Homeopathic pharmacy responsibilities - was Ayuhuasca

[Irene de Villiers]

Wow, is that the best wording you can come up with for your views?
How about a less personal affront?
It was not said to me, but it sure jerked me awake.
So what?
There are more than that number of kinds of disease. And only a
homeopath with blinkers on would try to ignore newer remedies that
cover newer illnesses.
When I see a new illness (and I often do thanks mostly to allopathic
bungling not present in Hahnemann's time) I use ITS symptoms to
decide what remedy to use and I do NOT exclude newer ones. They quite
often are far better matches and lead to a proper "hahnemannian"
simillimum.
As Hahanemann himself did, it is relevant and necessary to keep
increasing the number of available remedies with proven symptoms, in
order to keep increasing the kinds of disease we can help.

Not to do so, is like swaying the roads built in 400AD (or 1834) are
enough, and we need explore no further.
If you personally want to remain in a position of ignorance of newer
discoveries in useful remedies, and stick to a limited number - that
is your prerogative. But my experience is that people who do that,
are trying to fit the remedies to the patient instead of studying the
client's symptoms fully as Hahnemann stresses, to know the symptoms
well enough to find the best remedy FROM the symptoms - not the other
way round.

You can not find the BEST REMEDY for any set of symptoms if you use
only a subset of the available remedy options.
Is it not lazy to want to stick to only a few remedies and not look
at what is BEST for the patient from ALL available options.
Or maybe those folks are happy to limit their abilities to the
illnesses that fit within their subset of remedies:-)
Perhaps that leaves the rest of us to address the remaining patients
with wider remedy selections?
Maybe we need both kinds of homeopath:-)
Nobody needs it.
Those that do, often MISuse it, in order to see if the patient "fits
the remedy" as in "Puls has such and such, does the patient have it???"
What you need intimate knowledge of, is the patient's condition.
TOO MANY PEOPLE DO HOMEOPATHY BACKWARDS BY LEARNING REMEDIES INSTEAD
OF STUDYING THE PATIENTS' CONDITION.
Used well, THAT study - of the patient's situation and condition -
will lead you unerringly to the best matching remedy via the
technique of repertorizing and MM USE - which now that it is 2009 and
NOT 1934, makes the tedious part easy with software.
Too often I see homeopaths declining a remedy because the patient
does not have this or that feature of the remedy - a totally
incorrect and backwards approach, and all because they studied the
remedy instead of the patient.
On the contrary. Their addition to the options increases the good
homeopath's ability to PROPERLY match a patient to the BEST remedy
for them.
It is easy to list cures.
I am more interested in the cases not listed - the so-called
"incurable" ones (which even Hahndemann claimed to exist) - the ones
that become more curable with newer remedies:-)

Nonsense.
We do not need remedy police.
We need to treat humans as thinking beings and not 2 year old idiots.
Even the allopaths see fit to have OTC drugs that can kil if misused
(or even if just used at all).
I need NOBODY to take over MY ability to decide what I want, for me
nor what my clients choose to buy.
Nobody can make that decision for us better than we can do it for
ourselves.

Namaste,
Irene
--
Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom/D.Vet.Hom.
P.O. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220.
www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.)
"Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it."