[H] Classical prescription cure rates

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

I have to say I am surprised to have so little response to my question.
I did state that it didn't have to be more than an estimate.
Am I to surmise that practitioners (of which there must be many on the
lists) are too embarrassed about their success rates ( or lack of them)
to answer?

Surely practitioners have SOME idea of the success of their treatments?
SK

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

Actually, Simon, it makes a lot of sense, as you are asking about cure rates
..so how do we define this?

Let me take a shot at it.

Do I call call a cure the disappearance of all symptoms and signs the
patient came in for? Especially in acute cases or in exacerbation, flare-up
of chronic cases? then I would "guesstimate" that my rate of cure is about
70% at first visit climbing to 85% after the third visit if need be (OK, I
might be bragging and be highly delusional here, but it IS an estimate, an
impression)...

When talking about chronic cases, how do I estimate their cure rate? often
their symptoms disappear, they are happy, than a few weeks/months later, a
deeper layer appears, but how long do I wait to see IF there will be another
layer???

How about the patients you do not see any more?? are they cured, dead or so
pissed off that they do not want to communicate any more?

When I was a surgeon, it was easy: a patient doing better after surgery than
before was cured.

When I was in general practice, it was easy: a patient whose symptoms have
disappeared was cured.

The basic way we practice in natural medicine, trying to get to the bottom
of issues and not suppress, palliate or just barely relieve makes it almost
impossible to answer your question.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[J Lucas]

I actually deleted your post by mistake but as I said before this actually
would take quite a bit of time to collate if it is to be reliable and I
haven't had the time. But if no-one is really interested in supplying what
you require.....

If you want to repost the questions I will try to oblige.

Best, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 23/1/05 11:17 pm, Simon King at sk2004@ntlworld.com wrote:

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Thanks Dr J,
I disagree (that it's not possible)
I don't think you're bragging, it concurs with what I think , that
after about 3 or 4 visits 85% are better.(but my first visit figure's
lower than yours)
( for me there's always a few that go on and on, but they are happy to
do that so they are getting something out of it)

Re cure assessment:
If we take the perspective that it's a continuous process until death
then sure it's not possible, but we don't do we, really? - unless we
are of the camp that believes that homeopathy cures the soul etc. My
very strong opinion is that even priests I know who practice homeopathy
don't claim that!

A large percentage of cases I see are similar to this case: a lady of
60 comes with overactive thyroid, h/o chest infections and grief. . Ist
Rx brings thyroid back to norm, then ROS chest infects, Rx resolves
that initially, needs adjusting, resolves, one more follow up, OK, one
more several months later OK. Took about 6 months total, AT that point
she is as far as Im concerned , cured. I do not say 'cured unless she
ever gets ill again' in her life, just as long as it's not from the
problem she came with.

If practitioners find the term CURE too challenging and vague, perhaps
we could use something else, but I know what I mean by the term in my
practice, and it's not that they have had all levels or Sycosis,
syphilis, and psora deleted permanently from their karmic inventory!
To me it means the miasmatic influences that are impinging directly on
the Pxs current state of health have been addressed and the Px now
experiences relief from the Sx they came for, and their health is
stable.
Acutes - are clearly better when they're better. that can be evaluated
easily.
Chronics - (exclude noshows) are better when the Px is happy with the
treatment
Other wise the term cure cannot exist at all in homeopathy, is that
what were saying?

A while ago I posted a juicy aphorism (in response to a request to
initiate discussion) from SH in which he made a comment I thought was
interesting in this regard
He referred top a patient who was cured yet who might still need
continued bed rest and care for quite some time. can't remember the
aphorism number, perhaps one of the academics can help there? Quite
clearly his (SH) perspective was that someone is cured when the Sx they
presented exhibit have been removed. No one picked up on that point, in
fact no one responded at all.

Perhaps my questions should have been how often is the Px satisfied
with the treatment, and at what stage?

All I'm trying to understand is with what level of accuracy are
classical prescriptions made, on average? Surely a valid question?

If the practitioners cannot answer that question how can any one ever
hope to evaluate the efficacy of homeopathy?
regards
SK
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

I won't repost the questions as I wasn't trying to give anyone any
extra work.

What I'm asking of practitioners is whether they're prescriptions are
effective or not, and at what rate?
First prescriptions, follow ups, etc. have so few really so little idea
of their effectiveness?- Surely not , I don't believe that- It must be
the question was badly put, I see that people have got stuck on the
word 'cure'.

(Are we really admitting that not only is cure indefinable but we also
currently have no idea whether we're attaining it or not?)

I do not want to get bogged down in definitions of cure, I will try to
re-put and simplify the question:-
--------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------

What is the rate of prescriptions where practitioners are satisfied:
- with the response of the first prescription:
- with the response to the course of treatment (let's say where the
longest gap {break} is 3 months)
- of their having found the 'Simillimum'?
regards

SK
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[J Lucas]

It will have to be an estimate then and I would say just over 80% - that
includes both acutes and chronics. There is a small percentage of clients
who do not return although a few will let me know months later that all is
well and I am guessing that for the others either no cure was obtained or
that homeopathy just wasn¹t for them (these would also include complicated
cases where I couldn¹t be totally sure of the first rx etc). Sometimes cost
comes into this and although I am not an expensive homeopath, some people
find it beyond their means to return more than once or twice.

If I or the client is not happy with things after the 3rd remedy I am
looking to refer them to another homeopath, unless the client really wants
to stay with me. I would say this happens once every couple of months. I
would much rather lose a client to a colleague than to have them return to
allopathy.

I would say that the first prescription has a high average response, 60 ­
70%, that leads on to cure. The remaining 30/40% will be a mixture of
complicated cases or cases where I missed the simillimum first time, second
time etc.

Where is the idea of cure being indefinable coming from?

Hope useful, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 24/1/05 11:38 am, Simon King at sk2004@ntlworld.com wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Thanks Joy,
I certainly thought that Jeremy Scherr's estimate of 50% was quite low.
I don't know if he reads the lists and has any comments?

from other posters reluctant to answer.

regards

Simon

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

So maybe the question should be reformulated first: what, in your practice,
do you consider being a cure? based on your personal definition, what is
your percentage of success?

Any takers?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"

[J Lucas]

A removal of sx and a great advancement of a general well being.

Best, Joy

http://www.homeopathicmateriamedica.com
on 24/1/05 9:33 pm, Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD. at jroz@ihug.co.nz wrote:
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

I love that definition, thanks!
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"