I have the following tough questions about homeopathy. It’s a long post and requires direct answers, no beating about the bush. Here we go:

There is no question that Homeopathy works. Because:
1. Most people who turn to homeopathy have seen it work, first hand and almost magically.
2. A fraud can't survive for so many years.

My questions:

1. What is the proof that homeopathy is safe. Has any study involving follow up with patients ever been done.
2. We, the homeopathic community, is fast to point out that allopathic drugs have so & so side effects, at least their side effects are studied and documented and have been made available as part of their literature sold with every medicine. Has it been done with our remedies to the extent that they do. FDA approval is a good example, though not perfect, still something to be relied upon.
3. Regarding repertorization:
a. What progress has been made into the method of repertorization to ensure that the remedy is found without err the first time.
b. What progress has been made in the last 200+ years to remove hit & miss prescribing.
c. There are so many variables in remedy selection, what progress has been made in either reducing the variables or reducing the obstacles so that the remedy selection is easy.
4. Do you think that homeopathy is mature enough to replace allopathy?
5. If yes, would you be willing to bet your life on it during a life threatening situation.
6. Do you think that in an ICU or a Trauma Center, you have the time to second guess a remedy. That's the battle field, if homeopathy can prove itself there, it will earn the respect it demands.
7. How do you decide what is “characteristic” & “uncommon”. Andre Saine says that you have to know ALL the symptoms of ALL diseases to know what are common symptoms to those diseases and then anything out of that in a particular disease will be characteristic & uncommon.
8. Is the MM following the correct approach by listing ALL the symptoms that a remedy CAN/MAY produce.
9. What is the standard protocol for carrying out a proving & give the minutest details which can stand the probing & depth of questions through scientific minded peers (kind of what a double blind placebo testing does). Organon asks for ridiculous conditions which are not practical and realistic.
10. Why did the old masters fail in treating some patients and only after changing their remedies they were able to treat them. Then did the reverse-engineering to see what caused the cure. Why were they not able to "see" the remedy earlier on.

Should the following be expunged from the MM:

1. Mild or uncertain symptoms reported by provers.
2. Clinical cases & reports inconsistent with provings.

Kent said cancer is incurable and we can see he was wrong. It’s only a matter of time that many such apprehensions will be proven wrong.

My predictions:

1. Unless we can find out how homeopathy works, we will be doing hit & miss.
2. Unless people with scientific backgrounds, trained in modern medical diagnostics, trained in human anatomy, physiology & pathology (like MDs) enter homeopathy, it will NEVER improve.

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

Homeopaths, even if they are lay homeopaths have training in the medical sciences.

Homeopathy is a process of unfoldment and when you see a patient for a first consultation, you are not likely to get everything about them all in one go. They have to learn to trust you first and this is all part of building up the relationship between patient and practitioner. Once this has been established, then you may get more and more until you can piece the picture together. On that first consultation, you can only prescribe the remedy on what you see in the patient on that particular day. Even if you only get a partial similar it will do something and can move you closer to that ideal the 'similimum'.

Case Example

This is a case of an old tutor of mine. She had a male patient who went to see her with depression. On what she could see at the time, she prescribed Aurum. This was not the similimum, but it helped him by about 60% and allowed him to keep functioning in daily life and helped his depression.

One day he had the most terrible acute. He got bronchitis and was really quite unwell. He rang her and all his acute symptoms pointed to Pulsatilla as the remedy. She gave this remedy and it help get rid of the bronchitis and it was infact his similimum. So, she had a consultation with this man and prescribed as best she could on the information that she had, but it took an acute to actually get to the closest similar remedy.

In this way, it is not a hit and miss afair, as a partial similar will still do something.

Case Example 2

This is a case of a critically ill patient that was in ITU and intubated and sedated. This is an old tutor of mine and he was called in by the patient's daughter to treat her on the hospital ward.

This was a lady in her 60's and 70's who had collapsed. She was taken to hospital and was septic with jaundice and some kind of abdominal bleed. She was taken to ITU and was intubated and sedated. Her daughter called in my tutor to see her and asked him to prescribe a remedy. When he got to the ward he asked the ITU Registrar if it was ok to do this and he agreed, saying the normal rubbish that it would not work so go ahead.

He sat down and looked at the patient. Her abdomen was swollen and enlarged and she was swollen and looked quite purple in colour. Her face was puffy too. He chose appropriate rubrics to cover the sepsis and the predominating symptoms and the remedy that came out of it was Crotalus Horridus - The Rattlesnake of North America. As it was a Sunday, he was not sure that he would be able to obtain Crot. H from any pharmacy, so he decided to try and get the better known remedy Lachesis. Basically, Lachesis is quite similar with the difference being that Crot. H is used for more severe septic states. Anyway, he managed to find a homeopathic pharmacy near that was open and got a bottle Lachesis liquid remedy in a 30c potency.

As the patient was intubated, she could not be given anything orally, so he asked the nurses to put the drops of Lachesis on her skin over the pulse points on her wrist four times daily. She began to recover and within a few days of this treatment, she was ready to be extubated and be tranferred to a normal ward. She was sent down to the normal ward, but as she was so anxious and quite traumatised still, she could not be extuabated. My tutor went back to see her on the ward and looked at her and what he could see was this pronounced shaking all over. He prescribed Arnica 30c tincture and again asked the nurse to put two drops on her pulse points twice daily. Within two doses of the Arnica, she had stopped shaking and was able to be extubated and went on to survive for several more years, living a very full life.

We asked our tutor and he said that all the doctor had said was that miracles do happen.

The ITU nurse who had cared for the patient, witnessing this later went onto train as a homeopath.

This just serves to demonstrate that in acute cases when the right remedy is taken it is wonderful.

Homeopathy is moving forward all the time and lots of homeopaths are developing new methods of case taking and ways of analysing cases that lead to better remedy prescriptions.

The likes of Sankaran and the Bombay school and also Massimo Mangialavori in Italy. There is also Jonathon Shore in the US who has done a lot of work on the bird remedies, Jereremy Sheer in England who has developed a new method of looking at cases called The Verb. Homeopathy in this respect is not standing still, but is moving forward at a great rate.

Also, why are you interested in the science of it? I have more of an interest in helping patients get better and collecting clinical information from cases. This is what Massimo does also. He has hundreds of clinical cases of patients that he has cured using the same remedy for 2 years or more and a lot of these patients had severe pathology too. His database is full and he has very good results too by looking at the smaller remedies in families. This allows you to get to a similimum more quickly.

These are just my initial thoughts, but I might have more later.

I always post cases, as I feel that these are always a good way to demonstrate points. Also, cases are examples of homeopathy in action.

Hello FF,NH,

If you accept that any system/homeopathy works but its science could not be checked/confirmed by the means of current technologies then: (1): Furthur research should be pursued till we find its science or wait till it ends in itself. (2): Leaves it on 'God'/Nature/public to decide accordingly & we just do our duties.

There are several spritual/sub-atomic or ultra-molecular systems which exist on this basis. However, I think we should pursue & make few things (whichever can be possible) scientific & leave other things which can not be yet make scientific--for the furthur research. Aspects like molecular doses/potencies, pathological & physiological effects & changes on application of remedies, toxicological & adverse effects(if any), ash analysis of complex & organic based remedies, co-relations between remedy's constituents(on ash analysis) with mineral based remedies along with their definitions/effects in current science etc. can be made bit more scientific, which should be pursued. It is not there that homeopathy in absolutely blank in current science.

I have indicated some possible flaws/not yet looked aspects in homeopathy in my some recent postings & topics which can be understood & considered.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

FF said

I have the following tough questions about homeopathy. It’s a long post and requires direct answers, no beating about the bush. Here we go:

I don't care about the self reputation. I always write, what I think or see... so these questions will not annoy me. Atleast. I have seen people giving life to Allah, when homeopaths were standing near the patient. They were saying take him to Lahore.


There is no question that Homeopathy works. Because:


1. Most people who turn to homeopathy have seen it work, first hand and almost magically.

It works and people have also seen, that's very much true that is why we are in this field but this is also true it also does not work, I have seen many times, when its working was 100 percent assured.

2. A fraud can't survive for so many years.

This is not a supporting evidence. Many frauds are still running in the world. Allopathic fraud is an example of this. There is no cure of cancer and viral diseases in allopathy but you can see number of practitioners and their clinics. These are all running and patients are also reporting at their clinics. Last year, I took a cancer patient to specialist who was very famous, I said to him, do something for this patient. I have already tried few medicines but no improvement seen, he took me to a corner and said, I have no treatment, but patients are reporting to us and we are treating what we can without knowing that what would be the result.

My questions:

1. What is the proof that homeopathy is safe. Has any study involving follow up with patients ever been done.

[COLOR=Pink]When we are not giving any medicine to patients then there is no question of side effects and unsafe treatment. The question of study would be come when will give medicine. So for there is no medicine in the belladonna 200.[COLOR]

2. We, the homeopathic community, is fast to point out that allopathic drugs have so & so side effects, at least their side effects are studied and documented and have been made available as part of their literature sold with every medicine. Has it been done with our remedies to the extent that they do. FDA approval is a good example, though not perfect, still something to be relied upon.

That's already answered

3. Regarding repertorization:
a. What progress has been made into the method of repertorization to ensure that the remedy is found without err the first time.

Few homeopaths re-written books, few have tried to simplied the method of selection. But there is not a single ruling available. Each homeopath has its own observation and procedure for selection of remedy. There is no rule in homeopathy.

b. What progress has been made in the last 200+ years to remove hit & miss prescribing.

read previous reply.

c. There are so many variables in remedy selection, what progress has been made in either reducing the variables or reducing the obstacles so that the remedy selection is easy.

Only few tries available. Somebody got registation at hpathy forum by giving my email address, I receive monthly magazine from hpathy forum. In an article Dr. Bhattia was saying, he has finalised potency selection technique, now you don't have to bother on atleast potency selection .

4. Do you think that homeopathy is mature enough to replace allopathy?

A big NOOOOOO.

5. If yes, would you be willing to bet your life on it during a life threatening situation.

Never, I have seen homeopath visiting allopaths with their children. Just point out only one name in Pakistan and I will tell you the complete history of that homeopath, when where and why they visited allopathic doctors. I don't have the experience of foriegn doctors.

6. Do you think that in an ICU or a Trauma Center, you have the time to second guess a remedy. That's the battle field, if homeopathy can prove itself there, it will earn the respect it demands.

That will be a fool who will try in ICU when in other system, a systematic and accurate outcome is available.

7. How do you decide what is “characteristic” & “uncommon”. Andre Saine says that you have to know ALL the symptoms of ALL diseases to know what are common symptoms to those diseases and then anything out of that in a particular disease will be characteristic & uncommon.

That is his own opinion, other's have their own. No consenes available.

8. Is the MM following the correct approach by listing ALL the symptoms that a remedy CAN/MAY produce.

except that there is no other option, if you can recommend anyother then put your suggestion.

9. What is the standard protocol for carrying out a proving & give the minutest details which can stand the probing & depth of questions through scientific minded peers (kind of what a double blind placebo testing does). Organon asks for ridiculous conditions which are not practical and realistic.

We don't have enough information on the starting material on most of the remedies. The standard protocol on remedies can be found many homeopathic pharmacopeias. For the time being we should follow them. To start we need a ground, organon provides a ground, rest observation and techniques is yours. if you observe the same thing which is written in the organon then follow it otherwise state away leave it and go to next aphorism. We are not bound to organon, we are bound to laws and experimental conclusions.

10. Why did the old masters fail in treating some patients and only after changing their remedies they were able to treat them. Then did the reverse-engineering to see what caused the cure. Why were they not able to "see" the remedy earlier on.

In those days, homeopathy was in its early days (homeopathy was immature), Results of the trials were not available, so masters experimented more then us. Now after too many experiments we have enough information then the masters so we are using less hit and try method then our ancesstors did.

Should the following be expunged from the MM:

1. Mild or uncertain symptoms reported by provers.

No .

2. Clinical cases & reports inconsistent with provings.

No, homeopathy is mostly based on clinical provings and experiments.

Kent said cancer is incurable and we can see he was wrong. It’s only a matter of time that many such apprehensions will be proven wrong.

[COLOR=DarkOrange]
At that time, there were small number of remedies, so he said , it is difficult to treat cancer with limited number of remedies but not now, cancer is treatable with homeopathy. [COLOR]

My predictions:

1. Unless we can find out how homeopathy works, we will be doing hit & miss.

That's we have said one thousand times at forum. This is not a new thing for us.

2. Unless people with scientific backgrounds, trained in modern medical diagnostics, trained in human anatomy, physiology & pathology (like MDs) enter homeopathy, it will NEVER improve.

Yes, Quran said "Educated and un-educated are not equal" Sura Hujrat.

MBBS homeopaths are more powerful and successful practitioner then anyone else. Because they are more educated then simple homeopaths. Homeopaths build their castle in the air but they don't. Even they are homeopaths. I have pointed so many times in the seminars that we should get education on each and every subject which is linked to homeopathy and at least we should have graduate level study over the subjects which are linked with homeopathy.

You will be pleased to know that higher study course master in homeopathy will soon start in new university which has been approved by Punjab government. Although, I donot require any further degree or diploma but I would like to get admission again in higher studies so that we could improve our standard of education and study. Insha Allah, I will also teach classes at the same time.

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

I only have time to address two of the issues. now.

1) my homeopath, who is medically license, is an ER doctor. He is on staff at a hospital and often uses homeopathy to stabalize, help with pain management and shock, while still doing allopathic workups and procedures in the ER.

2) I took part in an NIH study a few years back that followed the results of medically trained homeopaths vs non-medically trained homeopaths and the preliminary results show that non-medically trained homeopaths are more successful. It seems that the allopathic model that medically trained homeopaths were trained in is actually a hindrance to their understanding and successful use of homeopathy. The non-medically trained homeopaths have a better grasp of the philosophy and are able to apply it more successfully with their patients than medically trained homeopaths. The only exception are those people who were doing homeopathy before they trained in medicine and did so merely to become licensed, as did my homeopath.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

when I say training like allopathic doctor, then it does not mean that to train students on allopathic grounds. It means do study anatomy, physiology, biochemistry, psychology, histology etc these subjects are not the property of allopaths. if you do not know how many chambers are there in human heart and which kind of pain refers to which part of the organ then how can you categorize type of pains, if you still can catagorize the type of pain without reading these subjects then full marks to you. You have been given training by the God directly.

__________________
Hafeez
Forum Pk

Shirley,

Sometimes back you mentioned something : 'While distributing brain, God has not given complete brain to one but distributed among many'...I don't remember exactly but it was something like that. If it is so then a complete knowledge can be, only when so many knowledge are mixed. I don't know exactly but unless few major knowledge are mixed realisticly, any system may not be a complete, perfect or justified system.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Kayvee, I don't have any memory of saying what you attributed to me. It doesn't sound like the type of thing I would say, either. If you can find the quote, I'd appreciate it.

Dr. MAS, I understand your point. I was referring to the 4-5 year allopathic medical school.

__________________
Shirley Reischman

Shirley,

I was to do through search. I couldn't find exactly but i think it was in the topic "The way forward" & your posting was:

I am sorry if it does not matches exactly/similar meaning.

__________________
Homeopathic & Biochemic system existed because Drs.Hahnemann & Schuessler thought differently.
Successful people don't do different things, they do things differently..S.Kh.

Dr. Mas: I have been reading you posts for some time, and I think you make a lot of sense. You are very unlike some cultish homeopathic proponents who put up full shields at the mere sight of a skeptic.

I wish you would find time to visit the JREF BB sometime, I'm sure we could have some good debates, and probably all learn a lot.

Hans

__________________
<i>You have a right to your own opinion, but not to your own facts.</i>