Minutus

Just catching up on old e-mails. I noted that the women in question was
taking repeated doses of Ars 6X. This is a material dose. She was taking
material doses of Arsenic. Is it any wonder that she became ill? I don't
know about elsewhere but, in the US, there is a lower limit beneath which
Ars cannot be purchased. I believe that it is 6C but, I can't be sure. Does
anyone know?

Allen

Apparently, they can be sold at more material dilutions in North America--they are just not as commonly used here as they are in Germany. I've been told the X potencies are widely used and available in that country, in general. Chopra sells over 10,000 remedies a month out of his shop, and tells me there's little demand for them here--same with LMs.

About that article: take a look at the authors--two MDs at a Vienna medical school, with no apparent qualifications (stated) to practice homeopathy.
Note also that the "consulting doctor" actually allowed a patient to self medicate and never followed up with the case. That woman took Arsencium 6X three times a day every day, starting in August and continuing until her death in October--for an acute ailment.

I very strongly doubt this woman consulted a homeopath--rather an MD, not properly educated in homeopathy. There's no evidence the doctor took a case, no evidence he even saw the patient in person, and a lot of evidence the arsenicum was prescribed allopathically (the dosing schedule is just like what you'd expect to see with OTC drugs)

These kinds of articles really make me wonder why fingers are pointed at homeopaths--and not the real problem, which is that nothing compels allopathic doctors to actually learn homeopathy before "using" it on their "patients". This article is a lot like those ones written to denounce the dangers of herbal remedies and nutritional supplements--advocating that they be taken off the market, but not advocating that people seek out treatment from practitioners carefully trained to prescribe those substances and supervise their use.

Nancy

Hi Nancy,
Probably it depends how you want to read the article.
I didn't point fingers at homoeopaths, because the article didn't make clear
if the self-medications of the patient were either approved or refused by
her doctors.

I wanted to bring an information about possible consequences of misusing
homoeopathic remedies into the attention of homoepaths.
A topic for discussion.

Please see my other post adressed to Allen, too.

All the best,

Gaby

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de

http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Allen,
Like Julian said: same rules apply here in Germany.
From 4X everyone can buy it. A 3X needs to be prescribed by a medical
doctor.
1X and 2X are noted as Venenums (= venoms).

All the best,

Gaby

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de

http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Hi Gaby,

I know you didn't point any fingers at homeopaths--however, the article
does, simply because it does not clearly indicate who was prescribing, what
qualifications were held by the prescriber, and what kind of previous
clinical relationship existed between the patient and the doctor before this
prescription took place.

I realise what you were trying to do was bring the topic about repeated
doses (esp. doses in the less potent remedies, used without varying potency
at all) up for discussion; however I find it very difficult to ignore the
way the article is written and what it actually illustrates to a
reader--that is something all together different from your intention of
consideration and instruction.

I see many articles exactly like this one written to disparage alternative
practitioners all the time here in North America. They are always written
by medical doctors with little or no qualifications for understanding the
therapies they very subtly denounce. In Canada especially, where no law can
restrict individuals from practicing homeopathy simply because they do not
hold medical licenses, the regulatory bodies of conventional doctors
rigorously prosecute their members for using ANY form of alternative therapy
in their practices--this ranges from using nutritional therapy, herbal
therapies, recommending other alternative practitioners, to homeopathy, no
matter how skilled any of these MDs have become in any one of these
treatment methods. Supporters of these regulatory bodies are paid to write
and publish articles just like this one to discredit the treatment, to their
membership as well as to the public at large. It is an extremely effective
lobbying tool--in Canada, it has been the force behind the creation of a
branch of government called the Health Protection Branch, which is poised to
systematically eliminate herbal products, nutritional supplements, and
homeopathic remedies from the market place--or rigidly control access to
those products despite the outcry from alternative practitioners and the
general public.

As homeopaths, I believe we need to be aware that this is happening around
us, as we do "threaten" the status quo for the conventional medical
profession, even if it is far from our intention to do so.
While I certainly agree homeopaths need to be clear on the need to be
careful and responsible with remedy use--just as they were taught to be, if
they studied Hahnemann--this article, in my opinion, fails at pointing this
out. There is no concrete proof to the idea that the remedy caused the
death here--only concrete evidence that someone, who is most likely not a
homeopath, neglected his duty to the patient as a doctor.

I think that's the most salient truth here; let's not get distracted just
because someone chose to lay the blame on Arsenicum 6X--the remedy with the
"scary" name. It certainly wasn't the only remedy used in the patient's
treatment, we don't know if the patient also used other drugs (conventional
meds), and we don't know why the patient was allowed to self-medicate while
under the supposed supervision of her doctor--and why this critical breach
of protocol in any medical system goes seemingly unignored in the article.

Regards,
Nancy

Hi Nancy,
Yes, I understand your position. But this info is not available in the
article - so I only took the facts.
Perhaps it depends of the point of view.
Yes, I'm familiar with such writings.

Nevertheless, one shouldn't throw out the baby with the water. This is a
documented case.
The author of the article wrote the case history and the medical findings
for an expertise, which was presented before a criminal court.

Though there are many issues to be discussed in the original article (I
didn't include all the resumees of the authors), many questions arose for
me - which I couldn't answer.
Therefore I tried to focus on the most important facts, and presented them
in an article.

True, I added my own conclusions.
If there is the slightest chance that a continuous daily dose of 9 globs.
of Ars X6 over 2 months can really cause such a fatal outcome (even if it be
only 1 case among a millions) - what are the consequences?

This is a hot topic, of course.
And many different opinions will exist, from the different groups (MDs,
homoeopathic MDs, well-trained homoeopaths, not-so-well-trained homoeopaths,
patient with basic homoeopathic knowledge, patients without any knowledge,
pharmacists...).

But is this a reason to avoid a discussion?

No, I don't think so.
Does the truth really threaten? And if so, is this a reason to avoid it?
We (I) don't know.
Yes, there's much we don't know. But what we seem to know, or even could
only guess in this case and from what already Hahnemann had told us, this
could teach us a lot.

All the best,

Gaby

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Gaby Rottler
Germany
rottler@curantur.de

http://www.curantur.de
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~