Was it 'real rabies'?

[muthu kumar]

I never said that homeopathy cannot cure really serious conditions.
That was not the intention of any one who posted in support of the
infectious theory.

I have been advocating utilizing viral/infectious causations so that
we can use Homeopathy to treat and cure such conditions- to ensure
that homeopathy can get its due recognition - this whole discussion
started out that way. Not because I felt that homeopathy cannot cure
such cases...

I have treated and cured some really serious conditions myself. I have
treated cancers as well.

At the same time I have also interfaced with allopaths. There were
chronic renal failure cases where I was giving homeopathic medicine
but having the patient also consult his nephrologist to make sure that
all biochemic values are moving towards normalcy. Even for allopathic
doctors with emphasis on biochemistry, pathology and microbiology
there is a need to consult the specialists to make sure that the case
is getting better. Some people seem to improve symptomatically whereas
the condition keeps on worsening and hence the danger just depending
on symptoms to diagnose and manage a case...any thing verifiable
should be objectively verified...

If from homeopathy if we pose that we know everything that is there
to know and call the rest who practice differently as mongrels I do
not think it is good. And for what? Accepting allopathic infectious
causation of diseases?

Allopaths call homeopaths 'quacks'... and "classical" homeopaths would
call the "lesser" homeopaths "mongrels"- so on and so forth -Either we
set down practice guidelines for the profession - one way or other- or
accept that there are different principles of prescribing and the
method that we hold close to our heart is only one of many and shut up
about the rest....

Top-dog, under-dog mentality persists everywhere and is a sign of
humanity and pecking order -I guess...
--- In minutus@yahoogroups.com, Joy Lucas wrote: