Tag Archives: homoeopathy

Is there room for us?

I’m sat on the IHM boat in Hemel Hemsted, currently with either battery or inverter issues…. either way is a fistful of money to fix. Things happen.

Watching the events of the last few months, and how the countries are pushing towards vaccines as the answer, and how the populace are either worried to distraction or are against the lockdowns ………. I’m seeing how homoeopathy is being denigrated and indeed being removed by the fact-checkers on google and Facebook and other sites. We seem to be sidelined in favour of ‘proper treatment’.

Well, I worked out a prophylactic remedy a few months ago, and of the 600 plus people  that I and other members of the IMH have given in 4 countries…. not a single case…

Guillermo Zamora and I have treated individuals with COVID sx to a good resolution………but who is listening…………?

The world is changing. Nothing will ever be the same. WE need to accept and be prepared to change how we do things and still be homoeopaths in mind and action. We need to make the room for us.

We at the IHM do not make claims to ‘cure’ COVID or offer alternative vaccines. We treat each case individually as per our Hahnemann protocols and will give the prophylactic to be taken once a week or every two weeks. Some give daily, my experience with taking more than once a week was a massive proving and difficulties until it wore off…So I advocate once a week simply because, in truth, I don’t know how long the protection lasts……. I know that weekly or even 2 weekly seems to hold.

We have to stand firm on the principles and be sure we know what we are prescribing for, the essential symptoms that need treating…… not just the remedy with the most symptoms covered.

The IHM uses the TPB of Boenninghausen simply because it follows the Hahnemannian protocols, and will work in 98% of cases both acute and chronic. We do not discount the use of other well-proved remedies and advocate a thorough knowledge of them before prescribing. The essence of using the TPB is a well-taken case and extracting the symptoms according to aphorism 153.

Every disease has a centre. The disease symptoms are known, and the patient exhibits symptoms ‘peculiar’ to the patient its either intensity or prominence. These all may have other symptoms not noted as pertaining to the disease state.

WE have to find these symptoms out of the collection of altered sensations that the patient feels. We have to remember that many symptoms are the result of the causative condition and therefore NOT prescribing symptoms per se.

Since 2016We have conducted a 4-day intensive seminar for application to become a member of the IHM. The students are all long time homoeopaths who increased their knowledge base by learning the Boenninghausen method and tidying up the loose ends that were muddied by Kent and others.  The original venue was at our clinic in Seville Spain and has now relocated to The London area on our IHM Widebeam vessel.

We will offer a free bedroom aboard the vessel for individual applicants, and will just ask for a contribution toward food. The fee for the 4 days intensive will remain at the same cost as from 2016. It will be Sterling £900.

We will be fitting out boat for teaching in the next weeks, and be ready for the new year……..to get going government permitting. We already (with the help of members Abdul Malik and Imran Khan) are putting together a clinic for when we are ready to start…

The IHM has a 4 day training opportunity, starting in 2021. We dont claim to have all the answers, but we do feel we can teach the Hahnemanninan methodology in case taking.

What we teach:

  • The rationale of homoeopathic medicine and the use of the Therapeutic Pocket Book in everyday casework.
  • The examination of the patient according to defined parameters of eliciting prescribing symptoms without the filter of all the variants of non-Hahnemann practices as taught by teachers today.
  • An in depth look at the Miasm theory in the light of infection and infectious disease models that are the accepted protocols in modern medicine.
  • Patient management utilising Hahnemannian directives for medicine administration and potency choice, frequency of dose, withdrawal of repetition of medicine on well-indicated grounds, observation of medicinal action and when to change the medicine.
  • Use of LM or Q potencies.
  • Chronic and acute prescribing and when to finish prescribing.
  • In depth explanation and use of the Therapeutic Pocket Book. The T.P.B. was devised by Boenninghausen as a synthetic approach approximating Hahnemanns thoughts on case analysis so as to find a close similimum by extracting the correct proving symptoms that match the disease state.
  • How to understand the meaning of rubrics via the patient’s symptoms.
  • Lots of case examples and analysis by Gary Weaver.
  • Help in re-examining some of the students’ intractable cases.

The long night of darkness.

Coronavirus.

As a homoeopath, be you a medically qualified professional or not, Coronavirus is at present out of your hands. The allopathic grip on the situation is what it is, and if a person is taken to hospital with the flu, then treatment will be as mandated by the prevailing thoughts at the time. There will be no allowance for any other treatment.

There is a scramble for finding a prophylactic remedy to prevent the virus from taking hold, yet the symptoms of the virus appear to vary from country to country… and the criteria for sx assessment vary from homoeopath to homoeopath… and some are very suspect indeed. Worse than that, there is a scarcity of symptoms that a homoeopath needs for differentiation between remedies.

Recently I have treated about 21 cases of influenza, and  2 cases of pneumonia, both in my locale and in America, and based on the sx of the affected persons, I gave Phos to members of the families, and no one else contracted the flu. (All the patients recovered swiftly) In examining the coronavirus, (for my locale) I see that Phos might be suitable for use as a prophylactic, however, that is only based on what SX I can find from my colleagues in hospitals and the internet.

So my advice is to just keep watching and reading and listening for ‘real’ Sx and not broad generic ones, and then at that point we can help protect our patients.

Facts: 80% of people contracting the virus have it mild. As with any other virus, death occurs in individuals having serious pre-existing disorders, like cancer, diabetes, respiratory problems, heart issues etc. Even in the 20% that have it bad, less than 2% succumb.

The principles of homoeopathy part 4. (final 4/4)

This is the last post in this short series.

Principle:

“a basic truth that explains or controls how something happens or works”

“a fundamental truth or proposition that serves as the foundation for a system of belief or behaviour or for a chain of reasoning.”

We have principles in homoeopathy. Medical principles that should guide us through all aspects of treatment and patient management. We have example after example with thousands of cases that show success in the face of mainstream and herbal medicine failure.

One principle that homoeopaths seem to neglect continuously, is acceptance of the law and principle of similars, this being the bedrock of the therapy of homoeopathy.

Too often I read homoeopaths suggesting or recommending other therapies like naturopathy, vitamins, acupuncture, TCM, reflexology etc as ‘helpful’ in the current coronavirus spread.

I’m disappointed. It would appear that people claiming to be homoeopaths are not prepared to lean on the principles of homoeopathy and pursue them vigorously to cure patients utilising the law of similars. Why is this? Do they think that other therapies are stronger than the law of similars? Did they forget that Hahnemann showed how naturopathy did not and could not work in the curative principle when he translated Cullens work?

For those wanting a prophylactic for the disease in their area, they need to STOP looking outside of the law of similars and find the similar as per the law. It is ridiculous to leave medical principles behind and look for combination remedies, or herbal solutions as the answer. Do not take any suggestions from naturopathy or Thai traditional or TCM or acupuncture as these do not conform to the law of similars. If a person claiming to be a homoeopath keeps pushing ‘solutions’ outside of the therapy, Let me remind them that they have committed to the principle of similars, and if they do not hold to it, my strong suggestion is that they should re-educate themselves or cease being known as a practitioner of Hahnemann’s therapy. They will do more damage than good.

Given that the majority of members of our profession subscribe to a false practice, it is essential that those wanting to be known as effectual practitioners, know what they are doing conforms to the directives as set by Hahnemann.

Don’t let an emergency cloud your training or judgement. Homoeopathy never fails, just the practitioner.

Homoeopathy faces enough criticism for the practice. Let us not add to it by encompassing other ineffective therapies that contradict the principles into it.

 

 

The Homoeopath (Thoughts from the desk)

First, there are many cases of patient suffering, in which, despite investigations of all kinds, a clear diagnosis can not be established, although patients have symptoms and signs. These symptoms are sometimes categorized as psychosomatic, or as nonspecific disorders (eg diarrhoea before any examination, or any major event) and may be the cause of a decrease in quality of life. These can become homoeopathic cases, precisely because there is no disease diagnosis.

Secondly, a patient may experience recurrences, repeat disturbances of either viral (e.g., the common cold) or reaction-type (diarrhoea and bloating at certain foods: milk, fruit, meat, etc.) .). These recurrences may be due to immune deficiencies or are simply peculiarities of the patient’s physiology. Although they can be treated allopathically, they are homoeopathic cases when it comes to treating predispositions or preventing these conditions.

Thirdly, during ill-defined diseases as a diagnosis, patients exhibit different symptoms  (against defined disease standards), particular, even strange, difficult to explain and difficult to fit in the “typical” picture of the disease. These symptoms are generally considered peripheral and are ignored during allopathic treatment. Sometimes the remission of the diagnosed disease, these symptoms disappear, but sometimes not. Although allopathy considers the disease healed, the patient still suffers from the same problems or always faces the same symptomatic configuration. Is he healed?

The answer in allopathy is an approximate but not as consistent with what the patient feels. He suffers – contiguous or recurrent – but is considered “healed” though he is still not well, he feels ill. In children especially, this situation is very common. The child is “cured” by tonsillitis, bronchitis, etc., but continues to be sensitive, always becoming ill.

To cure, usage of multiple antibiotics, other medicines, but nobody takes into account that the baby, for example, is sensitive to wet weather, fog, rain.

A careful general practitioner will notice this particular sensitivity, but it does not have the conceptual framework to value it, or, in other words, it can not treat it. The allergist will shrug (moisture is not an allergen), the pneumologist, the ENT will treat tonsillitis, but the sensitivity to moisture. As the patient continues to “heal”, but not to be cured and again and again to produce the same tonsillitis (bronchitis, asthma, etc.) until the tonsils are extirpated or to have a suppressive cortisone treatment, often useless and immunodepressed.

The only person who can take this particular sensitivity into account, as well as other sensitivities and peculiarities, physical, mental or reactive, and for which it has a significance is the Homeopath. He (she) is the only one who can value such apparently peripheral disease symptoms that do not relate to the proper diagnosis but to the individual interpretation of suffering. There are particular, strange, uncompromising symptoms in the diagnosis of illness, which relate to the individuality of the patient, but which directly affects him, having a safe recurrence under the same conditions.

The keywords to characterize a homoeopathic case is the individualization of suffering . If we were to describe the characteristics of “homoeopathic cases” these would be:

–         Very individualized, particular symptoms, strange in association or not with certain diseases. Localizations, modalities, sensations and unusual symptoms of some symptoms.

–         Unusual association of illnesses and symptoms, interesting and unexpected configurations of symptoms, signs, illnesses.

–         Recurrence of disorders , whether or not related to certain events or conditions, whether external (eg climatic or food) or in-house (emotions, fears, anxieties, etc.).

–         Changes in the immune system either in excess (allergies, autoimmune diseases) or in deficiency (recurrence, sensitivity).

–         Resistance to allopathic treatment, even better as indicated in the diagnosis

–         residual symptoms after treatment allopathic

– Diseases or symptoms after emotional trauma, professional stress or any other kind. These are afflictions with a strong causality, after which the patient did not feel well (“never well since …”)

A thought for our colleagues in Hong Kong

 

 

From your friends and colleagues here in Europe and Thailand and the USA, we send our wishes and hopes for your safety and a good settlement of the current problems that beset you.

For Arden and Manisha who have worked so hard in the last few years to lay the foundation and potential for homoeopathy in Hong Kong, we send special affection for your dedication. For the students who wanted to do so much for the people of Hong Kong, and are suddenly in this political mess, we send hugs and well wishes.

For those, we love through personal knowledge, for those that rejected us, and for those that are suffering for all sorts of reasons right now… we remember you in our prayers daily.

It is a salutatory lesson that if a country will quash its own people, then internationally the world needs to be aware that they will indeed be ruthless with their dealings with Europe and the USA.

We are all on notice.

 

 

The Institute for Homoeopathic Medicine.

In 1810, Hahnemann presented his groundbreaking new medicine and therapy via the book the Organon of the Medical Art. He presented his method in carefully structured detail. He compiled a database of medical substance proving’s which were listed in the Fragmenta, the Materia Medica Pura and Chronic Diseases. Hahnemann taught his methods to many students and colleagues, but only put his trust in a small number of practitioners, of whom Clemens Maria Franz (Friedrich) Freiherr (Baron) von Bönninghausen was perhaps the most prominent.

Bönninghausen’s projects of reportorial works culminating in the Therapeutic Pocket Book, was approved by Hahnemann as being an accurate representation of the proving’s database and clinical experience. (The T.P.B. actually is an amazing synthetic approach of how Hahnemann’s mind worked in case analysis.)

Although Hahnemann revised the Organon six times before his death and constantly examined possible changes to the methodology, he never made changes to the central prescribing principle of like cures like, without which homoeopathy (the therapy) cannot exist as a separate modality. If the principle of “like cures like”, with its required database of provings, is abandoned, as has been the case with modern approaches and methods, the certainty offered by prescribing to principle is lost, the path obliterated.

At the IHM we look no further than Hahnemann’s circle of trust. We work with Hahnemann’s structure of method and database, Organon and proving’s. We explore the writings of those whom Hahnemann commended, and study and apply the work of Boenninghausen in great depth.

We do not do this slavishly. In order to validate the method, the works and writings of others claiming to be homoeopaths are examined for similarities and differences in approach to the therapy. Sadly, the decline in homoeopathic integrity began with one of its most able practitioners who was politically naïve.

On the political level, Carroll Dunham was a peacemaker. It was said of him that he had no enemies. His liberal and generous mind made it easier for him to accept compromise. Unfortunately, compromise on the search for the truth leads to error. In 1870 he made a notable presentation before the American Institute of Homœopathy (AIH) called ‘Freedom of Medical Opinion and Action: a Vital Necessity and a Great Responsibility’. He believed, contrary to his predecessors, that liberty of opinion and practice should prevail within the AIH. He said that he was sure that “perfect liberty will sooner bring knowledge of the truth and that purity of practice which we all desire.” His speech provided license to the pseudo-homoeopaths to practice as they wanted and be still identified as homoeopaths. Subsequent to his address knowledge of homoeopathy was removed in 1874 as a requirement for membership in the AIH. Dunham died in 1877 and did not witness the disastrous effect his noble but naïve vision eventually had on the course of homoeopathy in the U.S.A. as most of our institutions disappeared after its members had adopted practices at variance with the teachings of Hahnemann.

(Our Noble and Beloved Carroll Dunham by Dr André Saine, D.C., N.D., F.C.A.H.)

We work with great care and certainty because we value our integrity as homoeopathic practitioners, and we owe it to our patients to treat based on a tried and true principle, to avoid speculation, theorizing, and invented systems whether based on sensation, the periodic table, kabala, shamanism, kingdoms, families and the like.

Hahnemann’s homoeopathy is the modality which achieved tremendous successes in the cholera epidemic of the early 1830s, leading to its acceptance in medical faculties in Europe at the time as a discipline for study. The original works are filled with discussions and cases demonstrating the efficiency of the method across the spectrum of diseases afflicting mankind.

Today homoeopathy is either being outlawed or relegated to treatment of the most minor problems. Its vast ability as a medical modality is being lost. Poor training, poor understanding of the medical science behind its development and a search for novelty in case analysis all have contributed to its demise as a valid therapy and is thought of as an intuitive healing method rather than the effective treatment it really is.

The IHM puts all its efforts into teaching from original materials, working with practitioners to achieve greater certainty and effectiveness in prescribing through a full understanding of the central principle of homoeopathy and the best ways to apply it in homoeopathic practice.

We do not wish to add more novel ideas to the world of homoeopathy. We do see it as part of our professional duty, to keep the standards high and teach the real methodology to all who desire to practice proper medicine in the prescribed manner. We lay no claim to being ‘better’ prescribers. We do however concede that our results based on the instructions of Hahnemann give better resolution to medical problems than other interpretive methods of prescribing. There is great latitude in applying the therapy, however, deviating from its central core or adding a false overlay of psychological analysis and emphasizing or interpreting physical symptoms as delusional states are not the answer.

International and Organized Skeptic Movement Against Homeopathy

International and Organized Skeptic Movement Against Homeopathy

By the ANH Communication Working Group.

HOMEOPATHOSIS, THE ORGANIZED PSEUDO-SCEPTIC MOVEMENT.

No one will be surprised at this point the certainty that there is an international crusade against homeopathy . Spontaneous? No, obviously not. It is not possible for the same modus operandi, the same media and institutional communication actions, as well as the same messages to be repeated over and over again and repeated in different parts of the globe for infused science.

No. Obviously it is no accident. The pseudo-skeptical movement, which embraces scientism as a new orthodox religion where everything that does not sound like a protocolized drug is considered blasphemy, has expanded as surprisingly as unnaturally.

The skeptical (or pseudo-skeptical) movement is an international, consolidated and well-financed network present in 54 countries worldwide. Its strong point is the English-speaking countries but they have found in Spain their own laboratory to try again and again different ways to approach, discredit and end complementary and / or unconventional therapies, especially with homeopathy. Until they have found the password and exported it.

But why homeopathy? Why invest so many resources, effort and money to end a therapy that does not reach 0.7% of the worldwide expenditure of OTC medicines and that is the equivalent to the pharmaceutical industry what Linux to operating systems?

Well for that. Because it is Linux and because pharmacoepidemiological studies such as EPI3, in France, conclude that patients treated by homeopathic doctors take 71% less psychotropic drugs, 46% less anti-inflammatory drugs and 57% less antibiotics, than those who only resort to conventional medicine . And all this with similar clinical results and without greater risk of complications (without loss of opportunity for the patient). Yes, they will tell us that precisely France is not a good example because the HAS has just concluded that homeopathy has not proved effective enough to justify its reimbursementbut we bring it here just because of that, because to obviate such clear and forceful results as these are proof not only of the bias of the evaluation but of the effect of the media controversy, in the words of France’s own minister of health , more typical of ‘ The Great Carnival ‘by Billy Wilder de Larra.

THE SPANISH INCUBATOR: THE FORMULA OF SUCCESS

Spain may be where the pseudo-skeptical movement has had the most activity, not only because of the variety of actions they have carried out but also because of the time they have invested.

In Spain, the reference group for the skeptical (pseudo) movement was created in the late 80s (1986) as a cultural and scientific association, whose headquarters are located in the Pamplona Planetarium. What began as a movement that sought to dismantle the UFO phenomenon, has evolved into a pressure group, with members as illustrious as the Spanish Minister of Science himself, Pedro Duque, who defend transgenics – where Monsanto , from Bayer, is king – while attacking homeopathy … paradoxical? We leave it to your assessment.

According to their statutes, their financial resources come from: membership fees, results of their activities, private donations (both private and institutional) and also accept public subsidies.

This movement logically has its spokespersons that share the functions among different associations: the Society for the Advancement of Critical Thinking (ARP), the RedUne Association (Network for Sectarian Prevention and Weakness Abuse) and APETP. Among the four associations (including Skeptics), the media and institutional cake is distributed.

As revealed by the digital platform BlastingNews in the news “ The success of the antihomeopathy movement that leads Spain ”, this organized movement has a busy media and institutional agenda that has allowed them, among other things, to influence public opinion as well as important organizations like the WTO and the Government of Pedro Sánchez itself. In this sense, in 2017, the WTO created the Observatory against Pseudoscience, having among its drivers, according to the document published by the WTO, the APETP, the ARP-SAPC and the Skeptic Circle. Just the same associations that appear as institutions that have advised the government in the Plan presented by the Ministries of Science and Health, in November 2018. Chance? No, causality.

However, the “guerrilla plan” and methodology of the pseudo-skeptical movement to corner homeopathy begins in academia . In Spain, for example, in five years, this movement has achieved that no public or private university offers training courses in this therapy. The procedure they have followed is simple:

STEP 1 . Make public and institutional pressure (something similar tried in France with the University of Lille, which suspended a training course in homeopathy but without success , since the Conference of Deans of the Faculties of Medicine and the Conference of Deans of Pharmacy wrote a statement joint in favor of training in homeopathy with an “objective approach” ).

STEP 2. Take the next leap, to professional institutions and societies. The method is the same as the previous one but, in addition, public opinion and the media come into play here. An example of this is the open letter to Maria Luisa Carcedo, current minister of health in functions, promoted by the four “skeptical” associations mentioned above and signed by some 400 health professionals against pseudotherapies and which erroneously included Homeopathy

We insist that “they erroneously included homeopathy as pseudotherapy” because this therapy is a medical , legal, social and scientific reality , which is also not in the list of 73 pseudotherapies presented by the Government in February 2019. And again we insist wrong to label pseudotherapy homeopathy, because after that open letter came another signed by 600 health professionals who claimed their right to prescribe or recommend homeopathic medicines in freedom and without pressure .

STEP 3. Once enough media controversy has been generated, the assault on the respective governments – local, regional and national – is a piece of cake.

Three simple steps that have been repeated in France : first the University of Lille, then a rostrum against complementary therapies signed by 124 doctors in a national media, then a similar report from the Scientific Council of the Academies of European Sciences (EASAC) against homeopathy, more media pressure , the French minister asking for a report from the HAS and the subsequent decision of the Commission with dyes of little rigor and impartiality .

OTHER EUROPEAN EXAMPLES

And history repeats itself … Now it’s Germany . Since it is fashionable, the president of the association that brings together doctors from Germany’s public health care (KBV), Andreas Gassen, has told the media that medical insurance should not cover homeopathic services to his patients. Strange question now brought to the debate when a little over half a year ago the president of the German WTO, Dr. Frank Ulrich Montgomery said that homeopathy is a complementary medicine that helps many people .

It seems that there is always someone who insists on igniting and maintaining a non-existent debate. It would be funny if it were not because it endangers the health and well-being of patients as well as their free right to choose the best treatment that suits their needs. The German case is paradigmatic since German insurers reimburse the cost of homeopathic medicine not because it is mandatory but because patients so demand it.

In Sweden , in 2011, several scientists and a nationally renowned astronaut (does that sound like it?) Contributed to the media controversy by carrying out sanitary irresponsibility as a public suicide with an overdose of a homeopathic medicine. This resource has also been used in Spain by several representatives of pseudo-skepticism, especially in social networks, with the sole objective of getting an audience.

Switzerland , on the other hand, is the most representative case in the lost art of doing things right. As in the previous examples, in 2011, the controversy led the Swiss Government to commission an exhaustive report on homeopathy that, today, represents the most complete evaluation of Homeopathic Medicine that a Government has published to date.

The Swiss Report concludes that homeopathic treatment is effective, safe and cost-effective, and that it should be included in that country’s national health program. In addition, approximately half of the population of Switzerland uses complementary and alternative medicine treatments and values ​​them positively. At older, approximately half of Swiss doctors consider complementary and alternative treatments effective. Although perhaps the most outstanding fact is that 85% of the Swiss population prefers therapies of this type and also choose that they are part of their national health program. At present, homeopathy is included in the Swiss national health system by popular referendum. In this case, fortunately RIGOR and OBJECTIVITY were imposed  The interests of the pseudo-skeptics and their plan of harassment of homeopathy were frog.

However, Europe is not its only objective. Since the skeptical lobby is international, it is not surprising that similar requests have landed, and almost simultaneously, in letter format, in the respective ministries of health of Peru and Mexico .

History repeats itself. And sadly everything presumes that it will be repeated in other American and European countries: talking about homeopathy is in fashion, and it seems that going against it even more: it makes you look fun among colleagues, it leads you to be trending topic on the Internet, it gets you a lot of likes and retuits. The medicine was never so frivolous. He never trivialized so much with the health of the patients. The professionals have never been so cynical; those who a few years ago were trained in therapies such as acupuncture and homeopathy, today are dedicated to give talks and participate in debates attacking furiously these same therapies.

There is no doubt that the consequence of all this is the erosion, erosion and unreal transformation of what is homeopathy among public opinion. We suffer from “homeopatosis”. And against this, the antidote is simple: professionalism and truthful information without prejudice. An example of a trusted health website to be recommended by everyone is Suma Homeopathy .

In short, defending homeopathy today has become, purely and simply, a matter of freedom. Because like homeopathy, in health we all add up, and that is why both professionals and patients should unite for a More Human Medicine.

A DISCUSSION AROUND THE BENEFITS OF ALTERNATIVE AND COMPLEMENTARY THERAPIES IN VETERINARY MEDICINE

When people who dont understand Homoeopathy speak for it. Thailand.

ALTERNATIVE MEDICINE DEPARTMENT BACKS DOWN ON CLAIM AMID CRITICISM

THE DEPARTMENT of Thai Traditional and Alternative Medicine has backtracked from its claim that its homeopathic formula is highly effective for dengue-fever protection. 

“It’s just a supplementary measure that needs further research,” Dr Sun-pong Ritthiruksa said yesterday in his capacity as the chair of the department’s centre for herbal medicine, Thai traditional medicine, folk medicine and alternative medicine.

He spoke up after several prominent figures, including Chulalongkorn University’s lecturer Jessada Denduangboripant, raised questions about the claim.

Sunpong himself said last Friday that a homeopathic formula made from eupatorium perfoliatum 200C had been proved effective in preventing dengue fever. His agency is now handing out it for free.

“It’s 89.9 per cent effective,” Sunpong said last Friday, just a day ahead of Asean Dengue Day, as he cited findings from a journal.

Jessada then quickly argued that homeopathy was pseudoscience, something that the Public Health Ministry should not promote.

“The promotion can be dangerous,” he warned.

Dengue fever has hit more than 28,000 people in Thailand so far this year – up by 1.7 times from the same period a year earlier. Of them, 43 died.

Sunpong said he sought to support the use of homeopathy as a supplementary measure for protection against dengue fever.

He reiterated that to prevent dengue-fever infections, people still needed to focus on measures such as changing the water in flower vases weekly, keeping their home tidy, eliminating mosquito-breeding grounds and covering water containers.

Mosquitoes are the main carriers of dengue fever.

“I am worried that people may misunderstand what I said earlier,” Sunpong said.

He then clarified that eupatorium perfoliatum 200C was not for treating dengue fever.

“If patients develop symptoms that can be associated with dengue fever, [they should] go see a doctor to get treatment based on modern medicine,” he said.

Jessada said he had looked into several studies previously associated with the department and saw multiple flaws.

According to him, the efficacy rate cited for vaccines against dengue fever is not as high as the rate found by the department’s research, hinting at the possibility that the cited efficacy rate for eupatorium perfoliatum 200C might have been exaggerated.

Jessada explained that while eupatorium perfoliatum could reduce fever and boost the immune system, there was no clear proof that it could treat or prevent dengue fever.

According to the Disease Control Department, the main factors associated with fatal cases of dengue fever are living in communities hosting a large number of mosquito larvae, buying medicine for self-treatment, delays in seeking treatments from doctors, and having underlying illnesses such as obesity, diabetes and asthma.

Statistics compiled by the Disease Control Department show the number of dengue-fever patients this year is far higher than the number five years ago.

As of June 11 this year, dengue fever hit 28,785 people in Thailand. During the same period in 2014, the number stood at 10,670. The figures from the same period from 2015 to 2018 were at 24,248, 19,029, 13,961m and 17,302 respectively.

An Indians view of the sensation method.

Re: Sankaran Sensation method

Hi,

I have read the method in all the books published by Sankaran so far as also attended his seminars. It is the very enchanting video presentations at the seminars and the captivating material presented in his books that prompted me to use it side by side with the age-old traditional Hahnemannian method for some time. I concluded after a thorough study that the theoretical basis on which this entire method is based is flawed.

But such is the orchestrated hype about this method in the US and Europe that it is hard to get anything published against this method and prove to be a useless exercise that ends up in frustration.

Unfortunately, we have not evolved benchmarks to judge any method being propagated as homoeopathy and as a first step, we should do it.
The very basis on which Hahnemann founded homoeopathy was his discovery :

1. that any medicinal substance is capable of inducing a field force to distort the vital force of healthy human beings; the nature of distortion presents a recognizable field pattern and it is as true as the law of gravity or any other natural laws.

2. that the same medicine is capable of nullifying any disease force that establishes a similar distortion of vital force in a human being.

The SIMILARITY of the distorted picture or pattern of the vital force induced by the medicinal substance in a healthy human being and that created by the natural disease is essential for curative action to occur.

If Sankaran can prove that the vital sensation can be induced by a medicinal substance in healthy human beings and then prove the correspondences of this artificially induced vital sensation to the one present in the cured patient – then and then only it qualifies to be a homoeopathic method.

I hate to waste any more time discussing this method of madness, an aberration of an otherwise super genius whose convoluted thinking process reflects of a major portion of his brain cells gone awry….alas…

V.T.Yekkirala.