Are you really a homoeopath?
In listening to my medical colleagues, I see that there is level of thinking that being a medical doctor makes for a superior homoeopath. Of late, my antipathy to that statement has been reinforced by a series of events and clinical observations.
Being a homoeopath does come down to knowledge. Knowledge of homoeopathy as opposed to anything else. Clinical knowledge is useful for diagnosis and prognosis, yet is less useful in the case taking and analysis for finding the curative remedy.
To be a homoepath requires a deep understanding of Hahnemanns writings. Very few have taken the time to read and comprehend. Here in Spain I see that the training in homoeopathy consists of having learned the works of individuals from South America in the main, and that information is tainted with the teachers own lack of understanding of the writings of Hahnemann.
Before accusations are hurled in my direction pertaining to elitism or self promotion as to a methodology that I/we are promoting, please be aware that the IHM is a research organisation and that I/we only present thoughts from Hahnemann as written by him and validated by his clinical experience. In seminars, we often meet resistance by individuals who promote their own version of homoeopathy, so we ask them to validate it via Hahnemanns writings, and then we show them what Hahnemanns thoughts on the matter REALLY are from the original sources. They are often amazed and state that it appears that Hahnemann and Kent are not saying the same thing, to which we respond: “Exactly”.
Although we can and do in specific seminars outline the differences in full, we prefer that each practitioner take every concept and understanding as to their practice and examine it against the Organon themselves.
Recently in treating a few patients that are homoeopaths, I was struck by their lack of understanding of how the system works, and the high level of allopathic thinking in the treatment protocols. For the purpose of this article, it is enough to outline one case only, in order to demonstrate the problems both for them, their medical training and their ability to grasp the differences in homoeopathic treatment and allopathic approach inherent in their psyche.
I have a patient suffering fron an onset of asthma. The patient has been under the care of an able practitoner. Recently, after reviewing medical tests, every time the oxygen levels go down in the blood, the patient resort to steroids. It has got to the point of reliance on the tests to determine whether the prescription is working or not.
There is a lack of comprehension as to how homoeopathy works. NO MEDICINE CURES. The body cures. The remedies only emphasise the state by amplifying the symptoms and the body works on the artificial disease state and removes the ailment along with the real disease.
One of the problems with allopathic thinking is that a decrease in oxygen in the blood is a sign that something must be done immediately. Yes, the respiration gets a little worse for a while, yes it is uncomfortable. However, the remedies are strong and is driving the body to take care of the issue. Nowhere in Hahnemanns writings does he suggest that cure is painless.
A practitioner cannot and must not be forced to change a remedy because an allopathic test shows a worsening of blood saturation, the practitioner can only be driven by symptoms exhibited as to location sensation and modalities.
This patient in resorting to cortisone is flirting with using it the remainder of life. Remedies are given on symptoms and the reaction is impeded by the cortisone. There is no faith in homoeopathy simply because cure did not take place immediately. There is no understanding of how it works and the time it takes sometimes for a deep disease to be impacted by the remedies.
Sometimes Asthma is part of a deeper disorder that needs to be cured first.
In all cases, we can only be guided by the exhibited symptoms.
Is this patient going to benefit from the treatment? Only if they stop all other therapies and allows the medicines to establish a curative response.
There are too many successful asthma cases in my case notes to accept that homoeopathy is not strong enough to cure. Some have taken a couple of months and my longest took 5 years. Those with steroid use took the longest.
It makes me wonder if homoeopaths give up to soon.It makes me wonder how many medical doctors who give remedies know what they are doing….