communicates . The DNA that inhabits bacteria , virus & similar organisms also communicates , and swaps bits as needed. A recent issue of the U.S Journal " Science "reports that microbiologists are eavesdropping on the chemical messages used by the bacteria Pseudomonas . The scientists "canceled the order issued by the gene to manufacture 'slime' ."Surely someone will put 2 & 2 together and conclude that the External DNA will communicate with the Internal DNA. .... Once accepted , this would truly reintegrate the human race into nature. No longer a bystander , free to exploit and destroy , but with a symbiotic role to play in the ongoing process of continuous creation . To harmonize nature and humanity to the benefit of both. Or we can cower behind the skirts of science like a sparrow waving a threatening twig at the Mastodon that is nature. Symbiogenesis , as postulated by Lynn Margulis [Prof of Geoscience at Univ. of Massachusetts ] , shows how nature may embed organisms within each other in the way that software will embed objects in its structure. In so doing the organism both receives and provides benefits to that structure. Cyanobacteria and chloroplasts are virtually the same [ except that one lives inside algal and plant cells whilst the other is a free agent ] . Mitochondria were at one time free agents but now power our metabolism [ as well as that of plants and fungi.} Nature is not only outside us it is inside and we cannot escape the consequences of the ways in which we exploit and torture it. BSE , AIDS and Ebbola are instances of those consequences.
The universal spread of gravitation shows it as the bedrock force of the cosmos. It is also the ruling force present when cells divide. This must create a link between energy and material --- a link that joins the vitality or life force to the living material , flesh , or body .


Cosmologists postulate that "strings" originate in another universe , physicists track wandering particles that shoot through the body of the earth as if they were pebbles traveling through fog. Psychology [C.G.Jung] considers that we are all connected to a 'Universal Unconscious ' .
It seems likely that a 'Life Force ' is generated as each embryo grows from a few cells to a mature being. That this force is the 'god in the machine ' . That it springs from the DNA and accounts for phenomena such as the aura around the fingertips that the Russian scientists photographed some years ago. It's connection to the universal unconscious would account for the many instances of ESP , clairvoyance and similar phenomena.
The brain may be the nub of the central nervous system , but the mind inhabits the total bodily structure. The neural , hormonal and immunological systems are the layer that forms an interface with the life force , or 'god in the machine' . The Placebo effect is something which is real - not 'just in the mind' . The seriousness of any attempt to measure , quantify , and ask "what is really happening here " , will show if we are moving in a new direction --- or just going round in the same old well worn [but profitable] circles.


Proof of a non material 'body envelope ' is shown by the phantom limb phenomena. If someone loses a limb the material limb is gone but the life force still inhabits the space that was occupied by the limb. I am now treating a patient who had cancerous ovaries removed. She still has the pain in the ovary though the solid fleshly ovary has been excised . Again this needs to be taken seriously and investigated. Is it possible to persuade the life force to regenerate the missing part ?. Unprotected sex is a major instance of one body envelope penetrating another ; the physical and non-physical intermingling. Where there is no true compatibility then the act is little better than masturbation , and in the short term lacking in any interest. Transplants are another area where the immune system objects to being " penetrated " . It requires powerful immunosuppressant drugs , which depress the ability of immune reactions to work ' as designed ' . This is not the way forward , as the current shortage of both organ donors and surgeons testify. We must learn to work WITH the life force , not disregard it or treat it as irrelevant. To accept that the physical body is an interface with the non material body envelope. To make decisions and initiate research based on that fact. To accept that many physical problems have their origin in the non physical envelope , and that hacking the physical envelope about , or using powerful physical drugs , is counterproductive. Recent research shows that the Sertoli cells of the testicles [ due to their function in the reproductive transfer from one body to another ] may be used to make repairs to stroke damaged brains . This would seem to be working WITH nature. The age old principle of homeopathy that ' disease travels inward and upward ' Herings Law ', and its corollary that the direction of cure is downwards and outwards, lead us to the belief that each embryo develops in a unique and individual way. Which means that the internal channel's of communication , [ between the DNA in the cellular structure ] , form according to the hereditary genetic pattern. This implies that there are paths of communication which have high resistance to the passage of traumatic stress/illness ; and other paths , which have a lower resistance. Thus stress/ trauma will pass down the easiest way to a given particular site in the body and take up residence at that point.
So each individual will react differently to a given illness. this means that we have a true [ but , probably unacceptable to the MoD ,] explanation of the phenomena of the Gulf War.

cont... Nature spreads its risk of species death in this way. So that about 10% of any given population is resistant to whatever may assault it. In the way that the fly population of Egypt survived the DDT that was meant to " cure forever " the fly problem [ with all the disastrous results that DDT had on the food chain in nature ] ; the results that came from the widespread use of anti-biotics , used to "cure forever " gonorrhea , [ but the W.H.O have now , 40 yrs later declared gonorrhea "out of control " ] , as it has mutated to defeat all the anti-biotics thrown at it. ; 10% is the figure that has now emerged in Africa , for those people who have a natural immunity to AIDS. A true medical model needs to take account of the above. To SUPPORT and reinforce the existing structure and not INTERVENE ,[ under the illusion that it knows best ]. It needs to accept that it is dealing with the human entity as a material/vitality interface and not as a clod of flesh alone. The recent death of Hussein who went under as they tried a bone marrow transplant , shows that immune system organisation is essential to the body and its envelope. But still ' science ' keeps its blinkers on and looks to a potentially profitable , drug - fludarabine . Refusing to acknowledge that the immune system MUST be worked WITH and not suppressed.
The immune system may be regarded as a membrane between the material immune system and the non material "Life Force " . All and any cure of symptoms will act as a suppression [or driving inwards ] . The effect of this is to cause a breakdown [ greater or lesser ] in the web of communication that is the immune system . Any faults in the internal communication system will allow disease to take root . It is here , out of sight , that problems grow and reach out to the surface to vent themselves . At the vent point symptoms are created and they act to relieve the deep rooted source of trouble . If we then use drugs or surgery to obliterate these symptoms we effectively close the vent and the problem is pent up . The internal pressure builds up and the body finds a different location to vent itself . So to put it into concrete terms you could have a situation where antibiotics are used to obliterate an inflamed throat gland [ or a mole is removed surgically ] and the pressure then builds up , goes down the path of least resistance , and takes the form of endometriosis [ or prostrate enlargement ] . Endometriosis occurs when a large group of cells loses touch with the communication system of the body and drift off looking for " home" . In both cases the cells involved are no longer able to receive messages . In the case of prostate enlargement we are dealing with at least one of the reasons for the increase in in cancers of all kinds [ they are created by medical treatment ] . Yet it is doubtful if any doctors or scientists will accept this point of view and certainly it would be vehemently opposed by the pharmaceutical industry . So how long do we have to go down this road where we create most of the problems we have ??? .
Recent developments with Weak Quantum Theory and the concept of Entanglement show that everything is related. It forms a logical basis for homeopathy . It also updates the ancient beliefs of Taoism . Chuang T’zu , ancient Chinese Philosopher suggested that we do not make distictions but relate everything to the one single Unity .
C.G.Jung also formulated the theory of Universal Unconsciousness, mediated by the sub-conscious. Giving us a reasonable basis to relate the non material “vitality “ of the human body to that Universal Unconsciousness. From here it is a short step to see that all “Symptoms“ thrown up by the body originate in the Vitality and act as “vents” for internal problems . To cut off ,or “ cure” these vents is to act against the health and best interests of the body . Resulting in chronic incurable conditions and eventual death .
Homeopathy [and all alternative therapies ] operates on the basis that it only removes blockages in the internal energy ecology and allows the body to do its job properly . The job it has evolved over millions of years to carry out .

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Leela Great Homeoapths like Hahnemann, Kent, Stuart Close, Clarke, Lippe, Boericke, etc were ALL QUALIFIED MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS! What is the quality of the work and Materia Medica they were able to produce speaks for itself. IS it any co-incidence to the basis of their knowledge and perception?

But then why at the end of it all Hahnemann denounced the diagnosis centred approach ?

Why Kent said in one IHA meeting " the basis for prescription is the totality of symptoms and the proven drug. No pathological condition" ?

Why did the same Lippe, having a serious pathological condition before him, stir the vessel containing the stool of the patient for coagulated blood streaks ?

What will one like me do when confronted with either choice? No doubt the diagnostic perspective will be useful but in Homeopathy we have situations where a remedy has cured what it was not thought to and has not cured when it was expected to- in the routinistic sense.

As for myself, I still take mostly acute situations in my limited practice. I can confidently claim that I would have taken more acute cases than my BHMS
counterpart. The same person, even after training in all such as you described, is shaky at the thought of typhoid. One gave a child the mother tincture of Baptisia as if it was the singular curative in that condition. I know people with a year's exposure say nice things and demonstrate remarkable skill in treating cases.

I utterly disagree with the sweeping statement that the allopathic background gave the greats of Homeopathy the skill to write their MMs. They , in their words , said that they had to unlearn much to get into a new approach. That meant a paradigm shift. I can site the example of the Lawyer Homeopath
Boenninghaussen who wrote that masterpiece of a repertory. Hahnemann, otherwise wouldn't have written that all naming of diseases were mere "learned sounding prattling"

I fully realise what the diagnosis is to a case. But the weight must be tilted in favour of our old methods. Otherwise, will we wait to know the results of widal tests to check whether that case is typhoid or not ? Or will we wait to have the fever develop into Acute Poliomyelitis to enable us make a judgement on prescription? On the other side , even after a report is available that it is a case of typhoid, but if the case has strong belladonna characteristics, will we be influenced by the old dictum that bell is not indicated in continued fevers ? Now what is the benchmark ? The steth,lab,etc or the organon ? You know the answer.

We owe it to modern medicine to have discovered the intricacies of the working of the human body as we know it today.

Oh here again! Whatever we know about body is a contribution from medicine in general not Modern ones in particular.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Leela Knowledge is never bad, knowing how to use that knowledge is what is important.

Absolutely. Or I would not have taken up a lifelong long study project in Homeopathy.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Leela So, lets get a perspective here - would YOU with your good knowledge of the ORganon and MAteria MEdica be able to handle medical emmergencies with homeopathy? WIll you be ready to treat a serious cancer patient? Will you be ready to prescribe for and manage the case of someone having a heart attack or acute respiratory failure or cardiac failure or acute pancreatitis? Can YOU manage these cases? On what knowledge will you be able to do this? the Organon? What would it take for a homeopath to be willing to do this?

Frankly I would take any case that comes along.
Equally frankly the word reaches me of the diagnosis made. Also, I have handbooks of symptoms of "popular diseases". But, My first instinct would be to see thru the case as Hahnemann directed. Unprejudiced. I know that this fear of that condition is also a prejudice. just because of a name an easily treatable condition becomes critical. If Hahnemann's aconite put paid for that dreaded bloodletting, that never meant that all fevers were aconite fevers even in his own times.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Leela On the other side of the coin - am I doing what I expected of me as a Medically qualified homeopath? Am I managing these serious patients using my knowledge of medical management? OF couse I have my excuses - I'm a housewife, a mother of 3 little kids, with limited energies/capabilities/confidence presently - so I'll just have to sit with the half cock, over qualified homeopaths while the lable applies.

You are talking about exceptions Dr Leela. You are one. I have seen two Homeopathic colleges, and what the medically qualified do is there for everyone to see. The standard of Homeopathy of these are less than that of a mail educated layman. The problems lie in the curriculum and the ideas of those who proposed them. They are made to see everything thru the prism of allopathy. That is why I wrote that that piece of bias was not necessary - at that stage. If they see the diagnostically and then Homeopathically, then ferrum phos will forever remain etched in his mind for bright bleeding many a time prejudicing the correct choice. I will say this joint curricula has led many to shamelessly prescribe bio chemics ( which are also potentized) along with their vialfulls. I have seen published cases where this is boldly written and accepted as classical.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr Leela Criticism is always good when it is positive - and, when each person understands the situation from _*both_* perspectives. Hope this gives you one!

This one was always before me. I merely had to take up and read my organon to shake me out of that rut. There was one very good perspective before all this. It is for you too to turn back and see.

Regards
Venkat

Hi Venkat,
Fisrt let me apologise for souding aggressive in my last post. It was left over from dealing something else that needed the aggression...

This is a tricky sentence.
What is a "diagnosis centered approach"?
From my knowledge, HAhnemann denounced people/doctors pretending to talk eloquently about disease condtions (Diagnosis?) to impress pateints while incapable of bringing about any cure in them, and actually causing more harm with empirical suppressive treatment. (Ftnt to Aphorism #1.)
The diganosis of a disease condition is an impotnat parameter in guaging the progress and prognosis of a case, and especially to know what one is dealing with. It can assist the choice of remedy, but is never the sole indication for one.

One still has to call the condition something. Otherwise why do we use the term Asthma, Rheumatism, osteoarthritis, nephritis, cancer, fibroid, etc to describe something? OR would you rather say - difficulty in breathing (why?), joint pains (which type?), problmes with urination (???), growing tumour (What type??), swelling in the uterus instead of the diagnosis?
One needs to be clear what one is talking about - a homeopathic prescription or naming a disease coniditon. I really don't see any conflict here.

BEcasue he was a homeopath and knew what he was looking for to confirm his prescription. HE still knew what the pathology and diagnosis and hence the prognosis of the case if left untreated, so the presence of a homeopathic guiding sign in the midst of it was a stonger confirmatory.


The correct similimum of the homeopathic picture of symtpoms will cure anything. We don't ahve to be limited by the diagnosis - so why should you or anyone be?
So why should an indept study of pathology, medicine, surgery, gynaec - obs and anything else be any hinderance or problem in that case?


This has nothing to do with the instruction of BHMS. It has more to do with the ability and confidence of the practitioner. the ability of the homeoapth to use what he has learnt from his perspective and to make it useful to him as a homeopath. IF that hasn't happened yet, the factors for this are numerous.
OFten (with non medically trained people as well as incorrectly trained BHMS homeopaths) ignorance is bliss.... NOt realising the complications that could happen if one made a wrong homeopathic prescription in a pathological or teminal disease may allow one to foolishly prescribe remedies that hasten the progress of the disease and cause death. ANdI've seen this foolishness among lay homeopaths who then philosophise about what they did FOR the patient to heal them because a symptom disappeared!
The safety valve for them is that if the patient gets serious, the patient themselves run off to the allopath who has to take care of the complications of bad and blinded (homeopathic) prescribing and sign the death certificate!
Are you ready to do that?

dr. leela (Continued next post)

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com

Unlearning is something EACH of us has to do. Whether trained with a BHMS or not - isn't that a fact? I spent 50% of my time educating patients on what to expect on the road to recovery and reponse to the remedy.
The paradigm shift is for every one who has been influenced with the modern medicine approach and treatment - so why single out BHMS educated practitioners?
We are taught ALL the basic homeopathic philosophy and ALL details of the OrRganon. Its up to us to apply it.
My observation is that people who get into practice are more influenced by someone (senior homeopath) who they learn to practice with or follow - not with the BHMS instruction. They pick up the habits and prescribing techniques of the homeopath they work with before they begin practice.
Sure he wrote a homeopathic repertory and MAteria MEdica. He was specially talented. CM Boeger who worked with him (?) on it was an MD.
Besides, I did not make any seeping statemnts to the contrary. I just talked about the wealth and depth of Materia MEdica and Clincial case contribution from people who were MEdically qualified. These people even signed Death Certificates after homeopathic treatment.
IF we expect Homeoapthy to become a mainstream system of the MEdical Establishment, we have to have the same knowlege base as any other medical graduate. IF I apply for a licence, I too can sign Death Certificates.
This is one of the most misused statements of Hahnemann's used to justify what we don't like or disagree with.
I've heard a "Hahnemannian" homeopath any number of times use this statement to justify his inability to comprehend, his prejudice against and rejection of "modern" homeopaths and their contribution.
ALWAYS. So who is not using the proper methods? Is it only BHMS homeopaths???!!!
This is ridiculous. I don't know of any BHMS homeopath who will do this. Most likely he will treat the patient immediately but when the Widal arrives positive, the patient himself will run off to an allopath!
Venkat, this makes no case against a BHMS trained homeopath. It sounds ridiculous to me.
This is what everyone is expected to do, including a BHMS homeoapth. IF anyone does not - its because of the senior homeopaths they have been influenced by or their temporary lack of confidence and not because of their training.
Developing confidence in homeopathic prescrbing and developing confidence in ones ability to manage a case homeopathically, is what is lacking in the infrastructure (WHich is what an MD curriculum should solve), but now there are ample opportunities to learn. Well qualitied homeoapths (BHMS, MD) have taken on the mantle of training fresh graduates (BHMS) to develop these techniques adn talents along with the confidence in teh correct prescribing techniques and they see the results and develop more confidence in themselves and in the capability of the homeoapthic remedy.
No I am NOT. Mumbai is teeming with confident homeopaths curing very serious diseases. There is hardly a place for a foothold for someone like me, but still there is enough to go around.
The problem lies in the quality of staff and teachers.
You are completely mistaken!
It is incorrect and uninformed to think that we see diagnostically and then homeopathically. We are taught both things at tandem. Clinics through all 4 years of training include hoemopathic therapeutics for specific conditions. BUt along side we are taught the principles of similimum prescribing and taking a case and making a prescription. We do this from the second year onwards - irrespective of diagnosis.
then it is up to us to make ourselves into the homeopath we should be, with our consceince and principles.
Shameless? MAybe- but this has nothing to do with the BHMS curriculum. It is the homeopaths themselves who propogate their own ideas to students, and impressionalbe students learn what they are taught.
Obviously modern medicine does not teach this.

I think you need to get over a little bit of prejudice.
Then hopefully the Medical colleges you talk about will emulate proper homeopathic training once they have good, well trainied homeoapthic graduates or sincere, confident homeopaths as part of their teaching staff.

dr. leela

__________________
http://www.homeopathy2health.com