Ancient Wisdom and Acute diseases- the Paradox

[muthu kumar]

The other day heard news on national public radio (NPR) while driving -
that Chinese have started giving up Chinese medicine in favor of
allopathy- around 80% of some survey respondents said that they would
first go for allopathy than Traditional Chinese Medicine -TCM.
One of the people interviewed, a TCM professor said that even now TCM
is effective for chronic diseases....

That had me thinking- ancient people would have suffered more from
acute diseases than chronic ones considering how psora and miasmic
load is building up more now because of toxins, suppressions etc.
whatever and because ancient people lived a more restful and
aligned-with-nature kind of life ( no global pharmaceutical companies
for that matter)

Then if that were so - these TCM folks must be more capable of
treating acutes than chronics - since that is what their medicine has
been doing for countless years - yet it is not acutes that they are
treating effectively but chronics - why?
Homeopathic provings are really acute states- we have only acute
provings- ( we can call many of them chronic because in homoeopathy
chronicity is a matter of nature of the symptoms and not duration) at
least more acutes than chronics - and we need to develop a
controversial chronic miasma theory for explaining chronics whereas
for acutes it is "like cures like" etc. but even in homeopathy we have
more people doing comfortable chronic prescribing than acute prescribing-
Why is this paradox? Why are these medicines which by nature should be
more efficacious against acute diseases now considered good mainly for
chronic?

Is it because these medicines are really not effective against acutes?
Is it because we have more non-medical practitioners for whom acute
prescribing is not part of their comfort zone?
Is it because allopathy is much more suitable to acutes?
Is it because people's expectations have changed as to how they look
at acutes - or in other words these medicines are now out of touch
with modern attitudes?
Or is it the attitude of the prescribers?
Or is the quality of homeopathic ( and TCM etc) teaching and training
not adequate enough to cover acutes?
What do you think?
Whatever it is - until and otherwise people come to us for acutes -
and we treat acutes equally or even more comfortably than treating
chronics - we will never be a "mainstream" medicine and as long as
people continue having this idea that we cannot save them in acute
conditions ( acutes either kill or get cured by themselves - so in a
way curing acutes is what makes the patient grateful to you since you
are saving them from getting killed) we can never become respected-

[Dr. Joe Rozencwajg, NMD]

I do treat plenty of acutes, more and more so.
What I do hear is coming from the patients saying they did not realize we
could cure acutes. Why? Probably a question of marketing and especially
legal problems as in many countries you cannot claim to be able to cure
anything.
We also suffer of a lack of infrastructure for the acutes: lab work, X Rays,
24/7 availability, house calls, access to hospitalized patients.........
although in NZ I can have most of it with the help of the GPs for X Rays.
Nevertheless, most colleges, while teaching acute treatments, also always
add "refer to the GP or the ER"..........although it is safe to do so, it
undermines the confidence of the budding homeopath, and the willing patient
who is dispatched to the ER because he has chills, shaking with fever, or
anything else that does not need surgery, will soon learn not even to bother
coming to the homeopath. Of course this is being aggravated by the lack of
training for those situations, as we do not have the infrastructure to do so

Catch 22?
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, MD, PhD, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind".

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

A few quick ( and not thought through at length) thoughts:

I once set up an 'acutes' clinic which (eventually ) was very well
attended, and successful. However outside of that clinic not many
people came for 'acutes' first visit, probably less than 10%
I have treated many acutes myself (successfully) but less and less so .
Certainly in general patients (potentially for H or not) do not
expect homeopathy to treat acutes, it is not their first thought,
i.e. the majority of Px probably come when all else fails (!!!)
I certainly have always been happy to prescribe for acutes, ( as true
acutes) but less so recently as I have got out of the practice due to
less and less acutes coming for treatment (as opposed to acutes
arising in patients who came for chronic treatment) in my recent
experience recently qualified Homeopaths are very very good at
recognising the chronic picture in MM but not so with acutes. In fact
several I know, are scared having to prescribe for strong acutes

IMO in this country there are a limited number of acutes produced by
infectious Dx that might seriously challenge the prescriber i.e. no
ebola, Dengue, malaria etc. Meningitis is probably the worst we have.

Many acute DX in UK would be 'notifiable' and must be treated
allopathically by law (e.g. TB)

Many acutes' actually present as 'chronic acutes' i.e. no
overwhelming Sx just persistant Sx e.g recent acute Sx start as sore
throat, head cold, then stomach upset which doesn't resolve properly
over a month. There has been a lot of this about , not that I have
got to treat much of it.

I blame lack of education of the public about the potential of
homeopathy, I have no doubt that it is successful in acutes but the
practitioner needs to be really up on their acute MM

For that lack of public education I blame the organisations
representing homeopathy. The work they do in that regard in
insignificant. IN the UK once a year there is something called '
Homeopathy awareness week' lol!

I would have thought that in India H was used for acutes more? I had
the impression the public awareness was higher?

Acutes clinic are harder work:-), for less money. i.e. it is
difficult to have a clinic (UK) where there are enough acutes that
are precribed for in 15mins and get maybe £10 a go ( more they are
unlikely to pay), there is no NHS provision to pay H's so financially
it is not worth it
This
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Tanya Marquette]

and what i would add to this post is the fact that people often are not
willing to try a new protocol until they run the gamut of failed allopathic
treatment. i was taught in my early days that homeopathy's golden
moment is when these horrible chronic cases come and get well--that
was going to be the condition that sold the public.

the other piece of the puzzle is insurance which won't pay for homeopathy.
in the usa people are so dependent on their insurance that they short
themselves constantly in order to not have to lay out any cash for
treatment.
it's a major public buyoff that keeps many people from using any holisitc
treatment other than what they can find on the shelves in a health food
store.

tanya
Rays,
patient
bother
so
and educational benefit of its members. It makes no representations
regarding the individual suitability of the information contained in any
document read or advice or recommendation offered which appears on this
website and/or email postings for any purpose. The entire risk arising out
of their use remains with the recipient. In no event shall the minutus site
or its individual members be liable for any direct, consequential,
incidental, special, punitive or other damages whatsoever and howsoever
caused.
your setting at http://www.yahoogroups.com/group/minutus to receive a
single daily digest.

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

Hmm the end of that got clipped and I forget what I added. Never mind:-)

Maybe it was along these lines:

the selling generally of 'homeopathic' remedies on the shelves of any
number of shops is probably detrimental to homeopathy generally,
because although it 'legitimises' homeopathy, it does nothig to
educate and so the public are more likely to actually be put off H
if the 'Homeopathic' rememdy for 'Colds' doesn't work.

(quite apart from the fact that the pharmacists don't support them
even if they sell them , one comment I heard to someone buying some
'Tissue salts ( yeah yeah... , that's a different discussion) was..
"you know there's nothing in them don't you?" lol.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[muthu kumar]

I have treated lots of acute conditions and there are other homeopaths
whose practice is mostly acutes and very successful. And what - none
of us had to use delusions or vital sensations or Sehgal to find the
medicine. We rarely ever ventured beyond 100 -150 polychrests-

It is a shame that we have this name that we can cure only chronics-
well if we continue to deny infections what can we do

--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Simon King wrote:

[J.VENKATASUBRAMANIAN]

I think the acute treatment needs very very good training and deep
knowledge of materia medica and memorisations of essentials of a
disease and a drug AND, more of self confidence ( who will take in a
continuing vomitter or a patient with a shocking
dysentery ?.. "first go to the local clinic and then when symptoms
subside, come to me").

Add to this the problem with numbers of practitioners and clinics.
The only way out seems to be to educate moms to do acute
prescribing:)-
Venkat
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, "hahnemannian2002"
wrote:
driving -
would
TCM
companies
has
at
have
prescribing-
should be
for
acutes?
look
training
a
you

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

No problemo!



The real problem is that there is no infrastructure to support Px
outside a 'clinic' (which amounts to a room, two chairs and a table)

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

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

I think that was not meant terribly seriously Sheri!

A little lightheartedness here and there does wonders for the blood
pressure!:D
Simon
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Simon King LCPH MARH]

yes you could be right there.. if homeopathy can't treat infections
what's it good for?eh?;-)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]