Recent cases raise a question: do we prescribe based on blood tests/x-rays/MRI etc., or do we prescribe based on symptoms and signs? Often medical tests will show a marker/white blood cells etc. that are actually trying to do a job, whether it's anti-infection or anticarcinogenic - the question is whether when we as homeopaths focus too much on allopathic testing, we risk losing our way?
There are diseases which are called silent killers by conventional physicians as they don't present symptoms - they are only found through tests. High BP is a classic example. But I think for homeopaths, high BP does present symptoms which may differ from individual to individual. The symptoms could be behavioural, connected to skin tone, breathing, or other physiological symptoms that are not investigated in the patient's interface with conventional medicine.
Even allopathic physicians admit that there are many false results in testing. It's also becoming a little more known that fine needle aspiration tests or other forms of biopsy can cause a tumour that has previously been isolated by the body's own self-protection systems to spread within the system. So the question is, in a prostate cancer patient - how much importance to give to allopathic test results? In a different case, the patient has high trig and cholesterol levels - how much importance to give these results? But the way cholesterol results are assessed changes, and research isn't totally and absolutely final about the harmful ramifications of high cholesterol and trigs, although the general public is totally convinced.
The allopathic testing process is problematic, especially since it singles out those who are sick, produces findings, and those findings are not necessarily checked out in sufficient healthy people to be conclusive. How many people without ulcers have helicobacter? How many people without sore throats have strep bacteria in their system? How much relevance can these tests have in homeopathic prescribing or in case management?
My concern is that in focusing on bringing down PSA levels, bringing down trigs and cholesterol, stabilizing blood pressure levels, aiming for a clear throat swab without strep etc., we're losing sight of the patient and falling into the allopathic trap - too much focus on tests, too little focus on the patient. In addition, we're creating a hybrid, homeopathic treatment that is based on allopathic findings.
This post is in no way a recommendation to detach from conventional testing (I'm probably too much of a wimp for that...) but the question is whether we should be giving top importance to the results of those tests. If my patient is healthy, happy, functioning well and improving on all levels - does it matter if the blood test shows high cholesterol? I know there are those who would say that the cholesterol would automatically go down if the remedy is working - but that's based on the premise that the test itself and its accepted ramifications are valid, and won't be disproved in 20 years from now.
Regards
Vera
---------------------------------
Yahoo! FareChase - Search multiple travel sites in one click.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
question of principle
-
muthu kumar
- Posts: 1208
- Joined: Mon May 24, 2004 10:00 pm
Re: question of principle
testing (I'm probably too much of a wimp for that...) but the
question is whether we should be giving top importance to the results
of those tests. If my patient is healthy, happy, functioning well
and improving on all levels - does it matter if the blood test shows
high cholesterol? I know there are those who would say that the
cholesterol would automatically go down if the remedy is working -
but that's based on the premise that the test itself and its accepted
ramifications are valid, and won't be disproved in 20 years from now.
Hi Vera- Given all the shortcomings still these are the tests we have
till better ones are available. Even in allopathy the lab tests are
supposed to add to the information that the physician gathers by
history and clinical exam. They are primarily confirmatory except in
some conditions. I have seen people who are " healthy, happy,
functioning well and improving on all levels" drop down the next
week. Any doctor who had done general medical practice has seen
people who look healthy before collapsing. That is why we need some
objective measurement to check our assumptions.
You should of course not lose sight of the patient for the condition
and lab tests. Still the best guide for remedy selection is the
patient and how he/she feels. There is no changing that. Apart from
that these tests could serve as some objective markers for progress
etc. Sometimes I have seen that after the remedy the patient feels
well in general even when the condition might seem worsening before
improving. This does not mean that the lab tests are useless.. but
as you say they are not primary. Do not repeat the tests frequently
but hold off for a time ( of course based on seriousness of the
condition) before repeating. remember there are also legal and ethical
questions involved here.
question is whether we should be giving top importance to the results
of those tests. If my patient is healthy, happy, functioning well
and improving on all levels - does it matter if the blood test shows
high cholesterol? I know there are those who would say that the
cholesterol would automatically go down if the remedy is working -
but that's based on the premise that the test itself and its accepted
ramifications are valid, and won't be disproved in 20 years from now.
Hi Vera- Given all the shortcomings still these are the tests we have
till better ones are available. Even in allopathy the lab tests are
supposed to add to the information that the physician gathers by
history and clinical exam. They are primarily confirmatory except in
some conditions. I have seen people who are " healthy, happy,
functioning well and improving on all levels" drop down the next
week. Any doctor who had done general medical practice has seen
people who look healthy before collapsing. That is why we need some
objective measurement to check our assumptions.
You should of course not lose sight of the patient for the condition
and lab tests. Still the best guide for remedy selection is the
patient and how he/she feels. There is no changing that. Apart from
that these tests could serve as some objective markers for progress
etc. Sometimes I have seen that after the remedy the patient feels
well in general even when the condition might seem worsening before
improving. This does not mean that the lab tests are useless.. but
as you say they are not primary. Do not repeat the tests frequently
but hold off for a time ( of course based on seriousness of the
condition) before repeating. remember there are also legal and ethical
questions involved here.
-
Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD
- Posts: 2279
- Joined: Wed Jul 31, 2002 10:00 pm
Re: question of principle
I have seen quite a number of healthy people and athletes drop dead suddenly
They were totally asymptomatic AND their lab works were normal. Most of
them had autopsies and they were normal too, as was toxicology. Others had
congenital lesions, aneurysms in their brains or coronaries that suddenly
bursted while never having been the cause of any trouble before.
The point is that while symptoms, signs, tests of any kind are all useful as
long as we know their limitations and indications, there is no way we can
foresee and/or prevent all deaths.
Using lab work is a good statistical tool to classify a patient in a risk
category and in some cases give us indications on where more work should be
done, but does not mean they should be used as a blanket to prescribe some
form of remedy or totally discarded as irrelevant.
Remember that a "normal" lab result is only so because a large number of
healthy" people are within the range of the results. You might be outside
the range and still be healthy and normal, or within the range and dying
from the same disease in which this test should be abnormal. Look at thyroid
tests and vitamin levels, typical of this situation.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
They were totally asymptomatic AND their lab works were normal. Most of
them had autopsies and they were normal too, as was toxicology. Others had
congenital lesions, aneurysms in their brains or coronaries that suddenly
bursted while never having been the cause of any trouble before.
The point is that while symptoms, signs, tests of any kind are all useful as
long as we know their limitations and indications, there is no way we can
foresee and/or prevent all deaths.
Using lab work is a good statistical tool to classify a patient in a risk
category and in some cases give us indications on where more work should be
done, but does not mean they should be used as a blanket to prescribe some
form of remedy or totally discarded as irrelevant.
Remember that a "normal" lab result is only so because a large number of
healthy" people are within the range of the results. You might be outside
the range and still be healthy and normal, or within the range and dying
from the same disease in which this test should be abnormal. Look at thyroid
tests and vitamin levels, typical of this situation.
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".
-
Rosemary C Hyde
- Posts: 112
- Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2020 3:47 pm
Re: question of principle
Hi, Vera.
In response to what you wrote, which I pasted below:
I agree that this is a major issue, focusing homeopathic treatment on allopathic tests.
On the one hand, the tests are useful in giving accurate information about the actual organs and systems that may be susceptible in the patient-- the primary affinities.
On the other hand, the symptoms are the basis for choosing a homeopathic remedy, no question.
On the third hand (:-)))),
the allopathic tests respond to remedies much more slowly than the patient's energy and symptoms do, and we need to educate patients to pay attention to and believe their energy and inner knowledge more than the numbers -- this represents a huge re-education of priorities for many people, even those most apparently entrenched in "alternative" perspectives.
Rosemary
Vera wrote:
"So the question is, in a prostate cancer patient - how much importance to give to allopathic test results? In a different case, the patient has high trig and cholesterol levels - how much importance to give these results? But the way cholesterol results are assessed changes, and research isn't totally and absolutely final about the harmful ramifications of high cholesterol and trigs, although the general public is totally convinced.
The allopathic testing process is problematic, especially since it singles out those who are sick, produces findings, and those findings are not necessarily checked out in sufficient healthy people to be conclusive. How many people without ulcers have helicobacter? How many people without sore throats have strep bacteria in their system? How much relevance can these tests have in homeopathic prescribing or in case management?
My concern is that in focusing on bringing down PSA levels, bringing down trigs and cholesterol, stabilizing blood pressure levels, aiming for a clear throat swab without strep etc., we're losing sight of the patient and falling into the allopathic trap - too much focus on tests, too little focus on the patient. In addition, we're creating a hybrid, homeopathic treatment that is based on allopathic findings."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
In response to what you wrote, which I pasted below:
I agree that this is a major issue, focusing homeopathic treatment on allopathic tests.
On the one hand, the tests are useful in giving accurate information about the actual organs and systems that may be susceptible in the patient-- the primary affinities.
On the other hand, the symptoms are the basis for choosing a homeopathic remedy, no question.
On the third hand (:-)))),
the allopathic tests respond to remedies much more slowly than the patient's energy and symptoms do, and we need to educate patients to pay attention to and believe their energy and inner knowledge more than the numbers -- this represents a huge re-education of priorities for many people, even those most apparently entrenched in "alternative" perspectives.
Rosemary
Vera wrote:
"So the question is, in a prostate cancer patient - how much importance to give to allopathic test results? In a different case, the patient has high trig and cholesterol levels - how much importance to give these results? But the way cholesterol results are assessed changes, and research isn't totally and absolutely final about the harmful ramifications of high cholesterol and trigs, although the general public is totally convinced.
The allopathic testing process is problematic, especially since it singles out those who are sick, produces findings, and those findings are not necessarily checked out in sufficient healthy people to be conclusive. How many people without ulcers have helicobacter? How many people without sore throats have strep bacteria in their system? How much relevance can these tests have in homeopathic prescribing or in case management?
My concern is that in focusing on bringing down PSA levels, bringing down trigs and cholesterol, stabilizing blood pressure levels, aiming for a clear throat swab without strep etc., we're losing sight of the patient and falling into the allopathic trap - too much focus on tests, too little focus on the patient. In addition, we're creating a hybrid, homeopathic treatment that is based on allopathic findings."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]