Minutus

hello,

has anyone treated a case of stomach cancer successfully using
Ramakrishnan's method? I ordered his book but was interested to know
if anyone here had already looked into this.

also, any opinions on "714x, a developed by a Canadian doctor"?
many thanx for any info
-Albrik

Hi, Albrik.

Dr. Ramakrishnan's protocol often is helpful, but more so if the cancer is
early stage and not extremely aggressive -- as is true also of other
treatment modalities. I don't know how aggressive or advanced your patient's
cancer is.

One possible result of the AUR protocols with advanced Stage IV disease,
assuming that the patient's vital force and mental and physical state are
still reasonably functional, is a stand-off -- palliation -- where the
cancer isn't cured but also it doesn't advance very quickly and the person
is stable for a long time.

Dr AUR's protocol, in the case of advanced cancers of this sort, can also be
helpful for people who are being treated allopathically, and can help them
withstand allopathic treatment with fewer side-effects while also helping
them to stay longer in a better-functioning overall state.

Those things being said, treating anyone with advanced, life-threatening
chronic illness is a significant challenge, with changes along the way
often requiring different remedies, potencies, alternations -- all aspects
of the treatment. Dr AUR's protocol is basically a classical homeopathic
approach modified according to classical principles to address a very
serious illness and an ongoing threat to life.

This is true across all varieties of cancer. Individuals respond
individually and uniquely, and the homeopath must be able to manage this
process successfully for as long as the person is able to keep responding.
The choice of remedies and potencies reflects the site(s) of the cancer, and
also the primary modalities and comcomitants. The closest experience I've
had in the absence of cancer is treating people of advanced age with other
life threatening chronic illnesses in which palliation rather than cure is
the goal.

With early, non-invasive or minimally invasive cancer that has been removed
surgically, improved prevention of recurrence (compared to allopathic
treatment alone) often is actually possible. The disease is still in the
Vital Force. The tumor(s) is only a product of the disease. Good
homeopathic prescribing will help the whole person, changing the dynamics
and energy that enabled the cancer to develop in the first place. The better
the patient is able to respond energetically -mentally-emotionally, the more
successful the homeopathic treatment is likely to be. (i.e., without
serious obstacles to cure).

Rosemary

"Dr AUR's protocol is basically a classical homeopathic
approach" - I am shocked. May you please quote from literature where Hahnemann recommended like this.

Dr.Srinivasan

--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Rosemary C. Hyde, Ph.D. wrote:

To see the classical approach that Dr. Ramakrishnan uses, you need to take his classes and watch him work with patients.
He wrote the book, I suspect, for a largely allopathic audience. in any case, in the book the homeopathic aspects of remedy selection and administration are downplayed or omitted, so the book sounds like a "cookbook," whereas Dr. R's own practice is that of a classical homeopath.
Also, Dr. R's knowledge of Materia Medica is encyclopedic, a trait he shares with many Indian homeopaths, a part of whose training was to memorize the whole text of Boericke's Materia Medica. As a consequence, he seems to pluck his remedy selection out of thin air, when in fact he's looking at symptoms, modalities, concomitants, etc.... just as any homeopath would. The answers are all in his head, so contrary to what most of us need to do, he can make a remedy choice seemingly effortlessly. Like the rest of us, though, he doesn't always select the correct remedy. He then retakes the case to find a closer simillimum.
The remedies he suggests in the book are the "most common" for various types of cancer, but they are by no means the only ones he uses.
All the elements of Plussing are in fact in the Organon (247, 248, e.g.), and he uses that approach, as Hahnemann suggests, when the threat to life is acute and looming. By no means does he treat all patients using Plussing. My experience is, however, that any case of cancer, no matter how unthreatening it may seem in the short run (e.g., localized and removed surgically, with no apparent tumor remaining), is more likely to respond well to this method than to any other homeopathic approach.
In addition to following the Organon, Dr. Ramakrishnan is also extremely well acquainted with the writings of other homeopaths who have treated cancer -- Burnett, Cooper, Grimmer, et al.
The exact protocol that Dr. Ramakrishnan suggests also evolved over 25 years or so of trials with cancer patients, in which he compared various approaches, doses, rhythms of administration, to determine exactly what worked best most often. With individual patients and situations, though, he prescribes what seems best to match the patient's vital force and the severity of the disease.
In brief, I haven't seen him practice in any way that would contradict the principles of classical homeopathy, although he has certainly adapted them creatively and according to the responses of patients' vital forces.
Rosemary.

rosemary
are there any other writings of his that would demonstrate this expanded view
of his work? in english?
tanya

An author's knowledge and practicing skills will become publicly known through his writings and teachings. Dr.AUR's teachings and writings doesn't seem to be classical. Or is it that he practice 'CLASSICAL HOMOEOPATHY', but teach and write something else - aiming at allopathic fraternity? If so, is it not that the followers will get carried away? Is it possible, then, for each and every one who reads his books, to have access to his practical application, directly? So that they also will be able to carry the 'RIGHT' idea and knowledge about AUR's methods, like our RCH?

Either of these should take place:
Either the works has to be re written in such a way that every reader gets the right understanding.
Or AUR should modify his practice according to what ever is written in his works.
One's first hand knowledge alone made me raise such a question ' is it classical'?
The point is not about 'how quickly a doctor comes to a remedy'.
we all know the popular story of what happened to HCAllen with Adolph Lippe.
--- On Thu, 8/28/08, Rosemary C. Hyde, Ph.D. wrote:

Hi, Tanya,
I would expect that others who have taken his post-graduate seminars and worked with him a bit with patients would probably corroborate the observations I've made here. Some people are more tuned in to writing, and others more to working with people, and Dr. R seems to fall in the latter category.
Rosemary

Dear Dr. V,
I agree with what you are saying, and the book is what it is. It doesn't give the impression that the approach is classical, although the way Dr. R practices it is classical. The book can serve as a reference guideline, but in selecting remedies, homeopaths need to do their own analysis. I think the book is useful A) in the statistics it provides on the rate of success of different types of dosing, B) in the accurate directions it does give for using the Plussing method, C) in the examples it provides of different prognoses and how people with varying severity and stages of disease can be helped, D) as a reference guide for some of the remedies one might consider for helping people with different kinds of cancer, and E) as a tutorial on the importance of considering organ affinities of remedies when addressing one-sided cases.
I would submit that no book can meet the exalted criteria you suggest, "that every reader get the right understanding." We all keep working to improve our personal understanding, and that continues to be a "work in progress."
Rosemary