Minutus

I was in New Zealand a couple of years ago and meeting Joe while I was there was one of the highlights of my visit so I'm sure he won't see what I'm about to ask as being either an attack or an attempt to entrap.

I have been a homoeopath for quite a few years now and I'm still trying to improve - it never stops.

My brain disputes it but I am no longer youngish so I have decided to only concentrate on homoeopathy and do one thing well. Even though I still have a general interest in other approaches, I know that if I study further afield I won't be able to master that area in the time available and I will probably end up diluting everything else I do in relation to homeopathy.

Joe however, who is highly intelligent and able to look outside the square, has developed an eclectic practice.

So, my questions to Joe and to others are:
1. Do you see the homoeopathic effect taking place in other approaches?
2. Do these other approaches recognise and understand symptom similarity and attempt to produce that in their treatment?
3. Do these other disciplines recognise the difference between palliation, suppression, and true healing and have a way of adjusting their treatment accordingly?
4. Do these other approaches understand and recognise direction of cure, and return of old symptoms phenomena?
5. Do these other approaches cater for individual sensitivity?
6. Do these other approaches produce positive and negative aggravations of symptoms during their treatment and understand their meaning and significance?

Now I know there are quite a few questions here – sorry – and I know some of them sound like I'm setting a trap but I'm not.

I have asked them because I rest my practice on the belief that symptom similarity is the only way true healing takes place and that it can be applied in many other ways, knowingly or unknowingly, than just with the little bottles and drops I use.

So, I wonder how much other disciplines understand the mechanism behind their own form of healing. I also wonder how much of their healing comes from some form of similar resonance. And I also wonder if they have the highly developed framework of understanding that homoeopathy has (as we practice it) regarding a significance of symptoms and the various responses to treatment.

(And if these things are unknown, Joe may be just the person to investigate the facts of these matters)
I hope I have not been too confusing.

Fran.
Why separate and categorise?
I am an MD, I am a scientist, I am a sceptic, yet I learn and use each and every possible tool I can get my hands on according to the need of the patient. For crying out loud, I just completed the Advanced Pranic Healing training....me!
We seem to forget and confuse a few things.
First, the patient is what matters, not the technique or the belief or the practitioner's preferences.
Second (very old discussion resurging here) is to know exactly what we do and what we talk about, being able to accurately pinpoint and define what we use, how and why: homeopathy is homeopathy, manual medicine is manual medicine, herbalism is herbalism, etc,....there are interconnections, but the differences are clear.
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com

Thanks Fran,
First a general answer: it is the practitioner who should recognise those principles and even if they are not taught within the framework of the different specialities, it then becomes not too difficult to see they are mostly there.
Now to the specific questions:
1. Yes, even in conventional techno-chemical medicine, it happens but is never recognised or acknowledged: many years ago, when I was still working for the NHS overseas, a patient came to ask for a Prozac refill, so I asked why; the answer was that it saved her life; she said "as soon as I took the first pill, the whole depression lifted, I do not want to be without it any more"; we know this is pharmacologically impossible as there needs to be a build-up into the brain that take about 2 weeks, but looking at the side-effects of Prozac, depression is there....so for her the drug was a "sortofsimillimum"
2. Some of them clearly do, like Ortho-Bionomy that is clearly labeled as "homeopathic osteopathy", many others do not but it is possible to dig it out, especially when you read the old texts
3. Many do but do refer to other, different disciplines to achieve synergistic cure, for example herbalist will use nutrition and supplements and recommend manual adjustments, which is something homeopaths should do too, as I have been writing and arguing about for ages now
4. Not really, many practitioners are actually frightened when they see an old symptom coming back: it take a lot of explanation to get them to understand and accept this and I still receive sometimes frantic emails from colleagues about it....it is an opportunity to educate and to explain why dosage, even in other natural therapies and manual therapies is important for patient's safety
5. Not conventional medicine (unless dose is linked to body mass or body surface), herbalists, naturopaths, manual practitioners and energy healers do, most of the time...
6. Energy healing does, Ortho-Bionomy does, Visceral manipulation does, others not really in a systematic way but it happens.....and then another frantic email comes in.......
Did I answer your questions???
Joe.
 
Dr. J. Rozencwajg, NMD.
"The greatest enemy of any science is a closed mind"
Visit my new website www.naturamedica.webs.com