The Art of Making it Appear to be Gone
Specialist – losing sight thru diversification
The Making of an Allopath
If you are on board with what you have read so far you may skip this chapter. But if you feel at odds with some of what I've said above then many of those points will be clarified here.
How do suppressive substances suppress? Let's look at nicotine. American cigarettes have up to 600 additives and are unequivocally cancer producing. But it may be that unadulterated tobaccos such as Shermans and American Spirit are not cancer producing. It would be a financial burden for these conscientious companies to fund studies to prove this, as such studies are quite expensive to perform. In any case, nicotine produces a dopamine effect. This somewhat introverts the smoker, makes his or her world a little smaller and by blocking emotional responses, relieves stress. The problem is that it encourages the brain to not make enough of its own dopamine and the person becomes dependant on circumventing the chemical balancing, forcing the dopamine to be released each time they consume the nicotine. This encourages the brain to not do it itself in response to stress. Serotonin replacement therapies work along the same lines, increasing serotonin levels by forcible means i.e.: the taking of the pharmaceutical that will produce the effect. Hormone replacement therapies are similar in function…forcing hormone levels up or down and not encouraging the body to regulate on its own. All pharmaceuticals encourage the body to not regulate on its own. It's analogous to engineers building dams to block water flow, creating lakes and reservoirs only to find out later that the entire ecology of the river system has been altered resulting in the elimination of many species. It's also similar to developers filling in marsh and tidal areas to build homes. Anytime we force nature we reap a consequence later. Promises of immediate relief carry with them the eventual state of ill health that, in due course, will have to be addressed. The trouble with the division of specialties in Allopathic medicine is that when the problem passes on to another body system, the case is handed over to another specialist who addresses what is now at hand and not what was done wrong by the previous practitioners.
Allopathy has had tremendous success at making things disappear…making symptoms appear to be gone…and promoting a belief that the new ailment is not a result of the previous mis-management but rather a new entity and mystery to be fought off. We are taught to put up a good fight against our ailments, to blindly follow the advice of the specialist, after all they specialize, and who could know more about the ailment than a specialist? The reality is that they only specialize in using suppressive substances for one body system. An endocrinologist, for example, does not really specialize in healing endocrine problems but instead specializes in suppressing endocrine symptoms and passing them deeper into the organism. Once this is understood by practitioners and others reading this book one could develop a rather cynical view of the world. I have had to learn to live with this view and not allow it to develop into anger. It has not been easy to do. Hahnemann, the originator of Homeopathy, was terribly angry his whole professional carrier. He was thrown out of town on many occasions for taking business away from the apothecaries (pharmacies) of the time and ended up moving some 20 times. He smoked a pipe his whole life, a very long life and died in Paris. He probably smoked to deal with his indignation.
How does the pharmaceutical industry protect its interests? It's easy. First, in the 1920's Flexner was hired by the Rockefellers, through a political coup, to make an examination of all the medical schools in the U.S. Seventeen medical colleges were deemed unworthy of existence. Within those 17 were the only nine Homeopathic medical schools of the time. Overnight, all Homeopathic Colleges were open on Friday and closed on Monday. It is estimated that 1/3 of all medical practitioners in the U.S. at that time used Homeopathy in their practices. In fact the AMA was formed one year after the HMA (Homeopathic Medical Association) for the express purpose of opposing Homeopathy. Next, Osteopaths, who practiced drug-free, and much like Chiropractors, were taught how to use pharmaceuticals in their practices. The Chiropractic profession refused a similar invitation, opting to remain drug free as a profession, and remains so to this day. Protocols for treatment in all Allopathic schools were shifted to pharmaceuticals only. Today, by using SAT scores, which fosters a preponderance of linear thinkers, rather than wholistic thinkers being admitted into Allopathic schools, and keeping the number of Allopathic colleges to a minimum to insure job security, pharmaceutical interests insure the safe continuation of just enough Allopathic prescribers. This sounds controversial but Coulter's book, A Divided Legacy, elucidates these principles in great detail. Today, almost all Allopaths believe Homeopathy is a science that went out of favor long ago in spite of its popularity today in many other countries. The U.S. is 38th in world health and yet we believe we have the most advanced system of medicine. How could this misinformation be so wide spread in the U.S. and yet not elsewhere? An investigation into how Americans receive and believe information would yield some answers.
Medically speaking, Allopaths are not medically well-read individuals, preferring to assume they are at the top of their game. Almost all have never read books on Acupuncture, preferring to think of Acupuncture as maybe helpful for some individuals with body pain. They are not informed on Chiropractic believing that maybe it helps a few with back pain, in spite of there being 65,000 Chiropractic Physicians in the U.S. Allopaths know nothing of the 2000 books on Homeopathy or the number of practitioners in the world, some 270,000!!
Why do they not educate themselves on what the rest of the world is up to? I can only assume they are comfortable where they are. They also know that if they cross over the line their licenses will come into question by their own board of examiners and by hospital owners as well. I once worked with an MD in Miami Florida who was called before the board of the hospital where he had privileges because he had given a kidney patient ascorbic acid (what people erroneously call vitamin C). The hospital did not approve of any nutrition being used. How can you fully cure without using some nutrition? How can you be a doctor without taking on the responsibility of discovering what all the world's healing modalities entail?
MD's and DO's in Arizona used to practice nutrition in a scared state knowing they might be called in front of the medical board of examiners. For this reason they formed a Homeopathic Medical Board. Under that board they learn Homeopathy is a casual way, come under the Homeopathic medical board's jurisdiction and practice nutrition, under the guise of Homeopathy without impunity. Thanks to the formation of that board, and the hard work of a Psychiatrist MD, Todd Rowe, a Homeopathic 4 year post-graduate program will begin in 2011…the first of its kind since the 1920's. In a limited fashion I was part of working on the formation of that college back in 2000 but I left Phoenix at the time to work in Florida. I was happy to have taught Homeopathy to some of the MD's and DO's in Phoenix before leaving.
The greatest leap for success, taken by the pharmaceutical companies, was in guaranteeing that a wholistic view of health care would never catch on with the Allopathic community. This was accomplished by the formation of specialties. I do not believe they knew just how well it would work or what they were really doing.
As any failed Allopathic case experienced a jump of symptoms to other body parts, the patient could simply be passed on to another specialist of another specialty. By passing a patient on to another specialty the ability to connect all the dots with how dis-ease is suppressed and reappears in other systems and other planes, such as the emotional and mental plane, the guarantee of never seeing the connection was accomplished. There was never a committee of doctors who met to decide such a dastardly plan. This is not a conspiratorial story, rather the division of specialties inherently alleviated responsibility of the practitioner for failing. If a suppressed pneumonia later becomes liver cancer, the Oncologist never confers with the Pneumologist as to whether the Pneumologist suppressed the pneumonia forcing it to become liver cancer. Instead, the Oncologist will say, 'we have a mystery here as to why the cancer developed but we are searching for a cure for cancer and are making great strides." Billions are spent in cancer treatment and research. It's an industry too large to change now. Only the individual can become enlightened enough to question the status quo, move out of suppressive thinking and enter the world of wholistic thought and treatment. There will always be a small percentage of the population with such wisdom.
Once, at a three-week conference I attended in advanced Homeopathic studies, through the National Center for Homeopathy, I critiqued the founders for never having tried to open a Homeopathic college to create more Homeopaths. One of the board member's responses to me was, "how old are you?". I now understand why he asked me that. He was saying that back then, at the age of 29, I was naïve, and didn't understand the workings of medical politics, how most of the public actually wants suppressive care and how at all times it will always be a small percentage of the population that understands how health and dis-ease really function. There has been an upsurge in the interest of Homeopathy but it is largely confined to American cities that find themselves on coastal waters, where the more affluent and worldly people live. I believe Arizona is an exception to this. Most of America believes the Allopathic model. Television and the media support this model, somehow ignoring the fact we are 38th in world health. All I can say is "what a world!".
Choosing the Remedy
Now this is the fun stuff. Hold your horses!!
Choosing the correct remedy for an acute condition can be very easy for a seasoned practitioner. The new comer to Homeopathy may be confused by the many symptoms that must be kept in mind during remedy selection. We saw above, the long list of questions that may be asked before choosing a remedy for something as simple as a cold.
A woman who used to hold Homeopathic study meetings at her home in Florida for people interested in getting to know how to use Homeopathy for home use once brought her daughter to me for Homeopathic treatment of a flu and fever. She had tried several remedies to no avail in spite of her being somewhat proficient in the selection of remedies for acute use in the home. The child was red faced, warm to the touch, had a slight fever and was somewhat restless. Based on this easily observed group of symptoms, the selection was simple for me, belladonna, a plant of the nightshade family. But the mother had gotten caught up in a myriad of symptoms that confused the issue for her. Belladonna is known to have a rapid onset of symptoms, she wasn't sure the child had had a rapid onset. She wondered if maybe it was due to a recent change in temperature of the weather…this would indicate, perhaps, aconite, made from a plant, for onset following a rapid drop in temperature and pressure due to a cold front moving through. She had tried nux vomica, made from a nut, as maybe the cold was due to the child having overeaten or having gotten over run by playing too much and not sleeping enough. Nux is the 'after having partied remedy". She had tried mercurius, made from mercury, as it too is famous for fevers especially when the throat or ears are involved. She had considered pulsatilla, made from a flower, as it can bring relief to 80% of earache cases but she did not have an otoscope to view the ear. The child's ears and throat were clear upon examination. I gave belladonna and it was palliative and perhaps curative in its action. She was surprised she had missed it as the correct remedy. The child's color returned to normal and the warmth to touch subsided in minutes of taking the dose. This is a good example of how having too much information that isn't substantive (did a cold front just come through, was the child reacting to too much play time?) and not enough information (were the middle ears involved, was the throat inflamed?). Lack of information makes the condition hard to diagnose. An interesting point is that, in Homeopathy only, the diagnosis and the cure share the same word(s). In other words, the diagnosis is not cold and fever, it is actually, belladonna, the patient was suffering from not having the remedy belladonna, in a sense, and the cure was to give belladonna, Homeopathically prepared. Both the diagnosis and cure were belladonna. If we say the diagnosis is cold and fever, we have described two symptoms but have made no reference to a deeper understanding that includes any understanding of cure. If we say "this is a case of belladonna", we have said a world of good.
An easy prescription is for bangs and bruises by blunt objects…arnica. This remedy, made from a plant, is easy to prescribe. If the injury was from a blunt injury, meaning, not from a piercing one, as from a pinprick, the sting of a bee, the cut of a knife, the abrasion of sand paper etc, then arnica is indicated. Hitting ones shin on a table leg, or falling, hitting oneself against a blunt object in the room…these are simple indicators for arnica.
Belladonna for cold and fever-like symptoms is the practice of acute medicine. Arnica for a blunt injury is the practice of emergency medicine. Other remedies can be given for bee stings, swollen ankles, jellyfish stings, lacerations, abrasions, burns etc. We have acute remedies for diarrhea, constipation, colds, flues, fevers, headaches, coughs, and sinus conditions (notice I didn't call them 'sinus infections'). Emergency and acute remedies take some practice to become proficient at prescribing but are not outside the realm of people learning to prescribe these from the home.
Constitutional prescribing on the other hand is much more profound. The remedy selection must not only relate to the physical complaints but to the personality, the constitutional make up of the person as well. To know how to use these remedies takes an in depth study of many books which describe these personality types and is best left to the seasoned practitioner.
If a patient is diagnosed as having metastatic cancer…is the diagnosis 'cancer'? 'Cancer' is certainly one of the diagnoses. If the cancer, however, was the result of 30 years of indignation and unhappiness, wouldn't a deeper diagnosis be 'indignation', a type of anger? Shouldn't we be treating the cancer cells and the indignation in order to get to the cause of the cancer? A diagnosis of 'indignation' would be a deeper, more profound diagnosis. This requires a deeper medicine, hence the subtitle of this book, 'The Deepest Medicine'.
Often times the sale of remedies in health food stores leads one to believe that acute and emergency prescribing is the only domain of Homeopathy. This is misleading. Many will never benefit from the world of healing that classical, constitutional prescribing has to offer. Retracing and the process of unsuppressing can only take place with constitutional prescribing and cannot be achieved by acute and emergency prescribing. Without unsuppression, conditions are likely to reappear through out life.
How do we find the correct constitutional remedy? In the early days of Homeopathy, 200 years ago when Hahnemann had found a group of fellow physicians to help him develop and use more remedies, it became apparent that some of the remedies were not only treating physical ailments but were treating on a deeper level. Patients were returning for follow-up visits saying that not only had their physicals complaints subsided but also they were feeling more like their old selves. Patients would ask if the remedies were capable of doing more than just treat their physical symptoms. Could the remedies, in fact, return a person to a sense of well-being? The remedies that were capable of doing this over and over again began to be called the 'polycrests', meaning, remedies that had a wide range of action.
Today we have some 200 or so remedies that are known to have far reaching action and some Homeopaths believe that all remedies have this capacity; it is just that we have not yet discovered the far-reaching actions of all remedies. Over the last 200 years of Homeopathic history it has turned out that some 20 remedies will treat the vast majority of constitutional types. This is based on observation and not on conjecture or theory.
It is important to realize that in Classical Homeopathy practitioners are encouraged in their training to rely on observation, and what the patient tells the Homeopath, rather than on thinking that such and such a remedy has to be the correct remedy. We, as prescribers, must be willing to admit to ourselves and to the patient that if an incorrect remedy was used and the results were not favorable, that the information given by the patient as to the efficacy of the remedy, is paramount to what we think the remedy should have done. When this type of humility is achieved by the practitioner the patient will receive the best care possible. When an Allopath, and most people have experienced this, says that he or she cannot find anything wrong, the Allopath is wrong! After all, the patient has symptoms, they are in discomfort and there is something wrong. Homeopaths do not need objective findings to know of the patient's condition. Their condition is standing before us! This is what Dr. Blackie meant by "The Patient, Not the Cure".
When we place the patient's symptoms in the software programs that repertorize the case, that is, the software that allows us to choose the patient's symptoms from a data base of a million symptoms, each with a grouping of remedies known to treat that symptom, we then cross reference all of those symptoms to find the most likely remedy to treat all of those symptoms. We can command the cross referencing to put less emphasis on the 20 most popular polycrest remedies and give more emphasis to what we call smaller remedies. This allows us to not always choose from the top 20. This technique allows us to remain open minded to all of the remedies. Still, 80% or so of patients will fall into the polycrests. Knowing in what strength to prescribe these polycrests and how often to take the remedy is a seasoned science requiring much practice on the part of the doctor.
Since Homeopaths use symptoms to find curative remedies, are we only treating the symptoms? Good question, and a hard one to explain. Yes, we use symptoms to know the ailment, which can only be known through a listing of the symptoms and from objective findings added to this list. The cause of the vast majority of all disease is a mystery but the goal is to get as deep a symptom description as possible. For example, if we determine that a case of acne was vaccination-induced, then the symptom 'acne' leads to the term 'vaccinosis'…caused by vaccination. In this case 'vaccinosis' is the cause. But if we take the example of liver cancer caused by indignation, then liver cancer is the symptom (not the diagnosis) and 'indignation' is the cause of the cancer. But what is the cause of the indignation? Perhaps the patient was treated badly by someone and that person was the trigger for the patient experiencing indignation. In a world where we accept total responsibility for everything that happens to us, the ability to become indignant is the cause of the problem and that is what needs to be treated. If staphasagria, a remedy made from a plant, were curative for the ability to become indignant, and, in turn, helped the cancer, then we could say that the patient suffered from the ability to become indignant or that they suffered a lack of the remedy 'staphasagria' in their life. This is quite profound.
So, yes, we use and treat symptoms…but also their causes. It's okay to treat using symptoms; it's not okay to suppress them.
As soon as we meet the patient many impressions are given the doctor. The type of handshake, the complexion of the patient, how they dress, their body type, age, demeanor, etc. Upon beginning to talk about their complaints, the way they express themselves becomes a rubric in itself. A rubric is like a symptom. If a patient expresses herself in a gentle manor, and one searches for a compatible rubric, the rubric 'mildness', in the Mind section of the repertory, fits well, although it is not a symptom, but it is a rubric. (All symptoms are rubrics but not all rubrics are really symptoms, such as 'mildness'.)
As the case is taken we choose rubrics from the 'Body' chapters of the computerized repertories. The computerized repertories these days are compilations of several repertories and the contents have been reviewed and edited by European committees of long-time Homeopaths. We have a million symptoms now. As we collect rubrics from the physical chapters of the repertory we also begin to collect rubrics from the Mind section that relate to the patient's personality.
I will use an example of, we'll call him Mr. E. I chose the rubrics: ailments from shame, yielding disposition, pessimistic, discontented, indifferent, ailments from suppressed complaints and mildness. Cross referencing just these personality characteristics we are given the remedies of Aurum Metallicum made from gold, Natrum Muriaticum made from sodium chloride (salt), Pulsatilla from the flower and Nux Vomica from the nut, amongst many others. Once we have this choice to choose from we can then refer to the Materia Medica and read about each of these remedies, if we are not already familiar with them. (I've read about some remedies hundreds of times…there is no end to it!) Once this mathematical-like approach has been taken we have to be willing to override the computer's choices. It is said that a good case taking includes 1/3rd repetorization, 1/3rd book knowledge of Materia Medica, that is, knowing the remedies, and 1/3rd intuition or insight. Sometimes when one is taking a case one gets a powerful feeling of what constitutional type the person is at the beginning of the case. The practitioner has to put this intuitive feeling on a back burner. This takes discipline. And often as the consultation progresses you find that your original perception was faulty. More often than not, though, after you have diligently put the first impression on the back burner, you proceed with the process of repetorization and, low and behold, after collecting 10 to 20 rubrics you hit the F8 key to cross reference all the work you have done up till then and the computer displays a graph of all the rubrics and all the remedies most likely to work: and, often, the one you perceived from the outset is in first place! Right at the top as number 1. The original intuitive 'hit' was correct. This is a good feeling and builds confidence that the process of repetorizing really works.
Choosing rubrics is a science though. One cannot choose them haphazardly. For example, say the patient says they have anxiety and you are repetorizing in the computer to look up 'anxiety' in the mind chapter of the repertory. This is the time to pause and question the word 'anxiety'. You ask the patient, 'what do you mean by anxiety?'. They may respond, 'well, it's a depressing feeling, like someone has admonished me for something I've done, I feel useless'. This is clearly not 'anxiety'. Better rubrics would be, 'sadness', 'reproaches' and 'helpless', as these better describe the feeling one has after being admonished and the ensuing feeling of helplessness. If you like, at this point you can actually add rubrics to the repertory to remind you of where to go the next time you look up sadness from admonishment. You can add 'Sadness, Admonished' to the repertory and since there are no remedies associated with this rubric since the rubric doesn't even exist, type in 'See Mind Reproaches'. Many reminders like this are already included in the programs. Before the advent of computers you would write this in the margins of your repertory book. And can you imagine the Homeopath keeping track of only five rubrics, keeping one finger as a bookmark for each of five rubrics on different page locations in the book. It was a real pain! I did this for ten years and have now been computerized for 22.
The art of choosing the remedy requires the reading of many books, the taking of many cases and the experience of many initial failures. The new practitioner will battle with this. And even older practitioners know that the system is not fool proof.
Imagine the detail given to the acquisition of symptoms, from the patient, in this system of repertorizing: the questioning and clarification process of the case taking over one to two hours, compared with the Allopath entering the room, listening to your heart (which usually reveals nothing…the cursory procedure of the doctor), your blood pressure was taken previously and shows little change, the Allopath listens to you for five minutes, knowing other patients are waiting in little rooms, you deliver your complaint and are given a pharmaceutical prescription for only the problem with which you entered. You are told to return in two weeks if not improved. How can this be called medicine? Even if the Allopath spends 45 minutes examining and reviewing your meds the best that can be hoped for is a change in dosage, the adding of pharmaceuticals, perhaps a test to be ordered…but alternatives to pharmaceuticals will never be offered. A few now patronize nutrition and diet, a doctor of Chiropractic or an Acupuncturist. When pharmaceutical options run their course, a specialist, surgery or a psychiatrist is recommended.
For a system to be a true science it must have a philosophical premises. Just because a laboratory with test tubes has been used to synthesize a drug does not mean that the administration of that drug falls under 'science'. Science is used in the synthesis of the drug, but science must also be used in judging what the effects of its administration into sick people will do. When trial tests on done on rats, rabbits, monkeys and dogs, a desired effect is sought. If the effect occurs and the animal does not immediately develop complications, tests begin on people. If the desired effect, such as reducing ulcers in the gut, is achieved, and the patient appears to be well for some number of months, the drug goes on the market. Where is the philosophy? In the case of a stomach ulcer, a chemical is designed to alter the formation of ulcerous tissue with no concern for why the ulcer appeared or for what happens over time when the ulcer is treated with the chemical and the ulcer appears to go away. If the patient develops migraine headaches months later, no one will make the connection between the suppressed ulcer and the appearance of migraines. Even worse, no one wants to find such a connection. Millions have been spent on the discovery of the anti-ulcer drug and stockholders are anxious for the stock to grow.
Allopathy is the act of putting chemicals into the body to force desired effects. It is devoid of a philosophical basis. The reasoning behind each and every different drug is different, lacking cohesion of thought. It is hard to justify calling it even a 'healing modality', although often it is life extending, and many question whether it is a science at all. I consider it phenomena born out of fear.
Allopaths find themselves in a dilemma…a patient with an ulcer presents who drinks alcohol regularly, eats at Burger King most of time, smokes and is obese…the Allopath knows that to give dietary advice, nutritional supplementation and a Homeopathic remedy is a waste of time…this patient wants relief now and is not ready for life-style changes. If I found myself in the same position I would attempt to educate the patient and when I saw his eyes glaze over and I knew I've told him more than he can hear, I too would give the anti-ulcer Allopathic pharmaceutical. Allopaths are often between a rock and a hard place. As a Chiropractic physician making Nutritional and Homeopathic recommendations for back patients, I have been in such a position more times than I care to recount.
Treating single body parts with pharmaceuticals designed for just that condition is called reductionistic. It reduces the problem to the body part alone…"you are fine, you just happen to have an ulcer." Wholistic thinking incorporates the whole person and is pluralistic in its approach, incorporating all body parts, emotions and mindsets as well.
Allopathy is not a healing modality, but instead it is a methodology. A modality of healing must first be healing. Allopathy is a method used to suppress a symptom.
Once a practitioner of Allopathy or Acupuncture, Chiropractic or Nutrition learns Homeopathy thoroughly, they never drop Homeopathy as a treatment method and revert back to the modality for which they were originally licensed. Instead, their practices usually become more and more populated with Homeopathic patients. The practitioner will occasionally do the modality originally trained in, in addition to Homeopathy. This speaks highly for Homeopathy.
Each practitioner has four big questions to pose to him or herself with each case:
Do you treat the acute ailment they may have at the time?
Do you prescribe based on the constitutional type?
Do you treat with the remedies famous for the chronic ailment they have?
Do you treat the miasm, the inherited weakness that they may have from family lineage?
Once that choice is made you must also question:
Do you repeat the remedy they received the last time?
Do you repeat the same remedy but go up or down in strength, potency?
Do you repeat the remedy but increase how often they take it?
Do you choose another acute remedy for the same ailment?
Do you switch to a constitutional or miasmatic remedy?
Do you switch to remedies famous for the condition?
Do you wait?
My favorite prescription is to WAIT!! This means the previous prescription was successful to some degree and that you are allowing more time for the body/emotions/mind to heal. Sankoran, a well known Indian Homeopath, said that 85% of patients will respond to a remedy in four weeks, another 10% take up to six weeks and 5% will take up to six months to show improvement. In order to recommend to the patient that they wait a full six months, the Homeopath must be VERY confident in their remedy choice…for if the remedy was incorrect the patient will suffer for six months waiting for cure. This is needless suffering. If no cure ensues they may quit Homeopathy.
Quitting Homeopathy is the worse thing that can happen to a patient. It means they most likely will never get to treat their constitutional type to its fullest nor will they unsuppress fully. And they may never get to treat their inherited weakness', the miasm. For a Homeopath and the patient this is a real shame. Good case management precludes doing what is necessary to keep the patient interested and confident. Sometimes switching to Nutrition for a while is helpful to allow the last remedy given to take hold. Most patients can keep interested for three to four weeks. Longer than that they begin to detach from the Homeopath and begin to wonder if maybe Homeopathy is not for them. Of course if the effect of the remedy was spectacular they are often on board for life. Thousands of people in South America, India and Europe use Homeopaths as their primary doctors. When they say 'I'm going to the doctor', they mean they are going to a Homeopath. In America few people trusts doctors, they trust tests more. Tests are objective and the opinion of the doctor is just an opinion. Americans have lost faith in the opinions of people because they have witnessed so much deceit and are forever distrustful of financial gain on the part of the practitioner, or that the doctor has been brain washed by the pharmaceutical industry. A sorry state of affairs. If we could reverse this, and it happens with many patients using Homeopaths, the patient learns to trust the Homeopath more than they do tests. They put trust in the opinion of their Homeopath, what a novel concept!
I have often said to a patient, "If you become disappointed, fire me, but don't leave Homeopathy."
In the old days a country doctor watched entire families grow up and get older. The country docs knew the tendencies and trends of the people they treated. Nowadays, the patient 'gives you a try,' they give you a chance to prove yourself, and your science. After all there are many modalities out there these days and people don't know what to do. Very well read individuals will eventually read about Homeopathy. When they discover the soundness of the Homeopathic philosophy, the attention to detail, the long history of success and the fact that remedies have no side effects, it is reassuring indeed. The remedies either work or another remedy must be found. There is no price to pay other than for the doctor's time and a minimal amount for the remedies themselves.
A Greek philosopher once said that all politicians should first become philosophers. Should it not be true for healers?