Minutus

At 08:31 PM 8/30/2004 +0000, you wrote:

Hello,

Is this all sarcasm??? My patients usually don't turn in to superman
or superwoman? Some do wonderful, some get better, some have mixed results
and in some (a small minority) nothing helps.
I have worked in India for over 20 years and I know the conditions very
well. I basically believe one has to do what they have to under the
circumstances they are confronted with. When I am doing volume practice and
I get such cases I usually find it sufficient to use a few keynotes and
characteristics and make a prescription. In most case this work quite well.
Many times there is instance relief that is much faster than drugs and
injections. Homoeopathy is NOT slow. It can be VERY FAST, especially acute
diseases. It all depends on how good one's materia medica is and how well
they understand case management. If it is not working, and the patient is
in danger, do whatever it takes to preserve life. Then one can try to clean
things up a bit later. This is what working in the real world is like.

I use the medicinal solution as a delivery system. With those who are
ignorant of homoeopathy that might reject a medicine that taste like water
I put in a good amount of alcohol in the bottle. This really does the
trick! Now that it takes strongly medicinal they are quite happy.
Psychology is very important sometimes. I haven't had to resort to
injections and the like.
Well, I never say never because as soon as I do something always
happens! There is NO medical system is perfectly safe and NO medical
system, including traditional homeopathy, that is %100 safe all the time. I
have heard people say a combination medicine a made them feel bad and they
have not felt well since. I have also had people tell me a single remedy
made them feel bad and they never felt well since. Perfect does not exist
in medicine. To me the word "never" weakens our credibility.

Years ago in Nepal a friend was using cell salts combinations in 3x and
6x in the poorest of villages because they either had nothing or very poor
allopathic treatment. He asked me if I would take a look at the situation.
He wanted to train a few lay health workers in giving these combinations by
simple indications anyone could understand. For 6 months I observed and
assisted in giving cell salts combinations to most of these types of
patients. Where they easy to train a health worker in their usage? Yes. Did
they work better than the drugs? Yes. Did they cause as many side effects
as the drugs? No! Did they help everybody? No.

Where they perfectly safe and NEVER caused any suppressions or negative
reactions? NO!!! There were some cases of suppression where they stopped
the superficial symptoms and made the patient worse in general. I had to
correct those case with single homeopathic remedies. There were also a few
strange idiosyncratic reactions also that were NOT good. These made
problems that needed to be waited out or corrected. Did they work as well
as traditional homoeopathy? NO. So, I don't ever use the word NEVER nor do
I believe in it.
There is some truth in all this. I have been in the same trenches in
India but NOT follow the same path. I found other ways of adjusting my
Homoeopathic practice to suit the masses. Mainly that has been to study
materia medica day and night and adjust my case management strategies to
suit the situation.
I have been treating the poor for many years for no money and
sometimes have to do large volume practice with the masses. Many of these
people don't really know what I am doing but they see it works and that is
what matters. Nevertheless, I used single remedies and have done very well.
I am not here to condemn anyone but I will question them. I just want
everyone to know that traditional homoeopathy can work under very difficult
conditions if you ground your practice well. The prescriptions may not be
the latest essence. archetype, theme or new remedy by the fanciest means or
highest insight but it works very well! It is just good old fashioned
keynotes, redline symptoms and well chosen characteristics.
This is really not MY experience but it is yours! I don't explain much
theory to the average patient because I don't have time and they don't
really need it. I TREAT them. Cure speaks louder than words. I am not
looking for intellectual converts. Sometimes I have to treat long lines of
the poor with single remedies. I have done this for many years and have had
very good results. This can be done if one knows the major characteristics
of the 300 most used remedies very well. You seem to be implying that this
can not be done? Well, it can because I and many others have done it! The
limited number of cases we miss should seek help elsewhere! We are not here
to make business and there are enough patients to go around.

Homeopathy is NOT slow, especially in acute diseases. I have completely
cured typhoid fever in 3 days when it normally takes 21 days of the most
toxic antibiotics. I cured meningitis in 4 days when the patients on
antibiotics were in the hospital for weeks. My patients came out stronger,
vital and more resistant and the their's came out weaker, depressed and
more susceptible. I just had a very bad case of staphylococcus that resoled
very quickly whereas they patient would have been on antibiotics for a long
time. I see this all the time! If you want real instance relief find a
*good homoeopath*. It is not %100 but it is better than drugs and combos.
If it fails - then OK - try something else. It is not that it could not be
done but......it wasn't done so.......whose perfect?
I believe in education not regulation. I am only asking that what
people say they do is really what they do. If one is an Eclectic doctor
they should call themselves an Eclectic. We don't need to everyone confused
about Homoeopathy in general. I don't think combinations are going to make
traditional homoeopathy disappear. Traditional homoeopathy is strong enough
to stand on its own two feet without more and more rules. In the end
everything will be illegal but...you guess it....allopathy!
As I said, I not for more and more restrictions. It is better to
educate than regulate. Everything seeks its own balance in time. I
personally don't mind when an allopathic doctors gets into homoeopathy yet
still uses allopathy when it necessary for them at that time. Most of them,
if they study hard, slowly leave the drugs behind except in life
threatening situations. If someone uses a few combos instead of masses of
drugs, ok. Nevertheless, those of us who have studied and worked hard to
master traditional homeopathy in the worst of conditions feel that our name
as homoeopathicians should mean exactly what Hahnemann and Boenninghausen
meant by it. For example, if I can myself a surgeon or an MD hat would be
wrong. I am a homeopath. The title tells you what I do. If one is an
Eclectic doctor that fine. We are only asking that our profession be
recognized for what it is and our name is not used to stand for other
methods, some of which might be questionable.

Sincerely, David Little

By the way Asclepius was not a Circus Clown. He was the ancient Greek
patron of healing. Ascelpius in the Balance was an article written by
Samuel Hahnemann that reviews the pros and cons of various medical
practices. Don't mind, ok?
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

At 03:57 PM 8/30/2004 -0500, you wrote:
Once they start removing things from the self the only thing left will
be drugs and surgery. I would say education is better than regulation. If
we were a little more responsible most problems could be handle well enough
through discussions and information exchanges. If everyone buys into the
regulate and control game they will put themselves out of practice.

Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

At 02:48 AM 9/1/2004 +0000, you wrote:

Dear colleague,

I think I am getting a feeling for where you are coming from and you
are a rather "wry character " that must be fun in person!
Never is very big word that doesn't seem to be in touch with reality
most of the time. To qualify your position that it was no worse than the
single remedy is quite a different statement. Absolutes don't make it in
medical science. I have seen enough problems with the single remedy and
cell salt combos that never just doesn't compute. Most of the problems are
overcome by recognizing their source. Even then there are things that "just
happen".
Although I am a traditional homoeopath I am also trained in
acupuncture, CST and OMT. I know that homoeopathy is not the only thing
that works and I DON'T think everything else is suppressive. I don't,
however, mix up a bunch of medicinal substances or use a number of
differing oral medicines at once. Why? It is just too confusing. One cannot
figure what might be helping and what might be causing trouble.
I use the word Eclectics in the traditional sense of the word. They
used homeopathy, combination remedies, herbal mixtures, allopathy, etc.,
etc. This was the view of their school. Many persons are modern Eclectics.
I was not telling you not to call yourself a homoeopath because you use a
few combos sometimes. Nevertheless, one should inform the patient about
what methods one is using on them. When on has to allopathy they should not
call it homoeopathy, etc.
All I am saying is that a practitioner should tell a person what they
are doing and not misrepresent homoeopathy when they are doing something
that is not in harmony with standard practice. For one to say they are
doing traditional TCM (traditional Chinese medicine) and then do
homeopuncture is not quite right. TCM has 5000 years of clinical experience
and homeopuncture is new and very experimental. When one is doing a
experimental non standard method they should inform the patient and be
honest with their peers. No regulation here - just education, full
disclosure and honestly.
If a person is following the tradition of the Eclectic School, which
used homoeopathy, combination remedies, herbs and even allopathy then they
SHOULD call themselves Eclectics. When someone is mostly doing Homoeopathy
but they are trying something experimental they SHOULD inform the patient.
There is nothing wrong the full disclosure on this matter. To call oneself
a homoeopath and really only use allopathy, herbs and homeo-combos is not
right. You are going far beyond what I am suggesting or saying but I
understand you are speaking to the entire list not me. I am not telling
anyone what to do. I am only asking that WHAT one is doing is made clear to
the public, the patient and one's peers.

I call any method that uses like cures likes and the single remedy -
Homeopathy. Homoeopathy includes all methods from the so-called most narrow
minded "modern-classical homoeopath" (oxymoron) to those who use only
pathological organ and tissue remedies. If they are using opposites cure
opposites and mixtures of remedies they are not really homeopaths. When a
homoeopathic MD has to use some allopathic methods in an emergency they
should not call that remedy "homoeopathy". It is all about being clear and
honest and NOT misrepresenting what one is going.

You don't have to call yourself anything but "doctor" but when you are
using homoeopathy it should be called homoeopathy and when your using
allopathy it should be called allopathy, when your using acupuncture is
should be called acupuncture. Calling allopathy - homoeopathy and
homoeopathy - herbology is not correct. Let's keep it clear. This to me it
is about self regulation and clear disclosure not new rules.
Pathological prescribing with single remedies IS homoeopathy. Even
Hahnemann did a bit of it at times. Sometimes pathology is all we have and
what we must treat. Nothing wrong with this. In fact, the one-sided modern
constitutionalists seem to have big trouble treating one sided pathology
because their case management strategy is too narrow.
Making things illegal is not my position but if you need to use me as a
sounding board that is OK. I understand you have very strong feeling about
this. As I said, my position is "educate - don't regulate".
I have made my position clear. I am for educating not regulating.
Nevertheless, I think that people must be VERY clear about what they are
doing and if they are using experimental methods that stand outside the
standards of any school that should be noted. This includes allopathy,
homoeopathy, naturopathy, herbology, acupuncture, etc.. That is my position.
I have expressed my views and will not be going around in circles over
the same points. I have sympathy for your position. I would not like it if
someone was trying to take away something I have used that I feel has less
side effects than many, many other things that are legal. If there are
places we think differently then we will have to agree to disagree, OK?

Sincerely, David Little

---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000

At 08:30 AM 9/2/2004 -0500, you wrote:

Dear Shannon,

Kent was a great homoeopath. His "constitutional remedies" where
nothing more than chronic and anti-miasmatic remedies. He used this term to
show that these remedies were different than acute medicines. Most of his
cases were based on keynotes, redline symptoms, well known characteristic
and confirming general symptoms not mental symptoms. Just look in at the
case in his lesser writings. He only used mental symptoms in 27 cases out
of the 114 example cases!!! Some modern Neo-Kentians may use the term
constitutional remedy something different but let us not blame that on Kent.

The one-sided constitutionalist are those that do not believe in
treating acute disease and chronic miasms and often don't even believe that
there are acute or chronic diseases. They pay no attention to acute,
half-acute or chronic miasms. They like to give the one grand
"constitutional remedy" that is good for everything because it is the
patient's "remedy" for everything at all times, etc. They don't know how to
treat cases in layers and have a very difficult time treating one-sided
pathological complaints. It is some of these folks who would rather have
the patient take antibiotics then give a acute remedy by the present
exciting cause and presiding symptoms. They have the one constitutional
remedy for everything mono-modality treatment strategy.
Read ALL of Hahnemann's works! Hahnemann introduced a system of
flexible response that includes the chief remedy, the anti-miasmatic
remedy, the acute intercurrents, the chronic intercurrent and the
prophylactic remedy. Hahnemann gave exact instructions on how to treat
one-sided diseases in the Organon. Eizayaga offers some good information
but some his methods are a bit mechanistic for my tastes. I like to use an
open-system that responds to each individual situation and makes room for
the nature and stage of the disease state, the signs and symptoms as well
as the times and circumstances. C. Burnett also offers some interesting
hints, etc.. Take the best of all this folks but please don't forget
Hahnemann. He is the foundation for what we are doing and what we have
forgotten to do as well.

Sincerely, David Little
---------------
"It is the life-force which cures diseases because a dead man needs no more
medicines."

Samuel Hahnemann

Visit our website on Hahnemannian Homoeopathy and Cyberspace Homoeopathic
Academy at
http://www.simillimum.com
David Little © 2000